Washington, D.C. — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reacted sharply on Saturday to a federal judge’s ruling that temporarily blocked the Pentagon from enforcing President Donald Trump’s executive order banning transgender individuals from military service.
Hegseth suggested that the judge who issued the injunction should now assume a role in military planning.
The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, D.C., placed a preliminary hold on the policy, which sought to bar transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military.
The executive order, signed by Trump on January 27, stated that individuals who adopt a “false gender identity” that does not align with their biological sex “cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service.”
The order also instructed the Department of Defense to revise its medical standards and pronoun policies accordingly.
In defence of the policy, the executive order argued that beyond medical treatments such as hormone therapy and surgical procedures, the adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with biological sex is incompatible with the military’s values of honour, truthfulness, and discipline, even in personal matters.
Judge Reyes, in her ruling, strongly rebuked the policy’s language, describing it as “unabashedly demeaning” and asserting that it unfairly characterizes transgender individuals as unfit for service.
Following the ruling, Hegseth took to the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) to express his disapproval, posting a sarcastic remark directed at the judge.
“Since ‘Judge’ Reyes is now a top military planner, she/they can report to Fort Benning at 0600 to instruct our Army Rangers on executing High-Value Target Raids… After that, Commander Reyes can dispatch to Fort Bragg to train our Green Berets on counterinsurgency warfare,” he wrote.
The judge delayed the enforcement of her order until Friday morning, providing the Trump administration with time to file an appeal, which officials confirmed they intend to pursue.
In her written opinion, Reyes argued that the executive order likely violates constitutional protections, particularly regarding equal treatment under the law.
She acknowledged the controversy her decision would provoke but maintained that public debate and legal challenges are integral to a “healthy democracy.”
“We should all agree, however, that every person who has answered the call to serve deserves our gratitude and respect,” Reyes wrote.
She further pointed out that transgender service members have already sacrificed—some risking their lives—to uphold the very constitutional protections that the military ban seeks to deny them.
The judge concluded that the government had failed to demonstrate that maintaining the current policy would be burdensome, emphasizing that “avoiding constitutional violations is always in the public interest.”
The ruling marks a significant legal development in the ongoing debate over transgender rights in the military, setting the stage for further litigation and potential Supreme Court involvement.
