A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., has upheld a policy from the Trump administration that prohibits individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria from serving in the military.
In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit determined that U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, appointed by Biden, had overstepped by overruling military judgment and applying an inappropriate standard when evaluating military readiness.
Earlier this year, Reyes had granted a preliminary injunction against Army Secretary Pete Hegseth’s policy that barred transgender individuals from military service “without exemption.”
Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao emphasized that the military maintains strict medical standards to ensure that only those who are physically and mentally fit are allowed to serve. They pointed out that, historically, these standards have excluded individuals with gender dysphoria, a recognized medical condition. Notably, the regulations had been adjusted in 2016, reinstated in 2018, modified again in 2021, and restored once more in 2025.
They noted that Hegseth “concluded” that the 2025 policy would enhance important military objectives such as combat readiness and unit cohesion while also being cost-effective.
In their majority opinion, the judges remarked, “This was based on material previously compiled regarding policy changes in 2016 and 2018 and included recent studies about the impact of gender dysphoria on military service.” They criticized the district court for temporarily blocking the 2025 policy, arguing that it did not properly respect the military director’s informed decision-making. Thus, they decided to stay the preliminary injunction as the government appeals.
In the majority opinion, Katsas stated that the Department of Defense provided ample rationale for the restrictions, referencing longstanding medical standards and various studies, including a 2021 Army Department study that indicated a high likelihood of non-deployment post-diagnosis. The judges asserted that Reyes, a Biden appointee, failed to adequately recognize the military leadership’s perspective, replacing it with her assessments.
Furthermore, the court dismissed Reyes’ assertion that the policy stemmed from hostility toward transgender individuals. The opinion underscored that legal evaluations should rely on the policy itself and its supporting documents rather than external political remarks. They also noted that a similar ban had already been permitted by the Supreme Court in a Washington state case earlier this year.
In January, former President Donald Trump issued an executive order banning transgender individuals from military service, stating that “militaries must adhere to high standards of mental and physical health” to ensure effective deployment and combat readiness.
His executive order asserted, “Military service must be reserved for those who are mentally and physically fit for duty,” emphasizing the importance of these standards, especially in challenging conditions where routine medical support might not be available.
