Judges Back Trump Policy: Pentagon’s Power Trumps Progressive Push on Troops

Paul Riverbank, 12/11/2025Court upholds Pentagon’s transgender troop policy, emphasizing military judgment over judicial intervention.

Judge Gregory Katsas, joined by Judge Neomi Rao, made no bones about the limits of judicial expertise in the military context. “The United States military enforces strict medical standards to ensure that only physically and mentally fit individuals join its ranks,” they observed, almost as if summing up decades of military caution in a single declarative. Their decision rooted itself in precedent: for decades, having gender dysphoria meant a closed door. It was only in 2016 that the military’s gate creaked open, a move reversed in 2018, softened again in 2021, and, as of 2025, returned to its former rigor.

Judges Katsas and Rao spent little time engaging with broader social debates—they stuck to the record and the rationale, pointing to research, both historical and recent, that the Pentagon considered before reverting to the 2025 policy. In their view, combat readiness, unit cohesion, and fiscal stewardship ultimately outweighed arguments for broader inclusion. They cited, rather pointedly, studies from 2021 and a fresh 2025 review, underlining the continuing uncertainty about whether available treatments for gender dysphoria actually resolve the readiness concerns that military planners fixate on.

It’s worth noting, as they did, that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth undertook a comprehensive review before reinstating these standards. The core of their message? Courts aren’t best positioned to micromanage what they see as the fine-grained, sometimes uncomfortable, decisions essential to military preparedness—even if those decisions draw heated criticism.

On the other hand, Judge Ana Reyes, appointed by President Biden, took a much different tack earlier this year. She had previously blocked the ban, arguing that the Pentagon’s motives reflected bias against transgender Americans. The appellate court, for its part, brushed aside suggestions of animus. "What matters is the evidence and reasoning behind the policy, not the stray comments that echo elsewhere in the political arena,” the majority wrote, dismissing Reyes’s suggestion that the move was laced with discriminatory intent.

It hasn’t gone unnoticed that the Supreme Court recently declined to stop a similar transgender military ban in Washington state. Such a choice, quiet and procedural as it may be, suggests the high court is more comfortable deferring to defense officials on these controversies than wading directly into the fray.

Zooming out, both the D.C. ruling and a recent federal court decision from California (which, in a separate dispute, sided with Governor Newsom over President Trump’s bid to keep National Guard troops in Los Angeles longer) underscore a familiar, sometimes frustrating balancing act. Federal judges are willing to block government actions—when the evidence or law warrants it—but tend to step back when matters of military judgment take center stage. In the Guard case, Judge Lucy Koh found the state’s interest was paramount; marshaling the Guard falls to governors, not Washington.

The common thread through these recent opinions isn’t hard to miss—the judiciary, by and large, acknowledges its own limitations when it comes to military expertise. Like a tightrope walker glancing down, the courts show a willingness to intervene but a pronounced reluctance to upend decisions on who is fit to serve or where troops should be sent. The Pentagon’s standards, for all their controversy, remain in effect for now, while California’s authority over its soldiers stands—at least until the next legal volley lands.

On a brisk Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit delivered a split decision bound to shape the tangled debate over transgender service in the military for at least another season. The panel, split 2-1, cemented the Pentagon’s ability to uphold a policy that effectively bars most transgender individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria from enlisting. It’s the kind of issue that feels both urgent and strangely déjà vu—a rule relaxed, restored, loosened, and now, tightened yet again.Judge Gregory Katsas, joined by Judge Neomi Rao, made no bones about the limits of judicial expertise in the military context. “The United States military enforces strict medical standards to ensure that only physically and mentally fit individuals join its ranks,” they observed, almost as if summing up decades of military caution in a single declarative. Their decision rooted itself in precedent: for decades, having gender dysphoria meant a closed door. It was only in 2016 that the military’s gate creaked open, a move reversed in 2018, softened again in 2021, and, as of 2025, returned to its former rigor.Judges Katsas and Rao spent little time engaging with broader social debates—they stuck to the record and the rationale, pointing to research, both historical and recent, that the Pentagon considered before reverting to the 2025 policy. In their view, combat readiness, unit cohesion, and fiscal stewardship ultimately outweighed arguments for broader inclusion. They cited, rather pointedly, studies from 2021 and a fresh 2025 review, underlining the continuing uncertainty about whether available treatments for gender dysphoria actually resolve the readiness concerns that military planners fixate on.It’s worth noting, as they did, that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth undertook a comprehensive review before reinstating these standards. The core of their message? Courts aren’t best positioned to micromanage what they see as the fine-grained, sometimes uncomfortable, decisions essential to military preparedness—even if those decisions draw heated criticism.On the other hand, Judge Ana Reyes, appointed by President Biden, took a much different tack earlier this year. She had previously blocked the ban, arguing that the Pentagon’s motives reflected bias against transgender Americans. The appellate court, for its part, brushed aside suggestions of animus. "What matters is the evidence and reasoning behind the policy, not the stray comments that echo elsewhere in the political arena,” the majority wrote, dismissing Reyes’s suggestion that the move was laced with discriminatory intent.It hasn’t gone unnoticed that the Supreme Court recently declined to stop a similar transgender military ban in Washington state. Such a choice, quiet and procedural as it may be, suggests the high court is more comfortable deferring to defense officials on these controversies than wading directly into the fray.Zooming out, both the D.C. ruling and a recent federal court decision from California (which, in a separate dispute, sided with Governor Newsom over President Trump’s bid to keep National Guard troops in Los Angeles longer) underscore a familiar, sometimes frustrating balancing act. Federal judges are willing to block government actions—when the evidence or law warrants it—but tend to step back when matters of military judgment take center stage. In the Guard case, Judge Lucy Koh found the state’s interest was paramount; marshaling the Guard falls to governors, not Washington.The common thread through these recent opinions isn’t hard to miss—the judiciary, by and large, acknowledges its own limitations when it comes to military expertise. Like a tightrope walker glancing down, the courts show a willingness to intervene but a pronounced reluctance to upend decisions on who is fit to serve or where troops should be sent. The Pentagon’s standards, for all their controversy, remain in effect for now, while California’s authority over its soldiers stands—at least until the next legal volley lands.