A federal appeals court on Monday blocked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's ban on transgender servicemembers, ruling the policy is driven by unconstitutional animus — and torching the government's legal strategy along the way.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction protecting currently serving troops from the Hegseth Policy — the February 2025 Pentagon directive implementing President Trump's executive order barring from service anyone with a history of gender dysphoria. The court vacated the injunction for prospective recruits.
Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Wilkins found the policy "both arbitrary and based upon animus" — driven by what he called a "bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group." The government, he noted, never contested that the plaintiff servicemembers — who have collectively served 130 years and earned more than 80 commendations — "served honorably" and "satisfied the rigorous standards" required of them.
The majority were withering in their criticism of the government's courtroom performance. Rather than defend the policy on its merits, the administration's "strategy seems to be one of willful ignorance," the court wrote, deflecting from the executive order's explicit language targeting people who express a "false gender identity." In the majority's plain-language summary of what that order actually proclaims, Trump "labeled transgender persons as dishonorable, undisciplined, arrogant, selfish liars." The government offered no evidence to back that up.
The ruling echoed District Judge Ana Reyes' original March 2025 finding that the ban is "soaked in animus and dripping with pretext" — and called it an "unadulterated expression of animus."
Today's ruling is the latest courtroom defeat for Hegseth. Since taking office, federal judges have blocked his Pentagon press restrictions, enjoined his censure of Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), and blocked his blacklisting of Anthropic — with courts repeatedly finding his actions driven by retaliation rather than legitimate policy.
The case, Talbott v. United States, now heads back to the district court. A class action motion that would extend protections to all affected servicemembers is scheduled for hearing on June 30.
