A divided federal appeals court on Tuesday allowed the Pentagon to temporarily enforce its revived ban on transgender military service, ruling that a lower court improperly blocked the Trump administration’s 2025 policy.
The decision marks a major development in one of the most closely watched military policy cases in the country.
The 2–1 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit stays a district court’s preliminary injunction and permits the Trump administration to continue enforcing the restrictions while litigation continues.
“Today’s victory is a great win for the security of the American people,” White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly told Fox News Digital. “As commander in chief, President Trump has the executive authority to ensure that our Department of War prioritizes military readiness over woke gender ideology.”
FEDERAL JUDGE RULES AGAINST TRUMP ORDER HALTING SEX CHANGE PROCEDURES IN PRISONS
Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, writing for the majority, said the district court wrongly substituted its own judgment for that of Pentagon leadership.
“The United States military enforces strict medical standards to ensure that only physically and mentally fit individuals join its ranks. For decades, these requirements barred service by individuals with gender dysphoria, a medical condition associated with clinically significant distress,” the majority wrote.
“The district court nonetheless preliminarily enjoined the 2025 policy based on its own contrary assessment of the evidence. In our view, the court afforded insufficient deference to the Secretary’s [Hegseth] considered judgment. Accordingly, we stay the preliminary injunction pending the government’s appeal.”
FEDERAL JUDGE UNDERCUTS TRUMP’S EXECUTIVE ORDER ON ‘RADICAL GENDER IDEOLOGY’
The 2025 policy, enacted under President Donald Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, “generally bars individuals with gender dysphoria from serving in the Armed Forces,” the court noted.
According to the majority opinion, the Pentagon concluded the policy would advance “important military interests of combat readiness, unit cohesion, and cost control.”
Judge Patricia Millett Pillard issued a sharp dissent, accusing the Trump administration of failing to justify the renewed ban and arguing that the motives behind it were impermissible.
SUPREME COURT HANDS TRUMP VICTORY ON TRANSGENDER PASSPORT POLICY CHANGE
“There may well be valid reasons to reexamine and alter military service policies set by previous administrations. But on this record, one cannot tell,” Pillard wrote.
“Defendants provide no evidence that they based their new policy on any assessment of costs, benefits, or any other factor legitimately bearing on military necessity. Indeed, there is ‘no evidence that [President Trump or Secretary Hegseth] consulted with uniformed military leaders’ before imposing their unprecedented ban on transgender servicemembers.”
Pillard said the administration’s approach reflected “animus from the start,” pointing to President Trump’s Jan. 27 Executive Order 14183, or Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness, issued in February.
In that order, Trump declared it “the policy of the United States” that “adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.” The order also claimed that openly identifying as transgender is “not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member” and directed Hegseth to develop policies within 60 days.
The policy on transgender service has shifted repeatedly over the past decade. Restrictions were relaxed in 2016, tightened in 2018, relaxed again in 2021 and reinstated in 2025, the court noted. The district court halted the latest version earlier this year, prompting the Pentagon’s successful appeal for a stay.
The case now returns to the district court for full consideration and is expected to continue moving toward what could ultimately be a Supreme Court review.
The Department of War did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.
