Judge temporarily blocks Trump's transgender military ban
A federal judge Tuesday temporarily blocked President Donald Trump's executive order banning transgender people from enlisting or serving in the military.
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes ruled that the ban violates the equal protection clause because it discriminates based on transgender status and sex.
Reyes said the ban 'is soaked in animus.'
'Its language is unabashedly demeaning, its policy stigmatizes transgender persons as inherently unfit, and its conclusions bear no relation to fact,' she wrote.
Reyes added, 'Indeed, the cruel irony is that thousands of transgender servicemembers have sacrificed — some risking their lives — to ensure for others the very equal protection rights the Military Ban seeks to deny them.'
Reyes delayed the effect of her preliminary injunction until Friday to give the administration time to appeal it. She added in her order that the government 'could have crafted a policy that balances the Nation's need for a prepared military and Americans' right to equal protection.'
'They still can,' she said. 'The Military Ban, however, is not that policy. The Court therefore must act to uphold the equal protection rights that the military defends every day.'
The White House and Justice Department did not immediately return requests for comment.
Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is representing several trans service members and trans people who want to enlist in a lawsuit, said Reyes acted quickly 'to shield our troops from the harmful effects of this irrational ban.'
'The ban's harmful impact and rushed implementation show that it was motivated by prejudice,' Minter said. 'Our plaintiffs include lifelong military personnel who served in combat in Afghanistan, come from multi-generation military families, and have received honors like the Bronze Star. This ban is unjustifiable and attacks brave servicemembers, recruits, and families who sacrifice so much for our country.'
Trump's order goes much further than a similar policy he issued during his first term, which prohibited trans people from enlisting and allowed those already serving to continue doing so in a manner consistent with their gender identity and receiving transition-related medical care if they came out prior to the ban. Service members who came out after were not allowed to receive such medical care and had to continue serving in a manner consistent with their assigned sex at birth.
The new policy prohibits trans people from enlisting and also requires the military to identify all trans service members who have 'a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria,' which is the medical term for the severe emotional distress caused by the misalignment between one's gender identity and birth sex, according to a memo the Pentagon filed in the lawsuit last week.
Those identified by the Pentagon will be disqualified from service and must be removed from their jobs. They will receive an honorable separation unless their record reflects otherwise, according to the memo.
In January, two national LGBTQ legal organizations, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law) and NCLR, filed suit against Trump's executive order on behalf of six active-duty trans service members and two trans people seeking to enlist. They argued that the ban discriminates against trans people and also 'reflects animosity toward transgender people because of their transgender status.'
The order, the lawsuit stated, declared that being trans fundamentally 'conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one's personal life.'
'A man's assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member,' the order states.
Reyes pushed Justice Department attorney Jason C. Lynch on that language during preliminary hearings last month, asking repeatedly whether he believed it showed animus against the trans community.
'Would it be fair to say that excluding a group of people from military service based on unsupported assertions that they are liars, immodest, lack integrity, are undisciplined and are dishonorable, would you agree with me that — particularly where there's no support for any of those assertions — that that is animated by animus?' Reyes asked Lynch, who declined to answer.
Multiple Defense Department memos also state that enlisted service members will be required to use pronouns and salutations, such as sir and ma'am, that align with their birth sex. Reyes pressed Lynch on how pronoun usage affects military readiness.
'I don't—' Lynch said, before the judge interrupted him.
'Because it doesn't,' Reyes said. 'Because any common sense rational human being understands that it doesn't.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
21 minutes ago
- The Independent
Watch: Trump says people who burn the American flag ‘should go to jail for a year'
Donald Trump says that anyone who burns the American flag should be thrown in prison. The president made the remarks at Fort Bragg on Tuesday (10 June) during a celebration of the 250th anniversary of the Army. During his speech, Trump boasted about the thousands of troops he's deployed in Los Angeles amid protests over his administration's immigration raids. The president condemned the demonstrators as a 'vicious, violent mob,' falsely claiming that many of them burned the American flag during standoffs with law enforcement. 'People that burn the American flag should go to jail for one year,' Trump declared. He took it a step further by adding that he's working with a few senators to 'get that done.' In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that burning the American flag is a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment.
BBC News
24 minutes ago
- BBC News
US tariff turmoil makes Spain's flagship foods seek other markets
It's lunchtime in a bar in the southern Spanish city of Seville. The kitchen is humming with activity, and behind the bar a member of staff pours cold beer from a tap into a another uses a carving knife to cut slices from a large leg of jamón ibérico, or Iberian ham, placing each one on a plate, to be served as an are few more Spanish scenes. And there are few more Spanish products than jamón ibérico, whose unique salty flavour is renowned across the world, and part of a national cured ham industry worth nearly €750m ($850m; £630m) each year in he watches the jamón being carved, Jaime Fernández, international commercial director for the Grupo Osborne, which produces wine, sherry and the renowned Cinco Jotas brand of ham, describes it as a "flagship" national foodstuff."It's one of the most iconic gastronomic products from Spain," he says, pointing out how the pigs used to make the ham are reared in the wild and fed on acorns. "It represents our tradition, our culture, our essence." But jamón ibérico, like products across Spain and the rest of Europe, is facing the threat of trade tariffs imposed by US President Donald was no tariff on Spanish ham exports to the US until April of this year, when a 20% charge on all European imports was suddenly introduced, dropping to 10% pending in May Trump unsettled European exporters again when he said that the tariff for all EU goods could rise as high as 50% if trade talks with Brussels do not come to a successful agreement. The current deadline for this is 9 July."The United States is one of our top, priority markets," says Mr Fernández. "The uncertainty is there, and it complicates our medium-and long-term planning, investments and commercial development."The tariffs, he adds, "pose a threat to our industry." Spain's overall economy is in rude health. The IMF has forecast growth this year of 2.5% – much higher than the other main EU economies – and unemployment is at a 17-year the tariff issue comes as a blow for the country's pork industry, which represents more than 400,000 direct and indirect jobs, and is Europe's for cured ham in the US has grown substantially in recent years, and it has become the biggest importer of Spanish ham outside the the Spanish industry now faces the prospect of having to raise retail prices for US consumers and therefore losing competitivity to local products, or those not subject to the same tariffs. Spain's olive oil sector is in a similar quandary. The world's biggest producer of olive oil, Spain had set its sights on the US as a burgeoning market whose growth was driven by growing awareness of the health benefits of the the the tariff turmoil comes just as Spanish producers and exporters have recovered from a drought that slashed harvests in the south of the country, and sent prices temporarily US represents half of world olive oil consumption outside the is also the country whose imports of the foodstuff from Spain have grown the most in recent years, increasing from approximately 300,000 tonnes per year a decade ago to around 430,000 tonnes, says Rafael Pico Lapuente, director general of the Spanish association of olive oil exporters (ASOLIVA).Much will depend, he says, on the final tariff set for the EU."If there is a 10% tariff which is permanent, without differentiating between countries of origin, it's not going to create a distortion on the international market," says Mr Pico explains that American consumers might have to absorb the extra cost. And although local US producers of olive oil or similar products would gain a competitive edge, their output is small enough for it not to concern the likes of he says it would be "a different story" if Trump introduced higher tariffs for the EU than for competitor olive oil countries outside the bloc – such as Turkey, the world's second-largest producer, or Tunisia, an emerging grower. That scenario, he says, would have a major impact on the world market and Spanish producers. But variations in tariffs between countries or trade blocs would also lead to a certain amount rule-bending and even chaos, according to Javier Díaz-Giménez, a professor of economics at the IESE business school in Madrid. He suggests two of Spain's direct neighbours as a hypothetical example."If Spain has a 20% tariff and Morocco and Andorra have a 10% tariff, all the Spanish products that can go through Morocco or Andorra… will do so."He adds: "They will be first exported to Morocco and Andorra and from there re-exported to the United States with a 10% tariff."And it's going to be really hard to make sure that these olives came from Andorra proper and not from Spain. Is Trump going to do something about that?" For now, Spanish producers and exporters must hold their breath as EU negotiations take place with Washington. For Mr Pico Lapuente, a big cause of concern is the influence – or as he sees it, lack of influence – his sector wields within the European trade bloc."The negotiations representing the EU's 27 countries are carried out by Brussels," he says. "In these negotiations, industrial products have a much bigger influence than food."I wouldn't like it if, in this negotiation, food products like olive oil were used as mere bargaining chips in order to get a better deal for Europe's industrial products. That worries me. And I hope it doesn't happen."A spokesperson for the European Commission told the BBC that in negotiations with the US it will act "in defence of European interests, protecting its workers, consumers and its industries".Jaime Fernández, of the Grupo Osborne, believes his industry could live with the 10% tariff that is currently in place without suffering too much a 20% charge, he says would cause the industry "to reconsider how to accelerate growth in some other markets, which would eventually lead to the relocation of resources from the US".He says his company is already looking at alternative markets in which to invest, such as China, or proven European ham consumers such as France, Italy and Díaz-Giménez says that is the logical response to the current uncertainty."If I was the CEO of any company with a high exposure to the United States… I would have sent my entire sales team to find other markets," he says."And by now, they would have found them. There would be plan Bs and plan Cs, to make sure that we have reduced this exposure to the US."
Reuters
34 minutes ago
- Reuters
US military bases to restore names changed after racial justice protests, Trump says
FORT BRAGG, North Carolina, June 10 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Tuesday the military would rename bases which were changed after racial justice protests in 2023, including reverting to Fort Lee originally named after Civil War-era Confederate commander Robert E. Lee. Under the Trump administration, the Pentagon has already renamed Fort Moore back to its original name of Fort Benning and Fort Liberty back to Fort Bragg. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has been able to sidestep a Congressional provision that banned bases having Confederate names by renaming bases after people with the same names as the Confederate officials. "We are also going to be restoring the names to Fort Pickett, Fort Hood, Fort Gordon, Fort Rucker, Fort Polk, Fort AP Hill and Fort Robert E. Lee," Trump said while speaking at Fort Bragg. "We won a lot of battles out of those forts. It's no time to change," Trump said as uniformed service members stood behind him. Fort Lee, located in Petersburg, Virginia, was renamed Fort Gregg-Adams in 2023. After Trump's announcement, the Army said that Fort Lee would be renamed after Private Fitz Lee, a Medal of Honor recipient from the Spanish-American War. During Trump's speech at Fort Bragg, some audience members, including those in uniform, cheered as the president made the announcement. They also jeered at the press as Trump pointed towards reporters and called them "Fake News" and applauded as he took shots at his predecessor, Joe Biden. Uniformed members of the U.S. armed forces are meant to be apolitical, carrying out the policies of Democratic and Republican administrations. The 2023 move to shed Confederate names for military bases came in the wake of nationwide protests after the 2020 death of George Floyd, a Black man killed by police in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Confederate flags and base names can be offensive to many Americans, who see them as reminders of the enslavement of Black Americans and symbols of white supremacy. Congress in 2021 passed legislation forbidding the naming of bases after anyone who voluntarily served or held leadership in the Confederate States of America, the breakaway republic of Southern states that fought against the U.S. in the Civil War in the 19th Century.
