Latest news with #ExecutiveOrder14183
Yahoo
04-06-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Cadets who met all Air Force Academy graduation standards denied commissions because they're transgender
They stood in formation at Falcon Stadium, diplomas in hand, having met every standard of physical endurance, academic excellence, and military discipline. But, on Thursday, when the time came for the U.S. Air Force Academy's class of 2025 in Colorado Springs, Colorado, to commission as second lieutenants, three cadets were quietly held back. Keep up with the latest in + news and politics. They are the first out transgender cadets to graduate from the Academy. And under a newly reinstated Trump administration ban, they will not be allowed to serve. Related: Federal judge blocks Trump's transgender military ban One of them, Hunter Marquez, had spent years preparing to become a combat systems officer. He earned dual degrees in aeronautical engineering and applied mathematics. He passed the Air Force's fitness standards for men. And he did so as himself, having transitioned while enrolled at the Academy. 'I really want to stay in for as long as possible, fight this out,' Marquez told The Colorado Springs Gazette. But the rules changed. On May 6, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to begin enforcing Executive Order 14183, which bans transgender people from military service. The unsigned order—issued without full argument and over the dissent of the Court's three liberal justices—overturned a Washington state lower court's preliminary injunction and gave the Pentagon the green light to begin separations. Related: Supreme Court allows Trump administration to enforce transgender military ban Marquez, along with the two other graduates, was placed on administrative absence, barred from taking the oath, and warned he might need to repay the cost of his education if he refused to leave voluntarily, the paper reports. That education—funded by taxpayers—is valued in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. According to The Gazette, Marquez was later told by Air Force officials that if he is involuntarily separated, he won't be billed. But the message was clear: his government does not want him in uniform. And yet, there is no question he met the standard. 'We want warfighters. We want people with grit, that are resilient. They have done all that,' a U.S. Air Force Academy staff member told The Gazette, speaking anonymously for fear of retaliation. All three cadets passed physical fitness tests for both men and women. All three graduated with distinction. What disqualifies them is not their performance but their identity. Marquez is a plaintiff in Talbott v. United States, one of the central legal challenges to the policy. In a sworn statement, he wrote that the executive order describes people like him as 'undisciplined, selfish, and dishonest.' 'None of those are correct descriptions of my character or my abilities,' he wrote. 'I have achieved alongside my peers throughout my time at the Academy.' The policy is not theoretical. It is personal. It has required cadets like Marquez to trek across dorms to find gender-compliant restrooms and showers. It has forced them to race through final semesters in case they're expelled before graduating. And it has turned what should have been a joyful week of ceremonies into a lesson in resilience. Related: Meet the transgender Army lieutenant who is challenging Donald Trump's military ban Marquez, now 23, is applying to the University of Colorado Boulder to earn an advanced degree in aerospace engineering. He is still receiving medical benefits and cadet pay, but he knows that may be temporary. 'There's still a lot of anger and frustration and sadness,' he said. 'Just because I have worked so hard to be a second lieutenant in the Air Force, and at the very end that was taken from me.' Academy alumni have responded with solidarity. Nearly 1,000 graduates have signed an open letter defending transgender cadets and midshipmen. 'Being transgender is in no way incompatible with any of our Academies' cherished virtues and values,' the letter reads, according to
American Military News
09-05-2025
- Politics
- American Military News
Video: Pentagon removing transgender troops from US military
The Pentagon is moving forward with the implementation of President Donald Trump's transgender military ban following the Supreme Court's decision to stay an injunction against the administration's policy on Tuesday. According to The Guardian, the Pentagon is expected to remove as many as 1,000 U.S. military members who openly identify as transgender while allowing other military members who have not openly identified themselves to voluntarily separate from the military over the next month. The outlet cited U.S. officials who previously claimed that there were 4,240 U.S. troops who had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria as of December. In a Thursday memorandum, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said, 'As the President of the United States clearly stated in Executive Order 14183, 'Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,' January 27, 2025, expressing a false 'gender identity' divergent from an individual's sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for Military Service.' Hegseth added, 'Service by individuals with a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibiting symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria is not in the best interest of the Military Services and is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security.' Thursday's memorandum explained that U.S. military members with a 'current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria' are eligible to voluntarily separate from the military and that those military members may be eligible for voluntary separation pay. The memorandum also noted that active-duty service members will have until June 6 to voluntarily separate, while reserve service members will have until July 7 to separate. READ MORE: Trump transgender military ban upheld by Supreme Court According to the memorandum, the Pentagon will begin 'involuntary separation processes' for additional transgender military members following the 'self-identification eligibility window.' In a video message shared Thursday on X, formerly Twitter, Hegseth said, 'Here at the Defense Department, we continue to relentlessly pursue the president's agenda, especially on readiness.' Hegseth explained that the Pentagon implemented a transgender military ban policy following Trump's executive order on 'prioritizing military excellence and readiness' earlier this year. The secretary of defense noted that while the policy was challenged in court, the Supreme Court upheld the Trump administration's policy in a ruling on Tuesday. In Thursday's video, Hegseth announced, 'So in accordance with policy now reinstated, service members who have a current diagnosis or history of or exhibit symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria may elect to separate voluntarily…and then eventually involuntarily, if necessary.' 'This is the president's agenda,' Hegseth added. 'This is what the American people voted for, and we're going to continue to relentlessly pursue it.'
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Is Pete Hegseth violating judges' orders blocking the Pentagon's trans military ban? Senators demand answers
A coalition of 14 U.S. Senate Democrats is demanding answers from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth amid growing concerns that the Department of Defense is ignoring federal court orders halting the Trump administration's ban on transgender military service. Keep up with the latest in + news and politics. In a sharply worded Tuesday letter, the senators pressed Hegseth to explain whether the Pentagon has discharged any transgender troops in violation of nationwide injunctions issued in March. Those rulings—by U.S. District Judges Ana Reyes and Benjamin Hale Settle—blocked enforcement of Executive Order 14183, which mandates the separation of transgender service members and bans them from acknowledging their identities. Related: Trump's DOJ struggles defending trans military ban during D.C. appeals court hearing 'These injunctions were timely,' the senators wrote, noting the DOD's plan to implement the ban just days later. 'Several military experts and former leaders characterized this rapid timeframe as 'rushed,' 'alarming,' and 'brutal.'' The letter calls on Hegseth to disclose how many trans troops have been affected, how much taxpayer money has been spent defending the policy, and what steps—if any—the Pentagon has taken to reintegrate service members harmed by the administration's actions. It also emphasizes the disproportionate service of transgender Americans: Nearly 20 percent are veterans or current military, compared with 7 percent of the general U.S. population. Related: Meet the transgender Army lieutenant who is challenging Donald Trump's military ban 'In return for this patriotism,' the senators wrote, 'the administration denies transgender servicemembers not only the ability to serve, but also the resulting benefits they have earned.' The letter follows a tense appellate hearing in Talbott v. United States, where the D.C. Circuit grilled the DOJ's defense of the policy. Judges questioned whether the administration's rationale—deployability and 'unit cohesion'—held up under scrutiny. 'Your argument is that you can serve as a transgender person as long as you don't serve as a transgender person,' Judge Cornelia Pillard said, summing up the internal contradiction. Related: This trans Air Force recruit wants to jump out of planes to save others. He's suing Trump to serve Meanwhile, Hegseth continues to undercut his department's legal claims. In a recent post on X, formerly Twitter, he declared, 'Your agenda is illegals, trans & DEI—all of which are no longer allowed @ DoD.' 'Fox News television personalities—not military units—are the ones bothered by transgender people faithfully serving their country,' the senators wrote, nodding to Hegseth's former role as a cable news contributor. Sens. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, and Ron Wyden of Oregon are among the signers.
Yahoo
19-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal appeals court upholds block on Trump's trans military ban
A federal appeals court in California on Friday rejected the Trump administration's emergency attempt to revive its ban on transgender military service, delivering another legal defeat to the president's sweeping effort to exclude transgender Americans from public life. Keep up with the latest in + news and politics. In a one-page order, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco denied the Department of Defense's request to stay a lower court ruling that protects transgender service members and recruits. The order keeps in place Washington state U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle's March 28 injunction in Shilling v. Trump, which bars the military from enforcing Executive Order 14183, which bans trans people from the military, while the case proceeds. Related: What you need to know about Donald Trump's attempt to ban transgender people from the military The Human Rights Campaign Foundation and Lambda Legal brought the case in February on behalf of seven active-duty transgender service members, one transgender person seeking to enlist, and the Seattle-based Gender Justice League. The legal teams argue that the ban violates the constitutional rights of transgender people and rests on discrimination rather than evidence. 'The court's denial today recognized that the government is not harmed when transgender servicemembers, who meet the same standards as their peers, are able to serve,' HRC and Lambda Legal said in a joint statement after the court's decision. 'To the contrary, the military is harmed when discriminatory policies exclude qualified people from service simply because of who they are.' Related: This trans Air Force recruit wants to jump out of planes to save others. He's suing Trump to serve The Ninth Circuit panel—Judges A. Wallace Tashima, John B. Owens, and Roopali Desai—found that the government failed to show it would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction remained. Settle's injunction blocks the administration from removing transgender troops or denying enlistment based on gender identity. His ruling applies nationwide and protects the plaintiffs and all similarly situated service members, including those stationed overseas. In his decision, Settle rejected the government's argument that military judgment justified the ban. 'Any evidence that such service over the past four years harmed any of the military's inarguably critical aims would be front and center,' he wrote. 'But there is none.' Related: Meet the transgender Army lieutenant who is challenging Donald Trump's military ban The Ninth Circuit left the existing briefing schedule in place and said it would schedule oral arguments after the government files its reply brief. Meanwhile, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments Tuesday in Talbott v. Trump, a parallel case brought by GLAD Law and the National Center for Lesbian Rights. That case also challenges the ban's constitutionality and stems from a separate injunction issued by D.C. U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, who described the policy as 'soaked in animus and dripping with pretext.' In both cases, the Biden-era protections for transgender service members remain intact—for now.
Yahoo
31-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
What you need to know about Donald Trump's attempt to ban transgender people from the military
The Trump administration's latest attempt to erase transgender people from public life hit a major roadblock when two federal judges ruled that its ban on transgender military service is likely unconstitutional. In a scathing opinion, Washington, D.C., U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes called the policy issued by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth 'soaked in animus and dripping with pretext,' blocking its enforcement. In a separate case, U.S. District Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the Western District of Washington issued a nationwide injunction halting the ban, writing that it was 'not an especially close question.' But how did we get here? And what happens next? Keep up with the latest in + news and politics. President Donald Trump first announced a ban on transgender military service during his first term in 2017—on Twitter. The move reversed an Obama-era policy that had allowed transgender service members to serve openly and came without any consultation with military leaders. The administration claimed that allowing trans people to serve would be too expensive and disruptive. But the facts never backed that up. Related: Federal judge dismantles Trump's trans military ban in explosive hearing After fierce legal battles, the Trump administration modified the policy, allowing some transgender service members to remain but effectively shutting the door on new recruits. President Joe Biden overturned the ban in 2021, restoring open service. But when Trump returned to office, he revived the ban, issuing Executive Order 14183, titled 'Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,' on January 27, to bar transgender individuals from serving and to begin removing those already enlisted. On January 28, GLAD Law and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed Talbott v. Trump on behalf of 20 transgender people—both active service members and those trying to enlist. Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, and Shannon Minter, legal director at NCLR, led the charge against the policy. Their argument was simple: This ban wasn't about military readiness—it was about discrimination, plain and simple. Related: Among the plaintiffs was Clayton McCallister, a 24-year-old Air Force recruit from Knoxville, Tennessee, who had spent over a year preparing to serve as a Pararescue operator—a highly demanding military role. After successfully enlisting in January, his plans were upended when his March deployment was suddenly canceled because of Trump's executive order. McCallister, who had left his civilian job in preparation for military service, found himself in a state of uncertainty, struggling to support his wife and newly adopted daughter. 'It's important to me just to be here and to be a part of it,' McCallister told The Advocate. 'I'm standing here with a lot of people that have a lot more experience than I do, and I'm just grateful to the legal team and everyone that's put their story out there to help the fight.' He emphasized that his dream was simply to work hard. 'I just want to go out there and serve my country, help other people, and do something bigger than me. Anyone willing and able and capable of doing that should be allowed to.' Among the other plaintiffs were Major Erica Vandal, a decorated field artillery officer with nearly 14 years of service, and Second Lieutenant Nicholas Talbott, a member of the Army Reserve who spent almost a decade fighting for his right to serve. Related: Pentagon says it will start kicking transgender people out of military this month Vandal, 36, has served honorably for over 13 years in the U.S. Army, earning commendations, including a Bronze Star during a deployment to Afghanistan. She currently serves as a Brigade Fire Support Officer, leading and certifying over 70 personnel. Her military career has been a lifelong commitment, following in the footsteps of her father, a retired three-star general. 'We remain trained, ready, and deployable. We just want the opportunity to continue our legacy of honorable service to our country,' she said. Talbott, 31, endured years of setbacks due to shifting military policies on transgender service members. A sociology graduate with a background in global security studies, Talbott had trained for military service through ROTC before being barred from enlisting under Trump's initial ban. After Biden lifted the policy, he finally took his enlistment oath in 2024 and graduated with honors from Officer Candidate School. 'My military service is something that I've spent the greater portion of my adult life working toward,' he told The Advocate. 'I can't even fathom what my family has been feeling, sitting on the sidelines, watching me go through this, trying to be as supportive as possible.' Before issuing her ruling, Reyes presided over a tense, five-hour hearing where she relentlessly questioned the Trump administration's justification for banning transgender service members. Department of Justice attorney Jason Manion, a Federalist Society-affiliated lawyer and former aide to Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, struggled to defend the administration's position under Reyes' scrutiny. She accused the government of "cherry-picking" and "egregiously misquoting" scientific evidence and noted that the Pentagon's own studies revealed that transgender service members have lower rates of disability incidents compared to their cisgender counterparts. When Manion admitted he hadn't read the studies he was citing, Reyes paused proceedings for a 30-minute recess, firmly instructing government attorneys, 'Get out the studies. We're going to go over them.' Returning from the break, Reyes systematically dismantled the government's rationale, pointing out that service members who require insulin or other hormone therapies deploy routinely, yet similar treatments for transgender personnel were inexplicably deemed too complicated. Related: Federal judge blocks Trump's transgender military ban Reyes also took issue with Hegseth's public statements, in which he questioned transgender troops' 'integrity' and 'warrior ethos.' When Manion attempted to downplay these remarks as 'shorthand,' Reyes fired back, 'Do you think you can say one thing in public and another thing in court?' Reyes' ruling wasn't just a rejection of the administration's arguments—it was a full-scale takedown. In her 79-page opinion, she stated that the ban was 'a solution in search of a problem' and lambasted the administration for its lack of evidence. Reyes noted that the government's justification was rooted in misinformation, prejudice, and a fundamental misunderstanding of military operations. 'The Military Ban, like past efforts to exclude marginalized groups, rests on irrational prejudice,' Reyes wrote, drawing parallels between the treatment of transgender troops and historical discrimination against racial minorities, women, and gay and lesbian service members. The court found that the cost of providing gender-affirming medical care to transgender service members was minimal compared to overall military health care expenditures, with Reyes highlighting that the Department of Defense spends significantly more on erectile dysfunction medications like Viagra than on transgender medical care. Furthermore, the court determined that transgender troops were as employable and deployable as their cisgender counterparts, contradicting the administration's claims. She further pointed out that the administration's attempts to paint transgender service members as weak and unfit were not only offensive but factually incorrect. 'The policy brands transgender troops as weak, dishonorable, undisciplined, boastful, selfish liars who are mentally and physically unfit to serve,' she wrote. 'This is not policy. This is discrimination.' Though Reyes issued a preliminary injunction blocking the ban, her order was quickly met with pushback. On March 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted the Trump administration's emergency request for an administrative stay, temporarily halting enforcement of Reyes' ruling while the court considers the government's appeal. "The purpose of this administrative stay is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the emergency motion for stay pending appeal and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits,' the order stated. The D.C. Circuit gave plaintiffs until April 1 to respond and the DOJ until April 3 to reply. "If any action occurs that negatively impacts service members under the Hegseth Policy and MDI Guidance before the court lifts the administrative stay, the plaintiffs may file a motion to lift the administrative stay, and the court will consider it expeditiously," the court added. Related: Trump administration admits to judge it doesn't know how many troops are trans—or why it's banning them On the same day, Settle issued a separate nationwide preliminary injunction in Commander Emily Shilling et al. v. United States, blocking the same Trump-era ban. Settle's ruling prevents the administration from implementing Executive Order 14183 and the associated Military Department Identification guidance targeting transgender troops. 'The government's unrelenting reliance on deference to military judgment is unjustified in the absence of any evidence,' Settle wrote. 'Any evidence that such service over the past four years harmed any of the military's inarguably critical aims would be front and center. But there is none.' The Shilling suit was filed by Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation on behalf of seven active-duty transgender service members, one transgender person seeking to enlist, and the Seattle-based Gender Justice League. 'These efforts to stall the preliminary injunction from going into effect burden military families with a crushing amount of pressure,' Levi said. Minter added that the government's tactics 'seem designed to muddy the waters.' For now, thanks to Settle's order, transgender service members can continue to serve and enlist nationwide, even as the D.C. Circuit weighs the government's appeal in Talbott. The DOJ has also appealed Settle's ruling to San Francisco's Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and requested an immediate emergency stay, but the court has not yet ruled on that motion. 'We are going to show up, we are going to do our jobs, we are going to stay mission-focused and combat-ready,' Talbott said. 'Because at the end of the day, that's really the only thing that matters.'
