#executive order 14183

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Democrats Merkley and Balint file bill to nullify Trump's anti-LGBTQ+ executive orders

The No Place for LGBTQ+ Hate Act targets the trans military ban, the "two sexes" order, and more.

Trudy Ring at The Advocate:

U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon and U.S. Rep. Becca Balint of Vermont, both Democrats, have introduced legislation to nullify Donald Trump’s anti-LGBTQ+ executive orders. The No Place for LGBTQ+ Hate Act, introduced Thursday, would ensure that Trump’s anti-LGBTQ+ orders would have no force or effect and that no federal funds would be used to put them into effect. During his second term, Trump has issued executive orders saying the federal government will recognize only two sexes, male and female as assigned at birth, therefore denying the existence of transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people; reinstating and expanding the trans military ban; seeking to prevent trans youth from receiving gender-affirming care; seeking to keep trans students from participating in sports under their gender identity; and requiring schools to deny the existence of trans people. Policies based on these orders have been implemented, and most are being challenged in court. “Freedom is the right to safely live as your authentic self without fear of harassment, discrimination, or violence,” Merkley said in a press release. “President Trump and Republicans are attacking our LGBTQ+ neighbors, friends, and family members by rubberstamping discrimination in every aspect of daily life. As we mark Pride Month this year, we say ‘hell no’ to this hate and honor those who have fought for LGBTQ+ equality by never giving up on the vision of America as a land of freedom for all.” “Trump cannot take away our rights or our health care just with the stroke of a pen,” Balint added. “I’m standing with Senator Merkley and my colleagues to show the Trump administration that their hate and dehumanizing rhetoric targeting queer Americans doesn’t intimidate us. We won’t back down when it comes to protecting our rights. No matter how much they try to erase us and our history, LGBTQI+ people are valued members of every community across this country.” Their bill has numerous cosponsors in both the House and Senate, all Democrats except for one independent, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who caucuses with the Democrats. It’s endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign, Advocates for Trans Equality, American Civil Liberties Union, National Women’s Law Center Action Fund, Reproductive Freedom for All, and Planned Parenthood.

Rep. Becca Balint (D-VT) and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) file a bill to nullify Donald Trump’s anti-LGBTQ+ extremist executive orders called the No Place for LGBTQ+ Hate Act.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Transgender troops just won a major ruling in their fight against Trump’s military ban

Judge Ana Reyes's order means the case can move beyond the named plaintiffs as transgender service members fight to stay in uniform. She al

Christopher Wiggins at The Advocate:

A federal judge on Tuesday certified a class of transgender service members and prospective troops challenging the Trump administration’s ban on military service, expanding one of the country’s most consequential transgender rights cases beyond the individual plaintiffs and setting it on a path toward trial next year. U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes granted the motion in Talbott v. Trump after a tense hearing in Washington, D.C., according to an attorney on the case who spoke with The Advocate over text message. The court’s public audio feed did not return after Reyes recessed the hearing, leaving members of the public unable to hear the ruling in real time. The decision means the case can proceed on behalf of a broader group of transgender people affected by the administration’s policy, which bars many transgender people from serving in or joining the armed forces. The precise class definition was not immediately available Tuesday afternoon.

“This is an incredibly significant case for our country, for the military, and for the thousands of transgender individuals who have dedicated their lives to military service,” Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for LGBTQ+ Rights and lead co-counsel for the plaintiffs, told The Advocate after the hearing. “The Court’s decision today to certify a class is an important step and will help to ensure that any positive decision will benefit all transgender troops, not just the individual plaintiffs in this case. We look forward to an opportunity to prove our case.” Minter said that Reyes scheduled a trial for January 4.

[...] The hearing came the same day the U.S. Supreme Court issued a major ruling in cases involving transgender students and school sports. Reyes opened the hearing by saying she had not yet read the decision but wanted both sides to file simultaneous briefs of no more than 10 pages on whether the ruling affects her preliminary injunction in the military case. Reyes previously blocked parts of the administration’s ban, finding that the government’s justifications appeared to be rooted in animus rather than military need. The Trump administration has continued defending the policy in court. The judge also spent significant time Tuesday on a related case, Shilling v. United States, pending in the Western District of Washington. Lawyers in that case had asked Reyes to amend the proposed class definition in Talbott to avoid overlap with the Shilling plaintiffs, including members of Gender Justice League, an associational plaintiff in the Washington case. Reyes appeared open to excluding the individual Shilling plaintiffs from the Talbott class but was skeptical of carving out every Gender Justice League member, which lawyers said could number more than 1,000.

Good news: Trans troops were handed a win in Talbott v. US, as the case can move beyond the affected plaintiffs.

See Also:

LGBTQ Nation: Trans service members challenging military ban score major victory

[justinspoliticalcorner]

“Soaked in Animus”: Federal Judges Strikes Down Trump’s Trans Military Ban

“The cruel irony is that thousands of transgender servicemembers have sacrificed—some risking their lives—to ensure for others the very equa

S. Baum at Erin In The Morning:

A federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump’s anti-trans military ban, including “Executive Order 14183—Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness” as well as a similar policy issued by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. “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,” wrote Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, in her opinion published today. “In the self-evident truth that ‘all people are created equal,’ all means all. Nothing more. And certainly nothing less.” The court affirmed the President’s ability to discern who can serve the military, but emphasized the high standards needed to do so. “Leaders have used concern for military readiness to deny marginalized persons the privilege of serving,” she wrote. “First minorities, then women in combat, then gays.” Today, trans people are the target — Trump’s executive order from January declared that being trans “conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle,” and that it “is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.” The order was accompanied by Hegseth’s anti-trans memo to the Pentagon on Feb. 7. To categorically ban trans people from the military, the government would have to show that trans inclusion has resulted in tangible, material harm.

The court ruled that this is not the case. Even more, Reyes says that neither Trump’s executive order nor Hegseth’s directive seemed to have received input from military rank and file. “Neither document contains any analysis nor cites any data,” Reyes writes. “They pronounce that transgender persons are not honorable, truthful, or disciplined—but Defense counsel concedes that these assertions are pure conjecture.” The plaintiffs, Reyes continues, have cumulatively provided over 130 years of military service. “They have served in roles ranging from Senior Military Science Instructor to Artillery Platoon Commander to Intelligence Analyst to Satellite Operator to Operations Research Analyst to Naval Flight Officer to Weapons Officer,” she writes. “They have deployed around the globe [...] One is presently deployed to an active combat zone. They have earned more than 80 commendations.” The ban was not only discriminatory, Reyes says, but also unscientific. “Who considered the information [...] is anyone’s guess. [Trump officials] do not know. Maybe no one, because one study is eight years old and the other two support Plaintiffs’ position [of opposing a trans military ban].” She characterizes the ban as “soaked in animus and dripping with pretext.”

Judge Ana C. Reyes rules in Talbott v. Trump that Donald Trump’s transphobia-laden ban on trans people serving in the military is “soaked in animus.”

See Also:

The Advocate: BREAKING: Federal judge blocks Trump's transgender military ban

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Trump's flimsy reasons for trans military ban disproven in new study - LGBTQ Nation

Meanwhile, the DOJ is trying to dismiss a case challenging its broken promises to trans military members.

Daniel Villarreal at LGBTQ Nation:

A recently published study on trans military health contradicts the administration’s reasons for its ban on trans military members: namely, that trans military members are undeployable, impair unit cohesion, and incur unreasonably high healthcare costs. The study found that none of these claims is true. Concurrently, the presidential administration recently asked for a federal court to dismiss a lawsuit by active duty transgender Air Force members suing to win back their revoked military retirement benefits, saying that the members must first leave the armed forces before they have a right to sue over revoked benefits. Both the study and the court case originated from the president’s January 2025 executive order seeking to force all trans military members out of the armed services. The order says that trans identity is a mental disorder that is selfish, dishonorable, deceitful, undisciplined, and unfit for military service. A new paper recently published in the International Journal of Transgender Health analyzed 58 empirical studies on trans service in the U.S. military and found that the administration’s justifications for the ban were baseless.

The study found that the U.S. military spends about $5 million annually on healthcare for trans military members, and only $1 million of that amount on gender-affirming care. The military spends much more on “obesity, musculoskeletal injuries, pregnancy and childbirth, vision problems, and the ordinary ailments of a large, young population,” the aforementioned publication noted. While opponents of trans military involvement have claimed that constant surgery and recovery from gender-affirming care make trans military members perpetually undeployable, a few studies reviewed in the recently published paper showed that trans service members regularly schedule their medical procedures or treatment changes around deployment cycles. Put another way, no evidence demonstrates that trans military members are less deployable than their peers who are recovering from other routine medical conditions, like injuries and postpartum care. The paper also found no evidence demonstrating that trans service members harm unit cohesion.

It’s true that trans military members experience higher rates of depression, anxiety, PTSD, and suicidality. However, the paper said those rates are more connected to discrimination, harassment, sexual violence, and stigma than to trans identity itself, The Advocate summarized. The paper also found that supportive leadership and affirming environments can create better outcomes for the mental health of trans and cisgender military members alike.

A recent study published in the International Journal of Transgender Health reveals that Donald Trump’s justifications to ban trans people from the military are harmful to military readiness and were lacking merit.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Federal appeals court upholds block on Trump's trans military ban

It is another win for transgender people who are serving and want to serve in the U.S. armed forces.

Christopher Wiggins at The Advocate:

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. 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. 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 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.”

On Friday night, a 3-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court upholds block on Trump's bigoted anti-trans ban on trans military service members (EO 14183).

[justinspoliticalcorner]

New Poll Shows Massive Opposition To The Active US Government Censorship Of Trans People

The poll also shows heavy support for transgender youth care, opposition to the military ban, and opposition to the prosecution of teachers

Erin Reed at Erin In The Morning:

Over the past two months, a wave of executive orders has unleashed a coordinated rollback of transgender rights across the United States. Transgender people have been scrubbed from federal websites, health resources erased, and even the Stonewall National Monument—honoring a protest led in large part by trans activists—was rewritten to celebrate only “LGB rights,” erasing the T entirely. At the same time, healthcare access has been stripped away, passport updates halted, teachers threatened with prosecution for affirming trans youth, service members purged from the military, and trans existence erased in federal protections. Now, a new poll reveals overwhelming public opposition to the Trump administration’s sweeping anti-trans agenda—from censorship to criminalizing support for trans students and more.

A new poll from Data for Progress reveals broad public rejection of the Trump administration’s quiet campaign to erase LGBTQ+ health information from federal websites. According to the data, 52 percent of respondents oppose the removal of information on LGBTQ+ health disparities and nondiscrimination protections, while just 26 percent support it. The numbers reflect overwhelming resistance to the administration’s censorship effort—one that has already seen some reversals in court. In one particularly egregious case, an entire national student health dataset was taken down solely because it included questions about gender identity. The poll also found significant public opposition to the erasure of transgender people from federal history and language. Respondents opposed removing mentions of transgender people from the Stonewall National Monument website by a 23-point margin, and opposed altering “LGBTQ+” to “LGB” in government materials by 22 points. These changes came after the Trump administration revised the monument’s website to frame the Stonewall uprising as a fight solely for “LGB rights”—a revision that ignores the central role played by transgender and gender nonconforming leaders. Even Sylvia Rivera, a prominent trans activist who helped lead the uprising, had her biography altered to say she fought for “gay and rights”—a revision that’s not only historically dishonest but grammatically incoherent. The censorship of transgender people from public-facing websites wasn’t the only executive action met with broad public disapproval. The Trump administration’s push to ban transgender healthcare is also deeply unpopular. When asked which statement they agreed with more, a clear majority—55%—said that “families and physicians should be the ones making decisions about transgender youth medical care, not the government,” while just 33% supported government bans on “gender-related care for trans youth.” Among respondents who personally know a transgender person, support for gender affirming care jumped to 65%, with only 30% favoring government intervention.

A Data For Progress poll conducted between March 14th and 21st reveals that the majority of Americans oppose Tyrant 47’s efforts to erase trans people in both online material and in policies, such as the gender-affirming care ban and transgender military ban executive orders.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

BREAKING: Judge reinstates nationwide stop to Trump’s trans military ban

“This litigation is not about a medical condition. A medical condition has not given its country decades of military service…People have. Tr

Christopher Wiggins at The Advocate:

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to lift a court order blocking its transgender military ban, reinstating a preliminary injunction that protects active-duty and prospective service members from discharge. U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes denied the Department of Justice’s emergency motion to dissolve the injunction she issued last week in Talbott v. United States, which halted enforcement of Executive Order 14183 and related Pentagon guidance targeting service members with a diagnosis or history of gender dysphoria. Reyes had paused the implementation of her preliminary injunction, which was scheduled to take effect Friday at 10:01 a.m. The judge said she would allow the administration time to appeal. The DOJ responded with a filing last Friday claiming the Pentagon had issued new guidance limiting the policy to service members with a current medical condition, and not all transgender people. But Reyes was unconvinced. She reaffirmed her finding that the Department of Defense’s justification for the ban was based on pretext and anti-trans animus. Attorneys for the plaintiffs—represented by GLAD Law and the National Center for Lesbian Rights—said in court that the government’s filing was a last-minute “shenanigan” meant to delay compliance and mislead appellate courts. The administration had argued that newly issued “Military Department Identification Guidance” narrowed the ban to apply only to service members with a current medical condition and not all transgender people. But Reyes rejected that claim as “unpersuasive,” writing in a blistering 16-page ruling that the government’s arguments “did not sway the Court before; regurgitating them with the MDI Guidance is equally unpersuasive.” “Gender dysphoria is not like other medical conditions, something Defendants well know,” Reyes wrote. “It affects only one group of people: all persons with gender dysphoria are transgender and only transgender persons experience gender dysphoria.” Reyes sharply criticized the government’s attempt to reframe the policy as a neutral medical regulation, writing, “This litigation is not about a medical condition. A medical condition has not given its country decades of military service… People have. Transgender people.”

Trump’s trans military ban is being halted nationwide once again. Good news. 🏳️‍⚧️

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Trump's anti-trans executive orders came straight out of Project 2025

The recent executive order banning trans women from women’s sports up to the Olympic level is the latest in Trump’s string of anti-trans man

Vesper Henry at MMFA:

The recent executive order banning trans women from women’s sports up to the Olympic level is the latest in Trump’s string of anti-trans mandates, which also seek to abolish legal gender recognition in favor of outdated definitions of sex and roll back Title IX protections established under Bostock v. Clayton County. Other orders declare transgender people unfit for military service and initiate restrictions on gender-affirming care for trans people under 19 years old. All of these policies were laid out in Project 2025, the “conservative promise” spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation and detailed in the initiative's policy book, Mandate for Leadership. In some cases, the language in the executive orders closely mirrors the language from Mandate on the topic. During his campaign, both Donald Trump and Fox News tirelessly worked to distance the candidate from Project 2025. But in the days after the election, right-wing media figures were quick to confirm what was already apparent to many observers: “Project 2025 is the agenda.” Just weeks into Trump’s second term, it appears they were right. 

Donald Trump’s anti-trans executive orders, such as those aimed at gender-affirming care, trans troops in the military, and trans women in women’s sports, echo Project 2025’s language (despite purporting to “disavow” Project 2025 during the campaign).