U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes, a Biden appointee, recently issued a court order demanding greater transparency from the Pentagon in relation to its budget and policies, especially concerning the transgender military ban. In her order, Reyes raised several pointed questions to the Department of Defense (DoD), signaling her desire to scrutinize the financial impact of the military’s stance on transgender service members. This move follows a series of intense hearings in which the judge criticized the legal arguments made by the U.S. Department of Justice, which was defending the transgender ban in court.
Earlier in the case, Judge Reyes mocked the legal position taken by the DOJ, including a public rebuke that involved barring University of Virginia law school graduates from her courtroom, in a sarcastic response to the government’s arguments. The case centers around a request for a preliminary injunction from lead plaintiff, Nicolas Talbott, and seven others. They argue that the ban on transgender military service violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by discriminating based on sex and transgender status.
The DOJ has defended the policy by asserting that the Pentagon retains discretion under Executive Order 14183 and can craft policies that don’t apply universally to all transgender service members. However, the Pentagon’s actions have shifted toward aligning with former President Donald Trump’s policies, which rescinded several pro-transgender regulations put in place under the Biden administration. The Pentagon’s recent policy reiterates the view that transgender individuals with gender dysphoria are unsuitable for military service, with a few exceptions for specific cases. These include granting waivers for transgender recruits, allowing current transgender service members who meet certain criteria to remain in service, and permitting college students in the Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) to continue their training.
In light of these developments, Judge Reyes has now turned her focus to the financial details surrounding the Pentagon’s policies. She requested extensive information on the DoD’s budget over a ten-year period, from 2015 to 2024. The specific requests include the total amount spent per year by the DoD and the cumulative amount for that period. Of particular interest to Reyes is the spending on various medical services, including psychotherapy and surgical care for all service members. She seeks data on both general surgical care and elective procedures, such as gender-affirming surgeries. Additionally, Reyes has asked for links to publicly available documents that outline the DoD’s budget in detail for each of these years, which would provide insight into the specific allocation of resources for transgender-related medical care.
Although the focus on financial matters could be seen as an attempt to gather evidence about the impact of the transgender military policy, the judge did also direct some questions related to the policy’s broader implications. These included concerns about how the new policy might affect the plaintiffs in the case, particularly in terms of their ability to serve in the military under the current regulations.
Judge Reyes’ order reflects her desire to not only evaluate the constitutional merits of the transgender ban but also to understand the financial implications of such a policy. By seeking detailed budgetary information, the judge seems to be emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability from the Pentagon, especially in relation to how funds are being allocated for medical care and treatment for service members. The questions posed suggest that the judge views the financial context as a critical part of the ongoing legal analysis and may serve as an important factor in determining the outcome of the case.
