Supreme Court allows Trump’s transgender military ban to take effect

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for President Donald Trump’s ban on transgender military service members to go into effect, even as legal challenges continue.

The decision, which split the court along ideological lines, means the administration can begin enforcing a policy that would presumptively disqualify transgender individuals from serving, potentially ending the careers of decorated officers. While the court gave no reason for its decision—a common occurrence in emergency orders—the three liberal justices dissented, saying the policy should remain on hold.

What does the ban do and who does it affect?

The backstory:

The ban stems from an executive order signed by Trump shortly after beginning his second term. It claims that the presence of transgender service members is incompatible with military discipline and readiness. A February policy directive from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave each branch of the military 30 days to figure out how to identify and remove transgender personnel.

Thousands of transgender people are estimated to be currently serving in the armed forces, with Pentagon data suggesting about 4,200 troops have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Legal filings from the plaintiffs include a Navy commander, Emily Shilling, who has nearly 20 years of service and flew combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The policy allows no exceptions, even for those who transitioned under earlier, more inclusive rules established during the Obama administration and briefly reinstated under President Biden.

Why is this happening now?

Timeline:

Trump reintroduced the transgender ban via executive order in January 2025, as part of a broader rollback of LGBTQ+ rights in his second term. Three federal judges had blocked the policy, including a nationwide injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle in Washington state. Settle ruled in favor of seven transgender service members, citing the lack of evidence that their service had caused any disruption.

FILE - A U.S. military uniform displays the American flag patch as new policy changes reignite debate over transgender service members.  (Photo by CHRISTOF STACHE/AFP via Getty Images)

The administration appealed, and when a federal appeals court refused to lift Settle’s injunction, the Justice Department brought the case to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, other lower court rulings are pending, including a New Jersey judge’s order preventing the Air Force from removing two transgender airmen.

What they're saying:

Defense Secretary Hegseth made his views on the matter clear. Speaking to a special operations conference in Tampa before the court’s decision was announced, he said, "No more pronouns. No more dudes in dresses. We’re done with that s—-." After the court acted, he posted on X: "No More Trans @ DoD."

LGBTQ rights organizations condemned the ruling. "By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice," Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign said in a joint statement. "Transgender individuals meet the same standards and demonstrate the same values as all who serve."

What's next:

The federal appeals court in San Francisco will hear the administration’s broader appeal, a process that will likely stretch over several months. In the meantime, the Supreme Court’s decision allows the ban to remain in force.

Legal experts note that although Tuesday’s order is not a final ruling on the policy’s constitutionality, it significantly impacts those currently serving—and those hoping to enlist.

Why you should care:

Transgender military service members have been able to serve openly at various points over the past decade, depending on shifting federal policy. The sudden reinstatement of a ban has wide-reaching implications—not only for thousands of troops but for broader LGBTQ+ rights.

The Trump administration’s argument hinges on discipline and cohesion, but opponents say the ban is rooted in stigma and ignores the service of qualified individuals who have already proven themselves under fire.