US defense secretary Pete Hegseth on Saturday took a sharp jab at US district judge Ana Reyes, who recently ruled against the Pentagon’s ban on transgender troops, sarcastically suggesting she should report to military bases since she is now a “top military planner.”
Reyes issued a preliminary injunction last week, blocking the enforcement of US President Donald Trump’s executive order, which prohibited transgender individuals from serving in the US military. The order, signed on January 27, argued that identifying with a gender different from one’s biological sex was incompatible with the discipline and standards required for military service. It also instructed the department of defense to update its medical and pronoun policies accordingly.
The judge, however, criticised the language of the executive order, calling it “unabashedly demeaning” and arguing that it “stigmatises transgender persons as inherently unfit.” In her ruling, Reyes said that the policy likely violated constitutional rights and emphasized the contributions of transgender service members.
Hegseth took to the social media platform X to mock the ruling. “Since ‘Judge’ Reyes is now a top military planner, she/they can report to Fort Benning at 0600 to instruct our Army Rangers on how to execute High Value Target Raids… after that, Commander Reyes can dispatch to Fort Bragg to train our Green Berets on counterinsurgency warfare,” he wrote.
Reyes acknowledged the potential controversy surrounding her decision, noting that it would likely lead to public debate and legal appeals. “In a healthy democracy, both are positive outcomes,” she wrote. The judge also underscored the contributions of transgender troops, saying that many have risked their lives to uphold the very constitutional rights that the military ban seeks to deny them.
The Trump administration has announced plans to appeal the ruling, with Reyes delaying the enforcement of her order until Friday morning to allow time for legal proceedings. However, she stressed that avoiding constitutional violations is in the public’s best interest, while also noting that the administration had not demonstrated any significant burden in maintaining the status quo during the ongoing litigation.
