A recent headline made waves online: “Court Upholds Trump’s Ban on Transgender Troops.” Some people claimed it was unfair, while others said it was about keeping the military strong. So, what’s the real story? Let’s take a closer look at what happened, what the court actually said, and why this matters.
First, here’s what the news is about: A federal appeals court in Washington, DC, just ruled in favor of a Pentagon policy that stops people diagnosed with gender dysphoria from serving in the U.S. military—unless they get a special waiver. The decision came after a lower court judge, Ana Reyes, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, tried to block the Trump administration’s policy earlier this year.
The appeals court disagreed with Judge Reyes. In a 2-1 decision, the judges said that the lower court didn’t show enough respect for the military’s own judgment. In other words, the judges believed that military leaders—not judges—should decide who is fit to serve.
The policy at the center of this case was put in place earlier this year by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, under President Trump. It says that people with gender dysphoria, a medical condition where someone feels distress because they believe their gender identity doesn’t match their body, cannot join or serve in the military unless they get a waiver.
This isn’t the first time the rules have changed. Back in 2016, under President Obama, the military started allowing transgender individuals to serve. That changed in 2018 when President Trump first limited it. Then in 2021, President Biden relaxed the rules again. Now, in 2025, President Trump has brought back the restrictions, saying it’s about keeping the military strong, focused, and ready to fight.
Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, who wrote the majority opinion, said the military needs to have strict medical standards. They pointed out that gender dysphoria can cause serious mental health struggles, and that people diagnosed with it are often not able to deploy or serve in combat situations. The judges also said that the military looked at many studies before making its decision.
One important point the judges made was that courts shouldn’t second-guess the military on matters like combat readiness and unit cohesion. They said that Judge Reyes used the wrong legal standard and made her own judgment instead of respecting the military’s expertise.
Judge Reyes had claimed that the policy was based on bias against transgender people. But the appeals court strongly rejected that idea. They said that the military’s decision was based on facts, medical research, and the needs of the armed forces—not on hatred or discrimination.
In January, President Trump signed an executive order explaining the policy. He said the military must only accept people who are physically and mentally fit to serve in tough conditions. He also said that the military should not have to make special accommodations that could hurt its ability to fight and win wars.
The court agreed. They said the Pentagon gave more than enough reasons for its policy. They looked at older reviews from the Trump-era Secretary of Defense James Mattis, a 2021 study that showed many people with gender dysphoria couldn’t be deployed, and a newer 2025 review that found little evidence that popular treatments helped improve readiness.
This ruling doesn’t mean transgender people are banned entirely—it means that people diagnosed with gender dysphoria can’t serve unless they get a waiver. It’s all about making sure that military members are ready for the physical and mental demands of service.
In short, the appeals court decision was not about politics—it was about deferring to military leaders who say they need to keep the force strong, focused, and ready for anything. The court made it clear: the military gets to set the rules to keep America safe.