An aerial view of the Pentagon on Oct. 28, 2018. (Photo by Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Quinn Hurt/Department of Defense)

WASHINGTON — A federal judge late Tuesday blocked President Donald Trump’s ban on transgender troops in the U.S. military, adding to the list of legal setbacks to the administration’s agenda.

U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia Ana Reyes ordered Trump’s Department of Defense to revert to military policy in place before he issued an executive order prohibiting openly transgender individuals from joining or continuing their service in the armed forces.

Trump’s executive order, signed in the late hours of Jan. 27, alleges the “adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.” Further, the order asserts that being transgender is “not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.”

The order reversed a 2021 policy that allowed transgender individuals to openly serve in the military.

In a 79-page opinion, Reyes criticized the administration for lack of data proving the claims in Trump’s order.

“Transgender persons have served openly since 2021, but Defendants have not analyzed their service. That is unfortunate. Plaintiffs’ service records alone are Exhibit A for the proposition that transgender persons can have the warrior ethos, physical and mental health, selflessness, honor, integrity, and discipline to ensure military excellence,” Reyes wrote.

Reyes’ order goes into effect Friday at 10 a.m. Eastern.

Reyes’ ruling is among other recent court orders jamming the Trump administration’s legally questionable actions, including mass firings of federal workers and flying immigrants to El Salvador and Honduras under a wartime authority and in defiance of a judge’s court order.

Then-President Joe Biden nominated Reyes in 2023, and the Senate confirmed her in a 51-47 vote.

Trump aid blasts ruling

A representative for the Department of Justice said the ruling “is the latest example of an activist judge attempting to seize power at the expense of the American people” who elected Trump.

The DOJ has “vigorously defended” Trump and “will continue to do so,” according to the statement provided to States Newsroom attributed to an unnamed spokesperson.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller slammed the decision on social media Wednesday, saying federal judges have “assumed the mantle of Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security and Commander-in-Chief.”

“Each day, they change the foreign policy, economic, staffing and national security policies of the Administration,” Miller wrote on the social media platform X. “Each day the nation arises to see what the craziest unelected local federal judge has decided the policies of the government of the United States shall be. It is madness.”

Trump’s social media attack on a federal judge Tuesday prompted a rare rebuke from U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

Eight transgender active-duty service members and transgender individuals who are actively pursuing enlistment in the armed forces brought the case against the administration.

The plaintiffs have a combined 130 years of military service in wide ranging roles and numerous deployments around the world. One is currently deployed in an active combat zone, according to Reyes’ opinion.

The plaintiffs reside or are stationed in California, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, the District of Columbia and Wisconsin.

The Wisconsin Capitol on spring election day, April 7, 2020. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

Election administration experts say that President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to require that people prove their U.S. citizenship to register to vote is unlikely to survive legal challenges, but even if it did, it would not apply to Wisconsin’s April 1 election. 

On Tuesday, Trump signed the order that purports to pull federal funding from the Election Assistance Commission for states that do not require that voters prove their U.S. citizenship to vote in federal elections. The order also attempts to give Elon Musk’s DOGE access to states’ voter registration lists and gives the Department of Homeland Security the authority to verify the citizenship status of voters and make the prosecution of non-citizen voting a priority at the Department of Justice. The order also demands that election administrators use paper ballots or paper ballot trails.

In recent years, Trump and Republicans have become increasingly focused on alleged non-citizen voting. Since Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen, Republicans in Congress have worked to pass the SAVE Act, which contains similar provisions to the Trump order. Last year in Wisconsin, voters approved a Republican-authored constitutional amendment to prevent non-citizens from voting in local, state or federal elections — despite it already being against the law for non-citizens to vote. 

Voting rights advocates have frequently cautioned that the provisions included in the Trump order and the SAVE act would potentially disenfranchise millions of married American women who have a different last name on their current ID than on proof of citizenship documents like a birth certificate. Estimates say this could prevent more than 69 million women from voting. 

“Let’s keep it real: this order is not about protecting elections; it is about making it harder for voters — particularly women voters — to participate in them,” Celina Stewart, Chief Executive Officer of the League of Women Voters of the United States, said in a statement. “This executive order is an assault on our republic and a dangerous attempt to silence American voters. The President continues to overstep his authority and brazenly disregard settled law in this country. To be very clear — the League of Women Voters is prepared to fight back and defend our democracy.”

Trump issued the order just one week before Wisconsin’s April 1 election and days after he endorsed Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel in the race for a seat on the state Supreme Court. 

“President Donald Trump’s sudden, overbroad and sweeping executive order issued yesterday, just one week before Wisconsin’s nationally important and closely watched State Supreme Court election on April 1st is likely unconstitutional and destined to be rejected by federal and state courts and the U.S. Congress in part or completely,” Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause Wisconsin said after the order’s release. Heck also sent out a press release telling Wisconsin voters that the order does not apply to the April 1 election.

Ann Jacobs, the Democratic chair of the Wisconsin Elections Commission, wrote on social media that there are a number of reasons why the order won’t apply to the election next week. The order only applies to federal elections and there are no federal offices on the ballot — only elections for state and local offices. And the order is not set to go into effect for 30 days, long after April 1. 

Jacobs also said that the order focuses on provisions on the National Voting Rights Act (NVRA). Also known as the “Motor voter” law, the NVRA requires most states to offer people the ability to register to vote at state motor vehicle agencies, by mail or at certain state or local offices. The law also requires states to maintain up-to-date voter registration lists. 

Wisconsin is one of six states that is exempt from the NVRA because it allows people to register to vote in-person at the polls on Election Day, so, Jacobs said, any provisions of the Trump order purporting to use the authority of the NVRA aren’t applicable to Wisconsin. Jacobs also pointed out that Wisconsin is prohibited from even using an NVRA-specific voter registration form because of a Waukesha County court ruling against its use. 

Jacobs added that Wisconsin already uses paper ballots or paper voting trails to keep a record of every ballot cast in the state. 

“It is disappointing that the federal government is attempting to make people worry about voting this close to an important election,” Jacobs wrote. “I hope this is not a ham-fisted attempt to shore up a failing bid for the [Wisconsin Supreme Court] by the candidate currently behind in the polls.”