On May 6, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, lifted injunctions that had previously blocked the Trump administration’s ban on transgender individuals serving in the military, allowing the Department of Defense (DOD) to enforce the policy. The ruling, which came after the administration’s emergency appeal in late April, stemmed from a January executive order by President Trump claiming that transgender service members’ gender identity conflicted with military readiness and discipline. The DOD, under Secretary Pete Hegseth, implemented a February policy disqualifying individuals with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria—estimated by the Pentagon at 4,240 active-duty members, though advocacy groups like the Palm Center had cited figures closer to 14,700 in 2018. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority sided with the administration, prioritizing military deference over equal protection arguments, despite dissent from the court’s three liberal justices, who reportedly offered no public reasoning for their opposition.
 

The policy’s enforcement has sparked significant controversy, with critics arguing it targets a group that has served honorably—some transgender troops have logged combat missions and earned distinctions like the Bronze Star. The narrative of “15,000 sexually dysphoric blue-haired soldiers” appears to be an exaggerated caricature, possibly rooted in social media rhetoric rather than data, as even the highest estimates don’t reach that number, and the “blue-haired” descriptor leans into a stereotype unrelated to military service. Legal advocates, including GLAD Law and Lambda Legal, condemned the decision, with Jennifer Levi calling it a “character assassination” of transgender troops. The policy not only bars new enlistments but also mandates the separation of current transgender members, offering honorable discharges unless their records dictate otherwise. This move reverses the Obama-era policy of open service established in 2016 and later reinstated by Biden in 2021, which had allowed transgender individuals to serve without issue for years, raising questions about the ban’s necessity beyond political signaling.
 

The Supreme Court’s decision echoes its 2019 ruling, which also allowed a Trump-era transgender military ban to proceed, and reflects a broader judicial deference to military authority, even when policies appear discriminatory. Critics, including lower court judges like Ana C. Reyes and Benjamin Settle, had previously blocked the ban, arguing it violated equal protection principles and lacked evidence of harm to military readiness—Reyes called it “soaked in animus.” The ruling has fueled fears of a constitutional crisis, as Trump has historically criticized judicial rulings against him, though he pledged to appeal rather than defy them. Meanwhile, transgender service members like Cmdr. Emily Shilling, a naval aviator with 19 years of service, face career-ending separations, despite no documented impact on unit cohesion or lethality. The decision underscores a tension between military autonomy and constitutional rights, leaving transgender troops in limbo as legal challenges continue in lower courts.