Chuck Schumer, the former head of the Senate’s minority, just acknowledged that he is in charge of confirming 235 “progressive” magistrates who are “ruling against Trump repeatedly.” Schumer’s Plan B is to use environmentalist courts.
Congress has the authority to decide coverage for the defense under Article I, Section 8. However, as things stand, unaccountable, unaccountable federal judges are robbing themselves of the authority to oversee the armed forces and overturning President Donald Trump’s professional orders.
President Joe Biden’s extreme policies regarding trans-identification in the war will continue indefinitely unless the 119th Congress intervenes.
Get Charge of Self-Ansigned” Supreme Judicial Commanders”
One of several executive orders signed by President Donald Trump, titled” Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” calls for a undistracted focus on the attitude of the military warriors rather than “political goals or other ideologies that harm product cohesion.
Executive Order 14168 ( Jan. 20 ) established a definition of biological reality, distinguishing between” sex” and “gender identity” from which subjective genders are defined, and affirming the existence of two immutable sexes, both male and female. Additionally, this EO forbids female access to women’s bathrooms, changing rooms, and bathing areas, and eliminates the use of erroneous invented pronouns and governmental markers that reflect gender identity that is personal rather than biological sex.
When applied to Defense plans involving people with a past of gender dysphoria or identifying as transgender, the reality-based rules stated above naturally justified the withdrawal of Biden’s orders to accommodate people with gender dysphoria or identifying as transgender in the military.
Trump’s executive orders and commands ended Biden-era demands and subsidies for catastrophic treatments and therapies for” transitioning” functions that attempt to change sex, and reinstated gender anxiety to the DOD list of physical and psychological conditions that affect enrollment to offer.
Trump’s executive orders protected vulnerable children from chemical and surgical mutilation based on” junk science” recommended by discredited “experts” like the World Professional Association for Transgender Health ( WPATH), as well as providing respectful treatment and generous benefits for those who leave the military for gender dysphoria.
Claims filed to stop Trump’s transgender and dysphoric plans
The directives and premises of Trump’s executive order regarding those diagnosed with gender dysphoria or identifying as transgender are challenged in three lawsuits ( Nicolas Talbott v. U. S. in Washington, D. C., Shilling v. Trump in Seattle, and Ireland v. Hegseth in New Jersey ).
In the Talbott situation, District Court Judge Ana C. Reyes issued a preliminary preliminary injunction that curbed Trump’s order’s application. Judge Reyes handled this situation with intense bias, which she described as the first gay Latina district judge in the United States. Her conduct toward the Justice Department prosecutor who was supporting Trump’s plan was so flagrantly angry that the attorney general’s office lodged a formal problem.
Not surprising, Judge Reyes ‘ March 18 view in the Talbott situation lashed out at Trump’s acknowledgement of only two women and fears about male/female physical privacy. Her sarcastic remarks may signal the start of a strategy B administrative lawfare campaign against Trump and his restoration of good military priorities.
As a result of a similar nationwide injunction in the Shilling case and a temporary restraining order in the Ireland case, as well as more negative rulings anticipated from various activist judges, Biden’s serious transgender policies could become permanent as various lawsuits make their way to an unpredictable Supreme Court.  ,  ,
Biden Policies Are Probably to Become Permanent Without Congress Action, and Will Be Abrupt.
Reyes ‘ intemperate language and obvious bias demonstrated why federal judges should not be making policy for our military, despite the 79-page Talbott opinion exploiting flaws in the government’s case.
Reyes disregarded, among other things, Defense Department data regarding the costs and effects of gender dysphoria treatments under the Obama administration. A DOD panel of experts reported to then-Defense Secretary James Mattis in 2018 that “994 active duty service members diagnosed with , gender dysphoria , accounted for , 30, 000 mental health visits” and that the medical expenses of service members who were diagnosed were close to triple those of members who did not have gender dysphoria.
Long-term studies that highlight the operational and human costs of gender dysphoria, including disproportionately high suicide risks, were included in the Mattis panel’s report.
Why haven’t these facts been updated? Perhaps because Biden’s policy forbids discussion of issues with the transgender policy without the approval of senior officials. Officials from the Biden administration are now praising their own policies in court and before Congress.
We’re not sure if the Justice Department, which represents the DOD, mentioned any empirical studies that have questioned lucrative treatments for gender dysphoria. For instance, a study from the University of Texas in 2025 reported higher rates of depression and suicide as a result of a so-called “gender-affirming surgery.”
WPATH, a well-known group that promotes mutilating procedures for minor children and irreversible puberty blockers, is not mentioned in the Reyes decision, which has been accused of violating medical ethics. The 2024 Cass Review in England, which questioned the benefits of” sex change” treatments for children, is not included in the record.
The judge would have likely still had referred to Trump’s policy as” soaked in animus and dripping with pretext,” even if the Justice Department had presented a number of recent critical studies in court.
Judge Reyes ‘ over-the-top opinion demonstrated no concern for operational issues, medical ethics, or the overwhelming public’s opposition to men entering women’s private facilities and playing on women’s athletic teams. The purpose of activist court injunctions that usurp power from Congress and the executive branch is to defy transgender ideology, not military effectiveness.
The Defense Bill ( NDAA ) for 2026 should be drafted with common sense by Congress.
Before the Supreme Court can decide in favor of the Trump policy, it may take years. In Congress’s favor, this means the ball is in the air.
Members of Congress could be held accountable for breaking their commitments made during the 2024 elections if they don’t take principled action that can withstand judicial scrutiny.
It would aid in establishing four fundamental tenets in the National Defense Authorization Act ( NDAA ) for 2026: merit as the sole basis for personnel actions, a ban on non-merit factors like race in personnel actions, limited exceptions for operational reasons, and precise definitions of key terms like “merit”, male, and “and” female.
Additionally, Congress should destroy ideological holdings at the Pentagon. President Trump’s efforts to end leftist policies in the military would be supported by discriminatory practices and common-sense, reality-based strategies that affirm the military’s objectives, which some federal judges disapprove of.
