{"id":195781,"date":"2026-08-20T17:00:12","date_gmt":"2026-08-20T17:00:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/195781\/"},"modified":"2026-08-20T17:00:12","modified_gmt":"2026-08-20T17:00:12","slug":"hegseth-uses-transphobic-slur-while-campaigning-for-iowa-congressman","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/195781\/","title":{"rendered":"Hegseth uses transphobic slur while campaigning for Iowa congressman"},"content":{"rendered":"

While many eyes are on the U.S. Supreme Court awaiting the verdicts in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox,<\/a> another court case involving transgender rights is unfolding less than a mile away at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia \u2014 one that could have lasting implications for transgender military personnel.<\/p>\n

In January 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14183, titled \u201cPrioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,\u201d<\/a> directing the Pentagon to prohibit transgender, nonbinary, and gender-nonconforming people from serving in the military.<\/p>\n

The Trump-Vance administration and Defense Department argued that trans people are inherently incapable of meeting the military\u2019s \u201chigh standards of readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity,\u201d citing a history or signs of gender dysphoria. According to the Pentagon this creates \u201cmedical, surgical, and mental health constraints on [an] individual.\u201d Regardless of their physical or intellectual capabilities, transgender applicants are now considered less qualified than their cisgender peers.<\/p>\n

Almost immediately after the executive order was signed, LGBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law) and the National Center for LGBTQ Rights filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the order.<\/a> The plaintiffs argue the Trump administration acted with discriminatory animus and violated the Equal Protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.<\/p>\n

The case \u2014 originally filed as Talbott v. Trump and now restyled as Talbott v. USA<\/a> \u2014 includes six active-duty service members and two individuals seeking to enlist. Currently, there are 28 plaintiffs in total, including the two still attempting to enlist.<\/p>\n

On June 1 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit blocked the military ban for active-duty trans service members<\/a>. The three-judge panel ruled 2-1 that Trump\u2019s executive order was illegal \u2014 created with the intent to exclude people from military service based on their gender identity.<\/p>\n

The Washington Blade spoke with Michael Haley, a staff attorney at GLAD Law who is part of the legal team challenging the ban and seeking to protect the constitutional rights of transgender service members. Haley previously served as an assistant attorney general in the New Hampshire Department of Justice and as a law clerk for the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire.<\/p>\n

Asked why the D.C. Circuit\u2019s ruling blocking the ban \u2014 issued on the first day of Pride month \u2014 was so significant, Haley said the decision is about protecting the constitutional rights of trans people that have been under attack since the beginning of the Trump-Vance administration.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think it\u2019s hard to understate the importance of that order, because what is really significant is that the ban is based entirely on the administration\u2019s dislike of transgender people, and not based on any real concerns about lethality and unit cohesion,\u201d Haley said. \u201cThe circuit court went through in pretty good detail, identifying all the ways in which it\u2019s clear that the administration is doing this to harm transgender people, and not for any kind of real military benefit. It\u2019s a really striking and important decision that shows all of our plaintiffs have been serving with distinction, earning medals and commendations, and the fact that they are transgender does not factor into the equation.\u201d<\/p>\n

On Tuesday, the plaintiffs will ask the court to certify the lawsuit as a class action on behalf of all trans service members affected by the military ban. Asked what class certification would accomplish, Haley said it would allow future rulings in Talbott to apply not only to the named plaintiffs but to all trans service members covered by the case.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe class certification, if the court approves it \u2014 and we\u2019re hopeful that it will \u2014 will mean that any final judgment that comes out of this case will apply not just to our named plaintiffs, but to all transgender service members serving. Simply certifying a class does not necessarily change things on the ground for folks now, but it will ensure that our final judgment, or future judgments within this proceeding, apply to everybody and not just the named plaintiffs.\u201d<\/p>\n

Haley said the current legal landscape has created significant uncertainty for trans troops, leaving many unsure of their futures \u2014 both those serving stateside and those stationed overseas.<\/p>\n

\u201cUnfortunately, there\u2019s just really not a lot of transparency around how the government is implementing the ban,\u201d he said. \u201cWe are hearing from service members, including our own plaintiffs, who are receiving notices that they are going to be put before separation boards, but we have no insight into their timing, their decisions for who they notify, when and why, or how they are viewing the D.C. Circuit\u2019s order. We\u2019re going to have to wait for a little bit more of the court process to happen before we can speak with any certainty.\u201d<\/p>\n

Asked whether the case could eventually reach the Supreme Court \u2014 as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth suggested in a post on X<\/a> \u2014\u00a0Haley said the central constitutional question is whether the policy is rooted in discriminatory animus.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt will be extremely hard for any court to deny that a policy that identifies a group of people and calls them dishonest, lacking integrity, and lacking a warrior spirit \u2014 in spite of all the evidence \u2014 is motivated by animus. That\u2019s an argument under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, which says everybody is entitled to equal protection of the laws and forbids singling out a group of people and treating them disfavorably just because you don\u2019t like them rather than because of some legitimate purpose \u2026 I think that\u2019s going to be the central question.\u201d<\/p>\n

Haley also explained how the current policy differs from the trans military ban Trump announced in 2017.<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cThe first thing goes back to that same question of animus. The D.C. Circuit recognized that this time around, the policy on its face calls transgender people dishonorable and lacking integrity and things like that. We did not have as clear evidence as we do this time around that this is not actually about military readiness \u2014 it is about trying to harm transgender people.\u201d<\/p>\n

Haley echoed that view, arguing the administration\u2019s \u201cupdated\u201d policy is aimed at excluding trans people rather than improving military readiness.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe fact that they are trying to push out people who are serving simply because they\u2019re transgender goes to show that this is about harming that group rather than making sure the military can function,\u201d Haley said.<\/p>\n

He said the current policy is significantly broader, affecting active-duty trans service members rather than primarily those seeking to enlist.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe other major difference is how this ban is treating folks who are serving. The last time around, those who were already serving were allowed to continue serving and the ban only applied to people seeking to join the military. This time around, the ban is going further and trying to push out people who are serving with distinction and performing to standards, which is just more evidence that this is not about any actual military benefit.\u201d<\/p>\n

Haley also outlined the two categories of evidence GLAD Law has presented to the court to challenge the administration\u2019s claims that trans service members undermine military readiness.<\/p>\n

\u201cOne [type of] evidence about these individual service members \u2014 they have served on nuclear submarines, flown Navy planes, reached ranks requiring Senate confirmation, served as field medics, and continue to excel in extremely demanding roles,\u201d he said. \u201cThe other category is testimony from high-ranking military personnel who oversaw the inclusion policy and saw transgender people serving without any of the concerns the government now claims.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThese are people who have to meet the standards just like anybody else, and if they meet the standards, they should be able to continue to serve. We had four years under the previous administration implementing that policy without any of the issues the government now claims, and that\u2019s pretty strong evidence that it was working.\u201d<\/p>\n

Asked about the human toll of the policy \u2014 and the thousands of trans service members who have been forced out of the military or are uncertain about their futures \u2014 Haley said those personal stories have become a driving force behind the legal challenge.<\/p>\n

\u201cI have really heard stories of lives torn apart. These are people who, in some cases since they were children, dreamed of serving, achieved extremely high levels within the military, built their lives around it, built their families around it, and have now been sitting in limbo for more than a year not really knowing what\u2019s coming next.\u201d<\/p>\n

He said the disruption extends far beyond losing a job, affecting long-term careers, financial security, and retirement plans.<\/p>\n

\u201cFor those who have left, they have left a life where they had known no other type of career. In many cases they had served for long periods and were planning on availing themselves of the military benefits they had earned through long-term service, and because they were pushed out too soon, they are now having to reorder both their short-term and long-term lives.\u201d<\/p>\n

Haley also described service members stranded overseas, unable to return home or continue serving while they wait for the legal process to play out.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe know of people who are effectively stranded on bases overseas, unable to come home but also unable to serve, and are just waiting for this to move forward so they can see their families again, whatever the outcome. It\u2019s been really devastating, especially for a group of people who raised their hand to serve and protect.\u201d<\/p>\n

Asked what trans service members should take away from the upcoming class certification hearing, Haley encouraged them to stay informed through organizations such as SPARTA Pride<\/a>, a nonprofit organization representing trans service members, veterans, their families, and allies.<\/p>\n

\u201cUntil we get an order from a court saying, \u2018This is what\u2019s next,\u2019 it\u2019s hard for us to guess, and we certainly don\u2019t want to send folks in the wrong direction. Folks should follow organizations like GLAD Law, NCLR, and SPARTA because they\u2019re providing day-to-day updates as these developments happen.\u201d<\/p>\n

Second Lt. Nicolas \u201cNic\u201d Talbott, U.S. Army, one of the plaintiffs in the case, spoke with the Blade last year<\/a> about what it has been like to be a capable and willing service member stripped of his career because of the policy.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s very empowering to be able to stand up, not only for myself, but for the other transgender service members out there who have done nothing but serve with honor and dignity and bravery,\u201d Talbott told the Blade. \u201cThere are no documented cases that I\u2019m aware of of a transgender person having a negative impact on unit cohesion simply by being transgender \u2026 Being transgender is just another one of those walks of life.\u201d<\/p>\n

Talbott added that a more diverse military is ultimately a stronger military because it brings together people with different backgrounds and perspectives to solve complex problems.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think the more diverse our military is, the stronger our military is \u2026 We need people from all different experiences and all different perspectives, because somebody is going to see that challenge or that problem in a way that I would never even think of \u2026 and that is what we need more of in the U.S. military.\u201d<\/p>\n

SPARTA Executive Director Kara Corcoran, an Army infantry officer with 18 years of service who is currently being separated under the trans military ban, said the upcoming class certification hearing could determine whether relief extends beyond the named plaintiffs.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen the D.C. Circuit Court recently ruled to affirm Talbott v. USA\u2019s preliminary injunction, SPARTA Pride was relieved to see their powerful conclusion: that this policy was not based on any evidence, but in unconstitutional animus toward transgender people,\u201d Corcoran said in a statement to the Blade. \u201cHowever, the post-CASA climate meant what was originally a universal injunction now only benefited the small number of active duty plaintiffs. This limited scope left behind the thousands of other transgender service members whose rights were also violated. Certifying the case as a class action would ensure that an ultimately positive outcome in litigation would apply to all patriots impacted by the discriminatory policy \u2014 not just the few dozen who signed on to be plaintiffs last year.\u201d<\/p>\n

Corcoran said the hearing carries implications far beyond the trans military community, arguing that the case could shape how courts respond when constitutional protections are challenged.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe entire transgender military community and their families are waiting with profound anticipation and hope for the court\u2019s decision, knowing it could determine the future of their military careers, their livelihoods, and their families. But the gravity of tomorrow\u2019s hearing reaches far beyond those directly affected. It will serve as a test of whether our government will uphold its constitutional duty when another branch openly discriminates against a marginalized group of Americans who answered the call to serve with self-sacrifice, honor, and integrity. This is not simply about transgender service members \u2014 it is about the precedent the judicial system sets for every American when equal treatment under the law is challenged.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Blade also reached out to the White House regarding this ongoing situation. <\/p>\n

\u201cPresident Trump and Secretary Hegseth are restoring a military that is focused on readiness and grounded in scientific reality\u2014not gender ideology,\u201d said Anna Kelly, Principal Deputy Press Secretary said in an email.<\/p>\n

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is scheduled to hold the class certification hearing on Tuesday at 2 p.m. ET.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"While many eyes are on the U.S. Supreme Court awaiting the verdicts in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":195782,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[120],"tags":[3372,12,1777,7543,58393,18293,86451,86442,87580,18,536,52376,8734,87581,5521,58399,22035],"class_list":["post-195781","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-pete-hegseth","tag-district-of-columbia","tag-donald-trump","tag-featured","tag-gay","tag-homepage-headlines","tag-iowa","tag-iowa-capital-dispatch","tag-iowa-state-fair","tag-jrs-southpork-ranch","tag-pete-hegseth","tag-supreme-court","tag-the-blade","tag-transgender","tag-trump-vance-administration","tag-united-states-department-of-defense","tag-washington-blade","tag-zach-nunn"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@people\/117128910116579790","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195781","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=195781"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195781\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/195782"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=195781"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=195781"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/people\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=195781"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}