DOJ denies existence of transgender people in stunning court filing defending Trump’s military ban
In a stunning 44-page court filing Friday, the U.S. Department of Justice denied the gender identities of every transgender plaintiff challenging the Trump administration’s military ban and went further, misgendering each of them and casting doubt on their military service records.
Filed in Washington, D.C., federal district court, Talbott v. United States, the government’s response refers to the 32 plaintiffs only as “trans-identifying individuals.” It explicitly rejects their genders, stating, “Defendants deny that Plaintiff [Second Lieutenant Nicolas] Talbott is a man. Plaintiff Talbott is a female who identifies as a male.” In one section, the filing even questions whether some plaintiffs served “with distinction.”
The challenged policy, reinstated by Trump’s Executive Order 14183 in January, categorically bars people with a diagnosis or history of gender dysphoria from serving in the U.S. military. The Department of Defense claims the exclusion is medically justified, arguing that gender dysphoria and its treatment might impair deployability. Evidence presented in court so far has demonstrated the opposite. The Justice Department insists the ban is “not based on transgender status per se,” but on a medical condition it says poses operational risks. According to court documents, transgender military members diagnosed with gender dysphoria were more deployable than their cisgender counterparts who were diagnosed with depression.
“It’s difficult for me to understand the defense’s statement that I am a female, which contradicts all of my government documentation, such as my license, passport, social security card, and birth certificate,” Talbott told The Advocate. “The statements in this filing do not align with the promise to treat us (transgender service members) with dignity and respect throughout this process.”
Shannon Minter, Talbott’s attorney and the legal director at the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, agreed. “This is part of the administration’s absurd attempt to purge highly skilled and dedicated service members simply because they are transgender while simultaneously pretending that transgender people don’t exist,” Shannon Minter, legal director at the National Center for LGBTQ Rights and an attorney for the plaintiffs, told The Advocate.
The government’s framing has failed to convince multiple courts. In March, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes halted the ban nationwide, finding it “soaked in animus” and unlikely to survive constitutional scrutiny. A D.C. appeals court is expected to rule on an injunction she issued that has been stayed. A similar case, Shilling v. United States, reached the U.S. Supreme Court in May, where a majority of justices lifted an injunction and allowed the ban to take effect while litigation continues.
The filing is part of a broader effort to erase gender-expansive Americans from federal recognition. On his first day back in office, President Donald Trumpsigned an executive order declaring that the U.S. government would no longer recognize gender identities outside the male-female binary. That order directed agencies to purge references to gender identity across all federal programs and documents, impacting IDs, health care, education, housing, and prisons.
Plaintiffs in Talbott include Army Reservist Talbott, Army Maj. Erica Vandal and Airman recruit Clayton McCallister, all discharged or in limbo from service under the new rules, despite meeting military standards. Throughout the government’s August 1 brief, none are addressed with correct pronouns or acknowledged as the gender they live and serve in.
“At then end of the day, it’s all just words,” Talbott said. “When this filing was released, I was at my unit performing my duties, which is where I will be tomorrow. This has no impact on my abilities as a soldier or on my resilience.”
“These service members know who they are, and so does the government,” Minter added. “They are transgender men and women, and they have all faced and overcome far greater challenges than this kind of childish name-calling by the federal government.