New York Attorney General Letitia James and a coalition of 20 other attorneys general filed a legal brief on Wednesday in support of transgender service members, challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order banning transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military.
The new executive order mandates the discharge of transgender service members and bars future recruits based solely on their gender identity.
The amicus brief, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, backs a group of current and prospective service members seeking a preliminary injunction to block the administration from enforcing the ban, according to a press release.
The attorneys general, including from Arizona, California and Colorado, argue that the order is unconstitutional, weakens national security and discriminates against transgender individuals who serve in the military, including members of the National Guard.
James said the executive order was an exclusionary policy that wrongfully targets the transgender community despite fighting for the protection of all Americans.
"All service members deserve our utmost gratitude for their bravery and sacrifice. We should be honoring their commitment, not degrading it with exclusionary policies," said James. "This ban cruelly targets the transgender Americans who have dedicated their lives to protecting our freedoms. I want transgender service members and veterans to know that we see you, we respect you, and we will always fight for you. Your service is invaluable, and we will not allow this bigoted attack to diminish your service to our country."
Trump’s executive order, titled “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” was issued Jan. 27 and directs the Secretary of Defense to enforce restrictions on transgender people in the armed forces.
James and her colleagues contend that the order violates the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection and due process clauses. They also warn that the policy would diminish military effectiveness and harm state emergency and disaster response efforts by reducing the number of experienced and qualified soldiers.
About 150,000 veterans, active-duty service members, and National Guard or Reserve members identify as transgender.
The military has twice reviewed the issue and determined that allowing transgender individuals to serve openly aligns with the nation’s best interests. James and the coalition argue that reinstating the ban lacks justification based on cost, unit cohesion or overall readiness.
The attorneys general further assert that the ban endangers public safety. The National Guard plays a crucial role in state security and disaster response, and excluding transgender individuals could hinder recruitment and operational effectiveness.
They note that when the longstanding ban on transgender service was lifted in 2016, and again when Trump’s first attempt to reinstate it was overturned in 2021, openly transgender National Guard members continued to serve without disrupting operations.
