The federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Pentagon’s 2025 ban on gender-confused individuals serving in the military. In a 2-1 ruling, the court granted the Trump administration’s request to pause a district court injunction that had blocked the policy. Now the policy can take effect as the administration appeals the lower court’s decision.

Policies regarding gender-confused service members have swung open and closed in recent years under different presidential administrations. In 2018, the first Trump administration revoked an Obama-era policy tightening restrictions on gender-confused service members only for Biden to relax them again in 2021. Now, with the goal of restoring stricter standards, War Secretary Pete Hegseth recently reenacted the policy to advance “combat readiness, unit cohesion, and cost control.”

The “Hegseth Policy,” as the appeals court called it, stems from President Trump’s executive order Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness that stipulated troops must be able to “deploy, fight, and win” without the need of regular medical treatment or special provisions. The order concluded that individuals with “medical, surgical, or mental health constraints,” such as those with gender confusion, are “inconsistent” with the military’s necessary high standards. According to the court’s opinion, the Pentagon argued that gender confusion among troops adversely affects the military’s interests by impairing the ability of individuals to deploy (combat readiness), raises challenges with communal living spaces and sex-based physical standards (unit cohesion), and cost the Pentagon $52 million on medical procedures from 2015-2024 (cost control).

Authoring the majority opinion, Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas wrote that the lower court “afforded insufficient deference” to the judgment of military leaders and that the “Hegseth Policy is likely constitutional” for it “furthers legitimate military interests.”

Amidst all the factors of the case, the court determined that recognizing the differences between the sexes was perfectly constitutional.  

“Distinctions like these—keyed to biological differences between the sexes—are unquestionably constitutional,” wrote Judge Katsas. Barring gender-confused individuals is not a violation of equal protection because “there is no constitutional right for…biological males who identify as female to live, sleep, shower, and train with biological females.”

The court also cited United States v. Skrmetti, a U.S. Supreme Court precedent from June 2025. Skrmetti allows states to restrict using hormones to treat gender confusion in minors because the restriction “classifies on the basis of medical use” and not sex whereby it does not discriminate based on gender status.

“The same reasoning would seem to cover the Hegseth Policy, which classifies based on the medical condition of gender [confusion],” wrote Judge Katsas.

The court also noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has already paused a different lower court injunction in May 2025 that similarly aimed to stop the military from adopting this policy.

“…the Supreme Court already has held that the government is likely to succeed on its contention that the Hegseth Policy does not violate equal protection,” wrote Judge Katsas.

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The D.C. Court of Appeals ruling affirms that the Equal Protection Clause does not require the armed forces to disregard its legitimate medical standards that are essential for mission success. The ‘Hegseth Policy’ is grounded in objective medical criteria and the natural differences between the sexes to ensure that every service member is fully prepared—physically and mentally—to meet the challenges of defending our nation. Gender confusion is associated with significant social impairment, distress, and medical needs, and the military environment leaves no room for such conditions that could compromise performance in high pressure situations.”