The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has been accused of using “childish name-calling” and deliberate misgendering in its legal response to a challenge against President Donald Trump’s ban on transgender military service.
On Friday, 1 August, the DOJ filed its opposition to Talbott v. United States, a lawsuit brought by GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) and the National Centre for Lesbian Rights (NCLR). The case, on behalf of several trans servicemembers, challenges the Trump administration’s January executive order that bans transgender people from serving openly in the U.S. military.
“A Male Who Identifies as a Female”
Rather than acknowledging the genders of the trans servicemembers, the DOJ repeatedly referred to trans women in the case as “males who identify as female” and trans men as “females who identify as male.”
The DOJ also argued the plaintiffs are not entitled to relief, claiming they “have failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted” and that they “have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies.”
This language directly contradicts official documentation for lead plaintiff Nicolas Talbott, who told The Advocate:
“It’s difficult for me to understand the defence’s statement that I am a female, which contradicts all of my government documentation, such as my licence, passport, social security card, and birth certificate.”
“The statements in this filing do not align with the promise to treat us (transgender service members) with dignity and respect throughout this process.”
Accusations of Bias and Misrepresentation
The lawsuit claims Trump’s ban violates the Equal Protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by discriminating on the basis of sex and transgender status.
“Rather than being based on any legitimate governmental purpose, the ban reflects animosity toward transgender people,” the filing says. “The categorical exclusion of transgender people from military service lacks a rational basis, is arbitrary, and cannot be justified by sufficient federal interests.”
However, the DOJ continues to assert the policy is based on a medical diagnosis—gender dysphoria—rather than transgender status. A February Pentagon memo claimed that people with a current diagnosis or history of gender dysphoria are incompatible with the mental and physical demands of military service.
“Absurd Attempt to Pretend We Don’t Exist”
Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Centre for Lesbian Rights and attorney on the case, called the DOJ’s approach:
“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.”
In March, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the ban from taking effect. During proceedings, she described Trump’s rationale—particularly the claim that using gender-affirming pronouns harms unit cohesion—as “frankly ridiculous” and evidence of “unadulterated animus” towards transgender people.
However, the Supreme Court in May allowed the ban to proceed during ongoing legal battles in a separate case, Schilling v. Trump.
Trans Soldiers Stay Focused
Despite the legal setbacks and misgendering, Talbott remains focused on serving his country.
“At the end of the day, it’s all just words,” he 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.”
Minter praised the resilience of Talbott and his fellow plaintiffs:
“They’ve faced and overcome far greater challenges than this childish name-calling from the federal government.”
