Politics
Column: Trump's latest cruel attempt to ban transgender troops won't survive without a fight
The Trump administration‘s policies are built on a foundation of lies: Millions of foreign criminals and mentally ill people illegally stream across our borders. Doctors abort babies after they are born. Tariffs won’t drive up costs for American consumers. American taxpayers buy condoms for Hamas. Transgender service members undermine the armed forces.
Based on that last fiction, the Defense Department announced a ban on transgender troops Wednesday, following an executive order issued by President Trump in January.
“It directs the military to identify any service members who are transgender and then directs that all those will be put in separation proceedings,” said Jennifer Levi, senior counsel with GLAD Law, which along with the National Center for Lesbian Rights is suing to block the policy on behalf of six transgender service members. The plaintiffs say the policy violates the Constitution’s equal protection guarantees.
Although some have read the ban as making some exceptions, Levi said it does not.
“It specifically says that everyone in service has to serve in their birth sex,” she said. “You cannot be transgender in the military.”
Tell that to Sgt. 1st Class Kate Cole, a transgender woman who enlisted at 17 and has spent her entire adult life in the Army. Now 34, Cole, who is one of the plaintiffs asking the courts to stop enforcement of the transgender ban, has earned numerous medals for acts of heroism and meritorious service.
A marksman, she has been deployed to the mountains of eastern Afghanistan, the Baltic states and South Korea. Through it all, even during her transition, she never missed a day of training.
“We’re here, we’re serving honorably, we meet the standards and we just want to continue to serve,” she told me.
Cole said she had planned to leave the Army to transition at one point but decided to stay after reading in the Army Times that the military would study whether transgender troops could serve effectively. On the strength of that study‘s finding that transgender service members had no adverse impact on the military’s mission, then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter rescinded a ban on transgender troops in 2016.
“Although relatively few in number, we’re talking about talented and trained Americans who are serving their country with honor and distinction,” Carter said. “We invest hundreds of thousands of dollars to train and develop each individual, and we want to take the opportunity to retain people whose talent we’ve invested in and who have proven themselves.”
Since then, however, transgender service members have been treated like pingpong balls in a particularly cruel political game. Trump tried to ban them soon after he first took office in 2017. Lawsuits tied up his policy in various courts until President Biden took office in 2021 and reversed course.
And now here we are again. Trump is back in office, and his administration, led by the feckless billionaire Elon Musk, appears hell-bent on inflicting as much misery as possible as it merrily guts the federal government.
Trump’s rationale for the ban is as misbegotten and insulting as his edict that there are only two sexes.
“Beyond the hormonal and surgical medical interventions involved,” Trump wrote in his executive order, “adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle. … A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.”
U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee in Washington, D.C., was not having it.
“To call an entire group of people lying, dishonest people who are undisciplined, immodest and have no integrity — how is that anything other than showing animus?” she asked a Justice Department lawyer during a recent hearing. (The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that laws based solely on animus — bias, dislike or disfavor of people simply because of who they are — do not pass constitutional muster.)
Reyes is expected to rule after a hearing scheduled for March 12. A second, similar request to stop the anti-trans policy was filed on behalf of seven other service members by LAMBDA Legal in Seattle. Multiple legal challenges to policies like this are not unusual; the issue is likely to end up before the Supreme Court.
No one knows for certain how many transgender individuals are serving. A 2014 study by UCLA’s Williams Institute put the number of transgender people on active duty or in the National Guard or reserve forces at around 15,000. A 2016 Rand study commissioned by the Defense Department estimated that about 1,300 to 6,600 transgender service members were on active duty, with about 800 to 4,200 in the reserves. At least 18 countries, including Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Canada and Australia, allow transgender people to serve openly.
Whatever the actual number here in the United States, it is vanishingly small considering that the overall force comprises some two million troops.
“You and I both agree that the greatest fighting force that world history has ever seen is not going to be impacted in any way by less than 1 percent of the soldiers using a different pronoun than others might want to call them. Would you agree to that?” Judge Reyes asked Justice Department lawyer Jason Lynch.
“No, your honor,” Lynch replied. “I can’t agree with that.”
Sgt. Cole, who paid for her own transition, is currently stationed in Los Angeles, teaching tactics and leadership to ROTC students at UCLA, preparing them to become junior lieutenants. She hopes to retire in 2027 and move to Colorado to work as a climbing guide.
If she is kicked out of the Army before completing her 20 years of service, she stands to lose her $3,500 monthly pension. Thanks for your service, Sgt. Cole!
She does not generally discuss her gender identity or her role in the lawsuit, and even some of her friends have no idea she is trans.
“I’m proud of my service, and ultimately, I just want to continue to do my job,” Cole said. “I don’t want to be a symbol. I just want to do my job and exist.”
That is so little to ask. Doesn’t this country owe her that much?
Bluesky: @rabcarian.bsky.social. Threads: @rabcarian
Politics
Video: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers
new video loaded: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers
transcript
transcript
Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers
Senate Republicans voted against a Democratic bill that would have required President Trump to obtain congressional authorization to continue waging war against Iran.
-
“The yeas are 47. The nays are 53. The motion to discharge is not approved.” “President Trump decided to attack Iran. That decision was profound, deliberate and correct. The president understands the weight of war.” “Why is Donald Trump hellbent on making history repeat itself? Why is he plunging America headfirst into a war that Americans do not want, and which he cannot even explain? The American people deserve a say, and that is what our resolution is about.”
By Shawn Paik
March 5, 2026
Politics
DHS defends McLaughlin against allegations husband’s company profited millions from ad contracts: ‘Baseless’
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
EXCLUSIVE: Newly obtained financial statements shed light on claims that former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin’s husband’s company made millions from a DHS advertising campaign.
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem faced intense questioning during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, and Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., specifically called out the agency for contracting a public relations firm headed by McLaughlin’s husband, Benjamin Yoho.
“I have personally reviewed the allegations against Ms. McLaughlin, and I find them to be baseless,” DHS General Counsel James Percival told Fox News Digital. “Nothing illegal or unethical occurred with respect to these contracts. Ms. McLaughlin was not involved in selecting any subcontractors.
“She is, however, a superstar in the public affairs world, so I am not surprised that she married a successful businessman whose services were attractive to these outside firms.”
Newly obtained financial statements address allegations that former Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin’s husband’s firm improperly profited from a multimillion-dollar DHS ad campaign. Lawmakers pressed Secretary Kristi Noem over the contracts during a heated Senate hearing. (Jack Gruber/USA Today)
Kennedy alleged that Yoho’s firm, The Strategy Group, “got most of the money” out of what the Louisiana Republican senator says was $220 million in “television advertisements that feature [Noem] prominently.”
“I’m sorry,” Kennedy said. “Safe America Media was a company formed 11 days before you picked them. And that the Strategy Group got most of the money. And the head of that is married to your former spokesperson.”
“It’s just hard for me to believe knowing the president as I do, that you said, ‘Mr. President, here’s some ads I’ve cut, and I’m going to spend $220 million running them,’ that he would have agreed to that,” Kennedy explained. “I don’t think Russ Vought at OMB [Office of Management and Budget] would have agreed to that.”
‘YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED!’: PROTESTER DRAGGED FROM KRISTI NOEM’S SENATE HEARING
Senate scrutiny intensified over a DHS advertising campaign after Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., questioned whether a firm linked to McLaughlin’s husband benefited unfairly. DHS officials and the company deny any wrongdoing or multimillion-dollar profits. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
The Strategy Group is a conservative advertising agency for which Yoho serves as CEO.
Figures obtained by Fox News Digital show a slightly lesser total advertising expenditure of approximately $185 million, with a total of roughly $146.5 million going to a campaign called “Save America.”
However, of the total that went to “Save America,” roughly $348,000 went to production costs, while the remaining $142 million went to “media buys.”
Sources at DHS say that media buys are the cost of actually buying the ads themselves, whether purchased from social media or for a TV ad.
Kennedy also alleged that the bidding process for the contracts never took place and that Safe America Media’s recent founding was a cause for concern and collusion between McLaughlin and her husband’s business.
WATCH THE MOST VIRAL MOMENTS AS KRISTI NOEM’S HEARING GOES OFF THE RAILS
Debate over DHS’ “Save America” ad campaign intensified as senators challenged its costs and contractor ties, even as agency officials touted the initiative as a historic success in promoting self-deportation. (Graeme Sloan/Getty Images)
“Yes they did,” Noem responded during the hearing. “They went out to a competitive bid, and career officials at the department chose who would do those advertising commercials.”
The Strategy Group posted to X Tuesday that it never had a contract with the department. While it did receive several hundred thousand dollars for production costs associated with the advertising campaigns, The Strategy Group never made millions.
“The Strategy Group has never had a contract with DHS,” the post said. “We had a subcontract with Safe America [Media] for limited production services. Safe America paid us $226,137.17 total for 5 film shoots, 45 produced video advertisements and 6 produced radio advertisements.
DHS SPOKESWOMAN TRICIA MCLAUGHLIN TO LEAVE TRUMP ADMIN, SOURCE CONFIRMS
Critics raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest in a high-dollar DHS advertising effort, but department representatives say McLaughlin recused herself and that subcontracting decisions were made independently. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)
“If you’re going to try to question our integrity, bring actual evidence — we did,” the post concluded.
Because these ads were purchased using public funds, all contract totals are publicly available.
Lauren Bis, who took up the role of assistant secretary once McLaughlin left office, told Fox News Digital Tuesday that scrutiny from Republicans and Democrats over the advertising spending was unjustified because the campaigns resulted in “the most successful ad campaign in U.S. history.”
“Sanctuary politicians are attacking this ad campaign because it has been successful in CLOSING our borders and getting more than 2.2 million illegal aliens to LEAVE the U.S.,” Bis said.
“The DHS domestic and international ad campaign was the most successful ad campaign in U.S. history. The results speak for themselves: 2.2 million illegal aliens self-deported, and we now have the most secure border in American history.”
KRISTI NOEM TO FACE SENATE GRILLING OVER MINNEAPOLIS SHOOTINGS AS DHS SHUTDOWN HITS WEEK 3
The Trump administration reaffirmed that all illegal immigrants are eligible for deportations as they focus on arresting violent criminals first. (Raquel Natalicchio/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images)
Bis also compared the cost of arresting and deporting an illegal migrant to that of the minimal cost of an illegal migrant self-deporting. The department says the advertising campaign played a key role in marketing self-deportation.
A spokesperson at DHS also told Fox News Digital that contractors decide who they hire, fulfilling the terms of a contract, not the department itself.
“By law, DHS cannot and does not determine, control or weigh in on who contractors hire or use to fulfill the terms of the contract,” a DHS spokesperson told Fox. “Those decisions are made by the contractor alone. We have only become aware of these companies because of this inquiry and did not hire those companies.”
The spokesperson also noted that McLaughlin “recused herself” from interactions with subcontractors to avoid “any perceived appearance of impropriety.”
“Upon hearing who the subcontractors were for production of the ad, Ms. McLaughlin recused herself from any interaction or engagement with any subcontractors to avoid any perceived appearance of impropriety,” the spokesperson continued. “DHS Office of Public Affairs is the program officer. Ms. McLaughlin oversees the DHS Office of Public Affairs, which is simply the vehicle for this contract.”
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem takes her seat as she arrives to testify during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)
McLaughlin told Fox News Digital the criticism of her and her family by senators at the hearing is a matter of public manipulation.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“This is yet another example of politicians intentionally trying to dupe and manipulate the public to try to manufacture division and anger,” McLaughlin told Fox News Digital. “The ad spend and contracts are a matter of public record, and the process was done by the book.
“These politicians would rather smear private citizens and American small businesses than do any basic research.”
Fox News Digital’s Alexandra Koch contributed to this report.
Politics
Senate rejects war powers measure to withdraw forces from Iran
WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans blocked a war powers resolution Wednesday designed to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities in Iran, as the Trump administration accelerates its military campaign in a conflict that has killed hundreds, including at least six American service members.
The motion failed in a vote of 47-53.
In addition to pulling out military resources from the Middle East, the measure — introduced by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) — would have required Congress’ explicit approval before future engagement with Iran, a power granted to the legislative branch in the Constitution.
The House, where Republicans also hold an advantage, is scheduled to weigh in on a similar measure Thursday. Even if both Democratic-led measures were to succeed, President Trump was widely expected to veto the legislation.
“We are doing very well on the war front, to put it mildly,” President Trump said at a White House event on Wednesday afternoon. The president, who has come under scrutiny for offering shifting explanations on the war’s endgame, said that if he was asked to scale the American military operation from one to 10, he would rate it a 15.
Democrats dispute that Trump possesses the authority to wage the ongoing operation in Iran without explicit congressional approval.
Acknowledging the measure was unlikely to succeed, they framed the vote as a strategy to force lawmakers to put their support for or opposition to the war on record.
“Today every senator — every single one — will pick a side,” Schumer said. “Do you stand with the American people who are exhausted with forever wars in the Middle East, or stand with Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth as they bumble us headfirst into another war?”
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and most of his Republican colleagues have maintained that the president carried out a “pre-emptive” and “defensive” strike in Iran, giving him full authority to continue unilateral military operations.
Republicans saw the vote as the “last roadblock” stopping Trump from carrying out his mission against the Islamic Republic.
“I think the president has the authority that he needs to conduct the activities and operations that are currently underway there. There are a lot of controversy and questions around the war powers act, but I think the president is acting in the best interest of the nation and our national security interests,” Thune said at a news conference.
Senators largely held to party loyalties, with the exception of Kentucky Republican Rand Paul, who broke ranks to support the measure, and Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman, who opposed it.
The vote comes as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that the war against Iran is “accelerating,” with American and Israeli forces expanding air operations into Iranian territory. He pointed to evidence released by U.S. Central Command of a submarine strike on an Iranian warship, and also lauded other strikes throughout the region as civilian casualties in Iran surpassed 1,000 on the fourth day of the conflict, according to rights groups.
“We’re going to continue to do well,” Trump said Wednesday. “We have the greatest military in the world by far and that was a tremendous threat to us for many years. Forty-seven years they’ve been killing our people and killing people all over the world, and we have great support.”
Republicans blocked a similar war powers vote in January after the president ordered U.S. special forces to capture and extradite Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in Caracas on drug trafficking charges.
GOP leaders argued that the outcome of that mission equated to a quick success in the Middle East, despite an uncertain timeline from the Department of Defense.
In the House, lawmakers will vote on a separate war powers effort Thursday. That bill is led by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), the two lawmakers who authored the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
“Instead of sending billions overseas, we need to invest in jobs, healthcare, and education here,” Khanna said on X.
In addition to that proposal, moderate Democrats in the House have introduced a separate resolution that would give the administration a 30-day window to justify continued hostilities in the Middle East before requiring a formal declaration of war or authorization from Congress.
-
World1 week agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts1 week agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Wisconsin3 days agoSetting sail on iceboats across a frozen lake in Wisconsin
-
Maryland4 days agoAM showers Sunday in Maryland
-
Denver, CO1 week ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Florida4 days agoFlorida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
-
Oregon6 days ago2026 OSAA Oregon Wrestling State Championship Results And Brackets – FloWrestling
-
Massachusetts2 days agoMassachusetts man awaits word from family in Iran after attacks