Connect with us

Politics

Supreme Court allows Trump's ban on transgender troops

Published

on

Supreme Court allows Trump's ban on transgender troops

The Supreme Court has cleared the way for the Trump administration to remove thousands of active-duty members of the military because they are transgender.

The justices on Tuesday granted an appeal from President Trump’s lawyers and set aside orders for now from judges who had blocked the new policy set by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

The court issued a brief order and did not explain its reasons. The three liberals — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented and said they voted to deny the appeal.

The decision is consistent with the court’s deference to the military. But trans rights advocates called it a “purge” of active-duty troops who have served honorably.

Following Trump’s lead, Hegseth issued a memo on Feb. 26 that said individuals who have a “diagnosis or history” of gender dysphoria are “incompatible” with military service.

Advertisement

It is not clear how many transgender people are serving in the U.S. armed forces. Past estimates said the number was greater than 15,000, but the Defense Department said its new policies would apply to 4,240 people on active duty.

While the administration contended the new policy was not a “ban,” it calls for the removal of those who underwent a gender transition.

Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation called the ruling “a devastating blow to transgender servicemembers who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation’s defense. By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice.”

The court’s order allows the Defense Department to begin enforcing its new policy even while the legal challenges against it proceed in the lower courts.

Upon taking office in January, Trump complained in an executive order that U.S. armed forces had been “recently afflicted with a radical gender ideology.” He said the Defense Department must “establish high standards of troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity and integrity.” It would be “inconsistent” with those standards to have “individuals with gender dysphoria,” he said.

Advertisement

Seven transgender service members who filed suit in Seattle said Trump’s decree was based on “animus” and ignored the evidence they had served honorably and well.

The lead plaintiff, Cmdr. Emily Shilling, has been a Navy pilot for 19 years and flown more than 60 combat missions. She transitioned within the Navy in 2021 under a policy set by the Biden administration.

U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle, an appointee of President George W. Bush, ruled that this new “blanket prohibition on transgender service” was discriminatory and outdated. It relied on concerns raised by military leaders before transgender troops were permitted to serve openly, he said.

Shilling has “1,750 flight hours in high performance Navy jets — including the F/A-18 Super Hornet — and has earned three air medals,” the judge said. “Yet absent an injunction, she will be promptly discharged solely because she is transgender.”

He said the government “provided no evidence” that “military readiness or unit cohesion” had been “adversely impacted by open transgender service.”

Advertisement

Settle not only ruled for the plaintiffs but imposed a nationwide bar against the new policy. His ruling followed a similar decision by U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, D.C.

When the 9th Circuit refused to lift the nationwide order against Trump’s ban on transgender troops, the administration asked the Supreme Court to weigh in.

In his appeal, Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer accused the judges of overstepping their authority and “usurping the Executive Branch’s authority to determine who may serve in the Nation’s armed forces.”

He said the military has long disqualified service members based on “hundreds of medical conditions” including asthma, diabetes and high blood pressure as well as eating disorders or autism.

Sauer told the court that a Defense Department study said troops with gender dysphoria are more likely to be “non-deployable” for significant periods of time and may need costly medical care.

Advertisement

He noted the court in 2018 had set aside challenges to a similar order from the first Trump administration restricting service by transgender persons, and he said the court should do the same again.

In response, the transgender troops said the court should stand back for now and “preserve the status quo” while the appeals are heard in the lower courts.

“Equal service by openly transgender service members has improved our military’s readiness, lethality, and unit cohesion, while discharging transgender service members from our Armed Forces would harm all three,” they told the court. “For nearly a decade, across multiple administrations, thousands of transgender people have openly served in our military with dedication, honor, and distinction.”

LGBTQ+ rights advocates described the new order as a purge.

The Trump administration “is asking for a shocking, unprecedented purge of thousands of current service members for a reason unrelated to their ability to serve,” said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “This type of mass purge has never before happened in our nation’s history.”

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

Published

on

Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

new video loaded: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

transcript

transcript

Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.

“How Long do you think you’ll be running Venezuela?” “Only time will tell. Like three months. six months, a year, longer?” “I would say much longer than that.” “Much longer, and, and —” “We have to rebuild. You have to rebuild the country, and we will rebuild it in a very profitable way. We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil. We’re getting oil prices down, and we’re going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need. I would love to go, yeah. I think at some point, it will be safe.” “What would trigger a decision to send ground troops into Venezuela?” “I wouldn’t want to tell you that because I can’t, I can’t give up information like that to a reporter. As good as you may be, I just can’t talk about that.” “Would you do it if you couldn’t get at the oil? Would you do it —” “If they’re treating us with great respect. As you know, we’re getting along very well with the administration that is there right now.” “Have you spoken to Delcy Rodríguez?” “I don’t want to comment on that, but Marco speaks to her all the time.”

Advertisement
President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.

January 8, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump calls for $1.5T defense budget to build ‘dream military’

Published

on

Trump calls for .5T defense budget to build ‘dream military’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump called for defense spending to be raised to $1.5 trillion, a 50% increase over this year’s budget. 

“After long and difficult negotiations with Senators, Congressmen, Secretaries, and other Political Representatives, I have determined that, for the Good of our Country, especially in these very troubled and dangerous times, our Military Budget for the year 2027 should not be $1 Trillion Dollars, but rather $1.5 Trillion Dollars,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Thursday evening. 

“This will allow us to build the “Dream Military” that we have long been entitled to and, more importantly, that will keep us SAFE and SECURE, regardless of foe.” 

The president said he came up with the number after tariff revenues created a surplus of cash. He claimed the levies were bringing in enough money to pay for both a major boost to the defense budget “easily,” pay down the national debt, which is over $38 trillion, and offer “a substantial dividend to moderate income patriots.”

Advertisement

SENATE SENDS $901B DEFENSE BILL TO TRUMP AFTER CLASHES OVER BOAT STRIKE, DC AIRSPACE

President Donald Trump called for defense spending to be raised to $1.5 trillion, a 50% increase over this year’s record budget.  (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

The boost likely reflects efforts to fund Trump’s ambitious military plans, from the Golden Dome homeland missile defense shield to a new ‘Trump class’ of battleships.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that the increased budget would cost about $5 trillion from 2027 to 2035, or $5.7 trillion with interest. Tariff revenues, the group found, would cover about half the cost – $2.5 trillion or $3 trillion with interest. 

The Supreme Court is expected to rule in a major case Friday that will determine the legality of Trump’s sweeping tariff strategy.

Advertisement

CONGRESS UNVEILS $900B DEFENSE BILL TARGETING CHINA WITH TECH BANS, INVESTMENT CRACKDOWN, US TROOP PAY RAISE

This year the defense budget is expected to breach $1 trillion for the first time thanks to a $150 billion reconciliation bill Congress passed to boost the expected $900 billion defense spending legislation for fiscal year 2026. Congress has yet to pass a full-year defense budget for 2026.

Some Republicans have long called for a major increase to defense spending to bring the topline total to 5% of GDP, as the $1.5 trillion budget would do, up from the current 3.5%.

The boost likely reflects efforts to fund Trump’s ambitious military plans, from the Golden Dome homeland missile defense shield to a new ‘Trump class’ of battleships. (Lockheed Martin via Reuters)

Trump has ramped up pressure on Europe to increase its national security spending to 5% of GDP – 3.5% on core military requirements and 1.5% on defense-related areas like cybersecurity and critical infrastructure.

Advertisement

Trump’s budget announcement came hours after defense stocks took a dip when he condemned the performance rates of major defense contractors. In a separate Truth Social post he announced he would not allow defense firms to buy back their own stocks, offer large salaries to executives or issue dividends to shareholders. 

“Executive Pay Packages in the Defense Industry are exorbitant and unjustifiable given how slowly these Companies are delivering vital Equipment to our Military, and our Allies,” he said. 

“​Defense Companies are not producing our Great Military Equipment rapidly enough and, once produced, not maintaining it properly or quickly.”

U.S. Army soldiers stand near an armored military vehicle on the outskirts of Rumaylan in Syria’s northeastern Hasakeh province, bordering Turkey, on March 27, 2023.  (Delil Souleiman/AFP via Getty Images)

He said that executives would not be allowed to make above $5 million until they build new production plants.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Stock buybacks, dividends and executive compensation are generally governed by securities law, state corporate law and private contracts, and cannot be broadly restricted without congressional action.

An executive order the White House released Wednesday frames the restrictions as conditions on future defense contracts, rather than a blanket prohibition. The order directs the secretary of war to ensure that new contracts include provisions barring stock buybacks and corporate distributions during periods of underperformance, non-compliance or inadequate production, as determined by the Pentagon.

Continue Reading

Politics

Newsom moves to reshape who runs California’s schools under budget plan

Published

on

Newsom moves to reshape who runs California’s schools under budget plan

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday unveiled a sweeping proposal to overhaul how California’s education system is governed, calling for structural changes that he said would shift oversight of the Department of Education and redefine the role of the state’s elected schools chief.

The proposal, which is part of Newsom’s state budget plan that will be released Friday, would unify the policymaking State Board of Education with the department, which is responsible for carrying out those policies. The governor said the change would better align education efforts from early childhood through college.

“California can no longer postpone reforms that have been recommended regularly for a century,” Newsom said in a statement. “These critical reforms will bring greater accountability, clarity, and coherence to how we serve our students and schools.”

Few details were provided about how the role of the state superintendent of public instruction would change, beyond a greater focus on fostering coordination and aligning education policy.

The changes would require approval from state lawmakers, who will be in the state Capitol on Thursday for Newsom’s last State of the State speech in his final year as governor.

Advertisement

The proposal would implement recommendations from a 2002 report by the state Legislature, titled “California’s Master Plan for Education,” which described the state’s K-12 governance as fragmented and “with overlapping roles that sometimes operate in conflict with one another, to the detriment of the educational services offered to students.” Newsom’s office said similar concerns have been raised repeatedly since 1920 and were echoed again in a December 2025 report by research center Policy Analysis for California Education.

“The sobering reality of California’s education system is that too few schools can now provide the conditions in which the State can fairly ask students to learn to the highest standards, let alone prepare themselves to meet their future learning needs,” the Legislature’s 2002 report stated. Those most harmed are often low-income students and students of color, the report added.

“California’s education governance system is complex and too often creates challenges for school leaders,” Edgar Zazueta, executive director of the Assn. of California School Administrators, said in a statement provided by Newsom’s office. “As responsibilities and demands on schools continue to increase, educators need governance systems that are designed to better support positive student outcomes.”

The current budget allocated $137.6 billion for education from transitional kindergarten through the 12th grade — the highest per-pupil funding level in state history — and Newsom’s office said his proposal is intended to ensure those investments translate into more consistent support and improved outcomes statewide.

“For decades the fragmented and inefficient structure overseeing our public education system has hindered our students’ ability to succeed and thrive,” Ted Lempert, president of advocacy group Children Now, said in a statement provided by the governor’s office. “Major reform is essential, and we’re thrilled that the Governor is tackling this issue to improve our kids’ education.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending