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: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

Published

on

Video: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

new video loaded: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

transcript

transcript

Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

Federal prosecutors opened an investigation into whether Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, lied to Congress about the scope of renovations of the central bank’s buildings. He called the probe “unprecedented” in a rare video message.

“Good evening. This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings. This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions, or whether instead, monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation.” “Well, thank you very much. We’re looking at the construction. Thank you.”

Advertisement
Federal prosecutors opened an investigation into whether Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, lied to Congress about the scope of renovations of the central bank’s buildings. He called the probe “unprecedented” in a rare video message.

By Nailah Morgan

January 12, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

San Antonio ends its abortion travel fund after new state law, legal action

Published

on

San Antonio ends its abortion travel fund after new state law, legal action

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

San Antonio has shut down its out-of-state abortion travel fund after a new Texas law that prohibits the use of public funds to cover abortions and a lawsuit from the state challenging the city’s fund.

City Council members last year approved $100,000 for its Reproductive Justice Fund to support abortion-related travel, prompting Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to sue over allegations that the city was “transparently attempting to undermine and subvert Texas law and public policy.”

Paxton claimed victory in the lawsuit on Friday after the case was dismissed without a finding for either side.

WYOMING SUPREME COURT RULES LAWS RESTRICTING ABORTION VIOLATE STATE CONSTITUTION

Advertisement

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton claimed victory in the lawsuit after the case was dismissed without a finding for either side. (Hannah Beier/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“Texas respects the sanctity of unborn life, and I will always do everything in my power to prevent radicals from manipulating the system to murder innocent babies,” Paxton said in a statement. “It is illegal for cities to fund abortion tourism with taxpayer funds. San Antonio’s unlawful attempt to cover the travel and other expenses for out-of-state abortions has now officially been defeated.”

But San Antonio’s city attorney argued that the city did nothing wrong and pushed back on Paxton’s claim that the state won the lawsuit.

“This litigation was both initiated and abandoned by the State of Texas,” the San Antonio city attorney’s office said in a statement to The Texas Tribune. “In other words, the City did not drop any claims; the State of Texas, through the Texas Office of the Attorney General, dropped its claims.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said he will continue opposing the use of public funds for abortion-related travel. (Justin Lane/Reuters)

Advertisement

Paxton’s lawsuit argued that the travel fund violates the gift clause of the Texas Constitution. The state’s 15th Court of Appeals sided with Paxton and granted a temporary injunction in June to block the city from disbursing the fund while the case moved forward.

Gov. Greg Abbott in August signed into law Senate Bill 33, which bans the use of public money to fund “logistical support” for abortion. The law also allows Texas residents to file a civil suit if they believe a city violated the law.

“The City believed the law, prior to the passage of SB 33, allowed the uses of the fund for out-of-state abortion travel that were discussed publicly,” the city attorney’s office said in its statement. “After SB 33 became law and no longer allowed those uses, the City did not proceed with the procurement of those specific uses—consistent with its intent all along that it would follow the law.”

TRUMP URGES GOP TO BE ‘FLEXIBLE’ ON HYDE AMENDMENT, IGNITING BACKLASH FROM PRO-LIFE ALLIES

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a law in August that blocks cities from using public money to help cover travel or other costs related to abortion. (Antranik Tavitian/Reuters)

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The broader Reproductive Justice Fund remains, but it is restricted to non-abortion services such as home pregnancy tests, emergency contraception and STI testing.

The city of Austin also shut down its abortion travel fund after the law was signed. Austin had allocated $400,000 to its Reproductive Healthcare Logistics Fund in 2024 to help women traveling to other states for an abortion with funding for travel, food and lodging.

Continue Reading

Politics

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta opts against running for governor. Again.

Published

on

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta opts against running for governor. Again.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced Sunday that he would not run for California governor, a decision grounded in his belief that his legal efforts combating the Trump administration as the state’s top prosecutor are paramount at this moment in history.

“Watching this dystopian horror come to life has reaffirmed something I feel in every fiber of my being: in this moment, my place is here — shielding Californians from the most brazen attacks on our rights and our families,” Bonta said in a statement. “My vision for the California Department of Justice is that we remain the nation’s largest and most powerful check on power.”

Bonta said that President Trump’s blocking of welfare funds to California and the fatal shooting of a Minnesota mother of three last week by a federal immigration agent cemented his decision to seek reelection to his current post, according to Politico, which first reported that Bonta would not run for governor.

Bonta, 53, a former state lawmaker and a close political ally to Gov. Gavin Newsom, has served as the state’s top law enforcement official since Newsom appointed him to the position in 2021. In the last year, his office has sued the Trump administration more than 50 times — a track record that would probably have served him well had he decided to run in a state where Trump has lost three times and has sky-high disapproval ratings.

Advertisement

Bonta in 2024 said that he was considering running. Then in February he announced he had ruled it out and was focused instead on doing the job of attorney general, which he considers especially important under the Trump administration. Then, both former Vice President Kamala Harris and Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) announced they would not run for governor, and Bonta began reconsidering, he said.

“I had two horses in the governor’s race already,” Bonta told The Times in November. “They decided not to get involved in the end. … The race is fundamentally different today, right?”

The race for California governor remains wide open. Newsom is serving the final year of his second term and is barred from running again because of term limits. Newsom has said he is considering a run for president in 2028.

Former Rep. Katie Porter — an early leader in polls — late last year faltered after videos emerged of her screaming at an aide and berating a reporter. The videos contributed to her dropping behind Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican, in a November poll released by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times.

Porter rebounded a bit toward the end of the year, a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California showed, however none of the candidates has secured a majority of support and many voters remain undecided.

Advertisement

California hasn’t elected a Republican governor since 2006, Democrats heavily outnumber Republicans in the state, and many are seething with anger over Trump and looking for Democratic candidates willing to fight back against the current administration.

Bonta has faced questions in recent months about spending about $468,000 in campaign funds on legal advice last year as he spoke to federal investigators about alleged corruption involving former Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, who was charged in an alleged bribery scheme involving local businessmen David Trung Duong and Andy Hung Duong. All three have pleaded not guilty.

According to his political consultant Dan Newman, Bonta — who had received campaign donations from the Duong family — was approached by investigators because he was initially viewed as a “possible victim” in the alleged scheme, though that was later ruled out. Bonta has since returned $155,000 in campaign contributions from the Duong family, according to news reports.

Bonta is the son of civil rights activists Warren Bonta, a white native Californian, and Cynthia Bonta, a native of the Philippines who immigrated to the U.S. on a scholarship in 1965. Bonta, a U.S. citizen, was born in Quezon City, Philippines, in 1972, when his parents were working there as missionaries, and immigrated with his family to California as an infant.

In 2012, Bonta was elected to represent Oakland, Alameda and San Leandro as the first Filipino American to serve in California’s Legislature. In Sacramento, he pursued a string of criminal justice reforms and developed a record as one of the body’s most liberal members.

Advertisement

Bonta is married to Assemblywoman Mia Bonta (D-Alameda), who succeeded him in the state Assembly, and the couple have three children.

Times staff writer Dakota Smith contributed to this report.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending