Staff Reports
U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes has entered the courtroom with all the grace and humility of a bull in a china shop, taking aim at President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at stopping the military from dancing to the tune of preferred pronouns. Tuesday saw a delightful display of judicial theatrics as Judge Reyes sparred with Justice Department attorney Jason C. Lynch over the alleged impact of using preferred pronouns on military readiness. Spoiler alert: she wasn’t impressed.
Reyes seemed almost incandescent with anger that the Trump administration would dare to purge what she refers to as “transgender ideology” from the armed forces. During the heated exchange, when asked how preferred pronouns affected military effectiveness, Lynch’s response was a stammering “I don’t…” before he was rudely cut off. Reyes, in true activist fashion, proclaimed that it was “ridiculous” to suggest that U.S. military personnel could be impacted by something as trivial as one another’s pronouns. Apparently, in her view, these brave soldiers and sailors are not capable of focusing on their actual mission if someone is accidentally called the wrong name.
Biden-Appointed Federal Judge Freaks Out on Trump DOJ Attorney Over Transgender Pronouns in Military
— I AM A TRUMPER (@WannaGetHitched) February 20, 2025
It’s worth noting that Reyes has a bit of baggage that might cloud her judgment. In January, a contingent of transgender servicemembers took it upon themselves to sue to block Trump’s order, which also prohibits trans individuals from enlisting in the military. Reyes wasted no time in labeling Trump’s directive as “rumored to be rife with animus.” It seems good intentions mean little without an agenda in today’s courts.
One has to chuckle at the irony of Reyes’ insistence on “common sense” and “rationality” while failing to cite any actual legal precedents being violated by Trump’s order. Perhaps she believes those abstract concepts should be applied only when it suits her, like a choose-your-own-adventure book, rather than the fixed and clear rules of law that are supposed to guide judicial interpretation.
In truth, the idea that inserting preferred pronouns into the military’s lexicon wouldn’t harm operational effectiveness is laughable. Treating soldiers like they’re in a sensitivity seminar is bound to breed resentment and confusion at the front lines. Language policing is hardly a tenet of military camaraderie and teamwork; in fact, it’s likely to create rifts among the ranks where unity should reign supreme.
For bonus points, there’s nothing quite as amusing as an American-born president engaged in battle with a foreign-born activist judge—Reyes is originally from Uruguay. What’s next? Stiff competition over who can claim the most colorful interpretation of the Constitution? Until Judge Reyes reveals her ruling—pending the Pentagon’s plans to deal with Trump’s order—the court’s fixation on personal ideology over legal standing is evident. In essence, the law should never be a mere accessory to anyone’s personal agenda; that notion is the very definition of judicial activism.
