Look, I don’t mean to nitpick or anything—it’s not really my style—but I couldn’t help but notice a little issue with your statement. You said, “No new narrative because I am sure Trump will continue to not follow the law,” and then tied it to “it’s all part of the process.” But here’s the thing—and I hate to be that guy—if a judge’s ruling gets overturned, it means, legally speaking, that Trump didn’t actually break the law in that case. Like, technically. I know it’s confusing, and no one really likes hearing this stuff from me, but it’s just how the paperwork shakes out. So saying he’s not following the law might not totally fit there. Just pointing it out.
I’ve got to disagree with a couple points here. You said Trump didn’t present evidence that “they weren’t doing their job,” but I think we might be missing the mark a bit. The issue wasn’t about trans people not doing their jobs—no one’s saying that. It’s more about the Executive Branch, you know, the President’s team, having the authority to set fitness standards for the military. That’s their call, not really something a judge steps in and starts tossing evidence around for. Judges don’t do that—it’s a big no-no for them, actually. They just rule on what’s in front of them.
And about the discrimination part—saying he’s “following his prejudices” and letting people discriminate again—I’m not sure that holds up either. The policy isn’t about targeting anyone for who they are. It’s about medical and readiness standards. For example, the 2018 Mattis policy, which came out of all this, focused on deployability and mental health stats—like how 41% of trans individuals have higher rates of psychological conditions compared to the general population, per some studies. That’s not prejudice; it’s just data the military uses to keep things running smoothly. I know it’s not a fun topic, and I’m probably the last person you want explaining this, but I figured I’d clear that up. I’ll just head back to my desk now.
