Tomorrow in Ukraine, a meeting of the presidents of two countries will take place.

Trump's ban on transgender service in the Armed Forces is set to take effect after legal disputes

Trump's ban on transgender service in the Armed Forces is set to take effect after delays and prolonged legal disputes regarding the controversial policy of the Department of Defense (DoD).

In the U.S. District Court in Washington, Judge Ana Reyes, nominated by Biden, held a hearing on March 21, during which she asked the DoD to postpone the start of enforcement of the policy from March 26. Reyes stated that she wanted to provide more Time for the appeals process. She also noted that she had previously allowed enough time for the appeal of her earlier ruling to block the ban.

'I don't want to complicate the job of the Court of Appeals in Washington. That is my primary concern,' Reyes said during the March 21 hearing. 'My assistants have been working very hard to timely issue a decision.'

THE SECOND JUDGE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT TRUMP'S BAN ON TRANSGENDER SERVICE VIOLATES THE LAW

Reyes set a deadline of 3:00 PM that same day for the government to respond to her request to postpone the start date of enforcement. The government responded that it agreed to postpone the date from March 26 to March 28.

This legal dispute arose as the U.S. Supreme Court is also considering a high-profile case regarding the rights of transgender individuals. The question in the case of 'Scrametti v. United States' is whether the Equal Protection Clause, which requires the government to treat similar persons equally, allows medical practitioners to provide puberty blockers and hormones to assist minors in transitioning.

HEGSET SUGGESTS THAT THE JUDGE WILL GO TO MILITARY BASES AFTER A DECISION THAT THE PENTAGON MUST ALLOW TRANSGENDER MILITARY MEMBERS

However, a decision from the Supreme Court is not expected until May or June. 'The decision in the Scrametti case will be significant in clarifying certain issues. I don't think the Court of Appeals in Washington will rush to hear the case,' said Charles Stimson, senior legal advisor at the Heritage Foundation, Fox News Digital.

'If I were a judge in Washington and faced with so many other cases, I would not put this at the top of the pile,' he added.

Despite the approaching deadline, Stimson stated that the ban will be 'on pause' while the parties go through the appeals process. 'I don’t think the secretary will do anything that contravenes a court ruling,' noted Stimson. 'Even if they disagree with it, it would be better not to take the risk.'

TRUMP'S ADMINISTRATION ASKS FEDERAL JUDGE TO LIFT BAN ON TRANSGENDER SERVICE IN THE MILITARY

Reyes issued a legal order in favor of the plaintiffs on March 18. In her ruling, she wrote that the plaintiffs in the case, which includes transgender individuals, 'have faced a violation of their constitutional rights, which constitutes irreparable harm' and requires a protective order.

On March 21, the defendants in the case, which include U.S. President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegset, filed a motion to vacate the order blocking the Pentagon's ban. The document states that the policy is not a blanket ban but is focused on gender dysphoria - a medical issue and does not discriminate against individuals who identify as transgender.

The Trump administration also requested that if the motion to vacate the order is denied, the court should issue a temporary restraining order pending appeal.

The government cites new guidelines issued on March 21, which were expected to implement the policy if it were not for the ongoing legal dispute. The guidelines clarify that the phrase 'showing symptoms characteristic of gender dysphoria' applies only to 'individuals who exhibit such symptoms that are deemed sufficient for diagnosis.'

In its request to vacate the March 18 order, the government wrote that the guidelines from March 21 represent a 'significant change' that justifies the lifting of the order.

According to the requirements, the party requesting the lifting of the protective order must demonstrate 'a substantial change - in empirical conditions or in law' to show that continuing compliance with the order would 'harm the public interest.'

'The guidelines from March 21, 2025, represent 'a significant change,' the statement says. 'While the court generally understood the nature of the DoD policy, it concerns readiness, ability to deploy, and the associated costs of medical issues - the same issues that any prior administration to some degree has held back from service in the Armed Forces.'

'This is yet another example of an activist judge trying to use power to the detriment of Americans who overwhelmingly voted to elect President Trump,' said a Justice Department spokesman.

Contribution to this news was made by Jake Gibson of Fox News.