Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth isn’t mincing words—and he isn’t wrong to be blunt. In the wake of a federal judge blocking enforcement of President Trump’s Executive Order 14183, which would end transgender recruitment and retention in the military, Hegseth took to X with a dose of biting realism aimed directly at Judge Ana Reyes, the Biden-appointed activist-turned-jurist now standing in the way of what many consider to be a straightforward readiness policy.
“Since ‘Judge’ Reyes is now a top military planner,” Hegseth posted, “she/they can report to Fort Benning at 0600 to instruct our Army Rangers on how to execute High Value Target Raids…” He followed with more razor-edged sarcasm: “Commander Reyes can dispatch to Fort Bragg to train our Green Berets on counterinsurgency warfare.”
In other words: if you’re going to override military leadership on combat readiness, you should probably be qualified to understand the consequences.
Since “Judge” Reyes is now a top military planner, she/they can report to Fort Benning at 0600 to instruct our Army Rangers on how to execute High Value Target Raids…after that, Commander Reyes can dispatch to Fort Bragg to train our Green Berets on counterinsurgency warfare. https://t.co/CNrl252Irs
— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) March 22, 2025
But Reyes isn’t. She’s never worn the uniform. She was a partner at a liberal D.C. law firm with deep Democrat ties and was confirmed in the Senate 51-47—about as partisan a confirmation as it gets. She’s also made it clear she has little interest in judicial neutrality, reportedly berating government attorneys in court, insisting there are more than two sexes, and even demanding that Hegseth delete a tweet.
Her reasoning? That a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who was fired by Trump somehow has more authority than the sitting Secretary of Defense because Hegseth has “only been in office 30 days.” Apparently, “civilian control of the military” is now conditional—so long as the civilian is progressive enough. The legal reasoning hit peak absurdity when she quoted Hamilton in her opinion. That’s not jurisprudence. That’s performance art.
3/ During a routine hearing regarding the Admin’s transgender military EO where the only issues were ripeness of the case and ultimate likelihood of success, Judge Reyes took issue with the Admin’s assertion that there were only two sexes, leading to this astounding footnote: pic.twitter.com/LPXpr7KkZ8
— Paul Biegler, D.A. (@FrankCapraJr) March 21, 2025
Reyes is being celebrated in the same circles that believe hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgeries should be taxpayer-funded entitlements—even within the Armed Forces. But here’s the reality: no one has a right to serve in the U.S. military. The military exists for one purpose—victory in combat. It is not a petri dish for social experiments. It’s not a vehicle for identity politics. It’s a warfighting institution that requires mental, physical, and emotional resilience.
Transgenderism, especially when accompanied by gender dysphoria (which the DSM classifies as a mental health disorder), hormone dependency, and potential surgical recovery, presents serious challenges to unit cohesion, deployability, and combat effectiveness. If you can’t meet the standard—whether due to flat feet, asthma, or psychological instability—you’re out. That’s how it’s always been.
Would honestly prefer Berdyaev’s footnote “it was revealed to me in a dream” pic.twitter.com/wXPYHj3XXf
— Adrian Vermeule (@Vermeullarmine) March 19, 2025
And yet here we are, with a federal judge overriding the chain of command, ignoring the cold realities of warfighting, and imposing a fantasy from behind a bench she’ll never have to defend from incoming fire.
