Last week, U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes, a Biden appointee, halted President Trump’s policy that prohibits transgender individuals from serving in the military. To understand the significance of this ruling, we need to look at the policy’s origins and the reasons behind it.

Transgender-identifying individuals were never allowed to serve in the military until former President Obama changed the policy during the final days of his administration. Upon taking office in 2017, President Trump reversed that decision, citing multiple factors, including cost and military readiness.

According to an analysis by Family Research Council, which informed the 2017 policy decision, the projected cost of allowing transgender individuals to serve — which was before active recruitment began under the Biden administration — was estimated at $1.88 billion over 10 years. It’s even more now. This staggering price tag reflects taxpayer dollars that would have been used for medical treatments like hormone therapy and surgeries, along with the cost of lost service time because of the treatments.

To put that in perspective, those funds could purchase 22 F-35 fighter jets, 116 Chinook Helicopters, 3,700 Tomahawk missiles, or a Navy destroyer instead. President Trump made the right decision in 2017, and he made the right decision to reinstate the policy.

The military’s mission is clear, as the president wrote in his executive order: “to protect the American people and our homeland as the world’s most lethal and effective fighting force. This objective should not be compromised to accommodate political agendas or ideologies. … Military service must be reserved for those who are both mentally and physically fit to serve.”

Judge Reyes, in her 79-page ruling, called the Trump policy “unabashedly demeaning” and claimed it was “soaked in animus.” Using twisted logic at best, she argued that it is sex discrimination to prohibit transgenderism, because “a biological female who identifies as a woman is not banned.” That’s precisely the point. Women can serve, and men can serve, but not men who think they are women. Keep in mind the military routinely excludes individuals based on factors that affect readiness, such as excessive body fat, pregnancy, endometriosis, or even motion sickness. These exclusions are not acts of discrimination — they are practical measures to ensure mission preparedness.

Judge Reyes may want to reconsider her interpretation of presidential authority. The Constitution, in Article II, explicitly designates the president as the commander in chief of the Armed Forces. As former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in 2022, “Judges are not given the task of running the military.” That responsibility falls to the president, whose primary duty is to ensure the safety and security of the nation.

It’s also worth noting that Judge Reyes criticized the lack of studies to support the Trump administration’s policy reversal, while ignoring the fact that the Biden administration conducted no studies when it overturned Trump’s policy on the fifth day of his presidency.

President Trump is right, and Judge Reyes is wrong. Military policy should be driven by effectiveness and national security — not the Left’s destructive ideology.