Executive Order
#14183 -- January 27, 2025: Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,
Highlights
Directs the Department of Defense to revise policies to exclude individuals who identify with a gender different from their biological sex from military service. The order cites concerns over unit cohesion, mental and physical readiness, and overall military effectiveness.
Key Compliance/Risk Cue
The order declares that identifying as a gender different from one's assigned sex conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle. It further states that the use of pronouns inconsistent with one's assigned sex compromises the ability of the government to establish high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity. So it casts transgender identification as a moral or character failure. While Executive Order 14183 specifically targets military service, its underlying principles may influence federal contractors, especially those providing services to the Department of Defense. Contractors may be expected to align their policies with the order's emphasis on biological sex, potentially affecting workplace practices related to transgender employees.
Litigation Snapshot
Potential conflict with Title VII and Bostock decision; casts transgender identity as incompatible with integrity. Ireland v. Hegseth, 1:25-cv-01918 (D.N.J.) (Plaintiffs: Master Sgt. Logan Ireland & Staff Sgt. Nicholas Bade, both active-duty Air Force members (challenging EO 14183/14168, which reinstated a ban on transgender individuals serving in the military. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Fifth Amendment (equal protection and due process), claiming the EO is arbitrary, overbroad, and lacks rational basis) Status: The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiffs on May 15, 2025) ; Shilling v. Trump, 2:25-cv-00241 (W.D. Wash.) (Plaintiffs: Commander Emily Shilling and other active-duty transgender (challenging EO 14183/14168, alleging it reinstates a ban on transgender service. Claim violations of Fifth Amendment equal protection, due process, and First Amendment privacy and expression rights); Status: on March 27, Judge Benjamin Settle issued a nationwide preliminary injunction, halting enforcement of the transgender service ban pending full resolution; Case remains active; briefing and discovery ongoing). THIS NATIONWIDE PI COULD BE AT RISK DUE TO TRUMP v. CASA; Talbott v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00240 (D.D.C.) (Plaintiffs: A cohort of active-duty transgender service members across Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines (challenging EO 14183/14168, alleging the ban violates Fifth Amendment equal protection and due process, as well as Fourth Amendment rights, and possibly APA procedural defects); Status: on March 18, Judge Reyes granted a preliminary injunction, enjoining enforcement of the EO starting at 10:01 a.m. EDT on March 21. The order was briefly stayed but then went into full effect as scheduled. IF THE PI IS NATIONWIDE IT COULD BE AT RISK DUE TO TRUMP v. CASA;