Tonight in Your Rights: A 'High-T' backfire
Pete Hegseth's pursuit of a high-testosterone military just undermined his ban on trans troops. Plus: The legal roundup.
Earlier this month, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth posted a video on social media announcing a policy to monitor the testosterone levels of troops aged 30 and older in pursuit of a “high-T” military.
“Our decisive tactical advantage will always be the individual warfighter,” Hegseth said in the video, stating that the program would correct “testosterone deficiency” for service members to operate at their “absolute best.”
On Wednesday, a federal judge asked a natural follow-up question: How does Hegseth square this prescription for gender-affirming care from the Pentagon with his ban on transgender troops?
Summarizing the policy, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes wrote: “Those with low testosterone will receive, on a voluntary basis, testosterone replacement therapy (TRT), which the Department of Defense describes as part of their ‘periodic health assessments.’”
Highlighting the disconnect with the Pentagon’s new policy, the judge noted: “The Military Ban states that ‘the Armed Forces must adhere to high mental and physical health standards...without the benefit of routine medical treatment or special provisions.’”
In March 2025, Judge Reyes issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration’s ban, pointing out that the government agreed that transgender troops have been serving honorably for years.
“Transgender persons have served openly since 2021, but Defendants have not analyzed their service,” Reyes wrote in a 79-page ruling at the time. “That is unfortunate. Plaintiffs’ service records alone are Exhibit A for the proposition that transgender persons can have the warrior ethos, physical and mental health, selflessness, honor, integrity, and discipline to ensure military excellence. Defendants agree. They agree that Plaintiffs are mentally and physically fit to serve, have ‘served honorably,’ and ‘have satisfied the rigorous standards’ demanded of them. [...] Plaintiffs, they acknowledge, have ‘made America safer.’ [...] So why discharge them and other decorated soldiers? Crickets from Defendants on this key question.”
An important point in her ruling, Reyes noted that the Justice Department provided no evidence of any downside to transgender enlistment. In fact, the government affirmed that “recruiting, unit cohesion, and military readiness have improved” since transgender people began serving openly.
The D.C. Circuit agreed that the policy was based on discrimination, not evidence.
“I conclude that the Hegseth policy is both arbitrary and based on animus,” U.S. Circuit Judge Robert L. Wilkins wrote for the majority in June, finding that the ban violated the “constitutional rights to equal protection of the law” for trans troops.
Although the appellate court narrowed the injunction to protect only the plaintiffs challenging the policy, Judge Reyes must now decide whether to vacate the ban entirely.
Hegseth’s announcement can add to the record justifying that action.
On Wednesday, Reyes ordered the government to address the “similarities and differences in administering TRT, both medically and logistically, for trans men compared to other service members.” She also demanded information concerning the “medical costs associated with screening for testosterone deficiency and providing TRT to service members who do not identify as trans,” along with the rationale for “treating trans men and other service members differently between this new policy and the military ban.”
Special ed teacher vilified by Pam Bondi prevails
Earlier this year, then-Attorney General Pam Bondi posted a list of 16 Minnesota "rioters" and posted a selection of their mugshots, in apparent violation of Justice Department policy.
The first name on Bondi’s list was a special education teacher named Christina Rank, who was accused of ramming her car into a federal immigration agent.
Even though she’s a U.S. citizen, Rank was held inside an immigration detention center for nearly 12 hours and charged with assault under the same statute leveled at Jan. 6th rioters.
Some six months later, Rank finally beat the rap: On Tuesday, prosecutors dismissed Rank’s case after being forced to admit that there wasn’t probable cause of a crime.
“This dismissal is long overdue,” her attorney Bruce Nestor told All Rise News. “Federal agents intentionally collided with Ms. Rank’s vehicle and arrested her to retaliate against her for expressing verbal opposition to their presence on the property of the school where she worked. This case never should have been brought and Ms. Rank did nothing wrong to be put through this six month ordeal of a federal criminal prosecution.”
Rank’s case follows a pattern of top officials inside the Trump Justice Department pronouncing criminal defendants guilty of a crime on social media before the case ultimately collapses.
“I am on the ground in Minneapolis today,” Bondi wrote on Jan. 28. “Federal agents have arrested 16 Minnesota rioters for allegedly assaulting federal law enforcement — people who have been resisting and impeding our federal law enforcement agents.”
Declaring the defendants “rioters” without qualification, Bondi began the list with Rank’s name, and she followed it up with an assortment of mugshots of her co-defendants.
Under the heading “Concerns of Prejudice,” the Justice Manual lays out a clear prohibition.
“DOJ personnel should not encourage or assist news media in photographing or televising a person held in custody,” it states. “DOJ personnel should not voluntarily disclose a photograph of a defendant unless it serves a law enforcement function or unless the photograph is already part of the public record in the case.”
The Justice Department has violated this principle time and again, posting images of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.), and others, and rhetorically convicting them before any trial. A judge dismissed Abrego’s case because of his vindictive prosecution, and a federal appeals court is considering McIver’s similar claims.
The collapse of Rank’s case once again illustrates the danger of that practice.
After a judge ordered the Justice Department to provide a bill of particulars — laying out the basis of Rank’s charges — federal prosecutors chose to dismiss the case.
“Upon a further review of the evidence and affidavit in support of the complaint, the government does not believe that probable cause for assault exists,” they wrote on Tuesday. “Based on a lack of probable cause and in the interest of justice, the government requests this case be dismissed with prejudice.”
A federal magistrate judge had called Bondi’s decision to post mugshots in the case “deeply disturbing.”
Read the motion to dismiss the case here.
Ex-U.S. Attorney fired by Trump fights for his job
The man who served as the Seattle-based U.S. Attorney for 54 minutes before Donald Trump fired him filed a federal lawsuit to remain in his job.
Roger Rogoff, a former judge and local prosecutor, was selected for the role of Seattle’s top prosecutor by the judges of the Western District of Washington, earning the trust of jurists appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents alike.
But Trump fired him within less than an hour, insisting upon retaining Charles Neil Floyd, who was unable to receive Senate confirmation before his 120-day term expired.
In a lawsuit filed on Tuesday, Rogoff said that his firing violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced Rogoff’s firing by Trump during the first day of his Senate confirmation hearing last week, continuing his practice of insisting that unqualified Trump loyalists remain in U.S. Attorney positions unlawfully.
At least six Trump-appointed U.S. Attorneys have been disqualified from their posts: among them, Floyd in the Western District of Washington; Alina Habba in the District of New Jersey; Lindsey Halligan in the Eastern District of Virginia; John Sarcone in the Northern District of New York; Sigal Chattah in the District of Nevada; and Bilal “Bill” Essayli in the Central District of California.
“As illustrated in districts across the country, those actions threaten the very harms that the Appointments Clause was intended to prevent, leaving the President (and all future Presidents) free to appoint whomever he chooses as de facto U.S. Attorney indefinitely, regardless of their qualifications for the role,” Rogoff’s 29-page complaint states.
Before Trump’s second term, the practice of the government insisting that unqualified loyalists serve as U.S. Attorneys without legal or constitutional authorization was virtually unprecedented.
Read Rogoff’s complaint here.
Programming Note
On Thursday, The New York Times will seek to quash the Trump Justice Department’s subpoenas to their reporters and their family members in federal court.
All Rise News will provide live coverage of that hearing, which is scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. Eastern Time.
So well said, Adam!
I have to say it's pretty shocking that these Keystone Kops don't just give up already. How many losses do you have to sustain before you begin to realize you're a loser?