WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge said Wednesday that she hopes to rule next week on whether to block President Donald Trump’s administration from banning transgender people^[1] from serving in the U.S. military.

At the end of a daylong hearing in Washington, D.C., U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes said it is her “strong hope” that she will issue a decision next Tuesday or Wednesday. Reyes acknowledged that her ruling probably won't be the “last stop in this train's journey,” given the near-certainty of an appeal.

“I just have to do the best I can with the evidence in front of me," she said.

Reyes spent most of Wednesday's hearing peppering a government attorney with questions about a new Defense Department policy^[2] that presumptively disqualifies people with gender dysphoria from military service.

Gender dysphoria is the distress that a person feels because their assigned gender and gender identity don’t match. The medical condition has been linked to depression and suicidal thoughts.

The new policy stems from a Jan. 27 executive order by President Donald Trump that claims the sexual identity of transgender service members “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.”

Roughly 2,000 transgender people serve in the military, but they represent less than 1% of the total number of active-duty service members.

Reyes frequently sounded skeptical of the administration's motives and rationale as she challenged Justice Department attorney Jason Manion to defend the order and policy. She called it a “Don't Tell” policy, a reference to the military's outdated “ Don't Ask, Don't Tell^[3] ” policy against LGBTQ service members.

“They have to essentially be in hiding while in service,” Reyes said of transgender troops.

The judge said the Defense Department has spent roughly $5.2 million annually over the past decade to provide medical care to treat gender dysphoria — a miniscule percentage of the military's multi-billion dollar budget. As a point of comparison, Reyes noted that the military spends around $42 million per year on medication treating erectile dysfunction.

“It's not even a rounding error, right?” she asked.

“If it's a cost per service member, it does matter,” Manion said.

The plaintiffs who sued to block Trump’s order include an Army Reserves platoon leader from Pennsylvania, an Army major who was awarded a Bronze Star for service in Afghanistan and a Sailor of the Year award winner serving in the Navy. Their attorneys contend that Trump’s order violates transgender people’s rights to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment.

Government lawyers argue that military officials have broad discretion to decide how to assign and deploy servicemembers without judicial interference.

WASHINGTON -- Military service leaders told senators Wednesday that passing a temporary budget^[1] that keeps defense spending largely flat will hurt readiness and efforts to modernize the armed forces^[2].

The vice chiefs of the Army^[3], Navy^[4], Marine Corps^[5] and Air Force^[6] said that if they don't get additional funding, they at least need the flexibility to shift money to ensure priorities are covered. Congress has been unable to get through a full 2025 fiscal year budget and instead has passed temporary stopgap measures^[7] that largely keep funding at 2024 levels.

A bill passed Tuesday by the House would increase defense spending by about $6 billion and trim $13 billion in non-defense spending, which are rather flat changes for both categories when compared with an overall topline of nearly $1.7 trillion in discretionary spending. The legislation now moves to the Senate.

This would be the first year that Congress hasn't passed a defense spending bill and will instead use a full-year continuing resolution^[8], the military leaders said. They said that continuing the 2024 budget lines doesn't allow the services to start new contracts, including for weapon modernization or housing and other improvements.

"Ultimately, the Army can afford a large, ready or modern force, but with the current budget, it cannot afford all three," Gen. James Mingus, vice chief of staff of the Army, told the Senate Armed Services readiness subcommittee. "Either we provide soldiers the capabilities needed to win or accept greater risks in other areas."

He warned that the Army will pay for those risks down the road, "not in delayed projects or budget adjustments, but in real-world battlefield consequences. We need to invest in the things and training our soldiers need for the next fight, not the last fight."

Other service leaders echoed his warning, noting that shortfalls in shipbuilding^[9], maintenance and sustainment affect both the Navy and the Marine Corps.

Adm. James Kilby, vice chief of naval operations, said this "will slow shipbuilding, including our amphibious warships."

Marine leaders have long complained about the lack of critically needed amphibious ships that can transport Marines at sea to combat. As of Wednesday morning, said Gen. Christopher Mahoney, assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, just 13 of the Navy's 32 amphibious ships were available for use.

And Air Force Lt. Gen. Adrian L. Spain, deputy chief of staff, said the continuing resolution will affect combat readiness in his service "to the tune of about $4 billion."

President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have both spoken extensively about the need to focus on military readiness and lethality^[10]. But the government is also facing drastic cuts in spending and personnel, driven by the Department of Government Efficiency^[11], or DOGE, run by billionaire Trump adviser Elon Musk.

Senators acknowledged the continuing resolution presents a challenge for the military, but they provided no clear answer on whether flexibility will be built in as the spending bill heads to the Senate this week.

"From a readiness standpoint, none of us think this is helpful. What would be worse, in my view, is a government shutdown," said Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska.

Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, questioned whether the deployment of active-duty forces^[12] to the southern border is impeding training and readiness because troops are largely erecting barriers and helping border agents with intelligence, logistics and other tasks.

She said having warfighters "overseeing the stocking of civilian warehouses and data entry on the (CBP computers)" doesn't sound like the emphasis on lethality that Hegseth has promised.