I didn’t serve in the military, so I hesitate to cast judgment on those who’ve volunteered to die for me. But the hard truth is this: military service isn’t a right, it’s a responsibility. And with one quiet decision, the Supreme Court made it easier for our armed forces to focus on winning wars instead of managing ideology. The days of putting political experiments ahead of combat readiness may finally be coming to an end.

In January, President Trump issued an executive order reinstating a ban on individuals with gender dysphoria from serving in the military. The Department of Defense followed a policy that disqualifies those diagnosed with the condition or who have undergone medical or surgical interventions to treat it. The Pentagon argued that such conditions are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards required for military service. A federal judge in Washington state blocked the policy, calling it a de facto blanket ban. However, the Supreme Court stepped in last week and quietly allowed the ban to take effect while the case proceeded through the courts. The justices did not explain their decision, though the Court’s three liberal appointees indicated they would have ruled the other way.

The military is not a social club, a laboratory for identity politics, or a platform for self-expression. It is a lethal fighting force designed to defend the nation and destroy its enemies. Every policy, from boot camp standards to uniform codes, exists to serve that mission. When the Department of Defense states that gender dysphoria can create medical, psychological, and logistical burdens incompatible with military service, that is not discrimination. It is prioritization. Deployability, mental stability, and physical readiness are not optional in a profession that demands absolute cohesion and focus. Introducing complications that may undermine that focus puts lives at risk.

Still, I have to admit this issue doesn’t come without some moral weight. I didn’t serve in the military, and it’s not lost on me that those who have, regardless of how they identify, have chosen to put their lives on the line for people like me. Whatever policy debates may exist, there’s something deeply honorable about someone who volunteers to die to defend a country that often struggles to accept them.

When I spoke with Judge Andrew Napolitano about this issue, he reminded me that the role of the president as commander-in-chief was never intended to be what it has become. In his words, James Madison envisioned a president who would serve as a troop leader in times of war, not a dictator of the military in all things. Today, that power has expanded dramatically. While many conservatives may applaud the outcome in this case, we should not lose sight that unchecked executive authority can be dangerous no matter who wields it. A strong military should not come at the cost of constitutional restraint.

For now, the Trump administration’s ban is in effect. The Supreme Court has not issued a final ruling on the matter, but allowing the policy to proceed during litigation has sent a clear message about where the legal winds may be blowing. Thousands of transgender service members could face discharge, and recruits may be turned away. While the case continues through the Ninth Circuit, the reality is already changing. The military is moving toward a standard, prioritizing readiness, cohesion, and deployability over social considerations. Whether the courts eventually uphold the policy or not, the institution is shifting back to its core mission, which is for the better. 

The purpose of the military is not to validate personal identity. It is to win wars, protect the homeland, and maintain order in a dangerous world. That mission demands clarity, discipline, and standards that may seem harsh by civilian norms. I do not take lightly the commitment of those who choose to serve, especially those willing to do so under difficult personal circumstances. But feelings cannot outweigh facts. If gender dysphoria introduces risks that impair readiness, then the military has not only the right but the obligation to act accordingly.