In a withering exchange Wednesday, a federal judge doubted the Trump administration’s ability to fend off a civil challenge to an executive order barring transgender people from the U.S. military.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes pressed U.S. Attorney Jason Lynch, who is defending the administration, about the January directive, which sought to “prioritize military excellence and readiness” by prohibiting transgender people from serving or enlisting.

The order instructs the Defense Department to update medical requirements and standards for servicemembers within 60 days. It also ends health coverage for gender-related health care, bans the use of “invented” pronouns and segregates personnel based on their sex assigned at birth.

Two national LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, brought a legal challenge to the order on behalf of six trans service members and two trans people interested to enlist. Reyes will rule on whether to temporarily halt the new policy changes from going into effect and must weigh several factors, including whether the policies are discriminatory, as the civil suit claims.

“Do you agree that transgender people historically until today have been discriminated against?” Reyes asked Lynch.

Lynch acknowledged transgender people have been discriminated against, but he said he was doubtful that the half dozen trans service members and two trans prospective recruits who sued the administration in this specific instance had the grounds to do so. The Justice Department lawyer questioned whether those individuals could prove they are in fact part of a “suspect class,” or a group of people who have experienced historic discrimination, at least when it comes to being recruited by or serving in the military.

“There hasn’t been a strong showing of that here,” Lynch argued.

But the judge asked again: Haven’t transgender people been discriminated against, historically and today, simply for being transgender?

“Let me just read off a couple of things that the president has done,” the judge said. “And you tell me whether this feels discriminatory to you, all right?”

Reyes started by pointing out President Donald Trump’s executive order recognizing the existence of only two sexes — even though, she noted, this contradicts biology.

The judge continued: “He has blocked schools from using federal funds to promote the idea that gender can be fluid; he’s directed the State Department to stop issuing documents that allow a third X gender marker; he has changed the reference to LGBTQ on government websites to only LGB, literally erasing transgender people; banned the participation of transgender women in women’s sports; revoked the ability of transgender federal employees to receive gender-affirming care; stopped medical treatment, necessary medical treatment; directed that all transgender people in federal prison be denied medical treatment and be housed by sex, where they are nine times more likely to have acts of violence committed against them, including rape, repeated rape.”

Agencies have been directed to take down everything that promotes what the White House calls “gender ideology” from federal websites, including information on contraception, vaccines or HIV/AIDs, she continued. The Trump administration even went so far as to revoke previous policies that ensured transgender people had equal access to homeless shelters.

Reyes told Lynch that someone had sent her an email asking if she had a relationship with Jesus Christ.

“That email assumes I don’t have a relationship with Jesus already. ... I’ve been told to have a closer relationship with him,” Reyes said. “What do you think Jesus would say to telling a group of people that they are so worthless we’re not going to allow them into homeless shelters? You think Jesus would say, ‘That sounds right to me?’ Or would he say, ‘WTF, of course let them in’?”

“The government is not going to speculate on what Jesus would say about these things. I’m sorry,” Lynch said.

“I know it’s an unfair question to you, but you can’t tell me that transgender people are not being discriminated against today. I’m not making this up. They are literally being wiped off the face of websites by the federal government. They wiped [the word] ‘transgender’ from Stonewall memorial,” she said.

When Reyes asked the federal prosecutor if he understood “why that is important,” he responded that he did not.

The Stonewall riots started the modern gay rights movement, she said, adding that it was “beyond ironic and cruel” for the administration to no longer acknowledge transgender people on a monument to a queer uprising led by a gender-nonconforming person.

“Its not just like we’re not just erasing them. We’re erasing their contribution to modern society,” Reyes said. “How is it possible to view that as anything other than horrible discrimination? Does that mean every single thing I read off [earlier] is improper use of executive authority? Of course not. … But my view is when you look at all of these pieces as a whole, as a puzzle, the puzzle screams animus, right?”

When Lynch disagreed that any of those examples rose to the level of prejudice that would permit the trans service members to sue, the judge, exasperated, thundered at him: “Well, what on Earth would?”

Another hearing will be held on March 3, which is when Reyes said she expects the government to defend its claims that transgender military service is too costly or that transgender service members pose a threat to readiness because rates of suicidal ideation are high among the trans community.

She told the government to “be ready to stand on its positions,” then previewed some of her own.

Transgender people are not suicidal because they are transgender, she said: “Some transgender people are suicidal because of the way the government treats them.”

And the cost of providing health care to trans servicemembers — anywhere from $2.3 million to $8.4 million annually — is a mere drop in the bucket compared to other expenses that go toward the nation’s military “readiness,” she said.

Former President Barack Obama spent roughly $90 million on vacation and travel. During Trump’s first term, his golf expenses alone totaled $152 million over four years.

“Our presidents need to take vacations so they can function properly and we need to pay for that,” the judge said. “I’m not criticizing that. But if cost is a consideration to make, how is $8.4 million in any way shape or form material in discussing the government’s argument?”

Reyes is expected to rule on the order by March 4.