DoD Rule Replaces Gender With Sex in DEERS

2025-12-01

Ledger of Identities by DALL-E 3

DoD Rule Replaces Gender With Sex in DEERS

Bread and Circus: The Complete Record of American Governance

Today’s newsletter covers official U.S. government happenings from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches yesterday, as well as key economic indicators. Below, you’ll find concise summaries of each document, with links to the original sources for further reading.

What Happened Yesterday:

🦅 Executive Branch: 3 documents (1 Presidential Action, 2 Rules)
🏛️ Legislative Branch: 1 documents (1 Congressional Bill)
⚖️ Judicial Branch: 2 documents (2 Supreme Court Oral Arguments)
📊 Economic Indicators: No activity
Total words condensed: 95,924 into 1,569

The Big Picture

Federal agencies and courts moved on several fronts on December 1, 2025. The White House sent five nominees to the Senate for U.S. attorney and judgeships, while regulators finalized two consequential rules: the Department of Defense replaced the word “gender” with “sex” in military ID records and barred routine requests to change the “sex code” in DEERS (effective Dec. 1, 2025, public comments open through Jan. 30, 2026), and bank regulators rewrote the extra leverage buffer for the largest banks so it equals 50% of a bank’s GSIB score (new rule effective Dec. 1, 2025; banks may use it starting Jan. 1, 2026 and must by Apr. 1, 2026). Congress also sent to the President a bill directing the U.S. Mint to make three Congressional Gold Medals honoring the 1980 U.S. Olympic men’s hockey team. These items matter because they change who makes legal decisions (new judges), how military records and benefits are administered (DEERS rule), how much capital the biggest banks must hold (leverage rule), and how the government recognizes a historic event.

Two pending Supreme Court cases could shift how much power agencies and private firms have in practice. In Urias‑Orellana v. Bondi the Court is weighing whether judges should review certain asylum findings from scratch (called “de novo” review) or defer to the immigration agency’s fact-based judgments; in Cox Communications v. Sony Music the Court is deciding whether an internet provider that knows customers are copying music can be held liable simply for permitting that access. Both arguments show the justices are willing to question longstanding deference to agencies and to probe when private companies must police users. The outcomes could change who decides hard immigration claims, how much responsibility internet providers carry for user misconduct, and how predictable agency decisions will be going forward.

Pattern to Watch

The Supreme Court oral arguments point to a possible trend toward shrinking deference to agencies and increasing legal accountability for intermediaries. Indicators: justices repeatedly asked whether courts should substitute their own judgment for agencies in asylum fact-finding (signal for less deference), and pressed whether an ISP’s knowledge of repeated infringement is enough to impose liability (signal for greater private responsibility); the U.S. government supported a narrower defense for Cox, underscoring institutional interest in clearer rules. If the Court rules for more court control over agency findings or for greater ISP liability, expect more litigation, faster turnover in agency work, and practical pressure on providers to block or monitor users. Future signs the trend is continuing would include decisions adopting de novo review or imposing liability on passive intermediaries, plus new rulemaking or enforcement actions by agencies forced to operate under tighter judicial scrutiny.

🦅 Executive Branch

White House

The White House says that on December 1, 2025, President Trump sent five names to the U.S. Senate to be checked and voted on: James Bishop for U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of North Carolina (a 4‑year job, the document says), Megan Blair Benton for U.S. District Judge in Western Missouri, Christopher Michael De Bono for Associate Judge of the D.C. Superior Court (a 15‑year term, the document says), Brian Charles Lea for U.S. District Judge in Western Tennessee, and Justin R. Olson for U.S. District Judge in Southern Indiana. This affects the five people named, the courts where they would work, and people who live in those places because prosecutors and judges make decisions about criminal cases, lawsuits, and how laws are applied. The nominations must be approved by the Senate before the nominees can take the jobs, so the Senate’s action will decide whether these people get those posts. Read full document →

Federal Register

The Department of Defense changed rules in 32 CFR part 161 so that, starting December 1, 2025, the word “gender” is replaced by “sex” and people cannot ask to change the “sex code” (previously called “gender marker”) in DEERS except if there was a clear administrative mistake; this affects members of the uniformed services, their spouses and dependents, retirees, and contractor employees who have DoD ID cards. The rule is effective December 1, 2025, and the public can send comments until January 30, 2026. This matters because DEERS is the system that holds military ID and benefit records, so the change affects how names and sex appear on ID cards and records that are used for medical care, commissary and exchange access, and other military benefits. Read full document →
On Dec. 1, 2025, bank regulators changed the special leverage rule (the rule that says how much capital the very biggest banks must keep compared with their total size). Now those big bank holding companies must have a buffer equal to 50% of their “method 1” GSIB score (a number that measures how big and connected a bank is); their bank subsidiaries get the same 50% rule but that buffer is capped at 1%. The hard minimum leverage ratio stays 3%. This replaces the old extra buffers (the prior holding‑company buffer was 2% and some big bank subsidiaries had to meet 6% to be “well capitalized”). Banks can start using the new rule on Jan. 1, 2026 if they want, and must follow it by Apr. 1, 2026. This matters to everyday people because it may give giant banks more room to buy safe assets (like U.S. Treasury bills), trade and lend — which can help markets work — but it also means those banks may hold a bit less extra capital for losses, which could slightly affect bank safety and the deposit insurance system. Read full document →

🏛️ Legislative Branch

Congressional Bills

If signed by the President, this law would have the U.S. Mint make three official Congressional Gold Medals to honor the 1980 U.S. Olympic men’s ice hockey team (the bill lists 20 players) and give one medal to each of three museums: the Lake Placid Olympic Center, the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame in Eveleth, Minnesota, and the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Museum in Colorado Springs. Congress passed the bill and it was presented to the President on December 1, 2025 (it was introduced January 15, 2025). The main people affected are the 1980 team members and their families, the three museums that will display the medals, the U.S. Mint (which will make and sell bronze copies), and members of the public who can visit the displays or buy bronze duplicates; the Mint will pay the costs from its own Public Enterprise Fund and sell bronze copies to recover expenses. It matters because it recognizes a historic moment—34,200,000 people watched the game on February 22, 1980—helps preserve that history in public museums, and keeps the story available to inspire future generations. Read full document →

⚖️ Judicial Branch

Supreme Court Oral Arguments

This case, Urias‑Orellana v. Bondi, asks whether judges should decide for themselves — without giving special deference to the immigration agency — if a set of agreed facts counts as “persecution” for asylum, or whether courts must defer to the agency’s judgment unless no reasonable factfinder could disagree. The person seeking asylum said judges should decide this as a legal question (called “de novo” review) because courts need to make clear rules for future cases; the government said this is mostly about weighing how bad the harm was and drawing inferences from the facts, so courts should give the agency “substantial evidence” deference. Several justices pushed both sides: Justice Sotomayor asked why an undisputed death threat would not count, Justice Gorsuch asked whether courts simply ask if any reasonable factfinder could reach the agency’s view, and Justice Jackson worried the statute might already tell courts to defer to the agency — showing the Court is split and probing both views. This matters to regular people because the answer will change who decides hard asylum claims, how easy it is for people fleeing danger to get protection, and how consistent the rules are across courts. Read full document →
This was Cox Communications v. Sony Music, about whether an internet company (an ISP) can be held legally responsible for users who copy and share music if the company knew about the copying but did not cut off those users. Cox (backed by the U.S. government) said “no” — knowledge alone is not enough; the company must do something more like actively help the wrongdoing or make a product meant only for stealing music. Sony said “yes” — if the ISP keeps serving known, repeat infringers and lets them keep stealing, that is enough to be liable. The justices pressed both sides with practical questions — for example Justice Sotomayor asked why Cox didn’t work with schools or landlords to stop repeat piracy, Chief Justice Roberts asked whether Cox could meet a simpler rule in practice, and Justice Gorsuch and others focused on whether the law must require a true intent to cause harm; the bench sounded split and worried about big real‑world effects. The case matters because it will decide who must police online behavior: a ruling for Cox could leave copyright owners to sue individual users, while a ruling for Sony could force ISPs to cut off or police customers and could affect how people and places (schools, hospitals) get internet service. Read full document →

📊 Economic Indicators

No activity today.

Sources Covered Today

White House: Nominations Sent to the Senate
Federal Register: Identification (ID) Cards for Members of the Uniformed Services, Their Dependents, and Other Eligible Individuals; Amendment
Federal Register: Regulatory Capital Rule: Modifications to the Enhanced Supplementary Leverage Ratio Standards for U.S. Global Systemically Important Bank Holding Companies and Their Subsidiary Depository Institutions; Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity and Long-Term Debt Requirements for U.S. Global Systemically Important Bank Holding Companies
Congressional Bill: HR 452: Miracle on Ice Congressional Gold Medal Act
Supreme Court Oral Argument: Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, Att’y Gen.
Supreme Court Oral Argument: Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment

All U.S. Government Activity Yesterday:

Presidential actions issued: 1
Regulations: 2
Bills presented to president: 1
Bills that became law: 0
Supreme Court opinions issued: 0
Supreme Court oral arguments: 2

This is your daily record of history unfolding — no spin, just facts. For 342,912,518 people in the United States, this was yesterday.

← Previous: Symbolic Presidential Message for Twain, No Legal Force