National
Gay group works to change hearts, minds at CPAC
Amid the boos, GOProud finds support from young conservatives
Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of GOProud, speaks during the Conservative Political Action Conference. His group and its message drew mixed reactions during the D.C. event. (DC Agenda photo by Michael Key)
GOProud’s booth at last week’s Conservative Political Action Conference was, like most others at the event, a simple setup.
At the back of the booth was a cardboard wall with the group’s name repeated in red, white and blue lettering. On a table were clipboards with sign up sheets, a roll of “Draft Cheney 2012” stickers and a handout describing the group’s mission.
“GOProud represents gay conservatives and their allies,” it says. “GOProud is committed to a traditional conservative agenda that emphasizes limited government, individual liberty, free markets and a confident foreign policy.”
The setup, in hindsight, might have been too simple. Jimmy LaSalvia, the group’s executive director, at one point looked longingly at a neighboring booth for the Citizens in Charge Foundation, a group dedicated to instituting the referendum process in each state. The motif for the booth included beach toys and fishing nets with dollar bills.
“We should have had a gimmick like that,” he said. “That would have brought more people over.”
Still, the “Draft Cheney” stickers caused at least some passers by to stop. The problem? Most people in the CPAC exhibition hall were unaware of GOProud’s mission as a gay group. Asked by one attendee whether Cheney would really run in 2012, Chris Barron, GOProud’s board chair, responded enthusiastically.
“I don’t know, but can you imagine a better person to send off in a debate with Barack Obama?” he said. “I’d pay money to see that!”
It was a tough crowd for GOProud. As LaSalvia and Barron greeted convention attendees and explained the organization’s outlook to those who were interested, they found themselves having to navigate a sometimes-hostile environment.
Brochures handed out by the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family & Property, ostensibly a Catholic organization, encouraged people to “keep our military clean” and “oppose the homosexual agenda for the military.”
“Homosexual vice represents the opposite of this military honor,” says the document. “It violates natural law, epitomizes the unleashing of man’s unruly passions, undermines self-discipline and has [been] defined as ‘intrinsically evil’ by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church on numerous occasions.”
At CPAC, GOProud was queer. And while some were OK with it, others were not.
‘What are you guys about?’
Tension at GOProud’s booth mounted at one point when a woman with a determined look on her face stopped at the booth and announced she needed to air some concerns. Jon Fortin, a gay former Republican administration official who helped GOProud at CPAC, became noticeably tense as a nearby reporter grabbed his notebook.
“I just want to tell you guys that I believe gambling does harm to families,” she said. “It creates financial ruin and drives families apart.”
Fortin quickly noted that the Poker Players Alliance, is actually next to GOProud, opposite the Citizens in Charge Foundation.
“Oh,” the woman said. “Well what are you guys about then?”
Fortin explained GOProud’s mission of advocating for items on the conservative agenda while simultaneously advancing some LGBT causes, such as repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
In response, the woman said she had concerns about how gays serving openly would contribute to military readiness. She also wanted to know what arrangements could be made for straight service members who are uncomfortable being in close quarters with gays.
Fortin made an effort to allay her concerns by saying that repealing the law would simply allow gay troops already in the military to serve openly without being expelled from the armed services.
The exchange was among the most contentious moments at GOProud’s booth. Others who approached either voiced support for their inclusion at CPAC, asked questions about the group’s agenda, or expressed their lack of interest or opposition by simply moving to the next booth.
That nothing more contentious occurred at the gay group’s booth could be taken as evidence that the conservative movement is shifting toward greater acceptance — or at least greater tolerance — of gays. Young conservatives, the largest demographic at CPAC, seem willing to include gays among the crowd, or are at least divided on the issue.
Remarks of two CPAC speakers and the accompanying audience reaction seem to best symbolize the state of gay inclusion among conservatives. Alexander McCorbin, a member of Students for Liberty, praised CPAC in his speech for allowing GOProud to participate in the conference.
“In the name of freedom, I would like to also thank the American Conservative Union for welcoming GOProud as a co-sponsor of this event,” he said. “Not because of any politics, but because of the message that it sends: If what you truly care about is freedom, limited government, and prosperity, then this symbol is a step in the right direction, and look to the student movement for support!”
The audience received McCorbin’s words with a mixture of boos and applause. But what caused more controversy took place a few moments later when Ryan Sorba, co-founder of California Young Americans for Freedom, took the stage.
“I want to condemn CPAC for bringing GOProud to this event!” he shouted, drawing more boos than McCorbin received, but still some applause. Sorba continued his tirade against gays and their pursuit of civil rights.
“Civil rights are granted in natural rights,” he said. “Natural rights are granted in human nature. Human nature is a rational substance in relationship. The intelligible end of reproductive act is reproduction. Do you understand that?”
Despite more boos from the audience, Sorba continued. “The lesbians at Smith College protest better than you do!” And after apparent disapproval from Jeff Frazee, executive director of Young Americans for Liberty, Sorba countered, “You just made an enemy out of me, buddy.”
When asked moments later for his reaction to Sorba’s comments, LaSalvia gave a measured response.
“I think the audience speaks for itself,” he said. “That’s all I have to say about that.”
LaSalvia later noted that Sorba’s remarks were possibly a boon for collecting signatures on GOProud’s signup sheet. During the first two days, the group netted about 100 signatures; nearly 200 people signed up in the days following Sorba’s tirade.
No other event at CPAC hit quite as hard an anti-gay note as Sorba’s tirade.
Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness and a leading national voice against gays serving openly in the armed forces, held a press conference to warn about the danger of ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” but her event wasn’t officially sponsored by CPAC.
And her message was blunted when conservative activist Liz Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Richard Cheney, told Talking Points Memo following her speech at the podium that it’s time to end the ban on open service.
Even an official CPAC panel dedicated to social issues was largely free of anti-gay rhetoric and instead advocated a more general advancement of largely undefined traditional values.
One exception came when panelist Tim Goeglein of Focus on the Family Action advocated for the Manhattan Declaration, an agreement among religious groups that proclaims, among other things, that marriage is for life and between one man and one woman.
Longtime social conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly praised the 31 state constitutional amendments that banned same-sex marriage throughout the country — comments that drew significant applause from her audience. In particular, she praised the amendment Ohio voters approved in 2004.
“George Bush could not and would not have been elected in 2004 if it had not been that the marriage amendment was on the ballot in the state of Ohio, which turned out to be the crucial state in that election,” she said. “So that has been very good for Republican victory.”
LaSalvia said after Schlafly’s speech that Bush’s victory could be attributed to any number of different factors.
But the venom found on stage was lacking among those who visited GOProud’s booth in the exhibition hall. Brett Dinkins, a 19-year-old student from the University of Missouri, signed up to join GOProud’s list while sporting a golden “Blunt” pin on his lapel indicating his support for Republican candidate Roy Blunt in Missouri’s upcoming U.S. Senate race.
Dinkins said he wanted to sign the list to show how the conservative movement is “just getting away from the traditional, close-minded thoughts and moving forward to the age that we’re definitely in now.”
“They probably get a lot of heat from people sometimes, so it’s good that they’re actually out here at the biggest conservative gathering doing it,” he said.
At one point, a representative from the National Rifle Association visited the booth, and he and LaSalvia shared memories of how the groups worked in tandem last year to get a failed concealed weapons amendment passed in the Senate. The NRA official wasn’t able to stay long, though, and soon returned to his booth.
Several candidates seeking to oust traditionally pro-LGBT lawmakers also visited GOProud’s booth in search of support. LaSalvia said he received a visit from a Republican challenging House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and John Loughlin, the GOP candidate who seems poised to challenge gay Democrat David Cicilline in Rhode Island this fall for Congress.
Sean Bielat, who’s the likely Republican candidate to take on gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), also made an appearance to seek the gay group’s help. He emphasized that he’s running on fiscal issues and that he and GOProud should “keep in touch.”
There was even a surprise visit from lesbian MSNBC talk show host Rachel Maddow, who toured CPAC as part of her trip to D.C. She asked LaSalvia about the “objections” to GOProud’s presence.
“Well, the bottom line is those objections came from the fringe of the fringe,” LaSalvia said. “There was one organization that pulled out. It was Liberty University.”
“Oh yeah,” Maddow said. “They’re the people that said health care reform was going to mean mandatory sex changes.”
LaSalvia noted it’s ironic that Liberty University pulled out because both the school and GOProud participated in a Young College Republicans event together last year.
“Maybe you so spooked them at the event — they were like, ‘Never again!’” Maddow responded.
“The bottom line is the real story is people have been coming up to us saying, ‘We’re so glad you’re here,’” LaSalvia said.
Even an encounter with the National Organization for Marriage, which had a display near GOProud, was relatively calm. At one point, CNN prompted a meeting between GOProud and the anti-gay group in the network’s coverage of GOProud’s role at CPAC.
“We can have a beer summit later,” Barron joked during the exchange.
So if they’re not at GOProud’s booth, where are these conservatives who aren’t happy about the inclusion of gays in the movement? It turns out that they’re somewhat evasive.
Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), notorious for remarks he made during his tenure in the Senate comparing homosexuality to bestiality, dodged a DC Agenda reporter after giving a speech that suggested Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen were “indoctrinated” by political correctness into endorsing an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in congressional testimony earlier this month.
Santorum held the reporter’s business card and peered at it through his glasses before he returning the card.
“I’m actually late for something and I have to get going,” he said. “Sorry, but I can’t answer any questions.”
Some college students with comparatively lower profiles seemed equally skittish when approached while examining an event map.
“I’m with the press,” said the reporter. “Can I ask you some questions?”
“Sure,” one responded.
“I write for DC Agenda. We’re a gay publication.”
“I’d rather not be part of that.”
“Well, can I still ask you some questions?”
“I don’t want to say anything.”
To get some conversational traction, this reporter eventually resorted to identifying himself verbally as a member of the press and then handing his business card to each person following the conversation. The approach helped convention attendants find their voice.
John Daniel, a 19-year-old student from Florida State University, said he’s against the inclusion of gays in the conservative movement.
“I think there’s nothing wrong with people being homosexual, I just don’t believe they should get married,” he says. “All of us are brothers in Christ, but I’m against them getting married.”
When pressed about what he thought of GOProud’s participation in CPAC, Daniel expressed similar reservations.
“I’m glad that they’re on our side for most things, but I don’t think that they should like — I don’t know — I don’t think that should be high on the agenda,” he said.
Expressing similar reluctance to welcome gays as conservatives is Chase Bishop, a 21-year-old conservative Christian from Liberty University.
“I believe that gays are fine,” he said. “I believe that they can express themselves, and they’re still human beings, and they can give their political views — but I think in the conservative movement, we need to keep the people that are not gay in leadership and help the gays come back to where they need to be.”
More support for gay rights could be found among CPAC attendees who identify as libertarians, such as Kevin Brent, a 23-year-old D.C. resident.
“It sounds funny, but gays are people, too, and they have the rights; they should [have the] freedoms to express themselves,” he said. “I don’t really think it’s a political issue and I think it gets way more attention than it should.”
Margaret Marro, a 19-year-old libertarian and a student from Indiana University, said she was enthusiastic about gays in the conservative movement and GOProud’s participation in CPAC. She said there’s “definitely” a place for gays among conservatives.
“I think that gay and lesbian issues are very, very much a generational thing and I think that my generation is much more accepting,” she said. “Honestly, I can’t wait until those social issues aren’t part of any party’s agenda because I think that economic issues are so much [more] important to this country than issues over anyone’s personal rights.”
The real test for GOProud came during the group’s participation in a panel discussion. On Feb. 20, the group was slated to discuss the use of social networking technologies, such as Facebook and Twitter, to advance goals for conservative organizations.
The panel took place the morning after Sorba made his remarks. LaSalvia, who represented GOProud on the panel, said he didn’t expect much fallout.
“This is a room full of tech people,” he said, “so I think we’ll be pretty calm here.”
But LaSalvia appeared anxious. He laughed nervously as he talked to other panelists, and had his arms wrapped before him as he chewed on his thumbnail. The first to speak of the three panelists, LaSalvia recalled that he and Barron relied on the Internet to advance their message when GOProud opened shop.
“We knew that we had to use to the best of our ability — and on very little money — technology to organize our organization and start it from scratch,” LaSalvia said. “We still continue to use a mix of a database and contact management software that we paid for … and then we use Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and the free stuff.”
He went on to relay an anecdote about how the group used Twitter last year to put pressure on Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) for voting against the concealed weapons amendment and comparing passage of the measure to imposing same-sex marriage on Missouri.
“We know that Sen. McCaskill is famous for being a Twitterer,” he said. “We knew that that was going to be the secret weapon in this particular thing, and so, again, it was me in a coffee shop and my colleague in his living room in Georgetown with our laptops — and we started talking to her on Twitter.”
LaSalvia said he sent links to McCaskill on their press release and the remarks she made and that the information was re-Tweeted “thousands of times.”
“The Second Amendment community was mad at her,” he says. “The gay left was mad at her, and the Twitter universe was going nuts, and she was trying to respond to people from this committee hearing. And I thought, ‘OK, we lost yesterday, but at the very least, we’re giving her a bad day,’ and we have an election issue.”
Among the audience, people were listening intently. No one appeared concerned about being lectured by a gay group or hearing about same-sex marriage — except for perhaps an older man in the audience who had his arms crossed before him. No questions emerged regarding the group’s involvement at CPAC; people instead want to learn about the best ways to use technology to advance their organizations.
LaSalvia told the crowd to keep as much information as possible on people in their databases, including where potential supporters were first encountered. He said if people interested in their groups first expressed interest during, for example, an art fair, that information should be included in the database.
The panel discussion ended promptly after one hour and LaSalvia seemed happy with how it went.
“It went very well — exactly as I had expected,” he says. “We’re all trying to do the same thing, we’re all different organizations and we have common needs and common concerns.”
Still, LaSalvia cursed himself for using an art fair as a place for conservatives to meet supporters.
“I wish I hadn’t used the gayest example that I could think of.”
U.S. Military/Pentagon
4th Circuit rules against discharged service members with HIV
Judges overturned lower court ruling
A federal appeals court on Wednesday reversed a lower court ruling that struck down the Pentagon’s ban on people with HIV enlisting in the military.
The conservative three-judge panel on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a 2024 ruling that had declared the Defense Department and Army policies barring all people living with HIV from military service unconstitutional.
The 4th Circuit, which covers Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia, held that the military has a “rational basis” for maintaining medical standards that categorically exclude people living with HIV from enlisting, even those with undetectable viral loads — meaning their viral levels are so low that they cannot transmit the virus and can perform all duties without health limitations.
This decision could have implications for other federal circuits dealing with HIV discrimination cases, as well as for nationwide military policy.
The case, Wilkins v. Hegseth, was filed in November 2022 by Lambda Legal and other HIV advocacy groups on behalf of three individual plaintiffs who could not enlist or re-enlist based on their HIV status, as well as the organizational plaintiff Minority Veterans of America.
The plaintiffs include a transgender woman who was honorably discharged from the Army for being HIV-positive, a gay man who was in the Georgia National Guard but cannot join the Army, and a cisgender woman who cannot enlist in the Army because she has HIV, along with the advocacy organization Minority Veterans of America.
Isaiah Wilkins, the gay man, was separated from the Army Reserves and disenrolled from the U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School after testing positive for HIV. His legal counsel argued that the military’s policy violates his equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
In August 2024, a U.S. District Court sided with Wilkins, forcing the military to remove the policy barring all people living with HIV from joining the U.S. Armed Services. The court cited that this policy — and ones like it that discriminate based on HIV status — are “irrational, arbitrary, and capricious” and “contribute to the ongoing stigma surrounding HIV-positive individuals while actively hampering the military’s own recruitment goals.”
The Pentagon appealed the decision, seeking to reinstate the ban, and succeeded with Wednesday’s court ruling.
Judge Paul V. Niemeyer, one of the three-judge panel nominated to the 4th Circuit by President George H. W. Bush, wrote in his judicial opinion that the military is “a specialized society separate from civilian society,” and that the military’s “professional judgments in this case [are] reasonably related to its military mission,” and thus “we conclude that the plaintiffs’ claims fail as a matter of law.”
“We are deeply disappointed that the 4th Circuit has chosen to uphold discrimination over medical reality,” said Gregory Nevins, senior counsel and employment fairness project director for Lambda Legal. “Modern science has unequivocally shown that HIV is a chronic, treatable condition. People with undetectable viral loads can deploy anywhere, perform all duties without limitation, and pose no transmission risk to others. This ruling ignores decades of medical advancement and the proven ability of people living with HIV to serve with distinction.”
“As both the 4th Circuit and the district court previously held, deference to the military does not extend to irrational decision-making,” said Scott Schoettes, who argued the case on appeal. “Today, servicemembers living with HIV are performing all kinds of roles in the military and are fully deployable into combat. Denying others the opportunity to join their ranks is just as irrational as the military’s former policy.”
New York
Lawsuit to restore Stonewall Pride flag filed
Lambda Legal, Washington Litigation Group brought case in federal court
Lambda Legal and Washington Litigation Group filed a lawsuit on Tuesday, challenging the Trump-Vance administration’s removal of the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument in New York earlier this month.
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asks the court to rule the removal of the Pride flag at the Stonewall National Monument is unconstitutional under the Administrative Procedures Act — and demands it be restored.
The National Park Service issued a memorandum on Jan. 21 restricting the flags that are allowed to fly at National Parks. The directive was signed by Trump-appointed National Park Service Acting Director Jessica Bowron.
“Current Department of the Interior policy provides that the National Park Service may only fly the U.S. flag, Department of the Interior flags, and the Prisoner of War/Missing in Action flag on flagpoles and public display points,” the letter from the National Park Service reads. “The policy allows limited exceptions, permitting non-agency flags when they serve an official purpose.”
That “official purpose” is the grounds on which Lambda Legal and the Washington Litigation Group are hoping a judge will agree with them — that the Pride flag at the Stonewall National Monument, the birthplace of LGBTQ rights movement in the U.S., is justified to fly there.
The plaintiffs include the Gilbert Baker Foundation, Charles Beal, Village Preservation, and Equality New York.
The defendants include Interior Secretary Doug Burgum; Bowron; and Amy Sebring, the Superintendent of Manhattan Sites for the National Park Service.
“The government’s decision is deeply disturbing and is just the latest example of the Trump administration targeting the LGBTQ+ community. The Park Service’s policies permit flying flags that provide historical context at monuments,” said Alexander Kristofcak, a lawyer with the Washington Litigation Group, which is lead counsel for plaintiffs. “That is precisely what the Pride flag does. It provides important context for a monument that honors a watershed moment in LGBTQ+ history. At best, the government misread its regulations. At worst, the government singled out the LGBTQ+ community. Either way, its actions are unlawful.”
“Stonewall is the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement,” said Beal, the president of the Gilbert Baker Foundation. The foundation’s mission is to protect and extend the legacy of Gilbert Baker, the creator of the Pride flag.
“The Pride flag is recognized globally as a symbol of hope and liberation for the LGBTQ+ community, whose efforts and resistance define this monument. Removing it would, in fact, erase its history and the voices Stonewall honors,” Beal added.
The APA was first enacted in 1946 following President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s creation of multiple new government agencies under the New Deal. As these agencies began to find their footing, Congress grew increasingly worried that the expanding powers these autonomous federal agencies possessed might grow too large without regulation.
The 79th Congress passed legislation to minimize the scope of these new agencies — and to give them guardrails for their work. In the APA, there are four outlined goals: 1) to require agencies to keep the public informed of their organization, procedures, and rules; 2) to provide for public participation in the rule-making process, for instance through public commenting; 3) to establish uniform standards for the conduct of formal rule-making and adjudication; and 4) to define the scope of judicial review.
In layman’s terms, the APA was designed “to avoid dictatorship and central planning,” as George Shepherd wrote in the Northwestern Law Review in 1996, explaining its function.
Lambda Legal and the Washington Litigation Group are arguing that not only is the flag justified to fly at the Stonewall National Monument, making the directive obsolete, but also that the National Park Service violated the APA by bypassing the second element outlined in the law.
“The Pride flag at the Stonewall National Monument honors the history of the fight for LGBTQ+ liberation. It is an integral part of the story this site was created to tell,” said Lambda Legal Chief Legal Advocacy Officer Douglas F. Curtis in a statement. “Its removal continues the Trump administration’s disregard for what the law actually requires in their endless campaign to target our community for erasure and we will not let it stand.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the NPS for comment, and received no response.
Massachusetts
EXCLUSIVE: Markey says transgender rights fight is ‘next frontier’
Mass. senator, 79, running for re-election
For more than half a century, U.S. Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) has built a career around the idea that government can — and should — expand rights rather than restrict them. From pushing for environmental protections to consumer safeguards and civil liberties, the Massachusetts Democrat has long aligned himself with progressive causes.
In this political moment, as transgender Americans face a wave of federal and state-level attacks, Markey says this fight in particular demands urgent attention.
The Washington Blade spoke with Markey on Tuesday to discuss his reintroduction of the Trans Bill of Rights, his long record on LGBTQ rights, and his reelection campaign — a campaign he frames not simply as a bid for another term, but as part of a broader struggle over the direction of American democracy.
Markey’s political career spans more than five decades.
From 1973 to 1976, he served in the Massachusetts House of Representatives, representing the 16th Middlesex District, which includes the Boston suburbs of Malden and Melrose, as well as the 26th Middlesex District.
In 1976, he successfully ran for Congress, winning the Democratic primary and defeating Republican Richard Daly in the general election by a 77-18 percent margin. He went on to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives for nearly four decades, from 1976 until 2013.
Markey in 2013 ran in the special election to fill an open Senate seat after John Kerry became secretary of state in the Obama-Biden administration. Markey defeated Republican Gabriel E. Gomez and completed the remaining 17 months of Kerry’s term. Markey took office on July 16, 2013, and has represented Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate ever since.
Over the years, Markey has built a reputation as a progressive Democrat focused on human rights. From environmental protection and consumer advocacy to civil liberties, he has consistently pushed for an expansive view of constitutional protections. In the Senate, he co-authored the Green New Deal, has advocated for Medicare for All, and has broadly championed civil rights. His committee work has included leadership roles on Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee.
Now, amid what he describes as escalating federal attacks on trans Americans, Markey said the reintroduction of the Trans Bill of Rights is not only urgent, but necessary for thousands of Americans simply trying to live their lives.
“The first day Donald Trump was in office, he began a relentless assault on the rights of transgender and nonbinary people,” Markey told the Blade. “It started with Executive Order 14168 ‘Defending women from gender ideology extremism and restoring biological truth to the federal government.’ That executive order mandates that federal agencies define gender as an unchangeable male/female binary determined by sex assigned at birth or conception.”
He argued that the executive action coincided with a sweeping legislative push in Republican-controlled statehouses.
“Last year, we saw over 1,000 anti trans bills across 49 states and the federal government were introduced. In January of 2026, to today, we’ve already seen 689 bills introduced,” he said. “The trans community needs to know there are allies who are willing to stand up for them and affirmatively declare that trans people deserve all of the rights to fully participate in public life like everyone else — so Trump and MAGA Republicans have tried hard over the last year to legislate all of these, all of these restrictions.”
Markey said the updated version of the Trans Bill of Rights is designed as a direct response to what he views as an increasingly aggressive posture from the Trump-Vance administration and its GOP congressional allies. He emphasized that the legislation reflects new threats that have emerged since the bill’s original introduction.
In order to respond to those developments, Markey worked with U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) to draft a revised version that would more comprehensively codify protections for trans Americans under federal law.
“What we’ve added to the legislation is this is all new,” he explained, describing how these proposed protections would fit into all facets of trans Americans’ lives. “This year’s version of it that Congresswoman Jayapal and I drafted, there’s an anti-trans bias in the immigration system should be eliminated.”
“Providers of gender affirming care should be protected from specious consumer and medical fraud accusations. The sexual and gender minority research office at the National Institutes of Health should be reopened and remain operational,” he continued. “Military discharges or transgender and nonbinary veterans and reclassification of discharge status should be reviewed. Housing assignments for transgender and nonbinary people in government custody should be based on their safety needs and involuntary, solitary or affirmative administrative confinement of a transgender or nonbinary individual because of their gender identity should be prohibited, so without it, all of those additional protections, and that’s Just to respond to the to the ever increasingly aggressive posture which Donald Trump and his mega Republicans are taking towards the transgender.”
The scope of the bill, he argued, reflects the breadth of challenges trans Americans face — from immigration and health care access to military service and incarceration conditions. In his view, the legislation is both a substantive policy response and a moral declaration.
On whether the bill can pass in the current Congress, Markey acknowledged the political hardships but insisted the effort itself carries as much significance as the bill’s success.
“Well, Republicans have become the party of capitulation, not courage,” Markey said. “We need Republicans of courage to stand up to Donald Trump and his hateful attacks. But amid the relentless attacks on the rights and lives of transgender people across the country by Trump and MAGA Republicans, it is critical to show the community that they have allies in Congress — the Trans Bill of Rights is an affirmative declaration that federal lawmakers believe trans rights are human eights and the trans people have the right to fully participate in public life, just like everyone else.”
Even if the legislation does not advance in this congress, Markey said, it establishes a framework for future action.
“It is very important that Congresswoman Jayapal and I introduce this legislation as a benchmark for what it is that we are going to be fighting for, not just this year, but next year,” he said when asked if the bill stood a legitimate chance of passing the federal legislative office when margins are so tight. “After we win the House and Senate to create a brand new, you know, floor for what we have to pass as legislation … We can give permanent protections.”
He framed the bill as groundwork for a future Congress in which Democrats regain control of both chambers, creating what he described as a necessary roadblock to what he views as the Trump-Vance administration’s increasingly restrictive agenda.
Markey also placed the current political climate within the longer arc of LGBTQ history and activism.
When asked how LGBTQ Americans should respond to the removal of the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument — the first national monument dedicated to recognizing the LGBTQ rights movement — Markey was unwavering.
“My message from Stonewall to today is that there has been an ongoing battle to change the way in which our country responds to the needs of the LGBTQ and more specifically the transgender community,” he said. “When they seek to take down symbols of progress, we have to raise our voices.”
“We can’t agonize,” Markey stressed. “We have to organize in order to ensure that that community understands, and believes that we have their back and that we’re not going away — and that ultimately we will prevail.”
Markey added, “That this hatefully picketed White House is going to continue to demonize the transgender community for political gain, and they just have to know that there’s going to be an active, energetic resistance, that that is going to be there in the Senate and across our country.”
Pam Bondi ‘is clearly part’ of Epstein cover up
Beyond LGBTQ issues, Markey also addressed controversy surrounding Attorney General Pam Bondi and the handling of the Epstein files, sharply criticizing the administration’s response to congressional inquiries.
“Well, Pam Bondi is clearly part of a cover up,” Markey said when asked about the attorney general’s testimony to Congress amid growing bipartisan outrage over the way the White House has handled the release of the Epstein files. “She is clearly part of a whitewash which is taking place in the Trump administration … According to the New York Times, Trump has been mentioned 38,000 times in the [Epstein] files which have been released thus far. There are still 3 million more pages that have yet to be released. So this is clearly a cover up. Bondi was nothing more than disgraceful in the way in which she was responding to our questions.”
“I think in many ways, she worsened the position of the Trump administration by the willful ignoring of the central questions which were being asked by the committee,” he added.
‘I am as energized as I have ever been’
As he campaigns for reelection, Markey said the stakes extend beyond any single issue or piece of legislation. He framed his candidacy as part of a broader fight for democracy and constitutional protections — and one that makes him, as a 79-year-old, feel more capable and spirited than ever.
“Well, I am as energized as I have ever been,” he said. “Donald Trump is bringing out the Malden in me. My father was a truck driver in Malden, Mass., and I have had the opportunity of becoming a United States senator, and in this fight, I am looking ahead and leading the way, affirming rights for the trans community, showing up to defend their rights when they are threatened from this administration.”
He continued, reiterating his commitment not only to the trans community but to a future in which progressive and proactive pushes for expanded rights are seen, heard, and actualized.
“Our democracy is under threat from Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans who are trying to roll back everything we fought for and threaten everything we stand for in Massachusetts, and their corruption, their greed, their hate, just make me want to fight harder.”
When asked why Massachusetts voters should reelect him, he said his age and experience as a 79-year-old are assets rather than hindrances.
“That’s exactly what I’m doing and what I’m focused upon, traveling across the state, showing up for the families of Massachusetts, and I’m focused on the fights of today and the future to ensure that people have access to affordable health care, to clean air, clean water, the ability to pay for everyday necessities like energy and groceries.”
“I just don’t talk about progress. I deliver it,” he added. “There’s more to deliver for the people of Massachusetts and across this country, and I’m not stopping now as energized as I’ve ever been, and a focus on the future, and that future includes ensuring that the transgender community receives all of the protections of the United States Constitution that every American is entitled to, and that is the next frontier, and we have to continue to fight to make that promise a reality for that beleaguered community that Trump is deliberately targeting.”
PHOTOS: Cupid’s Undie Run
Sweat DC expands to Shaw
D.C. police arrest man for burglary at gay bar Spark Social House
Going for gold: Ford Bronco Sport vs. Toyota RAV4
How do we honor Renee Good, Alex Pretti?
LGBTQ groups question US health agreements with African countries
Trump falsely links trans people to terrorism
Fellow lawmakers praise Adam Ebbin after Va. Senate farewell address
LGBTQ activists mourn the Rev. Jesse Jackson
