National
Pentagon officials outline scope for ‘Don’t Ask’ study
Officials leading the Pentagon study examining “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” outlined for lawmakers the general scope of their work Wednesday, but offered limited details and were tight-lipped on their personal views of the law.
Both co-chairs of the Pentagon working group testified before the House Armed Services personnel subcommittee. Jeh Johnson, general counsel for the Defense Department, and Gen. Carter Ham, commanding general of U.S. Army Europe, discussed how their work would build on President Obama’s call to end the 1993 law barring gays, lesbians and bisexuals from serving openly in the U.S. military.
The hearing marked the first time the House heard testimony on gays in the military since a similar committee hearing took place in 2008.
Also present was Clifford Stanley, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness. He would oversee the implementation of repeal at the Pentagon should Congress overturn “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Witnesses said the study underway at the Pentagon, due for completion Dec. 1, would identify the effects of repeal on military readiness, unit cohesion, recruiting, retention and military families.
Johnson and Ham also noted that the working group has been broken down into four teams: a survey team; a legislative, regulatory and legal team; a policy development team; and an education and training team. Ham said the working group intends to gather information with “wide outreach to get a wide variety of views.”
“That survey must be enriched by personal contact — focus groups, if you will — some of them specifically targeted to specialized groups and families within the Department of Defense, active reserve and guard,” Ham said.
Ham said he anticipates outreach through “social media” so that information can be gathered from the widest possible pool.
“A wide variety of individuals — both within the Department of Defense and without — who will have views on this matter will have an opportunity for their voice to be heard,” he said.
Still, the witnesses said the working group is in its early stages and there was little information to share at this point.
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said the hearing was “largely process driven,” but it affirmed that there’s still an opportunity for repeal to happen this year.
“Clearly Congressman Patrick Murphy and other members of the subcommittee underscored to [Defense Department] General Counsel Johnson and Gen. Ham that repeal can get done this year as the working group does its job,” he said.
A number of lawmakers at the hearing asked whether Congress should take legislative action against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before the working group’s study is complete.
Murphy, a Pennsylvania Democrat who’s sponsoring the House repeal bill, said if lawmakers were pass repeal as part of the upcoming defense authorization bill, it would likely not be signed until October, which he said would give the Pentagon time to review the process for implementation.
But Johnson said he wasn’t inclined to endorse legislative action on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before the working group had a chance to complete its study.
“The secretary of defense believes that we should go about repeal in a careful methodical way, and first study … all of the impacts of repeal on the current policy,” Johnson said. “I would think that the Congress would like to hear from us first before undertaking to consider repeal.”
Still, Johnson said he wouldn’t advise Congress what action they should take on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year.
“I’m not here to oppose or support any congressional action,” he said. “We’re here to do an exhaustive, thorough, comprehensive review of the impact of repeal of the policy.”
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), ranking Republican on the subcommittee, said he maintained some reservations regarding the study given its scope.
Wilson said he wants to the working group to examine whether “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as it stands undermines readiness and whether repeal would contribute to military effectiveness “in measureable ways.”
“If the study does not address these issues, then its overall credibility and usefulness for the Congressional decision-making process will be significantly undermined,” he said.
Questioning the need for repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Wilson said 8,300 service members were discharged under the law from fiscal years 1999 and 2008. The lawmaker said this number was infinitesimally small given that the military separated about 1.9 million people during that time.
“That’s about 800 people discharged per year, and unless you contradict me, it’s not a significant loss from an overall [Defense Department] manpower perspective,” Wilson said.
Rep. Susan Davis (D-Calif.), chair of the subcommittee, asked about the possibility of changing the implementation of current law so that third parties couldn’t out and discharge gay service members.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has tasked Johnson with finding out whether this “more humane” approach to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was possible within the confines of the law 45 days from the start of the working group.
Johnson said this task was running “separate and apart” from the study’s work and said he expected to have recommendations around March 19.
“We’re getting comprehensive input from the services on that topic, and I expect that we will meet our 45-day timeline,” he said.
Lawmakers on the panel also asked the witnesses about plans for allowing for gays in the military to contribute to the study without being discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Ham said the working group is working on ways to get their input, and the use of social media could play a role, but such plans aren’t yet final.
“We share with you the concern — the absolute necessity — to reach out and hear from homosexuals who are today serving in the force,” he said. “We don’t yet know how to do that, but my pledge to you is that we will find a way and we will do that.”
Ham said the working group has an opportunity to hear from service members who have already been separated under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and noted that information “will be instructive to us.”
At one point, Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.) asked the witnesses about their personal views on gays in the military. The witnesses were tight-lipped on their opinions, though, saying that want to remain objective as they complete the study.
Johnson noted he’s part of the Obama administration and the president has expressed his desire to move toward repeal. He added that his assignment “is to do an objective, comprehensive review of the implications of repeal of the policy.”
“I’m trying very hard to approach this in an objective, thorough, comprehensive fashion and create an environment conducive to others within the force telling us what they think the impact of repeal would be,” Johnson said.
The issue of whether a moratorium should be instituted to prevent discharges as the Pentagon undertakes its study was also raised during the hearing. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) floated the possibility of a legislative moratorium if there are not enough votes this year for outright repeal.
Tsongas spoke favorably about a moratorium during the hearing as a way to allow gays in the military to voice their opinions to the working group without being discharged.
“As you talk about the hoops that you’re going to have to jump through to solicit their opinion … it just seems to be a more appropriate way to go forward is to institutionalize a moratorium,” she said.
Davis also said during her opening statement that a moratorium on discharges would be an appropriate measure for the Pentagon as it conducts it study.
“I believe there is a way to stem the tide of these painful and unnecessary discharges, especially those instigated by third parties, and avoid subjecting the force to confusion about the direction of the policy,” she said. “A moratorium on discharges would be an appropriate action to take while the department decides how to implement repeal.”
Davis later told DC Agenda that she wasn’t necessarily referring to a legislative moratorium as Levin has suggested, but an administrative moratorium instituted by the Defense Department.
“We might want to do something in the authorization bill; I’m not sure,” she said. “But they can do that on their own.”
Following the hearing, Murphy reiterated to reporters his belief that Congress would fully repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year.
“We could pass that in the national defense authorization act, or any other piece of legislation, or other vehicle,” he said. “This will be changed this year.”
Lawmakers are expecting to hear more the Pentagon working group before its study is complete. Davis told DC Agenda she’d like to hear from officials “at least once or twice before the reports are done.”
Asked whether he would like to hear any more information from the working group, Murphy replied, “No, I think other countries, like Canada, they did this and they had absolutely no problems.”
“The implementation of this will go much [more] smoothly than anything that some questions from the other side were [suggesting] today,” Murphy said.
The White House
Trump tells Fox News he won the ‘gay vote’ — but polls tell a different story
Trump falsely claims LGBTQ support on Fox despite polling showing overwhelming opposition.
President Donald Trump claimed he won the “gay vote” in 2024, despite evidence showing otherwise.
While appearing by phone on Fox News’s panel show “The Five” on Thursday, Trump falsely claimed he performed particularly well among gay voters while discussing the ongoing war in Iran — a conflict he initiated without formal congressional approval.
“Now I think I did very well with the gay vote, OK? I even played the gay national anthem as my walk-off, OK?” Trump said on air.
“And I think it probably helped me. But I did great. No Republican’s ever gotten the gay vote like I did and I’m very proud of it, I think it’s great. Perhaps it’s because I’m from New York City, I don’t know…”
His claim contradicts 2024 polling from NBC News, which found that the GOP presidential ticket captured fewer than 1 in 5 LGBTQ male voters — a figure that may also include bisexual and transgender men. Trump’s support among LGBTQ female voters was even lower, at just 8%.
White LGBTQ voters favored Vice President Kamala Harris over Trump by a margin of 82% to 16%, while LGBTQ voters of color backed Harris by an even wider 91% to 5%.
Trump also used the appearance to criticize “Gays for Palestine,” saying: “Look at ‘Gays for Palestine’… they kill gays, they kill them instantly, they throw them off buildings, and I’m saying, ‘Who are the gays for Palestine?’”
He further pointed to his campaign’s use of the song “Y.M.C.A.” by the Village People — which he has repeatedly described as a “gay national anthem” — noting that it was frequently used as a walk-off song at rallies, as an indication that he and his campaign were supported by the gay community. The track, long associated with camp and hyper-masculine gay imagery, became a staple of Trump campaign events.
The Village People were later booked to perform at Turning Point USA’s inaugural ball celebrating Trump’s second inauguration. Lead singer Victor Willis previously criticized Trump’s use of the song dating back to 2020 and considered legal action to block it, but ultimately said there was “not much he can do about it.” He later acknowledged the renewed exposure was “beneficial” and “good for business,” boosting the song’s popularity and chart performance.
Despite Trump’s claims of strong support from gay voters, polling has consistently shown otherwise — even as several prominent gay men have held roles in or around his orbit, sometimes dubbed the “A-gays.” These include Richard Grenell, former executive director of the Kennedy Center and Special Presidential Envoy for Special Missions; Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent; Under Secretary of State Jacob Helberg; Department of Energy official Charles T. Moran; and longtime supporter Peter Thiel, co-founder and CEO of Palantir.
His efforts to portray himself as aligned with the gay community stand in conflict with policies advanced under his leadership. These include removing LGBTQ-related data from State Department reports, attempting to narrowly redefine gender identity in federal policy, restricting access to gender-affirming health care, and rolling back anti-discrimination protections. His administration also rescinded initiatives focused on LGBTQ health equity, data collection, and nondiscrimination in health care and education — moves advocates say contribute to stigma and worsen mental health outcomes.
Additionally, some HIV programs and community health centers have lost funding from the federal government after supporting initiatives inclusive of transgender people as a direct result of Trump-Vance policies.
National
Anti-trans visa ruling echoes Nazi regime destroying trans documents
Trump administration escalates attacks on queer community
The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security earlier this month released its third Red Flag Alert for the United States about the Trump administration’s anti-trans legislation. As the Lemkin Institute shared in the press release, “the Administration has moved from identifying transgender people as as threat to the family and to the nation’s military prowess to claiming that transgender people constitute a cosmic threat to the spiritual health of the nation and the great direct threat to the US national security in the world.”
The news came the same day that the State Department issued a new rule, “Enhancing Vetting and Combatting Fraud in the Immigrant Visa Program.” Under this new guidance, all visa applicants are required to disclose their “biological sex at birth” during all stages of the process, “even if that differs from the sex listed on the applicant’s foreign passport or identifying documentation.”
This rule also orders that applicants to the green card lottery program share their passport information, so in knowingly collecting passport information that the agency knows will not match a person’s biological sex at birth, it’s creating grounds to deny trans peoples’ biases on the basis of “fraud,” Aleksandra Vaca of Transitics explains.
As is written in the new ruling, “the Department is replacing ‘gender’ with ‘sex’ in accordance with E.O. 14168, Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, which provides that the term ‘sex’ shall refer to an individual’s sex at birth. Only male and female sex options are available for entrants completing the Diversity Visa entry form.”
Along with outright denying the existence of nonbinary, genderqueer and gender expansive people, this policy creates a precedence for trans people to be stripped of their visas and deported because under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), any foreigner found to have obtained or possess a visa “by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact” will have their visa revoked and face deportation.
By requesting information on “biological sex at birth,” the State Department is forcing a mismatch between documents and enabling officials to accuse trans, nonbinary, and gender expansive immigrants of fraud. Thus, trans and nonbinary immigrants can have their visas revoked and can be deported, and information gathered from immigrants during the visa request process can be added to federal databases and used by immigration authorities, including ICE agents.
With the Supreme Court’s decision this past year allowing ICE officers to use racial profiling, Vaca argues that “now, The Trump administration has given ICE the reason it needs. Under this rule, ICE agents now have the enforcement rationale to assert that trans people–especially those belonging to racial minority groups–are more likely than cis people to have ‘misrepresented’ themselves during the visa process, and therefore, are more likely to enter the country ‘unlawfully.’”
This would enable ICE agents to target trans individuals specifically for being trans. If the goal of this were unclear, a day later the Trump administration released its statement for Women’s History Month 2026, writing that “we are keeping men out of women’s sports, enforcing Title IX as it was originally written and ensuring colleges preserve–and, where possible, expand–scholarships and roster opportunities for female athletes. We are restoring public safety and upholding the rule of law in every city so women, children, and families can feel safe and secure.”
And this is not the first time that ICE has targeted and harmed trans and nonbinary immigrants. Last June, Vera reported that ICE is not including trans people in detection in their public reports, and back in 2020, AFSC reported that trans people held in ICE detention faced “dreadful, ugly” conditions.
While it seems like a new development in Trump’s anti-trans escalation, it echoes a deeply upsetting history of denying and destroying transgender people’s documents following members of the Nazi party seizing power in 1933.
In the early 20th century, Weimar, Germany was an epicenter for gender affirming care with Maganus Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science. One of the first book burnings of the rising Nazi regime destroyed the Institute’s extensive clinical records and library on trans health and history by Nazi students and stormtroopers. In doing so, the Nazis effectively destroyed the world’s first trans health clinic and one of the richest and most comprehensive collective of information about trans healthcare.
Similarly, the Nazi government invalidated or refused to recognize what was called “transvestite passes,” or passing certificates that allowed trans people to avoid arrest under Paragraph 175 which prohibited cross-dressing. During the Weimar Republic — the regime that preceded the Third Reich — recognized and affirmed the identities of trans people (in limited ways) with specific documentation that helped prevent them from arrest. Invalidating and disregarding these passes allowed police and Nazi officials to target trans people and harass, extort and arrest them, and the record of passes themselves helped officials target trans people.
The changes to visa guidelines — alongside Kansas’s move to revoke trans drivers’ licenses last month — is reflective of this escalation of violence against trans people during the Nazi’s rise to power, which scholars like Dr. Laurie Marhoefer is just beginning to uncover. And along with the revocation of identification documents this past week, a recent Fourth Circuit Court ruled that states can deny Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming surgery.
The Fourth Circuit Court decision affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision in Skrmetti, which ruled that bans on gender affirming healthcare for young people are constitutional. This ruling extends this ban to include adult healthcare bans, allowing West Virginia’s exclusion of Medicaid coverage for adult gender affirming healthcare to take full effect. Even more upsetting was what the ruling itself said, calling gender affirming healthcare “dangerous.”
As was written in the Fourth Circuit Opinion, “it’s not irrational for a legislature to encourage citizens ‘to appreciate their sex’ and not ‘become disdainful of their sex’ by refusing to fund experimental procedures that may have the opposite effect.”
In reality, what this ruling and the opinion reflect, is the next step in government regulation and oversight over marginalized peoples’ bodies. From the overturn of Roe v. Wade, which removed federal protection of access to abortion, this next step represents the denial of people’s access to vital, lifesaving care–and to be clear, gender affirming care is not just for trans, nonbinary, and intersex people. It’s a dangerous escalation and one that echoes previous violence against trans people under fascist regimes; the Lemkin Institute is right to raise concern.
Pennsylvania
Pa. House passes bill to codify marriage equality in state law
Governor supports gay state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta’s measure
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a bill that would codify marriage equality in state law.
House Bill 1800 passed by a 127-72 vote margin. Twenty-six Republicans voted for the measure.
The Republican-controlled Pennsylvania Senate will now consider the bill that state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta (D-Philadelphia), who is the first openly gay person of color elected to the state’s General Assembly, introduced. Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro supports the measure.
“Here in Pennsylvania, we believe in your freedom to marry who you love,” said Shapiro on Wednesday. “Today, the House has stepped up to protect that right.”
BREAKING: The Pennsylvania House just passed @RepKenyatta's bill to codify marriage equality into law in PA — and they did it with broad bipartisan support.
— Governor Josh Shapiro (@GovernorShapiro) March 25, 2026
Here in Pennsylvania, we believe in your freedom to marry who you love. Today, the House has stepped up to protect that…
Trump tells Fox News he won the ‘gay vote’ — but polls tell a different story
Anti-trans visa ruling echoes Nazi regime destroying trans documents
Japanese Supreme Court to consider marriage equality
The outrage economy is not the LGBTQ community
Calendar: March 27-April 2
PHOTOS: Capital Stonewall Democrats 50th anniversary
Polish court rules country must recognize same-sex marriages from EU states
Capital Stonewall Democrats 50th anniversary gala draws sold out crowd
Trans Day of Visibility events planned
Virginia General Assembly’s 2026 legislative session ends
-
Photos5 days agoPHOTOS: Capital Stonewall Democrats 50th anniversary
-
Poland5 days ago
Polish court rules country must recognize same-sex marriages from EU states
-
District of Columbia5 days ago
Capital Stonewall Democrats 50th anniversary gala draws sold out crowd
-
District of Columbia4 days ago
Trans Day of Visibility events planned
