National
Gay advocates assail Obama’s Justice Department
Claim administration misrepresented views in ‘Don’t Ask’ brief
Experts on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are lambasting the Justice Department, claiming the administration misrepresented their views in a legal brief aimed at thwarting a court challenge to the ban on open service.
Nathaniel Frank, a senior fellow at the Palm Center, a think tank at the University of California, Santa Barbara, said the Obama administration mischaracterized his views on the impact that open service would have on privacy issues.
“The way they portrayed me is preposterous and I’m not sure that any person in good faith hearing what I had to say could conclude what the [Department of Justice] concluded in their [request for] summary judgment,” he said. “I specifically said having a concern about privacy is not irrational, but using that privacy concern as an argument for the need to ban gays is irrational.”
Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, similarly claimed the Justice Department misrepresented what he said in depositions about privacy arguments, and even went so far as to say the Obama administration lawyers weren’t being truthful.
“They completely misrepresented my statement in the deposition,” Belkin said. “They were not being truthful about my statement because they said that I claimed that there is a rational basis for the privacy arguments, and I claimed no such thing.”
In a request for summary judgment released earlier this week, the Justice Department names Frank and Belkin as among the experts on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” who gave depositions in the case of Log Cabin v. United States. The lawsuit seeks to overturn the ban on the basis that it infringes upon the First Amendment rights of LGBT service members.
Both Frank and Belkin were questioned during deposition about whether privacy concerns for service members constituted a rational basis for the enactment of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in 1993.
The brief says Frank “acknowledged” during his deposition that “privacy concerns such as those on which Congress relied were not irrational.” But Frank disputed this characterization, pointing to his remarks during deposition.
According to an excerpt of the deposition obtained by DC Agenda, Frank was asked about privacy issues in the context of whether former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Colin Powell’s statement in 1993 that service members “are required to live in communal settings that force intimacy and provide little privacy” was based on professional military judgment.
Frank replied that Powell — whose position has since evolved to endorse the Pentagon’s process for repealing the law — may have had concerns with privacy as a general matter based on professional judgment, but said Powell’s statement doesn’t “constitute an argument for keeping out open homosexuals.”
“Because what he says here is that service members are required to serve with very little privacy, so it doesn’t make any sense to me to conclude from that that there is a justification to exclude open homosexuals since he’s just acknowledged that part of being in the military means sacrificing privacy,” Frank said in his deposition.
It’s for this reason that Frank is now saying the Justice Department misrepresented his views in the brief against the lawsuit.
“So I really said the opposite of what the DOJ motion claims,” he said. “I made very clear that I would not call those feelings [about privacy] irrational, but nor would I call it rational to use that feeling as a legitimate basis for excluding a whole group of people. And that’s all there in the record.”
Belkin similarly cried foul, claiming the Justice Department mischaracterized his deposition in the brief. The administration says that Belkin testified that “the privacy basis is rational in circumstances such as combat where private accommodations are not possible.”
“Dr. Belkin studied the experience of the Israeli military and found that heterosexual concern about privacy necessitated, in certain instances, separate accommodations or work arrangements for heterosexual service members,” says the brief. “Dr. Belkin also acknowledged similar findings with respect to Congress’ concern regarding sexual tension within the military.”
According to the brief, Belkin also “pointedly admitted” people in the military have sex with each other, and some service members have “sex with other members of the same sex.”
But Belkin said the Justice Department’s account of his deposition and his alleged acknowledgement of a rational basis for privacy concerns was completely off the mark.
“People who defend ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ for almost 20 years have been confusing up with down and left with right,” he said. “If the Obama administration lawyers think that my remarks in any way constitute an acknowledgement of the rational basis for the privacy rationale, then they need a new legal team.”
Belkin said the Justice Department neglected to mention major points about his deposition. He said he brought up men having sex with other men because he believes straight men would be having sex with men in the military regardless of the ban.
“Think for a minute about prisons,” he said. “It’s not exactly the same, but the point is not that gays are responsible for gay sex, but a lot of people have same-sex sex in the military and the privacy rationale does not take that into account. The privacy rationale is premised on the assumption that it’s only gays who having sex, so you have to get rid of the gays if you want to get rid of that kind of thing.”
Belkin also said the Justice Department misconstrued his take on there being a rational basis for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” because some straight service members are uncomfortable around gay service members.
“It’s absolutely true that some heterosexual service members are uncomfortable in front of gay service members, but that in no way constitutes a rational basis for the privacy rationale because gays and lesbians are already serving with straight service members — and the conditions in the barracks and the showers are not going to change after the repeal of the ban,” he said.
The Justice Department didn’t respond to a request for comment on Frank and Belkin’s assertions that they were mischaracterized in the brief.
Frank also took issue with the Justice Department’s repeated references to experts on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” with the use of quotation marks.
For example, the brief says in a footnote that “LCR’s ‘experts’ ultimately seek to challenge the wisdom of the DADT policy, a challenge that is irrelevant under rational basis review.”
Frank said the repeated reference to experts in quotation marks is “highly unusual” for the Justice Department and “may have gone too far.”
“That’s a favorite tactic of the religious right to polish their anti-intellectual credentials, and make it seem like there’s no such things as a homosexual, so they’ll put homosexual in quotes,” he said.
The Obama administration defense of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” statute against the challenge from Log Cabin is causing consternation among advocacy groups seeking to repeal the law.
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said “we took a step backward” with the Justice Department brief in the move to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and that the brief “relies on arguments that were debunked and discredited in 1993, and even more so now.”
Solmonese also called on the administration to “show leadership, move the debate forward, and work with Congress to get repeal done” this year.
“While the Pentagon undertakes its review of how to implement repeal, Congress can and must move forward in repealing DADT in the same bill that put it into law more than 17 years ago — the defense authorization act,” he said. “And the president can and must provide the leadership necessary to get the law passed this year.”
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, expressed similar disappointment in a statement responding to the brief.
“SLDN understands the Justice Department’s role in defending the constitutionality of federal laws, even ones with which its leaders do not agree,” Sarvis said. “However, there continues to be a big and unnecessary disconnect between what DOJ files in court and what the president says on Capitol Hill and to his top [Department of Defense] leadership team.”
Sarvis said he wants the White House to make clear to Congress that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is a priority this year for President Obama and for the president to include repeal language in budget language headed to Capitol Hill in the coming weeks.
“The president’s defense budget repeal language should mirror the words in his State of the Union speech to Congress and the American people,” Sarvis said.
In a statement, Tracy Schmaler, spokesperson for the Justice Department, said the administration is defending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as “it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged.”
“The department does not pick and choose which federal laws it will defend based on any one administration’s policy preferences,” she said.
Schmaler said Obama disagrees with the underlying judgments Congress used to pass “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and noted that the president “believes and has repeatedly affirmed that [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] is a bad policy that harms our national security and undermines our military effectiveness.”
“The president and his administration are working with the military leadership and Congress to repeal this discriminatory [law],” she said.
U.S. Military/Pentagon
Serving America, facing expulsion: Fight for trans inclusion continues on Veterans Day
Advocates sue to reverse Trump ban while service members cope with new struggles
President Trump signed EO 14183, titled “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” on Jan. 27, directing the Department of Defense (DoD) to adopt policies that would prohibit transgender, nonbinary, and gender-nonconforming people from serving in the military.
The Trump-Vance administration’s policy shift redefines the qualifications for military service, asserting that transgender people are inherently incapable of meeting the military’s “high standards of readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity,” citing a history or signs of gender dysphoria. According to the DoD, this creates “medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on [an] individual.” Regardless of their physical or intellectual capabilities, transgender applicants are now considered less qualified than their cisgender peers.
On Jan. 28, 2025, GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) Law and the National Center for LGBTQ Rights (NCLR) filed Talbott v. Trump, a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the executive order. Originally filed on equal protection grounds on behalf of six active service members and two individuals seeking enlistment, the case has since grown to include 12 additional plaintiffs.
The Washington Blade spoke exclusively with Second Lt. Nicolas (Nic) Talbott, U.S. Army, a plaintiff in the case, and with Jennifer Levi, Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights at GLAD Law, who is leading the litigation.
For Talbott, serving in the military has been a lifelong aspiration, one he pursued despite the barriers posed by discriminatory policies.
“Being transgender posed quite the obstacle to me achieving that dream,” Talbott told the Blade. “Not because it [being trans] had any bearing on my ability to become a soldier and meet the requirements of a United States soldier, but simply because of the policy changes that we’ve been facing as transgender service members throughout the course of the past decade… My being transgender had nothing to do with anything that I was doing as a soldier.”
This drive was fueled by early life experiences, including the impact of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, which shaped his desire to protect his country.
“Even for an eight-year-old kid, [9/11] has a tremendous amount of impact… I remember thinking, you know, this is a terrible thing. Me, and when I grow up, I want to make sure nothing like this ever happens again,” he said. “I’ve still tried to gear my life in a way that I can be preparing myself to eventually help accomplish that mission of keeping America safe from anything like that ever happening again.”
The attacks inspired countless Americans to enlist; according to the New York City government, 181,510 joined active duty and 72,908 enlisted in the reserves in the year following 9/11. Although Talbott was too young to serve at the time, the events deeply influenced his educational and career path.
“For me, [9/11] just kind of helped shape my future and set me on the path that I’m currently on today,” he added. “It ignited my passion for the field, and it’s something that you know, I’ve carried with me into my adult life, into my professional life, and that I hope to have a career in the future.”
Talbott holds a master’s degree in criminology with a focus on counterterrorism and global security, and while completing his degree, he gained practical experience working with the Transportation Security Administration.
Despite the public scrutiny surrounding the lawsuit and the ongoing uncertainty of his military future, Talbott remains grounded in the values that define military service.
“Being so public about my involvement with this lawsuit grants me the very unique opportunity to continue to exemplify those values,” Talbott said. “I’m in a very privileged spot where I can speak relatively openly about this experience and what I’m doing. It’s very empowering to be able to stand up, not only for myself, but for the other transgender service members out there who have done nothing but serve with honor and dignity and bravery.”
The ban has created significant uncertainty for transgender service members, who now face the possibility of separation solely because of their gender identity.
“With this ban… we are all [trans military members] on track to be separated from the military. So it’s such a great deal of uncertainty… I’m stuck waiting, not knowing what tomorrow might bring. I could receive a phone call any day stating that the separation process has been initiated.”
While the Department of Defense specifies that most service members will receive an honorable discharge, the policy allows for a lower characterization if a review deems it warranted. Compensation and benefits differ depending on whether service members opt for voluntary or involuntary separation. Voluntary separation comes with full separation pay and no obligation to repay bonuses, while involuntary separation carries lower pay, potential repayment of bonuses, and uncertain success in discharge review processes.
Healthcare coverage through TRICARE continues for 180 days post-discharge, but reduced benefits, including VA eligibility, remain a concern. Those with 18–20 years of service may qualify for early retirement, though even this is not guaranteed under the policy.
Talbott emphasized the personal and professional toll of the ban, reflecting on the fairness and capability of transgender service members.
“Quite frankly, the evidence that we have at hand points in the complete opposite direction… there are no documented cases that I’m aware of of a transgender person having a negative impact on unit cohesion simply by being transgender… Being transgender is just another one of those walks of life.”
“When we’re losing thousands of those qualified, experienced individuals… those are seats that are not just going to be able to be filled by anybody … military training that’s not going to be able to be replaced for years and years to come.”
Talbott also highlighted the unique discipline, dedication, and value of diversity that transgender service members bring—especially in identifying problems and finding solutions, regardless of what others think or say. That, he explained, was part of his journey of self-discovery and a key reason he wants to continue serving despite harsh words of disapproval from the men leading the executive branch.
“Being transgender is not some sad thing that people go through… This is something that has taken years and years and years of dedication and discipline and research and ups and downs to get to the point where I am today… my ability to transition was essential to getting me to that point where I am today.”
He sees that as an asset rather than a liability. By having a more diverse, well-rounded group of people, the military can view challenges from perspectives that would otherwise be overlooked. That ability to look at things in a fresh way, he explained, can transform a good service member into a great one.
“I think the more diverse our military is, the stronger our military is… We need people from all different experiences and all different perspectives, because somebody is going to see that challenge or that problem in a way that I would never even think of… and that is what we need more of in the U.S. military.”
Beyond operational effectiveness, Talbott emphasized the social impact of visibility and leadership within the ranks. Fellow soldiers often approached him for guidance, seeing him as a trusted resource because of his transgender status.
“I can think of several instances in which I have been approached by fellow soldiers… I feel like you are a person I can come to if I have a problem with X, Y or Z… some people take my transgender status and designate me as a safe person, so to speak.”
With the arrival of Veterans Day, the Blade asked what he wishes the public knew about the sacrifices of transgender service members. His answer was modest.
“Every person who puts on the uniform is expected to make a tremendous amount of sacrifice,” Talbott said. “Who I am under this uniform should have no bearing on that… We shouldn’t be picking and choosing which veterans are worthy of our thanks on that day.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights, also spoke with the Blade and outlined the legal and human consequences of the ban. This is not Levi’s first time challenging the executive branch on transgender rights; she led the legal fight against the first Trump administration’s military ban in both Doe v. Trump and Stockman v. Trump.
Levi characterized the policy as overtly cruel and legally indefensible.
“This policy and its rollout is even more cruel than the first in a number of ways,” Levi explained. “For one, the policy itself says that transgender people are dishonest, untrustworthy and undisciplined, which is deeply offensive and degrading and demeaning.”
She highlighted procedural abuses and punitive measures embedded in the policy compared to the 2017 ban.
“In the first round the military allowed transgender people to continue to serve… In this round the military policy purge seeks to purge every transgender person from military service, and it also proposes to do it in a very cruel and brutal way, which is to put people through a process… traditionally reserved for kicking people out of the military who engaged in misconduct.”
Levi cited multiple examples of discrimination, including the revocation of authorized retirements and administrative barriers to hearings.
She also explained that the administration’s cost argument is flawed, as removing and replacing transgender service members is more expensive than retaining them.
“There’s no legitimate justification relating to cost… it is far more expensive to both purge the military of people who are serving and also to replace people… than to provide the minuscule amount of costs for medications other service members routinely get.”
On legal grounds, Levi noted the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause.
“The Equal Protection Clause prevents laws that are intended to harm a group of people… The doctrine is rooted in animus, which means a bare desire to harm a group is not even a legitimate governmental justification.”
When asked what she wishes people knew about Talbott and other targeted transgender military members, Levi emphasized their extraordinary service.
“The plaintiffs that I represent are extraordinary… They have 260 years of committed service to this country… I have confidence that ultimately, this baseless ban should not be able to legally survive.”
Other organizations have weighed in on Talbott v. Trump and similar lawsuits targeting transgender service members.
Human Rights Campaign Foundation President Kelley Robinson criticized the ban’s impact on military readiness and highlighted the counterintuitive nature of removing some of the country’s most qualified service members.
“Transgender servicemembers serve their country valiantly, with the same commitment, the same adherence to military standards and the same love of country as any of their counterparts,” Robinson said. “This ban by the Trump administration, which has already stripped transgender servicemembers of their jobs, is cruel, unpatriotic, and compromises the unity and quality of our armed forces.”
Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Sasha Buchert echoed the legal and moral imperative to reverse the policy.
“Every day this discriminatory ban remains in effect, qualified patriots face the threat of being kicked out of the military,” she said. “The evidence is overwhelming that this policy is driven by animus rather than military necessity… We are confident the court will see through this discriminatory ban and restore the injunction that should never have been lifted.”
The White House
Trump targets LGBTQ workers in new loan forgiveness restrictions
A new Trump policy attempts to limit loan forgiveness for federal workers working with LGBTQ issues.
The Trump-Vance administration is moving forward with plans to restrict federal workers from using the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program if their work involves issues related to LGBTQ individuals, immigrants, or transgender children.
Lawsuits were filed last week in more than 20 cities — including Albuquerque, N.M., Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco — challenging the administration’s efforts to withhold loan forgiveness from organizations that oppose the president and his party’s political agenda.
Created by Congress in 2007 and signed into law by then-President George W. Bush, PSLF cancels the federal student loan debts of borrowers who spend a decade or more working in public service. The program covers teachers, nurses, law enforcement officers (including members of the military), and employees of tax-exempt organizations under Section 501(c)(3). Many of those who work to support LGBTQ rights are employed by such organizations — meaning they stand to lose eligibility under the new policy.
As of 2024, more than 1 million Americans have benefited from PSLF, helping erase an estimated $74 billion in student loan debt, according to a Biden-era estimate.
Under the new rule, which takes effect July 1, 2026, the Department of Education will be able to deny loan forgiveness to workers whose government or nonprofit employers engage in activities deemed to have a “substantial illegal purpose.” The power to define that term will rest not with the courts, but with the education secretary.
The rule grants the secretary authority to exclude groups from the program if they participate in activities such as trafficking, illegal immigration, or what it calls the “chemical castration” of children — defined as the use of hormone therapy or puberty-blocking drugs, a form of gender-affirming care sometimes provided to transgender children and teens.
Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent defended the change, arguing that the new rule would better serve the American people, despite every major American physician organization research showing gender-affirming care helps more than it harms.
“It is unconscionable that the plaintiffs are standing up for criminal activity,” Kent said in a statement to NPR. “This is a commonsense reform that will stop taxpayer dollars from subsidizing organizations involved in terrorism, child trafficking, and transgender procedures that are doing irreversible harm to children.”
The Williams Institute, a leading research center on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy, warned that this — along with other restrictions on federal loan forgiveness — would disproportionately harm LGBTQ Americans. The institute found that more than one-third (35%) of LGBTQ adults aged 18 to 40 — an estimated 2.9 million people — hold over $93.2 billion in federal student loans. About half (51%) of transgender adults, 36% of cisgender LBQ women, and 28% of cisgender GBQ men have federal student loans.
“The proposed restrictions on student loans will particularly affect the nearly one-quarter of LGBTQ adults employed in the public or nonprofit sectors, which qualify for the Public Student Loan Forgiveness program,” said Brad Sears, Distinguished Senior Scholar of Law and Policy at the Williams Institute, who authored a brief on how the proposed changes could impact LGBTQ borrowers. “A recent executive order could potentially disqualify anyone working for an organization involved in gender-affirming care, or possibly those serving transgender individuals more broadly, from the PSLF program.”
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court rejects Kim Davis’s effort to overturn landmark marriage ruling
Justices declined to revisit the Obergefell decision
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal from Kim Davis, the former Rowan County, Ky., clerk best known for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the landmark 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
Following the Obergefell ruling, Davis stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether and has since filed multiple appeals seeking to challenge same-sex marriage protections. The court once again rejected her efforts on Monday.
In this latest appeal, Davis sought to overturn a $100,000 monetary award she was ordered to pay to David Moore and David Ermold, a same-sex couple to whom she denied a marriage license. Her petition also urged the court to use the case as a vehicle to revisit the constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
The petition, along with the couple’s brief in opposition, was submitted to the Supreme Court on Oct. 22 and considered during the justices’ private conference on Nov. 7. Davis needed at least four votes for the court to take up her case, but Monday’s order shows she fell short.
Cathy Renna, the director of communications for the National LGBTQ Task Force, a non-profit organization that works towards supporting the LGBQ community through grassroots organizing told the Washington Blade:
“Today’s decision is not surprising given the longshot status of Davis’s claim, but it’s a relief that the Supreme Court will not hear it, given the current make up of the court itself. We hope that this settles the matter and marriage equality remains the law of the land for same-sex couples.”
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson released the following statement:
“Today, love won again. When public officials take an oath to serve their communities, that promise extends to everyone — including LGBTQ+ people. The Supreme Court made clear today that refusing to respect the constitutional rights of others does not come without consequences.
Thanks to the hard work of HRC and so many, marriage equality remains the law of the land through Obergefell v. Hodges and the Respect for Marriage Act. Even so, we must remain vigilant.
It’s no secret that there are many in power right now working to undermine our freedoms — including marriage equality — and attack the dignity of our community any chance they get. Last week, voters rejected the politics of fear, division, and hate, and chose leaders who believe in fairness, freedom, and the future. In race after race, the American people rejected anti-transgender attacks and made history electing pro-equality candidates up and down the ballot.
And from California to Virginia to New Jersey to New York City, LGBTQ+ voters and Equality Voters made the winning difference. We will never relent and will not stop fighting until all of us are free.”
The Log Cabin Republicans, a organization dedicated to conservative LGBTQ people, praising the Court’s decision.
“After months of hand-wringing and fear-mongering by Gay Inc., Democrats, and the media, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court sided with the American people and common sense and declined to revisit marriage equality,” Interim Executive Director Ed Williams said in a statement. “Just like Justice Amy Coney Barrett hinted at earlier this year, Obergefell is settled. Marriage equality has been, and will continue to be, the law of the land.”
This story is developing and will be updated as more information becomes available.
Gottmik and Violet Chachki are bringing drag excellence across the country with ‘The Knockout Tour’
Building on victory
Cruising the high seas: from Italy to the U.S.
Salisbury, Md. rainbow crosswalk removed on Veterans Day
Kazakh lawmakers advance anti-LGBTQ propaganda bill
Supreme Court rejects Kim Davis’s effort to overturn landmark marriage ruling
Erica Deuso elected as Pa.’s first openly transgender mayor
Capital Pride files anti-stalking complaint against local LGBTQ activist
Superb direction, performances create a ‘Day’ to remember
Astounding ‘LIZZIE’ builds on legendary axe murder tale
-
U.S. Supreme Court2 days agoSupreme Court rejects Kim Davis’s effort to overturn landmark marriage ruling
-
Pennsylvania5 days ago
Erica Deuso elected as Pa.’s first openly transgender mayor
-
District of Columbia2 days ago
Capital Pride files anti-stalking complaint against local LGBTQ activist
-
Movies4 days ago
Superb direction, performances create a ‘Day’ to remember
