National
Pentagon working with gay groups on ‘Don’t Ask’ review
Defense officials seek advice, are ‘open and inclusive’
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen (Blade photo by Michael Key)
Gay organizations working to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are enjoying an open relationship with the Pentagon working group reviewing the law as they continue to express concerns about the study deviating from its purpose.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen established the working group following a Feb. 2 hearing on Capitol Hill as a way to examine how to implement an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” should Congress repeal the law. The work is expected to be completed Dec. 1.
Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said his organization has had a positive engagement with the working group since its inception.
“They brought us in — in the very beginning — to initially brief us on what they were planning to do, to answer any questions we had,” he said. “They were very open and inclusive, but not only to us. They were that way with our opposition as well.”
In one such conversation, Nicholson said the working group held a conference call to answer questions about the new regulations that were instituted last month to relax the implementation of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“There was a little bit of a worry, I think, in the beginning that maybe them bringing us in, being so open in answering questions, was a one-time, token gesture,” Nicholson said. “I’m pleased to say now it’s my impression that those worries, at least so far, have been unfounded. The working group has a primary point of contact for us within the Department of Defense, and that point of contact has been extremely open and extremely available.”
Nicholson said Servicemembers United first spoke with someone at the working group to express concern about the group’s mandate and noted it would set a bad precedent to poll the force on potential policy changes.
“The working group responded to that by telling us that the terms of reference have been issued, they are what they are and they don’t have control over them,” he said.
In a second round of suggestions, Nicholson said Servicemembers United passed along some ideas for the methodology the working group could institute to examine how to implement repeal. Some of the recommendations, he noted, were to advise against town hall meetings and focus groups to poll the force.
“Focus groups are a bad idea because of the phenomena of group think and posturing,” he said. “On any perceived controversial issue, you’re going to get a much a different set of answers if you ask people about it in a group rather than asking them one on one.”
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, also said his organization’s staff have had weekly conversations and meetings with the working group.
“I think it’s been positive, ongoing,” he said. “It’s not a process that we asked for, or that we think is needed, but we’re dealing with the reality that it’s in place and we’re going to do everything that we can to make it work and have a positive contribution.”
In these conversations, Sarvis said SLDN has been recommending voices and organizations that work to end the ban on open service.
Another organization that has engaged with the working group is the Palm Center, a think tank on gays in the military at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Nathaniel Frank, a Palm Center research fellow, said he’s had a “good relationship” with the Pentagon working group.
“They’ve reached out to us consistently and they’ve been responsive to us and I’m impressed by that,” he said. “The question will be, obviously, what are the results of the study and how are they expressed. So that proof will be in the pudding.”
Frank said the working group has asked the Palm Center to make recommendations on a litany of issues, including how to identify the costs to the military of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“That doesn’t mean just financial costs,” he said. “It means a litany of costs to morale, recruitment, cohesion, the impact on GLB service members, and Palm is coming out with a memo that I’m finalizing now that tries to convey all of those costs.”
Frank said the working group also asked about the pitfalls of using focus groups; how to measure the views of military families; and how to empirically assess the impact of lifting the ban on unit cohesion.
Another item that Frank said he was asked about was getting the views of gay service members for the study without putting them at risk for discharge under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
This challenge has been repeatedly discussed in hearings on Capitol Hill and among those seeking repeal. In a statement released last week, Army Secretary John McHugh said the Pentagon is “likely” to employ a third party to solicit those views.
Sarvis said his understanding is the Pentagon is considering the use of a professional consultant or pollsters who have worked with the Pentagon before on manpower issues.
“In addition, I think they’re also looking to the RAND Corp. as part of that engagement,” he said.
But the decision on how the Defense Department will obtain these views is apparently not yet final. Cynthia Smith, a Pentagon spokesperson, said in a statement to DC Agenda on April 9 that the working group is still considering the best way to incorporate gay service members into the study.
“Getting the views of gay and lesbian service members is very important to the working group,” she said. “We are still in the process of developing the proper instrument to obtain this information from gay and lesbian service members currently serving.”
Frank said he would take issue with any decision from the Pentagon to use a third party to solicit the views of gay service members because it would create a situation where service members generally would speak to one group, and gay, lesbian and bisexual service members would talk to another.
“Uniform personnel … would be consulting service members generally and then they would employ civilians or a third party only to speak to known gays and lesbians,” he said. “There’s an unfairness there in having the military speak directly to straight service members and not to gay service members.”
A better solution, Frank said, would be for the Pentagon to issue new regulations that would enable all service members to speak to the working group without fear of being discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“The only consistent way to do it is to apply that uniformly to all people and not have separate standards, which is obviously the problem with the policy as it is,” he said.
Even with the openness between these groups and Pentagon officials, some repeal advocates say they have concerns about the working group’s direction.
Gates has repeatedly said the purpose of the group will be to examine how to implement an end to the ban should Congress repeal the law during the Senate hearing in February. But some repeal advocates say there’s a lack of clarity.
Nicholson said he has “big concerns” about the direction the group is heading, recalling testimony that Jeh Johnson, head of the Pentagon’s Office of General Counsel and co-chair of the group, gave before the House in March in which the results of the working group would inform how Congress would proceed on the issue.
“And that, I think, was very dangerous and was a new twist,” he said. “If the mission of the working group is to simply come up with an effective implementation management plan for after repeal takes effect, then there really should be no reason why Congress should need to wait for the outcome of the working group.”
Frank also acknowledged “some confusion” about whether the purpose of the working group is to study how to lift the ban or whether to lift the ban.
“I think the reason for that confusion is while the group says it’s studying how to lift the ban, given the strategic intention of the president, whether the ban is actually lifted is in the hands of the Congress,” Frank said. “So if the group comes out with a study that exaggerates the risks to cohesion, or other risks associated with lifting the ban, obviously, that will make it easier for obstructionists in Congress to try to block repeal.”
Frank called on leaders handling the group to “make it more clear that they are assessing how best to lift the ban” and note that the only reason they’re evaluating repeal is to determine how to mitigate any harm.
“It’s important to say that years and years of research across the board make clear that that impact will be negligible or non-existent, and most of us already know that,” he said.
Nicholson was particularly critical of the White House and said he thinks it’s “extremely concerning” President Obama hasn’t come out and clarified the study’s purpose. Nicholson noted that he’s been asking for clarification from the White House for several weeks now and hasn’t received a response.
“I just felt like with the working group, they’ve been very much great in communicating with us, been very receptive, I do get the impression that they’re honestly considering the suggestions we give to them,” he said. “The White House, on the other hand, it’s felt like we’ve been throwing suggestions down a black hole.”
Nicholson said he doesn’t think that White House officials are seriously considering his organization’s input and that “they ignore a lot of us for weeks at a time sometimes.”
“Unfortunately, the White House is not only not listening to or considering our suggestions and communicating with us, but they haven’t given any indication that they intend to clarify the position of the working group or curtail the expansion of its scope,” he said.
Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, disputed the notion that the White House wasn’t engaged with the Servicemembers United.
“The White House is actively engaged with Servicemembers United and other groups on many issues of interest to the LGBT community, including ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,'” he said in a statement.
But Sarvis said he thinks the group will stay on track with its mission as long as it adheres to its mandate and stays focused on implementing open service.
“If they move away from their mandate, if they get into polling on if or whether, or seeking the personal opinions of service members, then, yes,” he said, “I think we have a problem.”
National
Victory Institute to honor Biden at D.C. conference
Former president to receive award on Friday
The LGBTQ+ Victory Institute on Friday will honor former President Joe Biden at its annual International LGBTQ+ Leaders Conference in D.C.
Biden will receive the Chris Abele Impact Award in recognition of what the Victory Institute described as “his historic role in championing LGBTQ+ rights and for his leadership in achieving the most LGBTQ+ inclusive administration in U.S. history.” Biden will be the award’s third recipient.
“President Biden has shown unwavering commitment to ensuring LGBTQ+ people can participate fully and openly in our democracy,” said Victory Institute President Evan Low in a press release. “From appointing a record number of LGBTQ+ leaders to reversing harmful policies and expanding civil rights protections, his administration set a new and necessary standard for what inclusive governance looks like.”
“And now, we’re seeing LGBTQ+ elected officials lead the way on everyday issues that are important to most Americans like groceries, housing, and lowering the costs of healthcare,” he added. “This award honors not only his achievements, but also the real impact these changes have had on LGBTQ+ Americans across the country.”
The conference will take place Dec. 4-6 at the JW Marriott Hotel in Downtown Washington, where more than 700 elected LGBTQ+ political leaders and human rights advocates are expected to attend.
Notable officials slated to participate include Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey; Maine Gov. Janet Mills; Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel; Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez; Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes; U.S. Reps. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) and Robert Garcia (D-Calif.); Maine House of Representatives Speaker Ryan Fecteau; Mississippi state Sen. Fabian Nelson; San Antonio Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones; San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria; West Hollywood (Calif.) Mayor Chelsea Byers and Providence (R.I.) Mayor Brett Smiley.
Transgender Spanish Sen. Carla Antonelli, former U.S. Ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina Eric Nelson, and Robert Biedroń, a gay member of the European Parliament from Poland, are slated to attend. Earlene Budd, a longtime trans activist in D.C., and D.C. Councilman Zachary Parker (D-Ward 5) are also expected to participate.
Michael K. Lavers contributed to this story.
National
Faith leaders denounce anti-transgender attacks
‘You are holy. You are sacred. We love you.’
This past Trans Awareness Week, 10 heads of diverse religious traditions issued a statement proclaiming that transgender, intersex, and nonbinary people are worthy of love, support, and protection. Led by Rev. Dr. Sofía Betancourt, president of the Unitarian Universalist Association, representatives from the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, The Fellowship of Affirming Ministries, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Presbyterian Church, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), The Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, and Reconstructing Judaism called out the violent and systemic persecution of trans, nonbinary, intersex, and queer people–proclaiming that their faith and their humanity urged them to affirm that trans, intersex, and quere people are “sacred” and “holy.”
Their statement comes at a critical time. Over the past three months, Trump and his Cabinet’s anti-trans rhetoric has only intensified, with a report released late September by journalist Ken Klippenstein in which national security officers leaked that the FBI is planning to classify trans people as “extremists.” By classifying trans people as “Nihilistic Violent Extremists,” far-right groups would have more “political (and media) cover,” as Abby Monteil reports for them, for anti-trans violence and legislation.
While the news is terrifying, it’s not unprecedented – the fight against trans rights and classification of trans people as violent extremists was included in Project 2025, and in the past several weeks, far-right leaders’ transphobic campaign has expanded: boycotting Netflix to pressure the platform to remove trans characters, leveraging anti-trans attack ads in the Virginia governor’s race and banning professors from acknowledging that trans people exist. In fact last month, two Republican members of Congress called for the institutionalization of trans people.
It seems that the government shutdown was predicated, at least partially, on Trump’s own anti-trans policies that were attached as riders in the appropriations bill.
It’s a dangerous escalation of transphobic violence that the Human Rights Campaign has classified as an epidemic. According to an Everytown for Gun Safety report published in 2020, the number of trans people murdered in the U.S. almost doubled between 2017 and 2021. According to data released by the Gun Safety report from February 2024, 34 percent of gun homicides of trans, nonbinary, and gender expansive people remain unsolved.
As Tori Cooper, Director of Community Engagement for the Transgender Justice Initiative for the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, this violence serves a purpose. “The hate towards transgender and gender expansive community members is fueled by disinformation, rhetoric and ideology that treats our community as political pawns ignoring the fact that we reserve the opportunity to live our lives full without fear of harm or death,” Cooper said.
The faith leaders came out in this statement to affirm that it is their spiritual and human imperative to call out this escalating violence and protect trans, nonbinary, intersex, and queer people. The leaders acknowledge that historically and today, religion is used as a weapon of hate to degrade and deny the human dignity of LGBTQ+ peoples. The Supreme Court is hearing Chiles v. Salazar, a case about the constitutionality of a Colorado ban of conversion therapy for minors, with the majority of conversion therapy practices being faith based. And despite the Supreme Court declining to hear a case challenging the constitutionality of same-sex marriage conferred in Obergefell v. Hodges, efforts to end marriage equality remain ongoing with Katy Faust’s End Obergefell movement.
“During a time when our country is placing their lives under increasingly serious threat,” the statement reads, “there is a disgraceful misconception that all people of faith do not affirm the full spectrum of gender – a great many of us do. Let it be known instead that our beloveds are created in the image of God – Holy and whole.”
The faith leaders argue that commendation of LGBTQ peoples and religiously motivated efforts to deny their dignity and rights is not the belief of all faith communities, and far-right Christian nationalist communities and others who uphold homophobia and seek to exact it writ large in the United States do not speak for all faith leaders.
This is a critical piece of the statement and builds on historical precedence. During the 1980s AIDS crisis, when far-right Christian leaders like Jerry Falwell, one of the founders of the Moral Majority, stated that HIV was “God’s punishment” for LGBTQ+ people and indicative of a broader moral decline in America, affirming faith communities came out to affirm the dignity and divinity of queer people. As funeral homes and churches refused to prepare the dead and bury them, some faith communities stepped up to say that these homophobic leaders do not speak on behalf of all people of faith.
In 1985, the United Church of Christ General Synod urged its member congregations to claim and declare themselves “Open and Affirming,” in order to express their welcome and support for LGBTQ+ people, and two years later, the Church of the Brethren issued a statement titled “A Call to Compassion” where conference members urged member congregations to speak out boldly against discrimination, provide direct care to people with HIV/AIDS, and actively educate themselves and others to stop the spread of fear and prejudice surrounding the disease.
Just one year later, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Church Council issued a statement, “AIDS and Church’s Ministry of Caring,” which outlined the ways in which welcoming, ministering to and advocating on behalf of people with HIV/AIDS is critical to their mission. Even the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which earlier this month banned gender-affirming care at Catholic hospitals, issued a statement in 1987 calling discrimination against people with HIV/AIDS “unjust and immoral,” and denouncing the label of “innocent” or “guilty” patients.
Thus, the faith leaders’ statement this past week builds on a rich history of faith communities fighting the stigma that far-right faith groups perpetuate about LGBTQ+ people and committing to action. What sets this latest statement apart is its decidedly interfaith heart, which speaks to the history of the Pride Interfaith Service in Washington, DC that was first started by a group of faith leaders and lay people who gathered at the AIDS Memorial quilt.
As the statement reads, “Our scriptures vary, but they share a common conviction. As we make justice our aim we must give voice to those who are silenced. Our shared values, held across many faiths, teach us that we are all children of God and that we must cultivate a discipline of hope, especially in difficult times. As such, we raise our voices in solidarity to unequivocally proclaim the holiness of transgener, nonbinary, and intersex people, as well as the recognition of the entire spectrum of gender identity and expression.”
The statement ended by arguing that they need to call out the violence they are witnessing. Their silence, they argue, would be in compliance and reinforce the idea that homophobic religious leaders and lay people speak on behalf of all people of faith. Their statement is not only words, however, it is a written promise affirming the dignity and holiness of queer people but also to protect them in the face of increasing violence and persecution.
“When people of faith and conscience stay silent in the face of oppression, we are all made less whole. When people of faith and conscience speak out against that which violates the sacred in its own name, we have the power to stay the hand of sin. Transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people are vulnerable today,” the statement concluded.
“Our faiths, our theologies, and our practices of prophetic witness call on us to say with one voice to transgender people among us: ‘You are holy. You are sacred. We love you. We support you, and we will protect you.’”
The White House
White House halts World AIDS Day recognition amid HIV funding cuts
Trump-Vance administration under increased criticism over policies
For the first time since the global observance began, the U.S. government did not commemorate World AIDS Day on Monday.
World AIDS Day, first marked in 1988, has long served as an annual reminder of the ongoing effort to end an epidemic that has killed more than 44.1 million people worldwide and continues to disproportionately impact LGBTQ people, communities of color, and those in the American South. Yet the Trump-Vance administration declined to acknowledge the day this year, severing a symbolic but consistent tradition upheld by every president since Ronald Reagan.
The move comes despite the scale of the epidemic today. Approximately 1.2 million people in the U.S. are living with HIV, according to federal estimates, and about 13 percent — 158,249 people — do not know their status. Globally, the World Health Organization reports 40.8 million people were living with HIV at the end of 2024.
Presidents of both parties have historically used World AIDS Day to highlight progress, remember lives lost, and recommit to reducing disparities in prevention and treatment. Past administrations have also commemorated the day through displays of the AIDS Memorial Quilt — first created in 1987 and later spread across the National Mall and White House lawn. Today, the quilt includes the names of more than 94,000 people lost to AIDS on more than 47,000 panels.
This year’s silence from the White House follows several sweeping foreign aid rollbacks instituted by President Donald Trump after his 2024 inauguration. According to an October report by KFF, the administration enacted a “90-day review of foreign aid; a subsequent ‘stop-work order’ that froze all payments and services for work already underway; the dissolution of USAID, including the reduction of most staff and contractors; and the cancellation of most foreign assistance awards.”
These cuts have created significant funding gaps for nongovernmental organizations around the world — many of which work directly to prevent HIV transmission and expand access to lifesaving treatment.
The State Department dismissed criticism of the administration’s decision not to acknowledge World AIDS Day.
“An awareness day is not a strategy. Under the leadership of President Trump, the State Department is working directly with foreign governments to save lives and increase their responsibility and burden sharing,” deputy spokesperson Tommy Pigott said in a statement CNN first reported. “Earlier this year, we released a global health strategy aimed at streamlining America’s foreign assistance and modernizing our approach to countering infectious diseases.”
The U.S. historically played a central role in the global HIV response. Since 2003, the United States has been the largest financial supporter of HIV/AIDS programs — primarily through President George W. Bush’s PEPFAR initiative, which has invested more than $110 billion into the fight to end the epidemic.
Despite overall declines in transmission, HIV continues to disproportionately affect racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ people, and men who have sex with men. More than half of new HIV diagnoses occur in the South.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Ending the HIV Epidemic in the U.S. initiative focuses on the 48 counties, D.C., San Juan, Puerto Rico, and seven rural states that accounted for more than half of all new diagnoses in 2016 and 2017.
Advocates say the administration’s withdrawal from World AIDS Day — combined with its cuts to foreign and domestic health programs — risks reversing hard-won gains.
“Though new HIV infections declined 12 percent from 2018 to 2022, progress is uneven with Black people accounting for 38 percent of new diagnoses, Latino people accounting for 32 percent of new diagnoses and more than half (52 percent) of new HIV diagnoses were among people living in the South,” Jarred Keller, senior press secretary at the Human Rights Campaign, told the Washington Blade via email. “Cuts to CDC funding have driven HIV prevention resources to historic lows, stripping support from HIV-focused programs.”
Legal and public health experts echoed that concern, saying that there is a possibility to stop HIV/AIDS, but only if efforts are taken gradually over time.
“HIV is a preventable and treatable condition, but only if the research, organization, and effort continue to be a priority to those looking out for the health of Americans and people worldwide,” said Lambda Legal HIV Project Director Jose Abrigo.
Victory Institute to honor Biden at D.C. conference
Colombia anunció la inclusión de las categorías ‘trans’ y ‘no binario’ en los documentos de identidad
Faith leaders denounce anti-transgender attacks
Tokyo court upholds Japan’s same-sex marriage ban
White House halts World AIDS Day recognition amid HIV funding cuts
Comings & Goings
Impulse Group DC to host fundraiser
Calendar: November 28-December 4
India’s Jharkhand state works to improve trans people’s access to health care
