Connect with us

Politics

Marine Corps leader responds to ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal questions

Published

on

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway (photo courtesy marines.mil)

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway responded on Tuesday to media questions repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and offered mixed responses.

On one hand, Conway said the Marine Corps will “lead” in implementing repeal should the law change, but also said an “overwhelming number” of Marines wouldn’t want to room with someone who’s openly gay.

Conway’s remarks are notable because he’s reportedly the service chief who had most strongly come out against repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in private discussions.

In a statement, Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, a think tank on gays in the military at the University of California, Santa Barbara, praised Conway for saying the Marine Corps would lead in the implementation of repeal.

“Commandant Conway’s words are powerful,” Belkin said. “He has not been supportive of this change but he has now made clear that once the law is changed, the Marine Corps will set the pace for implementation of open service without delay.”

The transcript of his remarks on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is below:

Q: The Marine Corps in the next few years is going to be facing some big changes on two fronts.  One would be the discussion about the role that the Marines play in future warfare, and then also the changes to personnel policy under — if “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is lifted.  So what advice would you like to leave your successors, considering that these changes will probably take place long after you’re gone?  What would you like to say on those two fronts?

A: In terms of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” you know, we will obey the law.  We’re anxious to see that the survey indicates when it’s made public towards the end of the year. But I caution our Marines and our Marine leadership:  If the law changes we pride our Corps in leading the services in many, many things, and we’re going to have to lead in this too.  There will be a hundred issues out there that we have to solve, if the law changes, in terms of how we do business, and we cannot be seen as dragging our feet or some way delaying implementation.  We’ve got a war to fight. We need to, if the law changes, implement and get on with it.

Q: General, I wanted to pick up on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” As you know, the Senate’s going to pick it up next month as part of the authorization bill.  And you’ve told the Hill that you think the current policy works and that you would never ask Marines to room with a homosexual if we can avoid it.  You’ve been followed by other Marine generals — Jack Sheehan, Peter Pace, Carl Mundy — in opposing a change in the policy.

And also, if you look at the polls done by Military Times, the Marines seem to oppose any change in policy by a fairly significant margin.

And I want you to focus on:  What is it about the Marines that they — they oppose this change in policy, repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell?” You’ve been in the Corps for over forty years.  You get out there and talk to Marines.  What is it that the Marines oppose about this — more so than the other services?

A: Well, that’s a tough question to answer, Tom, because I’m not as familiar with the other services as I am my own Corps.  So any comparison or contrast is difficult.

But we recruit a certain type of young American, pretty macho guy or gal, that is willing to go fight and perhaps die for their country. That’s about the only difference that I see between the other services.  I mean, they recruit from a great strain of young Americans as well.  They all come from the same areas and that type of thing.

So I can only think that, as we look at our mission, how we are forced to live in close proximity aboard ship, in the field for long periods of time and that type of thing, that the average Marine out there, and by the way, my own surveys indicate that it’s not age dependent, it’s not rank dependent, it’s not where you’re from; it’s, as you highlight, pretty uniformly not endorsed as the ideal way ahead.  But I just think all those things have impact on the Marines. And we’d just assume not see it change.  But again, we will follow the law, whatever the law prescribes.

Q: As far as living in tight quarters, is that the issue you hear mostly when you talk to Marines out in the field?

A: Well, see, we, unlike the other services, we have consciously, for decades now, billeted by twos.  So if the law changes, we start out with a problem in terms of how to address that. And I’ve spoken publicly some about that in the past.

You know, we’ll deal with it.  I do not believe there’s money out there to build another requirement for BEQs, to allow every Marine to have a room by his or herself.  So how we deal with the billeting problem is going to one of that myriad of issues that we’ll have to face.

Q: How would you deal with it?

A: I don’t know. I don’t know.

We sometimes ask Marines, you know, what is — what is their preference.  And I can tell you that an overwhelming majority would like not to be roomed with a person who is openly homosexual.

Some do not object and perhaps — you know, perhaps a voluntary basis might be the best way to start, without violating anybody’s sense of moral concern or perception on the part of their mates.

I don’t know. We’re not there yet. And it’s one of those hypotheticals at this point that we have to consider but we won’t have to deal with until the law changes, if it does.

Q: I want to take you back to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  You said something that I’d like to ask you what you meant, with precision.  You talked about — when you said that, you know, some Marines are skeptical of all this, you talked about the — and your words were ‘the moral perception that Marines have of people serving in the Marine Corps who are openly gay.’  What do you mean by moral perception?

A:  Barbara, we have some people that are very religious.  And I think in some instances — I couldn’t begin to give you a percentage, but I think in some instances we will have people that say that homosexuality is wrong, and they simply do not want to room with a person of that persuasion because it would go against their religious beliefs.  So that’s my belief about some percentage of Marines in our Corps.

Q: And what do you — if that is the case, and the law changes, as a senior commander, then — it’s a volunteer force. Should those people leave?

Should accommodations be made?  What do you — what do you do about that?

A:  Yeah.  Well, I think, as a commander, you try to satisfy the requirements of all your Marines.  And if the law changes and we have homosexual Marines, we’ll be as concerned about their rights, their privileges, their morale as we will Marines who feel differently about that whole paradigm.

So commanders — local commanders will be required to assist us in making sure that every Marine is provided for and is focused on the fight at hand.

[h/t] advocate.com

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

The White House

HRC files class action over federal ban on gender-affirming care coverage

Lawsuit filed Monday challenges White House effort to restrict care

Published

on

Gender-affirming care activists outside of the D.C. Attorney General's office on Feb. 13, 2026 in support of care for trans youth. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the nonprofit sister organization to the largest LGBTQ human rights lobbying and advocacy organization in the U.S., along with law firms Correia & Puth and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, filed a class action lawsuit against the government as it attempts to restrict gender-affirming healthcare for federal employees.

The suit, filed on Monday, alleges that the Office of Personnel Management, run by Trump appointee Scott Kupor, is discriminating against LGBTQ federal employees (and their families and retired employees) by prohibiting health insurance coverage for gender-affirming care under the Federal Employees Health Benefits and Postal Service Health Benefits plans. There are five plaintiffs named in the complaint, but it extends to others who have those healthcare plans.

The document asserts that OPM’s prohibition on coverage for “gender transition” care in the FEHB and PSHB programs violates Title VII, the federal law that prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, or national origin.

The policy, which was implemented on Jan. 1 following the 2025 issuing of Program Carrier Letter, mandated that insurance providers in these programs deny any coverage for gender-affirming care. In February, HRC filed a federal complaint with OPM over the change in healthcare policy, which was ultimately passed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for review. That complaint is now an officially filed class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Research from the Williams Institute at UCLA Law, a think tank that collects data and conducts research on issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity, indicates that this policy denying gender-affirming care will impact healthcare access for at least 39,400 current and former federal employees and their dependents.

Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson released a statement following the lawsuit’s filing.

“Our message to the Trump administration is simple: we’ll see you in court,” said Robinson. “Healthcare access should never be weaponized to advance discrimination — and the denial of coverage for critical healthcare based simply on who you are blatantly violates the rights of all of us.”

Gender-affirming care has been under constant attack by the Trump-Vance administration since its return to the White House, despite the practice being considered as extensively evidence-based but also supported by nearly every major medical organization. This type of care is provided to all people—not just transgender people—and includes things such as social affirmation, including using correct names and pronouns and wearing clothing that matches a person’s gender identity; mental health support, such as counseling to reduce depression and anxiety; and, in some cases, medical interventions such as reversible puberty blockers or hormone therapy when deemed medically appropriate.

“Federal employees have been through the wringer with the Trump administration,” said Cathy Harris, partner at Correia & Puth. “We draw the line at blatant discrimination to deny healthcare to our nation’s dedicated civil servants.”

“This odious policy is the latest example of the Trump administration’s obsession with targeting transgender people, using shameful and cruel tactics to threaten their employment, their health, and the well-being of themselves and their families,” Robinson added. “OPM’s actions will not go unchallenged, and we’ll continue to fight so that federal employees and their families receive the dignity they deserve.”

This is not the first time the White House has directly attacked gender-affirming care.

In January 2025, the administration issued Executive Order 14187, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.” The order directs federal agencies to restrict gender-affirming medical care — including puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries — for individuals under the age of 19.

For more information on how to get involved with the lawsuit, visit hrc.org.

Continue Reading

Politics

Buttigieg indicates he may run for president in 2028 

Former Transportation Secretary was in Biden-Harris administration’s Cabinet

Published

on

Former U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg speaking at the 2024 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg told a podcaster he is considering throwing his hat in the ring for president once again.

“I don’t know,” Buttigieg told Steven Bartlett, the British host of The Diary of a CEO, the most popular top business and tech podcast on Spotify, which aired Monday. “I think I’m more inclined than not, but there’s so much we don’t know.”

“There’s so much I don’t even know about what’s going to happen this year, let alone … what we need to know later,” he added.

Buttigieg is no stranger to running for the Oval Office.

In 2019, the former South Bend, Ind., mayor was a serious contender in the Democratic primary for the 2020 presidential election but ultimately ended his campaign and endorsed Joe Biden.

In May, an Emerson College Polling survey found Buttigieg at the top of the list of potential presidential contenders, leading California Gov. Gavin Newsom, New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, former Vice President Kamala Harris, and others.

In addition to discussing his future in federal politics, Buttigieg also discussed President Donald Trump’s handling of the Iran war — which reached its 5-month mark two weeks ago — the changing landscape of U.S. jobs due to the rise of artificial intelligence, and the growing national debt, all issues he could face if he ultimately returns to the White House.

Following his 2020 presidential campaign, Buttigieg gained prominence within the Democratic Party, eventually leading to his confirmation as Transportation Secretary. In February 2021, he became the first openly gay Cabinet member to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

In addition to his experience as an elected official, the 44-year-old served as a Navy intelligence officer in the reserves from 2009-2017, including a seven-month deployment to Afghanistan in 2014. Buttigieg came out as gay in 2015 and later married his husband, Chasten Glezman, in 2018. The couple now has two children: twins.

Buttigieg also has an extensive educational background.

He graduated from Harvard University with a bachelor’s degree in history and literature and later became a Rhodes Scholar, attending the University of Oxford, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in philosophy, politics, and economics.

This is not the first time Buttigieg has made headlines this year.

In June, he went public about being falsely accused of posing a threat to his children’s safety. An anonymous police report claimed he was a danger to his 4-year-old twins and was not allowed to be with them until after police interviews were conducted.

The police report was later determined to be false. The Washington Blade reached out to the Michigan State Police to ask what course of action, if any, would be taken against the woman who filed the false report, but the agency did not answer the question.

The Blade reached out to Buttigieg’s team for comment on his potential 2028 presidential bid, but did not hear back before publication. 

Continue Reading

Congress

House blocks effort to codify transgender servicemember ban into law

Lawmakers approved two anti-trans NDAA amendments

Published

on

The Pentagon (Photo by icholakov/Bigstock)

The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday rejected an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have codified a ban transgender servicemembers in the military.

The bipartisan vote was 212-217.

The NDAA is for the 2027 fiscal year and sets policies for the Defense Department programs and activities and the national security programs of the Department of Energy.

U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) proposed the amendment on July 21. It stated that all personnel are required to serve in accordance with their biological sex, citing military readiness and discipline.

Human Rights Campaign Senior Director of Government Affairs Jennifer Pike Bailey stated that she is grateful for the bipartisan vote that rejected President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s “dangerous and discriminatory policy that has kicked brave transgender servicemembers out of the military and weakened our national security.”

“Everyone who meets the same rigorous standards should be able to serve their country. We should honor that patriotism, particularly in this moment where we are witnessing brave servicemembers making the ultimate sacrifice for our country, instead of ending their careers and politicizing their existence. We’re grateful that a permanent extension of this ban failed, and we will keep fighting to reverse this senseless policy,” Bailey said.

Mark Takano, chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, stated that he and his members put in countless hours of work to kill the amendment.

“When Americans know they or their families are going to be targeted by or not supported by the military, that leads them to avoid signing up to serve or staying in the service — making it harder to keep the ranks of the armed services full and our nation safe. My colleagues in the Equality Caucus and I will continue working to prevent these attacks on our servicemembers and their families from becoming law,” Takano said.

According to the Congressional Equality Caucus, two other bills could potentially be passed that would also target the transgender community, both of which were proposed by U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.).

The first was a bill that would have prohibited gender-related medical care under TRICARE and to prevent TRICARE from covering certain gender-related medical procedures and treatments, which was approved in a vote of 219-208.

The second was a bill that would have prohibited male participation in female sports at DoDEA schools. DoDEA schools are Department of Defense Dependents Schools, which is a network of primary and secondary schools.

The amendment was approved in a vote of 221-203. 

Continue Reading

Popular