Connect with us

National

BREAKING NEWS: ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ vote fails

Stand-alone repeal bill may be next but time running out for Clinton-era policy

Published

on

Supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal endured a devastating loss on Thursday when the Senate failed to reach the 60-vote threshold necessary to proceed with legislation that would end the military’s gay ban.

Still, repeal advocates are pursuing an end to the military’s gay ban through new standalone legislation and other administrative means.

By a 57-40 vote, the Senate failed to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed on the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill, which contains a measure to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, called the vote a “major failure” of the Senate to “simply do its job and pass an annual defense authorization bill.”

“Politics prevailed over responsibility today, and now more than one million American service members, including tens of thousands of gay and lesbian troops, are worse off as a result,” Nicholson said.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), a leading advocate for repeal in the Senate, said during a later news conference that he’s “very disappointed” in the result of the vote as well as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) decision to hold the vote on Thursday.

Lieberman noted that all 42 members of the Republican caucus said they wouldn’t vote in favor of moving forward with other legislation until tax issues and continuing funding for the U.S. government are addressed.

“You can say that was wrong, but the reality is that that was the request, and, nonetheless, Sen. Reid went ahead and called this vote,” he said.

With exception of Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who voted in favor of cloture, all Republican senators who were present cast a “no” vote on the motion to proceed. Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) didn’t vote.

Following the vote at a news conference, Collins blamed the failure of the bill on Reid and said she’s “extremely disappointed” about his decision to hold the vote on the defense authorization bill at this time.

“There is no reason why we could not have proceeded to consider that bill after completing action on the tax relief bill and using a process that would be fair to both sides,” Collins said.

Collins had been engaged in negotiations with Reid and Lieberman about finding a path forward to bring on needed Republican support for the defense authorization bill. The Maine senator accused Reid of having “walked away” from the negotiations by bringing the legislation to a vote.

“The majority leader decided to prematurely hold a cloture vote that he knew would not succeed,” Collins said. “I just don’t understand that decision. I don’t understand that given the importance of this bill and the policies in it.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who recently came out in favor of repeal, later told reporters she voted “no” because she felt the amendment process set up for the defense authorization bill was unfair.

She also recalled the letter that all 42 members of the Republican caucus signed saying that wanted to extend the Bush-era tax cuts and pass a continuing resolution to fund the U.S. government before taking on other issues.

“We’re going to that tax bill right now,” she said. “Why the majority leader could not have allowed for a timing that would help to facilitate greater support for this, allow for a reasonable amendment process — that is not too much to ask.”

Jim Manley, a Reid spokesperson, said the majority leader was offering 10 Republican amendments and 5 Democratic amendments as part of consideration of the legislation.

“We’ve bent over backwards to try and offer them a reasonable number of amendments,” Manley said. “Just because they say it, doesn’t mean it’s true.”

On the Democratic side, the sole vote against the motion to proceed was the newly seated Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.). He had earlier expressed concerns about chaplains leaving the military should “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” be repealed.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) didn’t vote on the motion to proceed. Lieberman later told reporters Lincoln wanted to vote in the affirmative, but was detained and unable to make the vote on time.

In the wake of the loss, Lieberman and Collins announced their intent on Thursday to introduce new standalone legislation to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” with language that’s identical to the repeal provision in the defense authorization bill.

Unveiling his plans for the new legislation, Lieberman said he thinks the bill has a chance for success in lame duck because at least 60 senators have expressed support for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

“We’re going to keep fighting until the last possible moment in this session because we got the votes to change this unjust policy and we owe it ourselves and to our country to continue to fight until fighting is no longer possible,” Lieberman said.

The Connecticut senator said he received assurances from Reid that he would use “Rule 14” to bypass the committee vote and bring the standalone legislation to the floor during the lame duck session of Congress. Further, Lieberman said Reid wanted to be a co-sponsor of the legislation.

As repeal advocates push forward with this new bill, the Human Rights Campaign has renewed its call for President Obama to prevent further discharges under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” by issuing a stop-loss order — a power afforded to him during times of war.

Joe Solmonese, HRC’s president, had earlier endorsed the idea of Obama issuing such an order in an October letter to the president.

“The Senate’s apparent refusal to act on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal makes presidential action imperative in order for him to fulfill his state of the union promise,” Solmonese said. “The only measure of success is an end to the discharges and anything less is unacceptable.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

New York

Pride flag raised at Stonewall after National Park Service took it down

‘Our flag represents dignity and human rights’

Published

on

(Screen capture via Reuters video on YouTube)

A Pride flag was raised at the site of the Stonewall National Monument days after a National Park Service directive banned flying the flag at the birthplace of the LGBTQ rights movement in the U.S.

The flag-raising was led by Manhattan Borough President Brad Hoylman-Sigal and supported by other elected officials.

“The community should rejoice. We have prevailed,” Hoylman-Sigal said shortly after the flag was hoisted. “Our flag represents dignity and human rights.”

The flag now sits in Christopher Street Park, feet away from the Stonewall Inn, where in 1969 a police raid of the gay bar sparked outrage and led to a rising of LGBTQ people pushing back on NYPD brutality and unjust treatment.

Elected officials brought a new flagpole with them, using plastic zip ties to attach it to the existing pole.

In 2016, President Barack Obama declared the site a national monument.

One day before the planned re-raising of the Pride flag, the National Park Service installed only an American flag on the flagpole, which days prior had flown a rainbow flag bearing the NPS logo.

The directive removing the flag was put forward by Trump-appointed National Park Service Acting Director Jessica Bowron.

This comes one day after more than 20 LGBTQ organizations from across the country co-signed a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and General Services Administrator Ed Forst, demanding the flag be restored to the monument.

“It is our understanding that the policy provides limited exceptions for non-agency flags that provide historical context or play a role in historic reenactments. Simply put, we urge you to grant this flag an exception and raise it once again, immediately,” the letter read. “It also serves as an important reminder to the 30+ million LGBTQ+ Americans, who continue to face disproportionate threats to our lives and our liberty, that the sites and symbols that tell our stories are worth honoring … However, given recent removals of the site’s references to transgender and bisexual people — people who irrefutably played a pivotal role in this history — it is clear that this is not about the preservation of the historical record.”

The letter finished with a message of resilience the LGBTQ community is known for: “The history and the legacy of Stonewall must live on. Our community cannot simply be erased with the removal of a flag. We will continue to stand up and fight to ensure that LGBTQ+ history should not only be protected — it should be celebrated as a milestone in American resilience and progress.”

When asked about the directive, the NPS responded with this statement:

“Current Department of the Interior policy provides that the National Park Service may only fly the U.S. flag, Department of the Interior flags, and the Prisoner of War/Missing in Action flag on flagpoles and public display points. The policy allows limited exceptions, permitting non-agency flags when they serve an official purpose. These include historical context or reenactments, current military branch flags, flags of federally recognized tribal nations affiliated with a park, flags at sites co-managed with other federal, state, or municipal partners, flags required for international park designations, and flags displayed under agreements with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for Naturalization ceremonies.”

An Interior Department spokesperson on Thursday called the move to return the flag to the monument a “political stunt.”

“Today’s political pageantry shows how utterly incompetent and misaligned the New York City officials are with the problems their city is facing,” a department spokesperson said when reached for comment.

The clash comes amid broader efforts by the Trump-Vance administration to minimize LGBTQ history and political power. The White House has spent much of President Donald Trump’s second presidency restricting transgender rights — stopping gender-affirming care for transgender youth, issuing an executive order stating the federal government will recognize only two sexes, male and female, and blocking Medicaid and Medicare from being used for gender-affirming care.

Continue Reading

State Department

FOIA lawsuit filed against State Department for PEPFAR records

Council for Global Equality, Physicians for Human Rights seeking data, documents

Published

on

HIV/AIDS activists place Black Styrofoam coffins in front of the State Department on April 17, 2025, to protest the Trump-Vance administration's foreign aid cuts that impacted PEPFAR-funded programs. The Council for Global Equality and Physicians for Human Rights have filed a FOIA lawsuit that seeks the State Department's PEPFAR-related documents and data. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The Council for Global Equality and Physicians for Human Rights have filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department for PEPFAR-related data and documents.

The groups, which Democracy Forward represents, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Wednesday.

Then-President George W. Bush in 2003 signed legislation that created PEPFAR. UNAIDS Executive Director Winnie Byanyima last March said PEPFAR has saved 26 million lives around the world.

The Trump-Vance administration in January 2025 froze nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending for at least 90 days. Secretary of State Marco Rubio later issued a waiver that allowed PEPFAR and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during the freeze.

The Washington Blade has previously reported PEPFAR-funded programs in Kenya and other African countries have been forced to suspend services and even shut down because of gaps in U.S. funding. HIV/AIDS activists have also sharply criticized the Trump-Vance administration over reported plans it will not fully fund PEPFAR in the current fiscal year.

The lawsuit notes the Council for Global Equality and Physicians for Human Rights have “filed several FOIA requests” with the State Department for PEPFAR-related data and documents. The groups filed their most recent request on Jan. 30.

“On Jan. 30, 2026, plaintiffs, through counsel, sent State a letter asking it to commit to prompt production of the requested records,” reads the lawsuit. “State responded that the request was being processed but did not commit to any timeline for production.”

“Plaintiffs have received no subsequent communication from State regarding this FOIA request,” it notes.

“Transparency and inclusion have been hallmarks of PEPFAR’s success in the last decade,” said Beirne Roose-Snyder, a senior policy fellow at the Council for Global Equality, in a press release that announced the lawsuit. “This unprecedented withholding of data, and concurrent ideological misdirection of foreign assistance to exclude LGBTQI+ people and others who need inclusive programming, has potentially devastating and asymmetrical impacts on already marginalized communities.”

“This data is vital to understanding who’s getting access to care and who’s being left behind,” added Roose-Snyder.

“We filed this lawsuit to seek transparency: the administration’s PEPFAR data blackout withholds information the public, health providers, and affected communities need to track the HIV epidemic and prevent avoidable illness and death, obscuring the true human cost of these policy decisions,” said Physicians for Human Rights Research, Legal, and Advocacy Director Payal Shah.

The State Department has yet to respond to the Blade’s request for comment on the lawsuit.

Continue Reading

New York

N.Y. lawmaker vows ‘Pride flag will fly again’ at Stonewall Monument

After a Jan. 21 policy shift, Pride flags were banned at national parks, prompting backlash from Bottcher and LGBTQ advocates.

Published

on

The now gone Pride flag formerly flying at Stonewall National Monument in 2016. (Photo courtesy of the National Parks Service)

Hours after news broke that the National Park Service would no longer allow Pride flags to fly at the Stonewall National Monument — the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement in the United States — the Washington Blade spoke with New York State Sen. Erik Bottcher, who represents the area surrounding the Stonewall Inn and the national monument.

During the interview, Bottcher, who is gay, spoke about the policy change and outlined steps he plans to take in the coming days to push for its reversal.

“This is another act of erasure,” Bottcher told the Blade. “It’s a cowardly attempt to rewrite history and to intimidate our community. This is Stonewall — it’s where we fought back, where we ignited a global movement for equality — and we refuse to go back. We’re not going to accept these acts of erasure.”

The Stonewall Inn became a flashpoint in 1969 after NYPD officers raided the bar, part of a longstanding pattern of police harassment of LGBTQ spaces. The raid sparked days of protest and resistance along Christopher Street, now widely recognized as the catalyst for the modern LGBTQ rights movement.

While the events are often referred to as the “Stonewall Riots,” many activists and historians prefer the term “Stonewall Uprising,” emphasizing that the resistance was a response to systemic oppression rather than senseless violence. LGBTQ patrons and community members fought back — shouting “Gay Power!” and “Liberate Christopher Street!” — as crowds grew and frustration with police abuse boiled over.

Since the uprising, LGBTQ people and allies have gathered annually in June to commemorate Stonewall and to celebrate Pride, honoring the movement that placed LGBTQ voices at the center of the fight for equality.

In June 2016, then President Barack Obama officially designated the space as the Stonewall National Monument, making it the United States’s first national monument designated for an LGBTQ historic site.

Now, nearly 10 years later, President Trump’s appointed NPS acting director Jessica Bowron changed policy on Jan. 21 regarding which flags are allowed to be flown in national parks. Many, including Bottcher, say this is part of a larger targeted and deliberate attempt by the administration to erase LGBTQ history.

“It’s clear they’re making a conscious decision to erase the symbols of our community from a monument to our community’s struggle,” he said. “This is a calculated and premeditated decision, and it could be — and should be — reversed.”

“Let’s be clear,” Bottcher added, “they wish we didn’t exist … But we’re not going anywhere. We refuse to go back into the shadows.”

When asked why it is critical to challenge the policy, Bottcher emphasized the importance of visibility in preserving LGBTQ history.

“This is why it’s so important that we not let this stand,” he said. “Visibility is critical. When people see us, learn about us, and get to know us, that’s how we break down prejudice and stereotypes. We cannot allow them to push us back into the shadows.”

Other LGBTQ leaders and elected officials were quick to condemn the removal of the Pride flag, which had flown since the site’s official designation as a national monument.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani called the decision “outrageous.”

“I am outraged by the removal of the Rainbow Pride Flag from Stonewall National Monument,” Mamdani said in a statement. “New York is the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement, and no act of erasure will ever change or silence that history.”

“Our city has a duty not just to honor this legacy, but to live up to it,” he added. “I will always fight for a New York City that invests in our LGBTQ+ community, defends their dignity, and protects every one of our neighbors — without exception.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also condemned the move.

“The removal of the Pride Rainbow Flag from the Stonewall National Monument is a deeply outrageous action that must be reversed immediately,” Schumer said in a statement to The Advocate. “Stonewall is a landmark because it is the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement, and symbols of that legacy belong there by both history and principle.”

Cathy Renna, communications director for the National LGBTQ Task Force, said the flag’s removal will not erase the movement it represents.

“They can take down a flag, but they can’t take down our history,” Renna said. “Stonewall is sacred ground rooted in resistance, liberation, and the legacy of trans and queer trailblazers who changed the course of history.”

Human Rights Campaign National Press Secretary Brandon Wolf echoed that sentiment.

“Bad news for the Trump administration: these colors don’t run,” Wolf said. “The Stonewall Inn and Visitors Center are privately owned, their flags are still flying high, and that community is just as queer today as it was yesterday.”

Tyler Hack, executive director of the Christopher Street Project, said the removal was aimed squarely at LGBTQ visibility.

“The Pride flag was removed from Stonewall for one reason: to further erase queer and trans people from public life,” Hack said. “Stonewall marks the moment when queer and trans people fought back and demanded dignity. Our history is not theirs to erase.”

Bottcher closed with a promise to his constituents — and to the broader LGBTQ community — that the Pride flag’s removal would not be permanent.

“We will not be erased. We will not be silenced,” he said. “And the Pride flag will fly again at the birthplace of our movement.”

Continue Reading

Popular