National
YEAR IN REVIEW: ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal is year’s top story
Rollercoaster fight ends with Obama’s signature
The passage of legislation to end the 17-year-old ban on service by open gays in the U.S. military after a year-long fight makes the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” saga the story of the year for 2010.
Throughout the course of the year, supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal endured a rollercoaster ride during which many observers predicted efforts to lift the military’s gay ban would end in failure.
In January, President Obama set up the path for repeal in his State of the Union address.
“This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are,” Obama said. “It’s the right thing to do.”
Efforts to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” got a significant boost in February during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing when Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen announced that he personally supports the service of openly gay people in the U.S. military.
“It is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do,” Mullen said. “No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.”
Mullen’s support for ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is seen by many as the lynchpin that ultimately led to repeal of the law because he is an authoritative voice in the military and was seen as outside the influence of LGBT advocates.
During the same hearing, Defense Secretary Robert Gates unveiled plans to establish a Pentagon working group study of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” that would determine the best way to implement repeal of the law should Congress should take action. Gates appointed Jeh Johnson, the Pentagon’s general counsel, and Gen. Carter Ham, commander of U.S. Army Europe, as co-chairs of the working group, and directed them to produce a study by Dec. 1.
At the same hearing, U.S. senators opposed to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal expressed consternation over plans to move forward and Mullen’s declared support for allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said he was “deeply disappointed” by Gates’ statement and the defense secretary’s plans to move forward with a study to determine how to implement repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as opposed to whether it should be repealed.
As the study on implementing an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was underway, those seeking to end the law made plans to pass a repeal of the law as part of major defense budget legislation pending before Congress as part of the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill. In 1993, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was enacted into law as part of the defense authorization bill and LGBT advocates believed attaching a measure as part of defense spending legislation would bolster chances for success of repeal.
But the path to passage of repeal encountered a significant roadblock in April when Gates wrote a letter to Congress saying he’s “strongly opposed” to any legislative change to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before the Pentagon study is complete.
Many thought Gates had doomed any chances for legislative repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” But repeal advocates came forth with a compromise measure that would institute an end to the law only after the Pentagon report was finished and the president, defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that the U.S. military is ready.
The White House and Pentagon issued statements saying pursuing legislation after the Pentagon study is complete would be the ideal way to address repeal, but that they could support the proposed compromise legislation.
In May, the House attached the repeal measure as part of the defense authorization bill as an amendment by a vote of 234-194 before approving the legislation as a whole. On the same day, the Senate Armed Services Committee did the same to its version of the bill before reporting it out to the Senate floor.
On the House floor, Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), an Iraq war veteran and the sponsor of repeal legislation, urged his colleagues to approve an end to the military’s gay ban.
Following the votes, the prospects for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal seemed bright. But the efforts to move forward with the legislation were stymied as the Senate didn’t take up the measure for months. In July, McCain objected to a motion to proceed to the defense authorization bill upon lawmakers’ return from August recess.
In September, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) file cloture to proceed on the defense authorization bill regardless of the objections from any other senator.
At first, many LGBT advocates were confident that 60 votes were present in the U.S. Senate to proceed to defense legislation over McCain’s objection. But this support began to crumble away as many U.S. senators said they disapproved of the limited number of amendments that would be allowed.
On the Senate floor, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who voted for the repeal amendment in committee, was among those expressing discontent over the procedural conditions for the defense authorization.
The motion to proceed on the defense authorization bill failed 56-43, four votes short of the 60 votes necessary to proceed with the legislation. Reid pledged to bring up the legislation again, but the bill’s fate was uncertain.
When Republicans took control of the House in the November elections, it became clear that Congress needed to act before the end of the year.
With the legislative route to ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in limbo, another route to end the military’s gay ban opened up in September when a California federal court ruled that the law was unconstitutional in the case of Log Cabin Republicans v. United States.
In October, U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips affirmed her earlier ruling by issuing an injunction enjoining the U.S. government from the enforcement of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
The U.S. Justice Department appealed the decision to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and asked for a stay in the injunction, arguing that the Pentagon needs time to implement a repeal of the law.
On Oct. 21, the Ninth Circuit granted the stay in the injunction, ending the eight-day period in which gays could serve openly in the U.S. military.
But the court action put increased pressure on Congress to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before the year was out. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs maintained Congress should repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” legislatively before the courts strike down the statute to provide the Pentagon more wiggle-room with implementation.
Efforts to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” received another significant boost on Nov. 30 when the Pentagon finally released its study and found that repeal could be implemented with low risk to the armed forces over the long term.
The 256-page report included the results of survey sent out to 400,000 service members regarding openly gay people in the U.S. military. Of the more than 115,000 who responded, 70 percent said they believed repeal would have a positive, mixed or no effect on a unit’s ability to get the job done.
Hopes were high that with the Pentagon report, the Senate would be able to move forward with the defense authorization and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal. But those hopes were dashed on Dec. 9 when a motion to proceed on the defense authorization bill failed 57-40.
Immediately following the vote, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Collins called a news conference and announced they would introduce stand-alone “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” legislation — a move seen by many as a “Hail Mary” pass to make repeal happen before the end of the year.
With limited time remaining in the lame duck session, the U.S. House on Dec. 15 approved “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” yet again as a standalone measure by a vote 250-175. The move enabled the House to send the legislation to the Senate as “privileged” bill, shaving off the first 30 hours of debate that would have otherwise been needed in the Senate.
After the Senate approved the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts, repeal advocates became optimistic that 60 votes were present to support the legislation as Sens. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) signaled they would support repeal.
On Dec. 18, repeal advocates finally cleared the last major hurdle for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” when the Senate invoked cloture on the legislation by a vote of 63-33. On the same day, the Senate agreed to final passage of the bill by a vote of 65-31.
LGBT advocates heralded the Senate vote — the first time Congress has approved a pro-gay bill as a standalone measure — as an unprecedented accomplishment for LGBT Americans.
President Obama brought to a close on Dec. 22 the legislative journey to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” when he signed the repeal legislation into law.
Federal Government
Texas Children’s Hospital reaches $10 million settlement with DOJ over gender-affirming care
Clinic specializing in detransition care will be established
The Justice Department announced May 15 that it has reached a settlement with Texas Children’s Hospital, one of the nation’s top pediatric hospitals.
Under the agreement, the hospital will pay more than $10 million in damages and civil penalties related to its provision of gender-affirming care and will establish a clinic specializing in detransition care.
The DOJ partnered with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office to resolve allegations that the hospital submitted false billings to public and private insurers to secure coverage for pediatric gender-affirming procedures. The department alleges the conduct violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the False Claims Act, and federal fraud and conspiracy laws.
The settlement was reached out of court, meaning neither party formally admitted wrongdoing. Both the DOJ and Texas Children’s Hospital denied liability.
“The Justice Department will use every weapon at its disposal to end the destructive and discredited practice of so-called ‘gender-affirming care’ for children,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a DOJ press release. “Today’s resolution protects vulnerable children, holds providers accountable, and ensures those harmed receive the care they need.”
The DOJ’s hardline stance on gender-affirming care sharply contrasts with the positions of major medical organizations, transgender healthcare advocates, and human rights groups, which broadly support gender-affirming care as an evidence-based treatment for gender dysphoria.
Adrian Shanker, former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health Policy and Senior Advisor on LGBTQI+ Health Equity at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under during the Biden-Harris administration, told the Washington Blade the settlement could have sweeping consequences for trans youth and healthcare providers nationwide.
“The Trump administration’s framing of gender-affirming care is wildly inaccurate, scientifically implausible, and frankly, just mean-spirited,” Shanker told the Blade. “What’s really clear is that the science hasn’t changed, the evidence hasn’t changed — it’s only the politics that have changed. Unfortunately, the people that lose out the most with a settlement like this one are the patients that are denied access to care where they live.”
According to Shanker, the agreement also requires Texas Children’s Hospital to revoke privileges for physicians involved in providing gender-affirming care, potentially limiting their ability to practice elsewhere.
“This is a weaponized Department of Justice doing absurd investigations against providers that are providing care within the established standard of care,” he said. “They’ve come up with an absurd remedy in their settlement to require a so-called ‘detransition clinic’ to open at Texas Children’s. It’s harmful to science, it’s harmful to trans people, and it’s harmful to the medical profession.”
Shanker argued the case reflects a broader politicization of trans healthcare.
“Every American should be concerned about the weaponized Department of Justice and their obsession with trans people and their access to care,” he said. “These hospitals that provide gender-affirming care, the providers of gender-affirming care, have done nothing wrong. They followed the standards of care that are well established and followed the mountain of evidence.”
Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of constitutional law practice at Lambda Legal, echoed those concerns.
“For Texas Children’s to capitulate to this pressure campaign of both Paxton and the Trump administration and end this care, and go after physicians who had been lawfully and faithfully taking care of their patients, it’s hard to see that as anything other than bending the knee in the face of political pressure,” Loewy told the Blade. “That’s not putting your mission above politics. Your mission is to provide health care for kids that need it.”
Loewy said the settlement reflects years of efforts by Paxton and the Trump-Vance administration to target gender-affirming care providers. Paxton has pursued investigations into providers across Texas since 2022 and supported a 2023 law banning gender-transition-related medical care for minors. Meanwhile, the Trump-Vance administration moved quickly in its second term to restrict trans healthcare access, including through Executive Order 14187, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.”
“This is a perfect storm of Ken Paxton’s own mission to stigmatize and target trans young people and their healthcare in Texas with the Trump administration’s targeting of trans people and gender-affirming medical care,” Loewy said. “It is the two of them together. Without that, you wouldn’t have had this settlement.”
Loewy also emphasized that the settlement is part of a broader legal strategy targeting providers nationwide.
“You can’t view this one in isolation from all of the other administrative subpoenas that have been sent to hospitals or other kinds of medical providers that have provided gender-affirming medical care to trans adolescents,” she said. “It is all part and parcel of the same direct line from the executive orders that were issued in the first days of this Trump administration.”
“Every court that has considered those subpoenas has found them illegitimate and issued for an improper purpose, or at least narrowed them really dramatically,” she added. “Courts agree these hospitals didn’t do anything wrong. It’s the DOJ that has the problem here.”
Shanker also criticized the settlement’s requirement that the hospital establish a detransition clinic, arguing the move contradicts existing medical evidence.
“The irony shouldn’t be lost on anyone that the Trump administration is claiming that gender-affirming care lacks a scientific basis, and then is requiring the opening of a so-called detransition clinic, which certainly lacks a scientific basis,” Shanker said. “There’s less than a 1% regret rate when it comes to gender-affirming care. That’s lower than knee surgery, lower than bariatric surgery, lower than childbirth, lower than breast reconstruction, and lower than tattoos.”
Loewy was similarly blunt in her criticism.
“This is the most craven, political, ridiculous elevation of ideology over evidence,” she said. “They are creating a program built on an outcome that almost never happens. It is unprecedented and politically mandated rather than healthcare mandated.”
She said the settlement’s broader effect will be to intimidate providers and further marginalize trans people.
“The real effect here is to further stigmatize trans people and intimidate healthcare providers,” she said. “This is about sending a message nationwide that the DOJ is coming after the doctors. These are committed, faithful, law-abiding physicians and healthcare providers who just want to provide the healthcare their patients actually need.”
Both Loewy and Shanker warned that restricting access to gender-affirming care could deepen health disparities for trans people.
“We know that when transgender Americans lack the care that they need, we end up with higher rates of depression, higher rates of anxiety, higher rates of self-harm and suicidal ideation,” Shanker said. “We know that gender-affirming care is a medically appropriate, scientifically grounded form of care that resolves these challenges and leads us toward health equity. It’s unfortunate that the Trump administration has politicized not only transgender medicine, but the very basis of public health.”
Shanker said the restrictions are already prompting some trans people to relocate in search of care.
“We’re already seeing medical refugees leave states that have restricted access to care to move to states where it’s still available,” he said. “Frankly, we’ve already seen some trans people go to other countries to receive care or maintain access to care.”
Loewy said the DOJ’s recent subpoenas targeting hospitals, including those issued to NYU Langone Health in New York, suggest the administration is escalating its legal strategy.
“We’ve seen the DOJ escalate this by convening a grand jury and issuing grand jury subpoenas to hospitals,” she said. “That is going to be the next front in this fight.”
In addition to , there has been as large increase in anti-trans legislation in the past few years — with 126 federal pieces of legislation introduced this year and 26 state level policies passed across the country.
Still, Loewy pointed to recent court victories as evidence that challenges to these policies can succeed.
“Just yesterday, a state court in Kansas struck down that state’s ban on gender-affirming medical care in one of the most meticulous recognitions of the medical consensus and the harm of denying care to trans young people,” she said. “When courts actually look at the science and the impacts on trans people, they still can rule the right way.”
Asked whether there is any optimism to be found amid the ongoing legal battles, Loewy said she continues to draw hope from advocates, families, and community organizers fighting back.
“The solidarity of the community is really what brings hope,” she said. “There are incredible lawyers, advocates, families, and organizations fighting every day to protect these kids and their privacy and safety. It is that community strength and collaborative effort that continues to give me hope.”
Commentary
‘Live Your Pride’ is much more than a slogan
Waves Ahead forced to cancel May 17 event in Puerto Rico
On May 5, I spoke by phone with Wilfred Labiosa, executive director of Waves Ahead, a Puerto Rico-based LGBTQ community organization that for years has provided mental health services, support programs, and safe spaces for vulnerable communities across the island. During our conversation, Labiosa confirmed every concern described in the organization’s public statement announcing the cancellation of “Live Your Pride,” an event scheduled for Sunday in the northwestern municipality of Isabela. But beyond the financial struggles and organizational challenges, what stayed with me most was the emotional weight behind his words. There was pain in his voice while describing what it means to watch spaces like these slowly disappear.
This was not simply the cancellation of a community event.
“Live Your Pride” had been envisioned as a celebration and affirming gathering for LGBTQ older adults and their allies in Puerto Rico. In a society where many LGBTQ elders spent decades hiding parts of themselves in order to survive, spaces like this carry enormous emotional and social significance. They become places where people can finally exist openly, without fear, apology, or shame.
That is why this cancellation matters far beyond Isabela.
What is happening in Puerto Rico cannot be separated from the broader political climate unfolding across the U.S. and its territories, where programs connected to diversity, inclusion, education, mental health, and LGBTQ visibility increasingly find themselves under political attack. These changes do not always arrive through dramatic announcements. More often, they happen quietly. Funding disappears. Community organizations weaken. Safe spaces become harder to sustain. Eventually, the absence itself begins to feel normal.
That normalization is dangerous.
For years, organizations like Waves Ahead have stepped into gaps left behind by institutions and governments, particularly in communities where LGBTQ people continue facing discrimination, social isolation, economic instability, and mental health struggles. Their work has never been limited to organizing events. It has involved accompanying people through loneliness, trauma, rejection, depression, aging, and survival itself.
“Live Your Pride” represented much more than entertainment. It represented visibility for LGBTQ older adults, many of whom survived decades of family rejection, religious exclusion, workplace discrimination, violence, and silence. These are individuals who came of age during years when living openly could cost someone employment, housing, relationships, or personal safety. Many learned to survive by making themselves invisible.
When spaces like this disappear, something deeply human is lost.
A gathering is canceled, yes, but so is an opportunity for healing, connection, recognition, and dignity. For many LGBTQ older adults, especially in smaller municipalities across Puerto Rico, these events are not secondary luxuries. They are reminders that their lives still matter in a society that too often treats aging and queer existence as disposable.
There are still political and religious sectors that portray the rainbow as some kind of ideological threat. But the rainbow does not erase anyone. It illuminates people and stories that society has often tried to ignore. It reflects the lives of young people forced out of their homes, transgender individuals targeted by violence, older adults aging in silence, and families that spent years defending their right to exist openly.
Perhaps that is precisely why the rainbow unsettles some people so deeply.
Its colors expose abandonment, hypocrisy, inequality, and fear. They force societies to confront realities that are easier to ignore than to address honestly. They reveal how fragile human dignity becomes when political agendas decide that certain communities are no longer worthy of protection, funding, or visibility.
The greatest concern here is not solely the cancellation of one event in one Puerto Rican town. The deeper concern is the message quietly taking shape behind decisions like these — the idea that some communities can wait, that some lives deserve fewer resources, and that safe spaces for vulnerable people are expendable during moments of political tension.
History has shown repeatedly how social regression begins. Rarely with one dramatic act. More often through exhaustion, silence, budget cuts, and the slow dismantling of organizations doing essential community work.
Even so, Waves Ahead made one thing clear in its statement. Although “Live Your Pride” has been canceled, the organization will continue providing mental health and community support services through its centers across Puerto Rico. That commitment matters because people do not survive on slogans alone. They survive because somewhere there are still open doors, trained professionals, supportive communities, and people willing to remain present when the world becomes colder and more hostile.
Puerto Rico should pay close attention to what this moment represents. No healthy society is built by weakening the organizations that care for vulnerable people. No government should feel comfortable watching community groups struggle to survive while attempting to provide services and compassion that public institutions themselves often fail to offer.
The rainbow has never been the problem.
The real problem is the discomfort created when its colors force society to confront the wounds, inequalities, and human realities that too many people would rather keep hidden.
Federal Government
Bureau of Prisons declines to reconsider transgender inmate policy
Democratic lawmakers raised concerns this week, lawsuit filed
Following a letter sent Monday by several Democratic senators raising concerns about the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ updated transgender inmate policy, the BOP responded to a request for comment from the Washington Blade, saying it does not plan to reverse the changes implemented earlier this year.
The policy was revised in 2025 to comply with President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”
In a statement to the Blade, BOP spokesperson Donald Murphy said the updated policy is rooted in medical guidance and data-driven decision making.
“The BOP implemented the February 2025 policy to ensure that inmates with gender dysphoria are properly diagnosed and treated consistent with best medical practices,” he said. “Unlike the prior administration’s one-size-fits-all approach, the BOP’s new policy ensures individualized assessments and treatments. And while the previous administration’s policies on treating inmates with gender dysphoria was driven by radical ideology, the BOP’s current policy is based on medical studies, medical expert opinions, state correctional policies, caselaw, and penological concerns. Absent court order, there are no plans to reconsider or revisit the policy.”
U.S. Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) signed the letter, arguing that the policy change fails to adequately prioritize the safety of trans inmates — protections they say are guaranteed under the Constitution.
This inquiry comes days after a federal lawsuit was filed against the Justice Department specifically on the concern that trans inmates are not receiving adequate care.
Earlier this month, the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, a legal organization focused on LGBTQ rights since 1977, filed a lawsuit in District Court of the District of Columbia against the Trump-Vance administration in collaboration with GLAD Law, Lowenstein Sandler LLP, and Wardenski P.C.
The suit, filed on May 6, alleges the administration is “ignoring federal protections” designed to prevent sexual abuse of incarcerated trans people.
“Transgender people in prison are sexually abused or assaulted at nearly 10x the rate of the general prison population,” the press release announcing the lawsuit states, adding that federal legislation was enacted to address those risks.
The plaintiff in the lawsuit, Paulina Poe, is a trans woman currently incarcerated in a men’s facility. According to the complaint, she has been “propositioned, groped, sexually harassed, and assaulted” by male inmates and subjected to strip searches by male officers — circumstances the Prison Rape Elimination Act regulations were intended to prevent.
The lawsuit also argues that the policy changes violate constitutional protections and deny trans inmates medically necessary care.
“The Eighth Amendment requires prisons and jails to provide ‘adequate medical care’ to incarcerated people which includes adequate treatment for people diagnosed with gender dysphoria,” says the Transgender Law Center. “‘Adequate medical care’ should be delivered according to accepted medical standards, such as WPATH’s Standards of Care. Some courts have said that in some circumstances ‘adequate medical care’ for gender dysphoria includes providing gender-appropriate clothing and grooming supplies, and the ability to present yourself consistent with your gender identity.”
GLAD Law Staff Attorney Sarah Austin also issued a statement when the lawsuit was announced, saying those responsible for the policy changes — and the rollback of protections under the Prison Rape Elimination Act — will be “held accountable for this egregious and lawless action.”
“The federal government’s unlawful attempt to roll back binding Prison Rape Elimination Act regulations is an especially dangerous step in its ongoing campaign to strip transgender people of legal protections,” Austin said. “The targeting of transgender incarcerated people is a deliberate choice to put vulnerable people in harm’s way simply because of who they are.”
The Justice Department has not responded to the Blade’s request for comment.
