National
Cicilline fends off challenger in R.I. primary
Election results yield mixed bag for marriage equality prospects

Gay Rep. David Cicilline defeated his challenger in the Rhode Island Democratic primary on Tuesday. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Gay Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) defeated his challenger, businessman Anthony Gemma, to win the Democratic nomination to continue to represent Rhode Island’s 1st congressional district in the U.S. House in Tuesday’s primary.
Local media outlets called the race for Cicilline about an hour after polls closed at 8 p.m. in Rhode Island. With 98 percent of precincts reporting, Cicilline held 61 percent of the vote, compared to the 31 percent claimed by Gemma and 8 percent won by another candidate, Chris Young.
Cicilline faced criticism during the race — even though he’s running in a overwhelmingly “blue” state — as a result of financial difficulties facing the city of Providence, R.I., where Cicilline served as mayor before running for Congress.
A report commissioned by the City Council last year blamed Cicilline’s administration for a lack of transparency and for making a series of moves – like tapping into Providence’s rainy-day fund – without councilors’ approval. The lawmaker apologized in April, saying he should have been more forthright about the financial condition of the city.
Still, Cicilline retained support heading into the primary. The lawmaker was once again endorsed by the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund. In new campaign ads, former U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy, who once held the seat now held by Cicilline, vouched for the out lawmaker’s commitment to public service.
Sexual orientation did come into play during the Democratic primary. According to the Associated Press, Anthony Sionni, an unpaid campaign staffer for the Gemma campaign, compared the openly gay lawmaker on Twitter to convicted child molester and former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky, saying there’s “nothing wrong with smearing a liar, thief, crook, Sandusky copy cat.” The state Democratic Party had called for Gemma to fire Anthony Sionni, apologize to Cicilline and disavow the message. In response, a Gemma campaign spokesperson reportedly said the tweet was “inappropriate” and Sionni agreed to leave the campaign.
Cicilline was running against a primary opponent who largely self-financed his campaign. According to Federal Election Commission reports, 80 percent of the $315,000 that Gemma raised was from him contributing or lending his money to his own campaign. In comparison, all the $1.7 million that Cicilline raised for his campaign was the result of outside contributions.
But Cicilline isn’t out of the woods in his bid to retain his U.S. House seat. He’s facing a challenge in the general election from Republican Brendan Doherty, a retired high-ranking police officer and former superintendent of Rhode Island’s Department of Public Safety.
According to a poll published by Rhode Island’s WPRI late last month, 52 percent of Gemma supporters said they’d back Doherty in the general election if the Democratic challenger lost the primary. Compared to the $1.7 million that Cicilline has raised, Doherty has $1.1 million in total net receipts. About five percent, or $50,000, of Doherty’s net receipts are from self-financing.
Chuck Wolfe, the Victory Fund’s CEO, said the choice is clear on LGBT issues heading into the general election because Doherty supports the Defense of Marriage Act, an anti-gay law that prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
“We’re pleased that Rhode Island Democrats have once again chosen David Cicilline to represent them in Congress,” Wolfe said. “Now voters will face a clear choice this November between a persistent champion for LGBT equality, and an opponent who supports the Defense of Marriage Act, which makes life harder for so many American families.”
The Victory Fund is citing the website Electful.com, which keeps track of candidates’ positions on issues, as the source for Doherty’s support for DOMA. On the other hand, Cicilline is an original co-sponsor of DOMA repeal legislation known as the Respect for Marriage Act.
The Democratic primary produced mixed results in terms of electing candidates who support marriage equality. One lesbian candidate, Laura Pisaturo, narrowly lost her bid to unseat a Democratic lawmaker who opposes same-sex marriage.
Many incumbent Democrats who support marriage equality fended off challenges from candidates who oppose it. Among those incumbents were State Sen. Ryan Pearson, State Rep. Arthur Handy, State Rep. Greg Amore, State Rep. Joseph Almeida, and State House Majority Whip Patrick O’Neill.
But in primaries in which pro-marriage equality challengers were running against incumbent Democrats who oppose it, the pro-LGBT side only won a single primary. Democrat Adam Satchell, a teacher and proponent of marriage equality, beat an incumbent Democrat who opposes same-sex marriage, State Sen. Michael Pinga.
Still, the outcome means a net gain of one vote in the State Senate at a time when legislation to enact same-sex marriage in the Ocean State is expected to advance next year.
In a competitive primary in State Senate District 29, incumbent State Sen. Michael McCaffrey, an opponent of marriage equality, won against Pisaturo, who was endorsed by the Victory Fund. McCaffrey had a narrow win against Pisaturo, taking 53 percent of the vote compared to Pisaturo’s 47 percent.
McCaffrey, chairs Rhode Island’s Senate Judiciary Committee, and, even though he’s a Democrat, has never allowed pending same-sex marriage legislation to advance in his committee. During a TV debate last month, McCaffrey said he “believes that marriage is between a man and a woman.”
Ray Sullivan, campaign director of Marriage Equality Rhode Island, said his organization is “incredibly proud” of the campaign Pisaturo waged despite her loss.
“We’re proud to have been a part of it,” Sullivan added. “She talked about issues that were important to people in that district, and if we had it to do all over again, we would absolutely stand with her.”
Asked whether marriage equality legislation can still advance, Sullivan said he intends to take McCaffrey “at his word” when the Democrat said during an earlier debate he’ll allow a vote on same-sex legislation in his committee despite his opposition to same-sex marriage.
“When we win a number of these races in the general election and we elect a pro-equality majority in the Senate in the general election, we expect Sen. McCaffrey to honor that commitment, and we look forward to scheduling a committee vote on marriage equality in the Senate Judiciary Committee,” Sullivan said.
In an interview with Washington Blade last week during the Democratic National Convention, Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, a supporter of marriage equality, said the election of Pisaturo would be “pivotal” in determining whether same-sex marriage legislation would be able to advance in the Rhode Island legislature.
Other Senate races had disappointing outcomes for marriage equality proponents. Same-sex marriage opponent State Sen. Marc Cote won his primary against challenger Lewis Pryeor, who supports same-sex marriage. Similarly, marriage equality opponent State Sen. Daniel DaPonte won over challenger and marriage equality supporter Roberto DaSilva.
One race in which there was no incumbent also yielded a loss for marriage equality supporters. In State Senate District 26, Gene Dyszlewski, who supports marriage equality, lost to Frank Lombardi, who opposes same-sex marriage.
In State Senate District 33, David Gorman, a Democratic supporter of marriage equality, lost to Leonidas Raptakis, a Democratic opponent of gay nuptials. But the result in that race is a wash in that district because the incumbent Republican, State Sen. Glenford Shibley, opposes marriage equality.
According to WPRI, a group known as People for Rhode Island’s Future spent $26,500 earlier this month to elect six pro-marriage equality candidates in the Democratic primary. That group reportedly received a $20,000 donation to make that happen from Tim Gill, a gay Denver-based entrepreneur and philanthropist known for working to advance marriage equality, as well as $15,000 from Esmond Harmsworth, a Newport, R.I., resident and founding partner of Boston literary agency Zachary Shuster Harmsworth Literary Agency.
The White House
EXCLUSIVE: Democracy Forward files FOIA lawsuit after HHS deadnames Rachel Levine
Trans former assistant health secretary’s name changed on official portrait
Democracy Forward, a national legal organization that works to advance democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education, and regulatory engagement, filed a lawsuit Friday in federal court seeking to compel the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to release information related to the alteration of former Assistant Secretary for Health Adm. Rachel Levine’s official portrait caption.
The lawsuit comes in response to the slow pace of HHS’s handling of multiple Freedom of Information Act requests — requests that federal law requires agencies to respond to within 20 working days. While responses can take longer due to backlogs, high request volumes, or the need for extensive searches or consultations, Democracy Forward says HHS has failed to provide any substantive response.
Democracy Forward’s four unanswered FOIA requests, and the subsequent lawsuit against HHS, come days after someone in the Trump-Vance administration changed Levine’s official portrait in the Hubert H. Humphrey Building to display her deadname — the name she used before transitioning and has not used since 2011.
According to Democracy Forward, HHS “refused to release any records related to its morally wrong and offensive effort to alter former Assistant Secretary for Health Admiral Rachel Levine’s official portrait caption.” Levine was the highest-ranking openly transgender government official in U.S. history and served as assistant secretary for health and as an admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps from 2021 to 2025.
Democracy Forward President Skye Perryman spoke about the need to hold the Trump-Vance administration accountable for every official action, especially those that harm some of the most targeted Americans, including trans people.
“The question every American should be asking remains: what is the Trump-Vance administration hiding? For an administration that touts its anti-transgender animus and behavior so publicly, its stonewalling and silence when it comes to the people’s right to see public records about who was behind this decision is deafening,” Perryman said.
“The government’s obligation of transparency doesn’t disappear because the information sought relates to a trailblazing former federal official who is transgender. It’s not complicated — the public is entitled to know who is making decisions — especially decisions that seek to alter facts and reality, erase the identity of a person, and affect the nation’s commitment to civil rights and human dignity.”
“HHS’s refusal to respond to these lawful requests raises more serious concerns about transparency and accountability,” Perryman added. “The public has every right to demand answers — to know who is behind this hateful act — and we are going to court to get them.”
The lawsuit also raises questions about whether the alteration violated federal accuracy and privacy requirements governing Levine’s name, and whether the agency improperly classified the change as an “excepted activity” during a lapse in appropriations. By failing to make any determination or produce any records, Democracy Forward argues, HHS has violated its obligations under federal law.
The case, Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The legal team includes Anisha Hindocha, Daniel McGrath, and Robin Thurston.
The Washington Blade reached out to HHS, but has not received any comment.
The lawsuit and four FOIA requests are below:
The White House
Empty seats, canceled shows plague Kennedy Center ahead of Trump renaming
It would take an act of Congress to officially rename the historic music venue, despite the Trump-appointed board’s decision.
The board of the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., voted to rename it the Trump-Kennedy Center, according to the White House Press Office.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced the decision in a post on X Thursday, thanking the president for his work on the cultural center “not only from the standpoint of its reconstruction, but also financially, and its reputation.”
Speaking to reporters later that day at the White House, Trump said he was “surprised” and “honored” by the board’s vote.
“This was brought up by one of the very distinguished board members, and they voted on it, and there’s a lot of board members, and they voted unanimously. So I was very honored,” he said.
Earlier this year, GOP Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho introduced an amendment that would have renamed the building after first lady Melania Trump, later saying she had not been aware of his efforts prior to the amendment’s public introduction.
Despite the board’s vote (made up of Trump-appointed loyalists), the original laws guiding the creation of the Kennedy Center during the Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations explicitly prohibit renaming the building. Any change to its name would require an act of Congress.
Trump has exerted increasing control over the center in recent months. In February, he abruptly fired members of the Kennedy Center’s board and installed himself as chair, writing in a Truth Social post at the time, “At my direction, we are going to make the Kennedy Center in Washington D.C., GREAT AGAIN.”
In that post, Trump specifically cited his disapproval of the center’s decision to host drag shows.
He later secured more than $250 million from the Republican-controlled Congress for renovations to the building.
Since Trump’s takeover, sales of subscription packages are said to have declined, and several touring productions — including “Hamilton” — have canceled planned runs at the venue. Rows of empty seats have also been visible in the Concert Hall during performances by the National Symphony Orchestra.
“The Kennedy Center Board has no authority to actually rename the Kennedy Center in the absence of legislative action,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters.
For decades, the Kennedy Center has hosted performances by LGBTQ artists and companies, including openly queer musicians, choreographers, and playwrights whose work helped push LGBTQ stories into the cultural mainstream. Those artists include the Gay Men’s Chorus of Washington, Harvey Fierstein, and Tennessee Williams.
In more recent years, the center has increasingly served as a space for LGBTQ visibility and acceptance, particularly through Pride-adjacent programming and partnerships.
That legacy was on display at this year’s opening production of Les Misérables, when four drag performers — Tara Hoot, Vagenesis, Mari Con Carne, and King Ricky Rosé — attended in representation of Qommittee, a volunteer network uniting drag artists to support and defend one another amid growing conservative attacks.
“We walked in together so we would have an opportunity to get a response,” said Tara Hoot, who has performed at the Kennedy Center in full drag before. “It was all applause, cheers, and whistles, and remarkably it was half empty. I think that was season ticket holders kind of making their message in a different way.”
The creation of the Kennedy Center is outlined in U.S. Code, which formally designates the institution as the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
As a result, it appears unlikely that Congress will come together to pass legislation allowing the historic venue to be renamed.
The White House
HHS to restrict gender-affirming care for minors
Directive stems from President Donald Trump’s Jan. 28 executive order
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced Thursday that it will pursue regulatory changes that would make gender-affirming healthcare for transgender children more difficult, if not impossible, to access.
The shift in federal healthcare policy stems directly from President Donald Trump’s Jan. 28 executive order, Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation, which formally establishes U.S. opposition to gender-affirming care and pledges to end federal funding for such treatments.
The executive order outlines a broader effort to align HHS with the Trump–Vance administration’s policy goals and executive actions. Those actions include defunding medical institutions that provide gender-affirming care to minors by restricting federal research and education grants, withdrawing the 2022 HHS guidance supporting gender-affirming care, requiring TRICARE and federal employee health plans to exclude coverage for gender-affirming treatments for minors, and directing the Justice Department to prioritize investigations and enforcement related to such care.
HHS has claimed that gender-affirming care can “expose them [children] to irreversible damage, including infertility, impaired sexual function, diminished bone density, altered brain development, and other irreversible physiological effects.” The nation’s health organization published a report in November, saying that evidence on pediatric gender-affirming care is “very uncertain.”
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is now in the process of proposing new rules that would bar hospitals from performing what the administration describes as sex-rejecting procedures on children under age 18 as a condition of participation in Medicare and Medicaid programs. Nearly all U.S. hospitals participate in Medicare and Medicaid. HHS said that “this action is designed to ensure that the U.S. government will not be in business with organizations that intentionally or unintentionally inflict permanent harm on children.”
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. released a statement alongside the announcement.
“Under my leadership, and answering President Trump’s call to action, the federal government will do everything in its power to stop unsafe, irreversible practices that put our children at risk,” Kennedy said. “This administration will protect America’s most vulnerable. Our children deserve better — and we are delivering on that promise.”
Those claims stand in direct opposition to the positions of most major medical and healthcare organizations.
The American Medical Association, the nation’s largest and most influential physician organization, has repeatedly opposed measures that restrict access to trans healthcare.
“The AMA supports public and private health insurance coverage for treatment of gender dysphoria and opposes the denial of health insurance based on sexual orientation or gender identity,” a statement on the AMA’s website reads. “Improving access to gender-affirming care is an important means of improving health outcomes for the transgender population.”
Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders, warned the proposed changes would cause significant harm.
“Parents of transgender children want what all parents want: to see their kids thrive and get the medical care they need. But this administration is putting the government between patients and their doctors. Parents witness every day how their children benefit from this care — care backed by decades of research and endorsed by major medical associations across the country. These proposed rules are not based on medical science. They are based on politics. And if allowed to take effect will serve only to drive up medical costs, harm vulnerable children, and deny families the care their doctors say they need. These rules elevate politics over children — and that is profoundly unAmerican.”
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson echoed Levi’s sentiments.
“The Trump administration is relentless in denying health care to this country, and especially the transgender community. Families deserve the freedom to go to the doctor and get the care that they need and to have agency over the health and wellbeing of their children,” Robinson said. “But these proposed actions would put Donald Trump and RFK Jr. in those doctor’s offices, ripping health care decisions from the hands of families and putting it in the grips of the anti-LGBTQ+ fringe. Make no mistake: these rules aim to completely cut off medically necessary care from children no matter where in this country they live. It’s the Trump administration dictating who gets their prescription filled and who has their next appointment canceled altogether.
The announcement comes just days after U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) advanced legislation in Congress that would make it a felony to provide gender-affirming care to a child.
-
Politics2 days agoLGBTQ Democrats say they’re ready to fight to win in 2026
-
District of Columbia2 days agoBrian Footer suspends campaign for Ward 1 D.C. Council seat
-
Chile4 days agoFar-right José Antonio Kast elected Chile’s next president
-
Opinions2 days agoLighting candles in a time of exhaustion
