National
Seeking to ‘move Maine forward’ as governor
Recently out, Michaud could make history at the ballot
Having only come out five months ago in several editorials in Maine newspapers, Mike Michaud is new to the club in terms of out public figures.
Nonetheless, he’s on the path to achieving a goal that has never been accomplished by any openly gay person: Winning a gubernatorial election.
During an interview with the Washington Blade in the office of one of his campaign’s consultants near Capitol Hill, Michaud tried to tamp down his sexual orientation as a factor in the race, but acknowledged the significance it places on his candidacy.
“That’s not why I ran for governor, because of my sexual orientation; it’s because I want to move Maine forward,” Michaud said. “But, quite frankly, if elected, it is historic, and I think it’ll also change the tone of the debate when you look at LGBT issues, not only in Maine, but throughout the country.”
The five-term member of Congress is seeking election in a state that legalized marriage equality at the ballot in 2012 and non-discrimination protections for LGBT people in 2005 (after earlier failed attempts).
“As governor, one of the advantages I’ll have is the opportunity to talk with some of my colleagues,” Michaud said. “As a matter of fact, the National Governors Association just met this week. To sit down with some of the governors talking about LGBT issues as it might come up in their particular states is something that I’m not hesitant to do, and it’s easier talking to peer-to-peer.”
As Michaud noted, the State House recently rejected by a 89-52 vote a measure that would carve out a portion of Maine’s civil rights law to allow individuals to discriminate, including on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
It’s similar to a controversial “turn away the gay” bill pending before Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) that would enable individuals and businesses to refuse service based on a sincerely held religious belief.
Michaud said he would veto any such measure that might reach his desk as governor, and furthermore said he believes Brewer “absolutely” should veto the version of the bill in her state. Recalling the recent meeting in D.C. of the National Governors Association, Michaud said “that would be something I would be able to talk with her about this week if I was governor.”
The Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund and Equality Maine have endorsed Michaud’s candidacy. The Human Rights Campaign hasn’t yet officially thrown its support behind him, but is expected to announce more endorsements for Election 2014 following an upcoming board meeting.
Elise Johansen, Equality Maine’s executive director, said a win by Michaud in the gubernatorial election would be historic for the country and the state — and maintained her organization will help him achieve the victory.
“We endorsed Congressman Michaud’s campaign for governor because we strongly believe that he is the best choice to lead Maine, for the LGBT community and everyone in our state.” Johansen said. “In addition to electing a proven leader with a long history of standing with LGBT Mainers, we have the opportunity to make history by electing our nation’s first openly-gay governor.”
No other Democrats are challenging Michaud for the nomination in the race, so he’ll carry the Democratic banner in what could be a three-way race.
On the Republican side is incumbent Gov. Paul LePage, who was first elected during the Tea Party wave in 2010 and was recently dubbed by Politico as “America’s Craziest Governor.” Also in contention is Eliot Cutler, an independent who’s a perennial candidate for Maine governor.
The race will be tight. Cook Political Report rates the contest as a toss-up, while Rothenberg Political Report considers the match toss-up/lean Democrat. Nonetheless, Michaud said the polling he sees in the race is promising.
“I feel pretty good about where we’re at; we’re leading in all the polls head-to-head,” Michaud said. “With our current governor, it’s a slam dunk, with a three-way race it complicates it a little more, but I feel really good about where we’re at.”
Making an impact by being out
Although he’s served in Congress since 2003, Michaud came out in November via a series of editorials published in the Portland Press Herald, the Bangor Daily News and the Associated Press.
“It never was an issue in my campaigns before,” Michaud said. “It appears that someone was trying to make it an issue this time around, so rather than let them make an issue, I decided to come out and move forward.”
The announcement came the same week that the Senate began considering the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, but Michaud said the timing was based on his presence in Maine as well as a pending endorsement from Maine firefighters and policemen. Because those groups tend to be more conservative, the campaign announced the news so those groups wouldn’t rescind their support afterward.
Nonetheless, Michaud said his announcement had a positive impact and recalled a story in which a restaurant owner who had a gay son wanted to speak with him.
“He actually literally had tears in his eyes because his son came out five months before that as gay,” Michaud said. “But the way he came out, he needed help, he was sick and needed help. And the fact that when I came out, it really lifted the spirits of his son.”
Saying the incident made him “feel really good” as he recalled what happened, Michaud said it was just one of several of cases of individuals who have told him it made a big difference.
Now that he’s out, Michaud said he sees no evidence of his sexual orientation being an issue among the candidates in the race — although he said a Tea Party challenger to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) took to Twitter and Facebook to make it an issue.
Although he could be be the first openly gay person elected as governor, Michaud won’t be the first openly gay person to serve as governor. That distinction belongs to former New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey, who came out as gay in 2004 amid controversy before resigning.
Michaud is also not the only openly gay person seeking to win election as a governor in 2014. In Maryland, Del. Heather Mizeur is pursuing the Democratic nomination in a contentious primary. The Maine Democrat said he’s never met Mizeur and professed that he’s unaware of McGreevey.
Heading Michaud’s gubernatorial campaign is Matt McTighe, who also ran a successful campaign in 2012 to legalize marriage equality at the ballot in Maine in addition to heading Americans for Workplace Opportunity, a coalition of groups that pushed for passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in the Senate last year.
Michaud said he supported the idea of bringing marriage equality to the ballot in Maine 2012 — despite what he said were persistent concerns among Democratic leadership at the legislature the issue would hamper Democrats at the ballot.
The Maine Democrat recalled a conversation he had with McTighe and then-Equality Maine executive director Betsy Smith before the decision was made to go forward.
“They were concerned where I might fall out on this particular issue, or they just wanted my perspective,” Michaud said. “I remember telling both of them, ‘If not now, when? Because when is the right time? Because in 2014, you’ll probably have the same excuse. Well, we have the governor’s race. We have to win it back. It’s not the right time. So, when is the right time?'”
The gamble paid off. Democrats regained control of the legislature that year, and the marriage equality initiative passed by a 53-47 percent vote, making it the first state ever to approve marriage equality purely through voter-intiatied ballot initiative.
“And I’m very glad they went with the campaign when they went with it,” Michaud said. “The way it was dealt with was it did change the hearts and minds of individuals one by one, and they made the difference.”
Michaud sees opportunity for ENDA
Before Michaud could be elected governor, he’s set to complete his 10th term in office representing Maine’s 2nd congressional district in the U.S. House. One item that remains on his agenda is continued push for passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
In 2007, Michaud was among the roughly two-dozen Democrats who voted against a version of ENDA that afforded protections only on the basis of sexual orientation after gender identity-related provisions were removed.
“It should be all-inclusive,” Michaud said. “I did vote against it because it was actually weaker than Maine’s law. I wasn’t going to vote for something that was weaker than Maine’s law. I wasn’t going to vote for something that was weaker than what Maine has already had on the books. Actually, Maine Equality encouraged a ‘no’ vote on the legislation.”
Michaud said he was among the members of the LGBT Equality Caucus who participated in a January meeting first reported by the Washington Blade with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in which ENDA was a topic.
Although gay Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) told the Blade that Boehner said there’s “no way,” ENDA would come up this session, Michaud offered a slightly different version of events that didn’t throw quite as much cold water on the legislation, saying a lame duck effort on the bill remains possible.
“He actually wanted some more information on it, and we’re going to get him the information,” Michaud said. “They might have already sent it over; I’m not sure yet. He said it was highly unlikely that it would happen before the election, so hopefully there is a leeway maybe after the election. Hopefully, we can take it up in the lame duck session.”
Joining other supporters of the bill who say ENDA has sufficient support to pass the Republican-controlled House, Michaud predicted the measure would pass on the floor — if only Republican leadership would allow the legislation to come up.
“When you look at the overwhelming support, I believe that they’ll get that from the Democratic caucus,” Michaud said. “We’ll definitely have Republican support. I feel comfortable in that regard. Clearly, the more advance notice, we can have on it, the more opportunities we’ll be able to convince our colleagues to support it.”
Michaud declined to comment further on the meeting because of its private nature other than to say Boehner was “very gracious to meet with us.” It was the first time Boehner met with the LGBT Equality Caucus. Michaud said that Boehner chose to meet with the caucus even before President Obama granted an audience with the lawmakers.
Meanwhile, the Maine Democrat is adding his voice to others calling on President Obama to take administrative action against LGBT workplace discrimination by signing an executive order.
“It starts that ball moving,” Michaud said. “Until we see what might happen on the House side, since the Senate already passed it. I think it’s a good step in the right direction because if we can’t get it done in Congress, at least by executive order we’ll have 20 to 25 percent of workers covered.”
Michaud said the LGBT Equality Caucus is working on gathering signatures for another letter to President Obama to encourage him to sign the executive order.
Torey Carter, chief operating officer of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, said Michaud’s candidacy is significant.
“Mike Michaud is uniquely qualified to serve as the next governor of Maine,” Carter said. “He is a visionary leader that is a strong voice for fairness, freedom and equality for all Mainers. As a member of Congress, he has been an unwavering supporter of LGBT issues, and if elected he would become the nation’s first out LGBT governor.”
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.
-
United Kingdom5 days agoUK government makes trans-inclusive conversion therapy ban a legislative priority
-
World4 days agoThis year’s IDAHOBiT to highlight democracy
-
District of Columbia5 days agoCapital Stonewall Democrats endorses Janeese Lewis George for D.C. mayor
-
Theater4 days ago‘The Inheritance’ is most-nominated at this year’s Helen Hayes Awards

