National
Parker’s win hailed as major breakthrough
Gay rights advocates are heralding the victory of a lesbian official in her bid to become mayor of Houston as a triumph for LGBT Americans.
Annise Parker, a Democrat and city controller for Houston, won the city’s Dec. 12 mayoral election by taking 53 percent of the vote. Her win marks the seventh time she’s won a citywide election in Houston and makes the city the most populous in the country to elect an openly LGBT mayor. She takes office Jan. 4.
Paul Scott, executive director for Equality Texas, said Parker’s victory has “multi-layered” significance.
“I think in some ways, we’ve seen the ceiling being broken, not only within the Houston area and Texas, but also nationally in terms of an open lesbian being elected into the highest-level office in the metropolitan area for the fourth largest city in the country,” he said.
Chuck Wolfe, president of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, which endorsed Parker in her race, said the win demonstrates LGBT people “are ready to step up and lead.”
“The voters of Houston have come to realize that sexual orientation is not an indicator of somebody’s ability to do a job,” he said.
Noting that Parker would be expected to testify before the Texas Legislature, Wolfe predicted her role would impact how state lawmakers view LGBT issues.
“When she is in Austin at the state capital — and testifying as the mayor of the largest city in Texas — those state legislators are not going to be able to use sexual orientation as a wedge when they realize they need the support of the largest city in Texas,” he said.
Scott said Parker’s election also could have a direct impact on the 2010 congressional and state House races in the Houston area and would prompt candidates seeking election to look more favorably on LGBT issues.
“As a result, we see this as a positive impact in terms of not only GLBT candidates being evaluated for their qualifications, but those who support GLBT issues also knowing that their stance on these issues does not have to be detrimental to their campaigns,” he said.
A longtime public official in Houston, Parker was first elected as Houston’s city controller in 2003, and before that served as a Houston City Council member since 1997.
In an interview Monday on MSNBC, Parker said she won because she’s truthful to her constituents.
“I’ve always been completely honest with the voters of Houston — whether [it’s] about my sexual orientation, whether it’s about the fact that my life partner of 19 years and I have multi-racial kids that we’ve adopted,” she said. “They know me, they trust me, they know I’ll tell them the truth, and in this economy, when there’s a lot of uncertainty, you want someone that you know you can depend on.”
She also is no stranger to fighting for LGBT rights, and campaigned against repeal of Houston’s non-discrimination policy in 1985 and passage of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in Texas in 2005. As a city council member, she led an effort to pass an ordinance to reinstate Houston’s non-discrimination policy in 2001.
Asked by MSNBC whether LGBT rights would be a priority for her as mayor, Parker responded that’s “part of a hard conversation I had with supporters in the LGBT community.”
“I’ve been a role model and a hard worker for my community for more than 30 years, but in that conversation, I was very frank, and said, ‘My focus as mayor of Houston will be the financial issues of the city, trying to make Houston the best city it can be in dealing with those problems,’” she said.
Parker told MSNBC she assumes Houston will revisit the issue of providing domestic partner benefits to LGBT city workers, but said she doesn’t intend to make this effort a priority.
“It is not something I intend to initiate,” she said. “My focus is what is best for all the citizens of Houston.”
With Parker acknowledging she’s a role model for the LGBT community, Wolfe said her win could encourage other LGBT people to become public about their sexual orientation or gender identity and seek public office.
“I think the ability for other people interested in government — whether they are the young people in student government, whether they are closeted people in business who’ve thought about [how] they want to be involved and whether they should come out … I think that role model position she is in is significant,” he said.
The campaign wasn’t free of anti-gay smears. A mailing sent out earlier this month urged voters to reject Parker and other gay candidates because they were “endorsed by the gay and lesbian political action committee,” an apparent reference to Houston’s Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender Political Caucus, according to the Houston Chronicle.
The Chronicle reported earlier this month that the finance chair and finance committee chair for Parker’s opponent in the election, Democrat Gene Locke, helped bankroll the political action committee that sent out the mailings. The Locke campaign denied the financial contributions were part of any kind of illegal coordination, according to the Chronicle.
Wolfe said Parker’s ability to win despite the mailings shows that employing divisive anti-gay politics in campaigns doesn’t work and is “starting to have the opposite effect.”
In her MSNBC interview, Parker addressed the anti-gay smears.
“The fact that I used to be — or was a very public gay activist is part of my political resume,” she said. “Voters knew that, they were reminded of it in a very negative way in the last two weeks of the campaign, but they chose to focus on the fact that they knew me and done good work for them, I believe.”
State Department
Rubio mum on Hungary’s Pride ban
Lawmakers on April 30 urged secretary of state to condemn anti-LGBTQ bill, constitutional amendment

More than 20 members of Congress have urged Secretary of State Marco Rubio to publicly condemn a Hungarian law that bans Pride events.
California Congressman Mark Takano, a Democrat who co-chairs the Congressional Equality Caucus, and U.S. Rep. Bill Keating (D-Mass.), who is the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Europe Subcommittee, spearheaded the letter that lawmakers sent to Rubio on April 30.
Hungarian lawmakers in March passed a bill that bans Pride events and allow authorities to use facial recognition technology to identify those who participate in them. MPs last month amended the Hungarian constitution to ban public LGBTQ events.
“As a NATO ally which hosts U.S. service members, we expect the Hungarian government to abide by certain values which underpin the historic U.S.-Hungary bilateral relationship,” reads the letter. “Unfortunately, this new legislation and constitutional amendment disproportionately and arbitrarily target sexual and gender minorities.”
Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government over the last decade has moved to curtail LGBTQ and intersex rights in Hungary.
A law that bans legal recognition of transgender and intersex people took effect in 2020. Hungarian MPs that year also effectively banned same-sex couples from adopting children and defined marriage in the constitution as between a man and a woman.
An anti-LGBTQ propaganda law took effect in 2021. The European Commission sued Hungary, which is a member of the European Union, over it.
MPs in 2023 approved the “snitch on your gay neighbor” bill that would have allowed Hungarians to anonymously report same-sex couples who are raising children. The Budapest Metropolitan Government Office in 2023 fined Lira Konyv, the country’s second-largest bookstore chain, 12 million forints ($33,733.67), for selling copies of British author Alice Oseman’s “Heartstopper.”
Former U.S. Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman, who is gay, participated in the Budapest Pride march in 2024 and 2023. Pressman was also a vocal critic of Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ crackdown.
“Along with years of democratic backsliding in Hungary, it flies in the face of those values and the passage of this legislation deserves quick and decisive criticism and action in response by the Department of State,” reads the letter, referring to the Pride ban and constitutional amendment against public LGBTQ events. “Therefore, we strongly urge you to publicly condemn this legislation and constitutional change which targets the LGBTQ community and undermines the rights of Hungarians to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.”
U.S. Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Sarah McBride (D-Del.), Jim Costa (D-Calif.), James McGovern (D-Mass.), Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Julie Johnson (D-Texas), Ami Bera (D-Calif.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Gabe Amo (D-R.I.), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Dina Titus (D-Nev.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) signed the letter alongside Takano and Keating.
A State Department spokesperson on Wednesday declined to comment.
Federal Government
HRC memo details threats to LGBTQ community in Trump budget
‘It’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives’

A memo issued Monday by the Human Rights Campaign details threats to LGBTQ people from the “skinny” budget proposal issued by President Donald Trump on May 2.
HRC estimates the total cost of “funding cuts, program eliminations, and policy changes” impacting the community will exceed approximately $2.6 billion.
Matthew Rose, the organization’s senior public policy advocate, said in a statement that “This budget is more than cuts on a page—it’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives.”
“Trump is taking away life-saving healthcare, support for LGBTQ-owned businesses, protections against hate crimes, and even housing help for people living with HIV,” he said. “Stripping away more than $2 billion in support sends one clear message: we don’t matter. But we’ve fought back before, and we’ll do it again—we’re not going anywhere.”
Proposed rollbacks or changes at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will target the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, other programs related to STI prevention, viral hepatitis, and HIV, initiatives housed under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and research by the National Institutes of Health and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Other agencies whose work on behalf of LGBTQ populations would be jeopardized or eliminated under Trump’s budget include the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Department of Education.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
Litigation challenging the policy continues in the 9th Circuit

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump-Vance administration to enforce a ban on transgender personnel serving in the U.S. Armed Forces pending the outcome of litigation challenging the policy.
The brief order staying a March 27 preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington notes the dissents from liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
On the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump issued an executive order requiring Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to effectuate a ban against transgender individuals, going further than efforts under his first administration — which did not target those currently serving.
The DoD’s Feb. 26 ban argued that “the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.”
The case challenging the Pentagon’s policy is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The lead plaintiff is U.S. Navy Commander Emily Shilling, who is joined in the litigation by other current transgender members of the armed forces, one transgender person who would like to join, and a nonprofit whose members either are transgender troops or would like to be.
Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, both representing the plaintiffs, issued a statement Tuesday in response to the Supreme Court’s decision:
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a devastating blow to transgender servicemembers who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation’s defense.
“By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the Court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice.
“Transgender individuals meet the same standards and demonstrate the same values as all who serve. We remain steadfast in our belief that this ban violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and will ultimately be struck down.”
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer noted that courts must show “substantial deference” to DoD decision making on military issues.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the military ban to go into effect is devastating for the thousands of qualified transgender servicemembers who have met the standards and are serving honorably, putting their lives on the line for their country every single day,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “Today’s decision only adds to the chaos and destruction caused by this administration. It’s not the end of the case, but the havoc it will wreak is devastating and irreparable. History will confirm the weight of the injustice done today.”
“The Court has upended the lives of thousands of servicemembers without even the decency of explaining why,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “As a result of this decision, reached without benefit of full briefing or argument, brave troops who have dedicated their lives to the service of our country will be targeted and forced into harsh administrative separation process usually reserved for misconduct. They have proven themselves time and time again and met the same standards as every other soldier, deploying in critical positions around the globe. This is a deeply sad day for our country.”
Levi and Minter are the lead attorneys in the first two transgender military ban cases to be heard in federal court, Talbott v. Trump and Ireland v. Hegseth.
U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) issued a statement on behalf of the Congressional Equality Caucus, where he serves as chair.
“By lifting the lower court’s preliminary injunction and allowing Trump to enforce his trans troop ban as litigation continues, the Supreme Court is causing real harm to brave Americans who simply want to serve their nation in uniform.
“The difference between Donald Trump, a draft dodger, and the countless brave Americans serving their country who just happen to be trans couldn’t be starker. Let me be clear: Trump’s ban isn’t going to make our country safer—it will needlessly create gaps in critical chains of military command and actively undermine our national security.
“The Supreme Court was absolutely wrong to allow this ban to take effect. I hope that lower courts move swiftly so this ban can ultimately be struck down.”
SPARTA Pride also issued a statement:
“The Roberts Court’s decision staying the preliminary injunction will allow the Trump purge of transgender service members from the military to proceed.
“Transgender Americans have served openly, honorably, and effectively in the U.S. Armed Forces for nearly a decade. Thousands of transgender troops are currently serving, and are fully qualified for the positions in which they serve.
“Every court up to now has found that this order is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the Roberts Court – without hearing any evidence or argument – decided to allow it to go forward. So while the case continues to be argued, thousands of trans troops will be purged from the Armed Forces.
“They will lose their jobs. They will lose their commands, their promotions, their training, pay and benefits, and time. Their units will lose key players; the mission will be disrupted. This is the very definition of irreparable harm.”
Imara Jones, CEO of TransLash Media, issued the following statement:
“The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Trump’s ban on transgender soldiers in the military, even as the judicial process works its way through the overall question of service, signals that open discrimination against trans people is fair game across American society.
“It will allow the Trump Administration to further advance its larger goal of pushing trans people from mainstream society by discharging transgender military members who are currently serving their country, even at a time when the military has struggled recently to meet its recruiting goals.
“But even more than this, all of my reporting tells me that this is a further slide down the mountain towards authoritarianism. The hard truth is that governments with authoritarian ambitions have to separate citizens between who is worthy of protection and who’s not. Trans people are clearly in the later category. And this separation justifies the authoritarian quest for more and more power. This appears to be what we are witnessing here and targeting trans people in the military is just a means to an end.”
-
The Vatican17 hours ago
American cardinal chosen as next pope
-
a&e features23 hours ago
Your guide to the many Pride celebrations in D.C. region
-
U.S. Supreme Court3 days ago
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
-
District of Columbia2 days ago
WorldPride permits for National Mall have yet to be approved