National
Chairmen sending mixed signals on ‘Don’t Ask’
President Obama is being pressured to include a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal as part of his upcoming defense budget request to Congress, but the response from two key Democrats to such a proposal could hinder any change in the law.
Two lawmakers with considerable sway over defense matters — and whether a repeal will initially be part of the fiscal year 2011 defense budget — are House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.).
As leaders of the congressional committees that handle defense matters, Skelton and Levin get first crack at determining what’s included in the defense budget after the president sends his base bill to Congress in February. The lawmakers can make changes to the president’s request in their chairman’s marks to the legislation before the rest of Congress takes action.
So if Obama includes “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal as part of his defense budget request, it’s possible for either Skelton or Levin to strike the language from the bill if they don’t want it there.
“You could make the argument that the chairman’s mark is the most vulnerable moment for what happens with repeal legislation this year,” said Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, a think-tank on gays in the military at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Some advocates, including Belkin, are questioning whether Levin and Skelton would retain Obama’s request to lift the ban on open service in the U.S. armed forces as part of their chairman’s marks for the defense budget.
Belkin was particularly skeptical about Levin’s willingness to let repeal go forward because of the senator’s history on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“Levin has been a huge problem on this issue,” Belkin said. “Who the hell knows where Levin is personally, but I would say that very few people in the United States have done more to obstruct the service of openly gay troops than Carl Levin.”
Belkin took issue with Levin’s abandoned plan to hold hearings last year on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Those hearings never took place.
“I think it’s been now three times that he’s announced that the Senate would hold hearings on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ Belkin said. “He just made the announcement again that they’re going to have hearings. But why were there no hearings last year despite the repeated announcements?”
A Senate Armed Services Committee spokesperson didn’t respond to the DC Agenda’s request for comment on whether Levin would allow repeal language to remain in his chairman’s mark for the defense budget.
Last week, Levin announced the Senate Armed Services Committee would hold hearings on gays in the military by the end of this month and that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates would testify.
Matt Canter, spokesperson for Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), said the hearing is scheduled for next week. Although not a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Gillibrand has been a strong advocate for repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” since she took office last year.
Belkin also criticized Levin for not finding a Republican co-sponsor for a Senate repeal bill, which some say has prevented the introduction of the legislation in that chamber.
C. Dixon Osburn, former head of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said Levin has gone on record several times as noting that he supports repeal of the ban, but acknowledged Levin is “somebody who’s very much a consensus builder within the Senate Armed Services Committee.”
“So if it’s not percolating up in the Senate Armed Services Committee, he’s going to be more reluctant even as he believes that the law should repealed, and right now you don’t have the bubbling up within the Senate Armed Services Committee,” Osburn said.
Although there’s concern among “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” opponents about Levin, Skelton has been the more vocal of the two lawmakers in supporting the existing ban on open service in the military. According to The Hill newspaper, Skelton said last week during an interview on C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers” that he is “personally not for changing the law.”
Still, both Belkin and Osburn said they aren’t as concerned about Skelton’s position on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as they are with Levin.
“It’s not helpful to have the chairman of House Armed Services oppose you, but I don’t think he’s the center of gravity in the House any more,” Belkin said. “All that said, it is sad … Chairman Skelton stands for firing gay Arabic linguists during a national security emergency. I’m not quite sure why that makes him feel safer.”
Osburn said the only moderation that he’s seen from Skelton on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is his willingness in the past couple years to have House hearings on the issue.
“And I think that the hope is if there’s a strong majority in the House supporting repeal, that he will accede,” Osburn said. “I’m less sanguine since he’s announced that he supports delay, but I think that Congressman [Patrick] Murphy is such a strong leader on this, and he’s developed such support around this in the House, that it is still a good possibility that this can move forward in the House.”
Lara Battles, spokesperson for the House Armed Services Committee, said she couldn’t say whether Skelton would include repeal language in his chairman’s mark for the defense budget, which she said would be public in May.
In 2008, the House Armed Services personnel subcommittee held the first hearing on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in 15 years. Aaron Hunter, spokesperson for Rep. Susan Davis (D-Calif.), chair of the subcommittee, said the panel intends to hold another hearing, although a date hasn’t been set.
If either Levin or Skelton removes repeal language from the defense legislation, lawmakers could reinsert the provision through an amendment.
The Advocate reported last week that gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said it doesn’t matter whether the Pentagon includes repeal in the budget request because lawmakers have the votes in the House to put the language in the legislation.
“I do not think it matters what the Pentagon says,” Frank was quoted as saying. “We will get the votes without it, I think.”
Some activists also were confident the House could muster enough support to pass an amendment that would lead to overturning the law. Still, whether there are 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster was in question.
Osburn said the Senate is a “much more difficult prospect” than the House because there isn’t a strong leader advocating for repeal in that chamber.
“Now that said, there’s a still a possibility,” he said. “There are still enough senators who support repeal that if the House moves on this, one or more senators could get together and ensure the amendment is attached to DOD authorization bill as well.”
If the House version of the bill has repeal language and the Senate version doesn’t, lawmakers would have to hash out whether repeal would be included in the final bill during conference committee — another potential point where the repeal strategy could fail.
Osburn said “it’s a possibility” that repeal language could survive conference, but that would depend on who congressional leaders appoint as conferees.
“The effort that the LGBT community would need to push for is to ensure that the conference committee includes people who are going to be supportive of this and will leave it in,” he said.
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.”
‘Pink Narcissus’ reasserts queer identity in the face of repression
LGBT exhibition at D.C.’s Capital Jewish Museum opens May 16
Virginia 2025 GOP ticket gives DEI a bad name
In stressful times, escape to Rehoboth Beach
Down to shuck!
HRC: GOP reconciliation bill would imperil critical LGBTQ-specific programs
Del. Gov. Meyer to join Washington Blade party in Rehoboth on Friday
Tourists, locals express concerns about WorldPride security
Peruvian activists react to Pope Leo XIV’s election
Impact of federal gov’t RIF on D.C.’s rental market
-
Congress2 days agoHRC: GOP reconciliation bill would imperil critical LGBTQ-specific programs
-
Rehoboth Beach2 days agoDel. Gov. Meyer to join Washington Blade party in Rehoboth on Friday
-
World Pride 20251 day agoTourists, locals express concerns about WorldPride security
-
Peru1 day agoPeruvian activists react to Pope Leo XIV’s election