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.
U.S. Military/Pentagon
Federal appeals court rules White House illegally banned trans troops
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says Pentagon will appeal to SCOTUS
A panel of federal appeals court judges ruled that President Donald Trump’s policy banning transgender troops likely violates their constitutional rights.
The three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that Trump’s Executive Order 14183, also known as “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” was created with the intent to exclude people from the military based on their gender identity.
The policy argues that trans people are inherently incapable of meeting the military’s “high standards of readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity,” citing a history of or signs of gender dysphoria as the cause. According to the Defense Department, this creates “medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on [an] individual.”
The policy states that, regardless of the physical or intellectual capabilities of each applicant, it views trans military applicants as a monolith, considering them less qualified than their cisgender peers.
Despite the panel’s majority opinion issued on Monday, the first day of Pride Month, the ban remains in effect. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Pentagon to enforce the policy last year and will continue to allow it to remain in place as litigation proceeds.
The panel’s new ruling will prevent the military from discharging current service members named in the lawsuit, but it does not allow new transrecruits to join.
The policy “appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender,” Judge Robert Wilkins, a Democratic appointee of President Barack Obama wrote for the majority.
Judge Justin Walker, the author of the dissenting opinion and a Republican Trump appointee, argued that the authority to determine military policy does not rest with the courts. Instead, he wrote, the Constitution grants that power to Congress through legislation and to the president as commander in chief of the armed forces.
“We have neither the expertise nor the authority to decide whether the military can exclude the plaintiffs from its ranks. The Constitution assigns that authority to Congress and the commander-in-chief,” Walker wrote.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth indicated that an appeal is in the works, posting, “See you at SCOTUS” on X on Monday in response to the ruling.
Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, which has led the litigation since last November, applauded the decision.
“Today’s decision is a powerful vindication of the plaintiffs’ extraordinary courage and unwavering commitment to their country,” Levi said.
The Washington Blade spoke with Second Lt. Nicolas (Nic) Talbott of the U.S. Army, the lead plaintiff in the case, and Levi from GLAD Law back in November.
While discussing the case and his experiences as a trans service member, Talbott said his identity is an asset rather than a hindrance, particularly when it comes to identifying problems and finding solutions, regardless of what others may think or say.
“Being transgender is not some sad thing that people go through,” Talbott told the Blade. “This is something that has taken years and years and years of dedication and discipline and research and ups and downs to get to the point where I am today … my ability to transition was essential to getting me to that point where I am today.”
He also discussed the impact of removing qualified and dedicated service members from the military, arguing that the consequences will be felt long after Trump leaves office.
“When we’re losing thousands of those qualified, experienced individuals … those are seats that are not just going to be able to be filled by anybody,” he said. “[That’s] military training that’s not going to be able to be replaced for years and years to come.”
“Every person who puts on the uniform is expected to make a tremendous amount of sacrifice,” Talbott said. “Who I am under this uniform should have no bearing on that … We shouldn’t be picking and choosing which veterans are worthy of our thanks on that day.”
Levi characterized the policy as overtly cruel and legally indefensible to the Blade.
“This policy and its rollout is even more cruel than the first in a number of ways,” Levi explained. “For one, the policy itself says that transgender people are dishonest, untrustworthy and undisciplined, which is deeply offensive and degrading and demeaning.”
She also argued that the administration’s cost justification is flawed, saying that removing and replacing trans service members is more expensive than retaining them.
“There’s no legitimate justification relating to cost … it is far more expensive to both purge the military of people who are serving and also to replace people … than to provide the minuscule amount of costs for medications other service members routinely get.”
National
Results from key Tuesday primary races
State officials in California had not called the governor’s race as of Wednesday morning but Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra appear likely to advance to the general election.
The race for governor has been scrambled several times after Kamala Harris opted not to run, Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out after sexual misconduct allegations surfaced, and Rep. Katie Porter’s campaign fizzled. Becerra would be the state’s first Latino governor since 1875 if elected. Hilton was endorsed by President Trump.
In the Los Angeles mayor’s race, the AP declared that incumbent Mayor Karen Bass will advance to the Nov. 3 runoff while former reality TV star Spencer Pratt and LA Council member Nithya Raman were competing for second place. California is notoriously slow in counting ballots and only about half of the results were available by Wednesday morning.
In San Francisco, Democratic State Sen. Scott Wiener advanced to the general election in November, besting Supervisor Connie Chan, who was endorsed by House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is retiring from Congress after nearly 40 years in the House.
In Iowa, Democratic state Rep. Josh Turek won the primary for an open U.S. Senate seat, defeating state Sen. Zach Wahls. Turek will face Rep. Ashley Hinson, who won the GOP primary with President Donald Trump’s endorsement, in the general election.
The Iowa seat is open because Sen. Joni Ernst (R) decided not to seek re-election. The primary was closely watched by LGBTQ advocates because Wahls rose to national prominence after a speech he made defending marriage equality went viral in 2011. Wahls was raised by a lesbian couple.
National
White House Correspondents’ Dinner rescheduled after shooting
‘We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word’
The White House Correspondents’ Association announced on Tuesday that it has rescheduled its annual dinner for July 24 after the April event was halted when gunshots rang out at the Washington Hilton.
Cole Allen, 31, is charged with the attempted assassination of President Trump, who was in the ballroom at the time of the incident. One Secret Service officer was wounded in the attack. Officers stopped Allen before he could enter the ballroom where 2,500 journalists and politicos were having dinner and waiting for Trump to speak. It was Trump’s first time attending as president.
“We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word, especially during a year when we are reflecting on the 250th anniversary of America and everything we stand for,” said WHCA President Weijia Jiang in a statement to members.
She did not announce further details, including venue and ticketing.
Washington Blade White House reporter Joe Reberkenny was in the audience when shots were fired and reported live on social media from the scene.
This post will be updated as more details are announced.
Federal appeals court rules White House illegally banned trans troops
Outright International honors Cyndi Lauper at annual NYC gala
Results from key Tuesday primary races
AIDS Healthcare Foundation announces 3 million people globally in its care
10 HIV/AIDS activists arrested on Capitol Hill
Time travelers from the AIDS era
Books for a pre-Pride celebration
Barney Frank’s powerful legacy for LGBTQ federal employees
Claudia López comes up short in Colombian presidential election
