National
Political shock in Mass. as Brown claims Kennedy’s seat
Republican Scott Brown secured a victory Tuesday in the Massachusetts special election, leaving many LGBT activists stunned and angry over the loss of the filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate and wondering whether the LGBT agenda can advance in Congress.
Brown, a state senator, won his bid to capture the seat previously held by the late Edward Kennedy after taking 52 percent of the vote, according to the Associated Press. Turnout was high; more people reportedly voted in Massachusetts on Tuesday than in any non-presidential general election in the state since 1990.
Many in the LGBT community were disappointed by Brown’s victory because he has a history of opposition to same-sex marriage and hasn’t expressed an interest in fighting for LGBT causes in Congress. In 2007, he voted for a failed state constitutional amendment that would have ended same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.
By comparison, Democratic contender Martha Coakley, as the state’s attorney general, last year filed a lawsuit on behalf on the State of Massachusetts against the Defense of Marriage Act, citing that 16,000 married couples in the state are denied federal benefits because of the law.
Dee Dee Edmundson, political director for MassEquality, said Brown’s win was “a call to action” for LGBT people to become more politically involved.
“This is a rallying cry that we need to step up our efforts; we can’t be apathetic anymore,” she said. “If the haters are going to win in Massachusetts, they can win anywhere, and [LGBT civil rights supporters] have a lot of work to do for the 2010 election.”
Brad Reichard, a gay D.C. resident who volunteered for the Coakley campaign, said the candidate’s loss was “clearly disappointment,” but urged for a greater effort from the LGBT community in moving forward.
“I think Sen. [John] Kerry said it best: This isn’t about a circular firing squad, this is about looking forward and moving forward,” Reichard said.
Coakley had a double-digit lead on Brown as recently as last month, but the Republican candidate played up his image as a populist candidate during the campaign and surged ahead in the last couple weeks to win.
Edmundson said a number of factors played into Coakley’s loss, such as the lack of interest until the final weeks of the campaign from national groups, including the Democratic National Committee. Edmundson also noted Massachusetts’ historical resistance to electing female candidates and noted that the state has never elected women to the offices of governor or U.S. senator.
“The electorate doesn’t like strong, powerful women,” Edmundson said. “You have a guy with a beer and truck versus a prosecutor who has done her best for justice in the world. The guy with the beer is probably going to win three out of four times.”
Edmundson expressed skepticism about Brown’s commitment to fight for LGBT residents of Massachusetts while in office.
“He’s already come out against [repealing] DOMA, against [the Employment Non-Discrimination Act], against repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” she said. “He’s not going to be representative of the electorate in Massachusetts.”
The National Organization for Marriage, which opposes marriage rights for same-sex couples, strongly supported Brown during the final week of the campaign.
Over the weekend, the organization reportedly arranged for robocalls to Massachusetts residents, asking voters if they oppose same-sex marriage, and if so, to vote for Brown in the election.
In an e-mail blast Monday, NOM said Brown’s vote in the U.S. Senate would help derail efforts to overturn DOMA.
“His election would help protect DOMA and send a resounding message to the pro-same-sex marriage leadership in Washington,” says the e-mail. “And if a Republican can win in Massachusetts … how many red-state Democrats would be willing to put their seats on the line by voting to repeal DOMA in an election year?”
But Edmundson said Coakley’s loss wasn’t a referendum on same-sex marriage, noting marriage rights for gay couples have been available in the state since 2003.
“Her support of same-sex marriage wasn’t a huge factor,” Edmundson said. “I don’t think it was a referendum on marriage at all. … I think it was a referendum on health care, I think it was a referendum on the state of the economy and the likability of the candidates.”
New York
Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced
One of the victims, John Umberger, was D.C. political consultant

A New York judge on Wednesday sentenced three men convicted of killing a D.C. political consultant and another man who they targeted at gay bars in Manhattan.
NBC New York notes a jury in February convicted Jayqwan Hamilton, Jacob Barroso, and Robert DeMaio of murder, robbery, and conspiracy in relation to druggings and robberies that targeted gay bars in Manhattan from March 2021 to June 2022.
John Umberger, a 33-year-old political consultant from D.C., and Julio Ramirez, a 25-year-old social worker, died. Prosecutors said Hamilton, Barroso, and DeMaio targeted three other men at gay bars.
The jury convicted Hamilton and DeMaio of murdering Umberger. State Supreme Court Judge Felicia Mennin sentenced Hamilton and DeMaio to 40 years to life in prison.
Barroso, who was convicted of killing Ramirez, received a 20 years to life sentence.
National
Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information
Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources

Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.
“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.
“These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.
It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”
The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question.
A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit.
While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management.
The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.
Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.
“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.
“Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says.
Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”
Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”
Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.
“As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from the Washington Blade.
“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said.
The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”
It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”
The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society.
The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.
While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”
“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.
The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.
Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.