National
Pressure builds on Obama to address “Don’t Ask” in State of the Union
President Obama is facing increased pressure from opponents of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to address how he’ll tackle his pledge to overturn the law in his upcoming State of the Union speech.
Those seeking end the 1993 law banning gays from serving openly in the U.S. military are looking to Obama to discuss on Wednesday his plans for overturning the ban this year.
Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said he’s received “strong indications” that Obama will address “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in his speech, but said he doesn’t believe the president “will go as far as some in our community would like.”
“There is some strategic risk involved in mentioning ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ in the State of the Union address, but its inclusion will send a strong message that the White House is still serious about taking on the issue this year,” Nicholson said.
The Human Rights Campaign declined to comment on whether the inclusion of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the State of the Union address prior to Obama’s speech.
On Wednesday, two prominent opponents of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Shalikashvili — issued a joint statement through the senator’s office reiterating their belief that now is the time for overturning the law.
Shalikashvili said a country “built on the principle of equality” should embrace “change that will build a stronger, more cohesive military.”
“It is time to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and allow our military leaders to create policy that holds our service members to a single standard of conduct and discipline,” he said.
Gillibrand was similarly critical of the ban and called it “an unjust, outdated and harmful rule that violates the civil rights of some of our bravest, most heroic men and women.”
“I’ve been working with my colleagues in Congress and other leaders to overturn this wasteful and destructive policy,” she said. “I am hopeful that President Obama will make this a top priority.”
Whether or not President Obama will address “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” during his State of the Union speech remains uncertain, although there are signs he will include it in his address.
On Monday, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) told reporters he had postponed a hearing on the issue initially set for this month because he was told Obama may talk about the ban in his State of the Union address.
And White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said during a press conference on Tuesday that discussions are underway about including plans for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the speech.
The Palm Center, a think-tank for gays in the military at the University of California, Santa Barbara, on Tuesday issued an analysis on several ways that Obama could discuss “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” during the State of the Union address.
Christopher Neff, deputy executive director for the Palm Center, said in a statement the speech presents Obama with “the opportunity to announce the end of one of the most notorious policies of federal discrimination left standing in the United States.”
In one option outlined by the Palm Center, Obama could offer a legislative strategy to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The president could endorse standalone legislation that would overturn the law or announce he’ll include such language in the defense spending request he’ll send to Congress next month.
“This position would represent significant, but likely incremental, change,” the Palm Center states. “Repeal legislation faces hurdles to passage in 2010, but the President will have taken a major step forward with the base bill inclusion.”
Obama could also announce plans to change the execution of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” administratively without an act from Congress, which would likely involve giving Defense Secretary Robert Gates additional discretion in implementing the policy in a way that would reduce discharges, according to the Palm Center.
“Under this calculus, there will not be any votes in the House or Senate on repeal in 2010,” the Palm Center states. “The judgment is that it is too difficult for many moderates and this likely means that repeal will not be included in the Defense Authorization base bill from the Pentagon.”
The third option for Obama in addressing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” according to the Palm Center, would be mentioning the law in passing or announcing support from military leaders without putting forward an affirmative strategy.
“This would represent the least embraced of the three potential options,” the Palm Center states.
Neff also suggested in the statement that how Obama addresses “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” during his State of the Union speech will set for tone for how Congress would handle hearings for the defense budget after the president’s request is made public.
Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen are set to give testimony on the fiscal year 2011 defense budget request on Tuesday in the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Bryan Thomas, spokesperson for the committee, said the hearing on the budget request isn’t in lieu of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” hearing initially set for January, but said it’s possible senators “will choose to ask” Mullen and Gates about the law.
Also bolstering pressure on Obama to announce his plans for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is a new report from the Williams Institute, a think-tank on sexual orientation at the University of California. The brief details the number of gays in the military and the cost of replacing them after they’ve been discharged under the ban.
Gary Gates, senior research fellow at the Williams Institute and study author, said in a statement that statistical information from the U.S. government shows gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans have a presence in the military.
“Despite official policy requiring that lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals remain silent about their sexual orientation, data from the U.S. Census Bureau suggest that an estimated 66,000 LGB men and women are serving in the U.S. military,” he said.
These 66,000 service members account for about 2.2 percent of military personnel, according to the Williams Institute. Of these troops, about 13,000 serve on active duty, constituting 0.9 percent of all active duty personnel, and nearly 53,000 serve in the National Guard and reserve forces, the study found.
The Williams Institute also found “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has cost the federal government between $290 million and more than a half a billion dollars since its inception and that replacing discharged service members under the ban costs between $22,000 to $43,000 for each person.
Gates said ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will “save a substantial amount of taxpayer dollars since estimates suggest that the policy has cost more than half a billion dollars.”
The White House
Trump proclamation targets trans rights as State Dept. shifts visa policy
Recent policy actions from the White House limit transgender rights in sports, immigration visas, and overarching federal policy.
In a proclamation issued by the Trump White House Thursday night, the president said he would, among other things, “restore public safety” and continue “upholding the rule of law,” while promoting policies that restrict the rights of transgender people.
“We are keeping men out of women’s sports, enforcing Title IX as it was originally written, and ensuring colleges preserve — and, where possible, expand — scholarships and roster opportunities for female athletes,” the proclamation reads. “At the same time, we are restoring public safety and upholding the rule of law in every city so women, children, and families can feel safe and secure.”
The statement comes amid a broader series of actions by the Trump administration targeting transgender people across multiple federal policy areas, including education, health care, and immigration. A nearly complete list of policies the current administration has put forward can be found on KFF.org.
One day before the proclamation was issued, the U.S. State Department announced changes to visa regulations that could impact transgender and gender-nonconforming people seeking entry into the United States.
The policy, published March 11 and scheduled to take effect April 10, introduces changes to the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program, commonly known as the “DV Program.” The rule is framed by the department as an effort to strengthen oversight and prevent fraud within the visa lottery system, which allocates a limited number of immigrant visas annually to applicants from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the United States.
However, the updated language also standardizes the use of the term “sex” in federal regulations in place of “gender,” a change that LGBTQ advocates say could create additional barriers for transgender and gender-diverse applicants.
The policy states: “The Department of State (‘Department’) is amending regulations governing the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program (‘DV Program’) to improve the integrity of, and combat fraud in, the program. These amendments require a petitioner to the DV Program to provide valid, unexpired passport information and to upload a scan of the biographic and signature page in the electronic entry form or otherwise indicate that he or she is exempt from this requirement. Additionally, the Department is standardizing and amending its regulations to add the word ‘shall’ to simplify guidance for consular officers; ensure the use of the term ‘sex’ in lieu of ‘gender’; and replace the term ‘age’ in the DV Program regulations with the phrase ‘date of birth’ to accurately reflect the information collected and maintained by the Department during the immigrant visa process.”
Advocates say the shift toward using “sex” rather than “gender” in federal immigration rules reflects a broader push by the administration to roll back recognition of transgender identities in federal policy.
According to the National Center for Transgender Equality, an estimated 15,000 to 50,000 undocumented transgender immigrants currently live in the United States, with many entering the country to seek refuge from persecution and hostile governments in their home countries.
Florida
Fla. House passes ‘Anti-Diversity’ bill
Measure could open door to overturning local LGBTQ rights protections
The Florida House of Representatives on March 10 voted 77-37 to approve an “Anti-Diversity in Local Government” bill that opponents have called an extreme and sweeping measure that, among other things, could overturn local LGBTQ rights protections.
The House vote came six days after the Florida Senate voted 25-11 to pass the same bill, opening the way to send it to Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, who supports the bill and has said he would sign it into law.
Equality Florida, a statewide LGBTQ advocacy organization that opposed the legislation, issued a statement saying the bill “would ban, repeal, and defund any local government programming, policy, or activity that provides ‘preferential treatment or special benefits’ or is designed or implemented with respect to race, color, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”
The statement added that the bill would also threaten city and county officials with removal from office “for activities vaguely labeled as DEI,” with only limited exceptions.
“Written in broad and ambiguous language, the bill is the most extreme of its kind in the country, creating confusion and fear for local governments that recognize LGBTQ residents and other communities that contribute to strength and vibrancy of Florida cities,” the group said in a separate statement released on March 10.
The Miami Herald reports that state Sen. Clay Yarborough (R-Jacksonville), the lead sponsor of the bill in the Senate, said he added language to the bill that would allow the city of Orlando to continue to support the Pulse nightclub memorial, a site honoring 49 mostly LGBTQ people killed in the 2016 mass shooting at the LGBTQ nightclub.
But the Equality Florida statement expresses concern that the bill can be used to target LGBTQ programs and protections.
“Debate over the bill made expressly clear that LGBTQ people were a central target of the legislation,” the group’s statement says. “The public record, the bill sponsors’ own statements, and hours of legislative debate revealed the animus driving the effort to pressure local governments into pulling back from recognizing or resourcing programs targeting LGBTQ residents and other historically marginalized communities,” the statement says.
But the statement also notes that following outspoken requests by local officials, sponsors of the bill agreed to several amendments “ensuring local governments can continue to permit Pride festivals, even while navigating new restrictions on supporting or promoting them.”
The statement adds, “Florida’s LGBTQ community knows all too well how to fight back against unjust laws. Just as we did, following the passage of Florida’s notorious ‘Don’t Say Gay or Trans’ law, we will fight every step of the way to limit the impact of this legislation, including in the courts.”
The White House
Trump will refuse to sign voting bill without anti-trans provisions
Measure described as ‘Jim Crow 2.0’
President Donald Trump said he will refuse to sign any legislation into law unless Congress passes the “SAVE Act,” pressuring lawmakers to move forward with the controversial voting bill.
In posts on Truth Social and other social media platforms, the 47th president emphasized the importance of Republican lawmakers pushing the legislation through while also using the opportunity to denounce gender-affirming care.
“I, as President, will not sign other Bills until this is passed, AND NOT THE WATERED DOWN VERSION — GO FOR THE GOLD,” Trump posted. “MUST SHOW VOTER I.D. & PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP: NO MAIL-IN BALLOTS EXCEPT FOR MILITARY — ILLNESS, DISABILITY, TRAVEL: NO MEN IN WOMEN’S SPORTS: NO TRANSGENDER MUTILIZATION FOR CHILDREN! DO NOT FAIL!!!”
The proposed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require in-person proof of citizenship for anyone seeking to vote in U.S. elections. Trump has also called for the legislation to include a ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, even with parental consent.
“This is a huge priority for the president. He added on some priorities to the SAVE America Act in recent days, namely, no transgender transition surgeries for minors. We are not gonna tolerate the mutilation of young children in this country. No men in women’s sports,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said. “The president putting all of these priorities together speaks to how common sense they are.”
The comments mark the first time the White House has publicly confirmed that Trump is pushing to attach anti-trans policies to the SAVE Act.
The bill would also require the removal of undocumented immigrants from existing voter rolls and allow election officials who fail to enforce the proof-of-citizenship requirement to be sued.
It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. Current safeguards include requirements such as providing a Social Security number when registering to vote, cross-checking voter rolls with federal data and, in some states, requiring identification at the polls.
Trump began pushing for the legislation during his State of the Union address last month, where he singled out Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) by name while criticizing the lack of movement on the bill.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has denounced the legislation as “Jim Crow 2.0” and said it has little chance of advancing through the Senate, calling it “dead on arrival.”
In remarks on the Senate floor, Schumer said “the SAVE Act includes such extreme voter registration requirements that, if enacted, could disenfranchise 21 million American citizens.”
Trump has repeatedly used political messaging around trans youth and gender-affirming care as part of broader cultural and policy debates during his presidency — most recently during his State of the Union address, where he cited the case of Sage Blair, a Virginia teenager whose school allegedly encouraged her to transition without her parents’ consent.
LGBTQ advocates — including those familiar with Blair’s story — say the situation was far more complex than described and argue that using a single anecdote to justify sweeping federal restrictions could place trans people, particularly youth, at greater risk.
-
Health4 days agoToo afraid to leave home: ICE’s toll on Latino HIV care
-
Movies5 days agoIntense doc offers transcendent treatment of queer fetish pioneer
-
Colombia4 days agoClaudia López wins primary in Colombian presidential race
-
The White House3 days agoTrump will refuse to sign voting bill without anti-trans provisions
