National
Recalling 1993, activists prepare for ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal push
Activists are ramping up efforts this year to push for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” while remembering that similar optimism in 1993 on lifting the ban on gays serving openly led to the law’s creation.
Last week, President Obama affirmed his commitment during the State of the Union address to repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” noting that he’d work this year with Congress and military leaders to end the law. His announcement brought new life to the issue in the mainstream media and among activist groups.
But amid this activity, the shadow of what took place in 1993, when LGBT advocates had similar optimism about lifting the ban, is influencing the work that’s happening today.
When former President Bill Clinton took office 17 years ago, advocates expected him to fulfill his campaign pledge to end the ban preventing gays from serving in the military. Since there was no federal law on the issue at the time, the only step required to end the ban was administrative action.
But resistance from Congress — particularly from then-Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn — and opposition from military leaders such as then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Colin Powell thwarted Clinton’s efforts to end the ban.
The result was the 1993 law that came to be known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which at the time was billed as a compromise because it would ostensibly allow gays to serve in the U.S. military provided they didn’t disclose their sexual orientation.
Many activists have said Clinton was unable to fulfill his promise to end the ban because the LGBT community didn’t provide him with sufficient political cover to accomplish his goal.
Clinton also holds this view. After gay activist Lane Hudson questioned him on the matter last year during the Netroots Nation conference, Clinton told an audience of bloggers that advocates in 1993 “couldn’t deliver” support in the Congress needed to administratively end the ban.
David Smith, vice president of programs for the Human Rights Campaign, in 1993 was communications director for the Campaign for Military Service, a group that worked to help guide Clinton’s efforts to repeal the ban. While acknowledging LGBT activists made some possible missteps at the time, Smith told DC Agenda that a number of obstacles contributed to the creation of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” not just deficiencies from activists.
“You had a very exuberant, politically naïve community combined with a politically naïve new president, a Democratic-controlled Congress that wasn’t all that enthusiastic about lifting the ban, and you had a Republican minority in Congress that was dying to regain the majority and inflict political harm on the new president and the Democratic Congress,” Smith said.
Smith said the LGBT community might have fared better if the issue had come up later in Clinton’s term as opposed to soon after he took office.
“In retrospect, I think if the community would have waited a year or two to better understand military resistance and understand congressional resistance, and mapped out a plan, Congress wouldn’t have been so quick to impose a law, and there might have been a different path,” Smith said.
Nathaniel Frank, author of “Unfriendly Fire” and research fellow at the Palm Center, a think-tank on gays in the military at the University of California, Santa Barbara, was similarly reluctant to ascribe the failure of lifting the ban in 1993 solely to shortcomings from the LGBT community.
“Yes, the gay community could have done more if it was bigger, more organized, better funded,” Frank said. “Political leaders need the pressure of constituents to help them get done what they need to get done, but I think that President Clinton there was really evading responsibility.”
Learning from mistakes
Whatever responsibility LGBT supporters had in creating “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” activists this year are learning from mistakes made at that time to support Obama in his goal of repealing the law.
Smith said one of the lessons learned from 1993 on repeal is to make tactical decisions after thoughtful planning. He noted that his organization has been “quietly pressing for action” for months on this issue in Congress and in the administration.
A more public campaign, Smith said, will launch soon and target states with lawmakers who would be key to overturning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Smith estimated the campaign would cost more than $2 million and would involve grassroots and grasstops efforts as well as earned and paid media.
“It’s very targeted, but again it’s still unclear exactly how this is going to unfold and it could go in any number of directions,” Smith said. “We need to be ready to deal with whatever direction it does go in to make sure the ultimate outcome is what we all expect.”
Smith declined to comment on which states HRC would target in its campaign or what the comment of earned and paid media, saying that such information needed to remain confidential for tactical reasons.
Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said his organization also is ramping up efforts amid the greater push to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“We always hoped it would happen sooner rather than later, but I think it’s definitely been a surprise that the president has decided to include this issue in the State of the Union and to move forward on this quickly,” Nicholson said. “So we’re obviously trying to rapidly expand our capacity, roll out a number of campaigns and initiatives that we wanted to get underway.”
Nicholson said Servicemembers United has been getting numerous media calls and has been identifying LGBT service members and veterans to respond to those requests. He also noted that his organization is trying to identify high-ranking retired military members who are straight and support allowing gays to serve openly.
Additionally, Nicholson said organizations opposed to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are having a larger number of collaborative meetings and working to “share information, share intelligence, share resources, work together more closely.”
But the lessons learned from 1993 are hanging over all efforts to repeal the law this year. Frank said advocates of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” should keep in mind the arguments that opponents of gays in the military used then in the new push for overturning the law.
“The first thing that gay advocates should do is understand the history of the tactics the people used the last time — the fear tactics, the delay tactics, the dishonesty, the slippery slope arguments — making this much scarier and complicated than it really is,” Frank said.
Frank also cautioned against underestimating the vehemence with which opponents of gays in the military will defend the status quo.
“The religious right has been somewhat quiet on social issues in the last year and the media have been quiet on social issues,” Frank said. “They haven’t been as big, but make no mistake, they’ll come roaring back, so it’s important not to underestimate the vehemence of homophobia and the strength of the opposition to reform in military or religious circles.”
Still, Frank said advocates should be ready to differentiate between those who have “genuine anxiety” about what the change means for the U.S. military and those who are expressing concern simply to block repeal.
While it’s unclear what opponents of repeal are planning this year, Smith said HRC is anticipating the traditional faces — such as Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council — to “get in their TV makeup” to build opposition to repealing the law.
Familiar arguments
Opponents of gays in the military are starting to emerge with familiar arguments that were often used in 1993.
Following Obama’s State of the Union address, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz), who’s quickly becoming the primary opponent of any “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal in the U.S. Senate, issued a statement in support of current policy.
McCain noted that “we have the best trained, best equipped, and most professional force in the history of our country,” suggesting that ending the ban on gays serving openly would be detrimental to unit cohesion and take away from the U.S. military’s standing in the world.
Jarrod Chlapowksi, a gay U.S. Army veteran who supports HRC in its Voices of Honor tour, said “there’s a ton of ways” for supporters of repeal to approach McCain’s argument.
“The unit cohesion argument has been disproven numerous times,” he said. “We have the example of Israel. I don’t think anyone would say Israel has a weak military by any means, and that tends to be a pretty strong example. But there really is nothing supporting McCain’s position that this would be detrimental to unit cohesion.”
Another frequently used argument against allowing gays to serve in the military that could emerge again is concern about whether straight service members would be comfortable using shared shower facilities with gay troops.
But Chlapowksi said that concern can be allayed by noting that gay service members are already showering with straight troops and the change in policy hasn’t been shown to be disruptive in other countries.
“We already share showers, we already share foxholes, we already share barracks,” he said. “The only change is that you know who’s gay and who’s not. The reality is that’s not going to cause someone to go crazy and to make an exodus of troops.”
Even with the experience of 1993 looming over activists, much has changed in 17 years. Recent polls consistently show that a majority of the public supports repeal, and have even found that a majority of conservatives favor allowing gays to serve openly.
Smith said opponents of gays of military could thus have the issue backfire on them if they handle it incorrectly.
“The country is facing economic hardship, two wars — and if Republicans spend a lot of time trying to create political animosity around this issue, it could backfire on them big time,” Smith said. “But our opposition is not to be underestimated.”
Michigan
Progressives score victory as El-Sayed wins Mich. Senate primary
Democratic newcomer will face Rogers in November
Michigan held its primary on Tuesday, allowing the two major political parties to select their nominees to go head-to-head for the state’s U.S. Senate seat.
NBC News called the Democratic race early, giving the victory to physician Abdul El-Sayed over incumbent U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) in an extremely close primary. El-Sayed won 48.5 percent of the primary vote, with Stevens trailing by just one percentage point at 47.5 percent.
Both candidates have campagined on supporting the LGBTQ community through different avenues— for El-Sayed he focused on his past promoting HIV and PrEP funding and research. Stevens focused on her legislative history working to support transgender rights in the state.
This is a major win for progressive Democrats, who have been bearing the brunt of political attacks from President Donald Trump, the Republican Party, and centrist Democrats.
El-Sayed, a former health director in Detroit, ran his campaign largely on making life in the Great Lakes State more affordable amid rising costs. His policies include promoting “Medicare for All,” pushing health policy that targets the regressive efforts of the Trump-Vance administration that rolls back funding for both Women and LGBTQ people, minimizing the growing amount of money in politics, and he was very vocal in his criticism of Stevens for supporting aid to Israel. He was endorsed by two major progressives — U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-N.Y.).
Stevens, the four-term congresswoman, is much closer to establishment Democrats on policy than El-Sayed.
During her time in the federal government, she has consistently supported the Equality Act, which would add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She has also emphasized supporting local manufacturing and lowering housing costs in the state.
She was named to Advocates for Trans Equality’s 118th Congressional Champions list for her pro-trans policies and was endorsed by establishment heavy hitters Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
The contentious race boiled down not only to Michigan affairs but also extended to international conflicts — namely Palestine. (South Africa has filed a case in the International Court of Justice in The Hague that accuses Israel of committing genocide in the Gaza Strip after Oct. 7.) This primary also acted as one of the first major races that pushed back against AIPAC, a lobbying group that works to promote pro-Israel candidates in U.S. elections. The group has been involved in domestic politics since 1954.
AIPAC devoted a massive amount of money to this race.
The Associated Press reported that the pro-Israel lobbying group spent more than $30 million on ads against El-Sayed because of his vocal denunciation of Israel and his continued criticism of its policies towards Palestine.
Michigan has a large Muslim and Arab American population, which could, in part, explain how El-Sayed was able to win.
The Republican side was far less competitive. Former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) ran unopposed and clinched the GOP nomination. He has consistently held anti-LGBTQ positions, going as far as voting multiple times for a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, voting against repealing the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, and supporting efforts to directly target the attempted expansion of Title IX protections to include trans people.
El-Sayed will face off against Rogers in November for Michigan’s Senate seat — one that could have lasting impacts not only on the state’s politics but also on the Republicans’ narrow Senate majority and Trump’s political agenda.
National
White House orders warning signs at Smithsonian over gender identity exhibits
Administration criticizes National Museum of American History
The Trump administration will install temporary warning signs outside the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History after releasing a report accusing the museum of promoting what it calls “radical” gender ideology and other politically biased content.
According to the Executive Order, “For purposes of policy formulation under EO 14253, this review of the National Museum of American History concludes that NMAH, by the intention and at the direction of current Museum and Smithsonian leadership, has become subject to institutional capture by a radical, activist ideology that is fundamentally opposed to telling the noble, honest story of the great country we know and love.”
Executive Order 14253 refers to what the White House has deemed the “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” order. Therefore, the Trump administration has said it will take all available steps to ensure that the issues in the report are addressed and rectified.
Without specifying, the White House has stated that warnings will be posted along NMAH to alert visitors to sections of the museum it has deemed are in violation according to the report.
“The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National Park Service (NPS) and in coordination with the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, shall install temporary signage along the NPS-maintained sidewalks and walkways used by the public to access the Museum, informing visitors of the findings of the Report and of the policy set forth in section 1 of this order,” the Executive Order states.
The warnings were raised in a 162-page report issued by the Domestic Policy Council. The report detailed ways in which the National Museum of American History (NMAH) has “poorly” portrayed American history and insufficiently highlighted the founding story during America 250th celebrations.
The report outlined key findings of the NMAH. One of these findings was the Center for Restorative History within the museum, which has stated its purpose is to “encourage systemic change” by highlighting diverse groups. However, the report states that it highlights every group of Americans except for straight and white Americans.
The Domestic Policy Council accused the museum of engaging in “transgender activism.” According to the report, examples include referring to “biological men” as women or girls, displaying what it describes as sexually suggestive content, and incorporating discussions of gender fluidity, gender identity, and gender nonconformity into the museum’s educational curriculum, “Becoming US.”
The report also criticizes the curriculum for using the term “transgender” when discussing gender-nonconforming people and encouraging individuals to ask a person’s pronouns when meeting them. It further objects to exhibits stating that “transgender, nonbinary, and cisgender female athletes” continue to struggle for and demand equality.
It also condemns what it refers to as explicit content in an exhibition, “Girlhood (It’s Complicated)”, such as chest binders, questioning gender testing in women’s sports, and referring to biological females as “people inhabiting female bodies.”
Additionally, the report accuses the museum of no longer participating in flag-celebrating ceremonies because it was “too busy” preparing for June Pride and WorldPride events. It states, “As Director Hartig explained in a June 2024 presentation, all her attention was focused on flying the Smithsonian Pride Alliance’s ‘intersexual pride flag during June’ in 2023 and 2024.”
On July 9, the American Historical Association issued a statement rejecting the report’s findings.
In regard to the report, it states, “Its anonymous authors overlook a central lesson of the nation’s founding: the United States was forged by finding common purpose amid intense divisions, conflicts, and disagreements.” They argue that only “honest history” can tell the true history of the nation.
House Republicans led a subcommittee hearing that questioned Smithsonian Director Hartig extensively. A main focus of the questions was on the exhibits related to gender identity and whether they were appropriate. In the hearing, Rep. Nancy Mace asked: “When was your gender revealed to you, Dr. Hartig?”
In response to questioning, Hartig stated that the institution is nonpartisan and does not push a specific agenda.
Hartig published a two-page statement ahead of her hearing outlining her thoughts on the situation. In the report, she states that the institution is always open to criticism and will continue to look for ways to improve, but she sees the report as misleading.
“I can attest that the report does not fairly characterize the full body of work at this museum. I am familiar with the depth and breadth of our collections, exhibits, and programming. And while I recognize there is always room for improvement, I also know the beauty, inspiration, and expertise that exists in our museum,” Hartig wrote.
Democrats created their own 16-page report as a rebuttal to the Domestic Policy Council’s report. It argued that the attacks by the current Trump administration are another example of its attempt to rewrite history. Additionally, the report states that no policy changes were included in the Executive Order, as that is beyond the President’s role. “The Report recommends nothing. That is no accident. To recommend an action, the Report would need to identify who is legally empowered to take it, and its own opening chapter concedes the President’s only power is to ‘urge’,” House Democrats wrote.
It is still unclear when the temporary warnings will be installed or what form they will take beyond the requirements outlined in the executive order.
An exhibit at the Smithsonian. (Washington Blade photo by Landon Shackelford)
National
Trump ends direct HIV prevention funding to community groups
Advocates say transfer of funds to states may disrupt local programs
A decision by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the request of the Trump administration to discontinue direct federal funding of community-based organizations and clinics that provide HIV prevention services has raised concern among community health advocates, including LGBTQ advocates.
News surfaced earlier this month that the OMB informed the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that it would not renew $46 million in funding for 96 community-based organizations that provide HIV testing, referrals to medical care, and arrangements for obtaining pre-exposure HIV prevention medication known as PrEP that has been shown to be 99 percent effective in preventing HIV infection.
Under the new policy arranged by OMB, the funds will be redirected to the states to be allocated to state and local health departments. The policy calls for states to encourage but not require their respective state and local health departments to allocate some of those funds for community-based organizations. Under the new policy, the funding is scheduled to last until May of 2027, before a renewal decision is made.
Some political observers have speculated that the decision to end direct federal funding to community-based organizations could be motivated by the Trump administration’s hostility to diversity, equity, and inclusion or DEI programs and organizations that promote those programs, with the belief that some of the groups receiving the federal HIV prevention funds are promoting DEI.
Carl Schmid, executive director of the D.C.-based HIV+ Hepatitis Policy Institute, is among the leaders of many AIDS advocacy organizations expressing strong opposition to the OMB action. Schmid said that in places like D.C. and some states, local officials will be willing to redirect the federal funds to local community-based organizations.
A list of the 96 community-based organizations across the country that are currently receiving the federal AIDS funds includes the D.C.-based Whitman-Walker Health, which has a long history of healthcare support for the LGBTQ community, and La Clinica del Pueblo, which reaches out to the Latino community.
Schmid said Whitman-Walker and La Clinica del Pueblo have longstanding good relationships with the local D.C. government.
“But other states and jurisdictions don’t have that relationship with the community-based organizations,” Schmid said. “It depends on the state,” he said, adding, “Not all states send their money to the communities that really need it most. And not all states are fast in getting money to the community-based organizations.”
Spokespersons for Whitman-Walker and La Clinica del Pueblo couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on whether they think the Trump administration’s latest action related to funding will adversely impact their respective organizations.
Schmid said under the current federal grant program slated to be discontinued, which has been in effect for at least five years, HIV-related health organizations receiving the federal grant funds were eligible for an existing federal policy enabling them to purchase HIV-related medication, including the PrEP prevention medication, at a significant discount from pharmaceutical companies. With the ending of the direct federal HIV funds to community-based organizations, Schmid said it was unclear whether problems may surface in obtaining drug discounts.
“They could still qualify as a sub-grantee from a state,” Schmid said. “But what if they don’t get that grant again? They would not be able to qualify to obtain the drugs” at the discounted price, he said.
Among the organizations expressing strong concern over the decision to discontinue the direct HIV prevention funding to community-based organizations has been the Federal AIDS Policy Institute and its subgroup called the HIV Prevention Action Coalition.
In a July 22 letter bearing the names of 71 community-based organizations from throughout the country sent to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Acting Director Jay Bhattacharya, the group called for the Trump administration to “reconsider” ending the current funding policy.
“Ending this program without a clear plan for what comes next would dismantle prevention infrastructure that has taken more than three decades of federal investment to build and do so just as that long record of measurable returns is accelerating,” the letter states.
It says the initiative by President Trump in his first term as president to end the HIV epidemic and reduce new HIV infections by 90 percent by 2030 was moving ahead by the funding program for community-based organizations that the administration now wants to end.
“Discontinuing this program would also cost far more than it saves,” the letter says. “Every HIV transmission prevented avoids an estimated lifetime treatment cost of roughly half a million dollars per person to the healthcare system – costs that fall heavily on taxpayer-funded programs, including Medicaid, Medicare, and the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program,” the letter continues.
“The choice before the administration is straightforward: a modest, targeted investment in prevention now, or far greater public expense for treatment later,” the letter concludes.
Spokespersons for the OMB and the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC, have not immediately responded to news media requests for comment on the opposition to the funding change policy.
Doug Ollivant to face Eugene Vindman in Va. 7th Congressional District
LGBTQ advocates optimistic about D.C.’s expected new mayor
Progressives score victory as El-Sayed wins Mich. Senate primary
Dutch prime minister opens World Pride Human Rights Conference
Buttigieg indicates he may run for president in 2028
PHOTOS: Lambda Legal in the Pines
Poland’s top court rejects recognition of same-sex marriages from other EU countries
Should I divorce my catty gay friend group?
PHOTOS: Amsterdam Pride Canal Parade
