National
Defense leaders support open service
Adm. Michael Mullen (DC Agenda photo by Michael Key)
Top Pentagon leaders announced Tuesday their support for allowing gays, lesbians and bisexuals to serve openly in the U.S. military while unveiling new plans for a working group that will examine the impact of such a change in the armed forces.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen made the remarks in the first Senate hearing in 17 years dedicated to the issue of gays in the military.
Mullen told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he favors allowing gays to serve openly as a matter of fairness for those who are serving in the armed forces.
“Speaking for myself, and myself only, it is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is the right thing to do,” Mullen said. “No matter how I look at this issue, I cannot escape … the fact that we have in place a policy that forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.”
Gates similarly expressed support for ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” noting President Obama’s last week restated his commitment to repealing the law in his State of the Union address.
“I fully support the president’s decision,” he said. “The question before us is not whether the military decides to makes this change, but how we best prepare for it. We have received our orders from the commander-in-chief and we are moving out accordingly.”
Mullen and Gates’ support for allowing gays to serve in the U.S. military stands in stark contrast to how military leaders in 1993 opposed open service and favored “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
The Senate panel received Mullen and Gates’ endorsement of allowing gays to serve openly in the U.S. military with mixed reactions — with those opposing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” applauding them and those supporting the policy expressing their discontent.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), ranking Republican on the committee and strong proponent of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” said he was “deeply disappointed” with Gates’ testimony and said it showed his bias on the issue.
“It would be far more appropriate, I say with great respect, to determine whether repeal of this law is appropriate and what the effects it would have on the readiness and the effectiveness of the military before deciding on whether we should repeal the law or not,” he said.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) noted Mullen only came out in favor of allowing open service after Obama announced his intent to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” suggesting Mullen was taking that position to fall in line with his superior.
Sessions said Mullen’s position would interfere with his subordinates’ ability to evaluate “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the implication of its repeal.
“I guess, if it was a trial, we would perhaps raise the undue command influence defense flag,” Sessions said.
But Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) came to the defense of Mullen, saying the admiral was showing leadership and acting as required by a Senate-confirmed nominee by expressing his personal opinion.
“It was clear to me and, I think, clear to most of us that you think this is a view that you hold in your conscience and not given to us because you were directed to by anybody, including the commander-in-chief,” Levin said.
Gates and Mullen expressed support for a change in policy while at the same time highlighting the importance of a new Pentagon working group that would examine the issue.
Mullen said he didn’t know fully what impact ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would have throughout the armed forces — especially in a time of two wars — and said further investigation would bring to light those implications.
“That there will be legal, social and perhaps even infrastructure changes to be made certainly seems plausible,” Mullen said. “We would all like to have a better handle on these types of concerns.”
Gates unveiled new plans for a working group that he said would examine the implications of ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” By the end of this year, the group is charged with producing recommendations in the form of an implementation plan in the event Congress decides to repeal the statute.
Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Jonson and Gen. Carter Ham, commander of U.S. Army Europe, have been chosen to lead this working group, Gates said.
The working group, Gates said, would be charged with reaching out to the force to understand their views about repeal, examining changes in regulations and policy that need to be made and looking at the potential impact of a change in law on military readiness.
To supplement the efforts of this working group, Gates said the Pentagon will ask the RAND Corp. to update its 1993 study on the impact of allowing gays to serve in the military, which at the time found that open service wouldn’t be detrimental to the U.S. military.
In addition to the working group, Gates said he’s directed the Pentagon to review the regulations used to implement “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and, within 45 days, present recommendations that could be applied under existing law to “enforce this policy in a more humane and fair manner.”
“You may recall that I asked the Department’s general counsel to conduct a preliminary review of this matter last year,” Gates said. “Based on that preliminary review, we believe that we have a degree of latitude within the existing law to change our internal procedures in a manner that is more appropriate and fair to our men and women in uniform.”
While the recommendations aren’t yet complete, Gates said the Pentagon is considering a number of options that could allow for greater latitude on discharging gay service members under current law.
Gates said it’s possible to change implementation of current law by raising the rank of officers who are authorized to either initiate or conduct inquiries under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” He also said officials can “raise the bar” on what is considered credible information or who is considered a credible source to start an inquiry on a service member.
“Overall, we can reduce the instances in which the service member who is trying to serve the country honorably is outed by a third-person with the motive to harm the service member,” Gates said.
Many LGBT activists praised Gates and Mullen for coming out in favor of allowing gays to serve openly in the U.S. military and working to adjust the rules for discharges. Still, activists maintain that full repeal is still necessary.
Lt. Dan Choi, a gay U.S. Army infantry soldier who’s facing discharge after publicly coming out last year, told DC Agenda after the hearing that “there will be some impact” by the interim changes proposed by Gates, but said it’s “missing the point.”
“When you still have people that are lying about who they are, you haven’t solved the root of the problem,” Choi said. “‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is the establishment of a closeted policy, and I don’t think that anybody has to be closeted in our military.”
Lawmakers considering ‘Don’t Ask’ moratorium
Gates’ announcement on the formation of a new working group raises questions about whether Congress will act this year to repeal the law or instead wait until the working group completes its review.
Levin suggested he may include language that would change “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the upcoming defense authorization bill.
After Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) made a comment that senators need to find 60 votes to pass repeal legislation, Levin replied, “Unless there’s a provision in the defense authorization bill that goes to the floor, which would then require an amendment to strike it from the bill, in which case, the 60-vote rule would be turning the other way.”
Following the hearing, Levin told reporters that it’s possible to include in the defense authorization bill a moratorium on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” that would be in place until the Pentagon completes its study.
“If we throw a moratorium on it, then what I consider to be a slow pace then would be more practical,” he said.
Asked whether he’s ruled out actual repeal in the defense authorization bill in favor of a moratorium, Levin replied, “I haven’t ruled anything out.”
Also foreseeing the possibility of repeal this year is Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), one of the most vocal proponents in Congress of overturning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
After the hearing, she told reporters she doesn’t think the time Gates is asking for review “will affect legislative progress” and that “we can actually write the bill and pass the bill now.”
“I think all that Adm. Mullen and Secretary Gates were saying is that they want to have a sensitivity to the impact it will have on the military and their families, and to have input in order to decide how to best to implement a policy change,” she said. “So, if they need to take time to do that, that’s fine and appropriate, but it doesn’t mean we can’t pass the repeal now, which is important to move forward on this.”
Gillibrand said she would support the inclusion of a moratorium in the defense authorization bill this year in addition to efforts for outright repeal. She said she thinks there are 60 votes in the Senate for full repeal and recalled how she considered a moratorium amendment last year on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” that she ultimately didn’t introduce.
“When I did my bill on moratorium [and] I counted the votes, the only undecided Democrats at that time said their reasons were they wanted to see leadership in the military, or wanted to see leadership from the president,” she said. “And I think what this hearing brings us is leadership on both.”
But Christopher Neff, deputy executive director of the Palm Center, a think-tank on gays in the military at the University of California, Santa Barbara, was pessimistic about the chances of passing legislation to address “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year.
He said the Pentagon’s establishment of a working group would make Congress reluctant to take action until the results of its study are known.
“I think that it would be anticipated that many legislators will be waiting to hear what comes out of the study group’s report at the end of the year,” Neff said. “I think that there are enough questions that are being raised that, I think, would be difficult without this study report.”
Whatever effort Congress takes in moving toward repeal this year, lawmakers are set to hear more testimony on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in later hearings.
Levin told reporters the Senate Armed Services Committee would revisit the issue of gays in the military Feb. 11 and will hear from an “outside panel” of expert witnesses.
He also said he expects senators to ask questions on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” when the service chiefs and service secretaries testify before Congress this month on the president’s budget request.
On the House said, Rep. Susan Davis (D-Calif.), chair of the House Armed Services personnel subcommittee, has scheduled a hearing on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in March that will follow up on previous testimony the subcommittee heard in 2008.
Federal Government
Inside the LGBTQ records of Todd Blanche and Markwayne Mullin
Two men are acting attorney general, DHS secretary
President Donald Trump became famous for his use of the phrase “You’re fired!” while hosting the reality TV show “The Apprentice” in the early 2000s. However, during his time in the Oval Office, he has attempted to distance himself from that image.
Despite those efforts, the phrase once again comes to mind as Trump has fired two high-level female Cabinet members within the past month: Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem.
Their replacements — Todd Blanche at the Justice Department and Markwayne Mullin at the Department of Homeland Security — bring records that, while different in depth, both reflect limited support for LGBTQ protections and, in some cases, direct opposition.
Todd Blanche
Acting attorney general
Little has been found regarding Todd Blanche’s LGBTQ history prior to his role as acting head of the Department of Justice. Unlike those who have worked within the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division or served as state attorneys general, he has not developed a public-facing legal ideology on LGBTQ issues.
Blanche attended American University for his undergraduate studies — like fellow Trump attorney Michael Cohen — where he met his future wife, Kristin, who was studying at nearby Catholic University in D.C.
He began his legal career as an intern at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, which eventually became a full-time position. He later worked as a paralegal in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York while attending Brooklyn Law School at night. Blanche graduated cum laude in 2003. He and his wife later married and had two children.
Blanche left the U.S. attorney’s office in 2014, taking a job in the Manhattan office of the law firm WilmerHale. In September 2017, he moved to Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, where he was a partner in the White Collar Defense and Investigations practice.
In his personal capacity, he represented several figures associated with Donald Trump and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, including Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort, businessman Igor Fruman, and attorney Boris Epshteyn.
In 2024, Blanche switched from Democrat to Republican, aligning himself with Trump’s political orbit. He later served as Trump’s personal defense attorney in the New York State case that led to Trump’s 2024 conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up hush-money payments to bisexual adult film star Stormy Daniels.
Now the highest-ranking official at the Justice Department, Blanche has played a central role in overseeing the department and has been involved in leadership decisions tied to several controversial actions affecting LGBTQ people.
In a letter to New York Attorney General Letitia James, Blanche declared that the Justice Department “will not sit idly by while you attempt to use your office to force harmful procedures on our most vulnerable population,” if legal action were taken against NYU Langone. The hospital had “permanently” ended a program earlier that month after the Trump-Vance administration threatened to pull all federal funding if it continued prescribing puberty blockers and hormones to minors.
Blanche wrote that “the Justice Department believes the law is clear, and anti-discrimination laws cannot be used to force NYU Langone to perform sex-rejecting procedures on children.”
“As just one example, your office’s position would require a hospital to prescribe certain medications for certain diagnoses, regardless of the hospital’s or its doctors’ independent medical determination about the propriety of such treatment,” he said.
Blanche also echoed his predecessor’s public stance on limiting LGBTQ-related protections at the federal level, aligning with Bondi’s sentiments in June 2025 regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision that restricted LGBTQ history lessions in schools and limits lower federal courts from issuing nationwide injunctions — rulings that have often blocked Trump administration policies.
Calling it “another great decision that came down today,” Blanche argued that the ruling “restores parents’ rights to decide their child’s education,” adding: “It seems like a basic idea, but it took the Supreme Court to set the record straight, and we thank them for that. And now that ruling allows parents to opt out of dangerous trans ideology and make the decisions for their children that they believe is correct.”
In December 2025, a Justice Department memo stated that, “effective immediately,” prisons and jails would no longer be held responsible for violations of standards meant to protect LGBTQ people from harassment, abuse, and rape under the Prison Rape Elimination Act. The law, passed unanimously by Congress in 2003, requires that incarcerated people be screened for their risk of sexual assault, including consideration of LGBTQ status, and applies to all correctional facilities.
Additionally, when the Justice Department, under Blanche’s deputy leadership and at Trump’s behest, attempted to force Children’s National Hospital in D.C. to turn over medical records related to gender-affirming care, U.S. District Judge Julie R. Rubin ruled that the effort “appears to have no purpose other than to intimidate and harass.”
Blanche is also described as having a “strong belief in executive authority.”
Markwayne Mullin
Secretary of Homeland Security
While Blanche’s record is defined more by recent actions than a long paper trail, Markwayne Mullin brings a more established history on LGBTQ issues from his time in Congress.
The head of the Department of Homeland Security has served in Congress since 2013, in both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. He has been actively engaged in shaping restrictions and aligns with broader cultural rhetoric that frames anti-LGBTQ speech as protected expression.
In May 2016, Mullin criticized the Department of Education and the Justice Department’s “Dear Colleague” letter on transgender students, arguing that trans girls should not use girls’ restrooms in public schools.
By January 2021, Mullin and then-Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard had introduced a bill to prevent trans women from participating in women’s sports.
Mullin was not recorded as voting on the final passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, which codified federal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriage.
In 2023, Mullin received a rating of just 6 percent from the Human Rights Campaign.
While serving in the Senate and as a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, Mullin has been a vocal critic of policies aimed at expanding LGBTQ inclusion in federal programs. He has participated in broader Republican efforts questioning equity-based implementation of the Older Americans Act, including guidance related to sexual orientation and gender identity in aging services, arguing such policies could have unintended consequences.
Mullin also makes history as the first Native American — and a citizen of the Cherokee Nation — to lead the Department of Homeland Security.
He was among the 147 Republicans who voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election results despite no evidence of widespread fraud, and was present in the House on Jan. 6.
Noticias en Español
La X vuelve al tribunal
Primer Circuito examina caso del reconocimiento de personas no binarias en Puerto Rico
Hace ocho meses escribí sobre este tema cuando todavía no había llegado al nivel judicial en el que se encuentra hoy. En ese momento, la discusión se movía entre decisiones administrativas, debates públicos y resistencias políticas. No era un asunto cerrado, pero tampoco había alcanzado el punto actual.
Hoy el escenario es distinto.
La organización Lambda Legal compareció ante el Tribunal de Apelaciones del Primer Circuito en Boston para solicitar que se confirme una decisión que obliga al gobierno de Puerto Rico a emitir certificados de nacimiento que reflejen la identidad de las personas no binarias. La apelación se produce luego de que un tribunal de distrito concluyera que negar esa posibilidad constituye una violación a la Constitución de Estados Unidos.
Este elemento marca la diferencia. Ya no se trata de una discusión conceptual. Existe una determinación judicial que identificó un trato desigual.
El planteamiento de la parte demandante se sostiene en el propio marco legal vigente en Puerto Rico. Los certificados de nacimiento de identidad no son registros históricos inmutables. Son documentos utilizados para fines actuales y esenciales. Permiten acceder a empleo, educación y servicios, y son requeridos en múltiples gestiones ante el Estado. Su función es operativa.
En ese contexto, la exclusión de las personas no binarias no responde a una limitación jurídica. Puerto Rico permite la corrección de marcadores de género en certificados de nacimiento para personas trans binarias desde el caso Arroyo González v. Rosselló Nevares. Además, el Código Civil reconoce la existencia de certificados que reflejan la identidad de la persona más allá del registro original.
La diferencia radica en la aplicación.
El reconocimiento se concede dentro de categorías específicas, mientras que se excluye a quienes no se identifican dentro de ese esquema. Esa exclusión es el eje de la controversia actual.
El argumento presentado por Lambda Legal es preciso. Obligar a una persona a utilizar documentos que no reflejan su identidad implica someterla a una representación incorrecta en procesos fundamentales de la vida cotidiana. Esto puede generar dificultades prácticas, exposición innecesaria y situaciones de vulnerabilidad.
Las personas demandantes, nacidas en Puerto Rico, han planteado que el acceso a documentos precisos no es una cuestión simbólica, sino una necesidad básica para poder desenvolverse sin contradicciones impuestas por el propio Estado.
El hecho de que este caso se encuentre en el sistema federal introduce una dimensión adicional. No se trata de un proyecto legislativo ni de una política pública en discusión. Es una controversia constitucional. El análisis gira en torno a derechos y a la aplicación equitativa de las leyes.
Este proceso tampoco ocurre en aislamiento.
Se desarrolla en un contexto donde los debates sobre identidad y derechos han estado marcados por una mayor presencia de posturas conservadoras en la esfera pública, tanto en Estados Unidos como en Puerto Rico. En el ámbito local, esa influencia ha sido visible en discusiones legislativas recientes, donde argumentos de carácter religioso han comenzado a formar parte del debate sobre política pública. Esa intersección introduce tensiones en torno a la separación entre iglesia y Estado y tiene efectos concretos en el acceso a derechos.
Señalar este contexto no implica cuestionar la fe ni la práctica religiosa. Implica reconocer que, cuando determinados argumentos se trasladan al ejercicio del poder público, pueden incidir en decisiones que afectan a sectores específicos de la población.
Desde Puerto Rico, esta situación no se observa a distancia. Se experimenta en la práctica diaria. En la necesidad de presentar documentos que no corresponden con la identidad de quien los porta. En las implicaciones que esto tiene en espacios laborales, educativos y administrativos.
El avance de este caso abre una posibilidad de cambio en el marco legal aplicable. No porque resuelva de inmediato todas las tensiones en torno al tema, sino porque establece un punto de análisis jurídico sobre una práctica que hasta ahora ha operado bajo criterios restrictivos.
A diferencia de hace ocho meses, el escenario actual incluye una determinación judicial que ya identificó una violación de derechos. Lo que corresponde ahora es evaluar si esa determinación se sostiene en una instancia superior.
Ese proceso no define un resultado inmediato, pero sí establece un nuevo punto de referencia.
El debate ya no es teórico.
Ahora es judicial.
New York
Court orders Pride flag to return to Stonewall
Lambda Legal, Washington Litigation Group filed federal lawsuit
The Pride flag will once again fly over the Stonewall National Monument in New York following a court order requiring the National Park Service to raise it over the site.
The decision follows a lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal and the Washington Litigation Group in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which challenged the removal as unconstitutional under the Administrative Procedure Act and argued that the government unlawfully targeted the LGBTQ community.
In February, the NPS removed the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument, the first national monument dedicated to LGBTQ rights and history in the U.S. The move followed a Jan. 21 memorandum issued by President Donald Trump-appointed NPS Director Jessica Bowron restricting which flags may be flown at national parks. The directive limited displays to official government flags, with narrow exceptions for those deemed to serve an “official purpose.”
Plaintiffs successfully argued that the Pride flag meets that standard, given Stonewall’s status as the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement. They also contended that the policy violated the APA by bypassing required public input and improperly applying agency rules.
The lawsuit named Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Bowron, and Amy Sebring, superintendent of Manhattan sites for the NPS, as defendants. Plaintiffs included the Gilbert Baker Foundation, Village Preservation, Equality New York, and several individuals.
The court found that the memorandum — while allowing limited exceptions for historical context purposes — was applied unlawfully in this case. As part of the settlement, the NPS is required to rehang the Pride flag on the monument’s official flagpole within seven days, where it will remain permanently.
“The sudden, arbitrary, and capricious removal of the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument was yet another act by this administration to erase the LGBTQ+ community,” said Karen Loewy, co-counsel for plaintiffs and Lambda Legal’s Senior Counsel and Director of Constitutional Law Practice. “Today, the government has pledged to restore this important symbol back to where it belongs.”
“This is a complete victory for our clients and for the LGBTQ+ community,” said Alexander Kristofcak, lead counsel for plaintiffs and a lawyer with Washington Litigation Group. “The government has acknowledged what we argued from day one: the Pride flag belongs at Stonewall. The flag will be restored and it will fly officially and permanently. And we will remain vigilant to ensure that the government sticks to the deal.”
“Gilbert Baker created the Rainbow Pride flag as a symbol of hope and liberation,” said Charles Beal, president of the Gilbert Baker Foundation. “Today, that symbol is restored to the place where it belongs, standing watch over the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement.”
“The government tried to erase an important symbol of the LGBTQ+ community, and the community said no,” said Amanda Babine, executive director of Equality New York. “Today’s accomplishment proves that when we stand together and fight back, we win.”
“The removal of the Pride flag from Stonewall was an attempt to erase LGBTQ+ history and undermine the rule of law,” said Andrew Berman, executive director of Village Preservation. “This settlement restores both.”
With Loewy on the complaint are Douglas F. Curtis, Camilla B. Taylor, Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, Kenneth D. Upton Jr., Jennifer C. Pizer, and Nephetari Smith from Lambda Legal. With Kristofcak on the complaint are Mary L. Dohrmann, Sydney Foster, Kyle Freeny, James I. Pearce, and Nathaniel Zelinsky from Washington Litigation Group.
Inside the LGBTQ records of Todd Blanche and Markwayne Mullin
PHOTOS: Denali at Pitchers
Whitman-Walker Health to present ‘Pro Bono Excellence’ award to law firm
La X vuelve al tribunal
Court orders Pride flag to return to Stonewall
HRC endorses Va. ballot initiative to redraw congressional districts
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
The emperor has no clothes: how rhetoric fuels repression in Eswatini
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
-
2026 Midterm Elections4 days agoHRC endorses Va. ballot initiative to redraw congressional districts
-
Rehoboth Beach4 days ago
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
-
Eswatini4 days ago
The emperor has no clothes: how rhetoric fuels repression in Eswatini
-
National4 days ago
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
