National
U.S. Congress moves against anti-gay Uganda bill
U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, who’s supporting a resolution condemning a harshly anti-gay Uganda bill, said the measure is ‘appalling and I want to convey that.’ (DC Agenda photo by Michael Key)
Lawmakers in both chambers of Congress last week introduced resolutions condemning a harshly anti-gay bill pending in Uganda.
In the Senate, the sponsor of the resolution is Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), chair of the Foreign Relations African Affairs subcommittee. The sponsor of the resolution in the House is Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Homosexual acts are already illegal in Uganda, but the African nation’s pending legislation would, among other things, institute the death penalty in some cases for LGBT people and require citizens to report LGBT people to the police.
In a statement, Berman said passage of the Uganda bill could interfere with efforts to address the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the country.
“The proposed Ugandan bill not only threatens human rights, it also reverses so many of the gains that Uganda has made in the fight against HIV/AIDS,” he said. “This issue has united leaders of different political and religious views in Uganda and worldwide in one common belief in the rights of all human beings regardless of sexual orientation.”
The Senate resolution goes further than the House measure, calling for repeal of the criminalization of homosexuality in other countries and urging the State Department to closely monitor human rights abuses against LGBT people abroad.
Both resolutions enjoy considerable support from lawmakers of both parties. More than three-dozen House members joined to introduce the House measure, including gay Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), as well as Congressional Black Caucus Chair Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.). On the other side of the aisle, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) has signed on in support.
Lynne Weil, spokesperson for the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the panel would make a decision on how to proceed with the resolution in the coming weeks.
For the Senate resolution, a politically diverse group of lawmakers are co-sponsors. In addition to Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), original co-sponsors included Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine).
Collins told DC Agenda she was interested in co-sponsoring the Senate resolution because of the draconian nature of Uganda’s bill.
“This is an appalling proposal in Uganda, which suggests the death penalty for homosexual acts,” she said. “I think it’s self-evident that I would think that that’s appalling and I want to convey that.”
Mark Bromley, chair of the Council for Global Equality, said bipartisan support for the resolution shows the tremendous attention that Uganda’s bill has received from human rights advocates.
“Senators from across the ideological divide are expressing that this is a significant human rights issue and an issue that the U.S. government takes seriously,” he said.
Bromley said the resolutions are “not simply symbolic” and have a chance of passing in both chambers of Congress.
On Monday, another lawmaker expressed opposition to Uganda’s bill during a demonstration outside the Uganda mission to the United Nations in New York City, according to Human Rights First.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) said in a statement that the “officially sanctioned bigotry” in the legislation is “profoundly disturbing.”
“It constitutes a gross violation of the universal values of individual liberty and human rights,” she said. “Such a measure goes far beyond ugliness and ignorance: it is hate in its rawest form, and it has no place in the laws of any nation.”
Maloney was joined at the demonstration by about two dozen other participants, including members of Human Rights First, Immigration Equality, the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Watch. The lawmaker called on Ugandan officials to meet with human rights groups to discuss the widespread opposition to the bill.
Paul LeGendre, director of the Fighting Discrimination Program at Human Rights Watch, said during the demonstration that Uganda’s bill “represents one of the harshest discriminatory measures ever proposed in any country.”
“This bill would have disastrous effects for gay men and women in Uganda, would aggravate an already alarming trend of criminalization of homosexuality across Africa, and could spur Ugandan homosexuals to flee this persecution by attempting to seek refuge outside of the country,” he said. “The international community must continue to voice its concern to the Ugandan authorities until the text of this bill is shredded and removed from consideration.”
The path for the legislation in Uganda parliament remains in question. Bromley said he’s “been hearing different stories” about the timeline for the bill, but that it’s likely to come up for debate in the next few weeks.
“To be honest, my suspicion is that the president of Uganda would like to see this legislation disappear and so my hope is that they will sort of stretch out the consideration so that eventually the interest dies down a bit, and then, perhaps they can move from it,” he said.
Obama, Clinton stand against Uganda bill
In related news, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reiterated their opposition last week to the Uganda legislation in remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast in D.C.
Clinton said she contacted Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni to directly express U.S. concerns about the anti-gay legislation.
“I recently called President Museveni, whom I have known through the prayer breakfast, and expressed the strongest concerns about a law being considered in the parliament of Uganda,” she said.
Obama called the Uganda measure an “odious” bill in remarks that more broadly drew attention to LGBT issues.
“We may disagree about gay marriage, but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are — whether it’s here in the United States or, as Hillary mentioned, more extremely in odious laws that are being proposed most recently in Uganda,” he said.
Obama and Clinton’s participation at the National Prayer Breakfast was somewhat controversial because the evangelical Christian group staging the event, known as “The Family,” has ties to Ugandan officials. David Mahati, the author of the anti-gay bill in the country’s parliament, attended past National Prayer Breakfasts, but didn’t attend this year’s event.
LGBT activists praised Obama and Clinton for their remarks. Wayne Besen, executive director of Truth Wins Out, commended Obama for “having the courage to confront those responsible for the heinous anti-gay bill in Uganda.”
Besen helped to coordinate the American Prayer Hour, protest events involving pro-LGBT religious leaders intended to counter the National Prayer Breakfast. The counter-event took place in 20 cities across the country.
“We hope that the president’s laudable stand makes it clear to Family members in the United States and Uganda that the world is watching,” Besen said in a statement. “Religion can no longer be used to justify bigotry, intolerance and persecution anywhere on the face of the Earth.”
Bromley also said Obama and Clinton’s decision to speak out against the Uganda legislation during the National Prayer Breakfast was a “very positive” move because of the religious nature of the event.
“I think clearly there were some religious voices behind the bill in Uganda, so we thought it was incredibly powerful that the president and first lady attended the breakfast, spoke from a personal perspective about religion and how this bill from any religious perspective just is unacceptable,” Bromley said.
But according to the French news agency Agence France-Presse, Uganda’s Ethics Minister James Buturo responded angrily to Obama and Clinton for speaking out against the Uganda bill.
“Somebody should tell President Obama that the parliament is doing its legislative duty in the interest of the people of Uganda,” Buturo was quoted as saying. “We cannot tell the Senate what to do. We cannot tell Congress what to do. So why do they feel that they can tell us what we should do in the interest of our people?”
Tennessee
Charlie Kirk Act advances in Tenn.
Bill would limit protests, protects speakers opposing ‘transgender’ identities
The Tennessee legislature has passed Senate Bill 1741 / House Bill 1476, dubbed the “Charlie Kirk Act,” which, if signed by Republican Gov. Bill Lee, would reshape how public colleges and universities regulate speech on campus.
The measure targets all public higher education institutions and requires them to adopt a “free expression” policy modeled on the University of Chicago’s framework. That framework emphasizes that universities should not shield students from controversial or offensive ideas and requires state schools to formally embrace institutional neutrality — meaning they do not publicly take a stance on political or social issues.
Under the legislation, publicly funded schools cannot disinvite or cancel invited speakers based on their viewpoints or in response to protests from students or faculty. Student organizations, however — like Turning Point USA, an American nonprofit that advocates for conservative politics on high school, college, and university campuses, founded by Charlie Kirk, and often lack widely represented liberal counterparts — would retain broad authority to bring speakers to campus regardless of controversy.
The law includes broad protections for individuals and organizations expressing religious or ideological beliefs, including opposition to abortion, homosexuality, or transgender identity, regardless of whether those views are rooted in religious or secular beliefs. It further prohibits public institutions from retaliating against faculty for protected speech or scholarly work.
The bill, which has been hailed by supporters as an effort to “preserve campus free speech,” ironically also limits protest activity. Shouting down speakers, blocking sightlines, staging disruptive walkouts, or physically preventing entry to events are now considered “substantial interference” under the legislation, making those who engage in such actions subject to discipline.
Some of those disciplinary consequences include probation, suspension, and even expulsion for students, while faculty who protest in ways deemed to violate the policy could face unpaid suspensions and termination after repeated violations.
Supporters of the bill argue it strengthens free expression on campus. State Rep. Gino Bulso (R-Brentwood), the bill’s sponsor, said it reinforces a commitment to “civil and robust” debate at public universities.
“The Charlie Kirk Act creates critical safeguards for students and faculty and renews the idea that our higher education institutions should be centers of intellectual debate,” Bulso told Fox 17. “This legislation honors the legacy of Charlie Kirk by promoting thoughtful engagement and defending religious freedom.”
Critics, including Democratic lawmakers, have raised concerns that the legislation effectively elevates certain ideological viewpoints — particularly those tied to religious objections to LGBTQ identities — while exposing students and faculty to punishment for protest or dissent.
“It’s ironic that this body is talking about free speech when we had professors in Tennessee schools expelled and suspended when they did not mourn the death of Charlie Kirk — when they said that his statements were problematic and that the way he died did not redeem the way he lived,” state Rep. Justin Jones (D-Nashville) told WKRN.
Kirk, the right-wing activist and founder of Turning Point USA, for whom the bill is named, was assassinated in September 2025 at a public event at Utah Valley University. His legacy and rhetoric remain deeply polarizing, particularly among LGBTQ advocates, who have cited his history of anti-LGBTQ statements in opposing his campus appearances.
The bill now heads to Lee’s desk for his signature.
National
Demonstrators disrupt OMB director hearing over PEPFAR
Capitol Police arrested five protesters
A group of protesters interrupted Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought during his testimony before Congress on Wednesday.
Vought was at the Cannon House Office Building to give testimony to the House Budget Committee.
Committee Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) began the hearing by touting what he described as economic accomplishments of the Trump-Vance administration’s economic accomplishments. Ranking Member Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) disputed those claims in his opening statement.
Boyle went on to admonish Vought for not attending a committee hearing in the previous year.
Vought, the “Project 2025” architect, was invited to speak after Arrington and Boyle made their statements.
Shortly after Vought began reading his statement, Housing Works CEO Charles King stood up in the gallery and began shouting, “PEPFAR saves lives: spend the money!”
The U.S. Capitol Police moved quickly to escort King from the room. Other activists began chanting with King as they unfolded signs bearing a picture of Vought’s face and statements such as, “Vought’s cuts kill people with AIDS,” and “Protect PEPFAR from Vought.”
The group of HIV/AIDS activists included independent activists, former U.S. Agency for International Development and PEPFAR staff, members of Health GAP, Housing Works, and the Treatment Action Group. Six activists were escorted from the hearing and the U.S. Capitol Police detained five of them.
The HIV/AIDS treatment activists protested at the hearing in response to the dismantling of global health programs, including PEPFAR, a federally-funded program credited with saving millions of lives from HIV/AIDS, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.
“Russell Vought is directly responsible for illegally withholding Congressionally appropriated funds for PEPFAR and related global health initiative,” King said in a statement provided to the Washington Blade. “These funding disruptions have already contributed to preventable deaths and threaten to reverse decades of progress in the fight against HIV worldwide. Enough is enough. Congress must ensure Vought stops this deadly sabotage.”
National
HIV/AIDS group NMAC is ‘destabilized’ and in financial crisis: sources
Organization disputes allegations of mismanagement by new CEO
A statement sent to the Washington Blade by an anonymous source claiming to be a current staff member at NMAC, formerly known as the National Minority AIDS Council, alleges that the prominent HIV/AIDS advocacy organization is facing “a rapid and systemic collapse of leadership, governance, and ethical standards.”
The three-page detailed statement sent on April 4 by someone identifying himself only as “John Doe” includes multiple specific allegations that NMAC CEO Harold Phillips, who began his position in October 2025, “has destabilized the organization at every level,” including hiring nine new high-level appointees with salaries of $220,000 each who are performing “duplicative and unjustifiable roles.”
The Blade was able to corroborate some of the allegations by talking to two other knowledgable sources who spoke on condition of anonymity. Those sources said they had received the John Doe statement and believed many, if not most, of its allegations were accurate.
With a total staff of about 30 to 35 employees, the John Doe statement claims the high salaries of the nine new staff members have added to financial problems NMAC has been facing in recent years. It says that at least two NMAC staffers who raised concerns about Phillips’s actions were terminated on grounds of insubordination.
One of the two anonymous sources who spoke to the Blade said one of the dismissed staff members was considering filing a lawsuit against NMAC in response to the firing.
“An external firm was recently brought in to assess the organizational health,” the John Doe statement to the Blade says. “The findings were staggering — more than 50% of staff reported they are actively seeking employment elsewhere,” it says.
The Blade sent the John Doe statement to NMAC this week and asked for a response to the allegations.
NMAC spokesperson Jennifer Moore Phillips, who serves as chief strategy officer and who is not related to Harold Phillips, sent the Blade a short statement calling the John Doe allegations “false and purposefully misleading,” but which did not comment on each of the specific allegations.
“A recent anonymous letter containing unfounded allegations about NMAC makes claims that are simply false and purposefully misleading,” the NMAC statement says. “Evidenced by our new strategic plan and recent successful Biomedical HIV Prevention Summit in Chicago, NMAC’s new leadership is laser focused on delivering on our mission serving the HIV community with renewed energy and vision,” the statement concludes.
The Biomedical HIV Prevention Summit referred to in the statement, which took place in Chicago April 8-10 of this year, is one of the two largest HIV/AIDS related conferences that NMAC organizes each year. Jennifer Phillips said more than 1,400 people attended the event.
The largest NMAC event, the United States Conference on HIV/AIDS, the most recent of which was held in D.C. Sept. 4-7, drew more than 2,400 participants and was hailed by AIDS activists as a highly successful gathering of a diverse group of experts seeking to push for the end to the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
One of the keynote speakers at that conference was Paul Kawata, who served as executive director and CEO of NMAC for 36 years and who delivered his farewell address at the conference following the announcement that he would retire on Oct. 7, 2025.
Many of the conference speakers praised Kawata, who became NMAC’s leader two years after its founding in 1987, as the leading force behind its growth and evolution into one of the nation’s leading HIV/AIDS advocacy organizations with a special outreach to people of color.
It was at that time that Harold Phillips, who served as director of the White House Office of AIDS Policy under then-President Joe Biden and who later joined NMAC as deputy director before the NMAC board named him Kawata’s successor as CEO, emerged as NMAC’s next leader.
“The Board has exuberantly elected Harold Phillips as our new CEO,” said Lance Toma, chair of the NMAC Board of Directors at the time Phillips’s appointment was announced. “In this unprecedented moment, there is no one more strategically positioned and experienced to lead our movement through what we know will be some of the most tumultuous and complicated times ahead,” the statement said.
The John Doe statement raising questions about Phillips’s actions and leadership says NMAC staff members formally appealed to the board of directors to intervene.
“The Board has remained silent, while Harold arrogantly told the staff that ‘the board has my back,’” the statement says.
The Blade has also attempted to reach out to Kawata by email for comment on how he feels NMAC is doing six months after his retirement. As of April 14, Kawata had not responded to the Blade’s inquiry.
According to the John Doe statement, NMAC officials have recently “sought external financial rescue,” including a visit by an NMAC official to California to request assistance from the pharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences. “Without such intervention, layoffs seem imminent,” the statement says.
“This is not a functioning nonprofit,” the John Doe statement concludes. “It is an organization in crisis – bleeding resources, hemorrhaging staff, and operating without transparency, accountability, or governance,” it says, adding, “The communities NMAC serves, the donors who fund its mission, and the public at large deserve to know what is happening behind closed doors.”
By contrast, the NMAC website describes the organization as a highly functioning nonprofit continuing to lead the fight against HIV/AIDS.
“Launched in 1987 during the early years of the HIV/AIDS crisis in the United States, NMAC is a national HIV organization that offers capacity building, leadership development, policy education, and public engagement to end the HIV epidemic among communities most impacted in the United States,” a statement on the NMAC website says.
“In 2026, we mark 45 years of the HIV movement,” the statement adds. “NMAC continues to pivot to center the needs of people of color impacted by HIV by responding to political challenges that threaten federal funding and programs that have provided an essential survival safety net,” it says. “Simultaneously, as HIV treatment allows people to age with HIV, our whole-person approach extends to achieving optimal quality of life beyond attaining viral suppression.”
In its most recent action, NMAC issued a detailed press release on April 14 criticizing President Donald Trump’s proposed fiscal year 2027 budget provisions that call for cutting more than $1.5 billion in HIV prevention, substance use, housing and other programs. The release provides details on how the cuts would negatively impact important HIV prevention programs and urges Congress to reject the proposed cuts.
Grindr to host first-ever White House Correspondents’ Dinner party
Charlie Kirk Act advances in Tenn.
Belarusian president signs bill to allow LGBTQ rights crackdown
‘The Pitt’ stars discuss what season two gets right about queer representation
My family voted for Trump and I cut off contact
Trump budget targets ‘gender extremism’
Viktor Orbán ousted in Hungarian elections
How to navigate shifting tenant expectations
Court orders Pride flag to return to Stonewall
