National
Questions surround Lieberman’s ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal bill
U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (DC Agenda photo by Michael Key)
The announcement that Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) would introduce “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal legislation next week in the U.S. Senate was hailed by many opponents of the law as an important step toward undoing the nation’s ban on service by open gays and lesbians.
But some are questioning the wisdom of Lieberman introducing a standalone bill when “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal can be accomplished through other methods.
According to an internal memo obtained by DC Agenda, the Human Rights Campaign is taking credit for landing Lieberman as the champion for repeal in the Senate.
“Additionally, working with the White House and Senate leadership, HRC has secured Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) as the Senate lead sponsor — someone who not only sits on the Armed Services Committee, but also brings a centrist approach and net to this issue,” says the memo.
The HRC memo also addresses the strategy of winning repeal via the defense authorization bill and notes particular concern about where members of the Senate Armed Services Committee stand on the issue.
“Including [repeal] in the base [Department of Defense] authorization bill will require a vote in the Senate Armed Services Committee,” says the memo. “Only one Republican on the committee, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), is likely to support repeal. In addition, a number of key Democrats do not currently support repeal: Sens. Robert Byrd (D-WV), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Jim Webb (D-VA). Securing a minimum of two of these five Democrats is essential. Nelson, Bayh and Webb are the three best prospects.”
The memo also says that convincing House members from New Jersey and Texas to sign on in support will be crucial for House passage of the bill.
Last month, a group of LGBT advocates held a secret strategy meeting related to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” A source who attended the meeting, speaking to DC Agenda on condition of anonymity, questioned why HRC pursued the Lieberman-led path for repeal when the consensus among many lobbyists is that including repeal as part of the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill is the best route.
“As for Lieberman, I would just say I applaud that he did it because there has not been a bill in the Senate and now we can start asking people to sign on and figure out where people are, but I’m not sure that it’s not just a diversion tactic to show that HRC’s done something,” the activist said.
In a statement, Allison Herwitt, HRC’s legislative director, said her organization has been working with Lieberman for months about introducing standalone legislation because “it’s an important educational and organizing tool.”
“It helps constituents lobby their senators to co-sponsor and publicly support repeal,” she said. “Introduction of a bill in no way precludes strategy involving the Defense Department Authorization bill.”
Kevin Nix, spokesperson for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said that HRC was not alone in pursuing Lieberman as lead sponsor of repeal legislation and noted that his organization has worked with the senator for some time.
“We’ve been working with Lieberman for, I think, years — just like HRC has been, as well,” he said.
Nix said despite the imminent introduction of a standalone “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal bill, advancement of the effort as part of the upcoming defense authorization bill is “absolutely” the best way to go.
“Obviously, it’s historic,” he said. “We welcome all of this stuff with Lieberman, and introducing a standalone bill is hugely significant, but if we’re going to get legislative repeal this year, then the repeal language needs to be in the authorization bill, and we’ll be working with [Senate Armed Services Committee] Chairman [Carl] Levin to make sure the votes are there.”
In a statement, Lieberman said he’d proudly sponsor “the important effort to enable patriotic gay Americans to defend our national security and our founding values of freedom and opportunity.”
“To exclude one group of Americans from serving in the armed forces is contrary to our fundamental principles as outlined in the Declaration of Independence and weakens our defenses by denying our military the service of a large group of Americans who can help our cause,” he said.
News of Lieberman’s bill was first reported by Jamie Kirchick in the New York Daily News. Several important details about Lieberman’s upcoming legislation weren’t immediately revealed this week, though, such as whether any Republican senators have signed on as co-sponsors. It’s also unknown whether the legislation will call for the same timeline for repeal provided in the House legislation sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.).
Servicemembers United, a gay veterans group, is calling for a longer implementation time that would allow 18 months for the Pentagon to first complete its expected yearlong study of implementing repeal.
Lane Hudson, a D.C.-based gay activist, said the “devil will be in the details” for Lieberman’s bill and that he’s hoping the senator incorporates the timeline advocated by Servicemembers United.
“As long as Lieberman is going to introduce viable legislation, I think he’s an excellent person to be the chief sponsor,” Hudson said. “He’s got a great relationship with the Blue Dogs in the Senate caucus, and he’s probably the best Democrat to keep [Republican U.S. Sen.] John McCain from fiercely opposing repeal.”
National
Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information
Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources
Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.
“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.
“These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.
It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”
The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question.
A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit.
While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management.
The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.
Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.
“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.
“Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says.
Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”
Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”
Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.
“As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from the Washington Blade.
“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said.
The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”
It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”
The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society.
The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.
While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”
“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.
The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.
Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.
The White House
Trump travels to Middle East countries with death penalty for homosexuality
President traveled to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates
Homosexuality remains punishable by death in two of the three Middle East countries that President Donald Trump visited last week.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are among the handful of countries in which anyone found guilty of engaging in consensual same-sex sexual relations could face the death penalty.
Trump was in Saudi Arabia from May 13-14. He traveled to Qatar on May 14.
“The law prohibited consensual same-sex sexual conduct between men but did not explicitly prohibit same-sex sexual relations between women,” notes the State Department’s 2023 human rights report, referring specifically to Qatar’s criminalization law. “The law was not systematically enforced. A man convicted of having consensual same-sex sexual relations could receive a sentence of seven years in prison. Under sharia, homosexuality was punishable by death; there were no reports of executions for this reason.”
Trump on May 15 arrived in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates.
The State Department’s 2023 human rights report notes the “penalty for individuals who engaged in ‘consensual sodomy with a man'” in the country “was a minimum prison sentence of six months if the individual’s partner or guardian filed a complaint.”
“There were no known reports of arrests or prosecutions for consensual same-sex sexual conduct. LGBTQI+ identity, real or perceived, could be deemed an act against ‘decency or public morality,’ but there were no reports during the year of persons prosecuted under these provisions,” reads the report.
The report notes Emirati law also criminalizes “men who dressed as women or entered a place designated for women while ‘disguised’ as a woman.” Anyone found guilty could face up to a year in prison and a fine of up to 10,000 dirhams ($2,722.60.)
Trump returned to the U.S. on May 16.
The White House notes Trump during the trip secured more than $2 trillion “in investment agreements with Middle Eastern nations ($200 billion with the United Arab Emirates, $600 billion with Saudi Arabia, and $1.2 trillion with Qatar) for a more safe and prosperous future.”
Former President Joe Biden traveled to Saudi Arabia in 2022.
Saudi Arabia is scheduled to host the 2034 World Cup. The 2022 World Cup took place in Qatar.
Gerry Connolly dies at 75 after battle with esophageal cancer
WorldPride begins — let’s hope it ends well
LGBTQ leaders celebrate Frank Kameny’s 100th birthday at Supreme Court
Blade’s Lou Chibbaro subject of new film premiering May 29
