National
Murphy confident Congress will overturn ‘Don’t Ask’ this year
The sponsor of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal legislation in the U.S. House is confident Congress will overturn the law this year — even as other lawmakers have indicated repeal may not happen until later.
In an interview with DC Agenda Tuesday, Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) said he believed lawmakers would overturn this year the 1993 statute preventing gays, lesbians and bisexuals from serving openly in the U.S. military and that he’s expecting Congress to take up the issue “legislatively in the next couple months.”
Murphy said the upcoming defense authorization bill could be a vehicle for passing repeal legislation. He noted that passage as part of defense authorization would give the Pentagon time to complete the study currently underway on the law.
“We usually don’t pass that into law until October of that year,” Murphy said. “October is about seven months away. That’s plenty of time for the folks to get ready to just put out to the troops that you need to respect not just one another’s race, one another creed, but also one another’s sexual orientation.”
Still, Murphy said defense authorization was just one way that Congress could enact repeal. Other options remain available.
“I think that’s one of the vehicles moving forward, and so I anticipate getting this done this year,” he said.
Murphy said momentum has been building toward repeal in the last couple months, leading to a position where Congress can overturn the 1993 law. In particular, Murphy cited the testimony Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen gave last month in support of ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“Now is the time when senior leadership in our military who are responsible to have the best policies for our young men and women who serve the country are calling for the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ — as has our commander-in-chief,” Murphy said. “So now Congress needs to get off the sidelines and get this done this year.”
Murphy said the growing number of lawmakers who have expressed support for repeal also is contributing to the momentum.
Last month, Murphy picked up another co-sponsor for repeal legislation in the House, Rep. Peter Visclosky (D-Ind.), bringing the total number of co-sponsors for the Military Readiness Enhancement Act to 188. Murphy said he’s received commitments from about two dozen other House members that they’d vote in favor of the bill should it come to a floor vote, which would bring the votes close to the 218 needed for passage.
Murphy also expressed enthusiasm for plans by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) to soon introduce companion legislation in the Senate and said the independent senator should be able to bring Democrats and Republicans on board.
“I know he’s committed to repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’“ Murphy said. “I know he knows the best thing for our military, and frankly, when it comes to foreign policy, I think he’s been one of the leaders in the Senate.”
Murphy said he’s expecting Lieberman’s bill to be similar to his in terms of doing away with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and providing for a non-discrimination policy. But Murphy said he’s unsure about other details, such as whether Lieberman’s bill will have a longer implementation time to allow the Pentagon to complete its study on the law.
The lawmaker is not alone in expecting that Congress will repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year. On Saturday, Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said at a fundraising dinner in Raleigh, N.C., that 2010 would be the year that advocates would do away with the ban on open service in the military.
Despite these expectations, others have expressed doubt about whether Congress will repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year.
Media reports have indicated the White House hasn’t provided Congress a clear path forward on proceeding with repeal. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) recently told DC Agenda the White House has been “muddled” on the issue and that he’s hoping the White House makes the path clear for Congress in coming weeks.
But Murphy said the White House has been crystal clear in that Congress should work to do away with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“The commander-in-chief has said that he wants the Congress to put a bill on his desk to finally repeal this harmful policy that has hurt our national security and has cost the American taxpayer $1.3 billion,” Murphy said.
Another voice of doubt comes from Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who said he’s skeptical the votes are there to repeal the law banning open service.
Levin has been floating the idea of a legislative moratorium on discharges, which he said lawmakers might more likely support because it doesn’t predetermine the outcome of the study currently underway at the Pentagon.
But Murphy called a moratorium “half-stepping” and said that full repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is still the way to go.
“This is a time when we need to make sure that we refocus our efforts on capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda,” Murphy said. “Now is not the time to have Chapter 15 investigations and hearing if someone is gay or straight in our military.”
Along with many other Democratic lawmakers, Murphy could face a difficult re-election campaign this fall. A number of Republicans have lined up to challenge the lawmaker, including Mike Fitzpatrick, the former House member whom Murphy ousted in 2006 by taking 50.3 percent of the vote.
Asked whether his public support for repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was having an impact on his constituents’ view of him, Murphy dismissed such worries about his re-election prospects.
“I wasn’t elected to worry about re-election,” he said. “I was elected to make sure that I’m fighting for the families of our military and to keep our country and our economy strong, and I’m doing everything in my power to make good on that special trust and confidence.”
Federal Government
Markwayne Mullin confirmed as next DHS secretary
Okla. senator to succeed Kristi Noem
The U.S. Senate confirmed Markwayne Mullin as the next secretary of Homeland Security on Monday, as the agency continues to grapple with what lawmakers have described as a “never-ending” funding standoff, with Democrats attempting to withhold funding from one of the nation’s largest and most costly agencies.
Mullin — a Republican senator from Oklahoma, former mixed martial arts fighter, and plumbing business owner — was confirmed in a 54–45 vote. Two Democrats — U.S. Sens. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) — sided with Republicans in supporting his confirmation.
The new agency head is expected to follow the policy direction set by President Donald Trump, emphasizing stricter immigration enforcement. This includes proposals to support immigration agents at polling sites and to cut funding to so-called “sanctuary cities.”
Mullin replaces Kristi Noem, who was fired earlier this month following a widely scrutinized 2-day congressional hearing on Capitol Hill.
During the hearing, Noem faced intense questioning over her response to several crises, including the fatal shooting of two American citizens in Minneapolis by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, a $220 million border security advertising campaign that featured her on horseback near Mount Rushmore amid one of the largest federal workforce reductions in U.S. history, and the federal response to major natural disasters such as the July 2025 Texas floods and Hurricane Helene in 2024.
Noem had previously drawn criticism for a series of policy decisions in South Dakota that broadly focused on restricting the rights of LGBTQ individuals. In 2023, she signed House Bill 1080, banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors. She also signed legislation and executive orders restricting trans athletes’ participation in women’s sports, as well as the state’s “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” which critics argued enabled discrimination against LGBTQ individuals. Additionally, the state canceled contracts related to LGBTQ support services — including suicide prevention and health care navigation programs‚ and later agreed to a $300,000 settlement with trans advocacy group, The Transformation Project.
Despite her removal from DHS, Noem will remain in the Trump-Vance administration as a special envoy for the “Shield of the Americas,” an initiative aimed at promoting U.S. influence in the Western Hemisphere, including efforts to counter cartel networks, reduce Chinese influence, and manage migration.
The new head of DHS has served in Congress since 2013, in both houses of the federal legislature. While in the Senate and a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, Mullin has been a vocal critic of policies aimed at expanding LGBTQ inclusion. He led a group of lawmakers in urging the Administration for Community Living to reverse a rule requiring states to prioritize Older Americans Act services based on sexual orientation and gender identity, arguing the policy 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 also among the 147 Republicans who voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election results despite no evidence of widespread fraud, and was present in the U.S. House of Representatives chamber on Jan. 6.
Federal Government
Protesters say SAVE Act targets voters, transgender youth
Bill described as ‘Jim Crow 2.0’
Members of Congress, advocates, and people from across the country gathered outside the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday to protest proposed federal legislation that voting rights activists have deemed “Jim Crow 2.0.”
The 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.
President Donald Trump has also pushed for the proposed legislation to include a section that would ban gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, even with parental consent, and prohibit trans people from participating in school or professional sports consistent with their gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth.
In addition to changing voter registration requirements, the bill would limit acceptable forms of identification to documents such as a birth certificate or passport — records that the Brennan Center for Justice estimates more than 21 million Americans do not have — effectively restricting access to the ballot. It would also ban online voter registration, DMV voter registration efforts, and mail-in voter registration.
A 2021 investigation by the Associated Press found that fewer than 475 people voted illegally or improperly, a tiny fraction of the estimated 160 million Americans who voted in the 2020 election.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) spoke at the event.
“It will kick millions of American citizens off the rolls. And they don’t even require you to be told,” the highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate told protesters and reporters outside the Capitol. “If this law passes — and it won’t — you’re gonna show up in November … and they’ll say… sorry, you’re no longer on the voting rolls.”
He, like many other speakers, emphasized the bill in the context of American history, pointing to what he described as its racist roots and its impact on Black and brown Americans.
“I have called this act, over and over again, Jim Crow 2.0 … because they know it’s the truth.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was one of the lawmakers leading opposition to the legislation and spoke at the rally.
“It’s not just voting rights that are on the line — our democracy is on the line,” the California lawmaker said. “It’s not a voter I.D. bill. It’s a bait and switch bill.”
He added historical context, noting the significance of voting rights legislation passed more than 60 years ago. In 1965, Alabama civil rights activists marched to protest barriers to voter registration. Alabama state troopers violently attacked peaceful demonstrators at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, using tear gas, clubs, and whips against more than 500 — mostly Black — protesters.
“61 years ago — not to the day — but this week, President Lyndon Johnson came to the Capitol and addressed a joint session of Congress in the wake of Bloody Sunday and pushed Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act,” Padilla said. “61 years later, Donald Trump and this Republican majority wants to take us backwards. We’re not gonna let that happen.”
U.S. Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) also spoke, emphasizing that he views the effort as a Republican-led and Trump-backed attempt to restrict voting access, particularly among Black, brown, and predominantly Democratic communities.
“President Trump told Republicans when they were meeting behind closed doors that ‘The SAVE Act will guarantee Republicans win the midterms and ensure they do not lose an election for 50 years,’” Luján said. “The first time I think Donald Trump’s been honest … This voter suppression bill is only that. Taking away vote by mail? I hope my Republican colleagues from states that voted for Donald Trump or where vote by mail is popular have the courage and the backbone to stand up and say no to this nonsense, because their constituents are going to push back.”
U.S. Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) also spoke.
“Our Republican colleagues have already cut Medicaid, Medicare, people don’t know how they’re gonna be able to afford energy,” she said, providing context for the broader political moment. “We’re in the middle of a war that they can’t even get straight while we’re in it and don’t have a way to get out of it. And we are now faced with defending our democracy?”
She then showed the crowd something that she said has been with her throughout her political journey in Washington.
“I brought with me something that I carried on the day that I was sworn into the House of Representatives when I was elected in 2016, and I carried it with me on the day that I was sworn in as United States senator. And I also carried it with me when I was trapped up in the gallery on Jan. 6 and all I could think to do was pray … This document allowed my great great great grandfather, who had been enslaved in Georgia, to have the right to vote. We took this and turned it into a scarf. It is the returns of qualified voters and reconstruction code from 1867. This is my proof of what we’ve been through. This is also our inspiration.”
“I got to travel between the Edmund Pettus Bridge two times. And even as I thought about this moment, I recognized that while we wish we weren’t in it, while we don’t know why we’re in it, I do know we were made for it … So I came today to tell you that, um, just like the leader said, that he calls it Jim Crow 2.0. I call it Jim Crow 2.NO.”
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy organization in the U.S., also spoke, highlighting the impact of the bill’s proposed provisions affecting trans people.
“This bill is not about saving America. This bill is about stealing an election. This bill is about suppressing voters,” Robinson said. “This bill not only tries to disenfranchise voters that deserve their right to vote, it also tries to criminalize trans kids and their families … It tries to criminalize doctors providing medically necessary care for our trans youth.”
The SAVE Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Feb. 11 but has not yet been considered in the U.S. Senate.
Idaho
Idaho advances bill to restrict bathroom access for transgender residents
HB 752 passed in state House of Representatives on Monday
The Idaho House of Representatives passed House Bill 752 on Monday, a measure that would make it a crime for a person to use a bathroom other than the one designated for their “biological sex.”
The story was first reported by the Idaho Capitol Sun after the bill cleared the House.
House Bill 752 would make it a criminal offense — either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the number of prior offenses — for individuals who “knowingly and willfully” enter a bathroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex.
The bill would apply to public buildings, including government-owned spaces, and places of “public accommodation,” a category that includes private businesses.
According to the bill’s text, it would “prohibit a person from entering a restroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex; provide a penalty; provide exceptions; define terms; and declare an emergency and provide an effective date.”
A first offense would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison. A second or subsequent offense within five years would be a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.
The bill passed in a 54–15 vote on Monday. Six Republicans broke with their party’s majority to join nine Democrats in opposing the measure.
The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Cornel Rasor, a Republican from Sagle near the Washington-Idaho border, told House lawmakers that the legislation is intended to protect women and girls.
“It prevents discomfort and voyeurism escalation and assaults, while preserving single-user options and narrow exceptions so no one is denied access for emergency aid,” Rasor said.
State Rep. Chris Mathias, a Democrat from Boise, disagreed, arguing that the legislation would unfairly target transgender Idahoans.
“The truth of the matter is — and I know a lot of people don’t want to say it — but forcing people who don’t look like the sex they were assigned at birth, or transgender folks, to use other people’s bathrooms is going to put a lot of people in danger,” Mathias said.
The Idaho American Civil Liberties Union made a statement about the bill following its passage.
“Idaho lawmakers continue pushing these harmful, invasive bathroom laws, yet cannot present credible evidence that transgender people using gender-aligned bathrooms threaten public safety,” the Idaho ACLU said. “The bill does nothing to address real criminal acts, such as sexual assault or voyeurism, and disregards concerns from law enforcement about the burden enforcement would place on local resources.”
In addition to human rights advocates, who have spoken out against similar bills advancing in state legislatures across the country, Idaho law enforcement groups have also opposed the measure. They argue that the way the legislation is written would “pose significant practical enforcement challenges,” noting that officers are tasked with maintaining public safety — not conducting gender checks or policing bathroom access.
During a committee hearing last week, law enforcement representatives and several trans Idahoans testified that the bill would make many residents less safe.
“Officers responding to a complaint would be placed in the difficult position of determining an individual’s biological sex in order to enforce the statute,” Idaho Fraternal Order of Police President Bryan Lovell wrote. “In many circumstances, there is no clear or reasonable way for officers to make that determination without engaging in questioning or investigative actions that could be viewed as invasive and inappropriate.”
The Idaho Sheriffs’ Association requested that lawmakers amend the bill to require that individuals be given an opportunity to leave a bathroom immediately before facing potential prosecution.
The bill now heads to the Idaho Senate for consideration. To become law, it must pass both chambers and avoid a veto from the governor.
A separate bathroom bill, House Bill 607, which would be enforced through civil lawsuits, passed the House last month but has not yet received a committee hearing in the Senate.
Gay priest credited with boosting church support for LGBTQ Catholics
HRC to host National Rainbow Seder
Markwayne Mullin confirmed as next DHS secretary
Gay man murdered in Va.
Trans Day of Visibility events planned
Queer American in Israel discusses Iran war’s impact
Calendar: March 21-26
‘How We Survived’ panel set for March 25
Small is beautiful: subcompact SUVs
