National
Service chiefs' opposition could impair 'Don't Ask' repeal
As the defense budget hearings on Capitol Hill come to a close, the service chiefs’ opposition to repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before the Pentagon study is complete — as well as the effect their views could have on lawmakers — has become clear.
Discussion of the service chiefs’ positions peaked Thursday during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the Air Force budget. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told lawmakers he backed the study of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” underway in the Pentagon, but not legislative action at this time to change the law.
Schwartz said repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” shouldn’t undermine the effectiveness of the armed forces and cautioned lawmakers against taking legislative now.
“This is not the time to perturb the force that is stretched by combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and important missions elsewhere without due deliberation,” he said.
Schwartz also expressed concern regarding “inadequate current scholarship on this issue” and “insufficient current survey data on our airmen and their families.” He also said he wants to make sure Air Force standards continue to apply to airmen in the event of any “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
“[Defense] Secretary [Robert] Gates’ effort to carefully evaluate and study this issue is obviously essential to our getting to the right spot on this,” Schwartz said.
The Air Force chief’s comments mean the chiefs for all four services are urging Congress to refrain from legislative action at this time on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway voiced their opposition in previous testimony.
Standing in contrast to their remarks is testimony given last month by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen, who said he personally believes gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military.
The service chiefs’ views also are contrary to the position of Air Force Secretary Michael Donley, who endorsed both the review and repeal during Thursday’s hearing.
Donley said he supports the review currently underway at the Pentagon. Noting he was involved in the Defense Department when “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was instituted in 1993, Donley said the process put forward by Gates “has put us in a much better situation than we were in 1993.”
Pressed further by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) on whether he supports repeal at this time, Donley replied, “I do.”
Despite these views, the service chiefs’ viewpoints could influence lawmakers who currently are on the fence on voting for either full repeal or a legislative moratorium.
After the hearing, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) told DC Agenda he believes the service chiefs’ opposition would drive how lawmakers would vote on either legislative item, but couldn’t say how much.
“I think it will have some impact,” he said. “I can’t gauge the amount.”
And opponents of repeal are emphasizing the service chiefs’ position in their attempt to keep “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in place.
During the hearing, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a leading opponent of repeal in the Senate, seized on Schwartz’ remarks as evidence that military leaders don’t want Congress to change the law.
“This idea out there that’s being pushed that the service chiefs somehow support — [are] supporting a campaign promise made by the president of the United States is obviously not true,” McCain said.
Asked by McCain whether passing a moratorium “would be foolish,” Schwartz replied, “I think, sir, that any interim change” would not be appropriate.
McCain said he wanted to “congratulate” the service chiefs for coming out in opposition to both repeal and a moratorium at this time.
“Clearly, a moratorium would be a change in the policy — just a backdoor way of doing it,” he said.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), the sponsor of repeal legislation in the Senate, attempted to allay Schwartz’s concerns by saying the Air Force standard of conduct would remain even if “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” were overturned.
“There must be an understanding that … standards of conduct of Air Force members, and that of members of other services, cannot be altered in any way if ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is repealed,” he said. “We would be eliminating one policy, but then everybody in the military has to live by those standards.”
Lieberman asked Schwartz whether he believes that service members should be discharged solely because of their sexual orientation.
“Sir, I have to tell you that the answer to that question is more complex than ‘yes’ and ‘no,’” Schwartz said. “It is dependent on the consequences given a change a policy.”
In a statement, Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, rebuked Schwartz for suggesting repealing the ban on open service could in any way be a detriment to the armed forces.
“Sens. Lieberman and Levin got it right when they pointed out that forces were not disturbed when bans were lifted in 24 countries, and that U.S. troops have been serving alongside gays and lesbians from other countries in Iraq and Afghanistan, without incident,” Sarvis said. “We respectfully remind all the chiefs that many U.S. service members are openly gay while serving, again without reported problems.”
A number of senators on the committee who back repeal urged Schwartz to consider additional information in making a decision on whether to finally support repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) urged Schwartz to recall the discrimination that blacks and women once faced in the military.
“We’ve had an African-American who’s chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” Burris said. “Now, under this program, if we had started studying and waiting, Colin Powell … probably never would’ve made it because of the delays and the understanding.”
Levin urged Schwartz to speak with airmen who’ve been discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to help his understanding of the issue.
“While you’re looking and determining whether there’s any impact to changing the policy, also give some thought to unfairness that would be involved in discharging people now solely for sexual orientation while we’re considering whether to end this policy,” Levin said.
New York
Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced
One of the victims, John Umberger, was D.C. political consultant
A New York judge on Wednesday sentenced three men convicted of killing a D.C. political consultant and another man who they targeted at gay bars in Manhattan.
NBC New York notes a jury in February convicted Jayqwan Hamilton, Jacob Barroso, and Robert DeMaio of murder, robbery, and conspiracy in relation to druggings and robberies that targeted gay bars in Manhattan from March 2021 to June 2022.
John Umberger, a 33-year-old political consultant from D.C., and Julio Ramirez, a 25-year-old social worker, died. Prosecutors said Hamilton, Barroso, and DeMaio targeted three other men at gay bars.
The jury convicted Hamilton and DeMaio of murdering Umberger. State Supreme Court Judge Felicia Mennin sentenced Hamilton and DeMaio to 40 years to life in prison.
Barroso, who was convicted of killing Ramirez, received a 20 years to life sentence.
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.
Adams Morgan queer bar broken into and vandalized
‘Things Like This’ embraces formula and plus-size visibility
Calendar: May 23-29
Comings & Goings
New doc chronicles gay hero’s journey from rape to forgiveness
Looking back at 50 years of Pride in D.C
WorldPride events round-up
Wes Moore signs HIV decriminalization bill
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
