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.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
27 states have passed laws limiting participation in athletics programs
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear two cases involving transgender youth challenging bans prohibiting them from participating in school sports.
In Little v. Hecox, plaintiffs represented by the ACLU, Legal Voice, and the law firm Cooley are challenging Idaho’s 2020 ban, which requires sex testing to adjudicate questions of an athlete’s eligibility.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described the process in a 2023 decision halting the policy’s enforcement pending an outcome in the litigation. The “sex dispute verification process, whereby any individual can ‘dispute’ the sex of any female student athlete in the state of Idaho,” the court wrote, would “require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex, including gynecological exams.”
In West Virginia v. B.P.J., Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, and Cooley are representing a trans middle school student challenging the Mountain State’s 2021 ban on trans athletes.
The plaintiff was participating in cross country when the law was passed, taking puberty blockers that would have significantly reduced the chances that she could have a physiological advantage over cisgender peers.
“Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project. “Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do — to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” Block said.
He added, “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”
“Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. “Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.”
Borelli continued, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.”
Shortly after taking control of both legislative chambers, Republican members of Congress tried — unsuccessfully — to pass a national ban like those now enforced in 27 states since 2020.
Federal Government
UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House
University agreed to ban trans women from women’s sports teams
In a settlement with the Trump-Vance administration announced on Tuesday, the University of Pennsylvania will ban transgender athletes from competing and erase swimming records set by transgender former student Lia Thomas.
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found the university in violation of Title IX, the federal rights law barring sex based discrimination in educational institutions, by “permitting males to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities.”
The statement issued by University of Pennsylvania President J. Larry Jameson highlighted how the law’s interpretation was changed substantially under President Donald Trump’s second term.
“The Department of Education OCR investigated the participation of one transgender athlete on the women’s swimming team three years ago, during the 2021-2022 swim season,” he wrote. “At that time, Penn was in compliance with NCAA eligibility rules and Title IX as then interpreted.”
Jameson continued, “Penn has always followed — and continues to follow — Title IX and the applicable policy of the NCAA regarding transgender athletes. NCAA eligibility rules changed in February 2025 with Executive Orders 14168 and 14201 and Penn will continue to adhere to these new rules.”
Writing that “we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules” in place while Thomas was allowed to compete, the university president added, “We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”
“Today’s resolution agreement with UPenn is yet another example of the Trump effect in action,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the university for future generations of female athletes.”
Under former President Joe Biden, the department’s Office of Civil Rights sought to protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in education, bringing investigations and enforcement actions in cases where school officials might, for example, require trans students to use restrooms and facilities consistent with their birth sex or fail to respond to peer harassment over their gender identity.
Much of the legal reasoning behind the Biden-Harris administration’s positions extended from the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that sex-based discrimination includes that which is based on sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII rules covering employment practices.
The Trump-Vance administration last week put the state of California on notice that its trans athlete policies were, or once were, in violation of Title IX, which comes amid the ongoing battle with Maine over the same issue.
New York
Two teens shot steps from Stonewall Inn after NYC Pride parade
One of the victims remains in critical condition
On Sunday night, following the annual NYC Pride March, two girls were shot in Sheridan Square, feet away from the historic Stonewall Inn.
According to an NYPD report, the two girls, aged 16 and 17, were shot around 10:15 p.m. as Pride festivities began to wind down. The 16-year-old was struck in the head and, according to police sources, is said to be in critical condition, while the 17-year-old was said to be in stable condition.
The Washington Blade confirmed with the NYPD the details from the police reports and learned no arrests had been made as of noon Monday.
The shooting took place in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, mere feet away from the most famous gay bar in the city — if not the world — the Stonewall Inn. Earlier that day, hundreds of thousands of people marched down Christopher Street to celebrate 55 years of LGBTQ people standing up for their rights.
In June 1969, after police raided the Stonewall Inn, members of the LGBTQ community pushed back, sparking what became known as the Stonewall riots. Over the course of two days, LGBTQ New Yorkers protested the discriminatory policing of queer spaces across the city and mobilized to speak out — and throw bottles if need be — at officers attempting to suppress their existence.
The following year, LGBTQ people returned to the Stonewall Inn and marched through the same streets where queer New Yorkers had been arrested, marking the first “Gay Pride March” in history and declaring that LGBTQ people were not going anywhere.
New York State Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, whose district includes Greenwich Village, took to social media to comment on the shooting.
“After decades of peaceful Pride celebrations — this year gun fire and two people shot near the Stonewall Inn is a reminder that gun violence is everywhere,” the lesbian lawmaker said on X. “Guns are a problem despite the NRA BS.”
ICC issues arrest warrants for Taliban leaders over persecution of LGBTQ people, women
LGBTQ voters divided in Ward 8 special election
#JusticiaParaKarla: una lucha por el derecho a la identidad en El Salvador
Defying trends, new LGBTQ center opens in rural Winchester, Va.
Female writers arrested in Chinese crackdown on gay erotic fiction
Two new documentaries highlight trans history
Celebrate the power of homeownership this Fourth of July
‘A Wrinkle in Time’ comes to Arena Stage
Lesbian feminist becomes South African MP
