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. Federal Courts
Federal judge hears case that challenges Trump passport executive order
State Department no longer issues passports with ‘X’ gender markers

A federal judge in Boston on Tuesday heard oral arguments in a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s executive order that bans the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers.
Ashton Orr, Zaya Perysian, Sawyer Soe, Chastain Anderson, Drew Hall, Bella Boe, and Reid Solomon-Lane are the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Massachusetts, and the private law firm Covington & Burling LPP filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The lawsuit names Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio as defendants.
Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken in June 2021 announced the State Department would begin to issue gender-neutral passports and documents for American citizens who were born overseas.
Dana Zzyym, an intersex U.S. Navy veteran who identifies as nonbinary, in 2015 filed a federal lawsuit against the State Department after it denied their application for a passport with an “X” gender marker. Zzyym in October 2021 received the first gender-neutral American passport.
The State Department policy took effect on April 11, 2022.
Trump signed the executive order that overturned it shortly after he took office. Rubio later directed State Department personnel to “suspend any application requesting an ‘X’ sex marker and do not take any further action pending additional guidance from the department.”
“Even before Donald Trump was inaugurated, it was clear to me he wanted to control the lives and identities of transgender people like myself,” said Orr, a transgender man who lives in West Virginia, in a press release the ACLU released before U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick heard the case. “Like many others, I rushed to update my passport hoping I could get an accurate version. Now, the State Department has suspended my application and withheld all my documents from me, including my passport, my birth certificate, and even my marriage license.”
Li Nowlin-Sohl, a staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project, described the Trump-Vance administration’s passport policy as “openly discriminatory and animated by a transparent desire to drive transgender people out of public life altogether.”
Germany, Denmark, Finland, and the Netherlands are among the countries that have issued travel advisories for trans and nonbinary people who plan to visit the U.S.
WorldPride is scheduled to take place in D.C. from May 17-June 8. InterPride, the organization that coordinates WorldPride events, on March 12 issued its own travel advisory for trans and nonbinary people who want to travel to the U.S.
It is unclear when Kobick will issue her ruling.
Federal Government
Trump ‘culture war’ complicates HUD’s distribution of $3.6B in housing grants
Senate Dems call for new agreements

The disbursement of more than $3.6 billion in federal grants to housing providers has been paused for weeks while the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development seeks to condition receipt of the funding on compliance with President Donald Trump’s executive actions targeting DEI and transgender and immigrant communities.
March 4 was the statutory deadline for the agency to distribute the funds, which come through the Continuum of Care Program in support of local governments and nonprofit organizations working to promote “a community-wide commitment to the goal of ending homelessness.”
On March 13, a group of Senate Democrats led by U.S. Sens. Adam Schiff (Calif.) and Tina Smith (Minn.) wrote to HUD Secretary Scott Turner urging him to move quickly on distributing the grants and warning of the consequences that recipients are now facing and the harm they will encounter in the future if delays persist.
“To keep the lights on, providers are now being forced to draw on lines of credit at significant cost and risk to their organizations,” the senators said. “These projects enable homeless service providers to help veterans, families with children, youth, seniors, and vulnerable individuals access permanent and temporary housing, crisis counseling, and other supportive services.”
HUD subsequently disseminated grant agreements — and Schiff published an example on his office’s website — that included, among other provisions, language stipulating that the awardee (1) “shall not use grant funds to promote ‘gender ideology,’ as defined in E.O. 14168, Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” (2) certifies that it does not operate any programs promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws, and (3) agrees not to use “that funding in a manner that by design or effect facilitates the subsidization or promotion of illegal immigration or abets so-called ‘sanctuary’ policies that seek to shield illegal aliens from deportation.”
On March 14, the 4th U.S. Court of Appeals stayed a nationwide injunction enjoining three parts of Trump’s executive order on DEI, and the following day, HUD rescinded the CoC contracts and said to expect new agreements within a week as the agency was “working to revise its CoC grant agreements to be consistent with Federal law and compliant with applicable court orders.”
Schiff then led a second letter to Turner on March 19 with the Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and U.S. Sens. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Mazie Hirono (D- Hawaii), and Richard Blumenthal (Conn.).
“We urge the department to immediately issue new CoC grant agreements consistent with longstanding practice— free of the aforementioned conditions— to ensure all individuals experiencing homelessness receive protection and support, regardless of gender identity, location, or other characteristics,” they said, requesting a response by March 31.
“The initial FY2024 grant agreements issued to CoC funding recipients contained new requirements that are deeply problematic, and likely unlawful, requirements,” the senators argued. “These mandates, such as barring shelters from serving transgender people, prohibiting DEI initiatives, and certifying that they do not support ‘sanctuary’ policies protecting noncitizens, conflict with federal civil rights, fair housing, and immigration laws, raising serious legal and constitutional concerns.”
The lawmakers noted “the harm caused by these delayed and unfulfilled CoC grant agreements will fall disproportionately on our most vulnerable populations, including women, families with children, youth, veterans, survivors of domestic and intimate partner violence, people with disabilities, and LGBTQ+ individuals.” They added, “Women experiencing homelessness — many of whom are fleeing domestic abuse — already face significant barriers to safety and stability, and restricting access to critical housing services will only further endanger their lives and well-being.”
Citing research that nearly one in three transgender Americans has experiences homelessness in their lives, Schiff and his colleagues stressed that “Transgender and nonbinary people in the U.S. face significant barriers to securing safe housing, with many experiencing homelessness and high rates of mistreatment and violence in shelters.”
With respect to the language in the agreements about “sanctuary” policies, the senators wrote “The organizations receiving CoC funds exist to provide critical, non-discriminatory aid to those in need, regardless of their immigration status. These organizations do not set or enforce immigration policy — they simply fulfill their legal duty to provide life-saving and life-changing care.”
Later on March 19, HUD began issuing new contracts that did not contain the provision concerning DEI but did include the same language about “gender ideology” and “sanctuary” policies.
U.S. Federal Courts
Court halts removal of two transgender service members
Case challenging anti-trans military ban proceeds in D.C.

A federal court in New Jersey issued a temporary restraining order on Monday that will halt the separation of two transgender service members from the U.S. military while their case in D.C. challenging the Trump-Vance administration’s ban moves forward.
The order by Judge Christine O’Hearn pauses proceedings against Staff Sgt. Nicholas Bear Bade and Master Sgt. Logan Ireland, who “have been pulled from key deployments and placed on administrative absence against their will because of the ban,” according to a joint press release Monday by the National Center for Lesbian Rights and GLAD Law, which are representing the service members together with other litigants in Ireland v. Hegseth and in the case underway in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Talbott v. Trump.
“That court granted a preliminary injunction March 18 barring the Department of Defense from implementing the ban, finding that it discriminates based on sex and transgender status; that it is ‘soaked in animus;’ and that, due to the government’s failure to present any evidence supporting the ban, it is ‘highly unlikely’ to survive any level of judicial review,” the groups noted in their press release.
Ireland spoke with the Washington Blade in January along with other trans service members and former service members who shared their experiences with the military and their feelings on the new administration’s efforts to bar trans people from the U.S. armed forces.
-
Opinions2 days ago
Finding the courage to flee U.S. to save my trans daughter
-
District of Columbia3 days ago
D.C. queer bar owners sound alarm on WorldPride security concerns
-
Advice4 days ago
I want to leave my perfect boyfriend
-
District of Columbia2 days ago
First D.C. LGBTQ seniors home ready to open