National
LGBT contingent to join weekend immigration rally
Proponents of comprehensive immigration reform legislation are planning to rally this weekend
Proponents of comprehensive immigration reform legislation are planning to rally this weekend in support of the bill — and drum up support for a proposed component that would help same-sex couples.
Tens of thousands of demonstrators — perhaps even up to 100,000 — are expected to gather Sunday at 2 p.m. on the National Mall to call for passing immigration reform this year. Reform Immigration for America, a coalition of immigration reform organizations, is staging the event.
Within this larger protest, a contingent of about 200 protesters is set to advocate for LGBT inclusion in immigration reform, and in particular, a provision to help same-sex bi-national couples.
Because same-sex couples don’t have federal marriage rights that are available to straight couples, LGBT people in same-sex relationships with a foreign national cannot marry their partner to allow them to stay in the U.S.
Under current immigration law, an estimated 36,000 same-sex bi-national couples are kept apart or are in danger of separation. Standalone legislation in Congress known as the Uniting American Families Act would allow LGBT people to sponsor their partners for permanent residency.
Advocates of UAFA are trying to include the legislation as a provision in comprehensive reform — and are taking part in the rally to ensure their presence is visible within the larger immigration movement.
Steve Ralls, spokesperson for Immigration Equality, a group advocating for UAFA, said the rally will be “a visible reminder” to Congress and the Obama administration on keeping their pledge to tackle immigration reform in 2010.
“In fact, I would say that it has already been effective,” Ralls said. “The president last week called key senators to the White House and began holding meetings about how to address this issue, and I have no doubt that the march on the Mall helped to spur those meetings along.”
Among those participating in the rally is Laurie Larson, a 56-year-old Arlington, Va., resident, who’s marching on behalf of two friends who were torn apart.
Joe and Steve, former D.C. residents, lived in the District for 10 years together until Joe was laid off from his position as a structural engineer in 2009. Joe and Steve asked to be identified only by their first names. Because of the nature of his visa, Joe was able to stay in the United States for only six months after he lost his job. The couple is now separated, but planning a move to Canada so they can stay together.
Larson, who’s straight, said she’s taking part in the rally — after having participated in a LGBT rally for immigration reform in October — because she thinks the situation is “totally ludicrous.”
“It’s incumbent upon us to keep the issue in front of people,” she said. “We’ll continue to keep the issue in front of Congress and our representatives and the public at large. To me, it’s really one of the last civil rights issues of the 21st century.”
Also participating in the rally is Emmanuel Garcia, the Chicago-based host of “Homofrecuencia,” the only Spanish language LGBT radio show in the United States. He’s bringing about 100 LGBT people on a bus to participate in the D.C. protest.
For Garcia, who’s gay, participating in the march is not just about drawing attention to UAFA, but showing that LGBT immigrants are among those who are part of the immigration movement.
“We’re focused on a more complex conversation on immigration reform,” he said. “We also understand that there are a lot of LGBTs who would benefit from immigration reform under this bill without the Uniting American Families Act included.”
Garcia said passage of immigration reform would allow LGBT immigrants — even without the passage of UAFA — to remain in the U.S. if they don’t have a partner to sponsor them for residency.
“We have people who have come out as gay, lesbian and bisexual who are also coming out as undocumented,” he said. “Some of those stories relate to both experiences — what it’s like to come out as LGBT, what it’s like to come out in a society that doesn’t accept that doesn’t want to give a certain group rights because they don’t feel they deserve them.”
As advocates come to rally on the National Mall, Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) are developing comprehensive immigration reform legislation in the U.S. Senate. Earlier this month, both senators met with Obama at the White House to discuss moving forward with the legislation.
But whether these senators will include UAFA in their legislation is unknown. Neither Schumer nor Graham’s office responded to DC Agenda’s requests to comment on the inclusion of UAFA in their bill.
Still, Ralls said he’s “optimistic” that the comprehensive legislation will include a provision for bi-national same-sex couples.
Ralls said Schumer noted during congressional testimony last year that he thought it was appropriate for immigration reform to include a UAFA-like provision. Ralls also noted that Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is the sponsor for the standalone version of UAFA in the Senate.
“Our hope and expectation is that with two champions as strong and influential as that, that we have a very good shot of being included,” Ralls said.
It’s also unclear when Schumer and Graham will make their bill public — and when they do, if enough time remains in the legislative calendar to pass immigration reform this year. With limited time remaining before lawmakers break to campaign for mid-term elections, other major issues such as financial reform and climate change legislation could take precedence over immigration.
Ralls said he hopes the senators will introduce their legislation sometime this spring and noted that Schumer has “remained steadfast in his desire to introduce the legislation just as soon as we can.”
Asked whether enough time remains this year for Congress to take on immigration reform, Ralls replied, “The short answer is I hope so.”
“I know that Sen. Schumer is working very hard to build the coalitions in the Senate and to bring people together to make that happen,” he said.
Despite advocates’ push for including a provision for UAFA as part of comprehensive immigration reform, a number of uncertainties and obstacles are in the way. One issue is whether Graham, who has a conservative voting record, would be open to including UAFA. The Human Rights Campaign gave him a score of 0 out of 100 on its most recent congressional scorecard.
But Ralls said he hopes Republicans such as Graham would allow for the inclusion of UAFA in the comprehensive reform because such a provision would strengthen families in the U.S.
“Republican lawmakers are going to take a strong stand in favor of family unification as a priority in the comprehensive bill,” Ralls said. “Lesbian and gay families are a natural fit for family unification issues.”
Ralls added that if Schumer and Graham can work together to create a bill that boasts bipartisan support for other issues — such as creating a path to citizenship for immigrants — UAFA “will not be a make-or-break situation.”
Another uncertainly is the degree to which the White House would support passing UAFA as part of comprehensive reform, particularly if administration officials believe including the provision would complicate passage of the larger bill.
The White House has expressed support for both UAFA and comprehensive immigration reform as individual items, but hasn’t endorsed passing them together as one larger package.
In response to a query on whether Obama would support passing UAFA this year as part of immigration reform, Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement the president’s “commitment to fixing our broken immigration system remains unwavering, and he continues to hope for bipartisan leadership on legislation.”
“He has told members of both parties that if they can fashion a plan, he is eager to work with them to get it done and he has assigned Secretary [of Homeland Security Janet] Napolitano to work with stakeholders on that effort,” Inouye said.
Ralls said he thinks it would be “logical” for the White House to endorse UAFA as part of comprehensive reform if the administration favors passage of both legislative items.
“My belief is that they would like to see UAFA passed and that they are committed to comprehensive reform — and it just seems logical to me that the two go well together,” Ralls said. “If we’re going to have a comprehensive bill, it should be truly comprehensive and include lesbian and gay immigrants, too.”
But opposition from the Catholic Church — a strong voice for the Hispanic community seeking immigration reform — could be an obstacle. Last year, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops came out against UAFA and said they couldn’t support immigration reform if a provision for LGBT couples were included in the larger legislation.
Ralls said the Conference of Catholic Bishops is “a sole minority voice,” though, among religious groups that have stated positions on the legislation. He said Methodists, Episcopalians, Unitarians and Jewish groups are among the religious organizations supporting UAFA.
“The list of faith groups who are committed to immigration reform that includes lesbian and gay families is very long and diverse,” Ralls said. “At the end of the day, people of faith should support keeping children with parents and families together and, in my view, it is the Christian thing to do.”
Also lacking among the advocacy groups is unanimity in favor of including UAFA as part of the larger bill.
Reform Immigration for America, an umbrella group for organizations calling for comprehensive reform, hasn’t stated a position on including UAFA in a larger bill. The organization didn’t respond to DC Agenda’s request to comment on its position.
Still, other groups supporting immigration reform have come out in favor of including UAFA in comprehensive reform. The Fair Immigration Movement, a project with the Center for Community Change, endorsed inclusion of UAFA earlier this month.
Marissa Graciosa, director of FIRM, said in a statement that her project supports the inclusion of UAFA to keep couples together.
“There is power in our diversity, but we must honor that diversity,” she said. “And it starts with keeping all families from all backgrounds together. This is why we support the Uniting American Families Act.”
Ralls said Immigration Equality is an active member for Reform Immigration for America and is working to bring organizations within that umbrella group in favor of UAFA inclusion.
In addition to FIRM, Ralls said the Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund has noted the importance of including same-sex couples in immigration reform.
“So there are organizations within the immigration movement — both faith groups and immigrant groups that have been very vocal in their support of our inclusion,” he said.
Federal Government
Trump budget targets ‘gender extremism’
Proposed spending package would target ‘leftist’ political ideologies
The White House submitted its 2027 budget request to Congress last month, outlining a push for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to “proactively” target what it describes as “extremism” related to gender — raising concerns about the potential for law enforcement to target LGBTQ people.
The Trump-Vance administration’s 2027 budget request, submitted to Congress on April 4, proposes a dramatic increase in national security and law enforcement spending, while reducing foreign aid and restructuring multiple domestic security programs. In total, the administration is requesting $2.16 trillion in discretionary budget authority (including mandatory resources), a 15.3 percent increase over the 2026 proposal.
Central to the proposal is the creation of a new “NSPM-7 Joint Mission Center,” a direct follow-up to the September 2025 National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7). The directive instructs the Justice Department, the FBI, and other national security agencies to combat what the administration defines as “political violence in America,” effectively reshaping the Joint Terrorism Task Force network to focus on “leftist” political ideologies, according to reporting by independent journalist Ken Klippenstein.
The American Civil Liberties Union has characterized NSPM-7 as a way for President Donald Trump to intimidate his political enemies.
In a press release following the memorandum, Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, said, “President Trump has launched yet another effort to investigate and intimidate his critics,” and had described the move as an “intimidation tactic against those standing up for human rights and civil liberties.”
The proposed mission center would include personnel from 10 federal agencies tasked with targeting “domestic terrorists” associated with a wide range of ideologies. Among them is what the administration labels “extremism” related to gender, alongside categories such as “anti-Americanism,” “anti-capitalism,” “anti-Christianity,” and “support for the overthrow of the U.S. government.” The document also cites “hostility toward those who hold traditional American views” on family, religion, and morality — language LGBTQ advocates have increasingly warned could be used to frame queer and transgender rights movements as ideological threats.
The mission center is one component of a proposed $166 million increase in the FBI’s counterterrorism budget.
In total, the FBI would receive $12.5 billion for salaries and expenses under the proposal, a $1.9 billion increase. Planned investments include unmanned aerial systems operations and counter-drone capabilities, counterterrorism efforts, and security preparations for the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. The budget also cites 67,000 FBI arrests since Jan. 20, 2026, which it describes as a 197 percent increase from the prior year.
When Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, it also enacted 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5), which defines domestic terrorism as activities involving acts dangerous to human life that violate criminal laws and are intended to intimidate or coerce civilians or influence government policy through violence. That statutory definition has not changed.
However, federal agencies have historically categorized domestic terrorism threats into groups such as racially or ethnically motivated violent extremism, anti-government or anti-authority violent extremism, and other threats, including those tied to bias based on religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
The language in the budget suggests a shift in how those categories are interpreted and applied — particularly by explicitly linking “extremism” to gender and to perceived opposition to “traditional” views — without any corresponding change to federal law. Only Congress has the power to change the definition of domestic terrorism by passing legislation.
The budget document states:
“DT lone offenders will continue to pose significant detection and disruption challenges because of their capacity for independent radicalization to violence, ability to mobilize discretely, and access to firearms. Additionally, in recent years, heinous assassinations and other acts of political violence in the United States have dramatically increased. Commonly, this violent conduct relates to views associated with anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the U.S. government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility toward those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.”
This language echoes earlier actions by the Trump-Vance administration targeting trans people.
On the first day of his second term, President Trump signed Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”
The order establishes a strict binary definition of sex and withdraws federal recognition of trans people.
“It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female,” the order states. “‘Sex’ shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female. ‘Sex’ is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of ‘gender identity.’”
Appropriations committees in both chambers are expected to begin hearings in the coming weeks.
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Sri Lankan government withdraws support for LGBTQ tourism initiative
In an act of artistic defiance, Baltimore Center Stage stays focused on DEI
Trump budget targets ‘gender extremism’
Susan Lucci on love, loss, and ‘All My Children’
How to navigate shifting tenant expectations
Trump’s war threats trigger rare 25th Amendment discussion
New book celebrates 1970s dance music icons
ROSENSTEIN: Vote McDuffie for mayor of D.C.
A Sondheim masterpiece ‘Merrily’ rolls onto Netflix
