National
‘Don’t Ask’ changes too late for discharged officer
Revisions would have enabled gay man to stay in Air Force
Mike Almy, a former Air Force officer, is among the plaintiffs seeking reinstatement in the military through the new 'Don't Ask' legislation (Blade photo by Michael Key).
New regulations unveiled last week to ease the burden of LGBT service members serving under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” were well received by advocacy groups — but a former Air Force officer discharged under the law called news of the changes “bittersweet” because they came too late to help him.
Mike Almy, a gay former Air Force communications officer who recently testified before the Senate on being discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” said the new changes would have helped him stay in the service when he faced expulsion from the U.S. military.
“On a personal level, it’s kind of bittersweet from the standpoint that these regulations, this new guidance would have helped me a few years ago when I was going through my discharge proceedings,” Almy said. “In all likelihood, I would still be on active duty under the new guidance that Gates issued.”
Almy was discharged from the Air Force after another service member discovered personal e-mails revealing information about his sexual orientation and reported them to commanders. Almy said he was expelled from the Air Force even though he never made a statement to the military divulging he’s gay.
Even though Almy said he’s disappointed the new regulations weren’t in place to help him at the time of his proceedings, he noted that on a larger scale, the changes represent “a positive step” forward that provides more momentum for a full repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“It’s still not a substitute, but it’s a definitely a move in the right direction, and it’s going to help thousands of service members who are in the military today,” he said.
The new changes, unveiled last week by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, will limit third-party outings by requiring such information to be given under oath, and raise the rank of the officers handling inquiries and discharges.
Almy said the new regulations will have a “direct bearing” on many LGBT service members he knows on active duty.
“The ones that I know that are still on active duty that are still serving — they’re very encouraged by the first initial step as well as the climate overall and the momentum that’s going on in the House and the Senate, and certainly the Pentagon, to fully repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” he said.
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said his organization is still examining the implications of the changes and what they mean for LGBT service members.
“It’s premature to say until we complete our legal analysis,” he said. “I think it will be helpful for some service members. It will reduce the number of investigations and, therefore, it will, in all likelihood, reduce the number of discharges.”
Sarvis said he wasn’t yet in a position to quantify how discharges would be reduced under the new regulations, but he noted that fewer people would face “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” discharges.
Among the issues SLDN is examining, Sarvis said, is what will happen in pending cases where a service member was outed by a third party under the old regulations, and subsequently announced their sexual orientation of their own accord.
“I would imagine in many cases that service members who are in the pipeline for discharge under the old regulations and the old [Department of Defense] directives, in essence, would have the opportunity to start over again,” he said. “In many cases, we know it’ll go back to their commanders.”
As SLDN examines the changes, Sarvis said his organization plans to publish this week new guidance for LGBT service members serving under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” He said SLDN has received numerous inquiries from active duty and reserve service members regarding the new regulations.
Among those serving who are pleased with the changes is a gay U.S. Army soldier currently in Iraq, who spoke to DC Agenda on condition of anonymity to avoid being discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
The soldier, who has been seeing a psychotherapist in part because of the stress of serving under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” said the new change allowing LGBT service members to disclose their sexual orientation to mental health experts would be particularly beneficial for him.
During his therapy sessions, the soldier said he had been dodging questions about his sexual orientation, or even unrelated matters that he thought may have outed him under the law. But with the new regulations in place, the soldier said he plans to come out to his psychotherapist in an upcoming session.
“In my particular instance, it’s the fact that I can talk about more than just any problems that I’m having at work or any problems that I’m having at home,” he said. “I can talk about issues that I’m having with my ex-boyfriend — and just identity issues. It just takes off a lot of stress because you can discuss more without having to censor yourself.”
The soldier said he also thinks Gates’ decision to raise the rank of those starting and conducting inquiries under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was “a remarkably ingenious way” to limit discharges.
“It makes it virtually un-enforceable, except for cases where disclosure would be unprofessional anyway,” the soldier said. “Generals [and] admirals have far more important things to do than worry about whether Private John Smith, or Lt. Jane Doe, are homosexual.”
Another case on which the new regulations could have an impact is the pending discharge of Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, an Air Force pilot who’s facing discharge under the law.
In 2008, Fehrenbach was accused of raping another man and was only able to clear his name after saying he had consensual sex with his accuser. But his admission of having homosexual sex meant outing himself under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Sarvis said he doesn’t think Fehrenbach is moving toward discharge as a result of the new announcement.
“But I think in all likelihood, his file should go back to the [the commanding officer] and the [commanding officer] will make a determination on whether or not to reinitiate the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ investigation,” Sarvis said. “Without going into a great deal of detail, we think that there may be more than one avenue that will be beneficial for Lt. Col. Fehrenbach under the changes announced by Secretary Gates last week.”
Sarvis said SLDN has advised Fehrenbach not to engage in further media interviews while his case is pending.
What affect the new regulations will have on efforts to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” legislatively remains to be seen. Sarvis said the new regulations could “work both ways” in the effort to repeal, leading some members of Congress to say the situation has been addressed and others to say discharges must be reduced to zero.
“One side will say, ‘What’s the rush? Why should Congress have to deal with this? Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen just announced some significant changes?” Sarvis said. “And the flip side of that is, ‘OK, they’ve made some changes, but you still have the statute on the books. You’re not getting down to zero discharges because of sexual orientation until you repeal the statute.”
Sarvis said that full repeal is necessary to eliminate completely the discharges of LGBT service members.
“The most important thing is ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ has not gone away,” he said. “Service members are still at risk and LGBT service members cannot serve openly under ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’”
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.
Markwayne Mullin confirmed as next DHS secretary
Gay man murdered in Va.
Trans Day of Visibility events planned
Virginia General Assembly’s 2026 legislative session ends
Polish court rules country must recognize same-sex marriages from EU states
Queer American in Israel discusses Iran war’s impact
‘How We Survived’ panel set for March 25
Calendar: March 21-26
Small is beautiful: subcompact SUVs
