National
Obama AWOL on ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal?
Activists turn up heat on president to act
Army Lt. Dan Choi and five other LGBT veterans handcuffed themselves to the White House fence Tuesday in protest of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ echoing a similar protest staged one month earlier. (DC Agenda photo by Michael Key)
As activists and lobbyists continue to press for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” some are losing patience with President Obama and moderate Democrats in Congress.
Obama was heckled at a fundraiser on Monday and a group of six former LGBT service members chained themselves to the White House fence this week to protest what they view as slow progress in overturning the law.
Meanwhile, the Human Rights Campaign and other advocates are working to push six key senators to support repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year.
Moderate senators from six states — Florida, Indiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Virginia and West Virginia — are the targets of HRC’s grassroots campaign. The renewed push to win their support comes as the Senate Armed Services Committee is poised to tackle the issue May 26 when it takes up the Defense authorization bill.
Allison Herwitt, HRC’s legislative director, said the grassroots effort is being coordinated by about two dozen field workers and includes postcards, phone calls, district office visits, op-ed placements and other media coverage.
“We’re also, where we can, working with some grasstops folks to weigh in with senators, and it’s an ongoing process,” she said.
Marty Rouse, HRC’s national field director, said the campaign builds on the organization’s earlier efforts such as the Voices of Honor tour and involves “identifying and mobilizing veterans” to contact senators and participate in the joint Lobby Day between HRC and Servicemembers United on May 11.
Servicemembers United Executive Director Alex Nicholson said his organization is identifying veterans with HRC’s membership and bringing in new veterans not connected to any organization to advocate for repeal.
“We’re basically setting up a number of events in each of these states with vets to talk about ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ to get the issue to the local media,” he said.
But even with this campaign underway, senators from these six states aren’t yet committed to voting for repeal. Many are saying they want to hear the results of the Pentagon study on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which is due Dec. 1, before taking action. The mandate of the study, as established by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, is to examine how the U.S. armed services would implement open service should Congress repeal the ban.
One such senator waiting for the study results is Jim Webb (D-Va.). Asked by DC Agenda on Tuesday whether he favors repeal, Webb emphasized his support for the review currently underway.
“I think what Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen proposed in terms of the study is very important,” Webb said. “We need to understand that. I support the approach that they’re taking. It’s responsible.”
Pressed on how he would vote on an amendment during the defense authorization markup, Webb reiterated his support for the working group and replied, “I think we need to honor the process that Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen have put in motion.”
Holding a similar position is Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.). In a statement, Nelson spokesperson Grant Schnell said the senator is interested in the results of the study.
“Sen. Nelson’s inclined to support repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, but wants to see the study Secretary Gates announced of how this would impact the military,” Schnell said.
Also refraining from endorsing repeal was Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.). In a statement, Bayh said he’s “committed to ensuring that our troops are treated with the respect they have earned through their selfless service” and that his personal belief is “those who are willing to take a bullet for their country ought to be able to serve it openly.”
“However, President Obama is absolutely right to solicit the input and support of his top military commanders about the effects of repealing the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy,” Bayh said. “I will make a final decision after receiving the input of our top commanders.”
The offices of Sens. Robert Byrd (D-W.V.), Scott Brown (R-Mass.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) didn’t respond to DC Agenda’s request for comment.
Asked about the progress in moving these senators to support repeal, Herwitt said the campaign is “a work in progress” and that many lawmakers typically hold out on announcing support for pro-LGBT legislation until just before it comes to a vote.
“You always have that last handful of House members or senators that you’re really looking to secure support from, and they’re typically the ones that don’t declare early,” she said.
Rouse noted that there’s a “significant presence” of mobilized efforts to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the six states where HRC is working to influence senators.
“If you talk [with] any leaders or politically engaged people in these six states, I think they would acknowledge that there has been significant movement across the states in support of ending ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” Rouse said.
Nicholson also said “it’s really too early” to tell whether the effort will be successful in moving moderate senators to vote for repeal.
“With these swing vote senators, they’re not going to make up their minds until the last minute, and [then only if they] absolutely have to,” he said. “If they’re not forced to take the vote, I don’t think they’re going to take the risk of coming out one way or the other.”
Still, Nicholson said he’s seen evidence of these senators noticing the campaign’s efforts in their states, citing Nebraska as an example where increased media coverage of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has come to the attention of Ben Nelson’s staff.
Nicholson said he’s heard members of Ben Nelson’s staff have taken the initiative in conversations with other staff members on Capitol Hill to mention an uptick in newspaper stories coming from Omaha, Neb., and Lincoln, Neb., on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“What we do know right now, what we are able to see, is that it’s being noticed — that’s for sure,” Nicholson said.
‘Within a vote or two’
But with votes from these key senators still in play, it remains to be seen whether there will be sufficient votes in the Senate Armed Services Committee to advance repeal.
During a press event Tuesday, Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), a strong proponent of repeal in the Senate, was optimistic about having enough support, noting that “we’re very close” and “we’re within a vote or two.”
“There are certainly a number of senators on [the Democratic] side that are on record as wanting to overturn ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ and there are some who have not made their intentions clear,” Udall said.
Among Republicans, Udall said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a moderate who often supports LGBT civil rights bills, has “expressed an interest in overturning ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’”
Nicholson estimated that a vote now in the Senate Armed Services Committee to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would have a 25 to 50 percent chance of succeeding without further intervention from the administration.
“I think that Bayh and Bill Nelson are ‘lean yeses,’” Nicholson said. “They’re undecideds, but they’re undecideds leaning towards ‘yes.’”
One factor that would be seen as a tremendous boon — and perhaps even essential — to moving key senators to support repeal is an explicit endorsement from President Obama to attach an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to the upcoming Defense authorization bill.
But the White House and the Pentagon have not come forward with an explicit endorsement of repeal this year. In response to a query from DC Agenda during a press briefing last month, Gates said he doesn’t recommend a change in the law until the Defense Department completes its study implementing open service and that he thinks the president is comfortable with this process.
On Monday, Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, wrote a letter to Obama urging him to come out for repeal. Sarvis said he’s concerned about “multiple reports” that the president’s congressional liaison team “is urging some members of Congress to avoid a vote on repeal this year.”
Among those noticing a lack of support from the Obama administration to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” at this time is Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.). Asked by DC Agenda on Tuesday what the White House and the Pentagon are saying they want from lawmakers on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Levin replied, “Let them complete the analysis.”
During his press event, Udall called for a stronger voice from Obama. While acknowledging the president made clear in January during his State of the Union address that he wants to work to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Udall said he wants to see and hear more from Obama on the issue.
“The White House has, in the State of the Union address, made it clear they want to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” Udall said. “The timing they continue to leave up to the Congress. That’s why I think it will be very useful if the president weighed in and said that this year is the year to finish the job.”
Anger with Obama for failing to endorse immediate repeal led protesters to interrupt the president’s speech Monday at a Los Angeles fundraising event for Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).
In another protest, six LGBT veterans handcuffed themselves to the gates of the White House on Tuesday in protest over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and were subsequently arrested. Among the demonstrators were Lt. Dan Choi and Capt. Jim Pietrangelo, who were arrested last month after handcuffing themselves to the White House fence in a similar protest.
In a statement, Choi said he and other LGBT veterans participated in the action out of concern that the president is wavering on his commitment to push for ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“We are handcuffing ourselves to the White House gates once again to demand that President Obama show leadership on repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” Choi said. “If the president were serious about keeping his promise to repeal this year, he would put the repeal language in his Defense authorization budget.”
Following the protest in Los Angeles, White House Deputy Press Secretary Dan Burton wouldn’t say in response to a reporter’s question aboard Air Force One whether Obama supports repeal at this time. Instead, Burton emphasized that “a tremendous amount of progress” has been made on the issue.
“This is a policy that’s been in place for quite a long time, and as we’ve seen on other issues, change is hard,” he said. “But that said, what we’ve seen is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense both come out in support of this change, and we’re moving with as much speed as possible to see that it’s done.”
Nicholson said he doesn’t think it’s possible to move senators to vote for an immediate repeal bill without more support from the president. But he noted a bill with delayed implementation, as Servicemembers United previously recommended, is possible.
“I think that’s the best chance we have for getting this because it’s the only thing consistent with what the Pentagon wants and it’s the only … middle ground between what the Pentagon says they want and what we are willing to give up and accept,” Nicholson said.
Nicholson said the repeal legislation currently before the Senate isn’t a delayed implementation bill because it calls for an immediate cessation of discharges while allowing the Pentagon working group to complete its study.
Regardless of the positions of the White House and Pentagon, Herwitt said HRC and other advocates are working to make repeal happen this year in the hopes of moving moderate senators to vote for repeal.
“I think that we are going to continue to push and advocate for these senators’ votes,” she said. “The president said in the State of the Union address that he will work with Congress this year and we are continuing to push forward.”
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.
Trump budget targets ‘gender extremism’
Susan Lucci on love, loss, and ‘All My Children’
How to navigate shifting tenant expectations
Viktor Orbán ousted in Hungarian elections
Minimal version of ‘Streetcar Named Desire’ heading to Dupont Underground
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
Report: Grenell wants Russian ambassadorship
Cuba bajo presión y sin respuestas
Log Cabin Republicans to honor Scott Presler
