National
ENDA supporters demand action now
But immediate vote unlikely as recess nears

National Gay & Lesbian Task Force Executive Director Rea Carey, center, and others are calling on Congress to immediately pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. (Photo courtesy of Task Force)
Several LGBT organizations are calling on Congress to take immediate action on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, as potential delays threaten to scuttle the bill.
Advocates made their case for the passage of ENDA, a federal measure that would bar job bias against LGBT people in most public and private workforce settings, during a press conference Tuesday at the National Press Club in D.C.
Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, said ENDA supporters are demanding Congress “pass without delay” the bill to ensure that LGBT people have “the right to join with others in contributing our talent, skills and expertise to this nation’s workforce.”
“We are at the end of our patience,” she said. “In this Congress alone, we have organized over 200 constituent Hill visits to members of the House and the Senate.”
Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, emphasized the importance of passing ENDA to provide protections for transgender people seeking employment.
“All of our organizations get calls every week — sometimes every day of the week — from people who are losing jobs from lesbians in Manhattan, Kansas, to transgender people in Louisiana,” she said.
Keisling said a recent study conducted by her organization found that 27 percent of transgender people were fired because of their gender identity and 97 percent of trans people have faced harassment at work.
“As somebody who has done survey research most of my professional life, I can tell you, you never see 97 percent,” Keisling said. “That’s everybody.”
Despite the calls for immediate action, it’s unlikely the House will take action on ENDA in the coming weeks due to scheduling issues.
A Democratic leadership aide, who spoke to the Blade on the condition of anonymity, said U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi held a conference call with LGBT leaders on Monday in which she said ENDA passage would have to be put off until later.
According to the aide, Pelosi said her preference was to move forward with a vote on ENDA, but the opportunity for an amendment on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” could naturally come up as an amendment next week when the House takes up defense budget legislation.
“Some of the groups want to vote on both things next week, and there is physically not the time to do that,” the aide said.
After completing work next week, the House is scheduled for a week-long recess for Memorial Day break, potentially putting off a vote on ENDA and perhaps endangering the bill as lawmakers move toward the thick of campaign season.
Also problematic for the passage of ENDA in the House is a legislative floor maneuver available to opponents: the motion to recommit. The maneuver forces a vote on sending the legislation back to the committee that approved it — possibly with or without instructions.
In an effort to kill the bill, opponents of ENDA could employ a motion to recommit that might strip the transgender protections from the legislation, or affect some other aspect of the bill’s language. Some conservative ENDA supporters may feel inclined to vote for this motion to recommit even if they would vote in favor of the legislation as a whole.
Should lawmakers pass the legislation in the House, passage in the Senate is doubtful. Multiple sources have told the Blade that supporters do not have the 60 votes needed in that chamber to overcome a filibuster.
But LGBT leaders remain optimistic about the support for ENDA in the House. Keisling said the legislation is “ripe” for passage because it currently has 202 co-sponsors, which she said is the greatest number of co-sponsors for any piece of pro-LGBT legislation in Congress. Having 202 co-sponsors means just 16 additional votes are needed for passage when the bill comes to the floor.
Carey said she believes the votes are there for passage of ENDA on the House floor and for defeating a motion to recommit that would strip from the bill its transgender language.
“We are calling for Congress to take up its responsibility to represent its constituents, and we are among them,” she said. “We believe we have the votes in the House — both on the bill and to make sure that the bill remains inclusive of our community.”
One reporter asked during the press conference how confident ENDA supporters are that the legislation could survive a motion to recommit that’s narrower than stripping out the gender identity protections.
Keisling said the focus of motions to recommit are often unpredictable, but ENDA supporters have as much confidence in defeating a motion based on gender identity as they are with other issues.
“I don’t think we’re more worried about a gender identity motion to recommit, at this point, than we are against just a mischievous, shameful, cynical motion to recommit that could include gay people, could include trans people,” she said. “Advancing human rights is sometimes about taking risks.”
The Human Rights Campaign didn’t join Tuesday’s news conference at the National Press Club.
Asked during the event about HRC’s absence, Carey said Joe Solmonese, HRC’s president, had been invited to attend, but was unable due to travel commitments.
“What I will say is that the Human Rights Campaign has continued to be a very strong ally in the coalition of organizations, specifically pushing for an inclusive bill for all of our community,” Carey said.
In response to a Blade query as to why HRC didn’t join the conference, Michael Cole, an HRC spokesperson, responded with a statement on the general situation with ENDA.
“The Speaker, Chairman [Barney] Frank, Chairman [George] Miller and Reps. [Tammy] Baldwin and [Jared] Polis are focused on securing the votes needed to pass ENDA and defeat a harmful motion-to-recommit,” he said. “On a call the Speaker had with a number of LGBT organizations [Monday], she said that she didn’t intend to leave this Congress without a vote on ENDA. We’re focused on getting the votes necessary to pass the bill once it does come to the floor.”
New York
Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced
One of the victims, John Umberger, was D.C. political consultant

A New York judge on Wednesday sentenced three men convicted of killing a D.C. political consultant and another man who they targeted at gay bars in Manhattan.
NBC New York notes a jury in February convicted Jayqwan Hamilton, Jacob Barroso, and Robert DeMaio of murder, robbery, and conspiracy in relation to druggings and robberies that targeted gay bars in Manhattan from March 2021 to June 2022.
John Umberger, a 33-year-old political consultant from D.C., and Julio Ramirez, a 25-year-old social worker, died. Prosecutors said Hamilton, Barroso, and DeMaio targeted three other men at gay bars.
The jury convicted Hamilton and DeMaio of murdering Umberger. State Supreme Court Judge Felicia Mennin sentenced Hamilton and DeMaio to 40 years to life in prison.
Barroso, who was convicted of killing Ramirez, received a 20 years to life sentence.
National
Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information
Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources

Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.
“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.
“These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.
It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”
The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question.
A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit.
While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management.
The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.
Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.
“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.
“Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says.
Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”
Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”
Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.
“As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from the Washington Blade.
“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said.
The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”
It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”
The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society.
The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.
While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”
“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.
The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.
Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.