Politics
Murphy amendment certified for House consideration
The House Rules Committee late Wednesday found in order an amendment to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” allowing for a vote on the measure when lawmakers take up major defense budget legislation.
Lawmakers on the panel approved the amendment, introduced by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), by voice vote as part of a rule governing debate for the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill.
The Rules Committee is charged with determining what rule governs the debate on legislation that comes to the House floor, including the length of time for discussion and whether certain amendments will be allowed.
The committee’s certification of Murphy’s amendment means the measure will be able to come to the floor when lawmakers take up the defense budget legislation, which is scheduled to happen either Thursday or Friday.
The rule allows for 10 minutes of debate on the Murphy amendment before House lawmakers take an up-or-down vote on the measure.
In testimony before the committee, Murphy urged lawmakers to find his amendment in order so that Congress could move forward with doing away with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Murphy brought particular attention to the case of former Army Sergeant Darren Manzella, a gay soldier who served in Iraq war and was discharged in 2008 after he came out to his comrades and talked about his story on CBS’ 60 Minutes.
“I’m here today for Darren and for the 13,500 brave servicemen and women kicked out of the military simply because they are gay,” Murphy said. “The arguments in support of this policy are weak and outdated, and the time to repeal this policy is now.”
Murphy said the U.S. military is “stretched thin” and it makes no sense to “kick out people who want to serve — who are willing to serve and die for their country.”
Following Murphy’s remarks, Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), a gay lawmaker and member of the Rules Committee, choked back on tears as he expressed appreciation to Murphy for championing the issue to end what he called one of the last “bastions of discrimination.”
After he left the witness stand, Murphy embraced Polis briefly before leaving the committee room.
Murphy told the Blade he feels “very good” as the votes approach both the House floor and the Senate Armed Services Committee later this week.
“I think I’m confident of the votes in the House and also in the Senate Armed Services Committee,” Murphy said. “And I think it’s good for national security, and for the American taxpayer, not to waste our money.”
Polis told the Blade he was similarly hopeful about the passage of Murphy’s amendment, which he said would allow “the military to end the [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] policy, which is the stated intention of the commander-in-chief.”
“I’m optimistic that we’ll be passing it on the floor of the House [Thursday],” he said.
A Democratic leadership aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the defense authorization bill could come up for consideration on Thursday, but may be pushed back for consideration of jobs legislation.
“Consideration of the defense authorization is still expected to start [Thursday], but it is possible that the [“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”] amendment from Rep. Murphy could be pushed into Friday,” the aide said.
The aide said the delay will “allow additional time for the whip effort” and supporters of repeal in the House “continue to be very optimistic on the amendment’s chances.”
While certifying Murphy’s amendment, the committee blocked consideration of a substitute amendment by a vote of 3-8 that would have revised the terms of reference for the Pentagon study on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and require that it be delivered to Congress well as the military service chiefs.
The amendment was offered by Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), ranking Republican of the House Armed Services Committee.
In testimony before the committee, McKeon said his amendment would have mandated the Pentagon examine what impact repeal would have on the Defense of Marriage Act as well as readiness and unit cohesion.
In a possible preview of what will happen with the Murphy amendment when it reaches the House floor, lawmakers on the panel were split on the issue of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Some members of the Rules Committee expressed support for moving legislatively to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” at this time while others said they wanted to hold off until the Pentagon completes its review.
McKeon said in testimony he was among those wanting to wait until the Defense Department working group completes its work.
“We don’t know what effect this would have on recruitment, retention and morale,” he said. “Not making Mr. Murphy’s amendment in order would be keeping the faith with the two-and-a-half million men and women in uniform … in saying that their voices do count.”
McKeon said he received letters this week from the service chiefs of Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps asking Congress to hold off on repeal until the Pentagon study is complete.
Earlier in the day, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), an opponent of repeal, also made public four letters from the service chiefs asking Congress to refrain from taking action at this time.
In one of the letters to McCain, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said Congress should wait for the study to be complete “as a matter of keeping faith with those currently serving in the armed forces.”
“To do otherwise, in my view, would be presumptive and would reflect an intent to act before all relevant factors are assessed, digested and understood,” Schwartz said.
But in a response to these letters, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Shalikashvili wrote in a letter made public later in the day that Congress should act on the pending legislation.
“While I fully agree that Congress should take no action that usurps the Pentagon’s evaluation process and recommendations, there is nothing in those letters that gives Congress any reason to delay enacting the legislative compromise that was proposed this week,” Shalikashvili said.
Also speaking out during the hearing in opposition to repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal at this time was Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.).
Dreier, who supported “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” when it was enacted in 1993, said he would be inclined to support repeal of the law but only after the Pentagon has time to complete its study.
“I wonder why it is that we need to have this vote at this moment,” he said. “We are just a few months away from getting a report that I suspect will allow for the opportunity to ensure that people aren’t thrown of the military who want to have a chance to serve their country.”
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) also didn’t speak favorably about a vote on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” although his opposition wasn’t as strong as other opponents of repeal during the committee discussion.
Skelton recalled the April 30 letter in which Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he would “strongly oppose” legislative action at this time. Skelton also emphasized the importance of the study as a way to inform how to move forward on the issue, saying it’s “not a rubber stamp.”
But Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), a strong supporter of repeal, was particularly passionate about Congress moving to address “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” immediately.
“What we’ve failed to mention is that 14,000 people in this 17-year period of time have been put out of the military,” he said. “Some of them were people that had specialties that are hard to replace.”
Hastings said he knows of at least 16 people who were discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” that specialized in Arabic translation.
Also in support of Congress moving now to address the issue was Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), who said a study on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” wasn’t necessary for Congress to know that it should act against discrimination.
“To me, it just comes down to this simple view that I have, which is an important view, and that is prejudice and bigotry are wrong, whether it is in the workplace or in the armed forces,” he said.
The White House
Grindr to host first-ever White House Correspondents’ Dinner party
App’s head of global government affairs a long-time GOP-aligned lobbyist
Gay dating and hookup app Grindr will host its first-ever White House Correspondents’ Weekend party on April 24.
The event is scheduled for the night before the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, an annual gathering meant to celebrate the First Amendment, honor journalism, and raise money for scholarships.
The White House Correspondents’ Dinner is organized by the White House Correspondents’ Association, a group of journalists who regularly cover the president and the administration.
An invitation obtained by the Washington Blade’s Joe Reberkenny and Michael K. Lavers reads:
“We’d be thrilled to have you join us at Grindr’s inaugural White House Correspondents’ Dinner Weekend Party, a Friday evening gathering to bring together policymakers, journalists, and LGBTQ community leaders as we toast the First Amendment.”
The Blade requested an interview with Joe Hack, Grindr’s head of global government affairs, but was unable to reach him via phone or Zoom. He did, however, provide a statement shared with other outlets, offering limited explanation for why the company decided 2026 was the year for the app to host this event.
“Grindr represents a global community with real stakes in Washington. The issues being debated here — HIV funding, digital privacy, LGBTQ+ human rights — are daily life for our community. Nobody does connections like Grindr, and WHCD weekend is the most iconic place in the country to make them. We figured it was time to host.”
Hack said the company has been “well received” by lawmakers in both parties and has found “common ground” on issues such as HIV funding and keeping minors off the app. He credited longstanding relationships in Washington and what he described as Grindr’s “respectful” approach to lobbying.
Hack, a longtime Republican-aligned lobbyist, previously worked for several GOP lawmakers, including U.S. Sens. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), George Voinovich (R-Ohio), Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), and U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.).
According to congressional disclosure forms compiled by OpenSecrets, Grindr spent $1.3 million on lobbying in 2025— more than Tinder and Hinge’s parent company Match Group.
“This is going to be elevated Grindr,” Hack told TheWrap when describing the invite-only party that has already generated buzz on social media. “This isn’t going to be a bunch of shirtless men walking around. This is going to be very elevated, elegant, but still us.”
He also pointed to the company’s work on HIV-related initiatives, including efforts to maintain federal funding for healthcare partners that distribute HIV self-testing kits through the app.
The event comes at a particularly notable moment for an LGBTQ-focused connection platform to enter the Washington social circuit at a high-profile political weekend, as LGBTQ rights remain under constant attack from conservative lawmakers, particularly around transgender healthcare, sports participation, and public accommodations.
2026 Midterm Elections
HRC endorses Va. ballot initiative to redraw congressional districts
Referendum to take place April 21
The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBTQ civil rights organization, has endorsed a Virginia ballot initiative that would allow the state to redraw its congressional districts this year, ahead of the 2030 Census.
Currently, Virginia’s Redistricting Commission — a legislative body made up of eight legislators and eight citizens, evenly split between Republicans and Democrats — is responsible for redrawing congressional districts every 10 years following the Census. The proposed amendment would temporarily shift that authority to the Virginia General Assembly through 2030, before returning it to the commission in 2031.
Supporters say the push for the amendment comes in response to anti-democratic moves by several Republican-led state legislatures following demands from President Donald Trump, which have resulted in newly gerrymandered congressional maps that advocates argue disenfranchise pro-equality voters.
Under the proposed map in Virginia, Democrats could gain as many as four of the five seats currently held by Republicans in this fall’s midterm elections, when control of the narrowly divided House is up for grabs.
Six states — including Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina on the GOP side — enacted new maps last year at Trump’s behest. The most significant Democratic counter-effort so far has come from California.
HRC President Kelley Robinson issued a statement backing the measure, encouraging Virginia voters who support democracy to vote “yes,” saying it would ensure “the will of the people is heard.”
“Voters should choose their leaders, not the other way around. But anti-equality lawmakers around the country, in service to Donald Trump’s assaults on democracy, are trying to undermine our elections and engineer their preferred outcome in the midterms,” Robinson said. “The American people are ready to take Congress back from the anti-equality, anti-freedom politicians that have been abusing their power to hurt all our communities and bend government to the will of a wannabe king.”
U.S. Rep. Don Beyer, who represents Virginia’s 8th Congressional District that encompasses much of Washington’s suburbs, including Alexandria, Arlington, Falls Church, and parts of eastern Fairfax County — has also voiced support for the measure. He has called Trump’s attempts to influence elections ahead of the November midterms a “betrayal of our democracy,” emphasizing that while the fight is ongoing, this effort is a step toward correcting the situation.
“It’s not a done deal by any means,” Beyer said in an op-ed for the Cardinal News. “We have to effectively make the case that even though this seems unfair in Virginia, it’s totally fair for America, for those of us who believe that taking back the House is the most significant thing we can do to stop Donald Trump.”
Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger is another staunch supporter of the amendment, arguing that it would, through bipartisan means, help counterbalance Trump’s efforts in what remains an uphill battle.
“As early voting begins tomorrow on Virginia’s redistricting amendment, voters should know that Virginia’s approach is different. It is temporary, directly responsive to what other states decide to do, and — most importantly — it preserves Virginia’s bipartisan redistricting process for the future,” the first female governor of the state said in a statement. “I supported the formation of Virginia’s bipartisan redistricting commission in 2020, and that support has not changed. What has changed is what we’re seeing in states across the country — and a president who says he is ‘entitled’ to more Republican seats before this year’s midterm elections.”
“Virginians have the opportunity to take action in response to this extraordinary moment in history,” she added. “That’s why, as a Virginia voter, I’m voting in favor of this amendment.”
Virginians for Fair Elections, the group responsible for marketing the initiative, has raised nearly $50 million dollars, according to the Virginia Public Access Project, a nonpartisan organization focusing on sharing public documents related to financial matters of the state. The ads notably feature former President Barack Obama, who supports the measure and has hailed it as a way to “level the playing field.”
In a recent Politico article, a person close to the White House, granted anonymity, suggested the outlook for Trump’s governing majority is weakening — particularly following the unraveling of the Iran war — underscoring why the administration is pushing Republican-led states to maximize their advantage ahead of the midterms.
“This war in Iran almost cements the fact that we lose the midterms in November — the Senate and House,” the person said.
According to The Economist, Trump holds a 37 percent approval rating, with 56 percent of respondents disapproving of his handling of the presidency.
This is not the first time Virginia has held a special election for a statewide ballot initiative. Most recently, in 1956, voters approved a measure that led to the use of public funds to provide tuition grants for students attending nonsectarian private schools.
Early voting is already underway in the Old Dominion, with Election Day set for April 21.
Politics
Trump’s war threats trigger rare 25th Amendment discussion
President threatened to destroy Iranian civilization in Truth Social post
Following multiple brazen Truth Social posts this week related to the ongoing war with Iran — one which he said he could wipe out “a whole civilization,” — Democrats are seizing the opportunity to gain momentum in ousting President Donald Trump from office.
As the war with Iran continues to unfold, Trump appears increasingly frustrated — and willing — to use any means necessary to achieve his goals of ending the country’s nuclear capabilities, destroying its military, and ushering in regime change. So far, none of these goals have been met. As his frustration grows, so do calls to invoke a never-before-used safeguard for the nation—the 25th Amendment.
“A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again,” Trump posted on Truth Social on Tuesday morning. “I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will.”
This came only days after Trump posted a now-deleted, expletive-filled demand for the country to reopen the Strait of Hormuz on Easter Sunday, saying, “Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell.” On the same day, Trump told The Hill he would not rule out sending ground troops. And he told Fox News Sunday that he’s “considering blowing everything up and taking over the oil” if Iran doesn’t accept his deal.
The president then set a new deadline of 8 p.m. ET on Tuesday for Iran to reach a deal with the U.S., marking yet another extension, which did lead to a two-week ceasefire.
Since the president’s tirade, Democratic legislators in federal office have condemned his words, while Republicans are quietly standing behind him. Former Trump allies are among the loudest voices advocating for invoking the 25th Amendment, as some in international government organizations have sharply called Trump’s threats illegal.
“If there’s an attack on clearly civilian infrastructure, that is not allowed under international humanitarian law,” Stéphane Dujarric, spokesman for the United Nations secretary-general, said last week.
That concern is heightened by the broader human rights landscape in Iran, where violations of international legal standards are already well documented — particularly when it comes to LGBTQ people.
Iran has some of the harshest laws in the world regarding LGBTQ rights, policies that human rights advocates say are themselves in violation of international law.
Under the country’s legal system, all sexual activity outside a traditional Islamic marriage is illegal, including same-sex relations. Sexual activity between members of the same sex is criminalized and, in some cases, punishable by death under Iran’s Islamic Penal Code.
With international officials raising concerns about the legality of Trump’s threats, the conversation in Washington has increasingly shifted from condemnation to potential consequences, namely, whether the 25th Amendment could be used to hold him accountable.
“Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, which has never been invoked, allows for the vice president and a majority of Cabinet secretaries (or another body as Congress may provide) to declare the president unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office,” according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. “The vice president would then immediately assume the role of acting president.”
Although there seems to be momentum from Trump adversaries, this is unlikely, according to PolitiFact.
“For all of the partisan chatter, it is highly unlikely this legal procedure to remove a president will happen,” Louis Jacobson and Amy Sherman wrote for the nonprofit political fact-checking website that is operated by the Poynter Institute.”Trump has the support of Vice President JD Vance, his Cabinet and the majority of Republicans in Congress.”
Delaware Congresswoman — and the first transgender legislator on Capitol Hill — Sarah McBride issued a statement in response to Trump’s words.
“In a political career defined by grotesque statements, this president’s horrifying, illegal, and genocidal threat this morning is among the most dangerous and appalling,” McBride said. “You can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, and a president cannot be allowed to threaten genocide with the United States military. Threats of war crimes and disregard for human life must be met with accountability under the law.”
She then, like many others, called for removing the president from office to protect the American people.
“Trump must go — and Republicans, whether in the Cabinet or Congress, must join Democrats in using any and all constitutional powers at our collective disposal to end this illegal war and take the gun out of this madman’s hands,” said McBride, the Congressional Democratic Women’s Caucus whip.
Mark Takano, the first openly gay person of color elected to Congress, pointed out that Trump’s ceasefire is only temporary, and does not ensure that Americans won’t be called to fight in a war they didn’t ask for.
“We heard no plan to end this war and no commitment to keep American boots out of Iran,” Takano said on X.
U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), the first openly gay member elected to the U.S. Senate, used her platform to remind Trump — and the world — that diplomacy remains critical.
“Diplomacy has always been the answer, which is why the president shouldn’t have gotten us into this war of choice,” a statement read on X. “It’s been reckless, cost U.S. soldiers their lives, and is raising prices on families. A ceasefire is a start, but Congress needs to do our jobs and end this war.”
“The House must pass articles of impeachment, and then the Senate must vote to convict and remove the President,” U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), vocal supporter of LGBTQ rights wrote in a statement on X. “Or, the Cabinet and vice president, with congressional concurrence, must invoke the 25th Amendment and remove Trump.”
“Donald Trump’s instability is more clear and dangerous than ever,” said former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
Multiple other Democrats also called for removing the president for violating international and constitutional law. U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) called for “this unhinged lunatic” to “be removed from office.” U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), said, “Threatening war crimes is a blatant violation of our Constitution and the Geneva Conventions.” U.S. Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), told Midas Touch Journalist Scott MacFarlane “In the last 48 hours alone, the rhetoric has crossed every line.”
In addition to Democrats, some staunch Trump supporters have also been loudly criticizing the president’s handling of the Iran war.
Conspiracy theorist, former Trump confidant, and $1.3 billion defamation case loser for spreading far-right lies, Alex Jones, asked “How do we 25th Amendment his ass?” on Monday’s InfoWars show.
Georgia Republican, former member of the House of Representatives, and former high-profile MAGA ally Marjorie Taylor Greene called Trump’s post about destroying civilizations “evil and madness” and posted a simple “25TH AMENDMENT!!!”
Australia lifts additional restrictions on LGBTQ blood donors
Top EU court strikes down Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ propaganda law
Tennessee’s Charlie Kirk Act is harmful
Victory Fund brunch draws top LGBTQ officials, 2028 hopeful Andy Beshear
Inside the lonely world of MAGA gay men
Charlie Kirk Act advances in Tenn.
LGBTQ Catholic groups slam Trump over pope criticism
Grindr to host first-ever White House Correspondents’ Dinner party
Calendar: April 17-23
