National
Despite compromise, advocates celebrate votes to repeal ‘Don’t Ask’
McCain pledges to derail ‘Don’t Ask’ momentum
U.S. Sen. John McCain (Blade photo by Michael Key)
Gay veterans are celebrating congressional action last week to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” 17 years after Congress passed a law banning gays from serving openly in the U.S. military.
The House and Senate took separate actions that would lead to an end of the statute. Both chambers approved amendments repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as part of major defense budget legislation known as the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill.
On May 27, the House voted 234-194 on the floor in favor of an amendment sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.). The next day, the chamber voted 229-186 in favor of passing the entire defense bill.
Five Republicans voted in the affirmative on the amendment: Reps. Judy Biggert (Ill.), Joseph Cao (La.), Charles Djou (Hawaii), Ron Paul (Texas) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.). Joining other Republicans to vote against the measure were 26 Democrats.
The Senate Armed Services Committee voted 16-12 in favor of an identical repeal measure sponsored by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.).
In that chamber, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) was the only Republican to vote in favor of repeal. The sole Democrat who voted against the amendment was Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.). He had earlier told media outlets that he sees no need to preempt the Pentagon’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” study by voting in favor of repeal at this time.
The legislative compromise adopted by both chambers of Congress would repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” only after the Defense Department completes its study on the issue, due Dec. 1.
Additionally, President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen would have to certify that repeal won’t undermine military readiness — and 60 days would have to pass after this certification before repeal would take effect.
The measure also notably lacks the non-discrimination language for gay, lesbian and bisexual service members that standalone repeal bills contained.
Even with the compromise, though, many gay former service members were delighted with Congress for taking action.
Mike Almy, a gay former Air Force communications officer who was discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in 2006 and recently testified before the Senate on the issue, witnessed the vote in the House chamber.
“The whole floor and the gallery erupted with a cheer,” he said. “There were quite a few tears of joy and disbelief, including myself. I still get choked up when I think about it.”
Following the vote in the Senate Armed Services Committee, Almy said repeal supporters visited the office of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) to thank him for his vote in favor of ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Nelson told the Blade last month that he wouldn’t vote in favor of a measure repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” But after Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) unveiled his compromise legislation, Nelson signaled he would vote in favor of the measure.
Almy said Nelson’s staffers told repeal supporters that they received 40,000 phone calls in Nebraska for repeal and 1,100 against.
“I was speechless,” Almy said. “I was completely dumbfounded there was that much support in Nebraska for repeal. It was just an incredible week overall.”
Retired Navy Capt. Joan Darrah, a lesbian who retired from service in 2002 because of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” also said she was pleased with Congress, calling the votes “a tremendous effort and a great result.”
But Darrah, who lives in Alexandria, Va., said she’s “distressed” about Webb’s vote against repeal.
“I’ve met and corresponded with Sen. Webb many times and I’m disappointed,” she said.
Darrah said she’s willing to live with the compromise, though, and didn’t think Mullen would delay certification of repeal once the Pentagon study is complete.
“This approach that they’ve come up with allows the study to conclude — and the study is supposed to be how to implement it, not if we should,” she said. “I think that this is an excellent compromise. We need the Senate to vote on it and then get on with getting rid of this, frankly, un-American and discriminatory law.”
Also expressing excitement about the congressional votes was a gay man from Chesapeake, Va. The active duty Navy sailor, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, spoke to the Blade on the condition of anonymity to avoid to being outed under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
He called the action from Congress “long overdue” and said “it’s been a rough hell” serving in the military for seven of the 17 years since “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was enacted.
He said he’s willing to accept the compromise advanced by Congress because “we’re standing on the right side of history” and didn’t think Obama, Gates or Mullen would delay certification of repeal.
“Adm. Mullen said it best — men and women are serving in an institution where integrity is key, but we’re asking them — asking us — to hide who we are,” said the man. “I don’t think we’ll have any problem at all.”
Following the vote, Obama issued a statement on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” action. The White House previously said it would support the compromise legislation because it allows the Pentagon to complete its study on the issue.
Obama said he was “pleased” with the outcome while stressing the importance of the Pentagon’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” study due at year’s end.
“I have long advocated that we repeal ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,’ and I am pleased that both the House of Representatives and the Senate Armed Services Committee took important bipartisan steps toward repeal tonight,” Obama said.
The president said the Pentagon’s review was “key to successful repeal” and that he was grateful the amendments approved by Congress “will ensure that the Department of Defense can complete that comprehensive review that will allow our military and their families the opportunity to inform and shape the implementation process.”
Hurdles remain in repeal process
Even with Congress taking action to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the legislation approved by the House and the Senate committee still has to make its way to the president’s desk and win his signature before it’s enacted.
And a number of obstacles could prevent the bill from reaching the White House or being signed into law. However, supporters of repeal are saying these roadblocks are less numerous than obstacles before the congressional votes on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said the legislation didn’t “have a lot” of possible roadblocks preventing it from being signed by the president.
Still, one problem that supporters of repeal could face is a filibuster of the defense authorization bill when it reaches the Senate floor.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and chief opponent of repeal in the Senate, had pledged to find the 60 votes in the Senate necessary to block the bill from moving forward.
Roll Call newspaper reported May 27 that McCain said he’ll “without a doubt” support a filibuster if the bill goes to the floor with repeal language.
“I’ll do everything in my power,” McCain was quoted as saying. “I’m going to do everything I can to support the men and women of the military and to fight what is clearly a political agenda.”
But mustering 60 votes to filibuster the defense bill could prove a challenge for McCain.
Two senators who voted against the inclusion of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language in the defense bill — Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Scott Brown (R-Mass.) — later voted in favor of reporting out of committee the defense bill as a whole. Their votes could be seen as signs they wouldn’t support filibustering the legislation on the floor.
Nicholson said he believes Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has the votes to shut down McCain’s filibuster threat on the bill, but added it’s “never a guaranteed thing.”
“I personally think Jim Webb and Scott Brown’s votes are still a little volatile,” Nicholson said. “While they voted to report the bill out of committee, I don’t know that they’re solid allies on this. If McCain figures out a way to try to block this with a filibuster, I wouldn’t count Brown and Webb in our camp 100 percent.”
During a press conference last week, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), hailed as a champion of repeal in the Senate, dismissed the chances of a successful filibuster on the defense authorization bill.
“I think it’s hard to filibuster a defense bill,” Levin said. “There’s so much in here for our troops. The fact that there’s one provision in here that some people don’t like — it seems to me [that] would not be [a] sufficient deal for 41 senators to filibuster a defense bill.”
Levin said he wants to bring the legislation before the full Senate sometime before the August recess.
Nicholson said another threat on the Senate floor could be a strike-and-replace amendment modifying the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” language, such as one that changes the scope of the Pentagon study on the issue.
Conservatives have called for legislation that reconfigures the study so that it would focus on whether repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would have a significant impact on improving military readiness.
“Something like that could be very appealing, especially if it’s rather moderate in nature,” Nicholson said.
Making the language different in both bills would mean the differences would have to be hashed out by conference committee, which could jeopardize any repeal provision being in the final bill.
An unrelated issue that could preclude Obama from signing the defense bill is funding for an alternate engine program for a next generation military aircraft known as the Joint Strike Fighter.
The House version of the legislation authorizes $485 million in funds for the second engine for the aircraft. Last week, an amendment failed in the House that would have stripped the funding from the legislation. The Senate committee’s version of the legislation authorizes no funding for the program.
In a statement, Obama spoke out against the funds for the alternate engine program in a Statement of Administration Policy on the defense bill as a whole. He subsequently warned Congress he would veto the legislation if it reaches his desk with such funding.
“As the Statement of Administration Policy made clear, our military does not want or need these programs being pushed by the Congress, and should Congress ignore this fact, I will veto any such legislation so that it can be returned to me without those provisions,” Obama said.
The issue of funding for the alternate engine program has perennially been a point of contention between Congress and the White House. According to Reuters, 2010 marks the fourth consecutive year in which the Pentagon has voiced concern about the program.
Nicholson said he didn’t know if the veto threat was “too serious of a problem,” but noted it’s something supporters of repeal should monitor.
He said repeal supporters could either push Congress to take out funding for the alternate engine program or lobby Obama not to veto the bill over the funding.
“In the end, I don’t think that’s going to be a big problem,” Nicholson said. “Even if he did veto it and it went back, I feel certain with the majorities by which we won the House and the way it’s aligned in the Senate, I don’t really fear that the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ language will be threatened or in play.”
Levin, a supporter of funding for the alternate engine program, also said during the press conference last week that Congress and the administration would find a way to work through the disagreement on the issue.
“There’s all kinds of items in this bill,” he said. “It’s difficult for me to believe the president would veto an entire bill over just one provision.”
National
White House orders warning signs at Smithsonian over gender identity exhibits
Administration criticizes National Museum of American History
The Trump administration will install temporary warning signs outside the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History after releasing a report accusing the museum of promoting what it calls “radical” gender ideology and other politically biased content.
According to the Executive Order, “For purposes of policy formulation under EO 14253, this review of the National Museum of American History concludes that NMAH, by the intention and at the direction of current Museum and Smithsonian leadership, has become subject to institutional capture by a radical, activist ideology that is fundamentally opposed to telling the noble, honest story of the great country we know and love.”
Executive Order 14253 refers to what the White House has deemed the “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” order. Therefore, the Trump administration has said it will take all available steps to ensure that the issues in the report are addressed and rectified.
Without specifying, the White House has stated that warnings will be posted along NMAH to alert visitors to sections of the museum it has deemed are in violation according to the report.
“The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National Park Service (NPS) and in coordination with the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, shall install temporary signage along the NPS-maintained sidewalks and walkways used by the public to access the Museum, informing visitors of the findings of the Report and of the policy set forth in section 1 of this order,” the Executive Order states.
The warnings were raised in a 162-page report issued by the Domestic Policy Council. The report detailed ways in which the National Museum of American History (NMAH) has “poorly” portrayed American history and insufficiently highlighted the founding story during America 250th celebrations.
The report outlined key findings of the NMAH. One of these findings was the Center for Restorative History within the museum, which has stated its purpose is to “encourage systemic change” by highlighting diverse groups. However, the report states that it highlights every group of Americans except for straight and white Americans.
The Domestic Policy Council accused the museum of engaging in “transgender activism.” According to the report, examples include referring to “biological men” as women or girls, displaying what it describes as sexually suggestive content, and incorporating discussions of gender fluidity, gender identity, and gender nonconformity into the museum’s educational curriculum, “Becoming US.”
The report also criticizes the curriculum for using the term “transgender” when discussing gender-nonconforming people and encouraging individuals to ask a person’s pronouns when meeting them. It further objects to exhibits stating that “transgender, nonbinary, and cisgender female athletes” continue to struggle for and demand equality.
It also condemns what it refers to as explicit content in an exhibition, “Girlhood (It’s Complicated)”, such as chest binders, questioning gender testing in women’s sports, and referring to biological females as “people inhabiting female bodies.”
Additionally, the report accuses the museum of no longer participating in flag-celebrating ceremonies because it was “too busy” preparing for June Pride and WorldPride events. It states, “As Director Hartig explained in a June 2024 presentation, all her attention was focused on flying the Smithsonian Pride Alliance’s ‘intersexual pride flag during June’ in 2023 and 2024.”
On July 9, the American Historical Association issued a statement rejecting the report’s findings.
In regard to the report, it states, “Its anonymous authors overlook a central lesson of the nation’s founding: the United States was forged by finding common purpose amid intense divisions, conflicts, and disagreements.” They argue that only “honest history” can tell the true history of the nation.
House Republicans led a subcommittee hearing that questioned Smithsonian Director Hartig extensively. A main focus of the questions was on the exhibits related to gender identity and whether they were appropriate. In the hearing, Rep. Nancy Mace asked: “When was your gender revealed to you, Dr. Hartig?”
In response to questioning, Hartig stated that the institution is nonpartisan and does not push a specific agenda.
Hartig published a two-page statement ahead of her hearing outlining her thoughts on the situation. In the report, she states that the institution is always open to criticism and will continue to look for ways to improve, but she sees the report as misleading.
“I can attest that the report does not fairly characterize the full body of work at this museum. I am familiar with the depth and breadth of our collections, exhibits, and programming. And while I recognize there is always room for improvement, I also know the beauty, inspiration, and expertise that exists in our museum,” Hartig wrote.
Democrats created their own 16-page report as a rebuttal to the Domestic Policy Council’s report. It argued that the attacks by the current Trump administration are another example of its attempt to rewrite history. Additionally, the report states that no policy changes were included in the Executive Order, as that is beyond the President’s role. “The Report recommends nothing. That is no accident. To recommend an action, the Report would need to identify who is legally empowered to take it, and its own opening chapter concedes the President’s only power is to ‘urge’,” House Democrats wrote.
It is still unclear when the temporary warnings will be installed or what form they will take beyond the requirements outlined in the executive order.
An exhibit at the Smithsonian. (Washington Blade photo by Landon Shackelford)
National
Trump ends direct HIV prevention funding to community groups
Advocates say transfer of funds to states may disrupt local programs
A decision by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the request of the Trump administration to discontinue direct federal funding of community-based organizations and clinics that provide HIV prevention services has raised concern among community health advocates, including LGBTQ advocates.
News surfaced earlier this month that the OMB informed the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that it would not renew $46 million in funding for 96 community-based organizations that provide HIV testing, referrals to medical care, and arrangements for obtaining pre-exposure HIV prevention medication known as PrEP that has been shown to be 99 percent effective in preventing HIV infection.
Under the new policy arranged by OMB, the funds will be redirected to the states to be allocated to state and local health departments. The policy calls for states to encourage but not require their respective state and local health departments to allocate some of those funds for community-based organizations. Under the new policy, the funding is scheduled to last until May of 2027, before a renewal decision is made.
Some political observers have speculated that the decision to end direct federal funding to community-based organizations could be motivated by the Trump administration’s hostility to diversity, equity, and inclusion or DEI programs and organizations that promote those programs, with the belief that some of the groups receiving the federal HIV prevention funds are promoting DEI.
Carl Schmid, executive director of the D.C.-based HIV+ Hepatitis Policy Institute, is among the leaders of many AIDS advocacy organizations expressing strong opposition to the OMB action. Schmid said that in places like D.C. and some states, local officials will be willing to redirect the federal funds to local community-based organizations.
A list of the 96 community-based organizations across the country that are currently receiving the federal AIDS funds includes the D.C.-based Whitman-Walker Health, which has a long history of healthcare support for the LGBTQ community, and La Clinica del Pueblo, which reaches out to the Latino community.
Schmid said Whitman-Walker and La Clinica del Pueblo have longstanding good relationships with the local D.C. government.
“But other states and jurisdictions don’t have that relationship with the community-based organizations,” Schmid said. “It depends on the state,” he said, adding, “Not all states send their money to the communities that really need it most. And not all states are fast in getting money to the community-based organizations.”
Spokespersons for Whitman-Walker and La Clinica del Pueblo couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on whether they think the Trump administration’s latest action related to funding will adversely impact their respective organizations.
Schmid said under the current federal grant program slated to be discontinued, which has been in effect for at least five years, HIV-related health organizations receiving the federal grant funds were eligible for an existing federal policy enabling them to purchase HIV-related medication, including the PrEP prevention medication, at a significant discount from pharmaceutical companies. With the ending of the direct federal HIV funds to community-based organizations, Schmid said it was unclear whether problems may surface in obtaining drug discounts.
“They could still qualify as a sub-grantee from a state,” Schmid said. “But what if they don’t get that grant again? They would not be able to qualify to obtain the drugs” at the discounted price, he said.
Among the organizations expressing strong concern over the decision to discontinue the direct HIV prevention funding to community-based organizations has been the Federal AIDS Policy Institute and its subgroup called the HIV Prevention Action Coalition.
In a July 22 letter bearing the names of 71 community-based organizations from throughout the country sent to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Acting Director Jay Bhattacharya, the group called for the Trump administration to “reconsider” ending the current funding policy.
“Ending this program without a clear plan for what comes next would dismantle prevention infrastructure that has taken more than three decades of federal investment to build and do so just as that long record of measurable returns is accelerating,” the letter states.
It says the initiative by President Trump in his first term as president to end the HIV epidemic and reduce new HIV infections by 90 percent by 2030 was moving ahead by the funding program for community-based organizations that the administration now wants to end.
“Discontinuing this program would also cost far more than it saves,” the letter says. “Every HIV transmission prevented avoids an estimated lifetime treatment cost of roughly half a million dollars per person to the healthcare system – costs that fall heavily on taxpayer-funded programs, including Medicaid, Medicare, and the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program,” the letter continues.
“The choice before the administration is straightforward: a modest, targeted investment in prevention now, or far greater public expense for treatment later,” the letter concludes.
Spokespersons for the OMB and the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC, have not immediately responded to news media requests for comment on the opposition to the funding change policy.
National
At Alliance Defending Freedom’s summit, church and state are one
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) among speakers
Uncloseted Media published this article on July 23.
By SPENCER MACNAUGHTON | Earlier this month, hundreds of people filled a conference room in San Diego. These included Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, Assistant Secretary of Health Admiral Brian Christine, OpenAI executive Dean Ball, and the attorneys general of West Virginia and Idaho.
They all came together for Alliance Defending Freedom’s 2026 Summit. The Christian legal group, also a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated anti-LGBTQ hate group, described the event as a “gathering of leaders from many different spheres, including law, public policy, media, business, education, and Christian leadership.”
Johnson — who has said that “homosexual relationships are inherently unnatural and … society cannot give its stamp of approval to such a dangerous lifestyle” — was a featured speaker.
In his speech, he seemed unconcerned with the separation of church and state: “It is so encouraging to Kelly and I to be among friends and fellow warriors for this cause and people who understand that God is not done with America yet. … ADF’s on the very tip of the spear, front line, defending those very truths and keeping the door open for the spread of the Gospel. This is our moment. I’m telling you, I believe the next season … is going to be the greatest season of this ministry since its inception.”
That ministry is one that has espoused aggressively anti-LGBTQ views since its inception in the early 1990s. It was co-founded by a group of evangelical men, including Alan Sears, who co-authored a book called “The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today.” Since then, ADF has opposed gay marriage and supported bans on gay sex and on gender-affirming care for minors.
After helping overturn Roe v. Wade, ADF lawyers have led key victories at the Supreme Court. In 303 Creative v. Elenis, SCOTUS ruled that a website designer could refuse service to gay weddings. And this year they convinced the Court to overturn Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy and to uphold state laws in West Virginia and Idaho that ban trans girls from playing on girls’ sports teams.
At the summit, ADF President Kristen Waggoner, who has promoted conversion therapists and consistently misgenders trans people, interviewed these states’ attorneys general.
“The lawyers who were defending women’s sports were among the best I’ve ever seen in my entire life,” West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey told Waggoner.
Similar to Johnson, Trump’s Assistant Secretary of Health Christine showed his commitment to governing based on conservative Christianity. He gave a Bible-thumping speech against gender transition and trans healthcare, saying that it “contradicts … the deeper moral order that is woven into creation itself. For Genesis 1:27 informs us that God created man in his own image. … Male and female” He also said the “complementary relationship between man and woman is divine” and advocated for youth with gender dysphoria to receive care from a pastor.
All of these remarks from politicians made me think of the interview I published earlier this week with Pete Hegseth’s pastor, Doug Wilson. He wants a Christian theocracy in America and told me that: both the perpetrator and the victim should be disciplined in some cases of marital rape; that transgender people are “sad;” that execution is justifiable for certain homosexual acts; and that gay sex should be illegal.
The ADF Summit is glossy and polished. And while its messaging may be less explicit than Pastor Wilson’s, the track record of the organizations shows they have the exact same desires. They’re just deeply strategic in what they say and when and how they say it.
I believe the political power players who attended this year’s summit know this. They know they are endorsing an organization whose members have essentially called for the illegalization of most — if not all ‚ forms of queer behavior and presentation.
In the last few years, these perspectives have become increasingly embedded in the highest rooms of the federal government and they have been effective in stripping away LGBTQ rights. Wilson, who just installed a full-time pastor in Washington to lead services, says there are 10 to 20 government officials who align with his church’s ideology.
It is vital for Americans to keep their eyes wide open to the ultimate goal of groups like ADF: to create a United States that leaves LGBTQ people without rights and that pushes us back in the closet.
PHOTOS: Petal Release Party
Madonna headlines World Pride Music Festival in Amsterdam
Reggie White relishing first season as artistic director of Woolly Mammoth
PHOTOS: Amsterdam Pride Canal Parade
Amsterdam Pride Canal Parade draws hundreds of thousands
Madonna to perform at World Pride in Amsterdam
BLADE ENDORSEMENT: Susan Stewart for mayor of Rehoboth Beach
PHOTOS: Lambda Legal in the Pines
Calendar: July 31-August 6
