National
Gay candidates harp on opponents’ ‘Don’t Ask’ votes
Pougnet, Potosnak running against lawmakers who voted no

Gay candidates seeking congressional office are capitalizing on their incumbent opponents’ votes against overturning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to build support in their electoral bids.
Those seeking to oust lawmakers from office are hoping that public support for ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — which a CNN poll taken before congressional votes last month found nearly 80 percent of Americans favor overturning — will help build opposition to lawmakers who opposed the repeal compromise.
The votes on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal were taken May 27 in the U.S. House and the Senate Armed Services Committee to attach the measure as part of pending defense budget legislation.
Among the candidates capitalizing on votes against repeal is Steve Pougnet, the gay Democratic mayor of Palm Springs, Calif. who’s seeking to oust Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.) from office.
Jordan Marks, campaign manager for Pougnet, said Bono Mack’s vote against repeal contributes to dispelling the perceived notion that she’s a moderate Republican.
“On ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ for so long, Mary Bono Mack had to have it both ways to show that she was a friend to the gay and lesbian community,” he said.
In a statement published shortly after the vote, the lawmaker defended her vote against the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal measure by saying she wants to wait until the Pentagon completes its study on the issue at the end of the year.
“I care deeply about our men and women in uniform and believe it is essential that a thorough review be completed by our military commanders prior to Congress enacting such a sweeping change,” she said. “This vote should have happened after that review.”
Bono Mack also noted opposition to the repeal measure voiced by the four service chiefs before the vote took place. She said lawmakers do these military leaders “a great disservice if we ignore their advice on this important issue.”
Until the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” vote, Bono Mack had been regarded in some circles as a pro-gay Republican because of her voting record. Bono Mack had voted twice against the Federal Marriage Amendment and in favor of hate crimes legislation and a version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
After the vote against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal tarnished her record on May 27, the Human Rights Campaign endorsed Pougnet.
Although Pougnet is running in a traditionally Republican district, a boost from the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” vote could be enough to give Pougnet the necessary edge to topple Bono Mack in what’s seen as a competitive race.
Pougnet is credited with being a powerhouse fundraiser and, according to Marks, will report $1.2 million in fundraising at the end of the second quarter. As of mid-May, Bono Mack has about $1.5 million in net receipts, according to Federal Election Campaign records.
Additionally, a June report in the Politico revealed that the National Republican Congressional Committee identified Bono Mack as one of nine potentially vulnerable Republican congressional lawmakers.
Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, said Bono Mack’s “no” vote on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” provides “clear proof” to supporters of repeal that she’s waffling on the issue.
“She always said if the military was OK with repealing it, she was fine,” Kors said. “The bill that went forward requires the military to finish its process and say that it won’t harm our military to repeal it, yet she still voted against it.”
Kors said Bono Mack’s vote has “riled up” those who thought she supported LGBT rights and “intensifies people’s belief that it’s time for her to go.”
On the other side of the country, Ed Potosnak, a Democrat running against incumbent Rep. Leonard Lance (R-N.J.) to represent New Jersey’s 7th congressional district, is similarly capitalizing on his opponent’s vote against overturning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Potosnak, a former staffer for Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) and public school teacher, said Lance’s vote is evidence the lawmaker has changed since he was elected to office.
“The vote against repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ really goes a long way in demonstrating that Lance is just out of touch,” Potosnak said.
Potosnak said Lance’s vote on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — as well as other votes the lawmaker has cast in his career — show he’s “on the wrong side of history.”
As the campaign progresses, Potosnak said voters “will have the opportunity to see how much he has changed since going down to Washington.”
Lance’s campaign didn’t respond to the Blade’s request to explain the lawmaker’s vote against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
While the lawmaker’s vote against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal could give Potosnak an edge in the race, he still faces an uphill battle. He’s running in a traditionally Republican district, and recent campaign finance reports show that he has around $51,000 in cash-on-hand compared to the $500,000 in Lance’s coffers.
Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of GOProud, a gay conservative group that advocates for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” defended lawmakers who voted “no” by noting results of the Pentagon study have yet to be revealed.
“We had a plan to look at this and get rid of it, and now you’re telling [us] to scrap that plan and vote on it now,” LaSalvia said. “The reason for many of those votes were the result of the Democrats changing the strategy in mid-stream, and it couldn’t have been more poorly handled.”
Another gay candidate seeking congressional office won’t be to draw attention to an opponent’s vote against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal in his campaign. David Cicilline, the Democratic mayor of Providence, R.I., who’s seeking to represent Rhode Island’s 1st congressional district, isn’t running against an incumbent candidate.
The lawmaker that Cicilline is seeking to succeed is Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), who announced his planned retirement from the House earlier this year. Kennedy voted in favor of the repeal measure.
State Department
Rubio mum on Hungary’s Pride ban
Lawmakers on April 30 urged secretary of state to condemn anti-LGBTQ bill, constitutional amendment

More than 20 members of Congress have urged Secretary of State Marco Rubio to publicly condemn a Hungarian law that bans Pride events.
California Congressman Mark Takano, a Democrat who co-chairs the Congressional Equality Caucus, and U.S. Rep. Bill Keating (D-Mass.), who is the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Europe Subcommittee, spearheaded the letter that lawmakers sent to Rubio on April 30.
Hungarian lawmakers in March passed a bill that bans Pride events and allow authorities to use facial recognition technology to identify those who participate in them. MPs last month amended the Hungarian constitution to ban public LGBTQ events.
“As a NATO ally which hosts U.S. service members, we expect the Hungarian government to abide by certain values which underpin the historic U.S.-Hungary bilateral relationship,” reads the letter. “Unfortunately, this new legislation and constitutional amendment disproportionately and arbitrarily target sexual and gender minorities.”
Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government over the last decade has moved to curtail LGBTQ and intersex rights in Hungary.
A law that bans legal recognition of transgender and intersex people took effect in 2020. Hungarian MPs that year also effectively banned same-sex couples from adopting children and defined marriage in the constitution as between a man and a woman.
An anti-LGBTQ propaganda law took effect in 2021. The European Commission sued Hungary, which is a member of the European Union, over it.
MPs in 2023 approved the “snitch on your gay neighbor” bill that would have allowed Hungarians to anonymously report same-sex couples who are raising children. The Budapest Metropolitan Government Office in 2023 fined Lira Konyv, the country’s second-largest bookstore chain, 12 million forints ($33,733.67), for selling copies of British author Alice Oseman’s “Heartstopper.”
Former U.S. Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman, who is gay, participated in the Budapest Pride march in 2024 and 2023. Pressman was also a vocal critic of Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ crackdown.
“Along with years of democratic backsliding in Hungary, it flies in the face of those values and the passage of this legislation deserves quick and decisive criticism and action in response by the Department of State,” reads the letter, referring to the Pride ban and constitutional amendment against public LGBTQ events. “Therefore, we strongly urge you to publicly condemn this legislation and constitutional change which targets the LGBTQ community and undermines the rights of Hungarians to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.”
U.S. Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Sarah McBride (D-Del.), Jim Costa (D-Calif.), James McGovern (D-Mass.), Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Julie Johnson (D-Texas), Ami Bera (D-Calif.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Gabe Amo (D-R.I.), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Dina Titus (D-Nev.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) signed the letter alongside Takano and Keating.
A State Department spokesperson on Wednesday declined to comment.
Federal Government
HRC memo details threats to LGBTQ community in Trump budget
‘It’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives’

A memo issued Monday by the Human Rights Campaign details threats to LGBTQ people from the “skinny” budget proposal issued by President Donald Trump on May 2.
HRC estimates the total cost of “funding cuts, program eliminations, and policy changes” impacting the community will exceed approximately $2.6 billion.
Matthew Rose, the organization’s senior public policy advocate, said in a statement that “This budget is more than cuts on a page—it’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives.”
“Trump is taking away life-saving healthcare, support for LGBTQ-owned businesses, protections against hate crimes, and even housing help for people living with HIV,” he said. “Stripping away more than $2 billion in support sends one clear message: we don’t matter. But we’ve fought back before, and we’ll do it again—we’re not going anywhere.”
Proposed rollbacks or changes at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will target the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, other programs related to STI prevention, viral hepatitis, and HIV, initiatives housed under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and research by the National Institutes of Health and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Other agencies whose work on behalf of LGBTQ populations would be jeopardized or eliminated under Trump’s budget include the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Department of Education.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
Litigation challenging the policy continues in the 9th Circuit

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump-Vance administration to enforce a ban on transgender personnel serving in the U.S. Armed Forces pending the outcome of litigation challenging the policy.
The brief order staying a March 27 preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington notes the dissents from liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
On the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump issued an executive order requiring Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to effectuate a ban against transgender individuals, going further than efforts under his first administration — which did not target those currently serving.
The DoD’s Feb. 26 ban argued that “the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.”
The case challenging the Pentagon’s policy is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The lead plaintiff is U.S. Navy Commander Emily Shilling, who is joined in the litigation by other current transgender members of the armed forces, one transgender person who would like to join, and a nonprofit whose members either are transgender troops or would like to be.
Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, both representing the plaintiffs, issued a statement Tuesday in response to the Supreme Court’s decision:
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a devastating blow to transgender servicemembers who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation’s defense.
“By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the Court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice.
“Transgender individuals meet the same standards and demonstrate the same values as all who serve. We remain steadfast in our belief that this ban violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and will ultimately be struck down.”
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer noted that courts must show “substantial deference” to DoD decision making on military issues.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the military ban to go into effect is devastating for the thousands of qualified transgender servicemembers who have met the standards and are serving honorably, putting their lives on the line for their country every single day,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “Today’s decision only adds to the chaos and destruction caused by this administration. It’s not the end of the case, but the havoc it will wreak is devastating and irreparable. History will confirm the weight of the injustice done today.”
“The Court has upended the lives of thousands of servicemembers without even the decency of explaining why,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “As a result of this decision, reached without benefit of full briefing or argument, brave troops who have dedicated their lives to the service of our country will be targeted and forced into harsh administrative separation process usually reserved for misconduct. They have proven themselves time and time again and met the same standards as every other soldier, deploying in critical positions around the globe. This is a deeply sad day for our country.”
Levi and Minter are the lead attorneys in the first two transgender military ban cases to be heard in federal court, Talbott v. Trump and Ireland v. Hegseth.
U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) issued a statement on behalf of the Congressional Equality Caucus, where he serves as chair.
“By lifting the lower court’s preliminary injunction and allowing Trump to enforce his trans troop ban as litigation continues, the Supreme Court is causing real harm to brave Americans who simply want to serve their nation in uniform.
“The difference between Donald Trump, a draft dodger, and the countless brave Americans serving their country who just happen to be trans couldn’t be starker. Let me be clear: Trump’s ban isn’t going to make our country safer—it will needlessly create gaps in critical chains of military command and actively undermine our national security.
“The Supreme Court was absolutely wrong to allow this ban to take effect. I hope that lower courts move swiftly so this ban can ultimately be struck down.”
SPARTA Pride also issued a statement:
“The Roberts Court’s decision staying the preliminary injunction will allow the Trump purge of transgender service members from the military to proceed.
“Transgender Americans have served openly, honorably, and effectively in the U.S. Armed Forces for nearly a decade. Thousands of transgender troops are currently serving, and are fully qualified for the positions in which they serve.
“Every court up to now has found that this order is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the Roberts Court – without hearing any evidence or argument – decided to allow it to go forward. So while the case continues to be argued, thousands of trans troops will be purged from the Armed Forces.
“They will lose their jobs. They will lose their commands, their promotions, their training, pay and benefits, and time. Their units will lose key players; the mission will be disrupted. This is the very definition of irreparable harm.”
Imara Jones, CEO of TransLash Media, issued the following statement:
“The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Trump’s ban on transgender soldiers in the military, even as the judicial process works its way through the overall question of service, signals that open discrimination against trans people is fair game across American society.
“It will allow the Trump Administration to further advance its larger goal of pushing trans people from mainstream society by discharging transgender military members who are currently serving their country, even at a time when the military has struggled recently to meet its recruiting goals.
“But even more than this, all of my reporting tells me that this is a further slide down the mountain towards authoritarianism. The hard truth is that governments with authoritarian ambitions have to separate citizens between who is worthy of protection and who’s not. Trans people are clearly in the later category. And this separation justifies the authoritarian quest for more and more power. This appears to be what we are witnessing here and targeting trans people in the military is just a means to an end.”
-
The Vatican16 hours ago
American cardinal chosen as next pope
-
a&e features22 hours ago
Your guide to the many Pride celebrations in D.C. region
-
U.S. Supreme Court3 days ago
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
-
District of Columbia2 days ago
WorldPride permits for National Mall have yet to be approved