National
Incumbents hope LGBT support boosts chances
Murphy, Gillibrand have advantages in re-election bids
Is going gay good for your re-election prospects?
Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) are among the incumbents seeking re-election hoping that their support of LGBT rights will translate to campaign donations and victory in November.
Both lawmakers championed repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as one of their signature issues, and both have promising prospects for their re-election chances even though they’re competing in challenging races.
In the House, Murphy has been outspoken on the issue of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and sponsored repeal legislation. He’s made numerous media appearances to denounce the law and was featured last year on the cover of The Advocate.
Upon taking up repeal legislation last year, the Iraq war veteran took a bill with about 150 co-sponsors and brought a measure to the floor of the House that earned 234 votes.
Similarly, Gillibrand has been a strong proponent of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” since her appointment last year to the U.S. Senate.
She last year floated the idea of introducing an amendment that would have instituted an 18-month moratorium on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Additionally, Gillibrand is credited with working with Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin to initiate hearings on the issue.
Matt Canter, a Gillibrand spokesperson, said the senator’s advocacy work on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is based on a strong personal conviction.
“My boss has helped champion the issue because she felt that now is the time to right this wrong,” he said. “She felt we needed leadership in the Senate to breathe life into this issue, to begin the debate on this issue.”
Michael Cole, a Human Rights Campaign spokesperson, called Murphy and Gillibrand “real champions of repeal” and emphasized the importance of Murphy’s status as an Iraq war veteran on the issue.
“Our campaign has been about putting veterans front and center, and when you have someone like the congressman — with a distinguished history of military service — it is profoundly impactful on both his colleagues and public opinion,” Cole said.
As LGBT civil rights advocates have expressed gratitude for Murphy and Gillibrand for tackling “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the lawmakers are facing a more favorable climate as they seek re-election this fall than many other incumbents.
Murphy is running in Pennsylvania’s 8th congressional district, which, prior to his election in 2006, had been represented by a Republican since 1993. Murphy is facing in the general election Republican Mike Fitzpatrick, the former U.S. House member whom Murphy unseated by less than 1 percentage point.
Still, many political observers are predicting that the Democratic congressman is likely to achieve victory this fall.
The Cook Report identifies the race as “lean Democratic” and the Rothenberg Political Report calls it “Democrat favored.” Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball identifies the race as a “toss-up.”
Meanwhile, Gillibrand is looking at a relatively smooth race this fall even though she was once considered vulnerable because she had been appointed to her seat last year by New York Gov. David Paterson and has never won statewide election.
One by one, possible serious challengers have decided they wouldn’t throw their hats in the ring — despite earlier speculation that they would do so.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), who had earlier sought to challenge Gillibrand for the Democratic nomination, announced late last year that she wouldn’t pursue a run. Earlier this year, Harold Ford Jr., a Democratic former U.S. House member who represented Tennessee, said he was considering running, but later decided against it.
On the Republican side, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former New York Gov. George Pataki were once seen as possible Gillibrand challengers, but both announced they wouldn’t pursue the seat.
Rev. Al Sharpton, a black civil rights activist and former Democratic candidate for president, reportedly told the New York Times earlier this year that Gillibrand has seen a remarkable amount of good fortune in her re-election bid.
“I think Gillibrand either has mystical powers or the best luck I have ever seen in politics,” he was quoted as saying in an April article.
But how much impact advocating for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal is having on these incumbent lawmakers remains in question.
Canter expressed skepticism about a correlation between Gillibrand’s position on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and her lack of serious competition this fall.
“I don’t know why Rudy Giuliani decided not to run for Senate,” Canter said. “I don’t know if ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is the reason.”
Trevor Thomas, a spokesperson for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said the impact of supporting “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal has so far been minimal on incumbents.
“SLDN looked at those [lawmakers] who voted for the Murphy amendment and are also facing tough re-election fights,” Thomas said. “We understand that includes about 25 members, and only two of them have been hit by their opponents for voting for ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal.”
Thomas said that attacking an incumbent House member for their “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” stance isn’t “the strongest winning point by Republican opponents in this election season.”
But Dan Pinello, a gay government professor at the City University of New York, said advocating for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal helped put both Murphy and Gillibrand into more favorable positions this fall.
“Taking a highly public leadership role in attacking [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] is likely to reap substantial political reward in the form of campaign contributions from the national LGBT community,” Pinello said.
Pinello noted that Murphy’s advocacy on repeal made him particularly attractive to LGBT donors seeking to advance their cause.
“Murphy has appeared on ‘The Rachel Maddow Show’ and other liberal media outlets as this hunky straight knight in shining armor coming to the rescue of lesbian and gay damsels in distress,” Pinello said. “How in the world can they not reward him with anything less than tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions?”
Pinello likewise called Gillibrand a “wily fundraiser” and said he expects that she would use her advocacy against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to “her campaign’s best financial advantage.”
Still, Pinello noted a distinction between taking on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” a law that polls show an overwhelming number of Americans oppose, as opposed to taking on more challenging LGBT issues, such as repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Pinello said he doesn’t believe any member of Congress is taking on DOMA as forcefully as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” even though the federal law prohibiting recognition of same-sex marriage affects more LGBT Americans.
“The principal reason for such [a] legislative leadership vacuum is that attacking DOMA would appear to most constituents to be endorsing same-sex marriage, which only about a third of Americans support outright,” he said. “So only Democratic incumbents in extremely safe districts or states would risk acting so boldly. And there are relatively few of those in this election cycle.”
Federal Government
Protesters say SAVE Act targets voters, transgender youth
Bill described as ‘Jim Crow 2.0’
Members of Congress, advocates, and people from across the country gathered outside the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday to protest proposed federal legislation that voting rights activists have deemed “Jim Crow 2.0.”
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require in-person proof of citizenship for anyone seeking to vote in U.S. elections.
President Donald Trump has also pushed for the proposed legislation to include a section that would ban gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, even with parental consent, and prohibit trans people from participating in school or professional sports consistent with their gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth.
In addition to changing voter registration requirements, the bill would limit acceptable forms of identification to documents such as a birth certificate or passport — records that the Brennan Center for Justice estimates more than 21 million Americans do not have — effectively restricting access to the ballot. It would also ban online voter registration, DMV voter registration efforts, and mail-in voter registration.
A 2021 investigation by the Associated Press found that fewer than 475 people voted illegally or improperly, a tiny fraction of the estimated 160 million Americans who voted in the 2020 election.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) spoke at the event.
“It will kick millions of American citizens off the rolls. And they don’t even require you to be told,” the highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate told protesters and reporters outside the Capitol. “If this law passes — and it won’t — you’re gonna show up in November … and they’ll say… sorry, you’re no longer on the voting rolls.”

He, like many other speakers, emphasized the bill in the context of American history, pointing to what he described as its racist roots and its impact on Black and brown Americans.
“I have called this act, over and over again, Jim Crow 2.0 … because they know it’s the truth.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was one of the lawmakers leading opposition to the legislation and spoke at the rally.
“It’s not just voting rights that are on the line — our democracy is on the line,” the California lawmaker said. “It’s not a voter I.D. bill. It’s a bait and switch bill.”
He added historical context, noting the significance of voting rights legislation passed more than 60 years ago. In 1965, Alabama civil rights activists marched to protest barriers to voter registration. Alabama state troopers violently attacked peaceful demonstrators at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, using tear gas, clubs, and whips against more than 500 — mostly Black — protesters.

“61 years ago — not to the day — but this week, President Lyndon Johnson came to the Capitol and addressed a joint session of Congress in the wake of Bloody Sunday and pushed Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act,” Padilla said. “61 years later, Donald Trump and this Republican majority wants to take us backwards. We’re not gonna let that happen.”
U.S. Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) also spoke, emphasizing that he views the effort as a Republican-led and Trump-backed attempt to restrict voting access, particularly among Black, brown, and predominantly Democratic communities.
“President Trump told Republicans when they were meeting behind closed doors that ‘The SAVE Act will guarantee Republicans win the midterms and ensure they do not lose an election for 50 years,’” Luján said. “The first time I think Donald Trump’s been honest … This voter suppression bill is only that. Taking away vote by mail? I hope my Republican colleagues from states that voted for Donald Trump or where vote by mail is popular have the courage and the backbone to stand up and say no to this nonsense, because their constituents are going to push back.”
U.S. Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) also spoke.
“Our Republican colleagues have already cut Medicaid, Medicare, people don’t know how they’re gonna be able to afford energy,” she said, providing context for the broader political moment. “We’re in the middle of a war that they can’t even get straight while we’re in it and don’t have a way to get out of it. And we are now faced with defending our democracy?”
She then showed the crowd something that she said has been with her throughout her political journey in Washington.
“I brought with me something that I carried on the day that I was sworn into the House of Representatives when I was elected in 2016, and I carried it with me on the day that I was sworn in as United States senator. And I also carried it with me when I was trapped up in the gallery on Jan. 6 and all I could think to do was pray … This document allowed my great great great grandfather, who had been enslaved in Georgia, to have the right to vote. We took this and turned it into a scarf. It is the returns of qualified voters and reconstruction code from 1867. This is my proof of what we’ve been through. This is also our inspiration.”

“I got to travel between the Edmund Pettus Bridge two times. And even as I thought about this moment, I recognized that while we wish we weren’t in it, while we don’t know why we’re in it, I do know we were made for it … So I came today to tell you that, um, just like the leader said, that he calls it Jim Crow 2.0. I call it Jim Crow 2.NO.”
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy organization in the U.S., also spoke, highlighting the impact of the bill’s proposed provisions affecting trans people.
“This bill is not about saving America. This bill is about stealing an election. This bill is about suppressing voters,” Robinson said. “This bill not only tries to disenfranchise voters that deserve their right to vote, it also tries to criminalize trans kids and their families … It tries to criminalize doctors providing medically necessary care for our trans youth.”

The SAVE Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Feb. 11 but has not yet been considered in the U.S. Senate.
Idaho
Idaho advances bill to restrict bathroom access for transgender residents
HB 752 passed in state House of Representatives on Monday
The Idaho House of Representatives passed House Bill 752 on Monday, a measure that would make it a crime for a person to use a bathroom other than the one designated for their “biological sex.”
The story was first reported by the Idaho Capitol Sun after the bill cleared the House.
House Bill 752 would make it a criminal offense — either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the number of prior offenses — for individuals who “knowingly and willfully” enter a bathroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex.
The bill would apply to public buildings, including government-owned spaces, and places of “public accommodation,” a category that includes private businesses.
According to the bill’s text, it would “prohibit a person from entering a restroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex; provide a penalty; provide exceptions; define terms; and declare an emergency and provide an effective date.”
A first offense would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison. A second or subsequent offense within five years would be a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.
The bill passed in a 54–15 vote on Monday. Six Republicans broke with their party’s majority to join nine Democrats in opposing the measure.
The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Cornel Rasor, a Republican from Sagle near the Washington-Idaho border, told House lawmakers that the legislation is intended to protect women and girls.
“It prevents discomfort and voyeurism escalation and assaults, while preserving single-user options and narrow exceptions so no one is denied access for emergency aid,” Rasor said.
State Rep. Chris Mathias, a Democrat from Boise, disagreed, arguing that the legislation would unfairly target transgender Idahoans.
“The truth of the matter is — and I know a lot of people don’t want to say it — but forcing people who don’t look like the sex they were assigned at birth, or transgender folks, to use other people’s bathrooms is going to put a lot of people in danger,” Mathias said.
The Idaho American Civil Liberties Union made a statement about the bill following its passage.
“Idaho lawmakers continue pushing these harmful, invasive bathroom laws, yet cannot present credible evidence that transgender people using gender-aligned bathrooms threaten public safety,” the Idaho ACLU said. “The bill does nothing to address real criminal acts, such as sexual assault or voyeurism, and disregards concerns from law enforcement about the burden enforcement would place on local resources.”
In addition to human rights advocates, who have spoken out against similar bills advancing in state legislatures across the country, Idaho law enforcement groups have also opposed the measure. They argue that the way the legislation is written would “pose significant practical enforcement challenges,” noting that officers are tasked with maintaining public safety — not conducting gender checks or policing bathroom access.
During a committee hearing last week, law enforcement representatives and several trans Idahoans testified that the bill would make many residents less safe.
“Officers responding to a complaint would be placed in the difficult position of determining an individual’s biological sex in order to enforce the statute,” Idaho Fraternal Order of Police President Bryan Lovell wrote. “In many circumstances, there is no clear or reasonable way for officers to make that determination without engaging in questioning or investigative actions that could be viewed as invasive and inappropriate.”
The Idaho Sheriffs’ Association requested that lawmakers amend the bill to require that individuals be given an opportunity to leave a bathroom immediately before facing potential prosecution.
The bill now heads to the Idaho Senate for consideration. To become law, it must pass both chambers and avoid a veto from the governor.
A separate bathroom bill, House Bill 607, which would be enforced through civil lawsuits, passed the House last month but has not yet received a committee hearing in the Senate.
State Department
Report: US to withhold HIV aid to Zambia unless mineral access expanded
New York Times obtained Secretary of State Marco Rubio memo
The State Department is reportedly considering withholding assistance for Zambians with HIV unless the country’s government allows the U.S. to access more of its minerals.
The New York Times on Monday reported Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a memo to State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs staffers wrote the U.S. “will only secure our priorities by demonstrating willingness to publicly take support away from Zambia on a massive scale.” The newspaper said it obtained a copy of the letter.
Zambia is a country in southern Africa that borders Tanzania, Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The Times notes upwards of 1.3 million Zambians receive daily HIV medications through PEPFAR. The newspaper reported Rubio in his memo said the Trump-Vance administration could “significantly cut assistance” as soon as May.
“Reports of (the) State Department withholding lifesaving HIV treatment in return for mining concessions in Zambia does not make us safer, stronger, or more prosperous,” said U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on Tuesday. “Monetizing innocent people’s lives further undermines U.S. global leadership and is just plain wrong.”
The Washington Blade has reached out to the State Department for comment.
Zambia received breakthrough HIV prevention drug through PEPFAR
Rubio on Jan. 28, 2025, issued a waiver that allowed PEPFAR and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during a freeze on nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending. HIV/AIDS service providers around the world with whom the Blade has spoken say PEPFAR cuts and the loss of funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, which officially closed on July 1, 2025, has severely impacted their work.
The State Department last September announced PEPFAR will distribute lenacapavir in countries with high prevalence rates. Zambia two months later received the first doses of the breakthrough HIV prevention drug.
Kenya and Uganda are among the African countries have signed health agreements with the U.S. since the Trump-Vance administration took office.
The Times notes the countries that signed these agreements pledged to increase health spending. The Blade last month reported LGBTQ rights groups have questioned whether these agreements will lead to further exclusion and government-sanctioned discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
