National
Troop survey draws criticism
Activists assail ‘derogatory’ language in Pentagon questionnaire
Defense Secretary Robert Gates (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
A new Pentagon study that aims to gather the views of military spouses on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal has invoked the ire of LGBT advocacy groups that are claiming bias in the questionnaire.
According to the Defense Department, the survey went out Aug. 20 to 150,000 military households and is intended to inform the work of the Pentagon group working on a plan to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“We’re going to look at that information and develop an implementation plan for a possible repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” said Cynthia Smith, a Defense Department spokesperson.
But LGBT rights groups advocating for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” say the survey questions are biased and assume a negative impact of repealing the 1993 law banning open service in the U.S. military.
Among the survey questions:
• Has your spouse ever worked on a daily basis with an individual he or she believed to be a homosexual service member?
• Compared with other service members in the community, how much did that service member participate in military social activities?
• Would a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” affect your preference for your spouse’s plans for his or her future in the military?
• Assume “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is repealed and you live in on-base housing. If a gay or lesbian service member lived in your neighborhood with their partner, would you stay on-base or would you try to move out?
Alex Nicholson, executive director of the Servicemembers United, said Monday in a statement that the spousal survey was even more derogatory toward gay and lesbian personnel than a previous survey sent directly to U.S. troops.
“While it is wise to solicit and consider military spouse input on policy changes that will have a major impact on military families, it is extremely unwise to do so for issues that have minimal impact on spouses while also using poorly designed, biased and derogatory survey instruments,” Nicholson said.
Nicholson added that the Pentagon should be concerned with what he called “real family readiness issues,” such as excessive deployments, inadequate mental health support and low troop pay.
Michael Cole, a Human Rights Campaign spokesperson, said in response to a Blade inquiry on the survey that his organization doesn’t believe the survey is necessary in the first place.
“Gay and lesbian troops are serving now, albeit in silence,” Cole said. “Given that this entire process is about how, not if, to implement repeal, we look forward to the day sometime soon when all of these are non-issues to open service.”
The spousal survey comes on the heels of another survey the Pentagon issued to 450,000 troops to collect their views on eliminating “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
According to the Pentagon, only about one-quarter of those surveys were returned by their due date on Aug. 25. Smith said the Pentagon received 110,000 of the 450,000 surveys it distributed.
Nicholson said such a return rate shows troops have little interest in the survey and don’t care about changing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“While the Department of Defense and [survey coordinator] Westat are spinning the low response rate to the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ survey as expected and sufficient, neither are disclosing the fact that the military leaders have had to put significant pressure on troops on multiple occasions to even get this level of response,” Nicholson said. “Some commanders and senior leaders have even told subordinates that participation is mandatory.”
Nicholson said the limited responses degrade of the credibility of the survey and “violate ethical standards that prevent researchers from compelling respondents to participate in survey research.”
In addition to seeking input from military spouses, the Pentagon also is working with LGBT groups to find a way to obtain feedback from the same-sex partners of U.S. service members without outing those troops under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Smith said the Pentagon is “currently in the process” of working with advocacy groups to determine how to reach out to partners of gay and lesbian service members.
Trevor Thomas, spokesperson for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said SLDN is among the groups with which the Pentagon is consulting on this matter.
“While there are legal questions and concerns around confidentiality, we’re working to find the safest approach possible and make sure their important voices are heard,” he said.
Palm Center report
shows ‘Don’t Ask’ costs
In a related development, the Palm Center, a think tank on gays in the military at the University of California, Santa Barbara, last week published a report outlining 12 “costs” of the law.
The report, titled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Detailing the Damage,” cites several ways in which the U.S. military has been harmed as a result of having the law in place for 17 years.
According to the report, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” harms the armed services by:
• wasting the talents of essential personnel with critical skills who were fired for their sexual orientation, including Arabic language specialists, medical professionals and combat aviators. The report cites a Governmental Accountability Office study saying 757 troops with “critical occupations” were fired between fiscal years 1994 and 2003;
• hampering recruitment and retention by shrinking the pool of potential enlistees for the U.S. military. The report cites a study from the Williams Institute at the University of California that says 41,000 qualified gay Americans may join the U.S. armed forces if the ban on open service were lifted;
• imposing financial costs on the U.S. military. The report cites a 2005 GAO study saying “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has cost the military $190.5 million: $95.4 million to recruit replacements for service members separated under the policy and $95.1 million to train them;
• wasting the time of officers who must investigate and discharge outed gay, lesbian and bisexual troops.
In a statement, Nathaniel Frank, who wrote the report as a senior fellow at the Palm Center, said the work is intended to draw new attention to the damage that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” inflicts on the military.
“Much of the debate about whether to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ has focused on the fact that the ban is unfair and unnecessary,” he said. “But there is less familiarity with the profound damage the policy causes, and so there isn’t quite the sense of urgency among some policymakers to lift the ban. This report details a long list of costs imposed by ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’, that show the policy has achieved the opposite of what it was supposed to accomplish.”
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.”
Pope Leo XIV: Family based on ‘stable union between a man and a woman’
Tips for buying a house in Rehoboth Beach
Lucky Pollo stretches its wings at 14th and U
Joe Biden diagnosed with ‘aggressive form’ of prostate cancer
Mike Millan prepares to co-host Helen Hayes Awards
Tourists, locals express concerns about WorldPride security
Ashley Biden to speak at Blade’s Summer Kickoff Party in Rehoboth Beach
Peruvian activists react to Pope Leo XIV’s election
Down to shuck!
