National
‘Gambling with lives and livelihoods’
Some fear ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal doomed if September vote is delayed
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. (Blade photo by Michael Key)
Supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal are pushing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to schedule a vote on the issue in September as some fear further delay would entirely derail efforts to overturn the law this year.
Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said the prospects for passing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal are “reduced significantly” if Reid doesn’t schedule a vote on the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization before lawmakers break for the election.
“The failure of [the defense authorization bill] and [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] to get floor time and a vote in September or first week of October will be Reid’s alone,” Nicholson said. “Bumping it off to lame duck is gambling with our community’s lives and livelihoods – the same risk we demanded Obama not take by putting off the vote until next year.”
Winnie Stachelberg, senior vice president for external affairs at the Center for American Progress, also emphasized the importance of having a vote on the defense authorization bill and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in September.
“It’s important that this happen in September because there are folks who don’t want to deal with this in a lame duck or next year,” she said.
On May 27, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to include language that would lead to repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the defense authorization bill and reported the language as a whole to the Senate floor.
But Reid hasn’t yet scheduled a vote for the legislation on the Senate floor. Some Capitol Hill insiders have said they’re expecting the bill to come up in September, although doubts are emerging about having a vote before the month is out.
Nicholson said he thinks Reid may not schedule a vote on the defense authorization bill in September because he’s reluctant to force members to vote on controversial measures prior to the election.
The consequence of not having a vote by the end of the first week of October, Nicholson said, is that all the gains made so far over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will be “put at great risk.”
“Once the Senate goes into recess for election season, anything could happen,” Nicholson said. “So putting the [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] vote off until after October is simply gambling with this very important issue. I don’t see how we will be able to forgive the president or Sen. Reid if that happens, because between the two of them they have the power to make sure that risk is not taken.”
Stachelberg emphasized the importance of finishing legislative action on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before the Pentagon working group completes its study on the issue on Dec. 1.
“In other words, the Pentagon’s hands will be tied to implement the recommendations if “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” isn’t repealed,” she said. “They’ll have to wait to come back and do that next year, and that’s a problem.”
Jim Manley, a Reid spokesperson, said the Senate is planning to have a vote in September on defense authorization, but noted Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) opposition to moving the bill to the floor just before lawmakers broke for August recess.
“When we get back in September, we’ll continue to try and work on an agreement to get the bill to the floor as quickly as possible,” Manley said. “Now that the primary is over, hopefully Sen. McCain will relent in his objection and allow us to take the bill to the floor.”
McCain’s office didn’t respond to the Blade’s request for comment on whether he would continue his objection to a vote.
Other high-profile items are on the Senate agenda for September. Manley said legislation to assist small businesses would be a priority, along with bills related to tax break extensions as well as various conference reports.
When asked whether scheduling time for those bills would mean putting off a vote on the defense authorization bill, Manley replied, “I don’t do hypotheticals.”
Other observers say putting off a vote on the defense authorization bill could be the end for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal if Republicans take control of Congress.
Politico’s Morning Defense reported last week that lobbyists are predicting the defense authorization bill would “come to a screeching halt” if the GOP wins a majority in November and a vote on the legislation hasn’t taken place by that time.
“They provide a couple of reasons: The level of partisan bickering is likely to intensify, and waiting and letting Republicans handle those bills next year will allow the Democrats to play the blame game,” Politico reports.
Nicholson also said a Republican takeover this fall could thwart any attempt for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year.
“Unfortunately, a takeover of even one house of Congress by a leadership cadre that is hostile to repealing [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] could put the breaks on all of the progress we have made so far, and even begin to reverse a lot of that progress,” he said.
A lack of pressure from the White House is also seen as a concern for those seeking a Senate vote on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this September.
Nicholson said it’s unclear whether the White House will push to have a vote on the defense authorization bill when the Senate returns from August recess.
“If the president were pressuring Sen. Reid to move the defense bill in September, it would likely get done,” Nicholson said. “But the White House does not always want bills coming up on the same timeline that we do.”
Nicholson said Obama could eliminate the uncertainty over a vote on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” by “publicly call[ing] for Sen. Reid to bring up the defense authorization bill in September.”
Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, said in response to an inquiry on whether the president would push for a vote on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in September that the president remains committed to the issue.
“The president has made clear that he wants [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] repealed and he continues to work with Congress to make sure this happens,” Inouye said.
New York
Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced
One of the victims, John Umberger, was D.C. political consultant
A New York judge on Wednesday sentenced three men convicted of killing a D.C. political consultant and another man who they targeted at gay bars in Manhattan.
NBC New York notes a jury in February convicted Jayqwan Hamilton, Jacob Barroso, and Robert DeMaio of murder, robbery, and conspiracy in relation to druggings and robberies that targeted gay bars in Manhattan from March 2021 to June 2022.
John Umberger, a 33-year-old political consultant from D.C., and Julio Ramirez, a 25-year-old social worker, died. Prosecutors said Hamilton, Barroso, and DeMaio targeted three other men at gay bars.
The jury convicted Hamilton and DeMaio of murdering Umberger. State Supreme Court Judge Felicia Mennin sentenced Hamilton and DeMaio to 40 years to life in prison.
Barroso, who was convicted of killing Ramirez, received a 20 years to life sentence.
National
Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information
Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources
Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.
“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.
“These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.
It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”
The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question.
A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit.
While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management.
The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.
Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.
“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.
“Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says.
Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”
Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”
Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.
“As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from the Washington Blade.
“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said.
The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”
It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”
The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society.
The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.
While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”
“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.
The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.
Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.
Laverne Cox, Reneé Rapp, Deacon Maccubbin named WorldPride grand marshals
House passes reconciliation with gender-affirming care funding ban
PHOTOS: D.C. Trans Pride
Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced
Looking back at 50 years of Pride in D.C
Looking back at 50 years of Pride in D.C
WorldPride events round-up
Pope Leo XIV: Family based on ‘stable union between a man and a woman’
Wes Moore signs HIV decriminalization bill
