U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, sent a letter on Thursday to U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. demanding answers about the Trump-Vance administration’s “systematic” elimination of programs to fight HIV in the U.S. and around the world.

Also signed by Democratic Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois, the letter requests information about cuts to federal support for HIV research, including vaccine development efforts, the shuttering of the HIV prevention division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the defunding of programs providing HIV treatment and prevention services since President Donald Trump returned to the White House.

The lawmakers requested responses by or before the end of July.

“It is shameful that HHS Secretary RFK Jr. and the Trump Administration are working to dismantle our HIV research, care, and prevention programs aimed at eradicating the disease across the world,” Garcia said. “This decision is absolutely reckless and puts millions of lives at risk.  Oversight Democrats refuse to let Secretary Kennedy’s reliance on conspiracy theories and misinformation threaten the health and safety of our public health.” 

“The Trump Administration’s reckless decision to gut HIV prevention and research programs is not only scientifically indefensible—it’s morally unconscionable. These cuts jeopardize the health of millions, both at home and abroad, and reverse decades of bipartisan progress in the fight against HIV/AIDS,” Krishnamoorthi said. “We’re demanding answers because the American people, and the global community, deserve better than politically motivated neglect of public health.”

Echoing warnings from HIV and public health experts, the congressmen in their letter stressed that backsliding in efforts to fight the disease at home and abroad come just as advancements in treatment and prevention have finally put some of the most ambitious goals to end the epidemic within reach.

The letter suggests that Kennedy’s embrace of misinformation about HIV might explain, to some extent, his dismantling of programs to end the epidemic at home and abroad, specifically, pointing to the secretary’s history of challenging the overwhelming and longstanding scientific and medical consensus about the causal relationship between HIV and AIDS.

The congressmen also detailed many of the real-world consequences of health policy concerning HIV in Trump’s second term. For example, they note experts anticipate there will be millions of excess new HIV infections and hundreds of thousands of excess HIV-related deaths in Sub-Saharan Africa in just one year.

The letter also warns that “President Trump’s Fiscal Year 2026 budget request for domestic HIV program calls for a $1.5 billion reduction in funding,” which “could lead to more than 143,000 additional HIV cases in the United States within five years and about 127,000 additional deaths from HIV and AIDS-related causes.”

Garcia’s leadership of Oversight Dems will be closely watched

If Democrats recapture a majority of seats in the House next year, Garcia becomes chair of the committee and has access to far more powerful tools to exercise oversight — like the authority to issue subpoenas (unilaterally or by majority vote) compelling witnesses to testify or requiring officials to turn over documents.

Leadership positions, especially coveted spots leading the most powerful committees in Congress, are typically awarded based on seniority. When the House Democratic caucus elected Garcia on June 24, it marked the first first time in more than a century that a second-term member was selected for the role.

During his brief time in Washington, the congressman, who is openly gay and formerly served as mayor of Long Beach, has emerged as arguably one of the strongest communicators in the House Democratic caucus and one of his party’s most vocal critics of the second Trump administration.

Thursday’s letter, which comes less than a month after his election as ranking member, may signal how Garcia will approach fact finding missions and investigations, or where he will focus the committee’s work, under the vastly expanded powers that might be available to him after the midterms.

Donald Trump threatened to revoke Rosie O’Donnell’s U.S. citizenship last weekend amid his administration’s pattern of targeting people with whom he has publicly disagreed.

The actress and comedian, known for her roles in major motion pictures like “A League of Their Own” and “Harriet the Spy,” was singled out by the president on his social media app Truth Social, where he called the lesbian entertainer a “Threat to Humanity.”

“Because of the fact that Rosie O’Donnell is not in the best interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious consideration to taking away her Citizenship,” Trump also posted. “[She] should remain in the wonderful Country of Ireland, if they want her. GOD BLESS AMERICA!”

In response to the post—which reignites a decade-old feud between the two—O’Donnell shared a collage of photos from her time in Ireland, along with an old photo of Trump with convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

“The president of the usa has always hated the fact that i see him for who he is – a criminal con man sexual abusing liar out to harm our nation to serve himself,” the former talk show host posted on Instagram. She continued, “this is why i moved to ireland – he is a dangerous old soulless man with dementia who lacks empathy compassion and basic humanity – i stand in direct opposition [to] all he represents – so do millions of others – u gonna deport all who stand against ur evil tendencies – ur a bad joke who cant form a coherent sentence.”

Trump’s threat is both irregular and constitutionally unsound. The Supreme Court has ruled over multiple decades that stripping someone of their citizenship violates the Constitution—and the 14th Amendment.

Three Supreme Court cases in particular—Trop v. Dulles (1958), Afroyim v. Rusk (1967), and Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)—have all affirmed that once legally obtained, citizenship is not something that can simply be revoked, even if the president disagrees with what a person says or does. In Afroyim v. Rusk, the Supreme Court wrote: “In our country the people are sovereign and the Government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship.”

This authoritarian threat echoes Trump’s broader efforts to undermine birthright citizenship, which has been a foundational part of the U.S. Constitution since the ratification of the 14th amendment.

President Donald Trump is making good on his threat to punish California officials for allowing transgender female student-athletes to compete with cisgender girls in school sports. 

On Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Justice announced it is suing the state’s Department of Education, claiming California’s policy to allow trans students to compete with other girls violates Title IX, the federal law that bans discrimination in education based on sex. The DOJ’s suit says California’s rules “are not only illegal and unfair but also demeaning, signaling to girls that their opportunities and achievements are secondary to accommodating boys.”

As the Washington Blade reported in June, this lawsuit follows a warning by the Trump administration to end the trans participation policy within 10 days or face referral to the DOJ as well as the loss of federal education funding.

And California may merely be the first to face legal action, according to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, who warned that the 21 other states which permit trans girls to compete in female athletics could also face challenges by the federal government.

“If you do not comply, you’re next,” she said in a video posted on the DOJ website. “We will protect girls in girls sports.” Bondi was joined by Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. 

The DOJ suit named California’s Education Department and the California Interscholastic Federation, the governing body for high school sports. A spokesperson for the CIF told the Associated Press the organization would not comment on pending litigation.

A spokesperson for Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom deferred to the CIF and the Department of Education in declining to comment on the lawsuit since the governor was not named a defendant. But Newsom’s office told the AP that the Trump administration’s attacks on its policies protecting transgender athletes are “a cynical attempt” to distract from the federal government’s withholding of funds for all students who benefit from after-school and summer programs.

Newsom, however, has come under criticism — most notably by the Human Rights Campaign — for remarks he made in March, that allowing transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports was “deeply unfair,” as the Blade reported. 

For more than a decade, California law has allowed students to participate in sex-segregated school programs, including on sports teams, and use bathrooms and other facilities that align with their gender identity.

But headlines about AB Hernandez, an out trans female high school student-athlete who won titles in the California track-and-field championships last month, drew condemnations from Assistant U.S. Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, and President Trump himself. 

Following the meet, Dhillon wrote in a letter to the California Interscholastic Federation that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution by allowing trans girls to compete against other female athletes.

As for the lawsuit, DOJ claims California’s policies “ignore undeniable biological differences between boys and girls, in favor of an amorphous ’gender identity.’”

“The results of these illegal policies are stark: girls are displaced from podiums, denied awards, and miss out on critical visibility for college scholarships and recognition,” the suit says.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases challenging state bans on trans student-athletes, as the Blade reported. More than 20 states have limited trans girls from participating on girls sports teams, barred gender-affirming surgeries for minors and required parents to be notified if a child changes their pronouns at school. More than two dozen states have laws barring trans women and girls from participating in certain sports competitions. Challenges to some of those policies are still being decided by courts across the country. 

Back in February, the president signed an executive order that bans trans girls and women from participating in sports that match their gender identity, as the Blade reported.

Supporters of banning trans girls and women from competing include the conservative California Family Council, which has posted a petition online, arguing a ban would restore fairness in athletic competitions. Opponents like Equality California say bans are an attack on transgender youth.

“Local schools and athletic associations are the ones who should be handling these issues, and they are already creating policies that protect transgender youth and ensure a level playing field for all students. A federal ban that overrides those rules could require young girls to answer inappropriate personal questions or even be subjected to genital inspections by strangers if they want to participate in sports,” the organization said in a statement in February.

“The head of the NCAA, himself a former Republican Governor, recently told a U.S. Senate panel that he knew of less than 10 out transgender athletes among the 510,000 currently competing in college sports—less than .002 percent of all NCAA athletes.

“Studies confirm that participation in sports provides kids with invaluable life skills such as teamwork, leadership, discipline, and cooperation—fundamental lessons that every young person deserves the chance to experience. Beyond the field, sports also contribute significantly to students’ overall well-being, fostering better mental health, boosting academic performance, and enhancing self-esteem and confidence.”