National
Lieberman says ‘Don’t Ask’ to return after election
Conn. senator says he received assurances from leadership about future repeal effort
U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman said 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' will come back if it's unsuccessful today. (Blade photo by Michael Key)
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) said he’s received assurances from Democratic leadership that major defense legislation containing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal would come again after Election Day if cloture isn’t invoked Tuesday.
“If for some reason, we don’t get the 60 votes to proceed, this ain’t over,” Lieberman said. “We’re going to come back into session in November or December. I spoke to Sen. Reid today. He’s very clear and strong that he’s going to bring this bill to the floor in November or December.”
Lieberman said he’s “not optimistic” about the upcoming cloture vote. Still, he urged other senators to come on board today and said the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill is a “critical piece of legislation.”
“The fact that our colleagues would be having on the Senate floor this debate about to vote to proceed to take up the National Defense Authorization Act, to me, is unbelievable,” Lieberman said.
Lieberman said moving forward with the defense legislation should be a “no-brainer” because of the funding provided in the bill for U.S. service members.
He also defended the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” language in the bill and said he doesn’t think opponents of repeal have the votes to strip it out if the legislation comes to the floor.
“I don’t believe that the opponents of the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ have enough votes to take that repeal out of this legislation,” he said. “Maybe that’s why they’re fighting so hard to stop this legislation from coming up.”
Provided all 59 Democrats vote in favor of moving forward with the defense legislation, at least one Republican vote is necessary to reach the 60-vote threshold to end the filibuster on the legislation.
However, GOP leaders are reportedly telling its caucus to vote against cloture because of limitations on amendments that Democratic leadership will allow on the floor.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said three amendments would be allowed on the defense authorization bill: a measure stripping the legislation of its “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language; a measure attaching the DREAM Act, an immigration-related bill, to the legislation; and a measure addressing the “secret holds” senators can place on presidential nominees.
During a news conference, Assistant Majority Leader Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) also said the Republicans would be at fault if cloture isn’t invoked on the defense authorization bill on Tuesday.
“What would be unprecedented is if Republicans block the Senate from passing the defense authorization bill for the first time since 1952,” Durbin said.
Asked by the Blade about what Democratic leadership is doing to negotiate with Republicans over the cloture vote, Durbin replied, “We’re trying.”
Durbin said the initial three amendments would come up on the defense authorization bill first, which would be followed by a “discussion as to what further amendments would be considered.”
“I don’t think Sen. Reid has ruled that out,” Durbin said. “What he has said is that the first three amendments are the first amendments. … Beyond that, Sen. Reid would be open for negotiation for a unanimous consent request.”
Pressed on whether he thinks any GOP senators would vote for cloture on Tuesday as a result of negotiations with Republicans, Durbin replied, “I don’t know at this point.”
Lieberman expressed confidence in Reid’s negotiations on the legislation. Asked by the Blade whether he thinks Reid is doing everything he can to bring Republicans on board for the cloture vote, the senator replied, “I do.”
The Connecticut senator said finishing work on the defense authorization bill would require another cloture vote and Republicans would have the opportunity to offer amendments before that motion to proceed.
“If, for some reason, Sen. Reid decides to bring the defense bill to a final vote before any other amendments are put in, our Republican colleagues — and I would guess, some Democrats — would not vote for cloture at that point,” Lieberman said. “So, they have the final say.”
During a news conference, Joe Solmonese, Human Rights Campaign president, praised Reid for leading the way on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
“I can think of no elected official who has the tenacity, and, quite frankly, the quiet determination of Sen. Reid,” Solmonese said. “His tremendous leadership is the reason that we are here today going to this historic vote. And it is his resolve and his persistence that will be the reason that I am confident that we ultimately succeed in repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.'”
Chances for a successful vote for cloture seemed to fade when Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) issued a statement that he was reluctant to support a vote for cloture on the defense authorization bill.
“If the Democrats are serious about getting this bill passed, Leader Reid should sit down with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and work out the amendment process,” Voinovich said. “Unless that is done, I will not support cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill.”
Regarding “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal, Voinovich said it would be “logical” to wait for the Pentagon working group to complete its study on implementing repeal, which is due Dec. 1.
“At this point there is no reason to rush to judgment for political expediency until we hear from our military leaders as to whether they think it is a good idea to change this policy,” he said. “I will carefully study this determination when it is completed.”
Also present at the news conference to promote “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal was Eric Alva, who’s gay and the first U.S. service member wounded in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Mike Almy, a gay former Air Force communications officer discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was also at the conference and said he was representing the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.
In a related development, the White House today issued a Statement of Administration Policy on the Senate version of the bill approving of provisions in the legislation and calling for its passage.
The statements are intended to provide guidance to members of Congress on how to vote and how to handle major pieces of legislation.
According to a copy of the statement obtained in advance by the Blade, the Obama administration “supports Senate passage of S. 3454, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011.”
“The Administration appreciates the Senate Armed Services Committee’s continued support of our national defense, including, among other things, its support for the Department’s topline budget requests for both the base budget requests for both the base budget and for overseas contingency operations,” the statement reads.
The statement makes special note of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language in the legislation under the heading, “Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces.”
“The Administration supports section 591 as it would allow for completion of the Comprehensive Review, enable the Department of Defense to assess the results of the review, and ensure that the implementation of the repeal is consistent with the standards of military readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting and retention,” the statements reads.
The White House adds the repeal provision “recognizes the critical need to allow our military and their families the full opportunity to inform and shape the implementation process through a thorough understanding of their concerns, insights and suggestions.”
The statement also makes note that the Senate version of the defense authorization doesn’t have funding for the alternative engine program for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a next-generation military aircraft.
The House version of the defense authorization bill provides for $485 million in funds for the second engine for the aircraft. The White House has issued a veto threat over the defense authorization bill as a result of this provision.
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.
The White House
Trump travels to Middle East countries with death penalty for homosexuality
President traveled to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates
Homosexuality remains punishable by death in two of the three Middle East countries that President Donald Trump visited last week.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are among the handful of countries in which anyone found guilty of engaging in consensual same-sex sexual relations could face the death penalty.
Trump was in Saudi Arabia from May 13-14. He traveled to Qatar on May 14.
“The law prohibited consensual same-sex sexual conduct between men but did not explicitly prohibit same-sex sexual relations between women,” notes the State Department’s 2023 human rights report, referring specifically to Qatar’s criminalization law. “The law was not systematically enforced. A man convicted of having consensual same-sex sexual relations could receive a sentence of seven years in prison. Under sharia, homosexuality was punishable by death; there were no reports of executions for this reason.”
Trump on May 15 arrived in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates.
The State Department’s 2023 human rights report notes the “penalty for individuals who engaged in ‘consensual sodomy with a man'” in the country “was a minimum prison sentence of six months if the individual’s partner or guardian filed a complaint.”
“There were no known reports of arrests or prosecutions for consensual same-sex sexual conduct. LGBTQI+ identity, real or perceived, could be deemed an act against ‘decency or public morality,’ but there were no reports during the year of persons prosecuted under these provisions,” reads the report.
The report notes Emirati law also criminalizes “men who dressed as women or entered a place designated for women while ‘disguised’ as a woman.” Anyone found guilty could face up to a year in prison and a fine of up to 10,000 dirhams ($2,722.60.)
Trump returned to the U.S. on May 16.
The White House notes Trump during the trip secured more than $2 trillion “in investment agreements with Middle Eastern nations ($200 billion with the United Arab Emirates, $600 billion with Saudi Arabia, and $1.2 trillion with Qatar) for a more safe and prosperous future.”
Former President Joe Biden traveled to Saudi Arabia in 2022.
Saudi Arabia is scheduled to host the 2034 World Cup. The 2022 World Cup took place in Qatar.
WorldPride begins — let’s hope it ends well
LGBTQ leaders celebrate Frank Kameny’s 100th birthday at Supreme Court
Blade’s Lou Chibbaro subject of new film premiering May 29
Let love and compassion guide our response to Joe Biden’s cancer diagnosis
