Connect with us

National

Picking up the pieces after ‘Don’t Ask’ defeat

Repeal supporters pin hopes on lame duck session after election

Published

on

Supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal are picking up the pieces after a devastating loss in the U.S. Senate and — amid fears the opportunity for repeal has been lost — anticipating another shot at passing legislation that would end the law after Election Day.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said he continues to see a path for legislative repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this Congress as he acknowledged the need for new efforts.

“We do have a shot in the lame duck,” he said. “And, I think, frankly, it’s better than 50/50, but we’ve got to change the mix. … It’s unlikely the vote will be that different.”

Still, Sarvis said “time is the enemy” even as he maintained that sufficient time remains this year to move forward with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

“We’re only talking about four or five days in November, and it’s unclear how many days in December,” Sarvis said. “This bill is tough to do in the best of circumstances when you aren’t up against time. I think it can be done, but time is a factor for sure.”

Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said the legislative route to repeal will be a “challenge” and “those who let this vote fail yesterday really made it difficult for us all moving forward.”

“But we have no choice but to give it our all and try our best to push it through,” Nicholson said.

Jim Manley, a spokesperson for Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), confirmed the majority leader’s plans to move forward with the defense authorization bill later this year.

“Sen. Reid reserved the right to reconsider the vote and that is what we intend to do at some point in the future,” Manley said.

Even before the vote, speculation and promises that Senate leaders would try again to start work on the defense authorization had emerged.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), the sponsor of Senate standalone repeal legislation, said Tuesday during a news conference he’s received assurances from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that the bill would come up again in the lame duck session after Election Day.

“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 [Tuesday]. He’s very clear and strong that he’s going to bring this bill to the floor in November or December.”

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said during a later news conference that he hopes the prospects for passing the defense authorization bill would be different after Election Day, but couldn’t offer more details.

“But as chairman of the committee, I’m going to do everything I can to get this bill before the Senate so that it’s subject to debate and amendment,” Levin said. “But I can’t discern what that path is at the moment. It’s too soon after the filibuster damage has been done.”

At least one political analyst is skeptical about the passage of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal in Congress this year.

Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, expressed doubt about passage after Election Day — even as he acknowledged that “a lame duck session can be unpredictable.”

“From the perspective of September, the odds seem clearly against passage this year,” Sabato said. “Repeal of [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] would have to be fast-tracked, and that requires broad agreement in the Senate. That’s unlikely.”

On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate failed to invoke cloture to bring to the floor the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill — legislation to which “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language is attached.

The vote in the Senate was 56-43, which was shy of the 60 votes necessary to end the filibuster from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

A unified GOP caucus — in addition to Democratic Arkansas Sens. Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln — comprised the “no” votes that defeated a cloture vote. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) was the only senator who didn’t vote.

Reid changed his vote to “no” on the legislation in a procedural move that would enable him to bring the legislation to the floor again.

Sarvis said the failure of the Senate to invoke cloture on the defense authorization bill is “shameful” because it means the continued discharge of gay, lesbian and bisexual service members.

“That vote means that gay and lesbian service members are going to continue to be discharged every day while Republicans and Democrats in the Senate figure out how to move forward,” Sarvis said.

Sarvis said the LGBT community needs to “express more outrage” over the vote to convince Senate leaders to schedule the vote again and for successful passage.

“If we aren’t offended, if we aren’t outraged by this vote, I’m not sure how the political dynamics change,” Sarvis said. “Yes, things will be somewhat better after the mid-term elections are behind us, but the few determined opponents are still going to be there.”

Various explanations have been offered for the loss on Tuesday, although partisan politics are widely seen as the reason for failure.

Some faulted the GOP caucus for being obstinate in its vote against cloture even though many Republican senators previously expressed support for the defense authorization bill as a whole.

In a news conference following the vote, Levin called the unified GOP obstruction of the defense authorization bill “outrageous and sad.”

Levin accused the GOP of initially opposing the move forward with the defense authorization bill because of the language that would lead to an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“For two days, we’ve heard here that they objected to our proceeding because of the language in the bill relative to ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ even though that language is very moderate language,” Levin said.

The senator noted that the provision provides that repeal would only take effect after the Pentagon working group completes its study on the issue and the president, defense secretary and chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify the U.S. military is ready for repeal.

Levin added he couldn’t recall a previous time in which the U.S. Senate couldn’t proceed to debate on defense authorization legislation.

“It’s important to know that we were just simply trying to get to the point where we could debate a bill,” he said. “I don’t think a filibuster has ever before prevented the Senate from getting to a defense authorization bill.”

GOP senators — including Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who supported the repeal amendment to the defense authorization bill in committee — accused Democratic leadership on the Senate floor Tuesday of being intransigent by limiting the number of amendments that could come to the floor.

“That is why I am so disappointed that rather than allowing full and open debate and the opportunity for amendments from both sides of the aisle, the majority leader apparently intends to shut down the debate and exclude Republicans from offering a number of amendments,” Collins said.

Sarvis said a number of factors played into the unsuccessful cloture vote on Tuesday, including the pressure that repeal advocates placed on Reid to schedule the vote regardless of whether 60 votes were present to move forward.

“Those who were advocating a vote this Congress always understood that we would need 60 votes to succeed,” Sarvis said. “So the reality is, the majority leader scheduled the vote, but we came up short. We lost Democrats that we thought would be with us up until a few days ago and we lost some Republicans until late last week that we thought would be with us.”

Sarvis said Levin and McCain may have to reach some agreement on the number of amendments that can be offered to move forward.

“It doesn’t look good for Democrats or for Republicans — and especially this Congress — to be the first Congress in almost 50 years not to approve an authorization for the funding of our troops, especially when we are in war,” Sarvis said.

Supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal have also cited insufficient support from the White House as a reason why the cloture vote was defeated.

Sarvis said President Obama didn’t make an effort to encourage senators to vote for cloture in the days prior to Tuesday.

“I did not see the White House whipping the vote for 72 hours before,” Sarvis said.

Nicholson ascribed blame to Obama as well as Reid and other LGBT organizations.

“The White House didn’t lift a finger to help and certain gay rights organizations refused to criticize Senator Reid while he derailed the vote in advance,” he said. “It’s just not a good position to be in with all of the hurdles and challenges of a highly polarized lame duck session ahead.”

During a Tuesday news conference, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs denied Lady Gaga had done more to advance the bill than President Obama. The pop singer appeared at a rally in Maine to promote passage of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal legislation and tweeted with senators to encourage them to move forward.

“We wouldn’t be taking on these issues if it weren’t for the president,” Gibbs said. “This is an issue that passed the House because of the president and this administration’s work and the work of many members in Congress.”

Gibbs also ascribed blame to the 60-vote threshold needed to move forward with legislation in the Senate — even for a bill to authorize funds for the Pentagon — and said “it’s certainly not healthy for the way our government works and it sets an awful precedent for getting things done in the future.”

Sarvis said support from the White House during the lame duck session would be crucial to advancing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

“We need the president speaking on this issue in the lame duck asking senators to be with him,” Sarvis said. “We know he favors repeal, but now we need him engaged more than ever.”

In the wake of Senate defeat, repeal advocates are seeking other options to move forward on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Litigation seeking to overturn the law has received renewed attention. Both Log Cabin v. United States and Witt v. Air Force are moving through the courts and could lead to an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” although legal experts expect those cases won’t be resolved for years.

In a statement following the Senate vote, Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, urged the Obama administration not to appeal a recent California federal court’s decision against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the case of Log Cabin v. United States.

“We expect the Justice Department to recognize the overwhelming evidence that proves [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] is unconstitutional,” Solmonese said.

Even with litigation proceeding, Sarvis maintained that the legislative route is the best path for moving forward with repeal.

“The ball game is still in the Senate,” he said. “Yes, there’s some good things going on in the courts with Maj. Witt and the Log Cabin Republican case, but in all likelihood, those are going to be tied up for years.”

One question about a possible future vote on the defense authorization bill is what impact the Pentagon working group’s study on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” due Dec. 1 would have on the legislation.

Sarvis dismissed the notion that the report represents a complication because he said he thinks the report would favor “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

“They were asked to provide the [defense] secretary with a set of recommendations on how to implement open service,” Sarvis said. “Well, that is not going to be hurtful. Indeed, I’m not that concerned about the results of the survey.”

Nicholson said the completion of the Pentagon report should make voting for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” easier for many senators, but said its release will be “thrown into the highly charged and high politicized environment of the lame duck session.”

“Unfortunately, the working group itself has become so politicized that its utility in this whole processed has been diminished because of that as well,” Nicholson said. “Bottom line — the administration really screwed this one up.”

Many senators, including McCain, have said they want to see the report before acting on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Sarvis predicted continued equivocation from these senators upon the completion of the report and congressional hearings may be necessary following the completion of the study to address concerns.

“Sen. McCain says, ‘Oh, I’m going to need some time to study that report and analyze how they came up with those recommendations,’” Sarvis said. “‘We may need some hearings on that.’ So that’s going to remain a moving target.”

Another possible complication in the legislative effort to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” later this year is state election laws.

According to Bloomberg News, state laws in Illinois, Delaware and West Virginia terminate the terms of appointed senators immediately after Election Day. Their elected successors may start in the lame duck session this year as opposed to the start of the next Congress.

These laws mean Sens. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.), Carte Goodwin (D-W.Va.) and Roland Burris (D-Ill.) — who voted in favor of cloture on Tuesday — may have to give up their seats to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal opponents in the lame duck session.

Sarvis acknowledged that a worst-case scenario of the loss of all three seats would complicate efforts to move forward with the defense authorization if the Senate faces another filibuster.

“If we’re facing another filibuster, I think it’s very, very challenging if we lose those three seats,” Sarvis said.

Sarvis said he’s spoken with Chris Coons, the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Delaware, about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

“He looked me in the eye and told me that if he’s in the U.S. Senate, he will be voting for repeal,” Sarvis said. “So, I take heart from that commitment.”

Sarvis said he has “no idea” how Republican candidate Christine O’Donnell would vote should she win in the November election. O’Donnell is known for her opposition to gays and has spoken out against homosexuality.

Illustration courtesy of Georgia Voice

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

New York

Court orders Pride flag to return to Stonewall

Lambda Legal, Washington Litigation Group filed federal lawsuit

Published

on

Pride flag restored by activists at Stonewall National Monument in New York following the removal earlier this year. (Screen capture insert via Reuters YouTube)

The Pride flag will once again fly over the Stonewall National Monument in New York following a court order requiring the National Park Service to raise it over the site.

The decision follows a lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal and the Washington Litigation Group in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which challenged the removal as unconstitutional under the Administrative Procedure Act and argued that the government unlawfully targeted the LGBTQ community.

In February, the NPS removed the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument, the first national monument dedicated to LGBTQ rights and history in the U.S. The move followed a Jan. 21 memorandum issued by President Donald Trump-appointed NPS Director Jessica Bowron restricting which flags may be flown at national parks. The directive limited displays to official government flags, with narrow exceptions for those deemed to serve an “official purpose.”

Plaintiffs successfully argued that the Pride flag meets that standard, given Stonewall’s status as the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement. They also contended that the policy violated the APA by bypassing required public input and improperly applying agency rules.

The lawsuit named Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Bowron, and Amy Sebring, superintendent of Manhattan sites for the NPS, as defendants. Plaintiffs included the Gilbert Baker Foundation, Village Preservation, Equality New York, and several individuals.

The court found that the memorandum — while allowing limited exceptions for historical context purposes — was applied unlawfully in this case. As part of the settlement, the NPS is required to rehang the Pride flag on the monument’s official flagpole within seven days, where it will remain permanently.

“The sudden, arbitrary, and capricious removal of the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument was yet another act by this administration to erase the LGBTQ+ community,” said Karen Loewy, co-counsel for plaintiffs and Lambda Legal’s Senior Counsel and Director of Constitutional Law Practice. “Today, the government has pledged to restore this important symbol back to where it belongs.”

“This is a complete victory for our clients and for the LGBTQ+ community,” said Alexander Kristofcak, lead counsel for plaintiffs and a lawyer with Washington Litigation Group. “The government has acknowledged what we argued from day one: the Pride flag belongs at Stonewall. The flag will be restored and it will fly officially and permanently. And we will remain vigilant to ensure that the government sticks to the deal.”

“Gilbert Baker created the Rainbow Pride flag as a symbol of hope and liberation,” said Charles Beal, president of the Gilbert Baker Foundation. “Today, that symbol is restored to the place where it belongs, standing watch over the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement.”

“The government tried to erase an important symbol of the LGBTQ+ community, and the community said no,” said Amanda Babine, executive director of Equality New York. “Today’s accomplishment proves that when we stand together and fight back, we win.”

“The removal of the Pride flag from Stonewall was an attempt to erase LGBTQ+ history and undermine the rule of law,” said Andrew Berman, executive director of Village Preservation. “This settlement restores both.”

With Loewy on the complaint are Douglas F. Curtis, Camilla B. Taylor, Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, Kenneth D. Upton Jr., Jennifer C. Pizer, and Nephetari Smith from Lambda Legal. With Kristofcak on the complaint are Mary L. Dohrmann, Sydney Foster, Kyle Freeny, James I. Pearce, and Nathaniel Zelinsky from Washington Litigation Group.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

Trump budget targets ‘gender extremism’

Proposed spending package would target ‘leftist’ political ideologies

Published

on

The FBI seal on granite. (Photo courtesy of Bigstock)

The White House submitted its 2027 budget request to Congress last month, outlining a push for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to “proactively” target what it describes as “extremism” related to gender — raising concerns about the potential for law enforcement to target LGBTQ people.

The Trump-Vance administration’s 2027 budget request, submitted to Congress on April 4, proposes a dramatic increase in national security and law enforcement spending, while reducing foreign aid and restructuring multiple domestic security programs. In total, the administration is requesting $2.16 trillion in discretionary budget authority (including mandatory resources), a 15.3 percent increase over the 2026 proposal.

Central to the proposal is the creation of a new “NSPM-7 Joint Mission Center,” a direct follow-up to the September 2025 National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7). The directive instructs the Justice Department, the FBI, and other national security agencies to combat what the administration defines as “political violence in America,” effectively reshaping the Joint Terrorism Task Force network to focus on “leftist” political ideologies, according to reporting by independent journalist Ken Klippenstein.

The American Civil Liberties Union has characterized NSPM-7 as a way for President Donald Trump to intimidate his political enemies.

In a press release following the memorandum, Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, said, “President Trump has launched yet another effort to investigate and intimidate his critics,” and had described the move as an “intimidation tactic against those standing up for human rights and civil liberties.”

The proposed mission center would include personnel from 10 federal agencies tasked with targeting “domestic terrorists” associated with a wide range of ideologies. Among them is what the administration labels “extremism” related to gender, alongside categories such as “anti-Americanism,” “anti-capitalism,” “anti-Christianity,” and “support for the overthrow of the U.S. government.” The document also cites “hostility toward those who hold traditional American views” on family, religion, and morality — language LGBTQ advocates have increasingly warned could be used to frame queer and transgender rights movements as ideological threats.

The mission center is one component of a proposed $166 million increase in the FBI’s counterterrorism budget.

In total, the FBI would receive $12.5 billion for salaries and expenses under the proposal, a $1.9 billion increase. Planned investments include unmanned aerial systems operations and counter-drone capabilities, counterterrorism efforts, and security preparations for the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. The budget also cites 67,000 FBI arrests since Jan. 20, 2026, which it describes as a 197 percent increase from the prior year.

When Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, it also enacted 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5), which defines domestic terrorism as activities involving acts dangerous to human life that violate criminal laws and are intended to intimidate or coerce civilians or influence government policy through violence. That statutory definition has not changed.

However, federal agencies have historically categorized domestic terrorism threats into groups such as racially or ethnically motivated violent extremism, anti-government or anti-authority violent extremism, and other threats, including those tied to bias based on religion, gender, or sexual orientation.

The language in the budget suggests a shift in how those categories are interpreted and applied — particularly by explicitly linking “extremism” to gender and to perceived opposition to “traditional” views — without any corresponding change to federal law. Only Congress has the power to change the definition of domestic terrorism by passing legislation.

The budget document states:

“DT lone offenders will continue to pose significant detection and disruption challenges because of their capacity for independent radicalization to violence, ability to mobilize discretely, and access to firearms. Additionally, in recent years, heinous assassinations and other acts of political violence in the United States have dramatically increased. Commonly, this violent conduct relates to views associated with anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the U.S. government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility toward those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.”

This language echoes earlier actions by the Trump-Vance administration targeting trans people.

On the first day of his second term, President Trump signed Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”

The order establishes a strict binary definition of sex and withdraws federal recognition of trans people.

“It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female,” the order states. “‘Sex’ shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female. ‘Sex’ is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of ‘gender identity.’”

Appropriations committees in both chambers are expected to begin hearings in the coming weeks.

Continue Reading

Puerto Rico

The ‘X’ returns to court

1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans

Published

on

(Photo by Sergei Gnatuk via Bigstock)

Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.

That has now changed.

Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.

The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.

Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.

The issue lies in how the law is applied.

Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.

Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.

The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.

The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.

This case does not exist in isolation.

It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.

Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.

From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.

The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.

Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.

That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.

The debate is no longer theoretical.

It is now before the courts.

Continue Reading

Popular