National
Pelosi foresees ‘Don’t Ask’ end by year’s end
Speaker wants Obama to end policy administratively


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke at the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund Awards Gala (Blade photo by Michael Key)
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Wednesday reiterated her prediction that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would be a memory by the year’s end — despite the failure of the Senate last week to move forward with repeal legislation — as she maintained the president has the ability to stop troop discharges without a change in law.
Asked by a reporter whether she’s spoken with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) about the Senate taking another shot at “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Pelosi replied, “That will be gone by executive — that will happen with or without Congress.”
“I don’t think it has to depend on whether it passes the Senate,” she continued. “The process will work its way through and the president will make his pronouncement.”
The speaker spoke to reporters after she gave a speech at the Gay & Lesbian Leadership Awards at the W Hotel, which was hosted by the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund.
During her speech, Pelosi made similar assurances and promised that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will be “gone by the end of the year.”
“Some are here tonight who serve in the military,” she said. “God bless you for your courage and your patriotism. … But because of courage of some of them, this will be gone by the end of the year.”
Pelosi previously predicted in May that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would be “a memory” by the end of this year during an interview with the Hill newspaper.
Speaking to reporters, Pelosi said Congress got the ball rolling on repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to get lawmakers on record on the issue and so the change would be “in statute and all of that.”
The House in May passed an amendment that would repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as part of the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill.
“But even the bill that we passed said that it was contingent upon the recommendation of the president’s … review,” she said. “The only difference would be statute versus the president [making a policy change.]”
Pressed on whether she thinks the executive branch would ultimately be responsible for ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Pelosi replied, “That’s where it was anyway.”
“Others wanted to have more, so we tried to do more,” she said. “We’ll work very closely to try to see what happens after the election.”
Pelosi has previously said President Obama can issue an executive order to stop discharges under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” without action from Congress.
Supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal have been calling on Obama since the beginning of his administration to issue an order to stop the discharges under the law, but the president hasn’t taken such action.
Asked whether she would call on Obama to issue an order to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Pelosi replied, “That is the unfolding that we will see.”
“I’m very pleased with the course that the president’s on, but I think that they we shouldn’t be discharging people until that happens — so that, we have a little separation of — in terms of policy on that,” Pelosi said.
Pelosi added House members who support “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal were “very disappointed” the Senate didn’t have sufficient votes to end a filibuster on moving forward with legislation that would end the law.
“In the Senate, the Republicans held up the bill entirely so it couldn’t even be considered, so it was very disappointing,” she said. “They went really out of their way to try to block this.”
Pelosi also reiterated her position that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act wouldn’t see a House vote until legislative action is complete on repealing the 1993 law barring open service in the U.S. military.
“I told everyone that right from the start — that if we want to go down the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ route, then we’d have to put ENDA in a different place,” she said.
Pelosi said initial plans for the 111th Congress were to take on hate crimes protections legislation followed by ENDA and then “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” But she said the House ended up acting on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” first before ENDA because there was “a lot of enthusiasm about changing the order.”
During her speech, Pelosi maintained the importance of the mid-term elections and said “the fabric of our middle class and strength of our democracy” is at stake.
Pelosi added that the election results will also “accelerate the pace of passing ENDA or set us back.”
The speaker said she believes the votes are in the U.S. House to pass ENDA, but expressed concern about a motion to recommit that could derail the bill.
The motion to recommit is a legislative manuever that opponents of ENDA could use to scuttle the bill when it comes to the House floor.
“I think we have the votes for it, but we have to resist the motion to recommit,” Pelosi said. “We can’t pass the bill unless we can resist all of the bad things that they could do to the bill along the way.”
Also speaking at the event were gay Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.).
During his speech, Frank emphasized the importance of keeping a Democratic majority in the next Congress and questioned those who would criticize lawmakers who support LGBT rights for the lack of progress on pro-LGBT bills.
“I understand people being unhappy about that,” he said. “What I do not understand is people who think that the way to respond to the fact that we weren’t able to get things done is further to empower the people who kept us from getting them done.”
Frank urged attendees to “bitch and fight” all the way to the polls to re-elect a Democratic majority in the U.S. House because Pelosi has been such a strong supporter of LGBT rights.
“Neither Tammy, nor I, nor anybody else has ever had to ask for her to support us,” Frank said. “We take that for granted and she has been the been the single most important public official in the history of the United States to be fully committed to our agenda not just as a matter of support, but as matter of her own personal involvement.”
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.