National
Gates raises bar for ‘Don’t Ask’ discharges
Decision delegated to service secretaries and other Pentagon leaders

Defense Secretary Robert Gates issued guidance to Pentagon leaders on Thursday raising the rank of officials who can expel service members under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” prompting questions about whether the new procedure would bring discharges to a halt.
In a memo dated Oct. 21, Gates said he’s issuing the changes “in light of the legal uncertainty”‘ surrounding “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the wake of recent court actions striking down and then reinstating the law.
According to memo, discharges can only happen under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” by the personal approval of the military service secretary of the department concern “in coordination” with other Pentagon officials.
“[I]n order to further ensure uniformity and care in the enforcement of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law and policy during this period, effective immediately and until further notice, no military member shall be separated pursuant to 10 USC 654 without the personal approval of the Secretary of the miliary department concerned, in coordination with the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the general counsel for the Department of Defense,” Gates writes.
A second memo issued the same day also outlining the changes was sent out by Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Clifford Stanley.
Stanley also advised gay, lesbian and bisexual service members currently in the military to think twice about making their sexual orientation public.
“We note again for Servicemembers, that altering their personal conduct during this period, in reaction to last week’s injunction, may have adverse consequences for themselves or other depending upon the state of the law,” Stanley writes.
On Thursday, members of the media during a news conference questioned a senior Pentagon attorney, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, about whether the change in the process effectively halts discharges under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“I would not try to overinterpret what’s on the paper,” the attorney said. “It’s an effort to further ensure uniformity and care in enforcement of the law during the legally uncertain period.”
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said the new change to appears to be giving all service members the same protections from “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” that were previous given to officers.
“All proposed [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] discharges, regardless of grade and rank, will be reviewed at the highest civilian levels,” he said. “This can be a major constructive development for gay and lesbian service members.”
Sarvis said the change could “dramatically reduce” discharges, but noted the law remains on the books and service members shouldn’t come out.
“The fact that [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] remains law further underscores the urgent need for the full Senate to vote for repeal when it returns to lame-duck session next month,” he said.
Richard Socarides, a gay New York attorney who served as a adviser for President Clinton, said he thinks the changes amounted to a “de facto moratorium” on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Still, Socarides questioned why the Obama administration hadn’t taken this action sooner.
“This is what they should have done 20 months ago,” he said.
During the briefing, the Pentagon attorney said the reference in the memo to service secretaries working “in coordination” with the other defense officials to expel someone under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” doesn’t “necessarily” constitute veto power over the discharge by the other officials.
“When the guidance is coordinate with A, B and C, that means you consult with them … and in the legal world, that means providing legal advice,” the attorney said. “Does it constitute the ability to veto? No, not necessarily. It informs the decision.”
The new changes also raises questions about what would happen to openly gay Americans who seek to enlist in the U.S. armed forces and announce their sexual orientation to recruiters. Under previous rules, they would have not been able to enter service.
But the Pentagon attorney expressed uncertainty about how the changes would affect recruiting and said he expects additional guidance later.
“We are complying with the law and there is nothing specific in this guidance about the recruitment situation, but I would expect that it will come together at perhaps the service level or within the recruitment community,” the attorney said. “They’ll develop guidance in reaction to this guidance.”
The Pentagon attorney said he “couldn’t comment” on whether communication took place between Gates and the White House before the new memo was issued.
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.