National
Gibbs unaware of outreach to change Senate ‘Don’t Ask’ votes
W.H. spokesperson touts meeting as part of path to end law

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday he’s unaware of any outreach the president has done in the Senate to advance “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal. But he touted an upcoming meeting with LGBT advocates as evidence of the president’s desire to end the military’s gay ban.
Asked by the Washington Blade whether the president has made any outreach attempts to encourage senators who voted “no” on moving forward with repeal to vote “yes” a second time around, Gibbs replied that no such outreach has taken place to his knowledge.
Still, Gibbs acknowledged that the only way the Senate could move forward with the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill — to which repeal language is attached — is to change some of those votes.
“To my knowledge, it hasn’t taken place yet, but, look, the only way we’re going to get something through the Senate is to change the vote count,” Gibbs said.
The White House spokesperson noted there is “a promised filibuster” in moving forward with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal in the lame duck session. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has pledged to renew his objection to moving forward with the bill should it come up again this year.
“You’re going to have to get past a promised filibuster in moving to the bill,” Gibbs said. “And certainly, the only way we can move to that bill is to change some of those votes.”
Sources have told the Blade that a meeting is scheduled to take place on Tuesday between White House officials and repeal advocates. Gibbs said he expects the officials in attendance will express the same commitments that he has made regarding the president’s pledge to ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“The president wants the defense authorization act and that repeal passed,” Gibbs said. “That is the basis for the meeting today and I think the president and the administration have committed to working to see that through.”
The White House press secretary also addressed a recently leaked e-mail stating that any discussion of pending litigation on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would prompt administration officials to terminate the meeting. Gibbs noted some participants in the lawsuit are plaintiffs in Log Cabin v. United States.
“I don’t think either side believes that those type of conversations about the litigation between two parties represented in a lawsuit is appropriate,” Gibbs said.
Asked about any contingency plan for ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the event the Senate is unable to pass repeal, such as issuing a stop-loss order, Gibbs replied that the White House is “focused on an endurable repeal of a law that the president thinks is unjust.”
Gibbs also said he couldn’t immediately say whether the White House or repeal advocates initiated the meeting.
Additionally, Gibbs added it is the “hope” of the White House that Congress can still pass “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal regardless of what happens on Election Day. Pundits expect Democrats to sustain to heavy losses and lose control of the House.
“We’re approaching the beginning of December, which is when the Pentagon’s study of implementation and of the attitudes of the military will be complete,” Gibbs said. “The president believes — continues to believe that this is a law that — the end of this law — the time for the end of this law has come.”
Both the Blade and The Advocate questioned Gibbs on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” during the news conference. A transcript of the exchange follows:
Blade: Robert, on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” I understand a meeting is taking place today with — between the White House and repeal advocates. What commitments is the White House going to be offering during this meeting in the effort to repeal the law?
Gibbs: Well, the same — likely the same commitments that I have enumerated in here, and that is our desire to see the defense authorization bill pending before the Senate taken up. That includes a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as the House has already voted on. The president wants the defense authorization act and that repeal passed. That is the basis for the meeting today and I think the president and the administration have committed to working to see that through.
Blade: I want to follow up on that. Is among the commitments — is among the commitments reaching out to senators who may have voted “no” in September to get them to change their votes to vote “yes” in lame duck. Has that taken place yet?
Gibbs: No, to my know — to my knowledge, it hasn’t taken place yet, but, look, the only way we’re going to get something through the Senate is to change the vote count and to move past — look, you’ve got to get — you’re going to have to get past a promised filibuster in moving to the bill. And certainly, the only way we can move to that bill is to change some of those votes.
Blade: It’s been reported that any discussion of litigation on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” during this meeting would terminate the discussion. Why is that?
Gibbs: …Again, understand that some of the participants in the meeting are with groups that are in litigation as a plaintiff where the United States government is the defendant. I don’t think either side believes that those type of conversations about the litigation between two parties represented in a lawsuit is appropriate.
Blade: Who initiated the meeting? You or them?
Gibbs: I don’t know the answer to that at this point.
Blade: Just one last question: is the president … expecting repeal legislation on his desk by the end of this year regardless of what happens at the polls next week?
Gibbs: That’s our hope. Again, our desire and our hope and the president’s commitment is that he will work to see this past. This is — look, we’re approaching the beginning of December, which is when the Pentagon’s study of implementation and of the attitudes of the military will be complete, and the president believes – continues to believe that this is a law that — the end of this law – the time for the end of this law has come.
The courts are signaling that, and certainly it’s been his political belief going back when I met him in 2004 — that was his position.
Advocate: Any sense of what that report looks like? Has anyone in the White House had a chance to see some of the [pre-runs] of that — the DOD report?
Gibbs: Not to my knowledge. The last time I was — I heard about this and nobody in his building had seen that.
Advocate: In terms of contingency planning, I know this is your favorite subject, but, look, there’s a very real possibility this doesn’t go through. I know you guys want it to. I know that’s the meeting today, but if it doesn’t go through, is something like stop-loss on the table? [It’s] perfectly within the president’s authority, by the way, in a time of war.
Gibbs: I think that, look, you’ve seen steps that have been taken over the past several days at the Pentagon involving service secretaries, you have a sitting chair of the Joint Chiefs who believes it’s time for this law to end [and] the president working closely with the secretary to make that happen. Our efforts in the short term will be focused on an endurable repeal of a law that the president thinks is unjust — and that’s where our focus will be.
Watch the video of the exchange here:
U.S. Federal Courts
Judge temporarily blocks executive orders targeting LGBTQ, HIV groups
Lambda Legal filed the lawsuit in federal court

A federal judge on Monday blocked the enforcement of three of President Donald Trump’s executive orders that would have threatened to defund nonprofit organizations providing health care and services for LGBTQ people and those living with HIV.
The preliminary injunction was awarded by Judge Jon Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in a case, San Francisco AIDS Foundation v. Trump, filed by Lambda Legal and eight other organizations.
Implementation of the executive orders — two aimed at diversity, equity, and inclusion along with one targeting the transgender community — will be halted pending the outcome of the litigation challenging them.
“This is a critical win — not only for the nine organizations we represent, but for LGBTQ communities and people living with HIV across the country,” said Jose Abrigo, Lambda Legal’s HIV Project director and senior counsel on the case.
“The court blocked anti-equity and anti-LGBTQ executive orders that seek to erase transgender people from public life, dismantle DEI efforts, and silence nonprofits delivering life-saving services,” Abrigo said. “Today’s ruling acknowledges the immense harm these policies inflict on these organizations and the people they serve and stops Trump’s orders in their tracks.”
Tigar wrote, in his 52-page decision, “While the Executive requires some degree of freedom to implement its political agenda, it is still bound by the constitution.”
“And even in the context of federal subsidies, it cannot weaponize Congressionally appropriated funds to single out protected communities for disfavored treatment or suppress ideas that it does not like or has deemed dangerous,” he said.
Without the preliminary injunction, the judge wrote, “Plaintiffs face the imminent loss of federal funding critical to their ability to provide lifesaving healthcare and support services to marginalized LGBTQ populations,” a loss that “not only threatens the survival of critical programs but also forces plaintiffs to choose between their constitutional rights and their continued existence.”
The organizations in the lawsuit are located in California (San Francisco AIDS Foundation, Los Angeles LGBT Center, GLBT Historical Society, and San Francisco Community Health Center), Arizona (Prisma Community Care), New York (The NYC LGBT Community Center), Pennsylvania (Bradbury-Sullivan Community Center), Maryland (Baltimore Safe Haven), and Wisconsin (FORGE).
U.S. Supreme Court
Activists rally for Andry Hernández Romero in front of Supreme Court
Gay asylum seeker ‘forcibly deported’ to El Salvador, described as political prisoner

More than 200 people gathered in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday and demanded the Trump-Vance administration return to the U.S. a gay Venezuelan asylum seeker who it “forcibly disappeared” to El Salvador.
Lindsay Toczylowski, president of the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, a Los Angeles-based organization that represents Andry Hernández Romero, is among those who spoke alongside U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) and Human Rights Campaign Campaigns and Communications Vice President Jonathan Lovitz. Sarah Longwell of the Bulwark, Pod Save America’s Jon Lovett, and Tim Miller are among those who also participated in the rally.
“Andry is a son, a brother. He’s an actor, a makeup artist,” said Toczylowski. “He is a gay man who fled Venezuela because it was not safe for him to live there as his authentic self.”
(Video by Michael K. Lavers)
The White House on Feb. 20 designated Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang, as an “international terrorist organization.”
President Donald Trump on March 15 invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which the Associated Press notes allows the U.S. to deport “noncitizens without any legal recourse.” The Trump-Vance administration subsequently “forcibly removed” Hernández and hundreds of other Venezuelans to El Salvador.
Toczylowski said she believes Hernández remains at El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, a maximum-security prison known by the Spanish acronym CECOT. Toczylowski also disputed claims that Hernández is a Tren de Aragua member.
“Andry fled persecution in Venezuela and came to the U.S. to seek protection. He has no criminal history. He is not a member of the Tren de Aragua gang. Yet because of his crown tattoos, we believe at this moment that he sits in a torture prison, a gulag, in El Salvador,” said Toczylowski. “I say we believe because we have not had any proof of life for him since the day he was put on a U.S. government-funded plane and forcibly disappeared to El Salvador.”
“Andry is not alone,” she added.
Takano noted the federal government sent his parents, grandparents, and other Japanese Americans to internment camps during World War II under the Alien Enemies Act. The gay California Democrat also described Hernández as “a political prisoner, denied basic rights under a law that should have stayed in the past.”
“He is not a case number,” said Takano. “He is a person.”
Hernández had been pursuing his asylum case while at the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego.
A hearing had been scheduled to take place on May 30, but an immigration judge the day before dismissed his case. Immigrant Defenders Law Center has said it will appeal the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which the Justice Department oversees.
“We will not stop fighting for Andry, and I know neither will you,” said Toczylowski.
Friday’s rally took place hours after Attorney General Pam Bondi said Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who the Trump-Vance administration wrongfully deported to El Salvador, had returned to the U.S. Abrego will face federal human trafficking charges in Tennessee.
National
A husband’s story: Michael Carroll reflects on life with Edmund White
Iconic author died this week; ‘no sunnier human in the world’

Unlike most gay men of my generation, I’ve only been to Fire Island twice. Even so, the memory of my first visit has never left me. The scenery was lovely, and the boys were sublime — but what stood out wasn’t the beach or the parties. It was a quiet afternoon spent sipping gin and tonics in a mid-century modern cottage tucked away from the sand and sun.
Despite Fire Island’s reputation for hedonism, our meeting was more accident than escapade. Michael Carroll — a Facebook friend I’d chatted with but never met — mentioned that he and his husband, Ed, would be there that weekend, too. We agreed to meet for a drink. On a whim, I checked his profile and froze. Ed was author Edmund White.
I packed a signed copy of Carroll’s “Little Reef” and a dog-eared hardback of “A Boy’s Own Story,” its spine nearly broken from rereads. I was excited to meet both men and talk about writing, even briefly.
Yesterday, I woke to the news that Ed had passed away. Ironically, my first thought was of Michael.
This week, tributes to Edmund White are everywhere — rightly celebrating his towering legacy as a novelist, essayist, and cultural icon. I’ve read all of his books, and I could never do justice to the scope of a career that defined and chronicled queer life for more than half a century. I’ll leave that to better-prepared journalists.
But in those many memorials, I’ve noticed something missing. When Michael Carroll is mentioned, it’s usually just a passing reference: “White’s partner of thirty years, twenty-five years his junior.” And yet, in the brief time I spent with this couple on Fire Island, it was clear to me that Michael was more than a footnote — he was Ed’s anchor, editor, companion, and champion. He was the one who knew his husband best.
They met in 1995 after Michael wrote Ed a fan letter to tell him he was coming to Paris. “He’d lost the great love of his life a year before,” Michael told me. “In one way, I filled a space. Understand, I worshiped this man and still do.”
When I asked whether there was a version of Ed only he knew, Michael answered without hesitation: “No sunnier human in the world, obvious to us and to people who’ve only just or never met him. No dark side. Psychology had helped erase that, I think, or buffed it smooth.”
Despite the age difference and divergent career arcs, their relationship was intellectually and emotionally symbiotic. “He made me want to be elegant and brainy; I didn’t quite reach that, so it led me to a slightly pastel minimalism,” Michael said. “He made me question my received ideas. He set me free to have sex with whoever I wanted. He vouchsafed my moods when they didn’t wobble off axis. Ultimately, I encouraged him to write more minimalistically, keep up the emotional complexity, and sleep with anyone he wanted to — partly because I wanted to do that too.”
Fully open, it was a committed relationship that defied conventional categories. Ed once described it as “probably like an 18th-century marriage in France.” Michael elaborated: “It means marriage with strong emotion — or at least a tolerance for one another — but no sex; sex with others. I think.”
That freedom, though, was always anchored in deep devotion and care — and a mutual understanding that went far beyond art, philosophy, or sex. “He believed in freedom and desire,” Michael said, “and the two’s relationship.”
When I asked what all the essays and articles hadn’t yet captured, Michael paused. “Maybe that his writing was tightly knotted, but that his true personality was vulnerable, and that he had the defense mechanisms of cheer and optimism to conceal that vulnerability. But it was in his eyes.”
The moment that captured who Ed was to him came at the end. “When he was dying, his second-to-last sentence (garbled then repeated) was, ‘Don’t forget to pay Merci,’ the cleaning lady coming the next day. We had had a rough day, and I was popping off like a coach or dad about getting angry at his weakness and pushing through it. He took it almost like a pack mule.”
Edmund White’s work shaped generations — it gave us language for desire, shame, wit, and liberation. But what lingers just as powerfully is the extraordinary life Ed lived with a man who saw him not only as a literary giant but as a real person: sunny, complex, vulnerable, generous.
In the end, Ed’s final words to his husband weren’t about his books or his legacy. They were about care, decency, and love. “You’re good,” he told Michael—a benediction, a farewell, maybe even a thank-you.
And now, as the world celebrates the prolific writer and cultural icon Edmund White, it feels just as important to remember the man and the person who knew him best. Not just the story but the characters who stayed to see it through to the end.