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:
National
Results from key Tuesday primary races
State officials in California had not called the governor’s race as of Wednesday morning but Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra appear likely to advance to the general election.
The race for governor has been scrambled several times after Kamala Harris opted not to run, Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out after sexual misconduct allegations surfaced, and Rep. Katie Porter’s campaign fizzled. Becerra would be the state’s first Latino governor since 1875 if elected. Hilton was endorsed by President Trump.
In the Los Angeles mayor’s race, the AP declared that incumbent Mayor Karen Bass will advance to the Nov. 3 runoff while former reality TV star Spencer Pratt and LA Council member Nithya Raman were competing for second place. California is notoriously slow in counting ballots and only about half of the results were available by Wednesday morning.
In San Francisco, Democratic State Sen. Scott Wiener advanced to the general election in November, besting Supervisor Connie Chan, who was endorsed by House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is retiring from Congress after nearly 40 years in the House.
In Iowa, Democratic state Rep. Josh Turek won the primary for an open U.S. Senate seat, defeating state Sen. Zach Wahls. Turek will face Rep. Ashley Hinson, who won the GOP primary with President Donald Trump’s endorsement, in the general election.
The Iowa seat is open because Sen. Joni Ernst (R) decided not to seek re-election. The primary was closely watched by LGBTQ advocates because Wahls rose to national prominence after a speech he made defending marriage equality went viral in 2011. Wahls was raised by a lesbian couple.
National
White House Correspondents’ Dinner rescheduled after shooting
‘We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word’
The White House Correspondents’ Association announced on Tuesday that it has rescheduled its annual dinner for July 24 after the April event was halted when gunshots rang out at the Washington Hilton.
Cole Allen, 31, is charged with the attempted assassination of President Trump, who was in the ballroom at the time of the incident. One Secret Service officer was wounded in the attack. Officers stopped Allen before he could enter the ballroom where 2,500 journalists and politicos were having dinner and waiting for Trump to speak. It was Trump’s first time attending as president.
“We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word, especially during a year when we are reflecting on the 250th anniversary of America and everything we stand for,” said WHCA President Weijia Jiang in a statement to members.
She did not announce further details, including venue and ticketing.
Washington Blade White House reporter Joe Reberkenny was in the audience when shots were fired and reported live on social media from the scene.
This post will be updated as more details are announced.
Federal Government
Advocates push back on proposed FCC warning labels
New rating system public notice seeking comments issued on April 22
The Federal Communications Commission is considering a new rating system that would require a warning label to appear before any television content that includes LGBTQ characters.
On April 22, the FCC issued a public notice asking Americans to submit comments on whether the TV Oversight Management Board should create new TV ratings to alert viewers to “transgender and gender nonbinary programming” and “the discussion or promotion of gender identity themes.”
This proposed warning would appear before content, similar to warnings that explain a program contains sexual content, drug use, or violence — categories that Congress explicitly included in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 on the grounds of obscenity and violence that some parents “believe is harmful to their children.”
The public notice says that “recently, parents have raised concerns that controversial gender identity issues are being included or promoted in children’s programs without providing any disclosure or transparency to parents.”
It goes on to say that not having a warning for trans and nonbinary people is “undermining the ability of parents to make informed choices for their families.”
LGBT Tech is an organization that works to provide LGBTQ representation in mainstream media or entertainment. The group notes 81 percent of trans respondents it surveyed said these representations had a positive impact on them discovering or learning about their identity.
“These numbers reflect a basic truth: for many people, and especially young people, seeing LGBTQ+ lives represented in ordinary media is not harmful. It is formative, affirming, and often lifesaving.”
Since the public notice’s publication, more than 40 organizations have come out against the proposed alert.
GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis issued a statement in May on the proposal, highlighting what she described as a concerted effort by the Trump-Vance administration to other trans and nonbinary people.
“The FCC does not set TV ratings, but under this administration the FCC has repeatedly tried to control what Americans can see on their own televisions. This government overreach is dangerous and a threat to our community and our democracy,” Ellis said.
“LGBTQ+ people and their families deserve to see their lives represented in the media they watch. And media companies must have the freedom to create programming that appeals to their viewers and subscribers without interference from a government pursuing its own anti-LGBTQ+ political agenda.”
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson pointed out that this is an act of politically motivated policy, not one based on any rhyme or reason.
“LGBTQ+ stories matter and deserve to be told, seen, and heard,” Robinson said. “The Trump administration does not get to use the FCC to try and erase us simply because they want to pretend to live in a world where we don’t exist. This is a brazen form of political interference that will hurt the ability of all people to appreciate, understand, and learn about the world and people around them.”
Brian Dittmeier, director of LGBTQI+ equality at the National Women’s Law Center Action Fund, echoed Robinson’s concerns that this is attempted censorship for the sake of political gain.
“The FCC is cloaking itself in purported concern for parents in an attempt to censor content, intimidate industry, and silence depictions of our trans siblings and neighbors,” Dittmeier wrote. “The FCC is overstepping its authority to undermine the existing ratings system, which is well understood by parents and enjoys broad public support. The FCC’s presumption that it knows better does not reflect parents’ priorities and reeks of government overreach.”
PFLAG National Vice President of Policy and Government Affairs Diego Sanchez said this is federal government overreach into censorship — something the First Amendment protects against.
“The FCC has given us yet another example of what ‘small government’ means: small enough to fit in your living room; to interrupt family movie night; small enough to make home feel unsafe,” Sanchez said. “Parents and families with transgender loved ones in particular know too well how big government actions impact their families directly, because they feel those impacts before everyone else.”
This proposed warning follows a slew of other federal actions targeting trans people in America, including Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which mandated that only sex assigned at birth be used on federal government documents regardless of gender identity, as well as broad-based restrictions on gender-affirming care, particularly for trans minors.
Outright International honors Cyndi Lauper at annual NYC gala
Results from key Tuesday primary races
AIDS Healthcare Foundation announces 3 million people globally in its care
10 HIV/AIDS activists arrested on Capitol Hill
