National
Log Cabin says Boehner helpful on ‘Don’t Ask’ vote
GOP election victories shine spotlight on gay Republican group

Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), who is expected to become Speaker of the House in January, agreed to a request by the gay GOP group Log Cabin Republicans not to penalize House Republicans who voted in May for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” according to the group’s leader.
Log Cabin Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper said Boehner agreed to his request that the House minority leader not order a Republican whip count for an amendment to a defense authorization bill calling for repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Whip counts are sometimes viewed as a means of pressuring members to vote the way party leaders want them to vote, and House GOP leaders, including Boehner, opposed the repeal amendment.
In what he called a conciliatory gesture, Cooper said Boehner agreed to his request to “no whip” the amendment during a conversation at a political event days before the House voted 234 to 194 on May 27 to approve it. Only five Republicans voted for the amendment, which was introduced by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.).
“He did not do a whip count,” Cooper said. “And in the grand scheme of things it’s not the biggest deal on the planet. But I saw it as a positive indicator that he didn’t blow me off.”
The repeal measure died in a Senate filibuster. Senate Democratic leaders have promised to bring it up again later this month in a congressional “lame duck” session, but its prospects for passing are uncertain.
Meanwhile, with Republicans winning control of the House in Tuesday’s midterm elections, LGBT activists and Capitol Hill pundits will likely weigh Cooper’s interaction with Boehner as part of their assessment of whether gay Republicans will have access to and influence with House GOP leaders over pending LGBT legislation.
Although Democrats retained their control of the Senate, most political observers — including LGBT advocates — agree that major LGBT-related bills would have no chance of passing in Congress next year without the consent of Republican leaders like Boehner. And most observers believe House Republicans won’t allow gay bills to come to the House floor for a vote.
Cooper, however, said he and his Log Cabin team have a plan for persuading congressional Republican leaders to consider and agree to a vote on at least two gay bills. According to Cooper, one is an as yet to be unveiled tax reform bill that would address “tax inequities that affect the gay community.” The other is the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, which Democratic leaders declined to bring up for a vote during the past two years. The measure calls for banning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Cooper said the tax bill would appeal to “the broader conservative community” while addressing inequities in the gay community.
“We would be attracting new or additional allies that we’ve not had in the past,” he said. “There are several members of Congress right now who don’t have a record, good or bad, or who are unknown to our community. And this gives them an opportunity to put a toe in the water on doing pro-equality measures.”
Cooper said the tax bill, the details of which would be released at the start of the new Congress in January, would help pave the way for more Republican support for ENDA.
Other LGBT organizations issued statements Tuesday night saying the Republican takeover of the House and the increased number of Republicans elected to the Senate would essentially eliminate any chance of passing LGBT bills for at least two years.
National Stonewall Democrats, the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force each released statements describing the new crop of Republican leaders as “anti-equality.”
HRC noted that Boehner; Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the expected new House majority leader; and Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), the expected majority whip, each received an HRC scorecard rating of “0” on LGBT issues over the past two years.
D.C. Council member David Catania (I-At-Large), who won election to another term on Tuesday, said his opinion of the Republican Party as an impediment to LGBT equality hasn’t changed since he left the party in 2004 over its support for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
“If the question is what impact gay Republicans will have in a Republican-controlled Congress, the answer is none,” Catania said. “And if the last 10 years has demonstrated anything it’s that the Republican Party has no interest in a big tent, no interest in having gay Republicans at the table.”
“And the fact that gay Republicans continue to live in a fantasy land as if they mattered to the establishment in the GOP is mind blowing,” he said.
A spokesperson for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who will be replaced as speaker by Boehner in January, gave an equally harsh assessment of the influence of gay Republicans under the new Congress.
“They have got to be drinking some serious Kool-Aid over at Log Cabin Republicans’ headquarters,” said Pelosi spokesperson Drew Hammill. “To think that a Republican majority would do anything to advance equality for the LGBT community is simply delusional.”
Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, which has been among the lead groups lobbying for ENDA, said she hopes Log Cabin does have access and influence over congressional GOP leaders.
But she noted that some of Log Cabin’s effort could be undercut by what appears to be a rival gay Republican group, GOProud.
Founded by conservative gay GOP activist Christopher Barron, who broke away from Log Cabin two years ago, GOProud received criticism from LGBT activists this fall for producing a campaign ad calling for the defeat of gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). The ad accused Frank of being responsible for “the financial meltdown that devastated our economy” in his role as chair of the House committee that approved government bailouts for banks.
Other activists note that Log Cabin had its own financial meltdown in 2008, when money problems resulted in the layoff of its entire Washington staff. The group’s board and state and local chapters remained active and kept the group going until funds were raised to hire a new executive director and a small Washington staff.
Cooper and other Log Cabin supporters strongly dispute claims that congressional GOP leaders will ignore the group. They note that unlike the last GOP takeover of Congress, virtually none of the current crop of Republican candidates ran on an anti-gay or anti-same-sex marriage platform. Economic issues and the Tea Party-led revolt this year against “big government” overshadowed social issues like gay marriage, Cooper and other Log Cabin members said.
Richard Tafel, who served as Log Cabin’s executive director in the 1990s, told the Blade Tuesday that he believes the new GOP-controlled House will be far more receptive to LGBT equality issues than the GOP Congress he contended with nearly a decade ago.
“I think the Republicans have learned a very harsh lesson from the ‘90s, when I was there, which is gay bashing didn’t work. It was fundamentally a flaw … the Tea Party is all about fiscal responsibility,” he said, adding that the new GOP leadership will likely follow that path rather than expend resources opposing gay equality issues.
Gay Republican activist Jim Driscoll, who served on the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS during the Bush administration, said Log Cabin’s influence “will be heavily dependent” on its willingness to support Republicans on non-LGBT issues like the economy and GOP positions on AIDS programs.
“Regardless of how Log Cabin fares, I believe that most Republican offices will be more receptive to openly gay Republicans than any time before,” Driscoll said. “Republicans will realize that this election was not won on social issues or gay baiting. In fact, nearly all Republican strategists and consultants advised their candidates to keep quiet or tone down on this one.”
National
Federal workers, trans service members cope with Trump attacks
‘We could very easily be entering a Lavender Scare 2.0’

Since President Trump signed a series of executive orders rolling back federal worker protections, advocacy groups are ringing alarm bells signaling this could disproportionately impact more than 300,000 LGBTQ federal workers.
Trump has so far signed 65 executive orders, most of which attempt to shrink the size of the federal government and restructure how it works to better suit his interests. Of those 65 executive orders passed, at least six directly target LGBTQ people, one outright bans transgender people from serving in the military, and another ends all government efforts at promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
A study conducted in January by the Williams Institute, a research center that focuses on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy, showed that “one in ten LGBTQ adults are employed by the public sector,” with higher numbers of LGBTQ people working in federal government bureaus, the USPS, and as government contractors. This means that Trump’s orders could be particularly dangerous for LGBTQ Americans, potentially displacing hundreds of thousands of queer federal workers.
The Blade spoke with an LGBTQ executive branch employee who works directly with one of the resource groups targeted by the Trump administration to understand how these orders are being implemented internally. The source, fearing retaliation, requested anonymity.
“We had established lots of different things that were positive for LGBTQI+ employees to make sure that our identities were respected,” the source said. “What some folks may see as a simple thing like the allowance for pronouns in email signatures and the use of inclusive language, all those kinds of things are kind of in limbo right now. It’s fully expected to be said [by the Trump administration] that these things can’t be utilized anymore.”
The source noted that the public often misunderstands the role of these resource groups, making it harder to justify the need for such positions. A common misconception is that groups promoting DEI exist solely to hire minorities. Although part of their mission involves reaching historically underrepresented communities, their work extends far beyond recruitment, playing a crucial role in fostering inclusive workplace cultures and supporting employees.
“It’s just about creating that level playing field environment to make sure that you are doing the best for your organization to attract the best talent, and then the knowledge that it’s not just any one demographic that is best suited for a certain role,” they said. “Let me be very clear: It’s not about quotas, it’s not about checking boxes. It’s not about hiring one person on anything other than qualification over another. It’s about making sure that we’re looking at places where we may be missing opportunities for not just qualified candidates, but the best and brightest. And sometimes that means adjusting your recruitment style.”
This ongoing attack on DEI, as well as other efforts to promote inclusivity and fairness within the government by the twice-impeached president is a borrowed tactic from another infamous Republican who weaponized demagoguery to consolidate power — Sen. Joseph McCarthy.
“We could very easily be entering a Lavender Scare 2.0,” the source continued. “I mean, when you’re asking employees to rat on each other, basically, for anybody who might be involved in anything surrounding this work, it’s not unknown that a majority of folks who do diversity, equity, and inclusion work are members of minority, marginalized communities. It just painted a big target on the back of all those people.”
When asked to speculate on what they think this could mean for the roughly three million federal workers, the source said it could lead to a chilling effect where LGBTQ employees either face direct removal or feel compelled to leave due to a hostile work environment.
“I see an exodus coming — whether it is forced or voluntary,” said the source. “I don’t see with all the progress that’s been made over the last two decades people willing to stay working for an organization where they don’t feel like they’re safe. If you feel like you don’t have the psychological safety to do your job, and you’re worried about whether you’re gonna get fired, it kind of kills your psychological availability to do your job. People are not engaged.”
Colonel Bree Fram, the highest-ranking out transgender officer in the Department of Defense, who spoke to the Blade in her personal capacity and does not speak on behalf of the U.S. government or military, agreed with the source’s thoughts on inclusive spaces being critical for the success of government work and safety.
“Any policy that excludes a class of individuals is inherently damaging to national security, because if those individuals can meet the standards of the service, if they can accomplish the mission that they’ve been given, they are participating in a way that makes us stronger,” Fram said. “We create better solutions from a diverse set of perspectives that allows us to accomplish the mission in ways that support national security objectives. So if there is a transgender service member out there excluded merely for who they are, rather than their ability to complete their mission it’s an issue for our national security today and far into the future, because we have thousands of transgender service members actively accomplishing the mission today. They are doing so in a way that meets, or, in most cases, exceeds the standards, because they are highly capable, competent warriors that have learned their skill set and mastered their craft over decades, they are crushing it on behalf of the United States and in upholding their oath to the Constitution.”
The executive branch source echoed that sentiment. Both sources agree that the removal of these policies has the real potential to harm the government’s ability to function as a resource for its people.
“It takes a special type of person to work for the government,” the source said. “You’re not going to get rich. You’re not going to make as much money, generally. In the private sector you would, especially for folks who work in some of these specialized areas. Why would you want to work somewhere that you’re going to go nowhere, and no matter how hard you work, you’re not going to get anything?”
Not only do government employees feel they can’t perform at a professional level with these executive orders, some have expressed that they fear for the personal lives of LGBTQ staff members now too.
“People are concerned,” Fram said. “People are worried about what will happen to people that they work with. When any leader sees someone in their organization having a difficult time or having something outside of what they need to focus on to accomplish their duties, it is our responsibility as a leader to help that person through those issues. That is what leaders within the military, I believe, are seeing right now. They see members of their military family hurting and concerned about what their future may be. As a leader, we want to take care of people so that they can take care of the mission and having to spend resources to take care of people when they are hurt is very important, but it is also time consuming, and takes us away from things that we do need to be focused on.”
To find “things that we need to focus on,” is easier said than done. Fram said that for LGBTQ members of the federal workforce, specifically trans members of the military, it’s not only the fight against unjust actions and rhetoric from Trump, but also internally within the service members themselves.
“The challenge all of us face is, how do we determine and know our own self worth?” Fram asked. “Do we let an outside source define who we are? For transgender people, that is a deep strength of ours. … We know what to focus on. We know that we are who we are. We exist, and it is our deep duty and responsibility to care about future generations and protecting and defending our freedoms.”
When asked how to support people in these groups as workplace inclusion shifts away from being a standard part of their professional environment, Fram had a simple answer: listen to those who are being excluded.
“I believe the most powerful thing any of us have is our story,” Fram said. “Our story of courage and commitment and development and capability, how we serve, how we accomplish the missions that we’ve been given. So the best thing people can possibly do right now is share our stories, connect with our humanity, understand who we are in reality, not the rhetoric being used to demonize us. Trans people are a small portion of the population, so it’s easy to hate who you don’t know or don’t understand or have never met. So meet a trans person, read their story, share their story, and your perceptions may change.”
The Blade reached out to the Trump-Vance administration for comment but did not receive a response.
In the long run, Fram explained, vilifying and marginalizing people for who they are ultimately harms the cohesive team dynamics essential to achieving a common goal — whether on the battlefield or in the boardroom.
“What we’ve learned from countless examples through history, for trans people, for lesbians, gays, and bisexuals, and for other groups, anyone really who had to hide a piece of their identity in order to serve,” Fram said. “You cannot be as effective as you can be when you are spending energy hiding who you are. That’s a concern I have as more people pull back and have to hide a portion of who they are. We lose some of that cohesion within teams, because that energy that you have to spend on protecting yourself could be dedicated to building the cohesive relationships around you that foster teams that become incredibly successful. That’s one of the things where people being authentic serves the purposes of the military. It builds those strong bonds that allow teams to function effectively and accomplish their wartime mission.”
National
Federal judge blocks Trump’s order restricting gender-affirming care for youth
Seven families with transgender, nonbinary children challenged directive

A federal judge on Thursday issued a temporary restraining order that blocks President Donald Trump’s Jan. 29 executive order restricting access to gender-affirming health care for transgender people under age 19.
The order by Judge Brendan Hurson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, came in response to a request from the plaintiffs in a lawsuit, filed on Feb. 4, against Trump’s directive.
The plaintiffs are seven families with trans or nonbinary children. They are represented by PFLAG National, GMLA, Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Maryland, and the law firms Hogan Lovells and Jenner & Block.
Hurson’s temporary restraining order will halt enforcement of Trump’s order for 14 days, but it can be extended. This means health care providers and medical institutions can provide gender-affirming care to minor patients without the risk of losing federal funding.
Families in the lawsuit say their appointments were cancelled shortly after the executive order was issued. Hospitals in Colorado, Virginia, and D.C. stopped providing prescriptions for puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and other interventions for trans patients as they evaluated Trump’s directive.
The harms associated with suddenly withholding access to medical care for these patients were a major focus of Thursday’s hearing on the plaintiffs’ request for the temporary restraining order.
The president’s “order seems to deny that this population even exists, or deserves to exist,” Hurson said, noting the elevated risk of suicide, poverty, addiction, and other hardships among trans people.
National
Trump’s trans erasure arrives at National Park Service
Fate of major 2016 LGBTQ Theme Study unclear

President Trump’s efforts at erasing trans identity intensified this week as employees at the National Park Service were instructed to remove the “T” and “Q” from “LGBTQ” from all internal and external communications.
The change was first noticed on the website of the Stonewall National Monument; trans people of color were integral to the events at Stonewall, which is widely viewed as the kickoff of the modern LGBTQ rights movement. The Stonewall National Monument is the first U.S. national monument dedicated to LGBTQ rights and history.
Reaction to that move was swift. New York City Council member Erik Bottcher wrote, “The Trump administration has erased transgender people from the Stonewall National Monument website. We will not allow them to erase the very existence of our siblings. We are one community!!”
But what most didn’t realize is that the removal of the “T” and “Q” (for transgender and queer) extends to all National Park Service and Interior Department communications, raising concerns that the move could jeopardize future LGBTQ monuments and project work.
The Blade reached out to the National Park Service for comment on the trans erasure and received a curt response that the agency is implementing Trump’s executive order “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” as well as agency directives to end all DEI initiatives.
The question being debated internally now, according to a knowledgable source, is what to do with a massive LGBTQ Theme Study, which as of Feb. 14 was still available on the NPS website. In 2014, the Gill Foundation recognized an omission of historic LGBTQ sites in the nation’s records, and the organization made a grant to the National Park Service to commission a first-of-its-kind LGBTQ Theme Study, which was published in 2016. It was a landmark project that represented major progress for the LGBTQ community in having our contributions included in the broader American story, something that is becoming increasingly difficult given efforts like “Don’t Say Gay” laws that ban the teaching of LGBTQ topics in schools.
A source told the Blade that National Park Service communications staff suggested that removing chapters of the 2016 Theme Study that pertain to transgender people might placate anti-trans political appointees. But one employee pushed back on that, suggesting instead that the entire Theme Study be removed. Editing the document to remove one community’s contributions and perspective violates the academic intent of the project, according to the source. A final decision on how to proceed is expected soon.
Meanwhile, a protest is planned for Friday, Feb. 14 at noon at Christopher Park in New York City (7th Ave. S. and Christopher Street). The protest is being planned by staff at the Stonewall Inn.
“The Stonewall Inn and The Stonewall Inn Gives Back Initiative are outraged and appalled by the recent removal of the word ‘transgender’ from the Stonewall National Monument page on the National Park Service website,” the groups said in a statement. “Let us be clear: Stonewall is transgender history. Marsha P. Johnson, Sylvia Rivera, and countless other trans and gender-nonconforming individuals fought bravely, and often at great personal risk, to push back against oppressive systems. Their courage, sacrifice, and leadership were central to the resistance we now celebrate as the foundation of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement.”