Connect with us

National

Gibbs unsure if ‘Don’t Ask’ report will influence military chiefs

White House spokesperson: Legislative action best way to end law

Published

on

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he doesn't "want to presume" how the Pentagon "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" report will influence service chiefs.. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Monday said he’s unsure whether the results of the Pentagon study on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will move the four service chiefs to support an end to the law as he suggested that unanimous support among the military leaders won’t be necessary for moving forward.

Asked by the Washington Blade whether President Obama anticipates that the service chiefs will favor repeal following the completion of the Pentagon report, Gibbs said he doesn’t “want to presume” where they would stand after the study is finished, noting the president hasn’t yet seen it.

“I think the service chiefs as I understand it are meeting with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the secretary as we get closer to this report coming out in order to discuss where they are based on that survey,” Gibbs said. “The president has not yet seen that survey, so I don’t want to presume whether based on those results that would change their opinions on it.”

Pressed to clarify whether the intent of the year-long study was to bring the military leaders such as the service chiefs on board with repeal, Gibbs hinted that “whether you have unanimous agreement or not” among the military leaders isn’t necessary to move forward.

“The president has known where people have stood on this policy for as long as he’s supported changing that policy,” Gibbs said. “So, I think it will be important to again view the attitudes and to use those attitudes to craft a pathway to implementing a changed legislative policy.”

Gibbs also implied that the president hasn’t recently spoken to the service chiefs about getting them to support repeal during the lame duck session of Congress as he noted Obama had previously spoken to them on this issue.

“I know the president has spoken previously with the service chiefs on this subject and expect that as this report is finalized and released that he’ll have an opportunity to speak directly with the chair, the vice-chair and the service chiefs as the process moves forward,” Gibbs said.

Obama has said — notably in January during the State of the Union address — that part of his effort in repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is working with the military to make it happen. The Pentagon working group, established by Defense Secretary Robert Gates in February, was seen as part of this process.

The service chiefs have heretofore been against the legislative effort to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” In May, the service chiefs of the Navy, Army, Air Force and Marine Corps sent a joint letter to Congress urging lawmakers to wait for the Pentagon report — now set for release on Nov. 30 — before taking action.

But in an interview Saturday with the National Journal, Navy Chief of Staff. Adm. Gary Roughead reportedly praised the Pentagon report — and the surveys sent to 400,000 service members that were a component of that study — and said he’s “just trying to put it all in context.”

“I think the survey, without question, was the most expansive survey of the American military that’s ever been undertaken,” Roughead was quoted as saying. “I think the work that has been done is extraordinary.”

The Navy chief reportedly added that he’s “eager to see” where repeal “goes on the Hill.”

The last public statements of the Army and Air Force chiefs have them on the record as wanting to Congress to hold off before pursuing legislative action. Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos last month took on the mantle as head of his service, and he has spoken out against repeal.

A number of U.S. senators have said they’re awaiting testimony from military service chiefs before making a decision on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” In his defense of the law, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has emphasized that the service chiefs — in particular Amos — have asked Congress to hold off on legislative action. A spokesperson for Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) has recently said the senator is awaiting testimony from the service chiefs before making a decision on the issue.

Also during the news conference, Gibbs counted “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal among the legislative items that Obama wants to see happen during the lame duck session of Congress and argued that legislative action is better than having the courts overturn the law. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has committed to a vote on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before the year’s end.

“There are issues around ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ that the president and, I think, many people believe are best dealt with through the legislative process and not through a legal system,” Gibbs said.

Gibbs maintained that overturning the gay ban through court order is “not likely to provide the Pentagon and others with a pathway” for implementing repeal and said “doing this legislatively” is the best way to end the law.

—————————-

A partial transcript of Gibbs’ remarks on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” follows:

Robert Gibbs [on the legislative agenda for lame duck]: … There are issues around “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” that the president and, I think, many people believe are best dealt with through the legislative process and not through a legal system. …

National Public Radio: Has the president asked the Pentagon has the Pentagon to hurry up to Nov. 30 the report — it’s internal report —

Gibbs: I think the original date was Dec. 1. Obviously, the report is being released a day or so early in order to have some informed hearings on the survey and its results. I think those, hearings, if I’m not mistaken, start on the 1st.

But I think it’s important if you look at what others have said particularly — take for instance Secretary Gates — we know we can do this legislatively. The House has done this; the Senate can do this — do this legislatively, which provides an avenue to implement the policy. The court doing this is not likely to provide the Pentagon and others with a pathway for doing this, and I think in order to do this in a way that the president want to see that doing this legislatively is the best way to do this. …

Washington Blade: Robert, back on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the service chief of the Navy recently praised the Pentagon report and said he’s eager to see what happens with the Hill with regard to repeal. But the remaining three service chiefs — they’re all on the record as saying they want to wait for the report to come out before Congress takes action. Does the president that once the report comes out, the service chiefs will be on board in favor of repeal?

Robert Gibbs: I don’t — I think the service chiefs as I understand it are meeting with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the secretary as we get closer to this report coming out in order to discuss where they are based on that survey. The president has not yet seen that survey, so I don’t want to presume whether based on those results that would change their opinions on it. I think it’s best not to get too far down the road on commenting on that until we chance to personally see the substance.

Blade: But wasn’t that the purpose of the study, though? You’ve said the president has supported repeal since you’ve known him, and the president has said he wants to work with military leaders — in the State of the Union address — he said he wants to work with military leaders to get them on board with repeal. So, what the point of this report if not to get those service chiefs on [board]?

Gibbs: I’m not saying they won’t. I’m just saying — I think the original question you asked me is would that report change their mind. I haven’t seen the report, and the president hasn’t seen that report and neither of us have had an opportunity to talk with the chiefs. That’s not to say that it won’t; that’s not to say that — and quite frankly, that’s not to say whether or not — whether you have unanimous agreement or not that the policy — look, the president is going where people have stood on this policy for as long as he supported changing that policy. So, I think it will be important to again view the attitudes and to use those attitudes to craft a pathway to implementing a changed legislative policy.

That’s what the president has advocated through this process. Again, I can’t — we may have a better sense of that when we get an opportunity to talk to those who have seen the report and get a chance to look at that report ourselves.

Blade: Has the president had conversations directly with the service chiefs to get them in favor of legislative repeal during the lame duck session of Congress?

Gibbs: I know the president has spoken previously with the service chiefs on this subject and expect that as this report is finalized and released that he’ll have an opportunity to speak directly with the chair, the vice-chair and the service chiefs as the process moves forward.

Watch a video of the exchange here (via Think Progress):

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

The White House

Trump tells Fox News he won the ‘gay vote’ — but polls tell a different story

Trump falsely claims LGBTQ support on Fox despite polling showing overwhelming opposition.

Published

on

President Donald Trump at the State of the Union in February 2025. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

President Donald Trump claimed he won the “gay vote” in 2024, despite evidence showing otherwise.

While appearing by phone on Fox News’s panel show “The Five” on Thursday, Trump falsely claimed he performed particularly well among gay voters while discussing the ongoing war in Iran — a conflict he initiated without formal congressional approval.

“Now I think I did very well with the gay vote, OK? I even played the gay national anthem as my walk-off, OK?” Trump said on air.

“And I think it probably helped me. But I did great. No Republican’s ever gotten the gay vote like I did and I’m very proud of it, I think it’s great. Perhaps it’s because I’m from New York City, I don’t know…”

His claim contradicts 2024 polling from NBC News, which found that the GOP presidential ticket captured fewer than 1 in 5 LGBTQ male voters — a figure that may also include bisexual and transgender men. Trump’s support among LGBTQ female voters was even lower, at just 8%.

White LGBTQ voters favored Vice President Kamala Harris over Trump by a margin of 82% to 16%, while LGBTQ voters of color backed Harris by an even wider 91% to 5%.

Trump also used the appearance to criticize “Gays for Palestine,” saying: “Look at ‘Gays for Palestine’… they kill gays, they kill them instantly, they throw them off buildings, and I’m saying, ‘Who are the gays for Palestine?’”

He further pointed to his campaign’s use of the song “Y.M.C.A.” by the Village People — which he has repeatedly described as a “gay national anthem” — noting that it was frequently used as a walk-off song at rallies, as an indication that he and his campaign were supported by the gay community. The track, long associated with camp and hyper-masculine gay imagery, became a staple of Trump campaign events.

The Village People were later booked to perform at Turning Point USA’s inaugural ball celebrating Trump’s second inauguration. Lead singer Victor Willis previously criticized Trump’s use of the song dating back to 2020 and considered legal action to block it, but ultimately said there was “not much he can do about it.” He later acknowledged the renewed exposure was “beneficial” and “good for business,” boosting the song’s popularity and chart performance.

Despite Trump’s claims of strong support from gay voters, polling has consistently shown otherwise — even as several prominent gay men have held roles in or around his orbit, sometimes dubbed the “A-gays.” These include Richard Grenell, former executive director of the Kennedy Center and Special Presidential Envoy for Special Missions; Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent; Under Secretary of State Jacob Helberg; Department of Energy official Charles T. Moran; and longtime supporter Peter Thiel, co-founder and CEO of Palantir.

His efforts to portray himself as aligned with the gay community stand in conflict with policies advanced under his leadership. These include removing LGBTQ-related data from State Department reports, attempting to narrowly redefine gender identity in federal policy, restricting access to gender-affirming health care, and rolling back anti-discrimination protections. His administration also rescinded initiatives focused on LGBTQ health equity, data collection, and nondiscrimination in health care and education — moves advocates say contribute to stigma and worsen mental health outcomes.

Additionally, some HIV programs and community health centers have lost funding from the federal government after supporting initiatives inclusive of transgender people as a direct result of Trump-Vance policies.

Continue Reading

National

Anti-trans visa ruling echoes Nazi regime destroying trans documents

Trump administration escalates attacks on queer community

Published

on

The Trump administration has moved from identifying trans people as as threat to the family to claiming that trans people are a threat to the spiritual health of the nation. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security earlier this month released its third Red Flag Alert for the United States about the Trump administration’s anti-trans legislation. As the Lemkin Institute shared in the press release, “the Administration has moved from identifying transgender people as as threat to the family and to the nation’s military prowess to claiming that transgender people constitute a cosmic threat to the spiritual health of the nation and the great direct threat to the US national security in the world.”

The news came the same day that the State Department issued a new rule, “Enhancing Vetting and Combatting Fraud in the Immigrant Visa Program.” Under this new guidance, all visa applicants are required to disclose their “biological sex at birth” during all stages of the process, “even if that differs from the sex listed on the applicant’s foreign passport or identifying documentation.” 

This rule also orders that applicants to the green card lottery program share their passport information, so in knowingly collecting passport information that the agency knows will not match a person’s biological sex at birth, it’s creating grounds to deny trans peoples’ biases on the basis of “fraud,” Aleksandra Vaca of Transitics explains.

As is written in the new ruling, “the Department is replacing ‘gender’ with ‘sex’ in accordance with E.O. 14168, Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, which provides that the term ‘sex’ shall refer to an individual’s sex at birth. Only male and female sex options are available for entrants completing the Diversity Visa entry form.” 

Along with outright denying the existence of nonbinary, genderqueer and gender expansive people, this policy creates a precedence for trans people to be stripped of their visas and deported because under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), any foreigner found to have obtained or possess a visa “by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact” will have their visa revoked and face deportation. 

By requesting information on “biological sex at birth,” the State Department is forcing a mismatch between documents and enabling officials to accuse trans, nonbinary, and gender expansive immigrants of fraud. Thus, trans and nonbinary immigrants can have their visas revoked and can be deported, and information gathered from immigrants during the visa request process can be added to federal databases and used by immigration authorities, including ICE agents. 

With the Supreme Court’s decision this past year allowing ICE officers to use racial profiling, Vaca argues that “now, The Trump administration has given ICE the reason it needs. Under this rule, ICE agents now have the enforcement rationale to assert that trans people–especially those belonging to racial minority groups–are more likely than cis people to have ‘misrepresented’ themselves during the visa process, and therefore, are more likely to enter the country ‘unlawfully.’”

This would enable ICE agents to target trans individuals specifically for being trans. If the goal of this were unclear, a day later the Trump administration released its statement for Women’s History Month 2026, writing that “we are keeping men out of women’s sports, enforcing Title IX as it was originally written and ensuring colleges preserve–and, where possible, expand–scholarships and roster opportunities for female athletes. We are restoring public safety and upholding the rule of law in every city so women, children, and families can feel safe and secure.”

And this is not the first time that ICE has targeted and harmed trans and nonbinary immigrants. Last June, Vera reported that ICE is not including trans people in detection in their public reports, and back in 2020, AFSC reported that trans people held in ICE detention faced “dreadful, ugly” conditions. 

While it seems like a new development in Trump’s anti-trans escalation, it echoes a deeply upsetting history of denying and destroying transgender people’s documents following members of the Nazi party seizing power in 1933. 

In the early 20th century, Weimar, Germany was an epicenter for gender affirming care with Maganus Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science. One of the first book burnings of the rising Nazi regime destroyed the Institute’s extensive clinical records and library on trans health and history by Nazi students and stormtroopers. In doing so, the Nazis effectively destroyed the world’s first trans health clinic and one of the richest and most comprehensive collective of information about trans healthcare. 

Similarly, the Nazi government invalidated or refused to recognize what was called “transvestite passes,” or passing certificates that allowed trans people to avoid arrest under Paragraph 175 which prohibited cross-dressing. During the Weimar Republic — the regime that preceded the Third Reich — recognized and affirmed the identities of trans people (in limited ways) with specific documentation that helped prevent them from arrest. Invalidating and disregarding these passes allowed police and Nazi officials to target trans people and harass, extort and arrest them, and the record of passes themselves helped officials target trans people. 

The changes to visa guidelines — alongside Kansas’s move to revoke trans drivers’ licenses last month — is reflective of this escalation of violence against trans people during the Nazi’s rise to power, which scholars like Dr. Laurie Marhoefer is just beginning to uncover. And along with the revocation of identification documents this past week, a recent Fourth Circuit Court ruled that states can deny Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming surgery.

The Fourth Circuit Court decision affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision in Skrmetti, which ruled that bans on gender affirming healthcare for young people are constitutional. This ruling extends this ban to include adult healthcare bans, allowing West Virginia’s exclusion of Medicaid coverage for adult gender affirming healthcare to take full effect. Even more upsetting was what the ruling itself said, calling gender affirming healthcare “dangerous.” 

As was written in the Fourth Circuit Opinion, “it’s not irrational for a legislature to encourage citizens ‘to appreciate their sex’ and not ‘become disdainful of their sex’ by refusing to fund experimental procedures that may have the opposite effect.” 

In reality, what this ruling and the opinion reflect, is the next step in government regulation and oversight over marginalized peoples’ bodies. From the overturn of Roe v. Wade, which removed federal protection of access to abortion, this next step represents the denial of people’s access to vital, lifesaving care–and to be clear, gender affirming care is not just for trans, nonbinary, and intersex people. It’s a dangerous escalation and one that echoes previous violence against trans people under fascist regimes; the Lemkin Institute is right to raise concern.

Continue Reading

Pennsylvania

Pa. House passes bill to codify marriage equality in state law

Governor supports gay state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta’s measure

Published

on

Pennsylvania Capitol Building (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The Pennsylvania House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a bill that would codify marriage equality in state law.

House Bill 1800 passed by a 127-72 vote margin. Twenty-six Republicans voted for the measure.

The Republican-controlled Pennsylvania Senate will now consider the bill that state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta (D-Philadelphia), who is the first openly gay person of color elected to the state’s General Assembly, introduced. Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro supports the measure.

“Here in Pennsylvania, we believe in your freedom to marry who you love,” said Shapiro on Wednesday. “Today, the House has stepped up to protect that right.”

Continue Reading

Popular