National
Will time run out for ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal?
New optimism as Reid commits to vote, but hearings loom
Aubrey Sarvis (Blade photo by Michael Key)
Supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal continue to fret about having enough time to pass a measure to overturn the military’s gay ban before year’s end even as Senate leadership has committed to a vote on the issue during the lame duck session of Congress.
An announcement last week from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that he would bring major defense legislation with repeal language to a vote bolstered the confidence of supporters as they acknowledge significant hurdles remain in reaching the finish line.
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said he’s “hopeful” that Congress will be able to enact repeal, but acknowledged that “the clock is our enemy.”
“I’m fearful of time running out on the bill before it’s finished or the prospects of strong opposition from a core group of senators who don’t want to see anything happen in the lame duck,” Sarvis said.
Debate on the defense authorization bill traditionally takes about two weeks in the Senate. Given that slightly more than one month remains in the legislative session this year, time for a debate and vote in the Senate — as well as time for conferencing the legislation — would have to be compressed to move forward.
“Normally, that would involve several weeks or months,” Sarvis said. “For us to succeed here, all those elements, debate on the floor, conference, votes in the two chambers on the conference report would have to be compressed to about eight or 10 days on the floor, in conference and back to the two chambers. That’s part of the challenge.”
Sarvis said he expects the defense authorization bill would likely come to the floor after the Senate Armed Services Committee holds hearings on the Pentagon “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” report. Levin has said he wants to hear testimony early in December.
“If the hearing is [Dec.] 2, I could see a scenario where the leader might make the motion on Friday the third, or, if the hearing is the sixth, then maybe the next day,” Sarvis said.
One major question is whether enough senators will vote in the affirmative to reach the 60-vote threshold to move forward with debate on the legislation. In September, a previous attempt to move forward with the measure failed by a vote of 56-43.
A senior Democratic aide, who spoke to the Washington Blade on condition of anonymity, expressed confidence about being able to move forward with the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill.
“I think that we may be close to having 60 votes to begin debate on the bill,” the aide said. “I’ve seen some positive signs from unexpected Republicans in recent days.”
Sarvis said the ability to move forward will depend on whether at least a handful of Republicans are willing to break ranks with their caucus.
“If you just look at Democrats, the numbers don’t add up to 60,” Sarvis said. “I don’t care how you slice it. So, if we can persuade a handful of Republicans, and I think we can, we will hit 60.”
A number of senators who are seen as key to moving forward with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal have said they want to see an open amendment process in place.
In September, when Senate leadership made an earlier attempt to bring the legislation to the floor, a number of senators said they were voting “no” because they didn’t feel the Republicans could offer a sufficient number of amendments to the legislation.
Last week, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), the sponsor of repeal language in the Senate, expressed confidence during a news conference about having at least 60 votes to move forward — provided certain conditions are met with the amendment process on the Senate floor.
“I am confident that we have more than 60 votes prepared to take up the defense authorization bill with the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ if only there will be a guarantee of a fair and open amendment process,” Lieberman said.
Lieberman said he’s received assurances from Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) — as well as “others privately” — that they would vote for moving forward with the defense authorization bill if a more open amendment process is in place.
The amendment process these senators are seeking remains somewhat nebulous. What standard for the process are these fence-sitting seeking to win their support for moving forward?
Asked about this during the news conference, Lieberman said the exact terms are up for negotiation.
“It’s hard to put a number on it now,” Lieberman said. “That’s what I hope is going to be negotiated. Of course, we’ll do our best to encourage Sen. Reid to reach out to allow a somewhat larger number.”
Some Democrats speculate the call for a change in the amendment process could be an excuse for some fence-sitting senators to vote “no” on moving forward with the defense authorization bill.
Jim Manley, a Reid spokesperson, said the senator has “always been committed to having a fair debate and votes” on the defense authorization bill and specifically on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” provision.
“We are prepared to proceed in a way that would allow Senators on both sides to voice their concerns and to offer relevant amendments to the bill,” Manley said.
Manley said critics of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are spinning “a myth” that Reid “is somehow trying to bypass debate on this critical issue.”
The Democratic aide said this call for a more open amendment process could enable some senators to vote against moving toward final passage of the bill after the legislation comes to the floor.
“You could have … some Republicans using process arguments to say, “No, we haven’t had enough debate time and I cannot support moving toward final passage of the bill yet,'” the aide said. “The Republicans might just try to run out the clock.”
The aide said a fair amendment process in the Senate has “never, ever meant” that debate can continue “as long as anybody wants to continue the debate, as long as there are amendments to be talked about and voted on.”
Sarvis noted that unlike in September, Reid has said the DREAM Act, an immigration-related bill, wouldn’t be offered as an amendment to the defense authorization the next time around and would instead come to the floor as standalone legislation.
“By doing so, he has shown his good faith in proceeding toward a fair and open manner in which senators on both sides of the aisle have an opportunity to offer amendments,” Sarvis said.
Sarvis also said Reid’s commitment to allow amendments on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and abortion-related provisions in the defense authorization bill was evidence of the majority leader’s commitment to fairness during debate on the legislation.
It’s possible that in exchange for repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Senate leadership will have to agree to a vote on amendments that would rile the White House, such as a measure related to the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay or an amendment to try terrorist suspects by military commission.
Sarvis said he doesn’t “think it’s any secret” that Republicans may be looking at amendments like that.
“Are there some Republicans who would like to put the administration on the hot seat with respect to some amendments?” Sarvis said. “Perhaps. But my hope would be that when the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ provisions are debated on the floor that amendments [in that nature] would not be in the mix or part of that debate.”
The Democratic aide said deals are often cut at late stages in the game, but he doesn’t think opponents of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal in the Senate would allow moving forward with ending the law even with an agreement to have a vote on those issues.
“My sense is that [Sen. John] McCain and [Sen. Lindsey] Graham and their crew are dead set on stopping the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,'” the aide said. ‘I don’t think that they’re willing to deal that away.”
As these questions linger, eyes will be on several key senators to determine whether the chamber can reach the 60-vote threshold needed to move forward when the legislation comes before the Senate again.
The offices of both senators Lieberman mentioned as “yes” votes under a different amendment process — Collins and Lugar — said they would be open to moving forward with the defense authorization bill if certain conditions are met.
Mark Helmke, a Lugar spokesperson, said the senator hasn’t taken a position on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and is waiting for the Pentagon report on the issue, which is now set for release on Nov. 30.
“He is in favor of having a full debate on the matter as part of the defense authorization bill if there is a consent agreement for timed debate and votes on a number of issues,” Helmke added.
Kevin Kelley, a Collins spokesperson, confirmed the Maine senator was concerned about what she perceived as the lack of an open process the last time the legislation was brought up for a vote.
“In September, she was disappointed that the Democratic majority leader chose to shut down debate and exclude Republicans from offering any amendments to the defense authorization bill, which contains the repeal language,” Kelley said. “She believes that was unfair and contrary to the rules and tradition of the Senate.”
Still, Kelley maintained that Collins agrees with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen that the military’s gay ban “should be repealed” and recalled that the senator voted in favor of a repeal amendment in committee during the spring.
Another senator who could be in play is Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). Fresh off her re-election win as an independent write-in candidate in her state, Murkowski isn’t beholden to the far right for her victory on Election Day. She also didn’t vote one way or the other on the motion to proceed on the defense authorization bill when it came before the Senate in September.
A local TV station in Alaska reported last week that Murkowski was in a position to vote to advance the defense authorization bill. But Michael Brumas, a Murkowski spokesperson, later clarified that this support is dependent on the result of the Pentagon report.
“Sen. Murkowski would not oppose a defense authorization bill that includes a repeal of [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] if the Pentagon study shows that repeal is supported by the troops, doesn’t hurt performance, morale or recruitment and the military allows for an orderly transition,” Brumas said.
Additionally, Brumas said the manner in which Senate leadership handles the amendment process would be important for Murkowski’s support.
“If the majority attempts to push it through allowing little or no debate or votes on amendments, Sen. Murkowski would be inclined to oppose those efforts,” Brumas said.
One surprise senator who could vote to move forward with the defense authorization bill is Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.). Last week, LGBT advocates asserted one of his staffers informed them that he wants to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and would vote for cloture on the defense authorization bill.
Laura Martin, communications director for the Stonewall Democratic Club of Southern Nevada, said she and other activists met with Margot Allen, Ensign’s regional representative on military issues, who informed the group of the senator’s position.
“The first question was about ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and his staffer said he supports repeal,” Martin said. “We asked her to clarify three times and she said he will vote in the affirmative on the defense authorization with ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal in it.”
Jennifer Cooper, an Ensign spokesperson, later said the senator was awaiting the Pentagon report “to see if any changes to this policy can or should be done” with regard to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” She also said he wants to hear testimony from the military service chiefs.
“Also, he plans to review all of the merits of the Defense Authorization bill before voting one way or another; hopefully it will be a fully open amendment process,” she added.
Other senators that are seen as being in play are moderate Republicans Scott Brown (R-Mass.), George Voinovich (R-Ohio) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine). The two Democratic senators who joined Republicans in voting “no” in September on moving forward with the defense authorization — Arkansas Sens. Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln — could also change their votes.
None of these senators’ offices responded to the Blade’s request to comment on how they would vote on the defense authorization when it comes up during the lame duck session.
The slightly different composition of the Senate also raises questions about the votes from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who assumed his seat after winning election on Nov. 2, and Republican Senator-elect Mark Kirk of Illinois, who is set to take his seat during the lame duck session of Congress.
During his campaign, Manchin said he wants to wait to hear from military leaders before moving forward with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal. As a U.S. House member, Kirk voted against an amendment that would have repealed the military’s gay ban when it came to the floor in May.
Neither the office of Manchin nor Kirk’s transition team responded to the Blade’s request for comment on the issue.
A Wider Bridge on Friday announced it will shut down at the end of the month.
The group that “mobilizes the LGBTQ community to fight antisemitism and support Israel and its LGBTQ community” in a letter to supporters said financial challenges prompted the decision.
“After 15 years of building bridges between LGBTQ communities in North America and Israel, A Wider Bridge has made the difficult decision to wind down operations as of Dec. 31, 2025,” it reads.
“This decision comes after challenging financial realities despite our best efforts to secure sustainable funding. We deeply appreciate our supporters and partners who made this work possible.”
Arthur Slepian founded A Wider Bridge in 2010.
The organization in 2016 organized a reception at the National LGBTQ Task Force’s Creating Change Conference in Chicago that was to have featured to Israeli activists. More than 200 people who protested against A Wider Bridge forced the event’s cancellation.
A Wider Bridge in 2024 urged the Capital Pride Alliance and other Pride organizers to ensure Jewish people can safely participate in their events in response to an increase in antisemitic attacks after Hamas militants attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported authorities in Vermont late last year charged Ethan Felson, who was A Wider Bridge’s then-executive director, with lewd and lascivious conduct after alleged sexual misconduct against a museum employee. Rabbi Denise Eger succeeded Felson as A Wider Bridge’s interim executive director.
A Wider Bridge in June honored U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) at its Pride event that took place at the Capital Jewish Museum in D.C. The event took place 15 days after a gunman killed two Israeli Embassy employees — Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim — as they were leaving an event at the museum.
“Though we are winding down, this is not a time to back down. We recognize the deep importance of our mission and work amid attacks on Jewish people and LGBTQ people – and LGBTQ Jews at the intersection,” said A Wider Bridge in its letter. “Our board members remain committed to showing up in their individual capacities to represent queer Jews across diverse spaces — and we know our partners and supporters will continue to do the same.”
Editor’s note: Washington Blade International News Editor Michael K. Lavers traveled to Israel and Palestine with A Wider Bridge in 2016.
The White House
‘Trump Rx’ plan includes sharp cuts to HIV drug prices
President made announcement on Friday
President Donald Trump met with leaders from some of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies at the White House on Friday to announce his new “Trump Rx” plan and outline efforts to reduce medication costs for Americans.
During the roughly 47-minute meeting in the Roosevelt Room, Trump detailed his administration’s efforts to cut prescription drug prices and make medications more affordable for U.S. patients.
“Starting next year, American drug prices will come down fast, furious, and will soon be among the lowest in the developed world,” Trump said during the meeting. “For decades, Americans have been forced to pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs by far … We will get the lowest price of anyone in the world.”
Trump signed an executive order in May directing his administration “to do everything in its power to slash prescription drug prices for Americans while getting other countries to pay more.”
“This represents the greatest victory for patient affordability in the history of American health care, by far, and every single American will benefit,” he added.
Several pharmaceutical executives stood behind the president during the announcement, including Sanofi CEO Paul Hudson, Novartis CEO Vas Narasimhan, Genentech CEO Ashley Magargee, Boehringer Ingelheim (USA) CEO Jean-Michel Boers, Gilead Sciences CEO Dan O’Day, Bristol Myers Squibb General Counsel Cari Gallman, GSK CEO Emma Walmsley, Merck CEO Robert Davis, and Amgen Executive Vice President Peter Griffith.
Also in attendance were Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, and Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary.
Under the Trump Rx plan, the administration outlined a series of proposed drug price changes across multiple companies and therapeutic areas. Among them were reductions for Amgen’s cholesterol-lowering drug repatha from $573 to $239; Bristol Myers Squibb’s HIV medication reyataz from $1,449 to $217; Boehringer Ingelheim’s type 2 diabetes medication jentadueto from $525 to $55; Genentech’s flu medication xofluza from $168 to $50; and Gilead Sciences’ hepatitis C medication epclusa from $24,920 to $2,425.
Additional reductions included several GSK inhalers — such as the asthma inhaler advair diskus 500/50, from $265 to $89 — Merck’s diabetes medication januvia from $330 to $100, Novartis’ multiple sclerosis medication mayzent from $9,987 to $1,137, and Sanofi’s blood thinner plavix from $756 to $16. Sanofi insulin products would also be capped at $35 per month’s supply.
These prices, however, would only be available to patients who purchase medications directly through TrumpRx. According to the program’s website, TrumpRx “connects patients directly with the best prices, increasing transparency, and cutting out costly third-party markups.”
Kennedy spoke after Trump, thanking the president for efforts to lower pharmaceutical costs in the U.S., where evidence has shown that drug prices — including both brand-name and generic medications — are nearly 2.78 times higher than prices in comparable countries. According to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, roughly half of every dollar spent on brand-name drugs goes to entities that play no role in their research, development, or manufacturing.
“This is affordability in action,” Kennedy said. “We are reversing that trend and making sure that Americans can afford to get the life-saving solutions.”
Gilead CEO Dan O’Day also spoke about how the restructuring of drug costs under TrumpRx, combined with emerging technologies, could help reduce HIV transmission — a virus that, if untreated, can progress to AIDS. The LGBTQ community remains disproportionately affected by HIV.
“Thank you, Mr. President — you and the administration,” O’Day said. “I think this objective of achieving the commitment to affordability and future innovation is extraordinary … We just recently launched a new medicine that’s only given twice a year to prevent HIV, and we’re working with Secretary Kennedy and his entire team, as well as the State Department, as a part of your strategy to support ending the epidemic during your term.
“I’ve never been more optimistic about the innovation that exists across these companies and the impact this could have on America’s health and economy,” he added.
Trump interjected, asking, “And that’s working well with HIV?”
“Yes,” O’Day replied.
“It’s a big event,” Trump said.
“It literally prevents HIV almost 100 percent given twice a year,” O’Day responded.
A similar anti-HIV medication is currently prescribed more than injectable form mentioned by O’Day. PrEP, is a medication regimen proven to significantly reduce HIV infection rates for people at high risk. Without insurance, brand-name Truvada can cost roughly $2,000 per month, while a generic version costs about $60 per month.
Even when medication prices are reduced, PrEP access carries additional costs, including clinic and laboratory fees, office visits, required HIV and sexually transmitted infection testing, adherence services and counseling, and outreach to potentially eligible patients and providers.
According to a 2022 study, the annual total cost per person for PrEP — including medication and required clinical and laboratory monitoring — is approximately $12,000 to $13,000 per year.
The TrumpRx federal platform website is now live at TrumpRx.gov, but the program is not slated to begin offering reduced drug prices until January.
The White House
EXCLUSIVE: Democracy Forward files FOIA lawsuit after HHS deadnames Rachel Levine
Trans former assistant health secretary’s name changed on official portrait
Democracy Forward, a national legal organization that works to advance democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education, and regulatory engagement, filed a lawsuit Friday in federal court seeking to compel the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to release information related to the alteration of former Assistant Secretary for Health Adm. Rachel Levine’s official portrait caption.
The lawsuit comes in response to the slow pace of HHS’s handling of multiple Freedom of Information Act requests — requests that federal law requires agencies to respond to within 20 working days. While responses can take longer due to backlogs, high request volumes, or the need for extensive searches or consultations, Democracy Forward says HHS has failed to provide any substantive response.
Democracy Forward’s four unanswered FOIA requests, and the subsequent lawsuit against HHS, come days after someone in the Trump-Vance administration changed Levine’s official portrait in the Hubert H. Humphrey Building to display her deadname — the name she used before transitioning and has not used since 2011.
According to Democracy Forward, HHS “refused to release any records related to its morally wrong and offensive effort to alter former Assistant Secretary for Health Admiral Rachel Levine’s official portrait caption.” Levine was the highest-ranking openly transgender government official in U.S. history and served as assistant secretary for health and as an admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps from 2021 to 2025.
Democracy Forward President Skye Perryman spoke about the need to hold the Trump-Vance administration accountable for every official action, especially those that harm some of the most targeted Americans, including trans people.
“The question every American should be asking remains: what is the Trump-Vance administration hiding? For an administration that touts its anti-transgender animus and behavior so publicly, its stonewalling and silence when it comes to the people’s right to see public records about who was behind this decision is deafening,” Perryman said.
“The government’s obligation of transparency doesn’t disappear because the information sought relates to a trailblazing former federal official who is transgender. It’s not complicated — the public is entitled to know who is making decisions — especially decisions that seek to alter facts and reality, erase the identity of a person, and affect the nation’s commitment to civil rights and human dignity.”
“HHS’s refusal to respond to these lawful requests raises more serious concerns about transparency and accountability,” Perryman added. “The public has every right to demand answers — to know who is behind this hateful act — and we are going to court to get them.”
The lawsuit also raises questions about whether the alteration violated federal accuracy and privacy requirements governing Levine’s name, and whether the agency improperly classified the change as an “excepted activity” during a lapse in appropriations. By failing to make any determination or produce any records, Democracy Forward argues, HHS has violated its obligations under federal law.
The case, Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The legal team includes Anisha Hindocha, Daniel McGrath, and Robin Thurston.
The Washington Blade reached out to HHS, but has not received any comment.
The lawsuit and four FOIA requests are below:
‘Dogs of Venice’ looks at love lost and rediscovered
A Wider Bridge to close
‘Trump Rx’ plan includes sharp cuts to HIV drug prices
Rehoboth’s Blue Moon is for sale but owners aim to keep it in gay-friendly hands
Comings & Goings
LGBTQ Democrats say they’re ready to fight to win in 2026
Brian Footer suspends campaign for Ward 1 D.C. Council seat
Lighting candles in a time of exhaustion
Why queer spaces often fail South Asian women
