National
Report finds limited difficulty in lifting ‘Don’t Ask’
Gates urges Congress to repeal ban by year’s end

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has renewed his call for Congress to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" by the year's end. (Blade photo by Michael Key)
The Pentagon on Tuesday released its long-awaited “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” report — which found open service can be implemented in the armed forces with limited disruption to the military — as Defense Secretary Robert Gates renewed his call for Congress to repeal the gay ban by the year’s end.
“Now that we have completed this review, I strongly urge the Senate to pass this legislation and send it to the president for his signature before the end of this year,” Gates said during a news conference.
Gates continued that legislative repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is a “matter of some urgency” because of pending litigation that could strike down the statute.
“It is only a matter of time before the federal courts are drawn once more into the fray with the very real possibility that this change would be imposed immediately by judicial fiat — by far the most disruptive and damaging scenario I can imagine,” Gates said.
Still, the defense secretary also said the military would need some time to prepare for open service even after Congress repeals the statute. Gates noted that pending legislation before Congress would end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” only after he, the president and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that the U.S. military is ready for repeal.
“I believe it would be unwise to push ahead with full implementation of repeal before more can be done to prepare the force — in particular, those ground combat specialties and units for what could be a disruptive and disorientating change,” Gates said.
Gates said he doesn’t know how long it would take for the U.S. military to make the changes necessary before he can certify that open service can happen in the military. Still, Gates said if Congress enacts repeal, President Obama would be “watching very closely that we don’t dawdle or try to slow-ball this.”
“I think his expectation would be that we prepare as quickly as we properly and comprehensively could, and then we’d be in a position to move toward certification,” Gates said. “But how long it would take, I don’t know.”
For the first time, Gates also expressed his personal opposition to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” because the law comprises the integrity of gay service members.
“One of the things that is most important to me is personal integrity,” Gates said. “A policy or a law that in effect requires people to lie gives me a problem.”
Majority of troops don’t care about gays in military
The defense secretary made his remarks as part of his endorsement of the Pentagon report, which found little potential disruption in lifting the military’s gay ban should Congress repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Gates said the findings of the report “reflect nearly ten months of research and analysis along several lines of study” and “represent the most thorough and objective review ever of this difficult policy issue and its impact on the American military.”
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen, who also took part in the news conference, said he also fully backs the report. Mullen has already testified before the Senate that supports open service in the U.S. military.
“For the first time, the chiefs and I have more than just anecdotal evidence and hearsay to inform the advice we give our civilian leaders,” Mullen said.
In the executive summary for the 256-page report, the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” working group co-chairs Jeh Johnson, the Pentagon’s general counsel, and Army Gen. Carter Ham, commander of U.S. Army Europe, write that based on their findings, the risk of repeal “to overall military effectiveness is low.”
“We conclude that, while a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will likely, in the short term, bring about some limited and isolated disruption to unit cohesion and retention, we do not believe this disruption will be widespread or long-lasting, and can be adequately addressed by the recommendations we offer below,” Johnson and Ham write.
The report includes the results of a survey sent to 400,000 service members over the summer to solicit their views of gays serving openly in the military. According to the report, more than 115,000 of the surveys, or about 28 percent, were returned.
As earlier reported in November by the Washington Post, 70 percent of service members said alongside an openly gay person would have positive, mixed or no effect on their unit’s ability to get the job done.
The survey also found that 69 percent of respondents believe they have served alongside someone they believed to be gay. Of these respondents, 92 percent said their unit’s ability to work together was either very good, good or neither good nor poor.
Still, the survey found a significant minority who predicted negative consequences as a result of repeal — most notably in the Marine Corps.
While 30 percent of survey respondents overall had negative views on open service, around 40 to 60 percent of respondents in the Marine Corps and others in various combat arms specialties expressed concerns about serving alongside openly gay people.
During the briefing, Gates said this discontent with repeal among these groups has made the service chiefs of the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps “less sanguine” about the prospects on open service. Each of these service chiefs were set to testify on Friday before the Senate on the views on the report.
Still, Gates said the views on the combat troops on implementing open service “do not present an insurmountable barrier” to repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“However, these findings do lead me to conclude that an abundance of care and preparation is required if we are to avoid a disruptive and potentially dangerous impact on the performance of those serving at the tip of the spear in America’s wars,” Gates said.
Implementing open service
Accompanying the larger report is an 87-page support plan to guide implementation of open service in the U.S. military. The guide emphasizes that the key implementation message for successful repeal is “leadership-professionalism-respect.”
For leadership, the guide states that leaders in the chain of command must set the example for open service. For professionalism, the guide advises leaders to remind service members of their obligations and oath to defend the U.S. Constitution. For respect, the guide states that unit strength derives from treating other service members with respect.
The report also notably states the building separate rooming quarters for gay and straight service members won’t be appropriate for implementing open service.
“Building separate facilities would create divisions within units and inappropriately isolate a portion of the force,” the support plan states.
In March, former Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway has raised the idea of separate quarters when he said they might be necessary in his service as a result of open service. The Marine Corps is unique among other services because Marines bunk together on base in the same room.
Despite the recommendation against building separate quarters, Johnson said during the Tuesday news conference that commanding officers may be able to make different housing arrangements from service members as result of open service in some circumstances.
“We’re noting that commanders should retain the discretion on an individualized case-by-case basis to address concerns, particular concerns about privacy,” Johnson said. “And this is discretion they have right now. If a service member has a particular concern about an issue with privacy or can’t get along with someone with whom he’s been assigned a room, a commander has discretion to deal with that.”
The guide also makes recommendations for partner benefits for gays serving in the military. Ham said if “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is repealed, the U.S. military would only to continue to observe federally recognized marriages, which would be in accordance with the Defense of Marriage Act.
Still, Ham said a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would mean the same-sex partners of service members would be entitled to hospital visitation rights and death benefits.
“With regard to the hospital visits and death gratuities and the like, if the law is repealed, then we believe that are a number of benefits to which servicemembers are entitled that are servicemember-designated,” Ham said. “And we believe that the examples that you offer would likely fall into that category.”
U.S. Capitol Police on Thursday arrested 13 HIV/AIDS activists in the Cannon House Office Building Rotunda.
The activists — members of Housing Works, Health GAP, and the Treatment Action Group — joined former PEPFAR staffers in demanding full funding of the program that President George W. Bush created in 2003. They chanted “AIDS cuts kill, PEPFAR now!” and unfurled banners from the Rotunda’s second floor that read “Trump and (Office of Management and Budget Director Russell) Vought kill people with AIDS worldwide,” “Over 200,000 deaths since January 2025,” and “Hands off PEPFAR” before their arrest.
(Washington Blade video by Michael K. Lavers)
This protest is the latest against the Trump-Vance administration’s HIV/AIDS policies since it took office.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Jan. 28, 2025, issued a waiver that allowed PEPFAR and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during a freeze on nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending. HIV/AIDS service providers around the world with whom the Washington Blade has spoken say PEPFAR cuts and the loss of funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, which officially closed on July 1, 2025, has severely impacted their work.
The State Department last September announced PEPFAR will distribute lenacapavir in countries with high prevalence rates. Zambia is among the nations in which the breakthrough HIV prevention drug has arrived.
The New York Times last summer reported Vought “apportioned” only $2.9 billion of $6 billion that Congress set aside for PEPFAR for fiscal year 2025. (PEPFAR in the coming fiscal year will use funds allocated in fiscal year 2024.)
Bipartisan opposition in the U.S. Senate prompted the Trump-Vance administration last July withdraw a proposal to cut $400 million from PEPFAR’s budget. Vought on Aug. 29, 2025, said he would use a “pocket rescission” to cancel $4.9 billion for HIV/AIDS prevention and global health programs and other foreign aid assistance initiatives that Congress had already approved.
The White House in January announced an expansion of the global gag rule to ban U.S. foreign aid for groups that promote “gender ideology.” President Ronald Reagan in 1985 implemented the original regulation, also known as the “Mexico City” policy, which bans U.S. foreign aid for groups that support abortion and/or offer abortion-related services. The Council for Global Equality and other groups say the expanded rule will adversely impact HIV prevention efforts around the world.
A press release that Housing Works and Health GAP issued on Thursday notes more than $977 million “in appropriated PEPFAR funding for HIV prevention and treatment was unspent by the end of fiscal year (FY) 2025 — triple amount unspent at the end of FY 2024.”
“Activists predict this backlog will worsen rapidly in FY 2026 unless Congress immediately reasserts its Constitutionally-mandated oversight authority,” notes the press release.
The press release also indicates funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s PEPFAR programs “will run out” by April 1 because “only 45 percent of their FY26 funding has been transferred from the State Department.
“Unless funding is transferred immediately, CDC’s global HIV programs across sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and the Caribbean will grind to a halt,” notes the press release.
The activists demanded Trump, Vought, Rubio, and Congress do the following:
- Activists are calling for full obligation of appropriated PEPFAR funds and rejection of growing political interference in global and domestic HIV programs
- Immediately release already-appropriated, unobligated PEPFAR funds
- Break the blackout on PEPFAR data, so Congress and people with HIV know how funding is being spent and can program based on data
- Activists are calling for full obligation of appropriated PEPFAR funds and rejection of growing political interference in global and domestic HIV programs.
“PEPFAR has saved more than 26 million lives and changed the trajectory of an epidemic,” said Housing Works CEO Charles King. “However, the Trump administration’s decision, over the objection of Republicans in Congress, to freeze PEPFAR funding has caused decades of progress to come undone and has been a death sentence for people with HIV relying on life-saving treatment. The U.S. must immediately restore PEPFAR funding and regain our standing in the global fight against HIV.”
King is among the activists who were arrested.
(Washington Blade video by Michael K. Lavers)
Texas state Rep. James Talarico won a hard-fought primary Tuesday to become the state’s Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate, defeating U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett in one of the year’s most closely watched and competitive Democratic contests.
Talarico, a Presbyterian seminarian and three-term lawmaker from Round Rock, was declared the winner by the Associated Press early Wednesday morning after a closely tracked vote count that drew national attention.
“Tonight, the people of our state gave this country a little bit of hope,” Talarico told the AP. “And a little bit of hope is a dangerous thing.”
With 52.8% of the vote to Crockett’s 45.9%, Talarico secured the nomination outright, avoiding a runoff and capping months of sharp contrasts between the two candidates over strategy, messaging, and how best to compete statewide in Texas. Democrats hope the competitive primary — and the relatively narrow margin — signals growing momentum in a state that has not elected a Democrat to the U.S. Senate since 1988.
Talarico has long expressed support for the LGBTQ community, a position he highlights prominently on his campaign website. Under the “Issues” section, he directly addresses assumptions that might arise from his faith and background as a seminarian in a deeply conservative state.
“My faith in Jesus leads me to reject Christian Nationalism and commit myself to the project of democracy,” his website reads. “Because that’s the promise of America: a democracy where every person and every family — regardless of religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other difference between us — can truly be free and live up to their full potential.”
Crockett struck a conciliatory tone following her defeat, emphasizing party unity ahead of November.
“This morning I called James and congratulated him on becoming the Senate nominee,” Crockett told Politico. “Texas is primed to turn blue and we must remain united because this is bigger than any one person. This is about the future of all 30 million Texans and getting America back on track.”
Talarico also drew national attention earlier in the race when “Late Show” host Stephen Colbert said he was initially unable to air an interview with the state legislator due to potential FCC concerns involving CBS. The episode sparked a broader political debate.
Brendan Carr, chair of the Federal Communications Commission, appointed by President Donald Trump, told reporters the controversy was a “hoax,” though he also acknowledged Talarico’s ability to harness the moment to build support as an underdog candidate. The interview was later released online and garnered millions of views, boosting Talarico’s national profile.
In November, Talarico will face the winner of the Republican primary between incumbent Sen. John Cornyn and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who have been locked in a bruising GOP contest. Rep. Wesley Hunt was also in the Republican primary field. The GOP race is expected to head to a May runoff.
In a joint statement, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chair Kirsten Gillibrand praised Talarico’s victory and framed him as a candidate capable of broad appeal.
“As an eighth-generation Texan, former middle school teacher, and Presbyterian seminarian, James will be a fighter for Texans from all walks of life and of all political stripes,” they said. “In November, Texans will elect a champion for working people: James Talarico.”
National
Peter Thiel’s expanding power — and his overlap with Jeffrey Epstein
Gay billionaire’s name appears 2,200 times in files, but no criminality alleged
There are few figures in modern politics whose reach extends across Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and Washington, D.C., as Peter Thiel’s.
A billionaire venture capitalist, Thiel built his fortune at the dawn of the internet age and has since positioned himself at the highest levels of U.S. technology, finance, and national defense infrastructure. He is best known as a co-founder of PayPal, an early investor in Facebook, and the co-founder of Palantir Technologies — a data analytics firm that maintains significant contracts with U.S., U.K., and Israeli defense and intelligence agencies.
Over the last two decades, Thiel has also built an interconnected network of investment vehicles — Clarium Capital, Founders Fund, Thiel Capital, Valar Ventures, and Mithril Capital — giving him influence over emerging technologies, political candidates, and ideological movements aligned with his worldview. Through these firms, Thiel has backed companies in artificial intelligence, defense technology, biotech, cryptocurrency, and financial services, often positioning himself early in sectors that later became central to public policy debates.
Born in Frankfurt, West Germany, in 1967, Thiel immigrated to the United States as an infant. He later attended Stanford University, earning a degree in philosophy before graduating from Stanford Law School in 1992. As an undergraduate, he founded The Stanford Review, a conservative student publication that opposed what it described as campus “political correctness.” The paper became a platform for combative and contrarian arguments that previewed themes Thiel would revisit in later essays and speeches about elite institutions, democracy, and technological stagnation.
Thiel’s professional ascent coincided with the explosive growth of the dot-com era. In 1998, he co-founded PayPal, helping pioneer digital payment systems that would become foundational to online commerce. When the company was sold to eBay in 2002 for $1.5 billion, Thiel emerged a multimillionaire and part of what would later be known as the “PayPal Mafia” — a loose but influential network of founders and early employees who went on to launch or invest in some of Silicon Valley’s most dominant firms.
In 2004, Thiel made one of the most consequential investments of his career, providing $500,000 in seed funding to Facebook, then a fledgling social network founded by Mark Zuckerberg. He became the company’s first outside investor and later served on its board. That early bet proved extraordinarily lucrative and cemented Thiel’s status as a major venture capitalist with a reputation for identifying transformative platforms before they reached scale.
The same year, he co-founded Palantir Technologies. Initially backed in part by In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capital arm, Palantir developed software — including its Gotham platform — designed to help defense, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies integrate and analyze massive datasets. The company’s tools allow users to map relationships, identify patterns, and visualize complex networks across financial records, communications data, and other digital trails.
Over time, Palantir secured billions of dollars in public-sector contracts. It has worked with the U.S. Department of Defense, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and allied governments abroad. Public reporting has documented that its global government contracts exceed $1.9 billion, including agreements with Israeli defense entities — relationships that reportedly expanded following the Oct. 7 attacks in Israel. Critics have raised concerns about civil liberties and surveillance, while supporters argue the company provides essential national security tools.
By the mid-2000s, Thiel was no longer simply a wealthy entrepreneur. He was a financier operating at the intersection of capital, advanced technology, and government — with investments embedded in some of the country’s most sensitive security systems. His political giving would later extend that influence further, including support for candidates aligned with his populist and nationalist leanings– notably Donald Trump in 2016.
As his wealth and influence expanded, so too did his proximity to other powerful — and, in some cases, controversial — figures in global finance.
Among them was Jeffrey Epstein.
Thiel’s name appears more than 2,200 times in documents released so far by the U.S. Department of Justice related to Epstein. A name appearing in legal filings does not, by itself, indicate wrongdoing. However, the extensive references illustrate that Epstein’s social and financial network intersected with elite figures in technology, academia, politics, and finance — including individuals connected to Thiel’s business and philanthropic circles.
Epstein’s legal troubles became public in 2005, when police in Palm Beach, Fla., investigated allegations that he had sexually abused a minor. In 2008, he pleaded guilty in state court to soliciting prostitution from a minor under a plea agreement that was widely criticized as unusually lenient. He served 13 months in county jail with work-release privileges and was required to register as a sex offender. Comparable federal charges can carry significantly longer sentences.
Despite that conviction, Epstein continued to maintain relationships with prominent business and political figures for years. The extent to which members of elite networks remained in contact with him after his guilty plea has been the subject of extensive scrutiny.
Documents released by the Justice Department indicate that individuals connected to Thiel’s philanthropic and investment circles communicated with Epstein after his conviction. One document shows an invitation, sent on behalf of the Thiel Foundation, for Epstein to attend a technology event in San Francisco. Additional financial records and reporting indicate that between 2015 and 2016, Epstein invested approximately $40 million in funds managed by Valar Ventures, one of Thiel’s firms. Other records reflect meetings and correspondence, at times arranged through intermediaries. Epstein also extended invitations to his Caribbean residence.
There is no evidence that Thiel was involved in Epstein’s criminal conduct. The documented interactions do, however, show numerous planned meetings between the two both in the Caribbean (where Epstein’s infamous island is located) and across the world, while also raising questions about why business relationships continued after Epstein had pleaded guilty to a sex offense involving a minor and was a registered sex offender. For critics, that continued engagement speaks to the insular nature of elite finance, where access to capital and networks can override reputational risk.
Palantir represents another overlap. In emails made public through Justice Department releases, Epstein referenced Palantir in correspondence with Ehud Barak, the former Israeli prime minister who also maintained ties to Epstein. The emails do not indicate that Epstein had operational involvement in Palantir or access to its systems, however, they show that he discussed one of Thiel’s most strategically significant companies — a firm deeply integrated into Western defense and intelligence systems — with senior political figures abroad.
Separately, Thiel’s long-running dispute with Gawker Media offers additional insight into how he has exercised power outside traditional political channels.
After Gawker published an article in 2007 that publicly identified Thiel as gay, he later secretly funded litigation brought by professional wrestler Hulk Hogan over the outlet’s publication of a sex tape. The lawsuit resulted in a $140 million judgment against Gawker, which ultimately filed for bankruptcy. Thiel later confirmed his financial backing of the case, framing it as a defense of privacy and a response to what he considered reckless media behavior.
The episode demonstrated Thiel’s willingness to deploy substantial financial resources strategically and, at times, discreetly. It also illustrated how wealth can be used to influence institutions — whether through venture capital, political donations, or litigation.
Taken together, the record does not establish criminal liability for Thiel in connection with Epstein. It does, however, situate him within a dense web of elite finance, national security contracting, political influence, and reputation management. As additional documents related to Epstein continue to emerge, that web — and the decisions made within it — remains a subject of public interest and ongoing scrutiny.
