Connect with us

National

Service chiefs hold mixed views on ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal

Military leaders each express concerns, but confidence in ability to implement

Published

on

The military service chiefs offered mixed views on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal during Senate testimony on Thursday as they said they had concerns about ending the law, but could implement a change if ordered.

Two the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — Vice Chair Gen. James Cartwright and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead — testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that Congress should act to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” 

Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Robert Papp — not a member of the Joint Chiefs but a witness at the hearing — also endorsed open service.

In comparison to the other service chiefs, Cartwright offered a particularly strong statement encouraging Congress to take action to lift “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“My faith in our leadership, from top to bottom, the fair-minded temperament of the American public, and the reputational benefit derived from being a force identified by honesty and inclusivity, rather than concealment causes me to favor repeal of 10 USC 654 and the associated policy known as ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,'” Cartwright said.

But Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey and Marine Corps Gen. Commandant James Amos spoke out against legislative efforts to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said he wanted full implementation of repeal deferred until 2012. 

Amos, who has previously spoken out against repeal, said he had concern over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal because of several reasons, including combat operations abroad.

“Based on what I know about the very tough fight on the ground in Afghanistan, the almost singular focus of our combat forces as they train up and deploy into theater, the necessary tightly woven culture of those combat forces that we are asking so much of at this time, and finally the direct feedback from the survey, my recommendation is that we should not implement repeal at this time,” Amos said.

The hearing marked the second day in a two-day series of hearings on the Pentagon’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” report, which was made public earlier this week. During the previous hearing, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen reiterated his belief that gays should be able to serve openly in the U.S. military.

Repeal advocates had been awaiting statements from the service chiefs on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” following the release of the Pentagon report. In May, the service chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps sent a letter to Congress urging lawmakers not to take action until the study was complete.

While the service chiefs had differing views on whether Congress should act to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” they each expressed concerns to some degree on the implementation of open service.

Roughead expressed unease about how the Pentagon report showed that sailors in irregular warfare specialties, such as the Navy SEALS, expressed greater negativity over the prospects of repeal and a lower propensity to reenlist than other sailors.

“While these effects may not be fully realized, these specialties must be monitored closely to ensure we are positioned and resourced to respond to changes over the long-term,” Roughead said. “We cannot assume these projected retention losses away and we must take into account the past, current and future combat employment of these combat specialties.”

But even the service chiefs who said they opposed repeal expressed confidence in their branch’s ability to implement a change if ordered by Congress.

Casey said if open service in the U.S. military is properly implemented, he doesn’t envision it would prevent the Army from accomplishing its worldwide missions.

“We have a disciplined force and seasoned leaders, who, with appropriate guidance and direction, can oversee the implementation of the repeal with moderate risk to our military effectiveness in the short-term, and moderate risk to our ability to recruit and retain our all-volunteer force over time,” Casey said.

Members of the committee had different interpretations for what the testimony of the service chiefs means for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal in the lame duck session of Congress.

McCain said the differing opinions of the service chiefs demonstrates the need to hold off on legislative action on ending the military’s gay ban.

“I think it’s pretty obvious from the comments made by certainly the chiefs of staff — the service chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps today that there is significantly divided opinion on this issue,” McCain said. “It’s very obvious to me that there is a lot more scrutiny and work involved before passing this legislation.”

McCain said he wants to hear from the senior enlisted personnel who would be training service members on the implementation of open service as well as combatant commanders before Congress takes action.

But Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), the sponsor of repeal legislation in the Senate, noted the chiefs each expressed confidence that they could faithfully execute a new policy if given time to implement a change.

“My conclusion is that really, in the end, all six of you favor repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,'” Lieberman said.

Observing the service chiefs concerns about implementation, Lieberman noted that repeal legislation pending before the Senate requires the president, the defense secretary and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to certify that the military is ready for open service before repeal is fully implemented.

The senator noted Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he wouldn’t certify open service until he felt the service chiefs were comfortable with moving forward. Asked by Lieberman whether they were assuaged by this statement, each of the service chiefs said they comfortable with Gates’ decision on when open service could be implemented.

Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), a strong proponent of repeal, similarly brought out favorable responses for repeal from the service chiefs when he asked each of them if they were comfortable with the certification process and with their ability to implement repeal.

Each of the chiefs said they had confidence in Gates’ decision and their service’s ability to execute the change in law.

“I believe we can implement the policy and will implement the policy with moderate risk to our short-term effectiveness and long-term health of the force,” Casey said.

Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said he thought the testimony from the service chiefs “actually went better” than what he had expected.

“I think what it really brought out was the point that although the service chiefs and many people may have differing opinions on what they want to happen and varying ways in which they would like to see it go about happening,” Nicholson said. “In the end, they seem to all agree that it’s possible to make it happen and make it happen in a safe and smooth way.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Federal Government

DOE investigates Smith College’s trans-inclusive policy

New investigation into the historic, exclusive all-women’s college signals a ramp-up by the Trump administration in rolling back transgender rights.

Published

on

The Department of Education building in Washington, D.C.

The U.S. Department of Education announced on Monday that it opened an investigation into Smith College for admitting transgender women.

Smith College, a private and famously all-women’s college in Northampton, Mass., established in 1871 and opened in 1875, has a long list of women who make up its historic alumni — including first ladies, influential political figures, and cultural leaders.

The DOE released a statement about the investigation into the institution through the Department’s Office for Civil Rights, saying it was looking into the possibility that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 was violated by allowing trans women, referred to in the statement as “biological males,” into women’s intimate spaces protected by IX.

The statement explicitly highlighted that this stems from trans women being granted “access to women-only spaces, including dormitories, bathrooms, locker rooms, and athletic teams” while also allowing their audience into the school itself.

This is the first time the Trump-Vance administration has taken a step into admissions processes, a stark jump past investigating policies that allowed trans women to participate in women’s sports and use women’s bathrooms, and allows for the administration to go more after trans acceptance policy as a whole.

Smith’s admission policy allows for “any applicants who self-identify as women,” including “cis, trans, and nonbinary women,” according to the college’s website, and has since 2015, when it updated its policy.

“The college is fully committed to its institutional values, including compliance with civil rights laws,” Smith’s statement in response to the DOE’s investigation said. “The college does not comment on pending government investigations.”

“An all-women’s college loses all meaning if it is admitting biological males,” said Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey. “Allowing biological males into spaces designed for women raises serious concerns about privacy, fairness, and compliance under federal law. The Trump administration will continue to uphold the law and fight to restore common sense.”

This move continues to align with actions the Trump-Vance administration has taken to curtail LGBTQ — and specifically trans — rights in America, as members of the administration attempt to break down safeguards and protections that have long been used to protect marginalized communities.

Since Trump took office in his second term, there have been significant legal challenges. According to the National LGBTQ+ Bar Association, there are over 35 court cases that have emerged since his second swearing-in that directly relate to the administration’s attempts to minimize the rights and protections of trans Americans — from medical care and educational protections to military policy.

Much of this anti-trans policy direction was outlined beginning in 2022 with the Project 2025 playbook, which Trump officials have used as a guide to scale back protections for LGBTQ people, Black Americans, poor and Indigenous communities, while also increasing costs for lower-income Americans and providing tax cuts to the wealthy and ultra-wealthy. The plans also “erode” Americans’ freedoms and remove crucial checks and balances that have allowed the executive branch to remain in line with the Constitution without becoming too powerful over either the courts or the legislative branch.

Continue Reading

New York

Gay ICE detainee freed after 150 days in detention

Cayman Islands native taken into custody before green card interview

Published

on

Allan Marrero, left, and Matthew Marrero (Photo courtesy of Middle Church)

Following nearly half a year in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention, Allan Marrero has been released and is back home with his husband in New York.

Marrero spent 150 days in ICE custody, held in multiple detention centers across the U.S. after missing an immigration court hearing while in a rehabilitation program for alcohol addiction — a circumstance widely considered “good cause” for failing to appear.

The Washington Blade first reported on Marrero’s case in March after the Cayman Islands native was detained by ICE officers during what was supposed to be a routine marriage-based green card interview at 26 Federal Plaza in New York City.

Marrero had been married to his husband, Matthew Marrero, for two years at the time of the interview. But almost immediately, the experience turned hostile.

The Rev. Amanda Hambrick Ashcraft, a minister at Middle Church in Manhattan who accompanied the couple to provide spiritual support, later described the process as “dehumanizing” and “barbaric.”

During the interview, it became clear the couple was facing an uphill battle. At one point, when asked how they met, Matthew Marrero instinctively looked over at his husband and was “snapped at” and told not to look at him. As the interview continued, the outlook only grew more grim.

Unaware that he had a prior removal order tied to the missed court date while he was in rehab, Allan Marrero was detained on the spot.

Over the following months, Allan Marrero was transferred through multiple detention facilities, including centers in Arizona and Texas, the Everglades Detention Facility — also known as “Alligator Alcatraz,” which has been described as having “unsanitary inadequate conditions” — and ultimately a detention center in Mississippi.

While in custody, Allan Marrero was denied access to prescription medication and, according to advocates, was psychologically pressured by ICE agents to self-deport rather than remain detained while his legal case proceeded.

Although a judge later reopened his case and granted bond after Allan Marrero provided proof that he had been in rehab — a valid medical reason for missing his court date — ICE used procedural mechanisms to keep him detained. A separate judge later issued a ruling denying relief, leaving Allan Marrero in custody.

On the outside, Matthew Marrero said his life felt as though it had been put on pause so ICE could meet enforcement quotas.

“[It feels like] somebody came in and kidnapped someone close to you and took away all of your control and power,” Matthew Marrero told the Blade on March 7. “You shouldn’t be able to have this much control over somebody’s life, especially if they are trying to do the right thing … You’re not going after criminals, you’re not going after the worst of the worst. You’re trying to fill a quota.”

Alexandra Rizio, Allan Marrero’s attorney with Make the Road New York, a progressive grassroots immigrant-led organization, told the Blade that “there seems to be an underlying element of cruelty baked into not only this administration, but everything.”

“It didn’t have to go down that way,” Rizio continued. “If someone goes in for a green card interview and their marriage interview, and they learn that they have a removal order, what the USCIS officer could have done is say, ‘Look, you have a removal order in your name. You need to go hire an attorney right away to get this taken care of. I can’t adjudicate your green card…’ And if you hire a lawyer, you know, you might be able to get it straightened out. Of course, that’s not what happened. And so ICE, which was in the building, were called and they did arrest Allan.”

The Marreros are scheduled to hold a press conference on Tuesday at Middle Church, where Allan Marrero will speak publicly for the first time about his detention.

For additional information on the press conference please visit middlechurch.org

Continue Reading

Federal Government

Republicans attach five anti-LGBTQ riders to State Department funding bill

Spending package would restrict Pride flags on federal buildings, trans healthcare, LGBTQ envoys

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

As Congress finalizes its funding for fiscal year 2027, Republicans are attempting to include five anti-LGBTQ riders in the National Security and Department of State Appropriations Act.

A rider is an unrelated provision tacked onto a bill that must pass — in this instance, the bill provides funding for national security policy and for the State Department.

The riders range from restricting Pride flags in federal buildings to banning transgender healthcare, but all aim to limit the visibility and rights of LGBTQ Americans.

The five riders are:

Section 7067(a) prohibits Pride flags from being flown over federal buildings.

Section 7067(c) restricts the United States’ ability to appoint special envoys, representatives, or coordinators unless expressly authorized by Congress. These roles have historically been used to promote U.S. interests in international forums — including advancing human and LGBTQ and intersex rights and other policy priorities. The change would halt what the Congressional Equality Caucus describes as providing “critical expertise to U.S. foreign policy and leadership abroad.”

Section 7067(d) reinforces multiple anti-equality executive orders signed by President Donald Trump, effectively requiring that foreign assistance funded by the United States comply with those orders. This includes rescinding federal contractor nondiscrimination protections, including for LGBTQ people.

Section 7067(e) prohibits funding for any organization that provides or promotes medically necessary healthcare for trans people or “promotes transgenderism” — effectively banning funds for organizations that recognize trans people exist. This is despite the practice of gender-affirming care being supported by nearly every major medical association.

Section 7067(g) reinforces two global gag rules put forward by the Trump-Vance administration. One is the Trans Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign assistance funding for organizations that acknowledge the existence of trans people or advocate for nondiscrimination protections for them, among other activities. The second is the DEI Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign assistance funding for organizations that engage in efforts to address the ongoing effects of racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry outside the United States.

The global gag rule has its roots in anti-abortion policy introduced by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, when the 40th president barred foreign organizations receiving U.S. global health assistance from providing information, referrals, or services for legal abortion, or from advocating for access to abortion services in their own countries. Planned Parenthood notes that the policy also affects programs beyond abortion, including efforts to expand access to contraception, prevent and treat HIV/AIDS, combat malaria, and improve maternal and child health.

If organizations funded by the State Department engage in these activities, they could lose funding.

This anti-LGBTQ push aligns with broader actions from the Trump-Vance administration since the start of Trump’s second term, which have focused on restricting human rights — particularly those of trans Americans.

The House Appropriations Committee is responsible for drafting the appropriations legislation. U.S. Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) serves as chair, with U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) as ranking member. The committee includes 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.

For FY27 appropriations, Congress is supposed to pass and have the president sign the funding bills by Sept. 30, 2026.

Continue Reading

Popular