National
BREAKING NEWS: ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ vote fails
Stand-alone repeal bill may be next but time running out for Clinton-era policy
Supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal endured a devastating loss on Thursday when the Senate failed to reach the 60-vote threshold necessary to proceed with legislation that would end the military’s gay ban.
Still, repeal advocates are pursuing an end to the military’s gay ban through new standalone legislation and other administrative means.
By a 57-40 vote, the Senate failed to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed on the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill, which contains a measure to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, called the vote a “major failure” of the Senate to “simply do its job and pass an annual defense authorization bill.”
“Politics prevailed over responsibility today, and now more than one million American service members, including tens of thousands of gay and lesbian troops, are worse off as a result,” Nicholson said.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), a leading advocate for repeal in the Senate, said during a later news conference that he’s “very disappointed” in the result of the vote as well as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) decision to hold the vote on Thursday.
Lieberman noted that all 42 members of the Republican caucus said they wouldn’t vote in favor of moving forward with other legislation until tax issues and continuing funding for the U.S. government are addressed.
“You can say that was wrong, but the reality is that that was the request, and, nonetheless, Sen. Reid went ahead and called this vote,” he said.
With exception of Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who voted in favor of cloture, all Republican senators who were present cast a “no” vote on the motion to proceed. Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) didn’t vote.
Following the vote at a news conference, Collins blamed the failure of the bill on Reid and said she’s “extremely disappointed” about his decision to hold the vote on the defense authorization bill at this time.
“There is no reason why we could not have proceeded to consider that bill after completing action on the tax relief bill and using a process that would be fair to both sides,” Collins said.
Collins had been engaged in negotiations with Reid and Lieberman about finding a path forward to bring on needed Republican support for the defense authorization bill. The Maine senator accused Reid of having “walked away” from the negotiations by bringing the legislation to a vote.
“The majority leader decided to prematurely hold a cloture vote that he knew would not succeed,” Collins said. “I just don’t understand that decision. I don’t understand that given the importance of this bill and the policies in it.”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who recently came out in favor of repeal, later told reporters she voted “no” because she felt the amendment process set up for the defense authorization bill was unfair.
She also recalled the letter that all 42 members of the Republican caucus signed saying that wanted to extend the Bush-era tax cuts and pass a continuing resolution to fund the U.S. government before taking on other issues.
“We’re going to that tax bill right now,” she said. “Why the majority leader could not have allowed for a timing that would help to facilitate greater support for this, allow for a reasonable amendment process — that is not too much to ask.”
Jim Manley, a Reid spokesperson, said the majority leader was offering 10 Republican amendments and 5 Democratic amendments as part of consideration of the legislation.
“We’ve bent over backwards to try and offer them a reasonable number of amendments,” Manley said. “Just because they say it, doesn’t mean it’s true.”
On the Democratic side, the sole vote against the motion to proceed was the newly seated Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.). He had earlier expressed concerns about chaplains leaving the military should “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” be repealed.
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) didn’t vote on the motion to proceed. Lieberman later told reporters Lincoln wanted to vote in the affirmative, but was detained and unable to make the vote on time.
In the wake of the loss, Lieberman and Collins announced their intent on Thursday to introduce new standalone legislation to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” with language that’s identical to the repeal provision in the defense authorization bill.
Unveiling his plans for the new legislation, Lieberman said he thinks the bill has a chance for success in lame duck because at least 60 senators have expressed support for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
“We’re going to keep fighting until the last possible moment in this session because we got the votes to change this unjust policy and we owe it ourselves and to our country to continue to fight until fighting is no longer possible,” Lieberman said.
The Connecticut senator said he received assurances from Reid that he would use “Rule 14” to bypass the committee vote and bring the standalone legislation to the floor during the lame duck session of Congress. Further, Lieberman said Reid wanted to be a co-sponsor of the legislation.
As repeal advocates push forward with this new bill, the Human Rights Campaign has renewed its call for President Obama to prevent further discharges under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” by issuing a stop-loss order — a power afforded to him during times of war.
Joe Solmonese, HRC’s president, had earlier endorsed the idea of Obama issuing such an order in an October letter to the president.
“The Senate’s apparent refusal to act on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal makes presidential action imperative in order for him to fulfill his state of the union promise,” Solmonese said. “The only measure of success is an end to the discharges and anything less is unacceptable.”
New York
Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced
One of the victims, John Umberger, was D.C. political consultant
A New York judge on Wednesday sentenced three men convicted of killing a D.C. political consultant and another man who they targeted at gay bars in Manhattan.
NBC New York notes a jury in February convicted Jayqwan Hamilton, Jacob Barroso, and Robert DeMaio of murder, robbery, and conspiracy in relation to druggings and robberies that targeted gay bars in Manhattan from March 2021 to June 2022.
John Umberger, a 33-year-old political consultant from D.C., and Julio Ramirez, a 25-year-old social worker, died. Prosecutors said Hamilton, Barroso, and DeMaio targeted three other men at gay bars.
The jury convicted Hamilton and DeMaio of murdering Umberger. State Supreme Court Judge Felicia Mennin sentenced Hamilton and DeMaio to 40 years to life in prison.
Barroso, who was convicted of killing Ramirez, received a 20 years to life sentence.
National
Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information
Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources
Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.
“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.
“These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.
It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”
The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question.
A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit.
While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management.
The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.
Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.
“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.
“Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says.
Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”
Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”
Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.
“As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from the Washington Blade.
“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said.
The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”
It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”
The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society.
The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.
While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”
“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.
The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.
Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.
‘Things Like This’ embraces formula and plus-size visibility
Calendar: May 23-29
Comings & Goings
New doc chronicles gay hero’s journey from rape to forgiveness
Murdered Israeli embassy officials were supporters of D.C.’s LGBTQ synagogue
Looking back at 50 years of Pride in D.C
WorldPride events round-up
Pope Leo XIV: Family based on ‘stable union between a man and a woman’
Wes Moore signs HIV decriminalization bill
