National
YEAR IN REVIEW: ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal is year’s top story
Rollercoaster fight ends with Obama’s signature
The passage of legislation to end the 17-year-old ban on service by open gays in the U.S. military after a year-long fight makes the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” saga the story of the year for 2010.
Throughout the course of the year, supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal endured a rollercoaster ride during which many observers predicted efforts to lift the military’s gay ban would end in failure.
In January, President Obama set up the path for repeal in his State of the Union address.
“This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are,” Obama said. “It’s the right thing to do.”
Efforts to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” got a significant boost in February during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing when Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen announced that he personally supports the service of openly gay people in the U.S. military.
“It is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do,” Mullen said. “No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.”
Mullen’s support for ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is seen by many as the lynchpin that ultimately led to repeal of the law because he is an authoritative voice in the military and was seen as outside the influence of LGBT advocates.
During the same hearing, Defense Secretary Robert Gates unveiled plans to establish a Pentagon working group study of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” that would determine the best way to implement repeal of the law should Congress should take action. Gates appointed Jeh Johnson, the Pentagon’s general counsel, and Gen. Carter Ham, commander of U.S. Army Europe, as co-chairs of the working group, and directed them to produce a study by Dec. 1.
At the same hearing, U.S. senators opposed to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal expressed consternation over plans to move forward and Mullen’s declared support for allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said he was “deeply disappointed” by Gates’ statement and the defense secretary’s plans to move forward with a study to determine how to implement repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as opposed to whether it should be repealed.
As the study on implementing an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was underway, those seeking to end the law made plans to pass a repeal of the law as part of major defense budget legislation pending before Congress as part of the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill. In 1993, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was enacted into law as part of the defense authorization bill and LGBT advocates believed attaching a measure as part of defense spending legislation would bolster chances for success of repeal.
But the path to passage of repeal encountered a significant roadblock in April when Gates wrote a letter to Congress saying he’s “strongly opposed” to any legislative change to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before the Pentagon study is complete.
Many thought Gates had doomed any chances for legislative repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” But repeal advocates came forth with a compromise measure that would institute an end to the law only after the Pentagon report was finished and the president, defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that the U.S. military is ready.
The White House and Pentagon issued statements saying pursuing legislation after the Pentagon study is complete would be the ideal way to address repeal, but that they could support the proposed compromise legislation.
In May, the House attached the repeal measure as part of the defense authorization bill as an amendment by a vote of 234-194 before approving the legislation as a whole. On the same day, the Senate Armed Services Committee did the same to its version of the bill before reporting it out to the Senate floor.
On the House floor, Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), an Iraq war veteran and the sponsor of repeal legislation, urged his colleagues to approve an end to the military’s gay ban.
Following the votes, the prospects for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal seemed bright. But the efforts to move forward with the legislation were stymied as the Senate didn’t take up the measure for months. In July, McCain objected to a motion to proceed to the defense authorization bill upon lawmakers’ return from August recess.
In September, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) file cloture to proceed on the defense authorization bill regardless of the objections from any other senator.
At first, many LGBT advocates were confident that 60 votes were present in the U.S. Senate to proceed to defense legislation over McCain’s objection. But this support began to crumble away as many U.S. senators said they disapproved of the limited number of amendments that would be allowed.
On the Senate floor, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who voted for the repeal amendment in committee, was among those expressing discontent over the procedural conditions for the defense authorization.
The motion to proceed on the defense authorization bill failed 56-43, four votes short of the 60 votes necessary to proceed with the legislation. Reid pledged to bring up the legislation again, but the bill’s fate was uncertain.
When Republicans took control of the House in the November elections, it became clear that Congress needed to act before the end of the year.
With the legislative route to ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in limbo, another route to end the military’s gay ban opened up in September when a California federal court ruled that the law was unconstitutional in the case of Log Cabin Republicans v. United States.
In October, U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips affirmed her earlier ruling by issuing an injunction enjoining the U.S. government from the enforcement of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
The U.S. Justice Department appealed the decision to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and asked for a stay in the injunction, arguing that the Pentagon needs time to implement a repeal of the law.
On Oct. 21, the Ninth Circuit granted the stay in the injunction, ending the eight-day period in which gays could serve openly in the U.S. military.
But the court action put increased pressure on Congress to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before the year was out. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs maintained Congress should repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” legislatively before the courts strike down the statute to provide the Pentagon more wiggle-room with implementation.
Efforts to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” received another significant boost on Nov. 30 when the Pentagon finally released its study and found that repeal could be implemented with low risk to the armed forces over the long term.
The 256-page report included the results of survey sent out to 400,000 service members regarding openly gay people in the U.S. military. Of the more than 115,000 who responded, 70 percent said they believed repeal would have a positive, mixed or no effect on a unit’s ability to get the job done.
Hopes were high that with the Pentagon report, the Senate would be able to move forward with the defense authorization and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal. But those hopes were dashed on Dec. 9 when a motion to proceed on the defense authorization bill failed 57-40.
Immediately following the vote, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Collins called a news conference and announced they would introduce stand-alone “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” legislation — a move seen by many as a “Hail Mary” pass to make repeal happen before the end of the year.
With limited time remaining in the lame duck session, the U.S. House on Dec. 15 approved “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” yet again as a standalone measure by a vote 250-175. The move enabled the House to send the legislation to the Senate as “privileged” bill, shaving off the first 30 hours of debate that would have otherwise been needed in the Senate.
After the Senate approved the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts, repeal advocates became optimistic that 60 votes were present to support the legislation as Sens. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) signaled they would support repeal.
On Dec. 18, repeal advocates finally cleared the last major hurdle for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” when the Senate invoked cloture on the legislation by a vote of 63-33. On the same day, the Senate agreed to final passage of the bill by a vote of 65-31.
LGBT advocates heralded the Senate vote — the first time Congress has approved a pro-gay bill as a standalone measure — as an unprecedented accomplishment for LGBT Americans.
President Obama brought to a close on Dec. 22 the legislative journey to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” when he signed the repeal legislation into law.
New York
Court orders Pride flag to return to Stonewall
Lambda Legal, Washington Litigation Group filed federal lawsuit
The Pride flag will once again fly over the Stonewall National Monument in New York following a court order requiring the National Park Service to raise it over the site.
The decision follows a lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal and the Washington Litigation Group in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which challenged the removal as unconstitutional under the Administrative Procedure Act and argued that the government unlawfully targeted the LGBTQ community.
In February, the NPS removed the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument, the first national monument dedicated to LGBTQ rights and history in the U.S. The move followed a Jan. 21 memorandum issued by President Donald Trump-appointed NPS Director Jessica Bowron restricting which flags may be flown at national parks. The directive limited displays to official government flags, with narrow exceptions for those deemed to serve an “official purpose.”
Plaintiffs successfully argued that the Pride flag meets that standard, given Stonewall’s status as the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement. They also contended that the policy violated the APA by bypassing required public input and improperly applying agency rules.
The lawsuit named Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Bowron, and Amy Sebring, superintendent of Manhattan sites for the NPS, as defendants. Plaintiffs included the Gilbert Baker Foundation, Village Preservation, Equality New York, and several individuals.
The court found that the memorandum — while allowing limited exceptions for historical context purposes — was applied unlawfully in this case. As part of the settlement, the NPS is required to rehang the Pride flag on the monument’s official flagpole within seven days, where it will remain permanently.
“The sudden, arbitrary, and capricious removal of the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument was yet another act by this administration to erase the LGBTQ+ community,” said Karen Loewy, co-counsel for plaintiffs and Lambda Legal’s Senior Counsel and Director of Constitutional Law Practice. “Today, the government has pledged to restore this important symbol back to where it belongs.”
“This is a complete victory for our clients and for the LGBTQ+ community,” said Alexander Kristofcak, lead counsel for plaintiffs and a lawyer with Washington Litigation Group. “The government has acknowledged what we argued from day one: the Pride flag belongs at Stonewall. The flag will be restored and it will fly officially and permanently. And we will remain vigilant to ensure that the government sticks to the deal.”
“Gilbert Baker created the Rainbow Pride flag as a symbol of hope and liberation,” said Charles Beal, president of the Gilbert Baker Foundation. “Today, that symbol is restored to the place where it belongs, standing watch over the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement.”
“The government tried to erase an important symbol of the LGBTQ+ community, and the community said no,” said Amanda Babine, executive director of Equality New York. “Today’s accomplishment proves that when we stand together and fight back, we win.”
“The removal of the Pride flag from Stonewall was an attempt to erase LGBTQ+ history and undermine the rule of law,” said Andrew Berman, executive director of Village Preservation. “This settlement restores both.”
With Loewy on the complaint are Douglas F. Curtis, Camilla B. Taylor, Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, Kenneth D. Upton Jr., Jennifer C. Pizer, and Nephetari Smith from Lambda Legal. With Kristofcak on the complaint are Mary L. Dohrmann, Sydney Foster, Kyle Freeny, James I. Pearce, and Nathaniel Zelinsky from Washington Litigation Group.
Federal Government
Trump budget targets ‘gender extremism’
Proposed spending package would target ‘leftist’ political ideologies
The White House submitted its 2027 budget request to Congress last month, outlining a push for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to “proactively” target what it describes as “extremism” related to gender — raising concerns about the potential for law enforcement to target LGBTQ people.
The Trump-Vance administration’s 2027 budget request, submitted to Congress on April 4, proposes a dramatic increase in national security and law enforcement spending, while reducing foreign aid and restructuring multiple domestic security programs. In total, the administration is requesting $2.16 trillion in discretionary budget authority (including mandatory resources), a 15.3 percent increase over the 2026 proposal.
Central to the proposal is the creation of a new “NSPM-7 Joint Mission Center,” a direct follow-up to the September 2025 National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7). The directive instructs the Justice Department, the FBI, and other national security agencies to combat what the administration defines as “political violence in America,” effectively reshaping the Joint Terrorism Task Force network to focus on “leftist” political ideologies, according to reporting by independent journalist Ken Klippenstein.
The American Civil Liberties Union has characterized NSPM-7 as a way for President Donald Trump to intimidate his political enemies.
In a press release following the memorandum, Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, said, “President Trump has launched yet another effort to investigate and intimidate his critics,” and had described the move as an “intimidation tactic against those standing up for human rights and civil liberties.”
The proposed mission center would include personnel from 10 federal agencies tasked with targeting “domestic terrorists” associated with a wide range of ideologies. Among them is what the administration labels “extremism” related to gender, alongside categories such as “anti-Americanism,” “anti-capitalism,” “anti-Christianity,” and “support for the overthrow of the U.S. government.” The document also cites “hostility toward those who hold traditional American views” on family, religion, and morality — language LGBTQ advocates have increasingly warned could be used to frame queer and transgender rights movements as ideological threats.
The mission center is one component of a proposed $166 million increase in the FBI’s counterterrorism budget.
In total, the FBI would receive $12.5 billion for salaries and expenses under the proposal, a $1.9 billion increase. Planned investments include unmanned aerial systems operations and counter-drone capabilities, counterterrorism efforts, and security preparations for the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. The budget also cites 67,000 FBI arrests since Jan. 20, 2026, which it describes as a 197 percent increase from the prior year.
When Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, it also enacted 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5), which defines domestic terrorism as activities involving acts dangerous to human life that violate criminal laws and are intended to intimidate or coerce civilians or influence government policy through violence. That statutory definition has not changed.
However, federal agencies have historically categorized domestic terrorism threats into groups such as racially or ethnically motivated violent extremism, anti-government or anti-authority violent extremism, and other threats, including those tied to bias based on religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
The language in the budget suggests a shift in how those categories are interpreted and applied — particularly by explicitly linking “extremism” to gender and to perceived opposition to “traditional” views — without any corresponding change to federal law. Only Congress has the power to change the definition of domestic terrorism by passing legislation.
The budget document states:
“DT lone offenders will continue to pose significant detection and disruption challenges because of their capacity for independent radicalization to violence, ability to mobilize discretely, and access to firearms. Additionally, in recent years, heinous assassinations and other acts of political violence in the United States have dramatically increased. Commonly, this violent conduct relates to views associated with anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the U.S. government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility toward those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.”
This language echoes earlier actions by the Trump-Vance administration targeting trans people.
On the first day of his second term, President Trump signed Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”
The order establishes a strict binary definition of sex and withdraws federal recognition of trans people.
“It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female,” the order states. “‘Sex’ shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female. ‘Sex’ is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of ‘gender identity.’”
Appropriations committees in both chambers are expected to begin hearings in the coming weeks.
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
Court orders Pride flag to return to Stonewall
Sri Lankan government withdraws support for LGBTQ tourism initiative
In an act of artistic defiance, Baltimore Center Stage stays focused on DEI
Trump budget targets ‘gender extremism’
Susan Lucci on love, loss, and ‘All My Children’
Trump’s war threats trigger rare 25th Amendment discussion
New book celebrates 1970s dance music icons
ROSENSTEIN: Vote McDuffie for mayor of D.C.
A Sondheim masterpiece ‘Merrily’ rolls onto Netflix
