National
Rep. Hunter attempts to block ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal
Measure would expand certification requirement
An opponent of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal in the U.S. House intends to introduce legislation that would effectively block implementation of an end to the military’s gay ban.
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), an Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran and two-term House member, plans to introduce legislation that would expand the certification requirement for enacting “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
Under current law, which President Obama signed on Dec. 22, repeal would take effect 60 days after the president, the defense secretary and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that the U.S. military is ready for open service.
Hunter’s proposed legislation would expand this certification responsibility to the military service chiefs: the chief of naval operations, the Marine Corps commandant, the Army chief of staff and the Air Force chief of staff.
Joe Kasper, a Hunter spokesperson, said the expansion of certification is important because the service chiefs have an intimate knowledge of the military.
“It’s necessary that the service chiefs, who understand more than anyone else the unique challenges within their respective branches, are part of this process,” Kasper said.
Passage of the legislation would likely block repeal from happening because many service chiefs have testifed before Congress that they oppose “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal at this time.
Most prominent among them is Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos, who in December told reporters that an end to the military’s gay ban would cause a distraction that could “cost Marines’ lives.”
Hunter has been among the most vocal opponents of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal in the U.S. House. In December, he vehemently spoke out against ending the military’s gay ban as the chamber debated a repeal measure.
“It sounds good to make that comparison, that this is like the civil rights movement,” Hunter said. “The problem is the United States military is not the YMCA . It’s something special. And the reason that we have the greatest military in the world is because of the way that it is right now.”
During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in December, some service chiefs — including Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey — testified that they didn’t feel the need to have the responsibility of issuing certification for repeal because Defense Secretary Robert Gates would adequately represent their voice going forward.
“I am very comfortable with my ability to provide input to Secretary Gates and to the Chairman that will be listened to and considered,” Casey said. “So you could put it in there, but I don’t think it’s necessary.”
Casey added that he thinks an expansion of the certification requirement would undercut the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986, which set up the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the principal military adviser to the president.
Kasper said the legislation is currently in draft form and Hunter hasn’t yet made final plans on when it would be introduced.
The Hill newspaper, which first reported the news, quoted a congressional aide as saying the bill could be introduced as soon as Tuesday and that 15 to 20 Republicans have already signed on in support.
Whether House Republican leadership would bring the legislation up to a vote on the floor is unknown. A spokesperson for U.S. House John Boehner (R-Ohio) didn’t respond on short notice to a request to comment.
In the Senate, where Democrats have retained control, it’s unlikely the legislation would come up for a floor vote as a standalone bill. Still, the situation could be different if the House passed the measure as part of a larger moving vehicle — such as an upcoming defense authorization bill.
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said the announced plans to introduce the legislation aren’t surprising, but are disappointing.
“Let there be no doubt this is an attempted [plan] to placate a vocal minority and stir up discord before certification happens,” he said. “Mr. Hunter’s intent is to derail [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] repeal if he possibly can.”
Sarvis said he doesn’t think the majority of members of the House want to disrupt repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” at this stage, and he knows that isn’t the view of a majority of members of the Democratic-controlled Senate.
“Congress, the most senior leadership in the Pentagon, and the American people have spoken on this issue,” Sarvis said. “Mr. Hunter, like a few of his colleagues, is stuck in another era.”
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.