National
Immigration talks intrigue UAFA supporters
Schumer, Graham renew talks on comprehensive legislation
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has reportedly restarted talks on comprehensive immigration reform legislation (photo courtesy Schumer’s office).
Reports that key U.S. senators have restarted talks on comprehensive immigration reform legislation have piqued the interest of LGBT rights supporters who see the discussions as a potential path for passing the Uniting American Families Act.
Steve Ralls, spokesperson for Immigration Equality, said his organization would push for a UAFA-inclusive bill if the talks lead to a comprehensive immigration reform measure.
“If a bill does move forward, we are going to be working very hard and watching very closely to make sure that it is inclusive of the Uniting American Families Act,” Ralls said.
Fred Sainz, the Human Rights Campaign’s vice president of communications, said many questions remain about the substance of the talks and when they would result in a bill, but added that HRC would also advocate for making UAFA a component of comprehensive legislation.
“We would obviously fight mightily in order to include UAFA in any immigration reform proposal,” he said.
As it was introduced in the 111th Congress, UAFA would enable gay and lesbian Americans to sponsor their foreign same-sex partners for residency in the United States. Based on numbers from the U.S. Census in 2000, passage of UAFA would impact an estimated 36,000 bi-national same-sex couples in the country that could be torn apart under current immigration law.
Supporters of UAFA have seen comprehensive immigration reform legislation as the best chance for passing the pro-LGBT measure and have been working with key members of Congress and immigration groups to make the bill a provision in the larger package.
On Monday, Politico reported that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the chair of Senate Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, had rekindled talks with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on moving forward with a comprehensive immigration reform bill in the Senate.
Last year, Graham was involved in discussions on moving forward with a reform bill, but backed out reportedly because he was unhappy with the Senate leadership’s decision to advance the legislation ahead of a climate change bill. Neither saw passage in the 111th Congress.
Graham was quoted in Politico this week as saying his talks with Schumer on the immigration reform bill in the 112th Congress are in the very beginning stages.
“It’s in the infant stage,” Graham reportedly said. “I don’t know what the political appetite is to do something.”
Graham’s office didn’t respond to the Washington Blade’s request to confirm that the senator had been in talks with Schumer or whether the South Carolina senator would support UAFA as part of an immigration reform bill.
But a Schumer aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed for the Blade that the New York senator and Graham restarted discussions on comprehensive immigration reform early this year, but acknowledged the talks are in “the very early stages.”
“They saw to basically pick up where they left off in terms of trying to formulate a comprehensive immigration reform package that could muster 60 votes in the Senate,” the aide said.
For now, the aide said the focus of efforts is reaching out to outside stakeholders to “try to flesh out the political appetite for passing a comprehensive reform package” in the 112th Congress.
The Politico article also reports that aides to Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) have been had talks with Schumer’s staff on immigration. In December, Murkowski was a surprise vote in favor of the DREAM Act — failed legislation that would have offered a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who pursued a college education or military service.
Still, Murkowski reportedly told Politico that she hadn’t yet been personally engaged in talks on immigration.
“Right now, I’m just so focused on what’s happening with the energy issues, I haven’t been engaged in it,” she was quoted as saying.
In the last Congress, Murkowski was among the Republicans who voted for hate crimes protections legislation and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal. Her office didn’t respond to the Blade’s request to comment on whether she would support UAFA as part of a comprehensive immigration reform package.
The chances of passing immigration legislation were bolstered last month when President Obama laid out his vision for reform as part of his State of the Union address.
“I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration,” Obama said. “And I am prepared to work with Republicans and Democrats to protect our borders, enforce our laws and address the millions of undocumented workers who are now living in the shadows.”
Whether sufficient votes are present to move forward with comprehensive immigration reform legislation over the next two years remains to be seen, but passage would almost certainly be more than challenging than it would have been in the last Congress.
Democrats were unable to move forward with an immigration package last year when the 111th Congress ended with the party having 58 seats in the Senate. Now Democrats have just 53 seats.
Further, the Republican-controlled House is expected to be hostile to both immigration reform legislation and UAFA.
Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, said passage of comprehensive immigration reform in the 112th Congress would be “a major surprise” — with or without UAFA.
“Immigration is a highly controversial topic, and the parties just don’t agree,” Sabato said. “Sen. Graham is considered to the left of many of his Republican colleagues on this issue. Moreover, while it’s possible the Democratic Senate may pass something, it seems very improbable that the Republican House would.”
Still, Sabato said “you never want to rule anything out completely” in politics and noted, as the lame-duck session last year proved, bipartisan efforts can succeed if everyone gains something politically.
Even if the comprehensive immigration reform doesn’t pass this Congress, UAFA advocates have precedent working in their favor to at least have the provision for bi-national same-sex couples included as part of an initial bill.
In June, Senate leadership leaked a framework for what Democrats want to see as part of immigration reform to lure potential Republican supporters. The 26-page outline emphasizes border security as a priority, but a UAFA-like provision is also mentioned as part of the proposed legislation.
“It will eliminate discrimination in the immigration laws by permitting permanent partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status,” the draft states.
Also, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) included a provision for bi-national same-sex couples in the comprehensive immigration reform legislation he introduced late last year. Still, this legislation had no Republican co-sponsors upon introduction.
Mary Giovagnoli, director of the Immigration Policy Center, a think tank arm for the American Immigration Council, said predicting whether the 112th Congress would see UAFA as part of comprehensive immigration reform at this stage in talks is difficult.
“It’s hard to know whether it would make it into the final formalized piece of legislation because there’s just so many intangibles, especially when you don’t know who all the sponsors might be, where they’ll draw their lines in the sand,” she said.
Immigration Equality’s Ralls said he continues to believe if UAFA is initially included in immigration reform legislation, the provision “won’t be a deal-breaker” as the measure makes its way through Congress.
Ralls maintained the real debate for comprehensive immigration reform will be coming to an agreement on issues such as a path to citizenship, employment verification and border security.
“I’ve thought all along — and still believe — that if Republicans and Democrats can come to an agreement on those issues, that including our families is not going to be an issue that determines the fate of the overall bill,” he said.
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.
The White House
Trump travels to Middle East countries with death penalty for homosexuality
President traveled to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates
Homosexuality remains punishable by death in two of the three Middle East countries that President Donald Trump visited last week.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are among the handful of countries in which anyone found guilty of engaging in consensual same-sex sexual relations could face the death penalty.
Trump was in Saudi Arabia from May 13-14. He traveled to Qatar on May 14.
“The law prohibited consensual same-sex sexual conduct between men but did not explicitly prohibit same-sex sexual relations between women,” notes the State Department’s 2023 human rights report, referring specifically to Qatar’s criminalization law. “The law was not systematically enforced. A man convicted of having consensual same-sex sexual relations could receive a sentence of seven years in prison. Under sharia, homosexuality was punishable by death; there were no reports of executions for this reason.”
Trump on May 15 arrived in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates.
The State Department’s 2023 human rights report notes the “penalty for individuals who engaged in ‘consensual sodomy with a man'” in the country “was a minimum prison sentence of six months if the individual’s partner or guardian filed a complaint.”
“There were no known reports of arrests or prosecutions for consensual same-sex sexual conduct. LGBTQI+ identity, real or perceived, could be deemed an act against ‘decency or public morality,’ but there were no reports during the year of persons prosecuted under these provisions,” reads the report.
The report notes Emirati law also criminalizes “men who dressed as women or entered a place designated for women while ‘disguised’ as a woman.” Anyone found guilty could face up to a year in prison and a fine of up to 10,000 dirhams ($2,722.60.)
Trump returned to the U.S. on May 16.
The White House notes Trump during the trip secured more than $2 trillion “in investment agreements with Middle Eastern nations ($200 billion with the United Arab Emirates, $600 billion with Saudi Arabia, and $1.2 trillion with Qatar) for a more safe and prosperous future.”
Former President Joe Biden traveled to Saudi Arabia in 2022.
Saudi Arabia is scheduled to host the 2034 World Cup. The 2022 World Cup took place in Qatar.
D.C. Black Pride 2025: Events, parties, and empowerment
Cuban lawmakers to consider simplifying process for trans people to change IDs
Frank Kameny’s legacy lives on
Wes Moore signs HIV decriminalization bill
