National
Another shot for UAFA in House, Senate
Lawmakers write to administration seeking executive action
Lawmakers initiated on Thursday a two-pronged approach to stop the separation of bi-national same-sex couples in the United States by introducing legislation and sending a letter to the Obama administration urging executive action.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) reintroduced in the House the Uniting American Families Act, which would enable gay Americans to sponsor their foreign partners for residency in the United States, while Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) reintroduced companion legislation in the Senate.
Meanwhile, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), ranking Democrat of the House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, sent a letter to the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security — along with 47 other U.S. House members — urging administration officials to stop the deportations of foreigners in legally recognized same-sex marriages in the United States.
During a news conference Thursday, Nadler touted his newly reintroduced legislation, which has been languishing in Congress in various versions for more than a decade, as a means to “remove a wantonly discriminatory policy” in U.S. immigration code.
“Today, thousands of committed same-sex couples are needlessly suffering because of unequal treatment under our immigration laws, and this is an outrage,” Nadler said. “The Constitution guarantees that no class of single people will be singled out for differential and invidious treatment — and LGBT Americans should not, and must not, be excluded from that guarantee.”
In a statement, Leahy said UAFA is necessary because a key tenet of U.S. immigration policy is maintaining “family unity” — even for LGBT people — whom he said are often forced to choose between the country they love and the person they love.
“I hear from Vermont couples who face this difficult decision every year,” Leahy said. “No American should face such a choice. I hope that my colleagues who supported this important civil rights reform will join me in calling for fairness and equality in our immigration laws.”
Under current immigration code, straight Americans can sponsor their spouses for residency in the United States through the green card application process if their spouses are foreign nationals. The same rights aren’t available to gay Americans because they cannot marry in many places in the United States. Even where gay nuptials are recognized, Americans can’t sponsor their same-sex spouses for citizenship because the Defense of Marriage Act prohibits federal recognition of marriage equality.
Consequently, foreign nationals who are in committed relationships with gay Americans may have to leave the country upon expiration of their temporary visas or face deportation.
“It’s not only the partners in committed relationships that suffer, it’s their children, their extended families,” Nadler said. “Their communities and employers are all hurt when families are broken up.”

Shirley Tan (right) and Jay Mercado (left) with their two children and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (center) (Blade photo by Michael Key)
Shirley Tan, a Philippines native and lesbian Pacifica, Calif., resident, put a face to the need for passing UAFA during the news conference when she recounted how she was arrested in January 2009 by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and threatened with deportation away from her partner for nearly 25 years, Jay Mercado, and their two children: Jashley and Joriene.
“When I think of UAFA, I am reminded of what that ICE officer told me when I was picked up — that if Jay is a man, this wouldn’t have happened,” Tan said. “Same-sex couples should be given the right to petition for their partners. It is just plain discrimination that until now, this great country cannot have equality among their citizens.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has since introduced private legislation to keep Tan and Mercado together in the United States with their children temporarily, and is expected to do so again during the 112th Congress. The bill must be reintroduced every two years. If not, or if Feinstein leaves the Senate, Tan would again face deportation.
UAFA has provisions that would impose penalties on those who would seek the exploit the opportunities provided under the legislation should it become law. Any person found to have entered into a fraudulent, permanent partnership for the purposes of obtaining a visa for another individual could be subject to five-year imprisonment or a $250,000 fine, or both. UAFA also requires bi-national couples to provide proof that they are partners as defined in the legislation.
Representatives from LGBT advocacy groups who were present at the news conference — including Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese and National Gay & Lesbian Task Force Executive Director Rea Carey — commended Nadler for introducing the legislation and said the bill is badly needed to eliminate the inequities that bi-national same-sex couples face.
Rachel Tiven, executive director of Immigration Equality, expressed optimism about the chances of action from either Congress or the administration to provide relief to bi-national same-sex couples.
“Everything is coming together for LGBT Americans with foreign national partners,” Tiven said. “This is the time that have been waiting for. We are so close, we are so close at last to having truly equal rights for all American families — and LGBT immigrant families at the center of that change.”
The White House’s support for UAFA isn’t as strong as it is for other pro-LGBT legislation, such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, said President Obama “supports the goals of this legislation,” but didn’t explicitly endorse UAFA.
“He believes that Americans with partners from other countries should not be faced with a painful choice between staying with their partner or staying in their country and thus we will work closely with Congress to craft comprehensive immigration reform legislation,” Inouye added.
The 100 co-sponsors that the House legislation had as of Thursday include the four openly gay members of Congress — Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and David Cicilline (D-R.I.) — as well as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Reps. Mike Honda (D-Calif.), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas) and Jackie Speier (D-Calif.).
A proponent of comprehensive immigration reform, Polis during news conference said the inability of gay Americans to sponsor their foreign partners under current law is “just another example of how our broken immigration system is tearing apart.”
“Instead of continuing to discriminate against same-sex marriage, we should welcome immigrants who help grow our economy and make our country stronger,” Polis said. “Regardless of which side of the aisle one stands on, we all agree that our immigration system should reflect the values that our country hold dear. It should reward those who work hard and support families; instead, we have a system that breaks up families by deporting the loved ones of Americans.”
Movement on the UAFA in the House is expected to be difficult — to say the least — with Republicans in control of the chamber. Neither the office of U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) nor the office of House Judiciary Committee Chair Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who’s known for anti-gay views, responded to the Washington Blade’s request to comment on the legislation.
During the news conference, Nadler said he’s spoken with Smith about having a hearing or a markup on UAFA, but added the Texas lawmaker was “non-committal.”
A House Democratic aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, expressed pessimism about passage of UAFA both in the House Judiciary Committee and on the House floor because of the anti-gay Republican positions.
“The chairman has pretty strong stand against LGBT equality and against comprehensive immigration reform, so this might be the best Judiciary Committee to get optimistic about,” the aide said. “I don’t see Boehner bringing it up and I don’t see where you get enough Republicans [for passage] — even if you held the entire Democratic caucus together.”
No Republicans have signed on as co-sponsors for UAFA. Nadler said he’s spoken to some GOP lawmakers who have told him they’re “thinking about” signing on in support, although he declined to identify which lawmakers made these comments.
“We’d love to work with the Republicans on it, and we’re reaching out to see who we can get,” Nadler said.
In the Senate, where Democrats remain in control following the 2010 election, UAFA is seen as having as having brighter prospects, although challenges remain.
A Senate Democratic aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Republican support would be needed to make progress on UAFA in the Senate despite Democratic control of the chamber.
“It is difficult to advance immigration-related legislation, and particularly difficult to do so without bipartisan support, and so we are focused right now on shoring up more support for the bill,” the aide said.
In the Senate, UAFA had 18 co-sponsors as of Thursday, including Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) as well as Sens. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). As in the House, the Senate version of the legislation has no Republican co-sponsors.
UAFA supporters have long advocated that comprehensive immigration reform is the best vehicle from moving the legislation forward in both chambers of Congress. Earlier this year, media reports emerged that key players for immigration reform in the Senate, including Schumer, had begun talks about comprehensive immigration reform legislation — intriguing LGBT advocates about the possibility of UAFA inclusion.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), a UAFA co-sponsor and leading proponent of comprehensive immigration reform, said during the news conference he’s heard about the immigration inequities facing LGBT people — as part of his “Campaign for American Children and Families” tour, which is aimed to address broader immigration and deportation concerns — and believes language to protect bi-national same-sex couples should part of any larger immigration package that passes Congress.
“If deportations or an inflexible visa system or any of the problems our immigration system are holding back and splitting up American families, it’s holding back gay and lesbian families as much or even more,” Gutierrez said. “That is why we need UAFA, and why it needs to be part of immigration reform.”
But whether immigration reform can pass both chambers of Congress — especially with Republicans in control of the House — remains to be seen, even though Obama mentioned it as legislative priority during the 2011 State of the Union address. Polis has told the Washington Blade passage is “unlikely” this Congress will pass immigration reform because many members of the Republican ran against it in their 2010 campaigns.
During the news conference, Nadler said he doesn’t know what the prospects are for passing comprehensive immigration reform in the 112th Congress, but said UAFA supporters will “press ahead” whether or not the larger bill goes forward.
As the new effort was launched to pass legislation, lawmakers also made their case with the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security to stop the separation of foreign nationals in legally recognized same-sex marriages administratively.
Lofgren announced at the news conference on Thursday that she and 47 other Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to the departments asking the Obama administration to take action — as she denounced the current situation under U.S. immigration law.
“Changing the law takes time, and that is something that so many of these families, including U.S. citizens, spouses and children, do not have,” Lofgren said. “Our administration, like all prior administrations, has the ability under current law to avoid the senseless destruction of families while the validity of the Defense of Marriage Act is tackled in the courts and in Congress.”
The letter maintains that the Obama administration has the authority to stop the deportations of foreign nationals in legally recognized same-sex marriage now that the president has found that DOMA is unconstitutional. On Feb. 23, U.S. Attorney General Eric General announced that Obama determined DOMA was unconstitutional and that the Justice Department would no longer defend the anti-gay law against litigation in court.
To the Department of Homeland Security, the lawmakers ask U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services to hold the denial of green card applications for married same-sex couples until Congress repeals DOMA or the courts make a determination on the law’s constitutionality.
“We further ask that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) exercise its existing prosecutorial discretion in removal proceedings with respect to lawfully-married foreign nationals who would be eligible for immigration relief but for DOMA,” the lawmakers write. “ICE already exercises prosecutorial discretion and promotes efficient use of government resources by dismissing without prejudice certain cases in which a foreign national appears to be eligible for relief from removal on the basis of a pending petition or application.”
Adam Fetcher, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson, said his department plans to respond to the lawmakers, but continues to enforce DOMA as directed by the Justice Department.
“The administration will respond to the members of Congress directly,” Fetcher said. “Pursuant to the attorney general’s guidance, the Defense of Marriage Act remains in effect and the executive branch, including DHS, will continue to enforce it unless and until Congress repeals it or there a final judicial determination that it is unconstitutional.”
To the Justice Department, the lawmakers ask that the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Executive Office of Immigration Review issue a moratorium on removing married foreign nationals in same-sex marriages “who would be eligible to adjust their status to lawful permanent residence but for DOMA.”
Tracy Schmaler, a Justice Department spokesperson, said her department is reviewing the letter and will respond.
The letter from U.S. House members comes on the heels of a similar letter that Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and 11 other U.S. senators sent last week to Obama administration seeking restitution for married bi-national same-sex couples. Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.), who is among the co-signers of the Lofgren letter, also last week sent a similar missive to the Obama administration.
California
LGBTQ community calls out Radio Korea over host’s homophobic comments
Station acknowledged controversy, but skirted accountability
On Monday, Nov. 3, Radio Korea aired its regular morning talk show program, where one of its hosts, Julie An, discussed her lack of support for the LGBTQ community, citing her religious beliefs. She also went on to comment that gay people spread HIV and AIDS, and that conversation therapy — which has been linked to PTSD, suicidality, and depression — is a viable practice. Clips of this have since been taken down.
Radio Korea offers Korean language programming to engage local Korean American and Korean immigrant community members. Its reach is broad, as Los Angeles is home to the largest Korean population in the U.S, with over 300,000 residents. As An’s words echoed through the station’s airwaves, queer Korean community members took to social media to voice their concern, hurt, and anger.
In a now-deleted Instagram post, attorney, activist, and former congressional candidate David Yung Ho Kim demanded accountability from the station. Writer and entertainer Nathan Ramos-Park made videos calling out Radio Korea and An, stating that her comments “embolden” people with misinformation, which has the ability to perpetuate “violence against queer people.”
Community health professional Gavin Kwon also worries about how comments like An’s increase stigma within the Korean immigrant community, which could lead to increased discrimination against queer people and their willingness to seek health care.
Kwon, who works at a local clinic in Koreatown, told the Los Angeles Blade that comments like An’s prescribe being gay or queer as a “moral failure,” and that this commonly-held belief within the Korean immigrant community, particularly in older generations, strengthens the reticence and avoidance clients hold onto when asked about their gender or sexual orientation.
“When you stigmatize a group, people don’t avoid the disease — they avoid care,” Kwon explained. “They avoid getting tested, avoid disclosing their status, and avoid talking openly with providers. Stigma pushes people into silence, and silence is the worst possible environment for managing any infectious disease.”
For weeks, Radio Korea did not offer a direct response to the public criticism. Its Instagram feed continued to be updated with shorts, featuring clips of its various hosts — including An.
On Friday, Radio Korea CEO Michael Kim released an official statement on the station’s YouTube page. In this video, Michael Kim stated that An’s comments “included factual inaccuracies” and that the station “does not endorse or share the personal opinions expressed by individual hosts.” Michael Kim also stated that Radio Korea “welcomes members of the LGBT community to share their perspectives” in order to deepen understanding through dialogue.
Afterwards, Michael Kim continued that though he acknowledges the “pain” felt by queer community members, he concluded: “I don’t think Radio Korea needs to apologize for what was said any more than Netflix should apologize for what Dave Chappelle says, or any more than Instagram or TikTok should apologize for what people say on their platforms.”
Michael then offered a justification that An’s statements were “not part of a news report,” and that he was “disappointed” that David Yung Ho Kim, specifically, had been vocal about An’s comments. Michael Kim stated that he was the first person to interview David Yung Ho Kim in 2020 during his congressional campaign, and that he had provided the candidate a platform and opportunity to educate listeners about politics.
“After all these years, the support Radio Korea has given him,” said Kim, “the support I personally gave him, even the support from other Radio Korea members who donated or even volunteered for him — he dishonestly tried to portray Radio Korea as being an anti-gay organization.”
Michael Kim went on to criticize David Yung Ho Kim’s purported “hurry to condemn others,” and also questioned if David has disowned his father, who he states is a pastor. “What kind of person is David Kim, and is this the kind of person we want in Congress?” Michael Kim asked viewers, noting that Koreatown is “only about three miles from Hollywood, and some people just like to perform.”
At the end of the video, Michael Kim stated that his duty is to guard the legacy of the station. “My responsibility is to protect what was built before me and ensure that Radio Korea continues serving this community long after today’s momentary controversies disappear,” he said.
For community members and advocates, this response was unsatisfactory. “The overall tone of the statement felt more defensive than accountable,” Kwon wrote to the Blade. “Instead of a sincere apology to the LGBTQ+ community that was harmed, the message shifts into personal grievances, political dynamics, and side explanations that don’t belong in an official response.”
Michael Kim’s portrayal of the criticism and calls to action by community members as a “momentary controversy” paints a clearer picture of the station’s stance — that the hurt felt and expressed by its queer community members is something that will simply pass until it is forgotten. An continues to be platformed at Radio Korea, and was posted on the station’s social media channels as recently as yesterday. The station has not outlined any other action since Michael Kim’s statement.
U.S. Military/Pentagon
Pentagon moves to break with Boy Scouts over LGBTQ and gender inclusion
Leaked memo shows Hegseth rejecting Scouting America’s shift toward broader inclusion
The Pentagon is preparing to sever its longstanding partnership with the Boy Scouts of America, now known as Scouting America.
In a draft memo to Congress obtained by NPR, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth criticizes the organization for being “genderless” and for promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion.
“The organization once endorsed by President Theodore Roosevelt no longer supports the future of American boys,” Hegseth wrote, according to Defense Department sources.
Girls have been eligible to join Cub Scouts (grades K–5) since 2018, and since 2019 they have been able to join Scouts BSA troops and earn the organization’s highest rank of Eagle Scout.
A statement on the Scouting America website says the shift toward including girls stemmed from “an expanding demand to join the Boy Scouts” and a commitment to inclusivity. “Throughout the late 20th and early 21st centuries, it has undergone significant changes to become more inclusive of the adult staff and volunteers that drive its programming as well as of scouts and their families,” the organization says.
Part of that broader push included lifting its ban on openly gay members in 2014 and on openly gay adult leaders in 2015.
Once the Pentagon finalizes the break, the U.S. military will no longer provide medical and logistical support to the National Jamboree, the massive annual gathering of scouts in West Virginia that typically draws about 20,000 participants. The memo also states that the military will no longer allow scout troops to meet on U.S. or overseas installations, where many bases host active scout programs.
Hegseth’s memo outlines several justifications for the decision, arguing that Scouting America has strayed from its original mission to “cultivate masculine values” by fostering “gender confusion.” It also cites global conflicts and tightening defense budgets, claiming that deploying troops, doctors and vehicles to a 10-day youth event would “harm national security” by diverting resources from border operations and homeland defense.
“Scouting America has undergone a significant transformation,” the memo states. “It is no longer a meritocracy which holds its members accountable to meet high standards.”
The Pentagon declined NPR’s request for comment. A “War Department official” told the outlet that the memo was a “leaked document that we cannot authenticate and that may be pre-decisional.”
The leaked memo comes roughly one month after nearly every major journalism organization walked out of the Pentagon in protest of new rules requiring reporters to publish only “official” documents released by the department — effectively banning the use of leaked or unpublished materials.
President Donald Trump, who serves as the honorary head of Scouting America by virtue of his office, praised the Jamboree audience during his 2017 visit to West Virginia. “The United States has no better citizens than its Boy Scouts. No better,” he said, noting that 10 members of his Cabinet were former Scouts.
Hegseth was never a scout. He has said he grew up in a church-based youth group focused on memorizing Bible verses. As a Fox News host last year, he criticized the Scouts for changing their name and admitting girls.
“The Boy Scouts has been cratering itself for quite some time,” Hegseth said. “This is an institution the left didn’t control. They didn’t want to improve it. They wanted to destroy it or dilute it into something that stood for nothing.”
NBC News first reported in April that the Pentagon was considering ending the partnership, citing sources familiar with the discussions. In a statement to NBC at the time, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said, “Secretary Hegseth and his Public Affairs team thoroughly review partnerships and engagements to ensure they align with the President’s agenda and advance our mission.”
The Scouting America organization has has long played a role in military recruiting. According to numbers provided by Scouting America, many as 20 percent of cadets and midshipmen at the various service academies are Eagle Scouts. Enlistees who have earned the Eagle rank also receive advanced entry-level rank and higher pay — a practice that would end under the proposed changes.
The White House
Trans workers take White House to court over bathroom policy
Federal lawsuit filed Thursday
Democracy Forward and the American Civil Liberties Union, two organizations focused on protecting Americans’ constitutional rights, filed a class-action lawsuit Thursday in federal court challenging the Trump-Vance administration’s bathroom ban policies.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of LeAnne Withrow, a civilian employee of the Illinois National Guard, challenges the administration’s policy prohibiting transgender and intersex federal employees from using restrooms aligned with their gender. The policy claims that allowing trans people in bathrooms would “deprive [women assigned female at birth] of their dignity, safety, and well-being.”
The lawsuit responds to the executive order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” signed by President Donald Trump on his first day in office. It alleges that the order and its implementation violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination in employment. In 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Title VII protects trans workers from discrimination based on sex.
Since its issuance, the executive order has faced widespread backlash from constitutional rights and LGBTQ advocacy groups for discriminating against trans and intersex people.
The lawsuit asserts that Withrow, along with numerous other trans and intersex federal employees, is forced to choose between performing her duties and being allowed to use the restroom safely.
“There is no credible evidence that allowing transgender people access to restrooms aligning with their gender identity jeopardizes the safety or privacy of non-transgender users,” the lawsuit states, directly challenging claims of safety risks.
Withrow detailed the daily impact of the policy in her statement included in the lawsuit.
“I want to help soldiers, families, veterans — and then I want to go home at the end of the day. At some point in between, I will probably need to use the bathroom,” she said.
The filing notes that Withrow takes extreme measures to avoid using the restroom, which the Cleveland Clinic reports most people need to use anywhere from 1–15 times per day depending on hydration.
“Ms. Withrow almost never eats breakfast, rarely eats lunch, and drinks less than the equivalent of one 17 oz. bottle of water at work on most days.”
In addition to withholding food and water, the policy subjects her to ongoing stress and fear:
“Ms. Withrow would feel unsafe, humiliated, and degraded using a men’s restroom … Individuals seeing her enter the men’s restroom might try to prevent her from doing so or physically harm her,” the lawsuit states. “The actions of defendants have caused Ms. Withrow to suffer physical and emotional distress and have limited her ability to effectively perform her job.”
“No one should have to choose between their career in service and their own dignity,” Withrow added. “I bring respect and honor to the work I do to support military families, and I hope the court will restore dignity to transgender people like me who serve this country every day.”
Withrow is a lead Military and Family Readiness Specialist and civilian employee of the Illinois National Guard. Previously, she served as a staff sergeant and has received multiple commendations, including the Illinois National Guard Abraham Lincoln Medal of Freedom.
The lawsuit cites the American Medical Association, the largest national association of physicians, which has stated that policies excluding trans individuals from facilities consistent with their gender identity have harmful effects on health, safety, and well-being.
“Policies excluding transgender individuals from facilities consistent with their gender identity have detrimental effects on the health, safety and well-being of those individuals,” the lawsuit states on page 32.
Advocates have condemned the policy since its signing in January and continue to push back against the administration. Leaders from ACLU-D.C., ACLU of Illinois, and Democracy Forward all provided comments on the lawsuit and the ongoing fight for trans rights.
“We cannot let the Trump administration target transgender people in the federal government or in public life,” said ACLU-D.C. Senior Staff Attorney Michael Perloff. “An executive order micromanaging which bathroom civil servants use is discrimination, plain and simple, and must be stopped.”
“It is absurd that in her home state of Illinois, LeAnne can use any other restroom consistent with her gender — other than the ones controlled by the federal government,” said Michelle Garcia, deputy legal director at the ACLU of Illinois. “The Trump administration’s reckless policies are discriminatory and must be reversed.”
“This policy is hateful bigotry aimed at denying hardworking federal employees their basic dignity simply because they are transgender,” said Kaitlyn Golden, senior counsel at Democracy Forward. “It is only because of brave individuals like LeAnne that we can push back against this injustice. Democracy Forward is honored to work with our partners in this case and is eager to defeat this insidious effort to discriminate against transgender federal workers.”
-
District of Columbia2 days agoBowser announces she will not seek fourth term as mayor
-
U.S. Military/Pentagon3 days agoPentagon moves to break with Boy Scouts over LGBTQ and gender inclusion
-
Drag3 days agoPattie Gonia calls out Hegseth’s anti-LGBTQ policies — while doing better pull-ups
-
District of Columbia4 days agoSecond gay candidate announces run for Ward 1 D.C. Council seat

