Politics
Log Cabin asks Hunter to abandon ‘Don’t Ask’ amendment
Cooper says measure would add ‘unnecessary and unwanted certification’ to repeal process
The head of the National Log Cabin Republicans on Tuesday asked Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) to abandon plans to introduce an amendment that could disrupt repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin’s executive director, says in a letter dated May 10 that Hunter shouldn’t introduce his amendment on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” because it would complicate efforts for a repeal process that is already proceeding smoothly.
“Please do not road block the repeal of [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] by introducing an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act which would add an unnecessary and unwanted certification measure to a clear, comprehensive and thus-far successful certification process,” Cooper writes.
On Monday, Hunter announced he would introduce an amendment to the fiscal year 2012 defense authorization bill on Wednesday during the House Armed Services Committee markup of the legislation to expand the certification requirement needed for repeal to include the four military service chiefs.
The repeal legislation signed into law in December provides for an implementation of open service in the U.S. military after 60 pass following certification from the president, the defense secretary and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Hunter’s amendment would expand the certification requirement to include the Army chief of staff, the Air Force chief of staff, the chief of naval operations and the Marine Corps commandant.
Cooper invokes the shared military service that he shares with Hunter, a Marine Corps veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, while asking the lawmaker not to introduce any amendment that could derail “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
“As a current captain in the United States Army Reserve, I will attest that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ (DADT) does nothing to benefit the mission of the United States military,” Cooper writes. “By forcing servicemembers to hide or lie about their sexual orientation, [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] undermines servicemembers’ responsibility under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Dishonesty is also inherently counter to the long held Army values of Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity and Personal Courage.”
Cooper says repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” removes “the risk of blackmail” for service members who feel they have to keep their sexual orientation a secret to remain in the armed forces. Additionally, Cooper says the cost of the military’s gay ban has negative financial impact and cites numbers from the Government Accountability Office and the Palm Center Blue Ribbon Commission finding that the U.S. government incurs an estimated cost of $22,000 to $43,000 for discharged service member.
“To put it in military nomenclature, [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] is a ‘No Go,’” Cooper writes. “Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and implementation of open service will make our nation stronger by improving military recruitment, retention and readiness.”
Joe Kasper, a Hunter spokesperson, said in response to the letter that Hunter’s amendment isn’t intended to derail “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and Cooper should agree that implementation of open service should be “smooth and efficient.”
“If Mr. Hunter wanted to offer an amendment to derail the repeal, he would have done exactly that,” Kasper said. “What’s needed is a process that examines every possible issue, big and small. Rushing to implement the repeal, the same way it was enacted, will only complicate things. So it’s important that the service chiefs weigh in, absent the political influence of the chairman, the secretary and the president.”
In addition to sending the letter to Hunter, Cooper told the Washington Blade his organization contacted each Republican member on the House Armed Services Committee to urge them against roadblocking “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal with harmful amendments that would add “an unnecessary and unwanted measure to a clear, comprehensive and thus-far successful certification process.”
Also, Cooper said the coalition of groups who worked to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” intend to send out another letter later Tuesday to all members of the House Armed Services Committee calling on the lawmakers to pass defense authorization bill free of any anti-gay amendments.
The full text of Cooper’s letter follows:
Dear Representative Hunter:
As a fellow combat veteran, a fellow Republican and a current reserve officer, I am grateful that you and your colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee are committed to the readiness and sustainability of our military. A veteran yourself, you especially appreciate that proper training and equipping are necessary to achieve victory as well as mitigate battlefield threats to servicemembers. During the Bush Administration, I even had to the honor of traveling with many of your committee peers, including your father, into kinetic environments to highlight the efforts and the needs of our war fighters and diplomats.
However, as a current Captain in the United States Army Reserve, I will attest that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ (DADT) does nothing to benefit the mission of the United States military. By forcing servicemembers to hide or lie about their sexual orientation, DADT undermines servicemembers’ responsibility under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Dishonesty is also inherently counter to the long held Army values of Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity and Personal Courage. Even worse, dishonesty is a security threat. Repealing DADT not only removes the specter of discharge, it also removes the risk of blackmail and compromising national security. Where being gay or lesbian were once grounds for punitive personnel actions or dismissal, the CIA, FBI, State Department, the Defense Department on the civilian side, and defense contractors no longer take into account sexual orientation for reasons of dismissal. United States policy on this matter should be consistent in preferring honesty for the sake of security.
Further, Department of Defense implementation of repeal will likely be a force multiplier for the retention and recruitment of much needed personnel and resources to succeed in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as other missions around the globe. For 17 years, the United States has unnecessarily lost valuable human and financial capital to DADT. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Palm Center Blue Ribbon Commission, the government incurs costs of an estimated $22,000 to $43,000 per discharged servicemember. These estimates do not even account for the tremendous loss of expertise as well as the tax payer revenue expended training and equipping discharged members. Such waste is senseless and must end.
DADT is unconstitutional. DADT is a threat to military integrity and readiness. DADT is a threat to national security. DADT is a waste of taxpayer dollars. DADT is discriminatory. DADT is un-American. To put it in military nomenclature, DADT is a ‘No Go.’ Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and implementation of open service will make our nation stronger by improving military recruitment, retention and readiness. Please do not road block the repeal of DADT by introducing an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act which would add an unnecessary and unwanted certification measure to a clear, comprehensive and thus-far successful certification process.
Respectfully,
R. Clarke Cooper
Executive Director
Congress
Bill seeks to block global gag rule expansion
Policy now bans US foreign aid to groups promoting ‘gender ideology’
Lawmakers on Wednesday introduced a bill that would block the expansion of the global gag rule.
President Ronald Reagan in 1985 implemented the global gag rule, also known as the “Mexico City” policy, which bans U.S. foreign aid for groups that support abortion and/or offer abortion-related services.
Trump reinstated the rule during his first administration. The Biden-Harris administration shortly after it took office in 2021 rescinded it.
The Trump-Vance administration earlier this year expanded the global gag rule to ban U.S. foreign aid for groups that promote “gender ideology.” The expansion took effect on Feb. 26.
U.S. Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) introduced the Protecting Human Rights and Public Health in Foreign Assistance Act in the U.S. Senate. U.S. Reps. Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), Lois Frankel (D-Fla.), Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), and Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) introduced it in the U.S. House of Representatives.
“Using taxpayer money to export the Trump administration’s anti-trans, anti-science, and anti-abortion ideological agenda isn’t just immoral — it’s antithetical to efficient, effective, and rights-based foreign assistance,” said Council for Global Equality Senior Policy Fellow Beirne Roose-Snyder on Wednesday in a press release.
Meng added the Trump-Vance administration’s “crusade against healthcare and global aid is putting millions of lives at risk worldwide.”
“No one will flourish under the new expanded global gag rule,” said the New York Democrat. “These policies weaponize foreign aid and will result in greater harm, particularly for women and girls, marginalized communities, and LGBTQI+ individuals.”
“They should never have been implemented at all, let alone without even a basic public comment process,” she added. “This legislation will reverse these dangerous policies.”
The White House
From red carpet to chaos: A first-person narrative of the WHCD shooting
The Blade’s WH correspondent Joe Reberkenny recounts his night at the WHCD after a shooter attempted to gain entry.
It started as any White House Correspondents’ Dinner is supposed to go—I assume. I’ve never been to one before this, but based on other events I’ve attended at the Hilton, including an HRC gala, it all seemed fairly normal.
There was a lot of traffic. Police had blocked off streets encompassing a large portion of Adams Morgan—particularly around the hotel. The president was making his first appearance after boycotting the event during his first term, so there was a sense of anticipation. It took me about 45 minutes to go just under a mile from my apartment to about three blocks from the hotel in my Uber. I waited until the last possible second before I felt like I was going to be late—6:30—to get out of the car, because it was raining and I was wearing my green tux.
I walked up to a group of people checking tickets at the base of the hotel. They seemed to just be glancing at the tiny, index-card-sized tickets rather than conducting any kind of full security screening outside. As I walked from that first checkpoint to the drive-around drop-off area, I joined what was essentially one long line for the red carpet. It eventually split into people who wanted photos and those who didn’t—but again, there was no real need to show anything beyond that small ticket upon entering, and even that wasn’t being checked closely.
A light went off in my head; I felt that, given the speed at which security was checking tickets, they couldn’t fully see the foil logo and tiny table numbers from that distance. I remember thinking that if I had a similarly sized piece of paper, I could have gotten through up to that point.
I also noticed there was no real security checkpoint or metal detectors upon initially entering the hotel grounds—unlike what I had seen at the HRC gala the year before.
I waited about 35 minutes in line in the car drop-off area—without cars, since it had been repurposed to corral press and their guests before entering the building and heading onto the red carpet. I took my photo, then went up the escalator to meet my date, Jacob Bernard from Democracy Forward. They wouldn’t let him onto the red carpet without his ticket, so I gave him his, which I had been holding. He was already inside the venue despite not having his ticket on him and had been at one of the pre-parties.
That also struck me as odd—that you could access a pre-dinner party without a ticket or going through any visible security.
After I found him, we took a photo together at a step-and-repeat past the main red carpet area around 7:45. Oddly enough, a group of my friends—gays who I regularly see on the dance floors of the gay bars of Washington, who work in various government and media-adjacent fields—found me, and we took pictures together. None were White House correspondents or held a “hard pass” to the White House (security credentials that allow entry into the White House complex).
Another light went off in my head that indicated party crashers probably shouldn’t be getting inside to an event that is supposed to be one of the most secure rooms in the country.
After the photos, I could see groups of people being moved from pre-party spaces in various meeting rooms on other floors and directed toward the main floor where the red carpet had been.
My guest and I went back up to the main floor and walked through a small security checkpoint that included only a handful of metal detectors. From there, I went down the stairs from the lobby into the International Ballroom, where we took our seats at Table 200. I talked to a few people I knew—very traditional pre-event chit-chat. The vibes felt good. It was my first time attending, and I was genuinely excited.
Around 8:15, the Marine Corps Band played and “Commandant’s Four” color guard presented the flags. We were then told to take our seats.
They introduced the head table—the president, first lady, vice president, and members of the White House Correspondents’ Association board. Weijia Jiang, senior White House correspondent for CBS News and president of the WHCA, gave a brief speech, essentially saying we would eat first and then move into the main program, which was supposed to feature mentalist Oz Pearlman.
At this point my table, 200 which included members of the Wall Street Journal, the Blade, and a European outlet all started eating. About 15 minutes later, Washington Hilton staff began clearing plates and preparing to bring out the next course.
As they cleared the plates, I heard four loud bangs.
I saw hotel employees immediately start ducking. They seemed to understand the gravity of the situation much faster than most attendees, including myself. At first, it sounded like a tray might have fallen over (but I later found out that wasn’t the case).
After about 30 seconds of watching some people duck, others look around in confusion, and some continue eating and drinking, I got down. I kneeled with my chair in front of me as a kind of barrier. Being at Table 200, I felt somewhat removed from where the actual incident occurred.
Then I saw the president being whisked away quickly by Secret Service, along with the first lady and others at the head table.
My reporter instincts kicked in. I grabbed my phone and started filming. I saw SWAT team members rush into the ballroom and onto the stage, clearing the area. I captured a video of people looking around, confused about what had just happened.
A few minutes later, the room was told by the WHCA president to hold on—that they would provide more information and guidance on what would happen next. There was some indication that they might try to continue the event despite what had occurred.
Everyone started frantically checking X to see if any major outlets were reporting. I was receiving texts from family, friends, and colleagues about the rapidly unfolding situation.
I walked to the bathroom—twice, technically. I couldn’t find it initially because it was hidden behind black curtains. (Later, those curtains were removed, and the men’s room was in clearer view.)
During the first walk to the bathroom, I called my editor to tell him what was happening. He instructed me to start sending copy to another editor, who would get it online. The ballroom had almost no service—it’s in the basement of a 12-story hotel—so it was a challenge. I utilized SMS fallback (since iMessage wasn’t working) to send updates.
I returned to the table, where people were still hovering—calling editors, scrolling, texting, sending photos and copy. I was already drafting my story and sending it in chunks, adding details as I gathered more information.
I walked my guest toward the bathroom again, which was on the opposite side of the ballroom from our table, so I had to cross what felt like a sea of journalists, PR officials, guests, and others on their phones, talking and scrolling. My guest pointed out that the press pool was being held in an alcove away from the ballroom doors and escalator exit—not in the ballroom with everyone else.
“Alive” by the Bee Gees was playing over the speakers in the bathroom, which felt a little too on the nose.
On my way out, I heard someone speaking over a microphone and rushed to the ballroom entrance. WHCA President Weijia Jiang was speaking. She announced that the event was over and the space was being evacuated.
She also said that President Trump would hold a press conference at the White House in about 25 minutes.
That’s when I knew it was a race against the clock.
I called my editor a second time to update him and asked if I should head to the briefing (knowing the answer would be yes). He confirmed.
Then the crowd began to move. People grabbed purses, bottles—some left belongings behind. Even though it was technically becoming a crime scene, no one was actively forcing us out. It felt more like a collective understanding: It was time to go.
I texted my guest: “OK, I have to go to the White House. I’m so sorry to leave you.”
I made my way with the sea of people toward the one exit we were allowed to use and zipped between women in fancy gowns and men looking like penguins.
I put on my hard press pass, opened the Capital Bikeshare app, reserved the closest e-bike, and headed out.
I walked up Columbia Road to 20th and Wyoming, grabbed the bike, and rode down Wyoming, then 18th, cut over to U Street, and went straight down 16th to the White House. That ride was exhilarating. I also filmed an Instagram Reel updating my followers on what was going on. I could see tourists and D.C. residents alike looking at me from their cars and the sidewalk, obviously confused as to why a man dressed in a tux had hopped on a bike.
I got off the bike where 16th Street meets Lafayette Square and darted toward the first White House security checkpoint, where they were verifying press credentials. Luckily, I had mine. After that, it turned into a mad dash. Everyone who made it through started moving quickly.
The sound of heels on what I think was cobblestone—or maybe brick—sticks with me. My own shoes were clacking as I ran toward the White House alongside other journalists in heels and dress shoes.
At the Secret Service checkpoint, there was a separate line for hard pass holders. Having my hard pass let me skip much of the impeccably dressed line of journalists who didn’t think to bring their hard pass with them.
It was probably the most exquisitely dressed press crowd I’ve ever seen—tuxedos, gowns, full makeup. It felt like something out of “The Hunger Games.”
I went through security, put my belongings through the metal detector, entered my code, grabbed my things, and ran to the briefing room.
The White House
Grindr to host first-ever White House Correspondents’ Dinner party
App’s head of global government affairs a long-time GOP-aligned lobbyist
Gay dating and hookup app Grindr will host its first-ever White House Correspondents’ Weekend party on April 24.
The event is scheduled for the night before the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, an annual gathering meant to celebrate the First Amendment, honor journalism, and raise money for scholarships.
The White House Correspondents’ Dinner is organized by the White House Correspondents’ Association, a group of journalists who regularly cover the president and the administration.
An invitation obtained by the Washington Blade’s Joe Reberkenny and Michael K. Lavers reads:
“We’d be thrilled to have you join us at Grindr’s inaugural White House Correspondents’ Dinner Weekend Party, a Friday evening gathering to bring together policymakers, journalists, and LGBTQ community leaders as we toast the First Amendment.”
The Blade requested an interview with Joe Hack, Grindr’s head of global government affairs, but was unable to reach him via phone or Zoom. He did, however, provide a statement shared with other outlets, offering limited explanation for why the company decided 2026 was the year for the app to host this event.
“Grindr represents a global community with real stakes in Washington. The issues being debated here — HIV funding, digital privacy, LGBTQ+ human rights — are daily life for our community. Nobody does connections like Grindr, and WHCD weekend is the most iconic place in the country to make them. We figured it was time to host.”
Hack said the company has been “well received” by lawmakers in both parties and has found “common ground” on issues such as HIV funding and keeping minors off the app. He credited longstanding relationships in Washington and what he described as Grindr’s “respectful” approach to lobbying.
Hack, a longtime Republican-aligned lobbyist, previously worked for several GOP lawmakers, including U.S. Sens. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), George Voinovich (R-Ohio), Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), and U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.).
According to congressional disclosure forms compiled by OpenSecrets, Grindr spent $1.3 million on lobbying in 2025— more than Tinder and Hinge’s parent company Match Group.
“This is going to be elevated Grindr,” Hack told TheWrap when describing the invite-only party that has already generated buzz on social media. “This isn’t going to be a bunch of shirtless men walking around. This is going to be very elevated, elegant, but still us.”
He also pointed to the company’s work on HIV-related initiatives, including efforts to maintain federal funding for healthcare partners that distribute HIV self-testing kits through the app.
The event comes at a particularly notable moment for an LGBTQ-focused connection platform to enter the Washington social circuit at a high-profile political weekend, as LGBTQ rights remain under constant attack from conservative lawmakers, particularly around transgender healthcare, sports participation, and public accommodations.
Protection should mean protection
LGBTQ people, weed, and mental health: what you need to know
Repression, toxic masculinity fuel intense queer drama ‘Half Man’
Barney Frank, a hero of mine
Your guide to D.C. region’s many Pride celebrations
Diverse cast tackles ‘Aguardiente’ at GALA Hispanic Theatre
Under new extremism laws, LGBTQ Russians must fight to survive
New books reveal style trends for a more enlightened century
How do you vote a child out of their future?
Gay ICE detainee freed after 150 days in detention
-
Theater4 days agoDiverse cast tackles ‘Aguardiente’ at GALA Hispanic Theatre
-
Russia4 days ago
Under new extremism laws, LGBTQ Russians must fight to survive
-
Books4 days ago
New books reveal style trends for a more enlightened century
-
Commentary4 days ago
How do you vote a child out of their future?
