Connect with us

National

House GOP seeks to delay end to ‘Don’t Ask’

Letter condemned as last-ditch effort to block open service

Published

on

Rep. Buck McKeon (Blade file photo by Joey Diguglielmo)

Senior Republicans on a House defense committee are seeking to delay the end of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” on the basis that Congress hasn’t had an adequate opportunity to review the regulatory changes resulting from the end of the policy — a request the Pentagon has rebuffed.

House Armed Services Committee Chair Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) and House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee Chair Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) write in a Sept. 12 letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta that an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — which is set for Tuesday — should be placed on hold because information on the new policy hasn’t been sufficiently available to Congress and the public.

Panetta — along with President Obama and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen — certified the U.S. military was ready for open service on July 22, starting the 60-day period for when “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will be removed from the books.

McKeon and Wilson contend they have requested, but not obtained, copies of the revised regulations that will take effect upon the end of the military’s gay ban.

“This failure to meet the committee’s requests leads us to conclude that decisions on the policies and regulations to implement repeal are not complete and that your certification and those of the others were inaccurate,” the Republicans write.

Additionally, McKeon and Wilson decry what they say is the lack of public availability of the new regulations resulting from the end of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The Republicans contend this lack of availability harms service members, including gay and lesbian troops.

“We find it unconscionable that the policies and regulations that provide the guidelines and procedures to be used by service members and their leaders to implement repeal, as well as to protect the interests of all service members, including gay and lesbian members, remain unpublished,” the Republicans write.

Finally, McKeon and Wilson also say the time isn’t now for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal because certain regulatory changes needed for implementation will have to undergo a review and comment period before they can be effective and this period is not scheduled to begin until Tuesday.

“The need for review and comment before these regulations and policies can be effective directly contravenes the July 22 certifications,” the Republicans write. “The Department is not ready to implement the repeal because all the policies and regulations necessary for the transition are not yet final.”

Consequently, the Republicans urge Panetta to hold off on ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” until after Tuesday and these issues are addressed.

“We believe it is essential that you take immediate action to delay the implementation of repeal until such time that the review and comment period is completed, that DOD has incorporated the changes suggested during that comment period, and that the appropriate regulations needed to implement repeal have been distributed to and are understood by the leaders and key personnel in the field,” McKeon and Wilson write.

But the Defense Department is disputing these assertions and says an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will take place as planned on Tuesday.

“The repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell will occur, in accordance with the law and after a rigorous certification process, on Sept. 20,” a Pentagon spokesperson said. “Senior Department of Defense officials have advised Congress of changes to regulations and policies associated with repeal. We take that obligation seriously.”

The spokesperson said top Defense Department officials, including the Pentagon’s general counsel, have already met with House Armed Services Committee staff and shared the proposed revisions to the regulations and new policies that will be issued.

Since legislation was signed in December to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” more than 2 million troops have participated in training to prepare for open service and what is expected in a post-repeal environment.

A senior defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the military service secretaries, service chiefs, and combatant commanders submitted their recommendations months ago, and none suggested repeal be postponed.

LGBT advocates were quick to condemn the Republican letter as a last-ditch attempt to stall the inevitable end of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said the GOP letter is “another example of the hardcore opposition attempting to delay or undo ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal.”

“I expect they will continue to look for openings to deny gay and lesbian service members the same rights and dignity as their straight counterparts,” Sarvis said.

Further, Sarvis said McKeon and Wilson are “simply wrong” in their assertion that new regulations haven’t been prepared within an appropriate manner.

“The statute only requires that the new regulations be prepared – not issued – before certification,” Sarvis said.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, called the letter a “desperate move by extremist House members” to continue discrimination against gay service members.

“Wide majorities of Americans support allowing gay and lesbians to serve openly,” Solmonese said. “It is time to finally end this discriminatory law, and moves to stall will be seen by Americans for what they are – homophobic attempts to prevent the military from continuing down the path of full equality.”

NOTE: This article has been updated.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

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

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

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.

Continue Reading

National

Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information

Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources

Published

on

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is named as a defendant in the lawsuit. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

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.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections

Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent

Published

on

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Screen capture: YouTube)

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.

Continue Reading

Popular