National
Obama, Clinton push int’l LGBT rights
Administration issues new strategy, as Sec’y of State speaks out
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
The Obama administration on Tuesday made public a sweeping plan to confront anti-LGBT abuses overseas as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered a high-profile speech on protecting human rights that made extensive references to LGBT rights abuses.
On Tuesday, President Obama issued what’s being called the first-ever U.S. government strategy to address LGBT human rights overseas in the form of a memo to the heads of government departments and agencies.
In the memo, Obama writes that the fight to end discrimination against LGBT people is “a global challenge” and “central to the United States’ commitment to promoting human rights.”
“I am deeply concerned by the violence and discrimination targeting LGBT persons around the world — whether it is passing laws that criminalize LGBT status, beating citizens simply for joining peaceful LGBT pride celebrations, or killing men, women, and children for their perceived sexual orientation,” Obama said.
MORE IN THE BLADE: ANTI-HOMOPHOBIA CANDIDATE TO RETURN AS FIRST FEMALE PRIME MINISTER OF JAMAICA
The memo articulates six points in the new strategy to combat LGBT human rights abuses.
* U.S. agencies overseas are directed to strengthen efforts to combat the criminalization by foreign governments of LGBT status or conduct in addition to expanding efforts to combat discrimination overseas on this basis.
* The Departments of State and Homeland Security are directed to ensure LGBT people seeking asylum in the United States have equal access to protection and assistance. Additionally, the Departments of State, Justice and Homeland Security are to ensure appropriate training is in place for government personnel to help LGBT refugees and asylum seekers.
* U.S. foreign aid agencies are directed to engage regularly with governments, citizens, civil society and the private sector to foster an awareness of LGBT human rights.
* The State Department is to lead a “standing group” geared toward ensuring swift response to serious incidents threatening the human rights of LGBT people overseas.
* U.S. agencies overseas are directed to work with international organizations to counter anti-LGBT discrimination and increase the number of countries willing to defend LGBT issues.
* U.S. agencies engaged abroad are required to prepare a report for the State Department within 180 days on their progress on these initiatives. The department will then compile a larger report for the president.
Joe Solmonese, president of the the Human Rights Campaign, praised the Obama administration for the new guidance in a statement.
“As Americans, we understand that no one should be made a criminal or subject to violence or even death because of who they are, no matter where they live,” Solmonese said. “Today’s actions by President Obama make clear that the United States will not turn a blind eye when governments commit or allow abuses to the human rights of LGBT people.”
Victoria Neilson, legal director for Immigration Equality, had particular praise for the added protections for LGBT people seeking asylum in the United States.
“Immigration Equality hears from more than 1,000 LGBT people a year who are fleeing persecution,” Neilson said. “Many face daunting challenges in escaping their home country, let alone reaching the shores of the United States. By instructing foreign service officers to offer all available assistance to those who seek their help, the White House is extending a helping hand to some of the world’s most vulnerable individuals.”
On the same day the memo was issued, Clinton spoke extensively about the need to incorporate LGBT people in human rights protections during remarks at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland.
The speech was in recognition of Human Rights Day, which recognizes the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on Dec. 10, 1948 by the U.N. General Assembly. More than 1,000 diplomats and experts were in attendance.
“Today, I want to talk about the work we have left to do to protect one group of people whose human rights are still denied in too many parts of the world today,” Clinton said. “In many ways, they are an invisible minority. They are arrested, beaten, terrorized, even executed. Many are treated with contempt and violence by their fellow citizens while authorities empowered to protect them look the other way — or too often, even join in the abuse. They are denied opportunities to work and learn, driven from their homes and countries and forced to suppress or deny who they are to protect themselves from harm. I am talking about gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people: human beings born free and given, bestowed equality and dignity who have a right to claim that, which is now one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time.”
Clinton acknowledged that her “own country’s record on human rights for gay people is far from perfect.” She noted that being gay was still a crime in many parts of the country until 2003, when the Supreme Court struck down state sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas.
“Many LGBT Americans have endured violence and harassment in their own lives, and for some, including many young people, bullying and exclusion are daily experiences,” Clinton said. “So we, like all nations, have more work to do to protect human rights at home.”
But the secretary also rejected the idea that homosexuality is a Western creation and people outside of Western countries therefore have grounds to reject LGBT people.
“Well, in reality, gay people are born into and belong to every society in the world,” Clinton said. “They are all ages, all races, all faiths; they are doctors and teachers, farmers and bankers, soldiers and athletes; and whether we know it, or whether we acknowledge it, they are our family, our friends, and our neighbors.”
Clinton said those who first crafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights may not in 1948 have realized the document applied to LGBT people, but said many of the countries involved in its crafting have come to the realization that — as Clinton has articulated before — gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.
“It is violation of human rights when people are beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation, or because they do not conform to cultural norms about how men and women should look or behave,” Clinton said. “It is a violation of human rights when governments declare it illegal to be gay, or allow those who harm gay people to go unpunished. It is a violation of human rights when lesbian or transgendered women are subjected to so-called corrective rape, or forcibly subjected to hormone treatments, or when people are murdered after public calls for violence toward gays, or when they are forced to flee their nations and seek asylum in other lands to save their lives.”
Clinton also announced the creation of a Global Equality Fund that will support the work of civil society organizations working on LGBT human rights issues around the world. The secretary said the U.S. government has already committed more than $3 million to start this fund.
During a conference call with reporters after the speech, a senior State Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights & Labor made grants to organizations in the past, but the Global Equality Fund will “make permanent, or bolster the efforts to support civil society organizations around the world.”
The official said organizations seeking to conduct work in the 80 countries where same-sex relations are criminalized “would be priority areas” for grant money under the fund.
Advocates hailed Clinton for her speech and called it a strong signal the United States is activel;y pushing for an end to LGBT rights abuses overseas. According to HRC, Solmonese met with Clinton in Geneva prior to her speech.
Mark Bromley, chair of the Council for Global Equality, was also in attendance and said Clinton gave a “remarkable speech” that received a standing ovation.
“For us, I think the real question was to set the proper tone to be respectful and to recognize that this is a difficult conversation for many conservative countries, but to also to be very firm in stating unequivocally that this is a human rights priority and a U.S. foreign policy priority,” Bromley said.
Bromley added Clinton struck an appropriate balance by saying she delivered her address with “respect, understanding, and humility” while maintaining the importance of LGBT rights as a priority.
Justin Nelson, president of the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, was also a witness to Clinton’s remarks and called them “monumental” and “historic.”
“It’s such a strong statement that LGBT rights are human rights and human rights are LGBT rights, and that’s American foreign policy,” Nelson said. “It sends a very strong message that people all over the world know that they have an ally in America.”
Bromley said representatives from some countries didn’t stand after the remarks despite the state ovation, but he couldn’t identify who these people were or they countries from which they hailed.
“With most countries represented at some level, and 80 countries that continue to criminalize consensual same-sex relations, there were some that, obviously, would have a difficult time fully understanding the speech,” Bromley said. “But at the same time, I think, the vast majority of audience really reacted enthusiastically and understood it to be a balanced, respective but firm statement of U.S. foreign policy.”
The senior State Department official said 95 percent of the audience was standing after Clinton’s remarks and there was a “sustained standing ovation.”
“I think part of that is attributable to the fact that she came not to wag a finger, but to really invite a conversation,” Clinton said. “I think the audience felt the spirit of respect, and also the spirit of hopefulness that she brought to the speech.”
In the aftermath of the speech, questions linger on whether the Obama administration can truly be support LGBT rights abroad when neither Obama nor Clinton have yet to express support for marriage rights for gay couples at home.
Asked if by advocating for LGBT rights abroad overseas the Obama administration is now in favor of marriage equality, the senior State Department official responded, “I think the secretary and the president have both spoken about their personal views on marriage. I think that one of things that comes up a lot in the international context is that — as in America and elsewhere — there is an ongoing debate about gay marriage. But whatever our position on gay marriage, I think one of the things that many of us have been finding an agreement on is the fact that no matter what you think about that question, we can all agree that people ought not be killed or imprisoned for who are they are and who they love.”
Watch the video of Clinton’s speech here:
National
US bishops ban gender-affirming care at Catholic hospitals
Directive adopted during meeting in Baltimore.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops this week adopted a directive that bans Catholic hospitals from offering gender-affirming care to their patients.
Since ‘creation is prior to us and must be received as a gift,’ we have a duty ‘to protect our humanity,’ which means first of all, ‘accepting it and respecting it as it was created,’” reads the directive the USCCB adopted during their meeting that is taking place this week in Baltimore.
The Washington Blade obtained a copy of it on Thursday.
“In order to respect the nature of the human person as a unity of body and soul, Catholic health care services must not provide or permit medical interventions, whether surgical, hormonal, or genetic, that aim not to restore but rather to alter the fundamental order of the human body in its form or function,” reads the directive. “This includes, for example, some forms of genetic engineering whose purpose is not medical treatment, as well as interventions that aim to transform sexual characteristics of a human body into those of the opposite sex (or to nullify sexual characteristics of a human body.)”
“In accord with the mission of Catholic health care, which includes serving those who are vulnerable, Catholic health care services and providers ‘must employ all appropriate resources to mitigate the suffering of those who experience gender incongruence or gender dysphoria’ and to provide for the full range of their health care needs, employing only those means that respect the fundamental order of the human body,” it adds.
The Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2024 condemned gender-affirming surgeries and “gender theory.” The USCCB directive comes against the backdrop of the Trump-Vance administration’s continued attacks against the trans community.
The U.S. Supreme Court in June upheld a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming medical interventions for minors.
Media reports earlier this month indicated the Trump-Vance administration will seek to prohibit Medicaid reimbursement for medical care to trans minors, and ban reimbursement through the Children’s Health Insurance Program for patients under 19. NPR also reported the White House is considering blocking all Medicaid and Medicare funding for hospitals that provide gender-affirming care to minors.
“The directives adopted by the USCCB will harm, not benefit transgender persons,” said Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, a Maryland-based LGBTQ Catholic organization, in a statement. “In a church called to synodal listening and dialogue, it is embarrassing, even shameful, that the bishops failed to consult transgender people, who have found that gender-affirming medical care has enhanced their lives and their relationship with God.”
President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed a bill that reopens the federal government.
Six Democrats — U.S. Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.), Adam Gray (D-Calif.), Don Davis (D-N.C.), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) — voted for the funding bill that passed in the U.S. House of Representatives. Two Republicans — Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Greg Steube (R-Fla.) — opposed it.
The 43-day shutdown is over after eight Democratic senators gave in to Republicans’ push to roll back parts of the Affordable Care Act. According to CNBC, the average ACA recipient could see premiums more than double in 2026, and about one in 10 enrollees could lose a premium tax credit altogether.
These eight senators — U.S. Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Angus King (I-Maine), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) — sided with Republicans to pass legislation reopening the government for a set number of days. They emphasized that their primary goal was to reopen the government, with discussions about ACA tax credits to continue afterward.
None of the senators who supported the deal are up for reelection.
King said on Sunday night that the Senate deal represents “a victory” because it gives Democrats “an opportunity” to extend ACA tax credits, now that Senate Republican leaders have agreed to hold a vote on the issue in December. (The House has not made any similar commitment.)
The government’s reopening also brought a win for Democrats’ other priorities: Arizona Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva was sworn in after a record-breaking delay in swearing in, eventually becoming the 218th signer of a discharge petition to release the Epstein files.
This story is being updated as more information becomes available.
U.S. Military/Pentagon
Serving America, facing expulsion: Fight for trans inclusion continues on Veterans Day
Advocates sue to reverse Trump ban while service members cope with new struggles
President Trump signed EO 14183, titled “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” on Jan. 27, directing the Department of Defense (DoD) to adopt policies that would prohibit transgender, nonbinary, and gender-nonconforming people from serving in the military.
The Trump-Vance administration’s policy shift redefines the qualifications for military service, asserting that transgender people are inherently incapable of meeting the military’s “high standards of readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity,” citing a history or signs of gender dysphoria. According to the DoD, this creates “medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on [an] individual.” Regardless of their physical or intellectual capabilities, transgender applicants are now considered less qualified than their cisgender peers.
On Jan. 28, 2025, GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) Law and the National Center for LGBTQ Rights (NCLR) filed Talbott v. Trump, a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the executive order. Originally filed on equal protection grounds on behalf of six active service members and two individuals seeking enlistment, the case has since grown to include 12 additional plaintiffs.
The Washington Blade spoke exclusively with Second Lt. Nicolas (Nic) Talbott, U.S. Army, a plaintiff in the case, and with Jennifer Levi, Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights at GLAD Law, who is leading the litigation.
For Talbott, serving in the military has been a lifelong aspiration, one he pursued despite the barriers posed by discriminatory policies.
“Being transgender posed quite the obstacle to me achieving that dream,” Talbott told the Blade. “Not because it [being trans] had any bearing on my ability to become a soldier and meet the requirements of a United States soldier, but simply because of the policy changes that we’ve been facing as transgender service members throughout the course of the past decade… My being transgender had nothing to do with anything that I was doing as a soldier.”
This drive was fueled by early life experiences, including the impact of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, which shaped his desire to protect his country.
“Even for an eight-year-old kid, [9/11] has a tremendous amount of impact… I remember thinking, you know, this is a terrible thing. Me, and when I grow up, I want to make sure nothing like this ever happens again,” he said. “I’ve still tried to gear my life in a way that I can be preparing myself to eventually help accomplish that mission of keeping America safe from anything like that ever happening again.”
The attacks inspired countless Americans to enlist; according to the New York City government, 181,510 joined active duty and 72,908 enlisted in the reserves in the year following 9/11. Although Talbott was too young to serve at the time, the events deeply influenced his educational and career path.
“For me, [9/11] just kind of helped shape my future and set me on the path that I’m currently on today,” he added. “It ignited my passion for the field, and it’s something that you know, I’ve carried with me into my adult life, into my professional life, and that I hope to have a career in the future.”
Talbott holds a master’s degree in criminology with a focus on counterterrorism and global security, and while completing his degree, he gained practical experience working with the Transportation Security Administration.
Despite the public scrutiny surrounding the lawsuit and the ongoing uncertainty of his military future, Talbott remains grounded in the values that define military service.
“Being so public about my involvement with this lawsuit grants me the very unique opportunity to continue to exemplify those values,” Talbott said. “I’m in a very privileged spot where I can speak relatively openly about this experience and what I’m doing. It’s very empowering to be able to stand up, not only for myself, but for the other transgender service members out there who have done nothing but serve with honor and dignity and bravery.”
The ban has created significant uncertainty for transgender service members, who now face the possibility of separation solely because of their gender identity.
“With this ban… we are all [trans military members] on track to be separated from the military. So it’s such a great deal of uncertainty… I’m stuck waiting, not knowing what tomorrow might bring. I could receive a phone call any day stating that the separation process has been initiated.”
While the Department of Defense specifies that most service members will receive an honorable discharge, the policy allows for a lower characterization if a review deems it warranted. Compensation and benefits differ depending on whether service members opt for voluntary or involuntary separation. Voluntary separation comes with full separation pay and no obligation to repay bonuses, while involuntary separation carries lower pay, potential repayment of bonuses, and uncertain success in discharge review processes.
Healthcare coverage through TRICARE continues for 180 days post-discharge, but reduced benefits, including VA eligibility, remain a concern. Those with 18–20 years of service may qualify for early retirement, though even this is not guaranteed under the policy.
Talbott emphasized the personal and professional toll of the ban, reflecting on the fairness and capability of transgender service members.
“Quite frankly, the evidence that we have at hand points in the complete opposite direction… there are no documented cases that I’m aware of of a transgender person having a negative impact on unit cohesion simply by being transgender… Being transgender is just another one of those walks of life.”
“When we’re losing thousands of those qualified, experienced individuals… those are seats that are not just going to be able to be filled by anybody … military training that’s not going to be able to be replaced for years and years to come.”
Talbott also highlighted the unique discipline, dedication, and value of diversity that transgender service members bring—especially in identifying problems and finding solutions, regardless of what others think or say. That, he explained, was part of his journey of self-discovery and a key reason he wants to continue serving despite harsh words of disapproval from the men leading the executive branch.
“Being transgender is not some sad thing that people go through… This is something that has taken years and years and years of dedication and discipline and research and ups and downs to get to the point where I am today… my ability to transition was essential to getting me to that point where I am today.”
He sees that as an asset rather than a liability. By having a more diverse, well-rounded group of people, the military can view challenges from perspectives that would otherwise be overlooked. That ability to look at things in a fresh way, he explained, can transform a good service member into a great one.
“I think the more diverse our military is, the stronger our military is… We need people from all different experiences and all different perspectives, because somebody is going to see that challenge or that problem in a way that I would never even think of… and that is what we need more of in the U.S. military.”
Beyond operational effectiveness, Talbott emphasized the social impact of visibility and leadership within the ranks. Fellow soldiers often approached him for guidance, seeing him as a trusted resource because of his transgender status.
“I can think of several instances in which I have been approached by fellow soldiers… I feel like you are a person I can come to if I have a problem with X, Y or Z… some people take my transgender status and designate me as a safe person, so to speak.”
With the arrival of Veterans Day, the Blade asked what he wishes the public knew about the sacrifices of transgender service members. His answer was modest.
“Every person who puts on the uniform is expected to make a tremendous amount of sacrifice,” Talbott said. “Who I am under this uniform should have no bearing on that… We shouldn’t be picking and choosing which veterans are worthy of our thanks on that day.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights, also spoke with the Blade and outlined the legal and human consequences of the ban. This is not Levi’s first time challenging the executive branch on transgender rights; she led the legal fight against the first Trump administration’s military ban in both Doe v. Trump and Stockman v. Trump.
Levi characterized the policy as overtly cruel and legally indefensible.
“This policy and its rollout is even more cruel than the first in a number of ways,” Levi explained. “For one, the policy itself says that transgender people are dishonest, untrustworthy and undisciplined, which is deeply offensive and degrading and demeaning.”
She highlighted procedural abuses and punitive measures embedded in the policy compared to the 2017 ban.
“In the first round the military allowed transgender people to continue to serve… In this round the military policy purge seeks to purge every transgender person from military service, and it also proposes to do it in a very cruel and brutal way, which is to put people through a process… traditionally reserved for kicking people out of the military who engaged in misconduct.”
Levi cited multiple examples of discrimination, including the revocation of authorized retirements and administrative barriers to hearings.
She also explained that the administration’s cost argument is flawed, as removing and replacing transgender service members is more expensive than retaining them.
“There’s no legitimate justification relating to cost… it is far more expensive to both purge the military of people who are serving and also to replace people… than to provide the minuscule amount of costs for medications other service members routinely get.”
On legal grounds, Levi noted the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause.
“The Equal Protection Clause prevents laws that are intended to harm a group of people… The doctrine is rooted in animus, which means a bare desire to harm a group is not even a legitimate governmental justification.”
When asked what she wishes people knew about Talbott and other targeted transgender military members, Levi emphasized their extraordinary service.
“The plaintiffs that I represent are extraordinary… They have 260 years of committed service to this country… I have confidence that ultimately, this baseless ban should not be able to legally survive.”
Other organizations have weighed in on Talbott v. Trump and similar lawsuits targeting transgender service members.
Human Rights Campaign Foundation President Kelley Robinson criticized the ban’s impact on military readiness and highlighted the counterintuitive nature of removing some of the country’s most qualified service members.
“Transgender servicemembers serve their country valiantly, with the same commitment, the same adherence to military standards and the same love of country as any of their counterparts,” Robinson said. “This ban by the Trump administration, which has already stripped transgender servicemembers of their jobs, is cruel, unpatriotic, and compromises the unity and quality of our armed forces.”
Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Sasha Buchert echoed the legal and moral imperative to reverse the policy.
“Every day this discriminatory ban remains in effect, qualified patriots face the threat of being kicked out of the military,” she said. “The evidence is overwhelming that this policy is driven by animus rather than military necessity… We are confident the court will see through this discriminatory ban and restore the injunction that should never have been lifted.”
US bishops ban gender-affirming care at Catholic hospitals
Pro-trans candidates triumph despite millions in transphobic ads
Federal government reopens
Sydney Sweeney embodies lesbian boxer in new film ‘Christy’
Democratic Socialism won’t win the whole country
Supreme Court rejects Kim Davis’s effort to overturn landmark marriage ruling
Capital Pride files anti-stalking complaint against local LGBTQ activist
Pro-trans candidates triumph despite millions in transphobic ads
Spark Social House to start serving alcohol
Turks and Caicos government ordered to recognize gay couple’s marriage
-
U.S. Supreme Court4 days agoSupreme Court rejects Kim Davis’s effort to overturn landmark marriage ruling
-
District of Columbia4 days ago
Capital Pride files anti-stalking complaint against local LGBTQ activist
-
Politics22 hours ago
Pro-trans candidates triumph despite millions in transphobic ads
-
Dining4 days ago
Spark Social House to start serving alcohol
