National
Reporters grill Carney over ENDA exec order
White House says Obama committed to legislative approach
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney maintained the Obama administration is committed to passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act as reporters pummeled him Thursday with sharp questions on the administration’s decision not to issue an executive order prohibiting anti-LGBT bias in the workplace.
The questioning, which was initiated by NBC News’ Kristen Welker, began with an inquiry on why Obama won’t issue an executive order barring federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT people
“The president is dedicated to securing equal rights for all LGBT Americans,” Carney said. “And that is why he has long supported an inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act which would prohibit employers across the country from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The president is committed to lasting and comprehensive non-discrimination protections, and we plan to pursue a number of strategies to attain that goal.”
Carney said that pursuing a legislative solution to the problem is similar to the approach that the White House took with repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“And as it did then, our approach to this piece of legislation demonstrates the president’s very firm and strong commitment to non-discrimination and to securing equal rights for all Americans,” Carney said.
In a high-level White House meeting on Wednesday, LGBT advocates were informed the White House wouldn’t issue at this time an executive order against LGBT workplace discrimination. Multiple sources have said the Labor and Justice Departments have cleared the measure and it was awaiting action at the White House.
Carney said a political calculation was “absolutely not” involved in the administration’s decision not to issue the executive order.
“The president is committed to securing equal rights for LGBT Americans and that is why he has long supported ENDA,” Carney said. “I think the president’s record on LGBT issues speaks volumes about his commitment to securing equal rights for LGBT Americans. The approach we’re taking at this time is to try to build support for passage of this legislation, a comprehensive approach to legislate on the issue of non-discrimination.”
Asked by the Washington Blade whether the administration’s decision not to issue the order “at this time” opens the possibility for taking action at a later date, Carney demurred.
“We don’t talk about executive orders that may or may not be under consideration,” Carney said. “In this case, I can tell you that at this time we are not considering such an executive order. We are, however, actively working with stakeholders to build support for passage through Congress of a piece of legislation that would be far more comprehensive than an executive order.”
While Obama pursued legislation to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” his administration twice limited the discharge authority to ease the burden on gay service members and make it more difficult to expel service members under the law.
When the Blade pointed this out during the briefing, Carney said the situations were different.
“It is a separate statement of action and fact,” Carney said. “We are not approaching this at this time through executive authority, through an executive order. We are, however — in another demonstration of the president’s firm commitment to securing equal rights for the LGBT community — aggressively pursuing passage of ENDA. And that requires working with stakeholders and building a body of persuasive evidence that this is the right thing to do. And that is what we’re committed to doing.”
A transcript of the exchange follows:
NBC News: Jay, the president has decided at this moment not to sign an executive order that would ban workplace discrimination by any federal contractor on the basis of sexual orientation. Based on the fact that the president has made past statements saying that he supports non-discrimination policies in the workplace, why not sign this executive order?
Jay Carney: Thank you for the question. The president is dedicated to securing equal rights for all LGBT Americans. And that is why he has long supported an inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act which would prohibit employers across the country from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The president is committed to lasting and comprehensive non-discrimination protections, and we plan to pursue a number of strategies to attain that goal. Our hope is these efforts will result in the passage of ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which is a legislative solution to LGBT employment discrimination.
And I would make the comparison here that pursuing that strategy, the passage of ENDA, is very similar to the approach the president took for the legislative repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
NBC News: Can you make the distinction between ENDA and signing this executive order? In other words, if he does support ENDA, why not sign this executive order, which relates to a smaller part of the population and get that policy started?
Carney: Again, I think that the DADT repeal is instructive here in terms of the approach that we’re taking at this time. And while it is not our usual practice to discuss executive orders that may or may not be under consideration, we do not expect that an EO on LGBT non-discrimination for federal contractors will be issued at this time. We support, as I just said, legislation that has been introduced — the Employment Non-Discrimination Act — and we will continue to work with congressional supporters to build — sponsors, rather, to build support for it.
We’re deeply committed to working hand-in-hand with partners in the LGBT community on a number of fronts to build the case for employment non-discrimination policies including by complementing the existing body of compelling research with government-backed data and analysis, building a coalition of key stakeholders and decision-makers, directly engaging with and educating all sectors of the business community — from major corporations to contractors to small business — and raising public awareness about the human and financial costs of discrimination in the work force.
NBC News: Tico Almeida, who’s the president of Freedom to Work, has issued a statement saying, “This is a political calculation that cannot stand.” Is this a political calculation?
Carney: Absolutely not. The president is committed to securing equal rights for LGBT Americans and that is why he has long supported ENDA. I think the president’s record on LGBT issues speaks volumes about his commitment to securing equal rights for LGBT Americans. The approach we’re taking at this time is to try to build support for passage of this legislation, a comprehensive approach to legislate on the issue of non-discrimination.
And I think, again, the approach that we took in bringing about the repeal — working with Congress to bring about the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is instructive here. And as it did then, our approach to this piece of legislation demonstrates the president’s very firm and strong commitment to non-discrimination and to securing equal rights for all Americans.
Washington Blade: Jay, if it’s not going to happen at this time is there some sort of commitment to issue an executive order at a later time?
Carney: Well, I’m simply saying that our approach is to focus on trying to build and expand support for passage of ENDA. That is our support. In terms of, again — as a rule — and we try to stick to it here — we don’t talk about executive orders that may or may not be under consideration. In this case, I can tell you that at this time we are not considering such an executive order. We are, however, actively working with stakeholders to build support for passage through Congress of a piece of legislation that would be far more comprehensive than an executive order.
…
Blade: It’s highly unlikely that the Congress will pass it given its current makeup. And the President has issued numerous executive orders under the theme “We Can’t Wait” because Congress has been unable to pass job legislation. Why is the President making this distinction with this LGBT jobs issue?
Carney: We believe that this is the right approach to achieve success here in a broad and comprehensive legislative action. And at this time, we’re not considering as a part of that an executive order.
Now, there are executive orders that this president has signed and there are executive orders, either real or imagined, that the president has not acted on, and that’s because we look at each issue and we decide on a strategy that we think makes the most sense to achieving the president’s policy objectives.
…
Blade: I have to correct you on how you said that the president legislatively repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” While that’s true, he twice took administrative action to limit discharge authority before that repeal legislation was passed. So to say that you need to have legislation and go without administrative action first is not true.
Carney: Well, that’s actually not a correction, Chris. It is a separate statement of action and fact. We are not approaching this at this time through executive authority, through an executive order. We are, however — in another demonstration of the president’s firm commitment to securing equal rights for the LGBT community — aggressively pursuing passage of ENDA. And that requires working with stakeholders and building a body of persuasive evidence that this is the right thing to do. And that is what we’re committed to doing.
Watch the video here (via Think Progress)
State Department
Rubio mum on Hungary’s Pride ban
Lawmakers on April 30 urged secretary of state to condemn anti-LGBTQ bill, constitutional amendment
More than 20 members of Congress have urged Secretary of State Marco Rubio to publicly condemn a Hungarian law that bans Pride events.
California Congressman Mark Takano, a Democrat who co-chairs the Congressional Equality Caucus, and U.S. Rep. Bill Keating (D-Mass.), who is the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Europe Subcommittee, spearheaded the letter that lawmakers sent to Rubio on April 30.
Hungarian lawmakers in March passed a bill that bans Pride events and allow authorities to use facial recognition technology to identify those who participate in them. MPs last month amended the Hungarian constitution to ban public LGBTQ events.
“As a NATO ally which hosts U.S. service members, we expect the Hungarian government to abide by certain values which underpin the historic U.S.-Hungary bilateral relationship,” reads the letter. “Unfortunately, this new legislation and constitutional amendment disproportionately and arbitrarily target sexual and gender minorities.”
Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government over the last decade has moved to curtail LGBTQ and intersex rights in Hungary.
A law that bans legal recognition of transgender and intersex people took effect in 2020. Hungarian MPs that year also effectively banned same-sex couples from adopting children and defined marriage in the constitution as between a man and a woman.
An anti-LGBTQ propaganda law took effect in 2021. The European Commission sued Hungary, which is a member of the European Union, over it.
MPs in 2023 approved the “snitch on your gay neighbor” bill that would have allowed Hungarians to anonymously report same-sex couples who are raising children. The Budapest Metropolitan Government Office in 2023 fined Lira Konyv, the country’s second-largest bookstore chain, 12 million forints ($33,733.67), for selling copies of British author Alice Oseman’s “Heartstopper.”
Former U.S. Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman, who is gay, participated in the Budapest Pride march in 2024 and 2023. Pressman was also a vocal critic of Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ crackdown.
“Along with years of democratic backsliding in Hungary, it flies in the face of those values and the passage of this legislation deserves quick and decisive criticism and action in response by the Department of State,” reads the letter, referring to the Pride ban and constitutional amendment against public LGBTQ events. “Therefore, we strongly urge you to publicly condemn this legislation and constitutional change which targets the LGBTQ community and undermines the rights of Hungarians to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.”
U.S. Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Sarah McBride (D-Del.), Jim Costa (D-Calif.), James McGovern (D-Mass.), Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Julie Johnson (D-Texas), Ami Bera (D-Calif.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Gabe Amo (D-R.I.), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Dina Titus (D-Nev.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) signed the letter alongside Takano and Keating.
A State Department spokesperson on Wednesday declined to comment.
Federal Government
HRC memo details threats to LGBTQ community in Trump budget
‘It’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives’
A memo issued Monday by the Human Rights Campaign details threats to LGBTQ people from the “skinny” budget proposal issued by President Donald Trump on May 2.
HRC estimates the total cost of “funding cuts, program eliminations, and policy changes” impacting the community will exceed approximately $2.6 billion.
Matthew Rose, the organization’s senior public policy advocate, said in a statement that “This budget is more than cuts on a page—it’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives.”
“Trump is taking away life-saving healthcare, support for LGBTQ-owned businesses, protections against hate crimes, and even housing help for people living with HIV,” he said. “Stripping away more than $2 billion in support sends one clear message: we don’t matter. But we’ve fought back before, and we’ll do it again—we’re not going anywhere.”
Proposed rollbacks or changes at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will target the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, other programs related to STI prevention, viral hepatitis, and HIV, initiatives housed under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and research by the National Institutes of Health and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Other agencies whose work on behalf of LGBTQ populations would be jeopardized or eliminated under Trump’s budget include the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Department of Education.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
Litigation challenging the policy continues in the 9th Circuit
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump-Vance administration to enforce a ban on transgender personnel serving in the U.S. Armed Forces pending the outcome of litigation challenging the policy.
The brief order staying a March 27 preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington notes the dissents from liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
On the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump issued an executive order requiring Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to effectuate a ban against transgender individuals, going further than efforts under his first administration — which did not target those currently serving.
The DoD’s Feb. 26 ban argued that “the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.”
The case challenging the Pentagon’s policy is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The lead plaintiff is U.S. Navy Commander Emily Shilling, who is joined in the litigation by other current transgender members of the armed forces, one transgender person who would like to join, and a nonprofit whose members either are transgender troops or would like to be.
Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, both representing the plaintiffs, issued a statement Tuesday in response to the Supreme Court’s decision:
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a devastating blow to transgender servicemembers who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation’s defense.
“By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the Court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice.
“Transgender individuals meet the same standards and demonstrate the same values as all who serve. We remain steadfast in our belief that this ban violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and will ultimately be struck down.”
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer noted that courts must show “substantial deference” to DoD decision making on military issues.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the military ban to go into effect is devastating for the thousands of qualified transgender servicemembers who have met the standards and are serving honorably, putting their lives on the line for their country every single day,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “Today’s decision only adds to the chaos and destruction caused by this administration. It’s not the end of the case, but the havoc it will wreak is devastating and irreparable. History will confirm the weight of the injustice done today.”
“The Court has upended the lives of thousands of servicemembers without even the decency of explaining why,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “As a result of this decision, reached without benefit of full briefing or argument, brave troops who have dedicated their lives to the service of our country will be targeted and forced into harsh administrative separation process usually reserved for misconduct. They have proven themselves time and time again and met the same standards as every other soldier, deploying in critical positions around the globe. This is a deeply sad day for our country.”
Levi and Minter are the lead attorneys in the first two transgender military ban cases to be heard in federal court, Talbott v. Trump and Ireland v. Hegseth.
U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) issued a statement on behalf of the Congressional Equality Caucus, where he serves as chair.
“By lifting the lower court’s preliminary injunction and allowing Trump to enforce his trans troop ban as litigation continues, the Supreme Court is causing real harm to brave Americans who simply want to serve their nation in uniform.
“The difference between Donald Trump, a draft dodger, and the countless brave Americans serving their country who just happen to be trans couldn’t be starker. Let me be clear: Trump’s ban isn’t going to make our country safer—it will needlessly create gaps in critical chains of military command and actively undermine our national security.
“The Supreme Court was absolutely wrong to allow this ban to take effect. I hope that lower courts move swiftly so this ban can ultimately be struck down.”
SPARTA Pride also issued a statement:
“The Roberts Court’s decision staying the preliminary injunction will allow the Trump purge of transgender service members from the military to proceed.
“Transgender Americans have served openly, honorably, and effectively in the U.S. Armed Forces for nearly a decade. Thousands of transgender troops are currently serving, and are fully qualified for the positions in which they serve.
“Every court up to now has found that this order is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the Roberts Court – without hearing any evidence or argument – decided to allow it to go forward. So while the case continues to be argued, thousands of trans troops will be purged from the Armed Forces.
“They will lose their jobs. They will lose their commands, their promotions, their training, pay and benefits, and time. Their units will lose key players; the mission will be disrupted. This is the very definition of irreparable harm.”
Imara Jones, CEO of TransLash Media, issued the following statement:
“The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Trump’s ban on transgender soldiers in the military, even as the judicial process works its way through the overall question of service, signals that open discrimination against trans people is fair game across American society.
“It will allow the Trump Administration to further advance its larger goal of pushing trans people from mainstream society by discharging transgender military members who are currently serving their country, even at a time when the military has struggled recently to meet its recruiting goals.
“But even more than this, all of my reporting tells me that this is a further slide down the mountain towards authoritarianism. The hard truth is that governments with authoritarian ambitions have to separate citizens between who is worthy of protection and who’s not. Trans people are clearly in the later category. And this separation justifies the authoritarian quest for more and more power. This appears to be what we are witnessing here and targeting trans people in the military is just a means to an end.”
No olvidar el 11 de mayo
Blade names Delaware journalism fellowship recipient
Impact of federal gov’t RIF on D.C.’s rental market
A trip ‘through media, memory to examine cultural imperialism’
My chance encounter with a pope and why goodness still matters
American cardinal chosen as next pope
Your guide to the many Pride celebrations in D.C. region
Gideon Glick steals the show in Amazon Prime’s ‘Étoile’
Council must approve new Commanders stadium deal
