National
Advocates still pushing Obama on exec order
Mixed views on whether White House will change course
Tico Almeida, executive director of Freedom to work, said he’s hopeful that President obama will change course and sign an executive order barring workplace discrimination against LGBT employees of federal contractors. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
LGBT advocates and lawmakers on Capitol Hill continue to press President Obama to issue an executive order barring LGBT workplace discrimination among federal contractors, despite the announcement that the directive won’t happen at this time.
Though the pressure continues, there are mixed views about whether a change of course is likely to happen during Obama’s first term.
A Senate Democratic aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said “more than one Democratic office” on Capitol Hill is pushing the White House to reconsider the decision not to issue the executive order, although the source wouldn’t identify which offices were speaking with the White House.
“There are ongoing discussions, and I think there’s going to be senator-level discussions,” the aide said.
Asked what the response has been from the administration, the aide said White House officials weren’t “too sympathetic to the notion that the president should issue the executive order,” but predicted pressure from Capitol Hill would “grow louder and louder.”
The aide said Obama could still issue the executive order before the end of this term, saying, “I think there’s more than enough wiggle room that the White House has left itself.”
Advocates were told on April 11 during a high-level White House meeting that Obama wouldn’t issue such a directive at this time and prefers to pursue passage of legislation to address the issue known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) criticized the White House publicly in a statement, and disappointment was echoed by Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), who circulated a letter among colleagues that urged Obama to sign the directive. Gay Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) said he wished the president “was a little more aggressive” in combatting workplace discrimination in an interview with Roll Call.
Several LGBT advocates echoed the feeling that the fight is not over on the executive order and that the administration could issue the directive before the year is out.
“It is my understanding from conversations with Hill staffers that their bosses are privately engaging the White House to explain to them the mistake that was made by delaying the executive order, and encouraging them to fix the mistake sooner rather than later,” said Tico Almeida, executive director of Freedom to Work.
Almeida said he’s engaged in meetings with White House staff and is proposing further discussions to address remaining concerns about the executive order. He plans to fly in from across the country LGBT victims of workplace discrimination to meet with senior officials and members of Congress.
“I’m optimistic that the White House staff will take this very seriously and I maintain some hope that President Obama will correct the mistake made by White House staff, who decided to delay the executive order,” Almeida said. “I maintain hope that the president will sign it in May or June.”
Jeff Krehely, vice president for LGBT programs at the Center for American Progress, said his organization continues to have conversations with White House officials and has exchanged documentation about the executive order following the April 11 meeting.
“There have definitely been a couple of conversations thinking through whether there’s a need for additional research of perspectives on the problem,” Krehely said. “From CAP’s perspective, we’ve been clear that we’ve all in the advocacy community done quite a bit of research, shown the magnitude of the problem, the legal authority the president has to act on an executive order. I think we’re just having a conversation about making sure that everybody in all the different places in the administration is fully aware of all the research that’s been done to date on the issue.”
Brad Sears, executive director of the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles, said his organization has taken part in meetings with administration officials on publicly available research the organization has showing businesses thrive when they have LGBT non-discrimination protections in place and that the executive order is legally sound.
“My impression from those meetings is the White House doesn’t have a question about either of those,” Sears said. “We believe that the policy research and the legal authority is there.”
According to a report published last week by the organization, 86 percent of all federal contractors protect against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and 55 percent on the basis of gender identity. The combined total means almost one-half of all federal contractors have LGBT protections, which amounts to more than $249 billion in federal spending.
Michael Cole-Schwartz, a spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, said his organization has joined in conversations with the White House on the executive order.
“Along with CAP and the Williams Institute, we are compiling all of our comprehensive materials for the White House that makes the case for this common-sense order,” Cole-Schwartz said. “While we continue to advocate for these workplace protections, we believe that the arguments have been ironclad even before we were informed that the White House would not be taking action at this time.”
A White House spokesperson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Krehely added he thinks there’s room for Obama to issue the executive order during his first term because White House officials didn’t deliver a hard “no” during the April 11 meeting, but rather said they weren’t issuing the order at this time.
But other LGBT advocates, who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity to be more forthcoming on their views, weren’t as optimistic and didn’t see a path for the executive order this year.
“They have doubled down on their strategy on the executive order,” one advocate said. “I don’t believe they will reverse their course. I think the EO is done until after the election.”
According to the source, the decision has implications for Obama’s 18-month long “evolution” on marriage.
“With respect to marriage, there are a lot of cards still to be played, like the convention and the ballot states,” the advocate said. “Unfortunately, the mood has turned dire in that if they didn’t let the EO proceed, it stands to reason that the president won’t announce a pro for marriage equality position before the election. I don’t know that for sure but it stands to reason.”
Another anonymous source who has an interest in building LGBT support for Obama in the election expressed a similar sentiment about the prospects for an executive order against workplace discrimination this term.
“The thing about executive orders is that he can issue them whenever he wants, but he’s not going to,” the source said. “In the meeting they made it very clear that they’re not going to do it.”
Another source with connections to the White House said political concerns played a role in the decision not to issue the executive order. According to the source, there are fears that issuing the order could give the impression that the White House is trying to bypass Congress and that such actions won’t play well in battleground states like Ohio, which could determine the outcome of the election.
In an interview with the Washington Blade last week, gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) expressed a similar sentiment.
“I understand there’s a lot on the plate politically,” Frank said. “And there are concerns now — not about LGBT issues — but there’s a whole developing argument about his being too much unilateral. I don’t know if you saw the article in the New York Times about too much unilateral executive order, and I think that had more to do with it than the LGBT specifics.”
But two sources expressed confidence that Obama would issue the executive order in a second term if Congress fails to act on ENDA.
“I’d be very surprised if he didn’t do this in a second term, and I’d be very surprised if he didn’t come out for marriage in a second term,” one source said.
Since the April 11 meeting, Obama endorsed legislation that aims to protect LGBT students from bullying, known as the Student Non-Discrimination Act and the Safe School Improvement Act. Additionally, the Blade has learned that the White House plans to host another Pride celebration during the month of June.
Even so, some LGBT organizations have pledged to continue pressing for the executive order.
Heather Cronk, managing director for GetEQUAL, said her organization has had positive reactions in meetings that supporters have had with various Obama campaign offices on LGBT workplace discrimination.
“What we’ve discovered through those campaign actions is a lot of the campaign staff agreed with us that the president, the candidate they’re working for, should sign the executive order,” Cronk said. “It was clear to us that we didn’t actually want to do too hard-hitting action at some of those offices because we were finding that the staff and volunteers agreed with us.”
Supporters at Obama campaign offices in Virginia, Los Angeles, Austin and Laramie, Wyo.,delivered pens to campaign officials — in case the president couldn’t find something to write with — in a symbolic action to encourage the president to sign the order.
Next on the agenda for GetEQUAL, Cronk said, will be actions “more theatrical in nature” to drive the point less to the Obama campaign offices and more to campaign headquarters.
“The pressure isn’t letting off,” Cronk said. “We still have our foot on the gas and we still think there’s an opportunity for President Obama to do the right thing, and we’ll keep escalating until we either get another response from the White House with a more definitive ‘no,’ or get an affirmative response from the White House and see an executive signing in the next month.”
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
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.
National
Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information
Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources
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.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent
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.
Adams Morgan queer bar broken into and vandalized
‘Things Like This’ embraces formula and plus-size visibility
Calendar: May 23-29
Comings & Goings
New doc chronicles gay hero’s journey from rape to forgiveness
Looking back at 50 years of Pride in D.C
WorldPride events round-up
Wes Moore signs HIV decriminalization bill
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
