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.”
The White House
EXCLUSIVE: Democracy Forward files FOIA lawsuit after HHS deadnames Rachel Levine
Trans former assistant health secretary’s name changed on official portrait
Democracy Forward, a national legal organization that works to advance democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education, and regulatory engagement, filed a lawsuit Friday in federal court seeking to compel the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to release information related to the alteration of former Assistant Secretary for Health Adm. Rachel Levine’s official portrait caption.
The lawsuit comes in response to the slow pace of HHS’s handling of multiple Freedom of Information Act requests — requests that federal law requires agencies to respond to within 20 working days. While responses can take longer due to backlogs, high request volumes, or the need for extensive searches or consultations, Democracy Forward says HHS has failed to provide any substantive response.
Democracy Forward’s four unanswered FOIA requests, and the subsequent lawsuit against HHS, come days after someone in the Trump-Vance administration changed Levine’s official portrait in the Hubert H. Humphrey Building to display her deadname — the name she used before transitioning and has not used since 2011.
According to Democracy Forward, HHS “refused to release any records related to its morally wrong and offensive effort to alter former Assistant Secretary for Health Admiral Rachel Levine’s official portrait caption.” Levine was the highest-ranking openly transgender government official in U.S. history and served as assistant secretary for health and as an admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps from 2021 to 2025.
Democracy Forward President Skye Perryman spoke about the need to hold the Trump-Vance administration accountable for every official action, especially those that harm some of the most targeted Americans, including trans people.
“The question every American should be asking remains: what is the Trump-Vance administration hiding? For an administration that touts its anti-transgender animus and behavior so publicly, its stonewalling and silence when it comes to the people’s right to see public records about who was behind this decision is deafening,” Perryman said.
“The government’s obligation of transparency doesn’t disappear because the information sought relates to a trailblazing former federal official who is transgender. It’s not complicated — the public is entitled to know who is making decisions — especially decisions that seek to alter facts and reality, erase the identity of a person, and affect the nation’s commitment to civil rights and human dignity.”
“HHS’s refusal to respond to these lawful requests raises more serious concerns about transparency and accountability,” Perryman added. “The public has every right to demand answers — to know who is behind this hateful act — and we are going to court to get them.”
The lawsuit also raises questions about whether the alteration violated federal accuracy and privacy requirements governing Levine’s name, and whether the agency improperly classified the change as an “excepted activity” during a lapse in appropriations. By failing to make any determination or produce any records, Democracy Forward argues, HHS has violated its obligations under federal law.
The case, Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The legal team includes Anisha Hindocha, Daniel McGrath, and Robin Thurston.
The Washington Blade reached out to HHS, but has not received any comment.
The lawsuit and four FOIA requests are below:
The White House
Empty seats, canceled shows plague Kennedy Center ahead of Trump renaming
It would take an act of Congress to officially rename the historic music venue, despite the Trump-appointed board’s decision.
The board of the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., voted to rename it the Trump-Kennedy Center, according to the White House Press Office.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced the decision in a post on X Thursday, thanking the president for his work on the cultural center “not only from the standpoint of its reconstruction, but also financially, and its reputation.”
Speaking to reporters later that day at the White House, Trump said he was “surprised” and “honored” by the board’s vote.
“This was brought up by one of the very distinguished board members, and they voted on it, and there’s a lot of board members, and they voted unanimously. So I was very honored,” he said.
Earlier this year, GOP Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho introduced an amendment that would have renamed the building after first lady Melania Trump, later saying she had not been aware of his efforts prior to the amendment’s public introduction.
Despite the board’s vote (made up of Trump-appointed loyalists), the original laws guiding the creation of the Kennedy Center during the Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations explicitly prohibit renaming the building. Any change to its name would require an act of Congress.
Trump has exerted increasing control over the center in recent months. In February, he abruptly fired members of the Kennedy Center’s board and installed himself as chair, writing in a Truth Social post at the time, “At my direction, we are going to make the Kennedy Center in Washington D.C., GREAT AGAIN.”
In that post, Trump specifically cited his disapproval of the center’s decision to host drag shows.
He later secured more than $250 million from the Republican-controlled Congress for renovations to the building.
Since Trump’s takeover, sales of subscription packages are said to have declined, and several touring productions — including “Hamilton” — have canceled planned runs at the venue. Rows of empty seats have also been visible in the Concert Hall during performances by the National Symphony Orchestra.
“The Kennedy Center Board has no authority to actually rename the Kennedy Center in the absence of legislative action,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters.
For decades, the Kennedy Center has hosted performances by LGBTQ artists and companies, including openly queer musicians, choreographers, and playwrights whose work helped push LGBTQ stories into the cultural mainstream. Those artists include the Gay Men’s Chorus of Washington, Harvey Fierstein, and Tennessee Williams.
In more recent years, the center has increasingly served as a space for LGBTQ visibility and acceptance, particularly through Pride-adjacent programming and partnerships.
That legacy was on display at this year’s opening production of Les Misérables, when four drag performers — Tara Hoot, Vagenesis, Mari Con Carne, and King Ricky Rosé — attended in representation of Qommittee, a volunteer network uniting drag artists to support and defend one another amid growing conservative attacks.
“We walked in together so we would have an opportunity to get a response,” said Tara Hoot, who has performed at the Kennedy Center in full drag before. “It was all applause, cheers, and whistles, and remarkably it was half empty. I think that was season ticket holders kind of making their message in a different way.”
The creation of the Kennedy Center is outlined in U.S. Code, which formally designates the institution as the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
As a result, it appears unlikely that Congress will come together to pass legislation allowing the historic venue to be renamed.
The White House
HHS to restrict gender-affirming care for minors
Directive stems from President Donald Trump’s Jan. 28 executive order
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced Thursday that it will pursue regulatory changes that would make gender-affirming healthcare for transgender children more difficult, if not impossible, to access.
The shift in federal healthcare policy stems directly from President Donald Trump’s Jan. 28 executive order, Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation, which formally establishes U.S. opposition to gender-affirming care and pledges to end federal funding for such treatments.
The executive order outlines a broader effort to align HHS with the Trump–Vance administration’s policy goals and executive actions. Those actions include defunding medical institutions that provide gender-affirming care to minors by restricting federal research and education grants, withdrawing the 2022 HHS guidance supporting gender-affirming care, requiring TRICARE and federal employee health plans to exclude coverage for gender-affirming treatments for minors, and directing the Justice Department to prioritize investigations and enforcement related to such care.
HHS has claimed that gender-affirming care can “expose them [children] to irreversible damage, including infertility, impaired sexual function, diminished bone density, altered brain development, and other irreversible physiological effects.” The nation’s health organization published a report in November, saying that evidence on pediatric gender-affirming care is “very uncertain.”
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is now in the process of proposing new rules that would bar hospitals from performing what the administration describes as sex-rejecting procedures on children under age 18 as a condition of participation in Medicare and Medicaid programs. Nearly all U.S. hospitals participate in Medicare and Medicaid. HHS said that “this action is designed to ensure that the U.S. government will not be in business with organizations that intentionally or unintentionally inflict permanent harm on children.”
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. released a statement alongside the announcement.
“Under my leadership, and answering President Trump’s call to action, the federal government will do everything in its power to stop unsafe, irreversible practices that put our children at risk,” Kennedy said. “This administration will protect America’s most vulnerable. Our children deserve better — and we are delivering on that promise.”
Those claims stand in direct opposition to the positions of most major medical and healthcare organizations.
The American Medical Association, the nation’s largest and most influential physician organization, has repeatedly opposed measures that restrict access to trans healthcare.
“The AMA supports public and private health insurance coverage for treatment of gender dysphoria and opposes the denial of health insurance based on sexual orientation or gender identity,” a statement on the AMA’s website reads. “Improving access to gender-affirming care is an important means of improving health outcomes for the transgender population.”
Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders, warned the proposed changes would cause significant harm.
“Parents of transgender children want what all parents want: to see their kids thrive and get the medical care they need. But this administration is putting the government between patients and their doctors. Parents witness every day how their children benefit from this care — care backed by decades of research and endorsed by major medical associations across the country. These proposed rules are not based on medical science. They are based on politics. And if allowed to take effect will serve only to drive up medical costs, harm vulnerable children, and deny families the care their doctors say they need. These rules elevate politics over children — and that is profoundly unAmerican.”
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson echoed Levi’s sentiments.
“The Trump administration is relentless in denying health care to this country, and especially the transgender community. Families deserve the freedom to go to the doctor and get the care that they need and to have agency over the health and wellbeing of their children,” Robinson said. “But these proposed actions would put Donald Trump and RFK Jr. in those doctor’s offices, ripping health care decisions from the hands of families and putting it in the grips of the anti-LGBTQ+ fringe. Make no mistake: these rules aim to completely cut off medically necessary care from children no matter where in this country they live. It’s the Trump administration dictating who gets their prescription filled and who has their next appointment canceled altogether.
The announcement comes just days after U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) advanced legislation in Congress that would make it a felony to provide gender-affirming care to a child.
Comings & Goings
Advocates say MTG bill threatens trans youth, families, and doctors
EXCLUSIVE: Democracy Forward files FOIA lawsuit after HHS deadnames Rachel Levine
New research shows coming out is still risky
Empty seats, canceled shows plague Kennedy Center ahead of Trump renaming
LGBTQ Democrats say they’re ready to fight to win in 2026
Brian Footer suspends campaign for Ward 1 D.C. Council seat
Far-right José Antonio Kast elected Chile’s next president
In real estate, trust the process
