Connect with us

National

Reporters hammer Carney on marriage, Biden’s remarks

W.H. spox has no updates, says Duncan was speaking his own views

Published

on

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

White House Press Secretary faced a litany of questions Monday on same-sex marriage following favorable remarks on the issue that Vice President Joe Biden gave earlier in the week.

The preponderance of the daily news briefing consisted of inquiries attempting to square President Obama’s ongoing evolution with the remarks on same-sex marriage from Biden, who said Sunday he’s “absolutely comfortable” with married gay couples having the same rights as straight couples.

Carney referred to clarification immediately issued Sunday from the vice president’s office saying Biden’s views were in the line with the president — despite his remarks earlier in the day on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“I have no update on the president’s personal views,” Carney said. “What the vice president said  yesterday was to make the same point that the president has made previously. Committed and loving same-sex couples deserve the same rights and protection enjoyed by all Americans, and that we oppose any effort to rollback those rights.”

Carney said Biden’s comments stirred “a little bit of an overreaction” and said clarification went out from the vice president’s office because reporters sent inquiries and media outlets had the No. 2 in the administration had endorsed same-sex marriage.

As he’s done in the past, Carney said he has no updates on Obama’s marriage evolution; listed the president’s LGBT accomplishments, including repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”; and reiterated the Obama opposes discriminatory efforts against gay couples.

While Biden remarks made up the lion’s share of the questions. Carney also faced questions on  Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s endorsement of same-sex marriage earlier in the day on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” Carney said the Cabinet official was offering his personal views on the matter.

“Secretary Duncan was asked a question on his personal views on an issue, and he offered them,” Carney said. “Obviously, this is an issue that many people have a view on, and we respect the right of all people to have a personal opinion.”

Under questioning from the Washington Blade, Carney dodged when asked whether he remembers the vice president speaking so favorably as he did in Sunday on the issue of same-sex marriage. Before becoming White House press secretary, Carney was Biden’s communications director for the first two years of the Obama administration.

“I think I will simply point you to what the vice president said yesterday, and the vice president supports this president’s policies in support for LGBT rights,” Carney said.

Carney gave a similar dodge when pressed when asked whether Biden’s remarks represent a sign of progress for the administration on the marriage evolution.

“I would just point you to what the vice president said,” Carney said.

On Sunday, Biden said he’s “absolutely comfortable” with the idea of married gay couples having the “same exact rights” as straight couples, which was reported by many media outlets and bloggers as an endorsement of same-sex marriage. Biden’s office has said his comments weren’t anything new and the vice president is evolving on the issue like President Obama.

The president himself has yet to articulate support for same-sex marriage. In October 2010, Obama said in response to a question from AMERICAblog’s Joe Sudbay that he could evolve to support marriage equality, but hasn’t yet made any announcement.

During the news briefing, ABC News’ Jake Tapper pointed to comments that Obama has made — most recently in Rolling Stone Magazine — saying he doesn’t want to “make news” on his position on same-sex marriage. Tapper said the comment suggests Obama actually supports marriage equality, but doesn’t want to express that view.

In response, Carney said Tapper was making his own characterization of the president’s views on marriage.

“I think when people have asked him that and he has no update to give them or no change in his views to put forward that he’s simply saying that, I have nothing new for you on that; his position is what it was,” Carney said.

Carney said Obama’s record is “considerable and unparalleled” and proceeded to mention some LGBT accomplishments, but Tapper said he doesn’t “want to hear the same talking points 15 times in a row.” Carney responded the president’s accomplishments are serious work.

“We’re talking — talking points to you; serious, substantial rights to others, OK?” Carney said. “Repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is a serious matter. The efforts that this administration has taken on behalf of LGBT citizens are a serious matter.”

In the end, Tapper accused of the administration of being “cynical” by withholding Obama’s support for same-sex marriage presumably until after Election Day.

“And if that is the likely future of the president and this position, given that you don’t have any news to drop on it, or probably his mind has been made up, why not just come out and say it and let voters decide?” Tapper said. “It seems — it seems cynical to hide this until after the election.”

Other noteworthy inquiries why the president opposes bans on same-sex marriage, but doesn’t support same-sex itself. Another reporter from NPR asked whether marriage is a civil liberty, prompting Carney to defer the question to a “civil libertarian.”

The Wall Street Journal’s Laura Meckler asked whether Obama wants the Democratic Party platform to conform to his views on marriage as LGBT advocates have been pushing for an inclusion of same-sex marriage in the document. Carney deferred the inquiry to the Democratic National Committee.

A transcript of the exchange between Carney and marriage questions follows:

Q:  …This morning, the Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, put himself on record in favor of gay marriage. Yesterday, the vice president indicated something along the same lines.  Does this box the President in ahead of the election?  Have his views changed at all on this subject?

Jay Carney:  Well, I have no update on the president’s personal views. What the vice president said yesterday was to make the same point that the president has made previously, that committed and loving same-sex couples deserve the same rights and protections enjoyed by all Americans, and that we oppose any effort to roll back those rights. That’s why this administration opposes the Defense of Marriage Act and supports legislation to repeal it. The administration also has stopped defending the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in legal challenges.

Secretary Duncan was asked a question about his personal views on an issue and he offered them.  And obviously this is an issue that many people have a view on and we respect the right of all people to have an opinion — a personal opinion.

Q: If asked at this point a similar question for his personal view, would the president give it?

Carney: I think the President is the right person to describe his own personal views. He, as you know, said that his views on this were evolving, and I don’t have an update for you on that.

Q: Jay, the president has raised millions of dollars from LGBT donors, many of whom say that they believe in a second term the President will come out in support of gay marriage.  So doesn’t he owe them — or owe voters in general — his direct response and just stop dancing around the issue and telling voters will he or won’t he support gay marriage in a second term?

Carney: The president was asked this and said that his views on — his personal views on this were evolving. The president does have, as you noted, significant support in the LGBT community, and that’s because of his unparalleled record in support of LGBT rights. That includes the fight to repeal successfully “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” It includes signing hate crimes legislation that includes LGBT persons. It includes ending a legal defense of the Defense of Marriage Act.  It includes ensuring hospital visitation rights for LGBT patients and their loved ones, and I could go on. His record on the LGBT rights is simply unparalleled, and he will continue to fight for those rights going forward.

Q:  Jay, on June 23, he told an LGBT audience, “Everybody deserves to be able to live and love as they see fit.  I don’t have to tell the people in this room we’ve got a ways to go in the struggle.” What is he referring to if not gay marriage?

Carney: Well, I think you have heard him say and those in the administration like myself who speak for him that he strongly opposes efforts to restrict rights, to repeal rights for same-sex couples. He has made his opposition to those efforts in various states known and will continue to do so.

I think it’s a statement of obvious fact that full enjoyment of rights by LGBT citizens has not been achieved uniformly across the country.  And that’s why he has taken a stand on — in opposition to efforts in some states to deny those rights and discriminate against LGBT citizens.

Q: So can you explain then clearly what — how Vice President Biden, who said, there is a consensus building toward gay marriage in this nation, and then came out yesterday saying that he is absolutely comfortable with men marrying men and women marrying women having equal rights, is not an endorsement of gay marriage?

Carney:  Well, I think the Vice President expressed his personal views.  He also said he was evolving on the issue.

Q: He did not say that, Jay.

Carney: He did.

Q: No. His spokesperson said that afterwards.

Carney:  Let me just be clear, though.  The vice president — what he said about the protection of rights of citizens is completely consistent with the president’s position on this issue, and his description of the way the country has moved on this issue I think is wholly accurate. I think we all have seen the data that describes an evolution of views across the country on these issues. So I don’t think there’s anything surprising about him saying that.

Q: You’re trying to have it both ways before an election.

Carney:  No. Look, this President has been extremely aggressive in supporting LGBT rights. He fought against those who oppose the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and achieved that in this administration. There are those who want to bring “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” back. He very robustly fights against efforts to restrict or deny rights to LGBT citizens and discriminate against them, and he’ll continue to do so.

And again, you didn’t want to hear it, but there’s a long, long list of the actions that this administration has taken on behalf of LGBT citizens in this country. And that’s a record that the President is very proud of.

Q: Okay. And back to the same-sex marriage issue. I think one of the issues is that when asked about the president’s position, the president no longer said he is evolving on the issue. He says, I don’t have any news to make on that. That’s what Stephanie Cutter, a few minutes ago on cable said — I don’t have any news for you. The suggestion is that there is news there and you guys are just waiting for the proper time to drop it, likely after November.

Carney:  I think that’s your characterization, Jake.

Q: I think that’s what it means —

Carney:  I think the president said that he was evolving, and he had — I think when people have asked him that and he has no update to give them or no change in his views to put forward, that he’s simply saying that I have nothing new for you on that. His position is what it was. And that’s with regards to his personal views.

What I think needs to be remembered here is what he has done in office in support of LGBT rights. And that record is extensive and considerable and unparalleled. And he’ll continue to fight for those rights as long as he’s in office.

Q: Positing that the president has done more for LGBT individuals than any other President in history — so you don’t need to say that again — the question is —

Carney: But I will.

Q: Just for this question. When you get to Norah, whatever you want. But the question is, I think there are very few people who think that the president is not going to, after November, whether he’s reelected or not, come out in favor of same-sex marriage. I think there are very few people on the president’s campaign who doubt that; very few people who support the president, very few people who oppose the president who have any doubt that that is what is going to likely happen. And if that is the likely future of the president and this position, given that you don’t have any news to drop on it where probably his mind has been made up, why not just come out and say it and let voters decide?  It seems cynical to hide this until after the election.

Carney: Jake, I think the president’s position is well known. He’s spoken to this. It’s gotten a great deal of coverage. I don’t have an update to provide you on the President’s position. It is what it was. I’m sorry you don’t want to hear about the president’s support for LGBT rights because it’s considerable.

Q: It’s not that I don’t want to hear it.  I don’t want to hear the same talking points 15 times in a row.

Carney: I think the — talking points to you; serious substantial rights to others.  Okay?  “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t tTell” is a serious matter. The efforts that this administration has taken on behalf of LGBT citizens are serious matters.

Q:  I’m not belittling that, Jay. We’re talking about same-sex marriage.

Carney:  I think that’s the context of this discussion. I just don’t have anything more to give to you on the issue of the President’s views.

Q: Because he’s still evolving.  Not because you don’t have news for me, it’s because he’s still evolving.

Carney:  It is as it was, yes.

Norah.

Q: Why does the president oppose same-sex marriage?

Carney: I would just point you to what the president has said in the past, both during his campaign for President in 2008 and in answer to a question at the end of 2010. I really don’t have an update for you, Norah.

Q: Is the President comfortable with the fact of men marrying men and women marrying women?

Carney:  The president is comfortable with same-sex couples, as the president — the vice president said, being entitled to the same rights and the civil rights and civil liberties as other Americans. And that’s why he has fought for those equal rights and why he’s opposed efforts to discriminate against LGBT citizens and to take away rights that have been established by law.

Q: Biden — the vice president appears to have evolved on the issue, but the president is still evolving — is that a fair characterization?

Carney: I will leave it to individuals to describe their own personal views. What I can explain to you is what the president’s positions are on issues, the actions he has taken at a policy level on behalf of LGBT Americans, and his commitment to continue to take actions on their behalf to protect and defend their rights.

Q: Let me ask you this.  You have a number of Democratic governors throughout this country — Governor O’Malley, Governor Cuomo, Governor Malloy, to name a view, now the vice president, who all support same-sex marriage. Why doesn’t President Obama support same-sex marriage?

Carney:  I just don’t have an update for you, Norah, on the president’s position on his personal views. I can tell you that he is a absolutely committed supporter of LGBT rights. His record bears that out. It is an unparalleled record of support for LGBT citizens and their rights, and he’s proud of it and he’ll run on it.

And I think that it’s important to remember when we talk about those accomplishments under this administration that they are far more than talking points; they are considerable, serious demonstrations of progress, important progress — progress that others would take away and reverse.  This president is committed to not letting that happen.

Q: When you now say the vice president is evolving — he did not say that, as was pointed out, but he used some key words beyond what Norah just quoted.  He also said that they are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties. Does that mean he supports same-sex marriage? 

Carney: I was pointing to this statement that the vice president’s office put out yesterday describing his statements, and I don’t have any elaboration on that. I can tell you that what he said is completely consistent in that paragraph with the President’s views that LGBT citizens should enjoy the same rights and that they should not be discriminated against. And efforts to take away those rights are something that this President strongly opposes.

Q: But how come when the president proposes something like the American Jobs Act — you could name anything — and he says — he travels around the country and says, you’re entitled to press members of Congress, tell them, are they for this or are they against it — why can’t you from this podium say whether or not the President supports or opposes same-sex marriage?

Carney: Well, I can tell you that the president has spoken about this, and that his views have not changed and I have no update to give you on them.

Q: Why did the administration feel like they had to put out a statement clarifying what the vice president said?

Carney: Well, I don’t know that the — the office of the vice president put out a statement.  I think that there was a lot of interest generated by the comments and the office of the vice president put out a statement to make it clear what the vice president was saying.

But again, I think that there is a little bit of an overreaction here.  The Vice President supports and made clear he supports the President’s policies when it comes to protecting the rights of LGBT citizens, and he also has his own personal views about the issue, as does the President, as do most people.  So the President’s record on LGBT rights is extensive, and he is committed to working to move forward on that issue.

Q: Is it fair to say that publicly the president and the vice president disagree on gay marriage?

Carney:  No, I don’t think that’s what the vice president said yesterday. But again, I don’t think that’s the point. The president and the vice president and everyone in this administration support the initiatives that this president has taken to protect and defend the rights of all Americans, including LGBT Americans.

Q: When it came to the issue of marriage before, there was a time when the president was somebody who believed in deferring it to the states. Does he still feel that way?

Carney: Well, the president believes that the states are deciding this issue, and he has made clear —

Q: — clearly a state issue, not a federal issue?

Carney: Well, I think that we certainly oppose efforts to take away rights at a federal level, which some politicians suppose — a constitutional amendment to deny rights to LGBT Americans across the country — we oppose that. The president opposes that. States have taken action on this issue, and the President believes that when the process works that it’s a positive thing. He also opposes efforts in states to repeal rights or deny rights to LGBT citizens that have already been established.

Q:  So what would that put him — where would the president be then on the amendment in North Carolina that would ban gay marriage?

Carney:  The president, through the campaign — but the same person opposes efforts to deny the rights of citizens in any state where those rights have been established.

Q: So he opposes — so help me out there. He opposes bans on gay marriage but he doesn’t yet support gay marriage? 

Carney: The record is clear that the president has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples. That is a position he has taken that precedes his taking a position in North Carolina. It’s a position he’s taken in other states where this has been an issue. Yes, he is opposed to efforts in states to deny rights that have been provided to citizens.

Q: You understand why there is so much confusion because you’re saying he opposes bans on gay marriage but he’s not yet for gay marriage.  I mean, that’s —

Carney:  He believes that the states are — marriage is a state issue, and the states have the right to take action on it. What he opposes is efforts to repeal rights that have been granted to LGBT citizens. He thinks that’s discriminatory and wrong.

Q:  There’s going to be an effort this summer to have support for gay marriage as part of the Democratic platform. Does the president believe it’s important that the platform reflects his views?

Carney: Well, on the issue of the platform, which hasn’t been developed yet, I would refer you to the DNC.

Q: My question was whether the president — this is a question for the president — whether the President thinks that the platform just kind of doesn’t matter, which some people say, or whether it really is a statement of his views whatever those may be?

Carney: I think it’s a statement of the party’s view and has long been that. But I don’t have — I haven’t had that discussion with him. But I think a platform is a statement of a party’s views. It is called a Democratic or Republican Party platform. But for questions about the development of that platform I’d refer you to the DNC.

Q: He is the head of his party.

Carney: Again, I don’t have a different answer for you, Laura. It’s a platform that hasn’t been developed. I would point you to the DNC for questions about it.

Q: Just to get clear on your criteria, you said that you oppose state efforts to take away rights. In North Carolina gays can’t marry now, so what is the reason to oppose North Carolina?

Carney: The referendum would, as I understand it, restrict and deny rights to LGBT Americans. And the president —

Q: That they currently have in North Carolina?

Carney: That’s my understanding, yes.

Q:  Okay. My other question is, is marriage a civil liberty?

Carney:  You have to ask civil libertarians or lawyers.

Q: Well, in the White House view, is marriage a civil liberty?

Carney: We believe that — the president believes strongly that LGBT Americans should enjoy the same legal rights, and he opposes efforts to deny rights to LGBT American and discriminate against them.

Q: Okay. Just another question. It’s pretty rare when somebody runs for office saying, in effect, I’m getting ready to change my mind. And you’ve really savaged Mitt Romney for changing his mind, and I’m wondering if you don’t run some risk of looking kind of too clever by half here.

Carney: Look, I don’t have an update for you on the president’s personal views. He described them in response to a question. This has gotten a great deal of coverage in the past. That’s the answer he has and I don’t have a new answer for you.

Q: But what would you say is the definition of “evolving”? You’ve said it so many times, it has to mean something specific.

Carney: The president said that his views on this are evolving. I think —

Q: Is he getting ready to change?

Carney: Not necessarily. I think he just said they were evolving. And that’s at a personal level. His views on LGBT rights are crystal-clear and this administration has taken actions that are unparalleled to support those rights. And he’ll continue to take those actions because he thinks that’s the right thing to do.

April.

Q: How could his views be crystal-clear if everybody in this room is needing to ask you questions?

Carney: Chris, I think everybody in this room is reacting in the way that folks often do to one story that takes off and then they run down the field and chase it.  They’re reacting to comments on a Sunday show.  Nothing has changed in the President’s firm commitment to LGBT rights and nothing’s changed and I have no new information —

Q:   — position by the White House.

Carney: It’s the same position. It’s not the position of the White House. The President’s position is —

Q:  Then why did you guys send out statements to clarify?

Carney: Because the vice president’s statements were being misinterpreted by some, so he — so there was an effort to clarify it by the office of the vice president.

Q: Jay, what do you think the word “evolving” means?

Carney:  But that’s where the president is, okay.

Q: Is he unevolved?

Carney: April.

Q: That means changing.

Q: Okay, now I have the ball, let me run with it.

Carney: Policy positions haven’t changed, Jake. And I can remind you that his support for LGBT rights is unprecedented and compares favorably to anyone else out there in the political arena who’s advocating for these rights. And he’ll continue to support them.

April.

Q: All right, now I’m going to take the ball and run down the field with it real quick. And I want you to dissect the evolution.

Carney: No, I’m not going to, April. I’m sorry, I don’t have anything new for you.

Q: No, no, no, no. Okay, you’re not going to, but can you at least say yea or nay when I kind of try to — (laughter) — here’s the deal.  Here’s the deal. Before we heard that it was — he was having a hard time marrying issues of his faith and rights. Is that the evolution? Is that where the evolution issue is a holdup?

Carney: The next time the president has a news conference, if you want to ask him that you’re certainly welcome to. I do not have an update for you on the president’s personal views.

Q: Jay, did the president know before yesterday, did the president know that the vice president was comfortable with men marrying men?  Is this something they’ve discussed?

Carney: I don’t have a readout for you of conversations they’ve had on this issue.

Q: Is it something they’ve discussed?

Carney: Again, I don’t have a readout for you of private conversations that they’ve had.

Q:  Thanks, Jay. Is it still accurate to say, then, that President Obama is opposed to gay marriage?

Carney: I would simply say that his views are evolving, which is what he said. And I don’t have an update for you on that issue.

Amy.

Q: Just to clarify, were you saying that the Vice President’s comments were his personal views?  Were you looping it together with Arne Duncan’s views?

Carney:  The Vice President spoke very clearly about the President’s policies, and they’re entirely consistent with the policies that this President has supported.  He also — he talked about evolution in this country and other issues, and those were personal views. I will simply refer you to the statement that the office of the vice president put out.

Q:  …As someone who’s worked with the vice president before, do you remember him ever speaking so favorably on the issue of same-sex marriage?

Carney: I think I will simply point you to what the vice president said yesterday. The vice president supports this president’s policies in support for LGBT rights.

Q: But is this a sign of progress?

Carney: I would just point you to what the vice president said.

Watch the White House briefing its entirety here (video courtesy White House YouTube page)

 

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

National

US bishops ban gender-affirming care at Catholic hospitals

Directive adopted during meeting in Baltimore.

Published

on

A 2024 Baltimore Pride participant carries a poster in support of gender-affirming health care. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

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.” 

Continue Reading

Federal Government

Federal government reopens

Shutdown lasted 43 days.

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

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.

Continue Reading

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

Published

on

Second Lt. Nicolas (Nic) Talbott (Photo courtesy of Talbott)

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.”

Continue Reading

Popular