National
After action on immigration, will Obama move to protect LGBT workers?
White House says no executive order ‘at this time’
President Obama’s action last week protecting many young, undocumented immigrants from deportation has won praise in progressive circles — including among LGBT advocates — but the move raises a question: Can the LGBT community now expect that the previously denied administrative actions they’ve been seeking will come to fruition?
On Friday, the Obama administration announced that an estimated 800,000 young undocumented immigrants who were brought into the United States will be considered for relief from removal from the country if they meet certain criteria. Among the criteria is whether the person in question has a college education or has served in the military. Those criteria would have protected such immigrants from deportation had Congress passed the DREAM Act.
During remarks in the White House Rose Garden, Obama announced the policy change and said it was a means to keep talented people in the United States.
“As I said in my speech on the economy yesterday, it makes no sense to expel talented young people, who, for all intents and purposes, are Americans — they’ve been raised as Americans; understand themselves to be part of this country — to expel these young people who want to staff our labs, or start new businesses, or defend our country simply because of the actions of their parents — or because of the inaction of politicians,” Obama said.
Excitement among immigration rights advocates ensued and hundreds of young people swarmed the White House to rally in support of the president’s action. And this praise was echoed by LGBT rights advocates.
Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, was among those who praised the move.
“We applaud the Obama administration for taking this monumental and inspiring step,” Carey said. “It shows true leadership. It is heartening to know that hundreds of thousands of young people will no longer have to live in daily fear of being forced out of the country, away from the life and dreams they have built.”
But the policy change marks a turnabout for the administration, which had previously stated it wanted legislative action on the DREAM Act as opposed to pursuing executive action.
In September remarks before the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute’s annual gala, Obama talked about wanting Congress to take action on the DREAM Act
“I wish I had a magic wand and could make this all happen on my own,” Obama said. “There are times where — until Nancy Pelosi is speaker again — I’d like to work my way around Congress. But the fact is, even as we work towards a day when I can sign an immigration bill, we’ve got laws on the books that have to be upheld.”
To be fair, Obama didn’t completely rule out executive action on the DREAM Act at the gala. Saying “how we enforce those laws is also important,” the president noted the Department of Homeland Security is taking common-sense steps for immigration enforcement.
But the remarks should ring a bell. They’re along the lines of similar talking points that administration officials have expressed in regard to actions sought by the LGBT community. Now that the administration has taken action to help young, undocumented immigrants, will it reconsider its position on those other actions?
Perhaps the most high-profile outstanding request of the administration is an executive order requiring contractors doing business with the federal government to have employment non-discrimination policies inclusive of sexual orientation and gender identity. In April, the White House announced it wouldn’t take such action at this time and was opting instead for a legislative solution.
Felipe Matos, GetEQUAL’s national field director and a gay, undocumented immigrant, said last week following the announcement that he’s happy with Obama’s action, but wants to see more efforts on employment non-discrimination.
“I’m still reeling from the news and overjoyed by the announcement — but my heart has just enough room in it for another executive order,” Matos said. “It’s my hope that President Obama will make today especially historic by signing another executive order — one that will guarantee that I have the right to work freely and openly as an immigrant, but also as a gay American.”
Questions about why Obama chose to take administrative action on the immigration issue and not on the issue of LGBT workplace discrimination were asked even in Republican circles.
Richard Grenell, who’s gay and was briefly a foreign policy spokesperson for the Romney campaign, criticized Obama following the immigration announcement — reiterating a previously stated belief that Obama is playing politics with the LGBT community.
“President Obama obviously made a calculated political move to NOT give an executive order for ENDA,” Grenell said in an email to the Blade. “It’s painfully evident that the president doesn’t think gays are equal, he just thinks they are his solid and sure voting bloc and will treat us in raw political terms. Both parties, sadly, play politics with an issue that is about equality.”
For his part, Romney is facing his own political problems as a result of the DREAM Act administrative action. While taking a hard line on immigration during the Republican primary and saying he’d veto the DREAM Act, Romney has refused to say following Obama’s move whether he’d undo the action if elected president.
Despite these calls, the administration hasn’t changed its line on LGBT employment non-discrimination policy in the wake of the immigration policy.
Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, said nothing has changed in the administration’s position, reiterating that the directive won’t happen “at this time.”
“As has been previously stated, while it is not our usual practice to discuss executive orders that may or may not be under consideration, an order on LGBT non-discrimination for federal contractors will not be issued at this time,” Inouye said.
Another request of the administration is meant to protect bi-national same-sex couples from separation. Straight Americans can marry their foreign spouses to protect from deportations, but the same option isn’t available to gay Americans because of DOMA.
LGBT immigration rights groups have been asking the Department of Homeland Security to hold in abeyance the marriage-based green card applications for foreign nationals in same-sex relationships. The administration has said consistently in response to requests for this action that it plans to continue to enforce DOMA while it’s on the books.
Rachel Tiven, executive director of Immigration Equality, called the immigration announcement “great news for our country” and said it would protect gay foreign nationals in same-sex couples if they qualify for relief under the DREAM Act. Still, she called for additional action.
“No person should face forcible separation from their families, regardless of their age,” Tiven said. “That is why the White House should follow today’s announcement with a proposal to extend that same relief to immigrants with U.S.-citizen partners and spouses across the board. Keeping families together is good policy, and all families, including those that are LGBT, should have the support of the president in the form of a similar policy.”
Lavi Soloway, co-founder of Stop the Deportations, said he celebrates the move but wants additional action from the administration for bi-national couples in the wake of decisions from six federal courts finding DOMA unconstitutional.
“Every day these couples worry that they will be torn apart or forced into exile in order to stay together,” Soloway said. “This administration has said that denying green cards to the spouses of gay and lesbian Americans is a violation of the equal protection guarantee of the U.S. Constitution, but has not taken the steps necessary to mitigate the discriminatory impact of DOMA in this area.”
The actions that Soloway is seeking are: ordering an immediate moratorium on deportations of the foreign partners of gay Americans; providing temporary parole to the partners, spouses and children of gay Americans who are stuck outside the United States so that these families can be reunited; and putting on hold all “green card” petitions filed by gay Americans for their spouses.
Peter Boogard, a DHS spokesperson, reiterated that it will continue to enforce DOMA when asked about holding marriage-based green cards in abeyance.
“Pursuant to the attorney general’s guidance, the Defense of Marriage Act remains in effect and the executive branch, including the Department of Homeland Security, will continue to enforce it unless and until Congress repeals it, or there a final judicial determination that it is unconstitutional,” Boogard said.
But recent news may be an indication that the Obama administration is changing its tune. In recent weeks, the Board of Immigration Appeals has rejected the denial of green card petitions issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the cases filed by four married, gay couples who live in in Florida, New York, Pennsylvania and Canada.
In all cases, the BIA ordered the USCIS to conduct further inquiry to determine if these marriages are legally valid and whether if not for DOMA, the spouse would qualify for a green card.
In one case, the ruling re-opened removal proceedings for the spouse of a gay American who is facing an outstanding deportation order. According to Soloway, who’s handling the cases, the Board of Immigration Appeals has never before re-opened removal proceedings or remanded green card petitions back to USCIS after denials based solely on DOMA.
The Justice Department didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
LGBT advocates say they’ll continue to press forward. Speaking with the Washington Blade earlier this week, Chad Griffin, the new president of the Human Rights Campaign, commended Obama for taking action on immigration and said HRC will push forward when asked about these LGBT-related issues.
“HRC has been supportive of the DREAM Act for a long time,” Griffin said. “The president made an important step recently in the last week in what he announced and we have more to accomplish on some things that HRC will continue to voice our concern on.”
Federal Government
Protesters say SAVE Act targets voters, transgender youth
Bill described as ‘Jim Crow 2.0’
Members of Congress, advocates, and people from across the country gathered outside the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday to protest proposed federal legislation that voting rights activists have deemed “Jim Crow 2.0.”
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require in-person proof of citizenship for anyone seeking to vote in U.S. elections.
President Donald Trump has also pushed for the proposed legislation to include a section that would ban gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, even with parental consent, and prohibit trans people from participating in school or professional sports consistent with their gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth.
In addition to changing voter registration requirements, the bill would limit acceptable forms of identification to documents such as a birth certificate or passport — records that the Brennan Center for Justice estimates more than 21 million Americans do not have — effectively restricting access to the ballot. It would also ban online voter registration, DMV voter registration efforts, and mail-in voter registration.
A 2021 investigation by the Associated Press found that fewer than 475 people voted illegally or improperly, a tiny fraction of the estimated 160 million Americans who voted in the 2020 election.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) spoke at the event.
“It will kick millions of American citizens off the rolls. And they don’t even require you to be told,” the highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate told protesters and reporters outside the Capitol. “If this law passes — and it won’t — you’re gonna show up in November … and they’ll say… sorry, you’re no longer on the voting rolls.”
He, like many other speakers, emphasized the bill in the context of American history, pointing to what he described as its racist roots and its impact on Black and brown Americans.
“I have called this act, over and over again, Jim Crow 2.0 … because they know it’s the truth.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was one of the lawmakers leading opposition to the legislation and spoke at the rally.
“It’s not just voting rights that are on the line — our democracy is on the line,” the California lawmaker said. “It’s not a voter I.D. bill. It’s a bait and switch bill.”
He added historical context, noting the significance of voting rights legislation passed more than 60 years ago. In 1965, Alabama civil rights activists marched to protest barriers to voter registration. Alabama state troopers violently attacked peaceful demonstrators at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, using tear gas, clubs, and whips against more than 500 — mostly Black — protesters.
“61 years ago — not to the day — but this week, President Lyndon Johnson came to the Capitol and addressed a joint session of Congress in the wake of Bloody Sunday and pushed Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act,” Padilla said. “61 years later, Donald Trump and this Republican majority wants to take us backwards. We’re not gonna let that happen.”
U.S. Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) also spoke, emphasizing that he views the effort as a Republican-led and Trump-backed attempt to restrict voting access, particularly among Black, brown, and predominantly Democratic communities.
“President Trump told Republicans when they were meeting behind closed doors that ‘The SAVE Act will guarantee Republicans win the midterms and ensure they do not lose an election for 50 years,’” Luján said. “The first time I think Donald Trump’s been honest … This voter suppression bill is only that. Taking away vote by mail? I hope my Republican colleagues from states that voted for Donald Trump or where vote by mail is popular have the courage and the backbone to stand up and say no to this nonsense, because their constituents are going to push back.”
U.S. Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) also spoke.
“Our Republican colleagues have already cut Medicaid, Medicare, people don’t know how they’re gonna be able to afford energy,” she said, providing context for the broader political moment. “We’re in the middle of a war that they can’t even get straight while we’re in it and don’t have a way to get out of it. And we are now faced with defending our democracy?”
She then showed the crowd something that she said has been with her throughout her political journey in Washington.
“I brought with me something that I carried on the day that I was sworn into the House of Representatives when I was elected in 2016, and I carried it with me on the day that I was sworn in as United States senator. And I also carried it with me when I was trapped up in the gallery on Jan. 6 and all I could think to do was pray … This document allowed my great great great grandfather, who had been enslaved in Georgia, to have the right to vote. We took this and turned it into a scarf. It is the returns of qualified voters and reconstruction code from 1867. This is my proof of what we’ve been through. This is also our inspiration.”
“I got to travel between the Edmund Pettus Bridge two times. And even as I thought about this moment, I recognized that while we wish we weren’t in it, while we don’t know why we’re in it, I do know we were made for it … So I came today to tell you that, um, just like the leader said, that he calls it Jim Crow 2.0. I call it Jim Crow 2.NO.”
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy organization in the U.S., also spoke, highlighting the impact of the bill’s proposed provisions affecting trans people.
“This bill is not about saving America. This bill is about stealing an election. This bill is about suppressing voters,” Robinson said. “This bill not only tries to disenfranchise voters that deserve their right to vote, it also tries to criminalize trans kids and their families … It tries to criminalize doctors providing medically necessary care for our trans youth.”
The SAVE Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Feb. 11 but has not yet been considered in the U.S. Senate.
Idaho
Idaho advances bill to restrict bathroom access for transgender residents
HB 752 passed in state House of Representatives on Monday
The Idaho House of Representatives passed House Bill 752 on Monday, a measure that would make it a crime for a person to use a bathroom other than the one designated for their “biological sex.”
The story was first reported by the Idaho Capitol Sun after the bill cleared the House.
House Bill 752 would make it a criminal offense — either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the number of prior offenses — for individuals who “knowingly and willfully” enter a bathroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex.
The bill would apply to public buildings, including government-owned spaces, and places of “public accommodation,” a category that includes private businesses.
According to the bill’s text, it would “prohibit a person from entering a restroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex; provide a penalty; provide exceptions; define terms; and declare an emergency and provide an effective date.”
A first offense would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison. A second or subsequent offense within five years would be a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.
The bill passed in a 54–15 vote on Monday. Six Republicans broke with their party’s majority to join nine Democrats in opposing the measure.
The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Cornel Rasor, a Republican from Sagle near the Washington-Idaho border, told House lawmakers that the legislation is intended to protect women and girls.
“It prevents discomfort and voyeurism escalation and assaults, while preserving single-user options and narrow exceptions so no one is denied access for emergency aid,” Rasor said.
State Rep. Chris Mathias, a Democrat from Boise, disagreed, arguing that the legislation would unfairly target transgender Idahoans.
“The truth of the matter is — and I know a lot of people don’t want to say it — but forcing people who don’t look like the sex they were assigned at birth, or transgender folks, to use other people’s bathrooms is going to put a lot of people in danger,” Mathias said.
The Idaho American Civil Liberties Union made a statement about the bill following its passage.
“Idaho lawmakers continue pushing these harmful, invasive bathroom laws, yet cannot present credible evidence that transgender people using gender-aligned bathrooms threaten public safety,” the Idaho ACLU said. “The bill does nothing to address real criminal acts, such as sexual assault or voyeurism, and disregards concerns from law enforcement about the burden enforcement would place on local resources.”
In addition to human rights advocates, who have spoken out against similar bills advancing in state legislatures across the country, Idaho law enforcement groups have also opposed the measure. They argue that the way the legislation is written would “pose significant practical enforcement challenges,” noting that officers are tasked with maintaining public safety — not conducting gender checks or policing bathroom access.
During a committee hearing last week, law enforcement representatives and several trans Idahoans testified that the bill would make many residents less safe.
“Officers responding to a complaint would be placed in the difficult position of determining an individual’s biological sex in order to enforce the statute,” Idaho Fraternal Order of Police President Bryan Lovell wrote. “In many circumstances, there is no clear or reasonable way for officers to make that determination without engaging in questioning or investigative actions that could be viewed as invasive and inappropriate.”
The Idaho Sheriffs’ Association requested that lawmakers amend the bill to require that individuals be given an opportunity to leave a bathroom immediately before facing potential prosecution.
The bill now heads to the Idaho Senate for consideration. To become law, it must pass both chambers and avoid a veto from the governor.
A separate bathroom bill, House Bill 607, which would be enforced through civil lawsuits, passed the House last month but has not yet received a committee hearing in the Senate.
State Department
Report: US to withhold HIV aid to Zambia unless mineral access expanded
New York Times obtained Secretary of State Marco Rubio memo
The State Department is reportedly considering withholding assistance for Zambians with HIV unless the country’s government allows the U.S. to access more of its minerals.
The New York Times on Monday reported Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a memo to State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs staffers wrote the U.S. “will only secure our priorities by demonstrating willingness to publicly take support away from Zambia on a massive scale.” The newspaper said it obtained a copy of the letter.
Zambia is a country in southern Africa that borders Tanzania, Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The Times notes upwards of 1.3 million Zambians receive daily HIV medications through PEPFAR. The newspaper reported Rubio in his memo said the Trump-Vance administration could “significantly cut assistance” as soon as May.
“Reports of (the) State Department withholding lifesaving HIV treatment in return for mining concessions in Zambia does not make us safer, stronger, or more prosperous,” said U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on Tuesday. “Monetizing innocent people’s lives further undermines U.S. global leadership and is just plain wrong.”
The Washington Blade has reached out to the State Department for comment.
Zambia received breakthrough HIV prevention drug through PEPFAR
Rubio on Jan. 28, 2025, issued a waiver that allowed PEPFAR and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during a freeze on nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending. HIV/AIDS service providers around the world with whom the Blade has spoken say PEPFAR cuts and the loss of funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, which officially closed on July 1, 2025, has severely impacted their work.
The State Department last September announced PEPFAR will distribute lenacapavir in countries with high prevalence rates. Zambia two months later received the first doses of the breakthrough HIV prevention drug.
Kenya and Uganda are among the African countries have signed health agreements with the U.S. since the Trump-Vance administration took office.
The Times notes the countries that signed these agreements pledged to increase health spending. The Blade last month reported LGBTQ rights groups have questioned whether these agreements will lead to further exclusion and government-sanctioned discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Queer American in Israel discusses Iran war’s impact
Housewives take Capitol Hill by storm
Protesters say SAVE Act targets voters, transgender youth
‘It’s Dorothy’ traces lasting influence of a cultural icon
SAVE Act could silence millions of trans voters
Ensuring safer drinking water
PHOTOS: Awesome Con
A season of renewal for D.C. theater
Kennedy Center leadership changes as Trump ally Grenell departs
