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.”
The White House
Report: Grenell wants Russian ambassadorship
Country’s anti-LGBTQ record a reported barrier
Richard Grenell, President Donald Trump’s special envoy for “special missions,” is making it known that he is interested in the Russian ambassadorship.
According to reporting by the Daily Mail, Grenell has “floated” his interest in the role to coworkers, but issues surrounding the former German ambassador’s sexuality have made securing the position more difficult.
“He had an interest in the job — or at least he floated the idea to select colleagues. But Putin’s regime is extremely anti–LGBTQ, so I’m sure they didn’t take that thought too seriously,” one source close to Grenell told the Daily Mail. “That would never happen anyway.”
Grenell has long been one of Trump’s closest allies and was the first openly gay person to hold a Cabinet-level position. He was ousted last month as acting director of the Kennedy Center, a position he had held since Trump reestablished the board to be composed of his political supporters in 2025.
In addition to leading the nation’s cultural arts center, Grenell previously served as the U.S. ambassador to Germany from 2018 to 2020, and as the special presidential envoy for Serbia and Kosovo peace negotiations from 2019 to 2021. He was also a State Department spokesperson to the U.N. under the George W. Bush administration and a Fox News contributor.
Russia has a longstanding history of being anti-LGBTQ.
In 2013, the country passed a law banning any public endorsement of “nontraditional sexual relations” among minors. In December 2022, Putin signed legislation expanding the ban, making it illegal to promote same-sex relationships or suggest that non-heterosexual orientations are “normal” for people of any age, widening censorship across media and public life.
The Russian courts have also supported the restriction of LGBTQ identity in the country. In November 2023, Russia’s Supreme Court granted a request from the Justice Ministry to outlaw the “international LGBT movement” as “extremist,” allowing authorities to criminalize advocacy and potentially prosecute individuals for expressions of LGBTQ+ identity or support.
In addition to LGBTQ rights issues, the war between Russia and Ukraine has become a global concern. Ukraine, which was part of the former Soviet Union, includes the territory known as Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014. The annexation remains a major point of international dispute over sovereignty. Since 2022, Russia’s large-scale invasion of Ukraine has escalated the conflict, drawing global attention and sanctions while straining U.S.-Russia relations.
The U.S. has spent $188 billion in total related to the war in Ukraine since the Russian invasion in February 2022, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.
The Russian ambassadorship seems to be a difficult role to fill, according to additional information presented by the Daily Mail. With Trump already being seen as relatively positive by Russian President Vladimir Putin, and with close ties to members of his Cabinet and family — like son-in-law Jared Kushner — the ambassadorship is complicated and viewed as less critical than in previous administrations.
“There is no rush to fill that role because it has now been deemed unnecessary,” another source told the U.K.-based publication.
Bob Foresman, a seasoned businessman with decades-long ties to the Kremlin, was reportedly once the frontrunner, according to the Daily Mail. Foresman served as vice chair of UBS Investment Bank and Deputy Chairman of Renaissance Capital between 2006 and 2009, and earlier led investment banking for Russia at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein from 1997 to 2000.
“This is a pattern, especially in the Trump administration — special envoys big–footing the ambassadors,” a source told the Daily Mail. “It is shocking that we are already in April and we don’t have an ambassador to one of the most important countries in the world.”
Tennessee
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
State Senate to consider measure on Wednesday
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill last week to create a transgender “watch list” that also pushes detransition medical treatment. The state Senate will consider it on Wednesday.
House Bill 754/State Bill 676 has been deemed “ugly” by LGBTQ advocates and criticized by healthcare information litigators as a major privacy concern.
The bill would require “gender clinics accepting funds from this state to perform gender transition procedures to also perform detransition procedures; requires insurance entities providing coverage of gender transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures; requires certain gender clinics and insurance entities to report information regarding detransition procedures to the department of health.”
It would require that any gender-affirming care-providing clinics share the date, age, and sex of patients; any drugs prescribed (dosage, frequency, duration, and method administered); the state and county; the name, contact information, and medical specialty of the healthcare professional who prescribed the treatment; and any past medical history related to “neurological, behavioral, or mental health conditions.” It would also mandate additional information if surgical intervention is prescribed, including details on which healthcare professional made a referral and when.
HB 0754 would also require the state to produce a “comprehensive annual statistical report,” with all collected data shared with the heads of the legislature and the legislative librarian, and eventually published online for public access.
The bill also reframes detransitioning as a major focus of gender-affirming healthcare — despite studies showing that the number of trans people who detransition is statistically quite low, around 13 percent, and is often the result of external pressures (such as discrimination or family) rather than an issue with their gender identity.
This legislation stands in sharp contrast to federal protections restricting what healthcare information can be shared. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requiring protections for all “individually identifiable health information,” including medical records, conversations, billing information, and other patient data.
Margaret Riley, professor of law, public health sciences, and public policy at the University of Virginia, has written about similar efforts at the federal level, noting the Trump-Vance administration’s push to subpoena multiple hospitals’ records of gender-affirming care for trans patients despite no claims — or proof — that a crime was committed.
It has “sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.” She wrote in an article on the Conversation, where she goes further, pointing out that the push, mostly from conservative members of the government, are pushing extracting this private information “while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.”
State Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby), the bill’s sponsor, said in a press conference two weeks ago that he has met dozens of individuals who sought to transition genders and ultimately detransitioned. In committee, an individual testified in support of the bill, claiming that while insurance paid for gender-affirming care, detransition care was not covered.
“I believe that we as a society are going to look back on this time that really burst out in 2014 and think, ‘Dear God, What were we thinking? This was as dumb as frontal lobotomies,’” Faison said of gender-affirming care. “I think we’re going to look back on society one day and think that.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights, shared with PBS last year that legislation like this changes the entire concept of HIPAA rights for trans Americans in ways that are invasive and unnecessary.
“It turns doctor-patient confidentiality into government surveillance,” Levi said, later emphasizing this will cause fewer people to seek out the care that they need. “It’s chilling.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which shared this statement from Executive Director Miriam Nemeth:
“HB 754/SB 676 continues the ugly legacy of Tennessee legislators’ attacks on the lives of transgender Tennesseans. Most Tennesseans, regardless of political views, oppose government databases tracking medical decisions made between patients and their doctors. The same should be true here. The state does not threaten to end the livelihood of doctors and fine them $150,000 for safeguarding the sensitive information of people with diabetes, depression, cancer, or other conditions. Trans people and intersex people deserve the same safety, privacy, and equal treatment under the law as everyone else.”
Iran
LGBTQ groups condemn Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian civilization
Ceasefire announced less than two hours before Tuesday deadline
The Council for Global Equality is among the groups that condemned President Donald Trump on Tuesday over his latest threats against Iran.
Trump in a Truth Social post said “a whole civilization will die tonight” if Tehran did not reach an agreement with the U.S. by 8 p.m. ET on Tuesday.
Iran is among the handful of countries in which consensual same-sex sexual relations remain punishable by death.
Israel and the U.S. on Feb. 28 launched airstrikes against Iran.
One of them killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Iran in response launched missiles and drones against Israel and other countries that include Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, and Cyprus.
Gas prices in the U.S. and around the world continue to increase because the war has essentially closed the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway that connects the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman through which roughly 20 percent of the world’s crude oil passes.
Trump less than 90 minutes before his deadline announced a two-week ceasefire with Iran that Pakistan helped broker.
“We the undersigned human rights, humanitarian, civil liberties, faith-based and environmental organizations, think tanks and experts are deeply alarmed by President Trump’s threat regarding Iran that ‘a whole civilization will die tonight’ if his demands are not met. Such language describes a grave atrocity if carried out,” reads the statement that the Council for Global Equality more than 200 other organizations and human rights experts signed. “A threat to wipe out ‘a whole civilization’ may amount to a threat of genocide. Genocide is a crime defined by the Genocide Convention and by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as committing one or more of several acts ‘with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, racial or religious groups as such.'”
The statement states “the law is clear that civilians must not be targeted, and they must also be protected from indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks.”
“Strikes on civilian infrastructure — such as the recent attack on a bridge and the attacks President Trump is repeatedly threatening to carry out to destroy power plants — have devastating consequences for the civilian population and environment,” it reads.
“We urge all parties to respect international law,” adds the statement. “Those responsible for atrocities, including crimes against humanity and war crimes, can and must be held accountable.”
The Alliance for Diplomacy and Justice, Amnesty International USA, Human Rights Watch, the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP, MADRE, and the Robert and Ethel Kennedy Human Rights Center are among the other groups that signed the letter.
Report: Grenell wants Russian ambassadorship
Log Cabin Republicans to honor Scott Presler
Cuba bajo presión y sin respuestas
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
