National
HRC pledges $1 million for same-sex marriage efforts
Campaigns in Maryland, Washington, Minnesota and Maine each received $250,000.

The Human Rights Campaign on Monday announced it has given an additional $1 million to support same-sex marriage efforts in four states.
Campaigns in Maryland, Washington, Minnesota and Maine each received $250,000 to either defend their state’s same-sex marriage laws, defeat a proposed constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between a man and a woman or allow nuptials for gays and lesbians. HRC has so far contributed $4.8 million to marriage-related efforts in this election cycle. This figure includes $853,000 to the legislative campaign to secure passage of Maryland’s same-sex marriage law earlier this year and $728,000 in cash and in-kind donations to Marylanders for Marriage Equality, the group defending the statute ahead of the November referendum on it.
“This is a tipping point year in the fight for marriage equality that requires significant investment,” said HRC President Chad Griffin. “We are committed to making sure this is the year that our opponents can no longer claim Americans will not support marriage equality at the ballot box.”
Recipients were quick to welcome the additional HRC funds.
“It’s a fantastic investment that they’re making in our work here,” Josh Levin, campaign director of Marylanders for Marriage Equality, told the Blade. “They’ve been a tremendous partner throughout the legislative fight and this has shown they are dedicated to winning here and confident that we have the resources to be successful.”
“It’s great to have their support,” added Matt McTighe, campaign manager of Mainers United for Marriage, which seeks marriage rights for gays and lesbians in the Pine Tree State. “We’re thrilled to have it and it’s just a great validation of the work that we’re doing in Maine.”
Zach Silk, campaign manager of Washington United for Marriage, the group defending the Evergreen State’s same-sex marriage law, echoed McTighe and Levin.
“We are incredibly grateful for HRC’s contribution to the campaign,” he told the Blade. “They’ve played a sustained and continued role in our campaign since before the legislative battle. They’ve been on the ground here in Washington State since last fall, and [has] really stood shoulder-to-shoulder with us fighting the key moments of the campaign.”
Groups plan to use HRC money to fund ad buys, voter outreach
Levin declined to comment on either the amount of money his group has raised or the amount of money HRC has given to the campaign, but McTighe told the Blade that Mainers United for Marriage has raised slightly under $2 million. Washington United for Marriage said in a press release earlier this month that its budget is more than $5.4 million — including the $2.5 million that Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and his wife MacKenzie donated last month.
Minnesotans United for All Families, which opposes the proposed state constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between a man and a woman, has raised slightly more than $5.7 million as of July 23. Campaign spokesperson Kate Brickman told the Blade that 80 percent of this money has come from inside the state, while 91 percent of the 25,000 individual campaign donors are Minnesotans.
Brickman added the HRC funds will help the campaign respond to what she expects will be a flood of pro-amendment ads in the weeks leading up to the November vote.
“For us it’s a matter of us to be able to combat that late in the game and respond to the hurtful [and negative ads,]” she said.
McTighe also discussed how his campaign plans to use some of the HRC money it received.
“Media buys are a huge part of it because that’s something that’s really competitive in a presidential election year — there’s a lot of competition to buy up time from our opponents, from the other campaigns,” he said. “One thing we’ve been doing over the last two years in Maine is really trying to have as many one-on-one conversations as possible through our field and canvass operations. We’re going to continue to fund that work and try to do paid media as well.”
Like in Maine and Minnesota, Silk said the additional funds will go towards what he described as an “aggressive advertising campaign” in Washington ahead of the referendum.
“This will be an important part of it,” he said.
A CNN/ORC International poll in June that 54 percent of Americans support marriage rights for same-sex couples.
A survey that Hart Research Associates conducted late last month found that 54 percent of Maryland voters would vote for the state’s same-sex marriage law in November. A Public Policy Polling poll in June noted 51 percent of Washington voters back their state’s same-sex marriage law. A Critical Insights survey last month indicates that 57 percent of Maine voters support extending marriage rights to gays and lesbians.
A PPP survey in June found that only 43 percent of Minnesotans support their state’s proposed constitutional amendment to ban nuptials for same-sex couples, compared to 49 percent of voters who oppose it.
HRC spokesperson Fred Sainz conceded to the Blade that the presidential election, high-profile congressional races and other ballot initiatives are among the hurdles that same-sex marriage supporters will face in the coming weeks and months. He stressed, however, that momentum remains on their side.
“The good news for us, which is really, really, really good news, is the atmospherics are positive ones,” said Sainz. “The public opinion polls are continuing to head in the right directions — all the public opinion polls in these four states are headed in the right direction, the president’s support for marriage equality is good. Every single federal court that has expressed an opinion on this issue has expressed it in our favor, so the atmospherics are definitely very positive and are all trending in the right direction.”
New York
Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced
One of the victims, John Umberger, was D.C. political consultant

A New York judge on Wednesday sentenced three men convicted of killing a D.C. political consultant and another man who they targeted at gay bars in Manhattan.
NBC New York notes a jury in February convicted Jayqwan Hamilton, Jacob Barroso, and Robert DeMaio of murder, robbery, and conspiracy in relation to druggings and robberies that targeted gay bars in Manhattan from March 2021 to June 2022.
John Umberger, a 33-year-old political consultant from D.C., and Julio Ramirez, a 25-year-old social worker, died. Prosecutors said Hamilton, Barroso, and DeMaio targeted three other men at gay bars.
The jury convicted Hamilton and DeMaio of murdering Umberger. State Supreme Court Judge Felicia Mennin sentenced Hamilton and DeMaio to 40 years to life in prison.
Barroso, who was convicted of killing Ramirez, received a 20 years to life sentence.
National
Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information
Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources

Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.
“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.
“These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.
It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”
The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question.
A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit.
While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management.
The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.
Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.
“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.
“Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says.
Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”
Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”
Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.
“As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from the Washington Blade.
“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said.
The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”
It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”
The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society.
The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.
While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”
“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.
The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.
Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.