National
Which Republican will Baldwin face in Wis. Senate race?
GOP competition comes to an end Tuesday

Wisconsin residents will cast their votes on Tuesday in an open primary for one of several contenders seeking the Republican nomination to run for a U.S. Senate seat. The winner will go on to challenge presumptive Democratic nominee Tammy Baldwin in her bid to become the first openly gay U.S. senator.
The four main contenders — former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, hedge fund manager Eric Hovde, former congressman Mark Neumann and Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald — have almost uniformly adopted anti-LGBT positions, including support for a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage throughout the country.
The exception is Thompson, who stopped short of backing a Federal Marriage Amendment, but said he supports the Defense of Marriage Act. Thompson also said he opposes workplace discrimination, but hasn’t announced support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
The latest polls give the lead to Hovde, a relative newcomer to the race who’s spent millions of his own money. According to a Public Policy Poll published Friday, Hovde leads with 27 percent support, followed by Thompson at 25, Neumann at 24 and Fitzgerald at 15.
The Wisconsin Senate primary isn’t the only race of interest in the state for the LGBT community. Wisconsin Assembly member Mark Pocan is in a contest with fellow Assembly member Kelda Helen Roys for the Democratic nomination to represent Wisconsin’s 2nd congressional district in Congress. The Washington Blade will have updates Tuesday evening on both of these races.
Tommy Thompson
Past positions: former Wisconsin governor, secretary of Health and Human Services under former President George W. Bush, candidate for Republican nomination for president in 2008 election
Polling with Baldwin: CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac poll, Baldwin ties Thompson, 47-47; Marquette University poll, Thompson leads Baldwin 48-43
Fundraising info: Net receipts: $2,467,185; net expenditures: $2,114,270; Self-financing: $132,500 (5%); cash on hand: $352,915
Positions on LGBT issues:
• In the 2008 presidential debate, Thompson said “yes” when asked if he thinks employers should be able to fire employees for being gay:
“I think that is left up to the individual business. I really sincerely believe that is an issue that business people have to got to make their own determination as to whether or not they should be.”
• Immediately afterward, Thompson retracted the statement in a clarification to CNN. He said he supports Wisconsin statewide law against sexual orientation discrimination, but stopped short of endorsing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act:
“I made a mistake. I misinterpreted the question. I thought that I answered it yes when I should have answered it no. I didn’t hear, I didn’t hear the question properly and I apologize. It’s not my position. There should be no discrimination in the workplace and I have never believed that. And, in fact, Wisconsin has one of the first laws, which I supported.
• Headed former President George W. Bush’s domestic effort against HIV/AIDS as HHS secretary, renewing Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, announcing approval of rapid testing and directing funds to confront the epidemic.
• On Aug. 3, told CBS 58 in Wisconsin he opposes same-sex marriage and supports “the Defense of the Marriage Act,” but stopped short of supporting a Federal Marriage Amendment:
“I believe very strongly in the Defense of the Marriage Act. Marriage is one man and one woman. I support that. That’s the federal law. I’m a little gun shy of people saying, ‘We got to have constitutional amendments for this or that. I happen to like our Constitution, and, I think, you should not be going around amending constitutions. I am very much in favor of the Defense of the Marriage Act, the federal Defense of the Marriage Act, and that’s what should have, and gay marriage should be left up to the states. This is not a federal thing; this is a state thing. And so let’s leave the constitution out of it, let’s defend the federal law, one man, one woman for marriage, and allow the states to determine what they want to do on this subject.”
Eric Hovde
Past positions: hedge fund manager, no previous public office
Polling with Baldwin: CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac poll, Baldwin leads Hovde 47-43; Marquette University poll, Baldwin leads Hovde 44-41
Fundraising info: Net receipts: $5,532,185; net expenditures: $4,945,880; Self-financing: $5,100,000 (92%); cash on hand: $586,304
Positions on LGBT issues:
• endorsed by the anti-gay group Wisconsin Family Action
• On Aug. 3, told Wisconsin’s CBS 58 he backs a Federal Marriage Amendment on the grounds of protecting religious liberties:
“Yes, I would. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. That is my belief. In fact, if you look at the history of marriage, it comes from the church, and I don’t think it’s the government’s position to come in and impose upon religion and tell them how they should believe or what they have to accept. I mean, that’s our First Amendment. It’s freedom of religion, it’s not freedom from religion, it’s freedom of religion. So, when people get married, they’ve always, through history, in front of God in a church. That is the church right to dictate and decide on what they feel is acceptable. So, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. And saying that, I don’t believe in discriminating against anyone, whether you’re gay or whatever. I don’t believe in any form of discrimination. But I do fundamentally marriage is between a man and a woman.”
Mark Neumann
Past positions: former U.S. House member, former candidate for governor and U.S. Senate
Polling with Baldwin: CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac poll, Baldwin leads Neumann 48-45; Marquette University poll, Baldwin ties Neumann 44-44
Fundraising info: Net receipts: $2,728,227; net expenditures: $2,537,482 self-financing: $235,000 (9%); cash on hand: $198,235
Positions on LGBT issues:
• As a U.S. House member, Neumann voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996
• In 1996, told the New York Times he wouldn’t allow homosexuality if he were God:
“If I was elected God for a day, homosexuality wouldn’t be permitted, but nobody’s electing me God.”
• According to a 2007 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story, he’s suggested he wouldn’t hire an openly gay staffer:
“In response to a question at a meeting of the Christian Coalition, Neumann said that if a job applicant came into his office and said he or she was homosexual, ‘I would say that’s inappropriate, and they wouldn’t be hired, because that would mean they are promoting their agenda.”
• On Aug. 3, told Wisconsin’s CBS 58 he supports Federal Marriage Amendment and DOMA, also criticized President Obama for “ignoring” DOMA (Obama actually enforces the law, but doesn’t defend it in court):
“I would certainly support a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman, the way it has been through the whole history of the United States of America. … When I was in Congress I was happy to work to pass the Defense of Marriage Act, which did exactly that, and it’s unfortunate that Barack Obama in his own actions has decided to simply ignore the law that is on the books called the Defense of Marriage Act. … Being president of the United States does not empower you to do as you see fit; there are still laws of the land and you’re sworn to uphold those laws of the land.
Jeff Fitzgerald
Past positions: speaker of the Wisconsin Assembly
Polling with Baldwin: CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac poll, Baldwin leads Fitzgerald 51-39; Marquette University poll, Baldwin leads Fitzgerald 45-40
Fundraising info: Net receipts: $159,021; net expenditures: $115,517; self-financing: $0 (0%); cash on hand: $39,368
Positions on LGBT issues:
• Voted for statute against same-sex marriage in 2003 as well as constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in 2004 and 2006
• Voted to strip domestic partnerships — both the benefits and the registry in the same amendment — from the budget in 2009
• On Aug. 3, told Wisconsin’s CBS 58 that he ‘d back a Federal Marriage Amendment:
“Yeah, and I have in the state. We had a constitutional amendment here in the state. I believe marriage should between one man and one woman and I would stick by that on the federal level as well.”
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.