National
Uganda headed toward passing draconian anti-gay legislation
Activist wants demonstrations at Ugandan embassies across the globe
Activist Frank Mugisha is calling for protests at Ugandan embassies throughout the world (Blade file photo by Michael K. Lavers)
Movement on a draconian anti-gay bill in Uganda is raising concerns the legislation may be headed toward passage in the coming weeks, although it’s questionable whether the infamous death penalty provision remains in the bill.
Mark Bromley, chair of the Council for Global Equality in the United States, said the legislation — which has drawn the ire of the international community for its proposed incarceration of gay people and concerns it would institute the death penalty for homosexual acts — seems likely headed for a floor vote in the coming weeks before the legislature adjourns on Dec. 14.
“All indications are that it’s really going to come up for a vote this time,” Bromley said. “We hear from several sources that it won’t come up until at least mid-week next week and probably maybe even a little bit later, but everyone we’ve talked to is pretty concerned that it really is going to come for a vote before the parliament recesses for the holidays, so sometime before mid-December.”
Media reports indicated that the bill on Friday had passed the committee of jurisdiction in the Uganda parliament.
Frank Mugisha, an activist coordinating Sexual Minorities Uganda, issued a statement to supporters on Friday decrying the legislation just before the committee acted on it.
“The bill does little more than to entrench stigma and prejudice, which will polarize the Ugandan society further and undermine public health efforts to combat the spread of HIV,” Mugisha said. “It places a total ban on public discussion of an issue whose existence cannot be wished away. If the bill is adopted, it will make Uganda a pariah in the international community. We therefore urge the Ugandan Parliament to reject this bill in its entirety.”
Mugisha also called on sympathizers to protest before the Uganda foreign missions in various countries. Previously protests were held at the Ugandan Embassy in the United States last year and at the time of the bill’s introduction in 2009.
“When the bill was first introduced in 2009 we called upon our regional and international partners and allies for support in denouncing this bill in simultaneous demonstrations at Ugandan foreign missions in your respective countries,” Mugisha said. “We ask you once again to stand with us and do simultaneous peaceful demonstrations at Ugandan foreign missions in your respective countries.”
Bromley said Friday he’s unaware of any plans for upcoming protests before the Uganda Embassy in the United States, but expects to hear about such plans shortly.
Homosexual acts are already illegal in Uganda and punishable by up to 14 years in prison, but the proposed legislation would expand existing law to institute life imprisonment for those found guilty of homosexuality. The legislation also prohibits supporting LGBT rights and calls for the punishment of anyone who funds or sponsors them. According to Mugisha, parents and teachers would be fined if they don’t report gay children and students and landlords who rent to gay people would be punished with jail time.
The legislation — colloquially known in the United States as the “Kill the Gays” bill — became infamous in the international community since its introduction in 2009 for including a provision that would institute the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality.” Under an earlier version of the bill, that was defined as someone with HIV engaging in homosexual acts, having homosexual sex with a minor or repeated offense of homosexuality.
But it’s unclear whether this provision remains in the legislation. Early on Friday, BBC News Africa reported that a legislative committee had “endorsed” the legislation, but had dropped the death penalty provision. But, as Box Turtle Bulletin’s Jim Burroway points out, that language has been reportedly dropped from the legislation before and yet has returned to the bill.
Bromley said whether the death penalty language has in fact been dropped isn’t certain because the committee has yet release its report — and, in earlier iterations of the bill, the death penalty was apparently removed, but was worked in as a possible punishment for homosexuality in a less overt way.
“I heard before that they took the death penalty provision out, and it turns out that wasn’t in fact the case — or that the way did it, the wording was still ambiguous,” Bromley said. “My guess is — if they really bring this up for a vote, which it looks like they’re going to — given the international condemnation, they probably will take out the death penalty, but I just think it’s a little early to say definitively that they have taken it out until we see what they’re going to vote on.”
The legislation is apparently moving forward at this time — after being bottled up for years in committee — because Parliament Speaker Rebecca Kadaga is pushing for action on the legislation.
According to another report in BBC News Africa, Kadaga felt her country’s sovereignty was insulted after Canada’s Foreign Minister John Baird warned Uganda not to trample on human rights. Kadaga was quoted as saying, “If homosexuality is a value for the people of Canada they should not seek to force Uganda to embrace it. We are not a colony or a protectorate of Canada.”
Kadaga was quoted later in the piece as saying, “Ugandans want that law as a Christmas gift. They have asked for it and we’ll give them that gift.”
Activists urge condemnation of legislation
Gay activists in Uganda had urged world leaders in the international community to remain silent on the legislation, but amid fears that the legislation would move forward, at least one is changing his tune.
Geoffrey Ogwaro, co-coordinator of Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights and Constitutional Law in Uganda, sent an email to supporters urging world leaders — including President Obama — to speak out against the legislation.
“It is now with profound sadness that we give the clear for any form of international outcry against this determined move by parliament to pass this bill,” Oswogo said. “We urge you all now to go all out to condemn this move in any way you see as fitting including statements (we would be glad if President Obama and other world leaders issued stern statements condemning,)” Ogwaro said.
The Obama administration has already made its opposition known about the bill. In February 2010, President Obama called the legislation “odious” and the State Department has offered numerous statements reiterating its opposition to the bill. The White House and the State Department this week didn’t respond to a request to comment in time for this posting.
Nonetheless, Bromley expressed confidence that the Obama administration — as well as the U.S. embassy in Uganda — is being active in efforts to ensure the anti-gay legislation doesn’t become law.
“We’ve been in close contact with the State Department and the White House — and they’re both following it very closely,” Bromley said. “The embassy is intensely engaged on the ground and they’re still quietly negotiating with the government, but we’re very proud and very confident they really are taking this very seriously and putting the full force of diplomatic policy into this issue.”
Bromley said he expects additional high-level statements from the U.S. government next week as the situation in Uganda regarding a floor vote on the bill becomes more clear.
Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, joined in the calls for others to speak out against the anti-homosexuality, but said the condemnation should come from U.S. religious leaders — such as Rick Warren, T.D. Jakes, Joel Osteen, and voices from the Trinity Broadcasting Network — who have known ties to Uganda’s leaders.
“American faith leaders know that calling for the death penalty — or even calling for imprisonment of — an entire community is not in line with Christian values,” Griffin said. “American Christian faith leaders with ties to Uganda, like Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes, must reach out to their influential Ugandan friends to ensure that the human rights of Ugandans are not put up to a vote.”
Should U.S. aid to Uganda be slashed?
One question is whether the United States should threaten to cut off foreign aid to Uganda if the legislature moves forward in passing the legislation. The country is known for being a beneficiary of the President Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, a program aimed at providing drugs to people living with AIDS overseas.
U.S. Ambassador to Uganda Scott DeLisi was quoted in a Uganda newspaper as saying the United States “has decided to continue giving aid to Uganda despite the ongoing numerous investigations into the misuse of foreign aid,” but that statement was in response to a corruption and not the anti-gay bill. Britain and Sweden are among the countries that have threatened to cut off foreign aid to the country as a result of the anti-gay bill.
In a blog posting on Friday, John Aravosis, calls into question the decision against withholding U.S. aid to Uganda, saying cuts to foreign aid would be a better solution to the nation’s “fiscal cliff” crisis as opposed to proposed cuts to Medicare or Social Security.
“The UK just suspended aid to Uganda five days ago over concerns about ‘misuse of funds,'” Aravosis writes. “Works for me. Call it what you want. Genocide. Misuse of funds. I don’t care. But the Brits have stopped giving their money to thugs and thieves. While U.S. Ambassador Scott DeLisi seems to be aiding and abetting them. Maybe we should cut his budget too.”
The Washington Blade reported in May 2011 that African LGBT activists who attended a panel on the issue at the World Bank opposed the idea of threatening to cut U.S. aid to Uganda as a means to prevent the bill for being passed because it may lead to backlash targeting the LGBT community instead of the bill.
Bromley said the decision over whether to cut aid to Uganda is “a really difficult call,” although he acknowledged the relationship between the United States and Uganda would change if the bill were passed into law.
“A threat to cut off aid also potentially endangers the LGBT community on the ground, who could suffer the consequences or be blamed for it,” Bromley said. “I think it’s clear that our current bilateral relationship would be severely impacted, and that certainly our massive investment in HIV/AIDS would be affected because certain programming would no longer be legal or even safe. I think there’s doubt that if it passes, it has to impact our broad relationship, including our funding relationship, but until we see what happens, it’s dangerous to call for an across the board cut to aid.”
The White House
EXCLUSIVE: Democracy Forward files FOIA lawsuit after HHS deadnames Rachel Levine
Trans former assistant health secretary’s name changed on official portrait
Democracy Forward, a national legal organization that works to advance democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education, and regulatory engagement, filed a lawsuit Friday in federal court seeking to compel the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to release information related to the alteration of former Assistant Secretary for Health Adm. Rachel Levine’s official portrait caption.
The lawsuit comes in response to the slow pace of HHS’s handling of multiple Freedom of Information Act requests — requests that federal law requires agencies to respond to within 20 working days. While responses can take longer due to backlogs, high request volumes, or the need for extensive searches or consultations, Democracy Forward says HHS has failed to provide any substantive response.
Democracy Forward’s four unanswered FOIA requests, and the subsequent lawsuit against HHS, come days after someone in the Trump-Vance administration changed Levine’s official portrait in the Hubert H. Humphrey Building to display her deadname — the name she used before transitioning and has not used since 2011.
According to Democracy Forward, HHS “refused to release any records related to its morally wrong and offensive effort to alter former Assistant Secretary for Health Admiral Rachel Levine’s official portrait caption.” Levine was the highest-ranking openly transgender government official in U.S. history and served as assistant secretary for health and as an admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps from 2021 to 2025.
Democracy Forward President Skye Perryman spoke about the need to hold the Trump-Vance administration accountable for every official action, especially those that harm some of the most targeted Americans, including trans people.
“The question every American should be asking remains: what is the Trump-Vance administration hiding? For an administration that touts its anti-transgender animus and behavior so publicly, its stonewalling and silence when it comes to the people’s right to see public records about who was behind this decision is deafening,” Perryman said.
“The government’s obligation of transparency doesn’t disappear because the information sought relates to a trailblazing former federal official who is transgender. It’s not complicated — the public is entitled to know who is making decisions — especially decisions that seek to alter facts and reality, erase the identity of a person, and affect the nation’s commitment to civil rights and human dignity.”
“HHS’s refusal to respond to these lawful requests raises more serious concerns about transparency and accountability,” Perryman added. “The public has every right to demand answers — to know who is behind this hateful act — and we are going to court to get them.”
The lawsuit also raises questions about whether the alteration violated federal accuracy and privacy requirements governing Levine’s name, and whether the agency improperly classified the change as an “excepted activity” during a lapse in appropriations. By failing to make any determination or produce any records, Democracy Forward argues, HHS has violated its obligations under federal law.
The case, Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The legal team includes Anisha Hindocha, Daniel McGrath, and Robin Thurston.
The Washington Blade reached out to HHS, but has not received any comment.
The lawsuit and four FOIA requests are below:
The White House
Empty seats, canceled shows plague Kennedy Center ahead of Trump renaming
It would take an act of Congress to officially rename the historic music venue, despite the Trump-appointed board’s decision.
The board of the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., voted to rename it the Trump-Kennedy Center, according to the White House Press Office.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced the decision in a post on X Thursday, thanking the president for his work on the cultural center “not only from the standpoint of its reconstruction, but also financially, and its reputation.”
Speaking to reporters later that day at the White House, Trump said he was “surprised” and “honored” by the board’s vote.
“This was brought up by one of the very distinguished board members, and they voted on it, and there’s a lot of board members, and they voted unanimously. So I was very honored,” he said.
Earlier this year, GOP Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho introduced an amendment that would have renamed the building after first lady Melania Trump, later saying she had not been aware of his efforts prior to the amendment’s public introduction.
Despite the board’s vote (made up of Trump-appointed loyalists), the original laws guiding the creation of the Kennedy Center during the Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations explicitly prohibit renaming the building. Any change to its name would require an act of Congress.
Trump has exerted increasing control over the center in recent months. In February, he abruptly fired members of the Kennedy Center’s board and installed himself as chair, writing in a Truth Social post at the time, “At my direction, we are going to make the Kennedy Center in Washington D.C., GREAT AGAIN.”
In that post, Trump specifically cited his disapproval of the center’s decision to host drag shows.
He later secured more than $250 million from the Republican-controlled Congress for renovations to the building.
Since Trump’s takeover, sales of subscription packages are said to have declined, and several touring productions — including “Hamilton” — have canceled planned runs at the venue. Rows of empty seats have also been visible in the Concert Hall during performances by the National Symphony Orchestra.
“The Kennedy Center Board has no authority to actually rename the Kennedy Center in the absence of legislative action,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters.
For decades, the Kennedy Center has hosted performances by LGBTQ artists and companies, including openly queer musicians, choreographers, and playwrights whose work helped push LGBTQ stories into the cultural mainstream. Those artists include the Gay Men’s Chorus of Washington, Harvey Fierstein, and Tennessee Williams.
In more recent years, the center has increasingly served as a space for LGBTQ visibility and acceptance, particularly through Pride-adjacent programming and partnerships.
That legacy was on display at this year’s opening production of Les Misérables, when four drag performers — Tara Hoot, Vagenesis, Mari Con Carne, and King Ricky Rosé — attended in representation of Qommittee, a volunteer network uniting drag artists to support and defend one another amid growing conservative attacks.
“We walked in together so we would have an opportunity to get a response,” said Tara Hoot, who has performed at the Kennedy Center in full drag before. “It was all applause, cheers, and whistles, and remarkably it was half empty. I think that was season ticket holders kind of making their message in a different way.”
The creation of the Kennedy Center is outlined in U.S. Code, which formally designates the institution as the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
As a result, it appears unlikely that Congress will come together to pass legislation allowing the historic venue to be renamed.
The White House
HHS to restrict gender-affirming care for minors
Directive stems from President Donald Trump’s Jan. 28 executive order
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced Thursday that it will pursue regulatory changes that would make gender-affirming healthcare for transgender children more difficult, if not impossible, to access.
The shift in federal healthcare policy stems directly from President Donald Trump’s Jan. 28 executive order, Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation, which formally establishes U.S. opposition to gender-affirming care and pledges to end federal funding for such treatments.
The executive order outlines a broader effort to align HHS with the Trump–Vance administration’s policy goals and executive actions. Those actions include defunding medical institutions that provide gender-affirming care to minors by restricting federal research and education grants, withdrawing the 2022 HHS guidance supporting gender-affirming care, requiring TRICARE and federal employee health plans to exclude coverage for gender-affirming treatments for minors, and directing the Justice Department to prioritize investigations and enforcement related to such care.
HHS has claimed that gender-affirming care can “expose them [children] to irreversible damage, including infertility, impaired sexual function, diminished bone density, altered brain development, and other irreversible physiological effects.” The nation’s health organization published a report in November, saying that evidence on pediatric gender-affirming care is “very uncertain.”
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is now in the process of proposing new rules that would bar hospitals from performing what the administration describes as sex-rejecting procedures on children under age 18 as a condition of participation in Medicare and Medicaid programs. Nearly all U.S. hospitals participate in Medicare and Medicaid. HHS said that “this action is designed to ensure that the U.S. government will not be in business with organizations that intentionally or unintentionally inflict permanent harm on children.”
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. released a statement alongside the announcement.
“Under my leadership, and answering President Trump’s call to action, the federal government will do everything in its power to stop unsafe, irreversible practices that put our children at risk,” Kennedy said. “This administration will protect America’s most vulnerable. Our children deserve better — and we are delivering on that promise.”
Those claims stand in direct opposition to the positions of most major medical and healthcare organizations.
The American Medical Association, the nation’s largest and most influential physician organization, has repeatedly opposed measures that restrict access to trans healthcare.
“The AMA supports public and private health insurance coverage for treatment of gender dysphoria and opposes the denial of health insurance based on sexual orientation or gender identity,” a statement on the AMA’s website reads. “Improving access to gender-affirming care is an important means of improving health outcomes for the transgender population.”
Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders, warned the proposed changes would cause significant harm.
“Parents of transgender children want what all parents want: to see their kids thrive and get the medical care they need. But this administration is putting the government between patients and their doctors. Parents witness every day how their children benefit from this care — care backed by decades of research and endorsed by major medical associations across the country. These proposed rules are not based on medical science. They are based on politics. And if allowed to take effect will serve only to drive up medical costs, harm vulnerable children, and deny families the care their doctors say they need. These rules elevate politics over children — and that is profoundly unAmerican.”
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson echoed Levi’s sentiments.
“The Trump administration is relentless in denying health care to this country, and especially the transgender community. Families deserve the freedom to go to the doctor and get the care that they need and to have agency over the health and wellbeing of their children,” Robinson said. “But these proposed actions would put Donald Trump and RFK Jr. in those doctor’s offices, ripping health care decisions from the hands of families and putting it in the grips of the anti-LGBTQ+ fringe. Make no mistake: these rules aim to completely cut off medically necessary care from children no matter where in this country they live. It’s the Trump administration dictating who gets their prescription filled and who has their next appointment canceled altogether.
The announcement comes just days after U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) advanced legislation in Congress that would make it a felony to provide gender-affirming care to a child.
Advocates say MTG bill threatens trans youth, families, and doctors
EXCLUSIVE: Democracy Forward files FOIA lawsuit after HHS deadnames Rachel Levine
New research shows coming out is still risky
Empty seats, canceled shows plague Kennedy Center ahead of Trump renaming
New queer bar Rush beset by troubles; liquor license suspended
LGBTQ Democrats say they’re ready to fight to win in 2026
Brian Footer suspends campaign for Ward 1 D.C. Council seat
Far-right José Antonio Kast elected Chile’s next president
In real estate, trust the process
