National
Mixed views on ‘conscience’ language in defense bill
Some call provision ‘dangerous,’ claim it will lead to discrimination
Allyson Robinson, executive director of OutServe-SLDN (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
LGBT rights supporters are expressing disappointment with “conscience” language included in the final version of major Pentagon budget legislation, and although views on its potential impact are mixed, most say the language won’t have a substantive change on current military policy.
A bipartisan group of House and Senate lawmakers made public on Tuesday their agreement for the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill, a $633 billion proposal that sets policy for the Pentagon, continues pay for troops and provides funding for military programs.
But these lawmakers also agreed to include a watered-down provision along the lines of an anti-gay measure included in the House bill by outgoing Rep. W. Todd Akin (R-Mo.). That provision was understood to mean service members would be allowed to harass their gay colleagues and that military chaplains could refuse to minister to them simply by saying to do so goes against their religious beliefs.
The language in the conference report, listed under Section 533, is divided into two parts: the first says service members can’t be punished for their beliefs so long as they don’t violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the second says chaplains can’t be punished for refusing to perform a ritual contrary to their religious beliefs.
The section isn’t as overtly anti-gay as the House language — there’s no mention of “human sexuality” or sexual orientation — and says service members can still be punished if they act or speak out on their beliefs.
Lawmakers were expected to take up the legislation by the end of this week. House Armed Services Committee Chair Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) said during the conference that he was hopeful for a vote Thursday.
Ian Thompson, legislative representative for the American Civil Liberties Union, was among those offering the strongest objections to the “conscience” language, saying passage could lead to “claims to discriminate, not only against lesbian, gay, and bisexual service members, but also against women, religious minorities, and in the provision of health care.”
“It could reopen longstanding prohibitions against harassment, could lead to claims of a right to proselytize other service members as well as civilians in occupied areas, and could lead to claims of an opt-out from providing health care or participating in anti-harassment training,” Thompson said.
One conservative group is also claiming victory. Tony Perkins, president of the anti-gay Family Research Council, expressed satisfaction over inclusion of the “conscience” language in a statement.
“We are happy to see that Congress has included language in the Department of Defense reauthorization bill that will protect the conscience rights of chaplains and service members,” Perkins said. “This language provides for the protection of the First Amendment rights of all our men and women in the Armed Forces.”
But the “conscience” provision is one small part of the defense authorization bill aimed at continuing funds for the Pentagon and paychecks for U.S. troops. Moreover, the provision was included in exchange for dropping another provision in the House bill that would have prohibited same-sex marriages on military bases.
Progressives have reason to celebrate because the final report includes a provision in the Senate bill offered by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) to expand health coverage to cover female service members seeking abortions in cases of rape and incest. Previously, the Pentagon would only provide an abortion in the event the mother’s life was in danger.
Furthermore, other LGBT advocates didn’t express the same sense that “conscience” language would have significant impact.
These advocates are echoing the sentiment of Rep. Adam Smith, top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, who told the Washington Blade during a news conference on Tuesday that while he personally doesn’t support the language, it won’t have a substantive impact on the military because it’s consistent with current policy.
“I think that’s current law,” Smith said. “You can’t punish someone based solely on their beliefs. It has to be actions. That’s current law. I didn’t think that this language needed to be in it. If you ask me, what the one thing I would take out of this bill, if I could, that would be the one thing I would take out of this bill. Now, it’s significantly neutered, if you will, to the point where I don’t think it’s going to be a problem, and I’m going to support the bill, but that is a provision that I did not support.”
Among the groups saying the provisions would have no effect are the Human Rights Campaign, OutServe-SLDN and the Center for American Progress.
Michael Cole-Schwartz, a Human Rights Campaign spokesperson, called the provision “unnecessary” in the wake of repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” but also “meaningless.”
“While it’s bad, it’s also meaningless in a lot of ways,” Cole-Schwartz said. “We were successful in making sure an extension of DOMA wasn’t included and it’s not clear that this language, while unfortunate, will have meaningful consequence for service members.”
Allyson Robinson, executive director of OutServe-SLDN, called the inclusion of the language “disheartening” — especially because it comes on the second anniversary of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal — but says it won’t create any new policy for the Pentagon.
“Indeed, no service member or chaplain is ever punished for his or her religious beliefs unless he or she acts on those beliefs in a way inconsistent with military law or good order and discipline,” Robinson said.
But Robinson also said the appearance of the language in the defense bill should serve as a cautionary tale.
Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
“The fact that provisions such as these could make their way into this bill is an indication that the gains we have made are fragile and that we must remain ever vigilant even as we look toward the work ahead of us needed to achieve full equality in our military,” Robinson said.
Crosby Burns, research associate on LGBT issues for the Center for American Progress, also shared the sentiment that nothing new would happen if the “conscience” provision became law.
“Based on the conference reports language, I believe that it essentially reiterates existing freedoms and protections that service members and chaplains already have,” Burns said. “Obviously, it sets a dangerous precedent because it’s based off language in the House bill that was intentionally crafted to allow people to discriminate against openly gay service members, so obviously that’s cause for concern, but based off the existing language, we believe it doesn’t actually change anything in terms of the substantive policy.”
The White House is staying mum on the conference report provision. A spokesperson didn’t respond to a request for comment after it was made public.
In May, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy saying the Obama administration “strongly objects” to the conscience language as it appeared in the House bill along with the provisions barring same-sex marriage from taking place on military bases.
Denying the passage of the provision would have no impact, ACLU’s Thompson drew on the White House objections to the House language while condemning the provision found in the conference report.
“Earlier this year, the White House conveyed its strong objections to the original House-passed language based on how the provision would affect ‘all personnel-related actions based on certain religious and moral beliefs, which, in its overbroad terms, is potentially harmful to good order and discipline,'” Thompson said. “Those serious concerns have — despite initial reports to the contrary — not been resolved by this conference report language. Rather, they are magnified.”
But the White House Statement of Administration Policy doesn’t go as far as a veto threat over the conscience provision if the final version of the bill includes this provision.
Asked whether a veto is necessary, Thompson said the ACLU has already called on Obama to veto the defense authorization bill over an unrelated provision related to detainees at Guantanamo Bay, but hasn’t yet determined whether to include the “conscience” provision as another reason to veto the bill.
“The ACLU, as part of a broad coalition of human rights organizations, is already recommending a veto of the legislation based on its Guantanamo detainee transfer prohibitions,” Thompson said. “We are exploring whether to add this provision as another reason we would recommend a White House veto.”
The complete language of Section 533 of the bill follows:
SEC. 533. PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND CHAPLAINS OF SUCH MEMBERS.
(a) PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE. —
(1) ACCOMMODATION. — The Armed Forces shall accommodate the beliefs of a member of the armed forces reflecting the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the member and, in so far as practicable, may not use such beliefs as the basis of any adverse personnel action, discrimination, or denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment.
(2) DISCIPLINARY OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION. — Nothing in paragraph (1) precludes disciplinary or administrative action for conduct that is proscribed by chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice), including actions and speech that threaten good order and discipline.
(b) PROTECTION OF CHAPLAIN DECISIONS RELATING TO CONSCIENCE, MORAL PRINCIPLES, OR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. — No member of the Armed Forces may— (1) require a chaplain to perform any rite, ritual, or ceremony that is contrary to the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the chaplain; or (2) discriminate or take any adverse personnel action against a chaplain, including denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment, on the basis of the refusal by the chaplain to comply with a requirement prohibited by paragraph (1).
(c) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of Defense shall issue regulations implementing the protections afforded by this section.
Federal Government
Republicans attach five anti-LGBTQ riders to State Department funding bill
Spending package would restrict Pride flags on federal buildings, trans healthcare, LGBTQ envoys
As Congress finalizes its funding for fiscal year 2027, Republicans are attempting to include five anti-LGBTQ riders in the National Security and Department of State Appropriations Act.
A rider is an unrelated provision tacked onto a bill that must pass — in this instance, the bill provides funding for national security policy and for the State Department.
The riders range from restricting Pride flags in federal buildings to banning transgender healthcare, but all aim to limit the visibility and rights of LGBTQ Americans.
The five riders are:
Section 7067(a) prohibits Pride flags from being flown over federal buildings.
Section 7067(c) restricts the United States’ ability to appoint special envoys, representatives, or coordinators unless expressly authorized by Congress. These roles have historically been used to promote U.S. interests in international forums — including advancing human and LGBTQ and intersex rights and other policy priorities. The change would halt what the Congressional Equality Caucus describes as providing “critical expertise to U.S. foreign policy and leadership abroad.”
Section 7067(d) reinforces multiple anti-equality executive orders signed by President Donald Trump, effectively requiring that foreign assistance funded by the United States comply with those orders. This includes rescinding federal contractor nondiscrimination protections, including for LGBTQ people.
Section 7067(e) prohibits funding for any organization that provides or promotes medically necessary healthcare for trans people or “promotes transgenderism” — effectively banning funds for organizations that recognize trans people exist. This is despite the practice of gender-affirming care being supported by nearly every major medical association.
Section 7067(g) reinforces two global gag rules put forward by the Trump-Vance administration. One is the Trans Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign assistance funding for organizations that acknowledge the existence of trans people or advocate for nondiscrimination protections for them, among other activities. The second is the DEI Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign assistance funding for organizations that engage in efforts to address the ongoing effects of racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry outside the United States.
The global gag rule has its roots in anti-abortion policy introduced by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, when the 40th president barred foreign organizations receiving U.S. global health assistance from providing information, referrals, or services for legal abortion, or from advocating for access to abortion services in their own countries. Planned Parenthood notes that the policy also affects programs beyond abortion, including efforts to expand access to contraception, prevent and treat HIV/AIDS, combat malaria, and improve maternal and child health.
If organizations funded by the State Department engage in these activities, they could lose funding.
This anti-LGBTQ push aligns with broader actions from the Trump-Vance administration since the start of Trump’s second term, which have focused on restricting human rights — particularly those of trans Americans.
The House Appropriations Committee is responsible for drafting the appropriations legislation. U.S. Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) serves as chair, with U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) as ranking member. The committee includes 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.
For FY27 appropriations, Congress is supposed to pass and have the president sign the funding bills by Sept. 30, 2026.
Noticias en Español
The university that refuses to let go
Joanna Cifredo is a trans woman participating in University of Puerto Rico strike
Over the past days, I have been walking with a question that refuses to leave me. Not the kind of question you answer from a desk or from a distance, but one that grows out of what you witness in real time, at the gates, in the faces of those who remain there without knowing how any of this will end. What is truly happening inside the University of Puerto Rico, and why have so many students decided to risk everything at a moment when they can least afford to lose anything.
I write as someone who lives just steps away from the Río Piedras campus. These days, the silence has replaced the constant movement that once defined this space. The absence is felt in every corner where students used to pass at all hours. Since arriving in Puerto Rico three years ago, I have come to know firsthand stories that rarely make it into reports or official statements. One of the reasons I chose to stay was precisely this, to serve the university community, to help create a space where students could find something as basic as a safe meal at night and, in some way, ease burdens that are often carried in silence.
I have listened, asked questions, and tried to understand without imposing answers. What I have found is not a collective outburst or a generational whim. What exists is a fracture, a deep break between those making decisions and those living with their consequences every single day.
There has been an effort to reduce this strike to an issue of order, scheduling, or academic disruption. Conversations revolve around missed classes, delayed semesters, and students supposedly unaware of the consequences of their actions. What is rarely addressed are the conditions that lead an entire student body to pause its own future to sustain a protest that offers no guarantees.
Because that is the reality. These are students who fully understand what they are risking, and yet they remain. When someone reaches that point, the least they deserve is not judgment, but to be heard.
From the outside, there have also been attempts to discredit what is happening. Familiar narratives are repeated, legitimacy is questioned, and doubt is cast over intentions. It is easier to do that than to acknowledge that this did not begin at the gates, but long before, in decisions made without building trust.
And something must be said clearly. This is not limited to the gates of Río Piedras. What we are witnessing extends across every unit of the University of Puerto Rico system. Mayagüez, Ponce, Arecibo, Bayamón, Cayey, Humacao, Carolina, Aguadilla, Utuado, and the Medical Sciences Campus. This is not an isolated reaction. It is a movement that runs through the entire institution. Río Piedras may be more visible, but it is not alone. What is happening there reflects a broader unrest felt across the system.
Within that context, one demand has grown increasingly present, the call for the resignation of University of Puerto Rico President Zayira Jordán Conde. This is not the voice of a small group. It reflects a deeper level of mistrust that has spread across multiple campuses.
The Puerto Rican Association of University Professors has also made it clear that this is not solely a student issue. There is real concern among faculty, and a shared recognition of the conditions currently shaping the university. When students and professors arrive at the same conclusion, the problem can no longer be minimized.
Meanwhile, the administration continues to speak in the language of dialogue. But dialogue is not a word, it is a practice. And when trust has been broken, it cannot be restored through statements alone, but through decisions that prove a willingness to truly listen.
In the midst of all of this, there are voices that cannot be ignored. Voices grounded not in theory, but in lived experience. One of them is Joanna Cifredo, a student at the Mayagüez campus, a young Puerto Rican trans woman, and someone widely recognized for her advocacy.
I spoke with her in recent days. What follows is her voice, exactly as it is.
How would you describe what is happening inside the University of Puerto Rico right now, beyond what people see from the outside?
Estamos viviendo momentos muy difíciles, en el sentido de que hay mucha incertidumbre y una presión constante por parte de la administración para reabrir el recinto, pero, entre todo el caos e inestabilidad provocado por las decisiones de esta administración, también hemos vivido momentos muy poderosos. Esta lucha ha sacado lo mejor de nuestra comunidad.
Lo vimos en las asambleas y plenos, donde 1,500, 1,700, hasta 1,800 estudiantes llegaron —bajo lluvia, bajo advertencias de inundaciones— y aun así se quedaron, participaron y votaron a favor de una manifestación indefinida hasta que se atiendan nuestros reclamos.
He conocido a tantas personas en los diferentes portones, estudiantes graduados, aletas, estudiantes de intercambio, estudiantes de todo tipo de concentraciones y se unieron para apoyar el movimiento estudiantil. Estudiantes que vienen a los portones después del trabajo o antes de trabajar. Estudiantes que vienen a dejar agua y suministros entre turnos de trabajo. Viejitos que vienen a los portones con desayuno, almuerzo o cena.
Más allá de lo que se ve desde afuera, lo que estamos viviendo es una mezcla de tensión y resistencia, pero también de comunidad, solidaridad y compromiso colectivo.
Much of what is discussed remains at the level of headlines or social media. From your direct experience, what specific decisions or actions from the administration have led to this level of mobilization?
Desde el inicio, la designación de la Dra. Zayira Jordán Conde careció de respaldo dentro de la comunidad universitaria. No contaba con experiencia administrativa en la UPR ni con un conocimiento básico de nuestros procesos, cultura y reglamentos. Por eso, en asamblea, el estudiantado votó para solicitarle a la Junta de Gobierno que no considerara su candidatura, y múltiples organizaciones docentes hicieron lo mismo. Existía un consenso amplio de que no tenía la experiencia necesaria para liderar una institución como la nuestra.
A pesar de ese rechazo claro, la Junta de Gobierno decidió ignorar los reclamos de la comunidad universitaria e imponer su nombramiento.
Una vez en el cargo, su estilo de gobernanza ha sido poco transparente y poco colaborativo. Sin embargo, el detonante principal de la movilización en el Recinto Universitario de Mayagüez fue su decisión de destituir, de manera unilateral y en medio del semestre, a cinco rectores, incluyendo al nuestro, el Dr. Agustín Rullán Toro, para reemplazarlo por un rector interino, el Dr. Miguel Muñoz Muñoz.
Esta acción, tomada de forma abrupta, provocó de inmediato un clima de caos e inestabilidad dentro de la institución. Y deja una pregunta inevitable: ¿no anticipó el impacto de esa decisión, lo que evidenciaría una falta de experiencia? ¿O lo anticipó y aun así decidió proceder? No está claro cuál de las dos es más preocupante.
Además, esta decisión tuvo consecuencias concretas para el estudiantado, incluyendo el retiro de becas educativas para nuevos integrantes del RUM por parte de la Fundación Ceiba, que calificó la movida como “sorprendente” y “preocupante”. Decisiones impulsivas como la que tomó la presidenta ponen en peligro la estabilidad de nuestra institución y la acreditación de la universidad.
As a trans woman within this movement, how does your identity intersect with what is happening, and why does this also shape the future of people like you?
Soy una de varias chicas trans que formamos parte activa de este movimiento estudiantil.
For those outside the UPR who believe this does not affect them, what are the real consequences of this crisis?
La Universidad de Puerto Rico se fundó para servir al pueblo.
It is impossible to overstate the role the University of Puerto Rico and its students have played in shaping the social, cultural, and economic life of this country. Its impact extends into science, medicine, and every profession that has sustained Puerto Rico over time. No other educational institution has contributed more.
After listening to her, one thing becomes undeniable. This is not just another protest, but a generation refusing to let go of what little remains within its reach. And when a generation reaches that point, the issue is no longer the strike, the issue becomes the country itself.
National
Advocacy groups issue US travel advisory ahead of World Cup
Renee Good’s death in Minneapolis among incidents cited
More than 100 organizations have issued a travel advisory for the U.S. ahead of the 2026 World Cup.
The World Cup will take place in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico from June 11-July 19.
“In light of the deteriorating human rights situation in the United States and in the absence of meaningful action and concrete guarantees from FIFA, host cities, or the U.S. government, the undersigned organizations are issuing this travel advisory for fans, players, journalists, and other visitors traveling to and within the United States for the June 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup. World Cup games will be played in 11 different cities across the United States, which, like many localities, have already been the target of the Trump administration’s violent and abusive immigration crackdown,” reads the advisory that the Council for Global Equality and other groups that include the American Civil Liberties Union issued on April 23. “The impacts of these policies vary by locality.”
“While the Trump administration’s rising authoritarianism and increasing violence pose serious risks to all, those from immigrant communities, racial and ethnic minority groups, and LGBTQ+ individuals have been and continue to be disproportionately targeted and affected by the administration’s policies and, as such, are most vulnerable to serious harm when traveling to and/or within the United States,” it adds. “This travel advisory calls on fans, players, journalists, and other visitors to exercise caution.”
The advisory specifically mentions Renee Good.
A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent on Jan. 7 shot and killed her in Minneapolis. Good, 37, left behind her wife and three children.
The full advisory can be read here.
Tennessee’s trans data bill a frightening omen
The queer appeal of ‘The Devil Wears Prada’
Lesbifriends Travel to host queer night out
Republicans attach five anti-LGBTQ riders to State Department funding bill
Calendar: May 1-7
House Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
European Parliament backs EU-wide conversion therapy ban
LGBTQ people are leaving Orthodox Judaism behind
Rep. Sarah McBride reflects on first year in Congress amid political backlash
Democracy Forward files FOIA request for State Department bathroom policy records
-
Federal Government4 days agoHouse Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
-
European Union2 days ago
European Parliament backs EU-wide conversion therapy ban
-
News4 days ago
LGBTQ people are leaving Orthodox Judaism behind
-
Delaware3 days ago
Rep. Sarah McBride reflects on first year in Congress amid political backlash
