National
LGBT, AIDS cuts held off two months under ‘fiscal cliff’ deal
Advocates to press need for programs in coming weeks
Vice President Joe Biden and President Barack Obama appeared at the White House last night to discuss the fiscal cliff deal (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
The legislative package that Congress passed this week to avert the “fiscal cliff” puts off for only two months devastating across-the-board budget cuts to federal programs — including programs directly relevant to LGBT people and people with HIV/AIDS — putting advocates in the position to continuing fighting for them in the weeks to come.
The deal, known as the Biden-McConnell plan because it was negotiated by Vice President Joseph Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, raises an estimated $620 billion in revenue for the U.S. government. It continues the Bush-era tax cuts for lower and middle-class income households while eliminating them for individuals making more than $400,000 a year and married couples making more than $450,000.
Immediately following House passage of the bill, Obama delivered a statement at the White House saying passage of the plan fulfills his campaign promise to adjust a tax code that favored the wealthy at the expense of fiscal health for the country — although he had campaigned on letting tax cuts expire households with a lower income of $250,000 a year.
“Thanks to the votes of Democrats and Republicans in Congress, I will sign a law that raises taxes on the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans while preventing a middle-class tax hike that could have sent the economy back into recession and obviously had a severe impact on families all across America,” Obama said.
Some spending cuts are also in the plan. The agreement saves $12 billion, half in revenue and half from spending cuts which are divided equally between defense and non-defense programs. But the plan also places a two-month hold on the much larger sequester instituted under the Budget Control Act of 2011 in automatic cuts that were supposed to take effect on Wednesday.
Under the proposed cuts, $1.2 trillion would be cut for the U.S. government across-the-board for starting this year over the course of 10 years. An estimated 8.2 percent in the first year would be cut from discretionary federal programs, including HIV/AIDS and LGBT-related programs.
The cuts could be particularly devastating to individuals with HIV/AIDS who receive medication through AIDS Drug Assistance Programs. Some estimates predict that proposed cuts could lead to up to 12,000 people being placed on waiting list for drugs. Also on the cutting board may be housing provided to low-income people with AIDS.
Carl Schmid, deputy executive director for the AIDS Institute, said HIV/AIDS advocates will have to continue fighting to ensure an alternative plan is proposed that would stave off these massive cuts.
“We will still have to work to protect our programs over the next couple of months,” Schmid said. “I don’t see an appetite to address taxes again so they will have to address the spending side and entitlements along with the debt limit in the new Congress.”
Exemptions to theses cuts include to Medicaid — a program under which an estimated 50 percent of people with HIV/AIDS reductions rely on for support — as well as Social Security. Medicare cuts would be limited to a 2 percent reduction to providers.
The proposed cuts could also interfere with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes against LGBT people and reduce or possibly eliminate funds for programs like the National LGBT Aging Resource Center and the LGBT Refugee Resource Center could be reduced.
LGBT groups — including Human Rights Campaign and the Center for American Progress — acknowledged that their fight to preserve funding for these programs continues despite the deal reached this week.
Michael Cole-Schwartz, an HRC spokesperson, said his organization has no position on the deal overall, but supports putting off the sequester to make more a balanced approach to spending cuts at a later time.
“HRC does not have a position on the overall package,” Cole-Schwartz said. “However we support the delay in the sequestration cuts which would be devastating to our community and will be working with the new Congress to mitigate the impact of budget cuts as they take up the issue over the coming months.”
Jeff Krehely, the Center for American Progress’ vice president of LGBT research at the Center for American Progress, also had no comment on the overall deal, but expressed concern the way sequestration is being discussed in current debate.
“I can say that I remain concerned that the current conversation seems detached from the real-world impacts that sequestration could have on vulnerable populations,” Krehely said. “It also seems increasingly likely that advocates will have to continue to engage on these issues for the near-term, at least. It’s not going to be wrapped up neatly anytime soon.”
In November, a coalition of 25 organization led by Center for American Progress and the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force issued a report detailing how the proposed would impact hurt LGBT employment discrimination claims, limit the ability of the federal government to address the high rate of homelessness among LGBT youth and reduce funds for programming directed at LGBT health.
Obama in his White House statement seemed intent on pursuing additional cuts to federal programs — saying he agrees Medicare is “the biggest contributor to our deficit” — while he added the country “can’t simply cut our way to prosperity.”
“Cutting spending has to go hand-in-hand with further reforms to our tax code so that the wealthiest corporations and individuals can’t take advantage of loopholes and deductions that aren’t available to most Americans,” Obama said. “And we can’t keep cutting things like basic research and new technology and still expect to succeed in a 21st century economy.
One anti-gay group is expressing outright opposition the deal. Before the House voted on the measure Tuesday night, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, issued a statement decrying the measure for not addressing entitlement reform or introducing significant spending cuts.
“This deal fails the American people by allowing for more runaway spending from the federal government,” Perkins said. “President Obama has made it clear he has no real intention to address Washington’s out of control spending problem. By voting for this package, Congress gives the green light to finance his liberal agenda and further burden taxpayers.”
Perkins also took issue with what he said was a tax penalization for married couples that will result in the deal.
“Research out of Family Research Council’s Marriage and Religion Research Institute routinely shows that married couples with children create the most capital and generate the most income on average,” Perkins said. “This economic activity leads to higher revenue for government and more capital for economic expansion. Why then would we penalize marriage? We should be encouraging family formation, not penalizing it.”
This complaint of tax penalization against marriage comes from one of the chief organizations working to prevent legalization of marriage for same-sex couples.
Another provision in the bill also would have an impact on wealthy married same-sex couples in comparison to their straight counterparts. The agreement raises the tax rate on the wealthiest estates – those worth upwards of $5 million per person – from 35 percent to 40 percent.
Because of the Defense of Marriage Act, gay Americans in same-sex marriage who are wealthy enough will have to have pay this estate tax to receive the inheritance of their spouse, unlike straight Americans in the same situation. New York widow Edith Windsor is challenging DOMA before the Supreme Court on the basis that she had to pay $363,000 in estate taxes upon the death of her spouse, Thea Spyer.
According to a November 2009 report from the Williams Institute, this differential treatment of gay and married couples in the estate tax code was set to affect an estimated 73 same-sex couples that year, costing them each, on average, more than $3.3 million.
Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of the conservative group GOProud, has been an opponent of the estate tax and said the hike continues a discriminatory policy that was already made permanent in Democrats in years past.
“We said two years ago when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid passed legislation to make the estate tax permanent, that it is ‘discrimination by taxation,'” LaSalvia said. “These changes certainly twist that knife.”
CORRECTION: An initial version of this article misstated the terms for tax increases under the “fiscal cliff” plan. The Blade regrets the error.
New York
Court orders Pride flag to return to Stonewall
Lambda Legal, Washington Litigation Group filed federal lawsuit
The Pride flag will once again fly over the Stonewall National Monument in New York following a court order requiring the National Park Service to raise it over the site.
The decision follows a lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal and the Washington Litigation Group in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which challenged the removal as unconstitutional under the Administrative Procedure Act and argued that the government unlawfully targeted the LGBTQ community.
In February, the NPS removed the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument, the first national monument dedicated to LGBTQ rights and history in the U.S. The move followed a Jan. 21 memorandum issued by President Donald Trump-appointed NPS Director Jessica Bowron restricting which flags may be flown at national parks. The directive limited displays to official government flags, with narrow exceptions for those deemed to serve an “official purpose.”
Plaintiffs successfully argued that the Pride flag meets that standard, given Stonewall’s status as the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement. They also contended that the policy violated the APA by bypassing required public input and improperly applying agency rules.
The lawsuit named Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Bowron, and Amy Sebring, superintendent of Manhattan sites for the NPS, as defendants. Plaintiffs included the Gilbert Baker Foundation, Village Preservation, Equality New York, and several individuals.
The court found that the memorandum — while allowing limited exceptions for historical context purposes — was applied unlawfully in this case. As part of the settlement, the NPS is required to rehang the Pride flag on the monument’s official flagpole within seven days, where it will remain permanently.
“The sudden, arbitrary, and capricious removal of the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument was yet another act by this administration to erase the LGBTQ+ community,” said Karen Loewy, co-counsel for plaintiffs and Lambda Legal’s Senior Counsel and Director of Constitutional Law Practice. “Today, the government has pledged to restore this important symbol back to where it belongs.”
“This is a complete victory for our clients and for the LGBTQ+ community,” said Alexander Kristofcak, lead counsel for plaintiffs and a lawyer with Washington Litigation Group. “The government has acknowledged what we argued from day one: the Pride flag belongs at Stonewall. The flag will be restored and it will fly officially and permanently. And we will remain vigilant to ensure that the government sticks to the deal.”
“Gilbert Baker created the Rainbow Pride flag as a symbol of hope and liberation,” said Charles Beal, president of the Gilbert Baker Foundation. “Today, that symbol is restored to the place where it belongs, standing watch over the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement.”
“The government tried to erase an important symbol of the LGBTQ+ community, and the community said no,” said Amanda Babine, executive director of Equality New York. “Today’s accomplishment proves that when we stand together and fight back, we win.”
“The removal of the Pride flag from Stonewall was an attempt to erase LGBTQ+ history and undermine the rule of law,” said Andrew Berman, executive director of Village Preservation. “This settlement restores both.”
With Loewy on the complaint are Douglas F. Curtis, Camilla B. Taylor, Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, Kenneth D. Upton Jr., Jennifer C. Pizer, and Nephetari Smith from Lambda Legal. With Kristofcak on the complaint are Mary L. Dohrmann, Sydney Foster, Kyle Freeny, James I. Pearce, and Nathaniel Zelinsky from Washington Litigation Group.
Federal Government
Trump budget targets ‘gender extremism’
Proposed spending package would target ‘leftist’ political ideologies
The White House submitted its 2027 budget request to Congress last month, outlining a push for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to “proactively” target what it describes as “extremism” related to gender — raising concerns about the potential for law enforcement to target LGBTQ people.
The Trump-Vance administration’s 2027 budget request, submitted to Congress on April 4, proposes a dramatic increase in national security and law enforcement spending, while reducing foreign aid and restructuring multiple domestic security programs. In total, the administration is requesting $2.16 trillion in discretionary budget authority (including mandatory resources), a 15.3 percent increase over the 2026 proposal.
Central to the proposal is the creation of a new “NSPM-7 Joint Mission Center,” a direct follow-up to the September 2025 National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7). The directive instructs the Justice Department, the FBI, and other national security agencies to combat what the administration defines as “political violence in America,” effectively reshaping the Joint Terrorism Task Force network to focus on “leftist” political ideologies, according to reporting by independent journalist Ken Klippenstein.
The American Civil Liberties Union has characterized NSPM-7 as a way for President Donald Trump to intimidate his political enemies.
In a press release following the memorandum, Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, said, “President Trump has launched yet another effort to investigate and intimidate his critics,” and had described the move as an “intimidation tactic against those standing up for human rights and civil liberties.”
The proposed mission center would include personnel from 10 federal agencies tasked with targeting “domestic terrorists” associated with a wide range of ideologies. Among them is what the administration labels “extremism” related to gender, alongside categories such as “anti-Americanism,” “anti-capitalism,” “anti-Christianity,” and “support for the overthrow of the U.S. government.” The document also cites “hostility toward those who hold traditional American views” on family, religion, and morality — language LGBTQ advocates have increasingly warned could be used to frame queer and transgender rights movements as ideological threats.
The mission center is one component of a proposed $166 million increase in the FBI’s counterterrorism budget.
In total, the FBI would receive $12.5 billion for salaries and expenses under the proposal, a $1.9 billion increase. Planned investments include unmanned aerial systems operations and counter-drone capabilities, counterterrorism efforts, and security preparations for the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. The budget also cites 67,000 FBI arrests since Jan. 20, 2026, which it describes as a 197 percent increase from the prior year.
When Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, it also enacted 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5), which defines domestic terrorism as activities involving acts dangerous to human life that violate criminal laws and are intended to intimidate or coerce civilians or influence government policy through violence. That statutory definition has not changed.
However, federal agencies have historically categorized domestic terrorism threats into groups such as racially or ethnically motivated violent extremism, anti-government or anti-authority violent extremism, and other threats, including those tied to bias based on religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
The language in the budget suggests a shift in how those categories are interpreted and applied — particularly by explicitly linking “extremism” to gender and to perceived opposition to “traditional” views — without any corresponding change to federal law. Only Congress has the power to change the definition of domestic terrorism by passing legislation.
The budget document states:
“DT lone offenders will continue to pose significant detection and disruption challenges because of their capacity for independent radicalization to violence, ability to mobilize discretely, and access to firearms. Additionally, in recent years, heinous assassinations and other acts of political violence in the United States have dramatically increased. Commonly, this violent conduct relates to views associated with anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the U.S. government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility toward those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.”
This language echoes earlier actions by the Trump-Vance administration targeting trans people.
On the first day of his second term, President Trump signed Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”
The order establishes a strict binary definition of sex and withdraws federal recognition of trans people.
“It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female,” the order states. “‘Sex’ shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female. ‘Sex’ is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of ‘gender identity.’”
Appropriations committees in both chambers are expected to begin hearings in the coming weeks.
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
Court orders Pride flag to return to Stonewall
Sri Lankan government withdraws support for LGBTQ tourism initiative
In an act of artistic defiance, Baltimore Center Stage stays focused on DEI
Trump budget targets ‘gender extremism’
Susan Lucci on love, loss, and ‘All My Children’
Trump’s war threats trigger rare 25th Amendment discussion
New book celebrates 1970s dance music icons
ROSENSTEIN: Vote McDuffie for mayor of D.C.
A Sondheim masterpiece ‘Merrily’ rolls onto Netflix
