National
Hagel fails to impress some LGBT advocates
White House defers LGBT military policy questions to testimony
Defense secretary nominee Chuck Hagel is still facing questions from advocates on LGBT military policy. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
LGBT rights supporters are seeking more from Defense Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel in the aftermath of testimony in which he expressed a commitment to gay and lesbian troops.
In written testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, Hagel built upon earlier comments to express support for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and committed to “move forward expeditiously” on the issue of outstanding partner benefits for gay service members.
LGBT advocates say they appreciate Hagel’s commitment, but want him to make good on his promises and act on LGBT military issues that he hasn’t yet addressed.
The Human Rights Campaign emphasized the importance of Hagel taking action upon confirmation to extend benefits to troops with same-sex partners. Among the outstanding benefits that could be extended administratively are military IDs, joint duty assignments and access to family programs.
“We were glad to see Sen. Hagel’s clear statement of support for gay and lesbian service members and their families,” said HRC Vice President of Programs Fred Sainz. “If confirmed, we expect Sen. Hagel to make good on his statements and act immediately to ensure that all military families have equal access to all military benefits available to them under the law.”
Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, said she’s happy Hagel articulated a commitment to gay troops, but hopes he’ll “exercise future leadership” to lift the barriers for transgender service members.
“Sen. Hagel’s commitment toward full implementation of DADT repeal and providing equal benefits to the same-sex spouses of service members was encouraging,” Carey said. “If confirmed, we hope he will exercise further leadership on LGBT issues and work to remove Defense Department barriers that prevent transgender people from serving their country openly.”
Another request came from Allyson Robinson, executive director of OutServe-SLDN, who issued a statement following the hearing calling on Hagel to extend non-discrimination protections in the military to LGBT troops. Currently, gay service members have no recourse for claims of discrimination and harassment other than their chain of command.
“If Sen. Hagel is confirmed, he must use his authority to ban discrimination and guarantee equal opportunity for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender members of the military,” Robinson said.
GetEQUAL, among the LGBT groups that had come out in opposition to Hagel, seemed to budge a little in the wake of the confirmation hearing, but also was looking for a greater commitment.
Heather Cronk, managing director for GetEQUAL, said she’s glad Hagel made the commitments for gay service members, but is looking now for “specifics behind that commitment” to offer support.
“Our key questions are whether Hagel will implement a non-discrimination policy, since DADT repeal didn’t include one, and whether that policy will immediately allow transgender service members to serve openly,” Cronk said. “If he will answer both of those questions in the affirmative, we’ll be more convinced that his values align with the stated values of the Obama administration.”
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney deferred Blade requests to elaborate on Hagel’s LGBT military policy views to his previously stated testimony:
Washington Blade: Jay, following the confirmation hearing yesterday, the LGBT military group OutServe-SLDN issued a statement saying Sen. Hagel as defense secretary must “use his authority to ban discrimination and guarantee equal opportunity for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender members of the military.” That non-discrimination, unlike the benefits issue, has heretofore gone unaddressed during the confirmation process. Does the White House expect Hagel to make this policy happen if he’s confirmed as defense secretary?
Jay Carney: I would just point you to numerous answers the senator gave in response to questions about his support for the president’s positions on issues regarding LGBT rights, including with regard to service in our military. I don’t have anything more you, but the president’s positions on these issues are clear, and he continues to intend to make progress them as he made clear in his inaugural.
Blade: Sen. Hagel did express in written responses to questions that he’d move “expeditiously” on the benefits issue, and you said last week the issue has the president’s attention. But when will these benefits be enacted?
Carney: Well, I think expeditiously is when they will get attention, as Sen. Hagel rightly answered, and, hopefully, with him at the Pentagon as soon as possible.
Carney’s remarks suggest that LGBT advocates will have to wait for Hagel to take the helm of the Pentagon for action on partner benefits for gay troops as opposed to having them enacted under the watch of outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who’s been under pressure to make the changes.
The time when Hagel will be faced with these issues may come soon. Senate Armed Services Chair Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said during the hearing a committee vote will take place Thursday, and a floor vote should take place soon after.
However, without a single Senate Republican expressing support, questions persist over whether 60 votes are present in the Senate to overcome a filibuster of his nomination.
The Log Cabin Republicans, which took out a full-page ad against Hagel in the New York Times and another in the Washington Post, remains opposed to the Hagel nomination even in the wake of his confirmation hearing.
Gregory Angelo, Log Cabin’s interim executive director, echoed some Republicans who accused Hagel of flip-flopping in his positions as he pursues the position of defense secretary.
“Sen. Hagel did so much flip-flopping, waffling and walking back on his prior statements on Iran, Israel and Iraq yesterday that we find no reason to assume he won’t shift his opinion on his opportunely timed, new-found support for the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ as well,” Angelo said. “Yesterday’s hearings only underscored what Log Cabin Republicans has been saying all along: Chuck Hagel is the wrong choice for Secretary of Defense.”
One key voice in the LGBT community who hasn’t yet articulated a final position on Hagel one way or the other is lesbian Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) — even though other Democratic senators who have pro-LGBT records like Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) have come out in favor of the nomination.
During an appearance on MSNBC’s “Hardball” last month, Baldwin said she’d ask Hagel “tough questions” about his vision for the post-“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military but hasn’t yet commented publicly on the issue further. Her office didn’t respond to a request to comment.
Federal Government
Protesters say SAVE Act targets voters, transgender youth
Bill described as ‘Jim Crow 2.0’
Members of Congress, advocates, and people from across the country gathered outside the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday to protest proposed federal legislation that voting rights activists have deemed “Jim Crow 2.0.”
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require in-person proof of citizenship for anyone seeking to vote in U.S. elections.
President Donald Trump has also pushed for the proposed legislation to include a section that would ban gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, even with parental consent, and prohibit trans people from participating in school or professional sports consistent with their gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth.
In addition to changing voter registration requirements, the bill would limit acceptable forms of identification to documents such as a birth certificate or passport — records that the Brennan Center for Justice estimates more than 21 million Americans do not have — effectively restricting access to the ballot. It would also ban online voter registration, DMV voter registration efforts, and mail-in voter registration.
A 2021 investigation by the Associated Press found that fewer than 475 people voted illegally or improperly, a tiny fraction of the estimated 160 million Americans who voted in the 2020 election.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) spoke at the event.
“It will kick millions of American citizens off the rolls. And they don’t even require you to be told,” the highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate told protesters and reporters outside the Capitol. “If this law passes — and it won’t — you’re gonna show up in November … and they’ll say… sorry, you’re no longer on the voting rolls.”
He, like many other speakers, emphasized the bill in the context of American history, pointing to what he described as its racist roots and its impact on Black and brown Americans.
“I have called this act, over and over again, Jim Crow 2.0 … because they know it’s the truth.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was one of the lawmakers leading opposition to the legislation and spoke at the rally.
“It’s not just voting rights that are on the line — our democracy is on the line,” the California lawmaker said. “It’s not a voter I.D. bill. It’s a bait and switch bill.”
He added historical context, noting the significance of voting rights legislation passed more than 60 years ago. In 1965, Alabama civil rights activists marched to protest barriers to voter registration. Alabama state troopers violently attacked peaceful demonstrators at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, using tear gas, clubs, and whips against more than 500 — mostly Black — protesters.
“61 years ago — not to the day — but this week, President Lyndon Johnson came to the Capitol and addressed a joint session of Congress in the wake of Bloody Sunday and pushed Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act,” Padilla said. “61 years later, Donald Trump and this Republican majority wants to take us backwards. We’re not gonna let that happen.”
U.S. Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) also spoke, emphasizing that he views the effort as a Republican-led and Trump-backed attempt to restrict voting access, particularly among Black, brown, and predominantly Democratic communities.
“President Trump told Republicans when they were meeting behind closed doors that ‘The SAVE Act will guarantee Republicans win the midterms and ensure they do not lose an election for 50 years,’” Luján said. “The first time I think Donald Trump’s been honest … This voter suppression bill is only that. Taking away vote by mail? I hope my Republican colleagues from states that voted for Donald Trump or where vote by mail is popular have the courage and the backbone to stand up and say no to this nonsense, because their constituents are going to push back.”
U.S. Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) also spoke.
“Our Republican colleagues have already cut Medicaid, Medicare, people don’t know how they’re gonna be able to afford energy,” she said, providing context for the broader political moment. “We’re in the middle of a war that they can’t even get straight while we’re in it and don’t have a way to get out of it. And we are now faced with defending our democracy?”
She then showed the crowd something that she said has been with her throughout her political journey in Washington.
“I brought with me something that I carried on the day that I was sworn into the House of Representatives when I was elected in 2016, and I carried it with me on the day that I was sworn in as United States senator. And I also carried it with me when I was trapped up in the gallery on Jan. 6 and all I could think to do was pray … This document allowed my great great great grandfather, who had been enslaved in Georgia, to have the right to vote. We took this and turned it into a scarf. It is the returns of qualified voters and reconstruction code from 1867. This is my proof of what we’ve been through. This is also our inspiration.”
“I got to travel between the Edmund Pettus Bridge two times. And even as I thought about this moment, I recognized that while we wish we weren’t in it, while we don’t know why we’re in it, I do know we were made for it … So I came today to tell you that, um, just like the leader said, that he calls it Jim Crow 2.0. I call it Jim Crow 2.NO.”
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy organization in the U.S., also spoke, highlighting the impact of the bill’s proposed provisions affecting trans people.
“This bill is not about saving America. This bill is about stealing an election. This bill is about suppressing voters,” Robinson said. “This bill not only tries to disenfranchise voters that deserve their right to vote, it also tries to criminalize trans kids and their families … It tries to criminalize doctors providing medically necessary care for our trans youth.”
The SAVE Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Feb. 11 but has not yet been considered in the U.S. Senate.
Idaho
Idaho advances bill to restrict bathroom access for transgender residents
HB 752 passed in state House of Representatives on Monday
The Idaho House of Representatives passed House Bill 752 on Monday, a measure that would make it a crime for a person to use a bathroom other than the one designated for their “biological sex.”
The story was first reported by the Idaho Capitol Sun after the bill cleared the House.
House Bill 752 would make it a criminal offense — either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the number of prior offenses — for individuals who “knowingly and willfully” enter a bathroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex.
The bill would apply to public buildings, including government-owned spaces, and places of “public accommodation,” a category that includes private businesses.
According to the bill’s text, it would “prohibit a person from entering a restroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex; provide a penalty; provide exceptions; define terms; and declare an emergency and provide an effective date.”
A first offense would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison. A second or subsequent offense within five years would be a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.
The bill passed in a 54–15 vote on Monday. Six Republicans broke with their party’s majority to join nine Democrats in opposing the measure.
The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Cornel Rasor, a Republican from Sagle near the Washington-Idaho border, told House lawmakers that the legislation is intended to protect women and girls.
“It prevents discomfort and voyeurism escalation and assaults, while preserving single-user options and narrow exceptions so no one is denied access for emergency aid,” Rasor said.
State Rep. Chris Mathias, a Democrat from Boise, disagreed, arguing that the legislation would unfairly target transgender Idahoans.
“The truth of the matter is — and I know a lot of people don’t want to say it — but forcing people who don’t look like the sex they were assigned at birth, or transgender folks, to use other people’s bathrooms is going to put a lot of people in danger,” Mathias said.
The Idaho American Civil Liberties Union made a statement about the bill following its passage.
“Idaho lawmakers continue pushing these harmful, invasive bathroom laws, yet cannot present credible evidence that transgender people using gender-aligned bathrooms threaten public safety,” the Idaho ACLU said. “The bill does nothing to address real criminal acts, such as sexual assault or voyeurism, and disregards concerns from law enforcement about the burden enforcement would place on local resources.”
In addition to human rights advocates, who have spoken out against similar bills advancing in state legislatures across the country, Idaho law enforcement groups have also opposed the measure. They argue that the way the legislation is written would “pose significant practical enforcement challenges,” noting that officers are tasked with maintaining public safety — not conducting gender checks or policing bathroom access.
During a committee hearing last week, law enforcement representatives and several trans Idahoans testified that the bill would make many residents less safe.
“Officers responding to a complaint would be placed in the difficult position of determining an individual’s biological sex in order to enforce the statute,” Idaho Fraternal Order of Police President Bryan Lovell wrote. “In many circumstances, there is no clear or reasonable way for officers to make that determination without engaging in questioning or investigative actions that could be viewed as invasive and inappropriate.”
The Idaho Sheriffs’ Association requested that lawmakers amend the bill to require that individuals be given an opportunity to leave a bathroom immediately before facing potential prosecution.
The bill now heads to the Idaho Senate for consideration. To become law, it must pass both chambers and avoid a veto from the governor.
A separate bathroom bill, House Bill 607, which would be enforced through civil lawsuits, passed the House last month but has not yet received a committee hearing in the Senate.
State Department
Report: US to withhold HIV aid to Zambia unless mineral access expanded
New York Times obtained Secretary of State Marco Rubio memo
The State Department is reportedly considering withholding assistance for Zambians with HIV unless the country’s government allows the U.S. to access more of its minerals.
The New York Times on Monday reported Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a memo to State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs staffers wrote the U.S. “will only secure our priorities by demonstrating willingness to publicly take support away from Zambia on a massive scale.” The newspaper said it obtained a copy of the letter.
Zambia is a country in southern Africa that borders Tanzania, Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The Times notes upwards of 1.3 million Zambians receive daily HIV medications through PEPFAR. The newspaper reported Rubio in his memo said the Trump-Vance administration could “significantly cut assistance” as soon as May.
“Reports of (the) State Department withholding lifesaving HIV treatment in return for mining concessions in Zambia does not make us safer, stronger, or more prosperous,” said U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on Tuesday. “Monetizing innocent people’s lives further undermines U.S. global leadership and is just plain wrong.”
The Washington Blade has reached out to the State Department for comment.
Zambia received breakthrough HIV prevention drug through PEPFAR
Rubio on Jan. 28, 2025, issued a waiver that allowed PEPFAR and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during a freeze on nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending. HIV/AIDS service providers around the world with whom the Blade has spoken say PEPFAR cuts and the loss of funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, which officially closed on July 1, 2025, has severely impacted their work.
The State Department last September announced PEPFAR will distribute lenacapavir in countries with high prevalence rates. Zambia two months later received the first doses of the breakthrough HIV prevention drug.
Kenya and Uganda are among the African countries have signed health agreements with the U.S. since the Trump-Vance administration took office.
The Times notes the countries that signed these agreements pledged to increase health spending. The Blade last month reported LGBTQ rights groups have questioned whether these agreements will lead to further exclusion and government-sanctioned discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Housewives take Capitol Hill by storm
Protesters say SAVE Act targets voters, transgender youth
‘It’s Dorothy’ traces lasting influence of a cultural icon
SAVE Act could silence millions of trans voters
The frightening rise of antisemitism, Islamophobia
Ensuring safer drinking water
A season of renewal for D.C. theater
PHOTOS: Awesome Con
Kennedy Center leadership changes as Trump ally Grenell departs
