National
NOM president’s 80-hour workweek?
IRS forms raise questions, reveal Brown’s $253,000 salary
NOM President Brian Brown (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
In its recently released IRS 990 reports for 2011, the National Organization for Marriage says its president Brian Brown received a salary and benefits package totaling $253,917 and works an average of 80 hours a week as the head of NOM and its affiliated charitable arm, the NOM Education Fund.
D.C. attorney Marcus Owens, a nationally recognized expert on 990 reporting requirements who formerly headed the IRS division overseeing tax-exempt organizations, told the Blade that claims of an 80-hour work week could raise a red flag for the IRS and possibly prompt the tax agency to conduct an audit of NOM.
“Nobody works 80 hours a week on something like this,” Owens said.
But NOM communications director Thomas Peters said in a statement released to the Blade that Brown often puts in more than 80 hours in a week.
“Since no CEO punches a time clock, the intent of the completed forms is to show that Mr. Brown works tirelessly for both NOM’s c4 (through which he is paid) and the c3,” he said.
“In fact there are many weeks he works in excess of 80 hours for NOM while others are certainly less than 80 hours,” Peters said. “Only during the rare vacation does he work less than 40 hours in a week.”
Since its founding in 2008, NOM has emerged as the leading organization opposing legalization of marriage for same-sex couples. It has raised millions of dollars for state ballot measures seeking to ban same-sex marriage.
Peters was referring to the IRS tax code that classifies tax-exempt charitable organizations as a 501 (c)(3) organization, which allows contributors to write off their donations as a tax deduction; and a tax-exempt political organization, like NOM, Inc., which is listed as a 501 (c)(4) group, whose contributors cannot write off their donations.
Owens said groups like NOM that have overlapping staffs for their c3 and c4 entities and where the two entities share the same office are required to keep careful records that separate their expenses and income and ensure that the c3 group doesn’t subsidize the c4 group.
Since the c3 group receives donations that are tax deductible it usually has an easier task of raising money than the c4 group, Owens said. He said the c4 group is allowed to subsidize the c3 group but not vice versa.
“What I advise organizations when they have that sort of dual structure is to make it clear on the 990 that they do track expenses for each organization because otherwise you’re setting yourself up for speculation and a possible IRS audit just to see what’s going on,” he said. “There should be a cost sharing arrangement between the two organizations and employees ought to be keeping time sheets to show which hat they’re wearing when they do something.”
The 990 forms filed by NOM for 2011 show both of its entities are located in the same suite of offices on K Street, N.W.
Owens confirmed that NOM spokesperson Peters was correct when he told the Blade in an earlier statement that gay rights advocate and NOM critic Fred Karger issued a press release on Jan. 30 that incorrectly claimed that Brown’s salary and benefits exceeded $500,000. Owens noted that Karger apparently misread NOM’s 2011 990 form for its c3 NOM Education Fund.
All 990 forms have two columns for reporting salary and compensation – one for the organization for which the 990 applies and another column for income and compensation from “related organizations.” NOM’s 990 report for the c3 Education Fund group includes an entry of $230,000 in compensation and $23,917 in “other” compensation, such as benefits, in the column designated for “related organizations,” which, in this case, means salary and benefits from NOM, Inc., the c4 entity.
“It can get pretty hard to understand,” said Owens, who noted that understanding the 990 forms is difficult for the untrained eye.
“Fred Karger has made another embarrassing mistake, which is typical of someone whose stock and trade is the reckless charge,” Peters said in the earlier statement.
Karger, who filed an ethics complaint against NOM before the Maine election regulatory agency in 2009 that led to a finding of a campaign reporting violation, said it was NOM that has been reckless in “concealing” its finances.
“They stonewall as much as they can until they’re forced to release information,” he said.
Peters said NOM believes its 990 reports for 2011 are in proper order.
“If the IRS has any questions about this, we will be happy to discuss it with them,” he said. “If they inquire we will certainly take the opportunity to ask them about the status of the criminal investigation into NOM’s stolen income tax return, which appears to have come from the IRS and given to our opponents.”
He was referring to a NOM IRS filing that was leaked to the Human Rights Campaign, the national LGBT advocacy group that released the leaked information that caused embarrassment for NOM.
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.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
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’
How to navigate shifting tenant expectations
Report: Grenell wants Russian ambassadorship
Trump’s war threats trigger rare 25th Amendment discussion
New book celebrates 1970s dance music icons
ROSENSTEIN: Vote McDuffie for mayor of D.C.
