Politics
Sen. Merkley bullish on prospects for ENDA
Says he’s talked with Portman, sees committee vote in May or June

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) talks about ENDA in an interview with the Washington Blade. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
The lead sponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in the Senate is excited about the bill’s prospects upon reintroduction and anticipates committee action in May or June.
In an interview with the Washington Blade on Tuesday, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) talked about the future for ENDA, which he’s planning to introduce on Thursday. The bill is set to debut on the same day as the House version by gay Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.).
Merkley, who prior to being elected as U.S. senator was Oregon State House Speaker, said he’s “very excited” about leading the fight on ENDA for two reasons: it builds off the state LGBT non-discrimination legislation he helped usher into law in 2007, and it honors the legacy of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, who previously championed ENDA.
“Part of the reason it’s exciting to me is I led the fight in Oregon for basic rights,” Merkley said. “It was a huge honor to have Sen. Kennedy ask me to carry the torch on this bill. And I want to fulfill the responsibility he gave me of getting the bill passed in the Senate. I think we’re going to be a lot of closer. We have a chance of getting this done, and getting it done this year.”
Merkley said he’s spoken with the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee Chair Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who’s already pledged to have a panel vote on ENDA this year, and received assurances a markup would happen in the coming months.
“He was very publicly saying the moment he got the bill in his hands — as soon as it was introduced — that he wanted to move forward quickly,” Merkley said. “My understanding, to be confirmed obviously in conversations with him, is he’d like to have the markup in May or June.”
The Oregon senator affirmed the Senate version of the bill would have five original co-sponsors: himself, Harkin as well as lesbian Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Republican Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Mark Kirk (Ill.). On Friday, the legislation will be open to additional co-sponsors.
Merkley also confirmed that two areas that were previously under reconsideration with respect to ENDA — the religious exemption and no mention of disparate impact — would be unchanged upon reintroduction.
However, Merkley said ENDA would be different because other provisions were modified following conversations with stakeholders and with Republican partners.
Among the changes relates to shared facilities. The previous version of ENDA stated an employer wouldn’t be in violation of the law if it denied a transgender person access to dressing facilities in which being seen unclothed is unavoidable — provided that the company provides access to adequate facilities consistent with the employee’s gender identity. Merkley said the new version of ENDA won’t address the issue of shared facilities.
“We’re going to adopt the model that has been the dominant state model, which is simply not to have discussion on facilities in any of the sections of the bill, which is what the states have done and it’s worked very well,” Merkley said.
The Oregon senator is eager for a full Senate floor vote on ENDA once the bill is moved out of committee, saying, “I think it’s time for every senator to have to take a position on this.”
“We have senators who have been silent on where they stand,” Merkley said. “We have other senators who may have been recognizing they have been hesitant before, but really there’s a hugely compelling principle at stake here: that of equal opportunity to be a full participant in our economy. It’s only right and just that people not be discriminated against in employment.”
And Merkley was bullish about reaching the 60-vote threshold in the Senate to end a filibuster on the legislation in the wake of additional senators coming out in support of marriage equality.
“I think I was the ninth,” Merkley said. “Now there are over 50. That’s a huge transformation in four years. I can’t imagine that anyone who is supportive of marriage equality wouldn’t also fully be there on non-discrimination.”
All eyes will be one of those lawmakers in particular, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who came out in favor of marriage equality after learning that his son is gay. Merkley said he’s spoken to Portman about ENDA, as well as other Republican senators, but wouldn’t divulge what the response was in these conversations.
“I’ve lobbied him and let him know I’m going to bring him back the details and work with him, and he acknowledged it,” Merkley said. “So, he’ll have to choose his own moment of what he says to the public.”
Asked whether ENDA stands a better chance at becoming law now than it did in the 112th Congress, Merkley replied, “Yes, society is way ahead of Congress. The attitudes in state after state are changing. Certainly the conversations regarding marriage equality have changed.”
As Merkley lobbies his colleagues on ENDA, the senator said he doesn’t think pressure from the White House would be useful to move forward with the legislation. Groups like Freedom to Work have been asking President Obama to call publicly for a floor vote and lobby senators on ENDA.
“I’m not sure that that’s helpful,” Merkley said. “We have the business community on board, we have commerce, we have the majority of Fortune 500 companies. I think people hearing from their home state businesses that have recognized that this is the right and good thing to do is a very powerful voice — home state interest groups as well.”
Still, Merkley said he continues to want to see administrative action against LGBT workplace discrimination in the form of an executive order barring it among federal contractors. The senator has been one of the leading lawmakers on Capitol Hill calling for the directive.
“I’ve been encouraging the administration to do what they can within their own world, which is of government contractors in employment discrimination among the contractors,” Merkley said. “I think discrimination is so abhorrent that it should be ended through any means available. I’ll keep encouraging them to do that, but maybe we can pass this bill and get it to the president and accomplish it for the entire working world at once.”
The White House continues to say in response to questions about the executive order that it prefers a legislative approach to address the issue of LGBT workplace discrimination. Merkley said he’s received no indications that the administration is reconsidering its position.
“My impression is they’re not moving quickly in that area,” Merkley said.
The White House
HRC files class action over federal ban on gender-affirming care coverage
Lawsuit filed Monday challenges White House effort to restrict care
The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the nonprofit sister organization to the largest LGBTQ human rights lobbying and advocacy organization in the U.S., along with law firms Correia & Puth and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, filed a class action lawsuit against the government as it attempts to restrict gender-affirming healthcare for federal employees.
The suit, filed on Monday, alleges that the Office of Personnel Management, run by Trump appointee Scott Kupor, is discriminating against LGBTQ federal employees (and their families and retired employees) by prohibiting health insurance coverage for gender-affirming care under the Federal Employees Health Benefits and Postal Service Health Benefits plans. There are five plaintiffs named in the complaint, but it extends to others who have those healthcare plans.
The document asserts that OPM’s prohibition on coverage for “gender transition” care in the FEHB and PSHB programs violates Title VII, the federal law that prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, or national origin.
The policy, which was implemented on Jan. 1 following the 2025 issuing of Program Carrier Letter, mandated that insurance providers in these programs deny any coverage for gender-affirming care. In February, HRC filed a federal complaint with OPM over the change in healthcare policy, which was ultimately passed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for review. That complaint is now an officially filed class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Research from the Williams Institute at UCLA Law, a think tank that collects data and conducts research on issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity, indicates that this policy denying gender-affirming care will impact healthcare access for at least 39,400 current and former federal employees and their dependents.
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson released a statement following the lawsuit’s filing.
“Our message to the Trump administration is simple: we’ll see you in court,” said Robinson. “Healthcare access should never be weaponized to advance discrimination — and the denial of coverage for critical healthcare based simply on who you are blatantly violates the rights of all of us.”
Gender-affirming care has been under constant attack by the Trump-Vance administration since its return to the White House, despite the practice being considered as extensively evidence-based but also supported by nearly every major medical organization. This type of care is provided to all people—not just transgender people—and includes things such as social affirmation, including using correct names and pronouns and wearing clothing that matches a person’s gender identity; mental health support, such as counseling to reduce depression and anxiety; and, in some cases, medical interventions such as reversible puberty blockers or hormone therapy when deemed medically appropriate.
“Federal employees have been through the wringer with the Trump administration,” said Cathy Harris, partner at Correia & Puth. “We draw the line at blatant discrimination to deny healthcare to our nation’s dedicated civil servants.”
“This odious policy is the latest example of the Trump administration’s obsession with targeting transgender people, using shameful and cruel tactics to threaten their employment, their health, and the well-being of themselves and their families,” Robinson added. “OPM’s actions will not go unchallenged, and we’ll continue to fight so that federal employees and their families receive the dignity they deserve.”
This is not the first time the White House has directly attacked gender-affirming care.
In January 2025, the administration issued Executive Order 14187, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.” The order directs federal agencies to restrict gender-affirming medical care — including puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries — for individuals under the age of 19.
For more information on how to get involved with the lawsuit, visit hrc.org.
Politics
Buttigieg indicates he may run for president in 2028
Former Transportation Secretary was in Biden-Harris administration’s Cabinet
Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg told a podcaster he is considering throwing his hat in the ring for president once again.
“I don’t know,” Buttigieg told Steven Bartlett, the British host of The Diary of a CEO, the most popular top business and tech podcast on Spotify, which aired Monday. “I think I’m more inclined than not, but there’s so much we don’t know.”
“There’s so much I don’t even know about what’s going to happen this year, let alone … what we need to know later,” he added.
Buttigieg is no stranger to running for the Oval Office.
In 2019, the former South Bend, Ind., mayor was a serious contender in the Democratic primary for the 2020 presidential election but ultimately ended his campaign and endorsed Joe Biden.
In May, an Emerson College Polling survey found Buttigieg at the top of the list of potential presidential contenders, leading California Gov. Gavin Newsom, New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, former Vice President Kamala Harris, and others.
In addition to discussing his future in federal politics, Buttigieg also discussed President Donald Trump’s handling of the Iran war — which reached its 5-month mark two weeks ago — the changing landscape of U.S. jobs due to the rise of artificial intelligence, and the growing national debt, all issues he could face if he ultimately returns to the White House.
Following his 2020 presidential campaign, Buttigieg gained prominence within the Democratic Party, eventually leading to his confirmation as Transportation Secretary. In February 2021, he became the first openly gay Cabinet member to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
In addition to his experience as an elected official, the 44-year-old served as a Navy intelligence officer in the reserves from 2009-2017, including a seven-month deployment to Afghanistan in 2014. Buttigieg came out as gay in 2015 and later married his husband, Chasten Glezman, in 2018. The couple now has two children: twins.
Buttigieg also has an extensive educational background.
He graduated from Harvard University with a bachelor’s degree in history and literature and later became a Rhodes Scholar, attending the University of Oxford, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in philosophy, politics, and economics.
This is not the first time Buttigieg has made headlines this year.
In June, he went public about being falsely accused of posing a threat to his children’s safety. An anonymous police report claimed he was a danger to his 4-year-old twins and was not allowed to be with them until after police interviews were conducted.
The police report was later determined to be false. The Washington Blade reached out to the Michigan State Police to ask what course of action, if any, would be taken against the woman who filed the false report, but the agency did not answer the question.
The Blade reached out to Buttigieg’s team for comment on his potential 2028 presidential bid, but did not hear back before publication.
Congress
House blocks effort to codify transgender servicemember ban into law
Lawmakers approved two anti-trans NDAA amendments
The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday rejected an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have codified a ban transgender servicemembers in the military.
The bipartisan vote was 212-217.
The NDAA is for the 2027 fiscal year and sets policies for the Defense Department programs and activities and the national security programs of the Department of Energy.
U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) proposed the amendment on July 21. It stated that all personnel are required to serve in accordance with their biological sex, citing military readiness and discipline.
Human Rights Campaign Senior Director of Government Affairs Jennifer Pike Bailey stated that she is grateful for the bipartisan vote that rejected President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s “dangerous and discriminatory policy that has kicked brave transgender servicemembers out of the military and weakened our national security.”
“Everyone who meets the same rigorous standards should be able to serve their country. We should honor that patriotism, particularly in this moment where we are witnessing brave servicemembers making the ultimate sacrifice for our country, instead of ending their careers and politicizing their existence. We’re grateful that a permanent extension of this ban failed, and we will keep fighting to reverse this senseless policy,” Bailey said.
Mark Takano, chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, stated that he and his members put in countless hours of work to kill the amendment.
“When Americans know they or their families are going to be targeted by or not supported by the military, that leads them to avoid signing up to serve or staying in the service — making it harder to keep the ranks of the armed services full and our nation safe. My colleagues in the Equality Caucus and I will continue working to prevent these attacks on our servicemembers and their families from becoming law,” Takano said.
According to the Congressional Equality Caucus, two other bills could potentially be passed that would also target the transgender community, both of which were proposed by U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.).
The first was a bill that would have prohibited gender-related medical care under TRICARE and to prevent TRICARE from covering certain gender-related medical procedures and treatments, which was approved in a vote of 219-208.
The second was a bill that would have prohibited male participation in female sports at DoDEA schools. DoDEA schools are Department of Defense Dependents Schools, which is a network of primary and secondary schools.
The amendment was approved in a vote of 221-203.
-
Photos4 days agoPHOTOS: World Pride March
-
Netherlands4 days agoTens of thousands take part in World Pride March
-
Theater3 days agoDon’t miss summer productions at Clear Space in Rehoboth Beach
-
Federal Government2 days agoTodd Blanche’s record on LGBTQ issues comes under scrutiny as he takes over DOJ
