Politics
Eyes on Schumer in push for gay-inclusive immigration bill
N.Y. senator won’t commit support; Hatch urges Leahy to withhold amendments
Sen. Chuck Schumer‘s vote on gay-inclusion in immigration reform is in question. (D-N.Y.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has become the new focus for LGBT rights supporters seeking gay-inclusive immigration reform in the wake of comments he made suggesting he may not support amendments to include bi-national same-sex couples in the bill.
The senior senator from New York is seen as the only uncertain vote among the 10 Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee for two amendments that would enable gay Americans to sponsor their partners for residency in the United States.
Steve Ralls, a spokesperson for the LGBT group Immigration Equality, said late Thursday that “it has become crystal clear” that the fate of these amendments — proposed by Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) — now “rests entirely” with Schumer because his vote is needed to have majority support in committee.
“Sen. Schumer will determine if our families have the 10th vote they need,” Ralls said. “If he fails to offer that vote to Senator Leahy, and the chairman in turn cannot offer the amendment, it will be his fault, and his fault alone, that LGBT families are left behind.”
Earlier on Thursday, Schumer wouldn’t commit to supporting gay inclusion in immigration reform when speaking with reporters on Capitol Hill — even though he’s a co-sponsor of the Uniting American Families Act — on the basis that he thought their inclusion would derail the larger legislation. His office didn’t respond to the Blade’s request for comment on his position on the Leahy amendments.
According to Buzzfeed, Schumer said, “I’m not going get into speculatives. I would very much like to see it in the bill. But we have to have a bill that has support to get [the language] passed. That’s the conundrum.”
A member of the “Gang of Eight” that produced the base immigration bill, Schumer appears to be wavering amid threats from Republican members of the gang — including Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) — who threatened to kill reform if the amendments are included.
Ralls noted that Schumer voted in 1996 for the Defense of Marriage Act, and said a vote in favor of the amendments would make up for that anti-gay action.
“In 1996, Senator Schumer cast a vote in favor of DOMA,” Ralls said. “Now, he has the option of cleaning up the disastrous mess he helped make. He has so far chosen, instead, to deliver our opposition’s talking points for them.”
Leahy filed two amendments earlier this week that would incorporate same-sex couples as part of immigration reform. One is along the lines of the Uniting American Families Act, which would enable gay Americans to sponsor their foreign partners for residency in the country, while the other would be restricted to bi-national same-sex couples who are married. The two amendments are among the more than 300 that are on the table.
Fred Sainz, vice president of communications for the Human Rights Campaign, was more confident Schumer would cast a vote in favor of gay-inclusion if the amendments were brought to a vote.
“If Chairman Leahy offers either amendment he filed, and given Sen. Schumer’s long record of supporting LGBT equality, we would expect the senator to support either of them,” Sainz said.
Meanwhile, Senate Republicans in the committee seem united in suggesting that including the amendments as part of comprehensive immigration reform would be unacceptable.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on Thursday during a brief interview with the Washington Blade on Capitol Hill their inclusion “would kill the bill.”
“You’ve got to have a bipartisan, heavy majority in the Senate to be able to get this bill, and that would make it very difficult,” Hatch said.
Asked whether he’d vote “no” on the amendments, Hatch replied he hopes Leahy doesn’t bring up the amendments.
“If we can change the bill effectively, so that it will work, I would like the bill to go through,” Hatch said. “I don’t want to stop it. I have amendments that would stop the bill, too, but I’m not going to bring them up.”
Gregory Angelo, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, dismissed Hatch’s argument that gay-inclusion would kill immigration reform, pointing to the successful passage of the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization with LGBT provisions.
“The notion that something as simple as allowing married same-sex couples to sponsor their partner would kill the bill is preposterous,” Angelo said. “LGBT provisions didn’t stop VAWA from passing in the Senate — and the House — and it won’t kill the CIR bill, either.”
The committee began consideration of amendments to the immigration reform on Thursday. Consideration of additional amendments is set to continue Tuesday, Thursday, May 20 and every day that follows until there’s a final vote on the bill.
Besides Schumer, Immigration Equality says the rest of the Democrats on the panel are “yes” votes. Durbin, another Democrat on the committee and member of “Gang of Eight,” isn’t in the same boat as Schumer because the Illinois senator has articulated support for the amendments. Max Gleischman, a Durbin spokesperson, confirmed for the Blade that his boss supports the measures.
During an interview with CNN on Sunday, Durbin commented on the prospects of including bi-national gay couples as part of immigration reform.
“I happen to believe that it’s consistent with the position we should have marriage equality, and therefore, recognize marriages between people from the same gender,” Durbin said. “Now, this is a hot issue. It’s a contentious issue. If we can find a way through this to protect that basic right of an individual and still pass immigration reform, that’s what I want to achieve.”
For a time, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), one of the Democrats on the committee, was seen as questionable because she expressed concerns over granting affidavits to same-sex couples as written under UAFA. Her office didn’t respond to the Blade’s request for comment on the amendments, but Ralls maintained his organization has received commitments that she’d vote for the Leahy amendment restricted to married bi-national same-sex couples.
Leahy also continues to promote the idea that protections for gay couples should be included as part of comprehensive immigration reform as more states continue to legalize same-sex marriage. He articulated his views in an interview with Politico published on Thursday.
“On this particular issue, you know, at some point we’re going to have to face it, and we have to decide when is the best time to face it,” Leahy said. “You can’t go into a state like mine or — it will be now 11 or 12 states and the District of Columbia — where same-sex marriage is legal, and say to this couple, ‘OK, we can help you with the immigration matter.’ Turn to another couple equally legally married and say, ‘Oh, we have to discriminate against you.’”
At the same time, debate is ensuing within the religious community about support for immigration reform if it includes language for bi-national couples.
According to the Associated Press, leaders from conservative religious groups who previously expressed support for immigration said during a conference call with reporters on Wednesday they would withdraw support if language for gay couples is included. Among the groups on the call were the Southern Baptist Convention and the National Association of Evangelicals
“We’re extremely hopeful that this bill will remain an immigration bill and not get tangled up with the issue of gay rights,” Richard Land, a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, was quoted as saying. “But if it did, if it did, the Southern Baptist Convention would not be able to support the bill.”
But a letter dated May, 6 2013 to Leahy from a coalition of other religious groups calls for the inclusion of gay couples in immigration reform. Among the 15 signers are leaders from the Lutheran Church, the Episcopal Church and the Unitarian Church.
“More than 2,500 faith leaders from all fifty states, including 57 bishops of the Episcopal, Methodist, and Lutheran churches are part of the Faith Coalition for the Uniting American Families Act,” the letter states. “No reform of that system can truly be called comprehensive unless it includes all immigrant families, including the families of same-sex spouses and partners.”
Congress
Bill seeks to block global gag rule expansion
Policy now bans US foreign aid to groups promoting ‘gender ideology’
Lawmakers on Wednesday introduced a bill that would block the expansion of the global gag rule.
President Ronald Reagan in 1985 implemented the global gag rule, also known as the “Mexico City” policy, which bans U.S. foreign aid for groups that support abortion and/or offer abortion-related services.
Trump reinstated the rule during his first administration. The Biden-Harris administration shortly after it took office in 2021 rescinded it.
The Trump-Vance administration earlier this year expanded the global gag rule to ban U.S. foreign aid for groups that promote “gender ideology.” The expansion took effect on Feb. 26.
U.S. Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) introduced the Protecting Human Rights and Public Health in Foreign Assistance Act in the U.S. Senate. U.S. Reps. Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), Lois Frankel (D-Fla.), Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), and Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) introduced it in the U.S. House of Representatives.
“Using taxpayer money to export the Trump administration’s anti-trans, anti-science, and anti-abortion ideological agenda isn’t just immoral — it’s antithetical to efficient, effective, and rights-based foreign assistance,” said Council for Global Equality Senior Policy Fellow Beirne Roose-Snyder on Wednesday in a press release.
Meng added the Trump-Vance administration’s “crusade against healthcare and global aid is putting millions of lives at risk worldwide.”
“No one will flourish under the new expanded global gag rule,” said the New York Democrat. “These policies weaponize foreign aid and will result in greater harm, particularly for women and girls, marginalized communities, and LGBTQI+ individuals.”
“They should never have been implemented at all, let alone without even a basic public comment process,” she added. “This legislation will reverse these dangerous policies.”
The White House
From red carpet to chaos: A first-person narrative of the WHCD shooting
The Blade’s WH correspondent Joe Reberkenny recounts his night at the WHCD after a shooter attempted to gain entry.
It started as any White House Correspondents’ Dinner is supposed to go—I assume. I’ve never been to one before this, but based on other events I’ve attended at the Hilton, including an HRC gala, it all seemed fairly normal.
There was a lot of traffic. Police had blocked off streets encompassing a large portion of Adams Morgan—particularly around the hotel. The president was making his first appearance after boycotting the event during his first term, so there was a sense of anticipation. It took me about 45 minutes to go just under a mile from my apartment to about three blocks from the hotel in my Uber. I waited until the last possible second before I felt like I was going to be late—6:30—to get out of the car, because it was raining and I was wearing my green tux.
I walked up to a group of people checking tickets at the base of the hotel. They seemed to just be glancing at the tiny, index-card-sized tickets rather than conducting any kind of full security screening outside. As I walked from that first checkpoint to the drive-around drop-off area, I joined what was essentially one long line for the red carpet. It eventually split into people who wanted photos and those who didn’t—but again, there was no real need to show anything beyond that small ticket upon entering, and even that wasn’t being checked closely.
A light went off in my head; I felt that, given the speed at which security was checking tickets, they couldn’t fully see the foil logo and tiny table numbers from that distance. I remember thinking that if I had a similarly sized piece of paper, I could have gotten through up to that point.
I also noticed there was no real security checkpoint or metal detectors upon initially entering the hotel grounds—unlike what I had seen at the HRC gala the year before.
I waited about 35 minutes in line in the car drop-off area—without cars, since it had been repurposed to corral press and their guests before entering the building and heading onto the red carpet. I took my photo, then went up the escalator to meet my date, Jacob Bernard from Democracy Forward. They wouldn’t let him onto the red carpet without his ticket, so I gave him his, which I had been holding. He was already inside the venue despite not having his ticket on him and had been at one of the pre-parties.
That also struck me as odd—that you could access a pre-dinner party without a ticket or going through any visible security.
After I found him, we took a photo together at a step-and-repeat past the main red carpet area around 7:45. Oddly enough, a group of my friends—gays who I regularly see on the dance floors of the gay bars of Washington, who work in various government and media-adjacent fields—found me, and we took pictures together. None were White House correspondents or held a “hard pass” to the White House (security credentials that allow entry into the White House complex).
Another light went off in my head that indicated party crashers probably shouldn’t be getting inside to an event that is supposed to be one of the most secure rooms in the country.
After the photos, I could see groups of people being moved from pre-party spaces in various meeting rooms on other floors and directed toward the main floor where the red carpet had been.
My guest and I went back up to the main floor and walked through a small security checkpoint that included only a handful of metal detectors. From there, I went down the stairs from the lobby into the International Ballroom, where we took our seats at Table 200. I talked to a few people I knew—very traditional pre-event chit-chat. The vibes felt good. It was my first time attending, and I was genuinely excited.
Around 8:15, the Marine Corps Band played and “Commandant’s Four” color guard presented the flags. We were then told to take our seats.
They introduced the head table—the president, first lady, vice president, and members of the White House Correspondents’ Association board. Weijia Jiang, senior White House correspondent for CBS News and president of the WHCA, gave a brief speech, essentially saying we would eat first and then move into the main program, which was supposed to feature mentalist Oz Pearlman.
At this point my table, 200 which included members of the Wall Street Journal, the Blade, and a European outlet all started eating. About 15 minutes later, Washington Hilton staff began clearing plates and preparing to bring out the next course.
As they cleared the plates, I heard four loud bangs.
I saw hotel employees immediately start ducking. They seemed to understand the gravity of the situation much faster than most attendees, including myself. At first, it sounded like a tray might have fallen over (but I later found out that wasn’t the case).
After about 30 seconds of watching some people duck, others look around in confusion, and some continue eating and drinking, I got down. I kneeled with my chair in front of me as a kind of barrier. Being at Table 200, I felt somewhat removed from where the actual incident occurred.
Then I saw the president being whisked away quickly by Secret Service, along with the first lady and others at the head table.
My reporter instincts kicked in. I grabbed my phone and started filming. I saw SWAT team members rush into the ballroom and onto the stage, clearing the area. I captured a video of people looking around, confused about what had just happened.
A few minutes later, the room was told by the WHCA president to hold on—that they would provide more information and guidance on what would happen next. There was some indication that they might try to continue the event despite what had occurred.
Everyone started frantically checking X to see if any major outlets were reporting. I was receiving texts from family, friends, and colleagues about the rapidly unfolding situation.
I walked to the bathroom—twice, technically. I couldn’t find it initially because it was hidden behind black curtains. (Later, those curtains were removed, and the men’s room was in clearer view.)
During the first walk to the bathroom, I called my editor to tell him what was happening. He instructed me to start sending copy to another editor, who would get it online. The ballroom had almost no service—it’s in the basement of a 12-story hotel—so it was a challenge. I utilized SMS fallback (since iMessage wasn’t working) to send updates.
I returned to the table, where people were still hovering—calling editors, scrolling, texting, sending photos and copy. I was already drafting my story and sending it in chunks, adding details as I gathered more information.
I walked my guest toward the bathroom again, which was on the opposite side of the ballroom from our table, so I had to cross what felt like a sea of journalists, PR officials, guests, and others on their phones, talking and scrolling. My guest pointed out that the press pool was being held in an alcove away from the ballroom doors and escalator exit—not in the ballroom with everyone else.
“Alive” by the Bee Gees was playing over the speakers in the bathroom, which felt a little too on the nose.
On my way out, I heard someone speaking over a microphone and rushed to the ballroom entrance. WHCA President Weijia Jiang was speaking. She announced that the event was over and the space was being evacuated.
She also said that President Trump would hold a press conference at the White House in about 25 minutes.
That’s when I knew it was a race against the clock.
I called my editor a second time to update him and asked if I should head to the briefing (knowing the answer would be yes). He confirmed.
Then the crowd began to move. People grabbed purses, bottles—some left belongings behind. Even though it was technically becoming a crime scene, no one was actively forcing us out. It felt more like a collective understanding: It was time to go.
I texted my guest: “OK, I have to go to the White House. I’m so sorry to leave you.”
I made my way with the sea of people toward the one exit we were allowed to use and zipped between women in fancy gowns and men looking like penguins.
I put on my hard press pass, opened the Capital Bikeshare app, reserved the closest e-bike, and headed out.
I walked up Columbia Road to 20th and Wyoming, grabbed the bike, and rode down Wyoming, then 18th, cut over to U Street, and went straight down 16th to the White House. That ride was exhilarating. I also filmed an Instagram Reel updating my followers on what was going on. I could see tourists and D.C. residents alike looking at me from their cars and the sidewalk, obviously confused as to why a man dressed in a tux had hopped on a bike.
I got off the bike where 16th Street meets Lafayette Square and darted toward the first White House security checkpoint, where they were verifying press credentials. Luckily, I had mine. After that, it turned into a mad dash. Everyone who made it through started moving quickly.
The sound of heels on what I think was cobblestone—or maybe brick—sticks with me. My own shoes were clacking as I ran toward the White House alongside other journalists in heels and dress shoes.
At the Secret Service checkpoint, there was a separate line for hard pass holders. Having my hard pass let me skip much of the impeccably dressed line of journalists who didn’t think to bring their hard pass with them.
It was probably the most exquisitely dressed press crowd I’ve ever seen—tuxedos, gowns, full makeup. It felt like something out of “The Hunger Games.”
I went through security, put my belongings through the metal detector, entered my code, grabbed my things, and ran to the briefing room.
The White House
Grindr to host first-ever White House Correspondents’ Dinner party
App’s head of global government affairs a long-time GOP-aligned lobbyist
Gay dating and hookup app Grindr will host its first-ever White House Correspondents’ Weekend party on April 24.
The event is scheduled for the night before the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, an annual gathering meant to celebrate the First Amendment, honor journalism, and raise money for scholarships.
The White House Correspondents’ Dinner is organized by the White House Correspondents’ Association, a group of journalists who regularly cover the president and the administration.
An invitation obtained by the Washington Blade’s Joe Reberkenny and Michael K. Lavers reads:
“We’d be thrilled to have you join us at Grindr’s inaugural White House Correspondents’ Dinner Weekend Party, a Friday evening gathering to bring together policymakers, journalists, and LGBTQ community leaders as we toast the First Amendment.”
The Blade requested an interview with Joe Hack, Grindr’s head of global government affairs, but was unable to reach him via phone or Zoom. He did, however, provide a statement shared with other outlets, offering limited explanation for why the company decided 2026 was the year for the app to host this event.
“Grindr represents a global community with real stakes in Washington. The issues being debated here — HIV funding, digital privacy, LGBTQ+ human rights — are daily life for our community. Nobody does connections like Grindr, and WHCD weekend is the most iconic place in the country to make them. We figured it was time to host.”
Hack said the company has been “well received” by lawmakers in both parties and has found “common ground” on issues such as HIV funding and keeping minors off the app. He credited longstanding relationships in Washington and what he described as Grindr’s “respectful” approach to lobbying.
Hack, a longtime Republican-aligned lobbyist, previously worked for several GOP lawmakers, including U.S. Sens. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), George Voinovich (R-Ohio), Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), and U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.).
According to congressional disclosure forms compiled by OpenSecrets, Grindr spent $1.3 million on lobbying in 2025— more than Tinder and Hinge’s parent company Match Group.
“This is going to be elevated Grindr,” Hack told TheWrap when describing the invite-only party that has already generated buzz on social media. “This isn’t going to be a bunch of shirtless men walking around. This is going to be very elevated, elegant, but still us.”
He also pointed to the company’s work on HIV-related initiatives, including efforts to maintain federal funding for healthcare partners that distribute HIV self-testing kits through the app.
The event comes at a particularly notable moment for an LGBTQ-focused connection platform to enter the Washington social circuit at a high-profile political weekend, as LGBTQ rights remain under constant attack from conservative lawmakers, particularly around transgender healthcare, sports participation, and public accommodations.
Republicans attach five anti-LGBTQ riders to State Department funding bill
Calendar: May 1-7
The university that refuses to let go
Judge issues revised order in Capital Pride stalking case
New Zealand blood donation rules shift
House Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
From red carpet to chaos: A first-person narrative of the WHCD shooting
European Parliament backs EU-wide conversion therapy ban
LGBTQ people are leaving Orthodox Judaism behind
Democracy Forward files FOIA request for State Department bathroom policy records
-
Federal Government3 days agoHouse Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
-
The White House5 days ago
From red carpet to chaos: A first-person narrative of the WHCD shooting
-
European Union2 days ago
European Parliament backs EU-wide conversion therapy ban
-
News4 days ago
LGBTQ people are leaving Orthodox Judaism behind
