Politics
Pelosi talks ENDA at Netroots Nation
Says discharge petition an option, but not enough votes to pass bill

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) talked ENDA at Netroots Nation. (Blade photo by Michael Key)
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) entertained on Saturday the idea of a discharge petition for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act — but was skeptical the bill has the votes for passage in the U.S. House.
Pelosi made the remarks in San Jose, Calif., during Netroots Nation, an annual conference for progressive bloggers and activists, when questioned about an ENDA discharge petition by panel moderator and political analyst Zerlina Maxwell.
“We can do discharge, but we don’t have enough votes to pass it,” Pelosi said. “So that means we have to have mobilization outside from some of our Republican friends, who should think that this is a form discrimination that we should be getting rid of. But this is certainly the next order of business for us.”
Initially, Pelosi in her lengthy response talked about the LGBT accomplishments between 2009 and 2010 when Democrats were in control of Congress and the White House, such as passage of hate crimes protections legislation and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
Pelosi said the initial plan was to proceed with ENDA, but the order was changed to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” first before the 111th Congress expired because that was what the “community” wanted.
“The community came to us and they said, ‘We feel more enthusiasm for your doing the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ first — well, second, because we had done hate crimes, now ENDA would be next,” Pelosi said. “They said, no, we wanted ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ And that, because we have to depend on outside mobilization and all the rest, and, of course, all four — that would be hate crimes, that would be ENDA, that would ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ that would be marriage equality — would be the four. We were trying to do them in the order of how we thought we could get them done fastest. We thought ENDA; they thought ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal.”
Pelosi expressed enthusiasm for ENDA, saying it should be “the next order of business for us” and “we’ll do everything we possibly can” to pass the legislation.
However, Pelosi also said “bathrooms” has been an issue for the legislation, although she said that issue could have an easy fix.
“What it comes down to in some of the debate is bathrooms,” Pelosi said. “I’m just telling you honestly what some of the debate is about on that subject because if you have everybody there and ENDA is the law, and you are not discriminating, then who uses what John? Just put a unisex sign on the John and get this thing over with, right? What’s the problem?”
Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, expressed displeasure with Pelosi’s response, but said it’s a good sign that she didn’t rule out the possibility of a discharge petition.
“Unfortunately, Leader Pelosi launched a long and winding filibuster and avoided making any concrete commitment to lead on our community’s proposed ENDA discharge petition in 2013,” Almeida said. “But she did not rule out this bold strategy either, and we are hopeful she will agree eventually.”
A successful discharge petition would bring ENDA to the House floor regardless of whether Republican leaders like House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) or House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) want to keep it from a vote. For a discharge petition to succeed, a majority of House members, or 218, have to sign it.
That’s 42 more names than the current 176 lawmakers who currently sponsor in the House. The last time a discharge petition succeeded was 11 years ago in 2002 for campaign finance reform legislation known as McCain–Feingold in the Senate.
Nonetheless, Almeida was optimistic that a discharge petition would be a strategy that would yield positive results if pursued.
“Just a few months ago, House Democrats launched a discharge petition for the Paycheck Fairness Act, and that’s already gotten around 200 signatures,” Almeida said. “We believe ENDA could get even more signatures on our proposed discharge petition, and we have a small shot at getting to 218. But in order to have a chance to win, the House Democrats have to first be willing to try.”
Freedom to Work promoted the idea of asking Pelosi about the ENDA discharge petition prior to the start of the panel by sending out the proposed question via Twitter using the hastag #AskPelosi. Among those who retweeted the proposal were PFLAG National, the TaskForce and Rick Jacobs of the Courage Campaign.
We'd #AskPelosi to lead a discharge petition to get the House to vote on #ENDA. #nn13 #nn13lgbt #LGBTworkers #morethanmarriage
— Freedom to Work (@FreedomtoWork) June 22, 2013
As reported by other media outlets, Pelosi was also booed during the same session when she defended the recently revealed data collection policies under the Obama administration at the National Security Agency . The heckler wasn’t concerned about ENDA, but what a called a “secret law.”
Almeida said he’ll continue to pursue a discharge petition because attention will be on the lower chamber of Congress to pass ENDA if the Senate approves the legislation.
“Once we pass ENDA in the Senate this fall, with 60 or more bipartisan votes, the pressure will grow even stronger for House Democrats to launch the discharge petition in 2013,” Almeida said. “We spoke with several House Democrats about this strategy this weekend in San Jose, and I think there will be interest.”
Almeida declined to identify which House Democrats with whom he had spoke and which expressed interest in a discharge petition, but said these lawmakers wanted him to follow up next week.
With the Supreme Court decisions on the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8 expected next week, Almeida emphasized that LGBT workplace protections and marriage equality are both priorities worth pursuing.
“We will continue this campaign to make 2013 the year for progress not only on the freedom to marry, but also the freedom to work,” Almeida said. “We deserve both freedoms. We deserve full equality under law.”
CORRECTION: An initial version of the article, citing a transcript from the Northwest Pacific Progressive Institute, misquoted and mischaracterized Pelosi’s remarks on ENDA. The Blade regrets the error.
Congress
Chris Van Hollen says the Democratic Party needs change. Is he the one to lead it?
Senator is backing anti-establishment Democrats across the country
By LEE O. SANDERLIN | The Democratic Party is having something of an identity crisis — losing to President Donald Trump twice in three elections will do that.
Should the party embrace anti-establishment figures who espouse progressive policy ideas like Medicare for all and rhetoric about unrigging the economy for the 1 percent? Or should Democrats try to appeal to moderates who want to return to semi-normalcy in a time of political upheaval?
Although he’s been in Congress since 2002, with key leadership roles throughout his tenure, Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen, 67, counts himself firmly in the anti-establishment camp.
The rest of this article can be found on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Politics
Log Cabin Republicans remove transgender rights from mission
Decision made after ‘significant discussion’ with members, board
Log Cabin Republicans, an organization that formerly represented LGBTQ conservatives, has removed advocating for transgender and queer rights from its “renewed” national advocacy focus.
In an opinion piece written by Log Cabin Republicans President Ross Hemminger for the conservative media outlet Town Hall, he announced that trans rights would no longer be part of what the organization advocates for through conservative leadership and candidates.
In his piece, Hemminger wrote that after “significant discussion” with members and Log Cabin Republicans’ board of directors, the organization’s leadership voted to “refine Log Cabin Republicans’ national advocacy focus to concentrate specifically on issues of sexual orientation and conservative values,” a focus that does not include trans people.
“We have fought for the right to legally marry who we love, serve our country and our communities openly and proudly, and to enjoy the same inalienable rights afforded to all law-abiding Americans — and we succeeded,” Hemminger wrote. “However, the new era of gender identity politics is not the movement we supported and fought for. Gay men and women are losing public support across the country, and support for gay marriage and other once-widely accepted rights is eroding. Why? Because many voters today weren’t alive or cognizant of the politics of gay marriage winding its way through the courts and gaining ground in public opinion. Their view of the gay community is based on today’s radical transgender activists with their unnecessary and discomfiting focus on America’s youth.”
Hemminger then went on to argue that trans advocacy has shifted to focusing primarily on minors — a characterization that does not reflect the breadth of issues trans advocates address.
“They push schools to teach radical gender ideology; they want biological men in women’s sports regardless of the consequences; perhaps most offensively, they support gender reassignment treatments for minors, often without the knowledge or consent of the parents, knowing full well these treatments are mostly irreversible,” he wrote.
Hemminger and many right-wing political leaders have continued to assert this false reality as fact.
A Harvard-affiliated study found approximately 2.1 gender-affirming surgeries occur per 100,000 trans and gender-diverse minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria, underscoring how uncommon these procedures are among minors. In addition to the option of surgery for those who think it’s right for them, there is an array of other medically sound options to treat gender dysphoria, which according to KFF, an independent source for health policy research and polling, includes “medical, surgical, mental health, and non-medical services for transgender and nonbinary people.”
Additionally trans advocacy is not as narrow as Hemminger makes it seem in his opinion piece.
There are a slew of issues the trans community faces — and fights for — on a daily basis that have nothing to do with healthcare. Those include obtaining government documents that accurately reflect one’s gender identity, multiple elements of family law that include the right to marry and adopt children as straight couples can, protections from violence, hate crime protections, the right to serve in the military, access to bathrooms corresponding with their gender, and the right to education.
Despite the overwhelming number of issues trans people — regardless of political affiliation — have to struggle with as a result of systemic gaps in protections that are supposed to be afforded to everyone under the law, they remain vulnerable to unequal treatment.
Despite this shift, Log Cabin Republicans has committed to standing with the Republican Party rather than LGBTQ people as a whole. The organization was initially founded as a loosely connected network of local California social clubs made up of LGBTQ conservatives in the late 1970s before eventually emerging as a national political organization in the early 1990s under its founding executive director, Rich Tafel.
As the organization continued to gain momentum, it endorsed a handful of Republicans who voted against the Respect for Marriage Act, the 2022 law that federally recognized marriage equality for same-sex couples.
The Washington Blade reached out to Log Cabin Republicans for comment but did not hear back by the time of publication.
White House
Trump-Vance administration’s LGBTQ brain drain: what you need to know
Several high profile figures have left government since January 2025
Uncloseted Media published this article on Aug. 21.
By SPENCER MACNAUGHTON and HOPE PISONI | Since President Donald Trump regained office in January 2025, he and his administration have waged an all-out war against the LGBTQ community.
This has led queer Americans to move to other countries at unprecedented rates — Rainbow Railroad, a Canadian nonprofit that supports LGBTQ asylum seekers, reported receiving a huge increase in inquiries from the U.S. last year.
The same pattern is playing out within the government. And it’s leading to a brain drain of competent queer employees and allies who are either resigning or being fired, often because of their LGBTQ identity or their belief that queer people deserve basic human rights.
Here are six examples of federal workers who had a messy exit from Trump 2.0:
Demetre Daskalakis
- WHAT HE DID: Dr. Daskalakis is one of the foremost LGBTQ health professionals in the U.S. Under Trump’s first term, he was appointed director of the Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Under Biden, he also served as the deputy response coordinator for mpox at the White House.
- WHAT HAPPENED: While he continued a lot of this work under Trump 2.0, he didn’t last long. In August 2025, he resigned from the CDC, writing in his resignation letter that he was “unable to serve in an environment that treats CDC as a tool to generate policies and materials that do not reflect scientific reality and are designed to hurt rather than to improve the public’s health.”
- BOTTOM LINE: I recently interviewed Daskalakis, where he told me that leadership from RFK Jr.’s Health and Human Services Department justified HIV cuts by saying the virus is “just too woke.”
Julia Curlee
- WHAT SHE DID: Julia Curlee worked in intelligence for nearly two decades between the CIA and the National Security Council. Earlier this week, she wrote an article in The Atlantic explaining how she had served as Mike Pence’s daily briefer and the NSC’s director for intelligence programs. During Trump 1.0, she briefed the president on Air Force One.
- WHAT HAPPENED: Curlee told CNN this week that in Trump’s second term, her treatment by the federal government transformed. She was no longer allowed to use the women’s bathroom on federal property and had to leave her workplace to relieve herself. Her passport was also reissued to read “male,” which led to complications when traveling abroad. In March 2025, less than 70 days into Trump’s second term, Curlee says she received a call while at a rib joint in Virginia with her family informing her that her White House tour was over and that they couldn’t tell her why. She continued to work for the CIA for some months, but she later resigned.
- BOTTOM LINE: Curlee wrote that moments after she learned she was fired from the White House, she saw a post from right-wing political activist Laura Loomer that read “A transgender, Biden holdover who hates President Trump is still working in the NSC intel office. I’m told there are several NSC staffers who have complained that this trans Biden holdover hasn’t been fired yet, but nothing is being done about it.”
Marc Seawright
- WHAT HE DID: Marc Seawright worked for more than eight years at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Most recently, he served as the EEOC’s director of information governance and strategy, where he oversaw tech policy to help combat workplace harassment and discrimination.
- WHAT HAPPENED: During Trump 2.0, Seawright was ordered to develop technology that would erase any mention of LGBTQ identities from EEOC outreach materials. “[My expertise] was being leveraged to perpetuate discrimination against people like me,” he told the Associated Press. In that article, Seawright and other transgender and gender nonconforming federal employees described their “fear, grief, frustration, and distress working for the federal government at a time when it rejects them — often with no clear path for recourse or support.”
- BOTTOM LINE: Seawright quit in June, citing a hostile work environment. “It became overwhelming. It felt insurmountable,” he told the AP. He has now hired lawyers at Katz Banks Kumin and has filed a discrimination complaint.
David Maltinsky
- WHAT HE DID: Until 2025, Maltinsky worked for more than 16 years at the FBI as an intelligence specialist. In 2025, he was training to become a special agent, but three weeks ahead of graduation, he was fired.
- WHAT HAPPENED: On Oct. 1, he was delivered a letter from FBI Director Kash Patel informing him that he was being fired for an “inappropriate display of political signage.” The signage in question, according to Maltinsky, was a Pride flag displayed in his work station at a previous post in Los Angeles. The flag had been given to him by the FBI’s LA Field Office, and Maltinsky says he had been told by multiple supervisors that displaying it would not be a violation.
- BOTTOM LINE: Maltinsky is currently suing the FBI and the Department of Justice, arguing that his firing constituted unlawful discrimination.
Mary Brinkmeyer
- WHAT SHE DID: Brinkmeyer had been working as a psychologist for the Department of Veterans Affairs since 2008. She held multiple leadership roles, including the LGBTQ veteran care coordinator at the Hampton VA Medical Center. She established the first military support group for trans servicemembers and was awarded Navy Psychology Civilian Psychologist of the Year in 2016.
- WHAT HAPPENED: Following an early Trump executive order directing the federal government to purge any practices promoting “gender ideology,” Brinkmeyer says staff at her workplace were told to remove all LGBTQ-affirming materials from both public and private areas, as well as to identify “anything in medical records, training materials, or patient resources that could be considered ‘gender ideology.’” When she refused to comply and confronted her supervisor, she says her concerns were dismissed.
- BOTTOM LINE: Brinkmeyer resigned in February 2025, stating that she “didn’t want to be complicit in something that I knew was wrong.”
Amy Paris
- WHAT SHE DID: Paris was the second-highest ranking trans woman in the federal government, serving as a deputy digital services lead in the HHS Department, where she oversaw the safety of organ donations. Prior to that, she worked in a number of tech-related roles across the federal government since the Bush administration. She helped create cross-agency spending trackers, streamlined unemployment insurance during the pandemic and implemented trans-inclusive policies like gender-neutral passports.
- WHAT HAPPENED: Paris was fired as part of a string of mass layoffs across the federal government in February 2025. While the HHS did not publicly comment on why she was fired, Paris says she was told it was because of her performance, despite the fact that she got a 4.75 out of five on her last performance review and was praised for her work by multiple Biden administration officials.
- BOTTOM LINE: Paris told the 19th she suspected her firing was politically motivated, saying the Trump administration is “trying to sow discord and disrupt confidence in the workings of the federal government.”
