Connect with us

Politics

HISTORIC: Senate panel advances trans-inclusive ENDA

In first, committee reports out trans-inclusive LGBT anti-bias bill

Published

on

Mark Kirk, Tammy Baldwin, United States Senate, gay news, Washington Blade
United States Senate, gay news, Washington Blade, HELP Committee

Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee approved a trans-inclusive ENDA on Wednesday (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

A Senate committee made history on Wednesday by approving for the first time a trans-inclusive version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and picking up key Republican support from Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).

Lawmakers on the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee reported out ENDA by a 15-7 vote after a short period of discussion. No amendments were offered except for a manager’s amendment, although Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said he’ll reserve three that he planned for consideration on the Senate floor.

Senate HELP Committee Chair Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) noted the historic nature of the committee’s action prior to the vote and said it’s “time, long past time” for Congress to take action against LGBT workplace discrimination.

“Qualified workers should not be turned away or have to fear losing their livelihood for reasons that have nothing to do with their qualifications, skills or performance,” Harkin said. “Let’s not mince words: such practices are un-American. They should have no place in any American workplace.”

All 12 Democrats on the committee, including lesbian Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), are co-sponsors of the bill as well as one Republican, Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.). They each voted in favor of ENDA during the final vote.

At the start of the markup, Kirk explained he has supported ENDA — both in his capacity as a U.S. House member and a U.S. senator — because gay people should “not have that cloud of potential discrimination” in the workplace.

Speaking with reporters afterwards, Kirk explained his support for ENDA derives in part from his work as an officer in the Navy Reserve.

“For me, as you guys know, I’m a military guy,” Kirk said. “We think about how blindingly idiotic it was for Adolf Hitler to discriminate against the Jews. When you think about all the Senate pieces of the Manhattan Project, we actually developed a war-winning weapon because we were protecting creativity and science, and we became a much stronger society that allowed us to prevail. The society that is more open will be stronger, in my view, probably economically and militarily.”

Tammy Baldwin, Mark Kirk, Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee, gay news, Washington Blade

Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

New support for ENDA also came from Republicans on the panel: Hatch and Murkowksi. Hatch voted “yes” by proxy and Murkowski voted “yes” in person. The Alaska senator is the third sitting Republican U.S. senator to come out in favor of marriage equality.

In a statement after the markup, Murkowski said she voted “yes” because “discrimination should never be tolerated in the workplace.”

“I am a strong believer that individuals should be judged on whether they can do the job, not their sexual orientation – and I appreciate the hundreds of Alaskans who shared their thoughts with me and my staff as we considered this bill,” Murkowski said.

While she said improvements to the bill “might be in order in the form of floor amendments,” Murkowski added she’s pleased ENDA addresses “employers’ needs to run efficiently and reduce compliance costs” by prohibiting discrimination claims based on disparate impact.

In a statement provided to the Washington Blade, Hatch explained he was able to support ENDA because of the strong religious exemption in the bill.

“I appreciate that the authors of the bill were willing to include a robust religious exemption in this bill,” Hatch said. “I voted for it because it prohibits discrimination that should not occur in the workplace, it protects the rights of religious entities, and minimizes legal burdens on employers.”

The bill now heads to full Senate for passage on the floor, where 60 votes will likely be necessary to overcome a Senate filibuster. During the markup, Harkin said he expects ENDA to come to the floor “sometime in the fall,” but not before lawmakers leave for August break.

Asked by the Washington Blade after the committee vote whether he’s confident that ENDA will find 60 votes on the Senate floor, Harkin replied, “Yeah, I think we’ll have 60 votes.”

“As you saw, we had some very key Republicans on the committee, and that will be very helpful,” Harkin said. “As I said, I think society is there, and the things that have recently happened with the Supreme Court decision and others, I think we’re ready to move on in a way that we haven’t been ready move on in the past. Keep your fingers crossed.”

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is responsible for scheduling what comes to the floor in the Senate. His office didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on when an ENDA floor vote would take place. In his Pride statement issued last month, Reid said he looks forward to bringing up ENDA “soon.”

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney issued a statement saying President Obama “welcomes” the bipartisan support ENDA received in committee and looks forward to further action.

“The President has long supported an inclusive ENDA, which would enshrine into law strong, lasting and comprehensive protections against employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity,” Carney said. “We look forward to the full Senate’s consideration of ENDA, and continue to urge the House to move forward on this bill that upholds America’s core values of fairness and equality.”

It was the first markup of ENDA in the Senate since 2002 and the first time ever a committee in either chamber of Congress approved a version of ENDA that protects not only gay, lesbian and bisexual people from workplace discrimination, but also transgender people.

Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said a trans-inclusive ENDA has been advancing all along, but committee approval of the bill with gender identity protections is “really amazing.”

“This is a life-or-death issue for trans people, and I think this shows that we’re moving, we’re going to get it done,” Keisling said. “Next, we’re going to get it passed in the Senate, and we’re going to try to figure out how to get it through the dysfunctional House of Representatives. But it’s really important and shows trans people everywhere that this is going to happen — whether it’s this year or another year — it’s going to happen. We are going to get relief from job discrimination.”

Transgender inclusion in ENDA has been a sensitive issue in the LGBT community. In 2007, gay former Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) removed ENDA’s gender identity provisions before holding a House vote on the bill because he said the votes were lacking to pass the legislation with those protections on the House floor. The decision led to an outcry and ENDA advanced no further even though Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress.

Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, praised the Senate committee approval of ENDA, calling the vote “fantastic.”

“It was a big, bipartisan win, and we’re going this ride momentum to 60 votes by September,” Almeida said. “We think we can get to 60 votes in the Senate in September — possibly October if it takes that long. We could actually get between 60 and 65 votes in the end in the Senate, and that huge momentum will allow us to do some real campaigning with members of the House.”

Despite the support ENDA’s religious exemption has received from Republicans like Hatch, there are differing opinions on the language within the LGBT community.

Unlike existing employment discrimination law under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, ENDA’s religious exemption provides leeway for religious organizations, like churches or religious schools, to discriminate against LGBT employees.

Some ENDA supporters, like the Center for American Progress, say ENDA’s religious exemption is politically necessary for the bill to pass Congress, while others, like the American Civil Liberties Union, say it allows for continued LGBT workplace discrimination. No action was taken on the religious exemption during the markup.

Ian Thompson, legislative representative for the ACLU, said after the markup he’s pleased with the progress on ENDA, but added the growing support for LGBT rights demonstrates the bill’s religious exemption may no longer be necessary.

“Today’s vote clearly demonstrates that the tide has turned on LGBT rights,” Thompson said. “What was true five, 10, and 20 years ago is no longer the case. To that end, I think it is becoming increasingly clear that there is no reason to adopt an exemption that would needlessly dilute ENDA’s critical protections.”

Before final passage, the committee approved by unanimous consent a manager’s amendment that made technical changes to ENDA.

Some changes were made at the behest of GOP supporters who wanted clarification on certain issues. Among them is ensuring under ENDA disparate impact claims are not allowed; a plaintiff cannot recover for the same offense under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and ENDA; and an employer can amend an existing poster notifying employees of the non-discrimination policy, rather than creating a separate poster.

The manager’s amendment also updates ENDA in the wake of Supreme Court rulings on employment non-discrimination law. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in the 2009 case of Gross v. FBL Financial, the bill now includes language to ensure that the burden of proof in mixed motive cases is the same under ENDA as it is under Title VII.

Almeida, who had called for an update to ENDA in the wake of the Gross ruling, commended Harkin and his counsel for “fixing the loopholes and technical mistakes” that existed in the original version of ENDA.

“Some were on the left, and some were on the right,” Almeida said. “By making these corrections, Chairman has shown respect for Republicans on the committee and created a smarter, better Employment Non-Discrimination Act.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

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

Published

on

Gender-affirming care activists outside of the D.C. Attorney General's office on Feb. 13, 2026 in support of care for trans youth. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

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.

Continue Reading

Politics

Buttigieg indicates he may run for president in 2028 

Former Transportation Secretary was in Biden-Harris administration’s Cabinet

Published

on

Former U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg speaking at the 2024 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

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. 

Continue Reading

Congress

House blocks effort to codify transgender servicemember ban into law

Lawmakers approved two anti-trans NDAA amendments

Published

on

The Pentagon (Photo by icholakov/Bigstock)

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. 

Continue Reading

Popular