Politics
White House says U.S. ‘not involved’ in detention of Greenwald’s partner
White House won’t rule out whether U.S. obtained information from detention
White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the U.S. government had no involvement in the detention of Glenn Greenwald’s partner (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key).
White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest asserted on Monday that the United States “was not involved” in the detention of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald’s partner in the United Kingdom — although he wouldn’t rule out the possibility that U.S. authorities obtained information as a result of the detention.
During a routine news conference on Monday, Earnest fielded questions from several reporters about the detention of David Miranda, 28, whom British authorities detained under an anti-terrorism law for nine hours in London on Sunday in addition to reportedly confiscating his laptop computer, cell phone, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles.
Miranda is the partner of Greenwald, who increased his notoriety as journalist after writing about the classified National Security Agency information leaked to him by intelligence contractor Edward Snowden.
In response to initial questioning from Reuters, Earnest asserted the U.S. government had no involvement in the British government’s decision to detain Miranda and directed additional questions to British law enforcement.
“The United States was not involved in that decision or in that action,” Earnest said. “So if you have questions about it, then I would refer you to the British government.”
Under later questioning on whether this detention was concerning to the White House, Earnest said he doesn’t have a specific reaction other than to say the U.S. government wasn’t involved.
However, as questioning continued from CNN’s Jessica Yellin, Earnest said the British government did give the United States a “heads-up” the detention would take place. Earnest also wouldn’t rule out the possibility that the U.S. government obtained information from the material that was confiscated as a result of this detention.
“I’m not in a position to do that right now, no,” Earnest said.
Asked by NBC News’ Chuck Todd whether the United States objected to the detention upon the heads up given by the British government, Earnest dodged.
“I’m not going to characterize the conversations between law enforcement officials in this country and law enforcement officials there other than to say that those conversations occurred and to point out the fact that this is a decision that they made on their own,” Earnest said.
Earnest also said he understands concerns among journalists about maintaining an independent media in the wake of leaks of security information and media reports the Justice Department has gathered personal information of reporters, but reiterated President Obama’s belief that media has a right to do its job.
“The President, I think, in the course of the debate, has made pretty clear his support for independent journalists, the important role that independent journalists have to play in a vibrant, democratic society like ours,” Earnest said. “He’s also talked about the responsibility of the government to protect the right of independent journalists to do their job.”
A partial transcript follows of questions that reporters asked Earnest about the detention of Greenwald’s partner:
REUTERS: British authorities detained David Miranda, who, as you know, is the partner of Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who wrote about the secrets that Edward Snowden revealed. Human rights groups have called this detention — which was for nine hours — harassment. The Brazilian government has said there was no justification for it. Was the United States government at all involved in this? And what is the justification for it, if so?
JOSH EARNEST: Well, Mark, what you’re referring to is a law enforcement action that was taken by the British government. The United States was not involved in that decision or in that action. So if you have questions about it, then I would refer you to the British government.
REUTERS: Does the U.S. feel that Miranda could have revealed information that’s useful in terms of finding Edward Snowden or pursuing its case against Snowden in any way?
EARNEST: Like I said, I’m not aware of any of the conversations that Mr. Miranda may have had with British law enforcement officials while he was detained. But that detention was a decision that was made by the British government and is something that if you have questions about you should ask them.
…
YAHOO! NEWS: Josh, you’ve talked about the Mubarak detention as being a Egyptian legal matter. You’ve talked about Morsi’s politically motivated detention. And then with regard to Mr. Greenwald’s partner, you called it a “mere law enforcement action.” Given that the White House has never been shy about criticizing detention policies overseas, do you have any concerns at all about the U.K.’s law enforcement actions in this case?
EARNEST: Well, what I can say is I don’t have a specific reaction other than to observe to you that this is a decision that was made by the British government and not one that was made at the request or with the involvement of the United States government.
YAHOO! NEWS: But you’re not going to go as far as to say it’s wrong or it’s cause for concern? You’re just separating yourself entirely from it?
EARNEST: Well, I’m separating — what I’m suggesting is that this is a decision that was made by the British government without the involvement and not at the request of the United States government. I think it’s simple as that.
Q: Just to follow then, does the U.S. government expect to be briefed on those — the questioning that took place in London, or the information that was taken away from Mr. Greenwald’s partner?
EARNEST: To be honest with you, Steve, I don’t have a way to characterize for you any of the conversations between the British government and the U.S. government on this matter other than to say that this is a decision that they made on their own and not at the request of the United States.
But in terms of the kinds of classified, confidential conversations that are ongoing between the U.S. and our allies in Britain, I’m not able to characterize that for you.
Q: But there are consultations on this matter taking place?
EARNEST: I’m telling you I’m not able to provide any insight into those conversations at all.
…
CNN: Can you state with authority that the U.S. government has not obtained material from the laptop the British authorities confiscated from Glenn Greenwald’s partner or from any of his personal devices they also confiscated?
EARNEST: I’m just not in a position to talk to you about the conversations between British law enforcement officials and American law enforcement officials.
CNN: So you can’t rule out that the U.S. has obtained this material?
EARNEST: I’m not in a position to do that right now, no.
CNN: You also didn’t condemn — the White House didn’t condemn the detention. Is the President pleased that he was condemned — I’m sorry, is the President pleased that he was detained?
EARNEST: Well, again, this is a law enforcement action that was taken by the British government, and this is something that that they did independent of our direction, as you would expect — that the British government is going to make law enforcement decisions that they determine are in the best interest of their country.
CNN: Was the White House consulted or given a heads-up in advance?
EARNEST: There was a heads-up that was provided by the British government. So, again, this is something that we had an indication was likely to occur, but it’s not something that we requested, and it’s something that was done specifically by the British law enforcement officials there.
CNN: Is it at all concerning to the President, this sort of a nine-hour detention?
EARNEST: Well, again, this is an independent British law enforcement decision that was made. I know the suggestion has been raised by some that this is an effort to intimidate journalists. And with all of you, we’ve been undergoing a pretty rigorous debate on a range of issues related to an independent media — an independent journalist covering the application of national security rules, questions about national security leaks and other classified or confidential information and policy.
The President, I think, in the course of the debate, has made pretty clear his support for independent journalists, the important role that independent journalists have to play in a vibrant, democratic society like ours. He’s also talked about the responsibility of the government to protect the right of independent journalists to do their job.
So that’s something that the President feels strongly about and has spoken candidly about in the past. But, again, if you have specific questions about this law enforcement decision that was made by the British government, you should direct your questions to my friends over there.
…
NBC NEWS: Why was the United States given a heads-up by the British government on this detention?
EARNEST: Again, that heads-up was provided by the British government, so you can direct that question to them.
NBC NEWS: Right. But was this heads-up given before he was detained or before it went public that he was detained?
EARNEST: Probably wouldn’t be a heads-up if they would have told us about it after they detained him.
NBC NEWS: So it’s fair to say they told you they were going to do this when they saw that he was on a manifest?
EARNEST: I think that is an accurate interpretation of what a heads-up is.
NBC NEWS: Is this gentleman on some sort of watch list for the United States? Can you look that up?
EARNEST: You’d have to check with the TSA because they maintain the watch list. And I don’t know if they’d tell you or not, but you can ask them.
NBC NEWS: If he’s on a watch list for the U.K., would it be safe to assume then that he’s been put on a watch list in the United States?
EARNEST: The level of coordination between counterterrorism and law enforcement officials in the U.K. and counterterrorism and law enforcement officials in the United States is very good. But in terms of who is on different watch lists and how our actions and their actions are coordinated is not something I’m in a position to talk about from here.
NBC NEWS: Did the United States government — when given the heads-up, did the United States government express any hesitancy about the U.K. doing it — about the U.K. government doing this?
EARNEST: Well, again, this is the British government making a decision based on British law, on British soil, about a British law enforcement action.
NBC NEWS: Did the United States, when given the heads-up, just said okay?
EARNEST: They gave us a heads-up, and this is something that they did not do at our direction and it’s not something that we were involved with. This is a decision that they made on their own.
NBC NEWS: Did the United States discourage the action?
EARNEST: I’m not going to characterize the conversations between law enforcement officials in this country and law enforcement officials there other than to say that those conversations occurred and to point out the fact that this is a decision that they made on their own.
NBC NEWS: But if the — is it fair to say if the United States had discouraged it, you’d tell us?
EARNEST: No, because I think it’s fair for you to determine that those kinds of law enforcement conversations are not ones that we’re going to talk about in public.
…
Q: Just quickly on the British detainment. When was the U.S. given a heads-up? How much — how far in advance?
EARNEST: I actually don’t have that information. I’m not sure how much of a heads-up they got. But in advance of his detention, American officials were informed.
Q: Do you know what American officials were informed? Or which department — was it the White House?
EARNEST: I don’t.
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
