Connect with us

News

New momentum for ENDA as Senate vote nears

Senate Dems united in support of legislation

Published

on

Mark Pryor, United States Senate, Democratic Party, Arkansas, gay news, Washington Blade
Employment Non-Discrimination Act, ENDA, gay news, Washington Blade, United States Senate

Now that Sen. Joe Manchin has said he’ll vote for ENDA, the entire Senate Democratic caucus is on board (Photos public domain).

In the days after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced on Monday a floor vote would take place on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act before Thanksgiving, the Democratic caucus has become united on the bill, but some Republican senators are still undecided.

Following Reid’s announcement, the three Democratic holdouts — Sens. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) — signaled they’d support the legislation as Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) reportedly said he’s “inclined to support” the measure.

Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) expressed opposition to ENDA in its current form and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) may be wavering following his support for the bill in committee.

Reid said during his routine weekly news conference on Tuesday that he feels “pretty good” about ENDA, but wasn’t more specific about the timing of the vote.

“I don’t know if we’ll do it next week but we’re going to do it this work period,” Reid said. “The lead Democrat on that has been [Sen.] Jeff Merkley of Oregon and he said earlier today he has 59 supporters. So, that’s pretty good. That’s counting a new senator on Thursday.”

The bill, which has languished in Congress in various versions since the 1970s, would prohibit businesses from discriminating against or firing workers for being LGBT.

Merkley, ENDA’s chief sponsor, was optimistic when speaking with the Washington Blade on Capitol Hill about whether he thinks the bill will pass the Senate.

“I think it will,” Merkley said. “There’s just a tremendous sense that this is an issue of fairness, an issue of equality under our Constitution, an issue of opportunity. If you don’t have a chance to have fairness in getting a job, you really don’t have a fair chance to live the American dream.”

Merkley wouldn’t predict the number of votes that ENDA will receive on the Senate floor and deferred details about the timing of the vote to Democratic leadership, but said “momentum continues to build.”

Following Nelson’s signal earlier Tuesday that he would become the 54th sponsor of ENDA, Pryor, in a development first reported by Arkansas Times, announced he’d vote for the legislation on the floor. Michael Teague, a Pryor spokesperson, confirmed to the Blade that Pryor “will vote ‘yes’ on ENDA.”

Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, said Pryor’s support for ENDA is evidence that momentum for the legislation is “building fast.”

“We applaud him for standing up for basic fairness and predict that his decision will be supported by Arkansas business leaders from small to big,” Almeida said. “It helps that Wal-Mart, the state’s largest employer, has protected gay and lesbian workers from discrimination for nearly 10 years, and adopted workplace protections for transgender employees two years ago.”

The next day, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) signaled he’d also for vote ENDA. Asked whether he could confirm a tweet via the New York Times that the senator would vote for the bill, Jonathan Kott, a Manchin spokesperson, replied, “I can.”

Republicans hold differing views

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a senator known for his outreach to the LGBT community, was optimistic when speaking to the Blade about ENDA’s chances on the Senate floor.

“I think it has a very good chance of passing; I’m very positive about it,” Schumer said. “There are at least four Republicans who have either voted for it, or committed to voting for it, and five or six other who seem positive. I’m very optimistic.”

One Republican who may be in that column is Portman, who earlier this year after learning his son is gay. The Cincinnati Inquirer reported that Portman said Tuesday he’s “inclined to support” ENDA.

Caitlin Dunn, a Portman spokesperson, told the Blade afterward the Ohio Republican supports the basic premise of the legislation, but has concerns about “religious liberties.”

“Sen. Portman agrees with the underlying principle of ENDA and supports ending unjust discrimination based on one’s sexual orientation,” Portman said. “He doesn’t think one of his constituents should be able to be fired just because he or she is gay. The bill as it stands, however, is not perfect, and he continues to discuss his concerns with the bill’s sponsors and is exploring ways to strengthen the bill, including its religious liberties provisions.”

But other Republicans considered possible “yes” votes on ENDA don’t share the same view.

Flake, who voted for a gay-only version of ENDA without transgender protections as U.S. House member in 2007, told the Blade in response to how he’ll vote on the bill this time around, “If it’s the House version, I’ll vote for it, like I did then.”

When the Blade pointed out that the 2013 version of ENDA in the Senate is different from the 2007 version in the House, Flake replied, “If they don’t change it, I’ll vote ‘no.'”

Asked if it was the trans protections in the current version of ENDA to which he had objections, Flake replied, “Yeah. I have issues with that.”

Another Republican previously cited as a potential “yes” vote on ENDA, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) told the Blade he hadn’t seen ENDA, nor would he say if he was leaning to vote one way or the other.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) had similarly said he hasn’t thoroughly examined ENDA when speaking with the Blade, but indicated some initial concerns about the legislation.

“I need to look at the bill,” Rubio said. “I just saw yesterday news reports that it might come up next week, so I’ll be studying it. I can just tell you my initial read on it. I have concerns about it that I’ll address at a later time.”

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), identified by Freedom to Work as a potential ENDA supporter, was similarly non-committal about the legislation.

“I haven’t had a chance to examine it carefully,” McCain told the Blade. “I don’t know when it’s coming up to tell you the truth.”

The Washington Post reported last week that Cindy McCain, the senator’s wife, signed a postcard to her husband given to her by a Human Rights Campaign volunteer encouraging him to support ENDA.

McCain acknowledged he has received the postcard as he maintained he hasn’t yet taken a position on ENDA.

“My wife is — as most women are — a very independent thinker and is entitled to her views, and I respect those views — not only of my wife, but of my daughter and my sons,” McCain said.

Additionally, the two Republicans that joined Democrats on the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee in voting left the door open for them to vote “no” on the Senate floor when speaking with the Washington Blade.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), one of these Republicans, gave himself considerable latitude in reversing the “yes” vote that he delivered in committee on ENDA.

“I’m looking at it,” Hatch said. “I want to make sure I understand it fully before I make a decision.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the other Republican, also opened the door for her to vote “no” when asked if she’d vote on the floor for the bill she supported in committee.

“Obviously, we’re going to see what’s happening with amendments, but, yes, I was supportive of ENDA as it came out in committee, and I’m looking forward to seeing it on the floor,” Murkowski said.

Assuming these two Republicans continue their support for ENDA, the 54 sponsors of ENDA vote for it as well as Manchin and Pryor, the legislation now has the 59 votes that Reid cited during the news conference. That’s still one vote short of overcoming a filibuster.

Religious exemption draws concern

Meanwhile, concerns among some LGBT advocates persist over the religious exemption over fears the language is too broad and provides insufficient protection for LGBT people working at religious organizations.

The grassroots LGBT group GetEQUAL is petitioning Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) to speak out against ENDA’s broad religious exemptions on the floor of the Senate, touting more than 5,600 petition signatures.

Heather Cronk, managing director of GetEQUAL, said her organization doesn’t support ENDA with the current religious exemption in place.

“We don’t support the current version of ENDA specifically because the broad religious exemptions contained in the bill will set a really harmful precedent that discrimination against LGBT folks is acceptable if the person or institution discriminating simply claims religion,” Cronk said.

Currently, ENDA has a religious exemption that provides leeway for religious organizations, like churches or religious schools, to discriminate against LGBT employees. That same leeway isn’t found under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits religious organizations from discriminating on the basis of race, gender or national origin.

The lack of support for ENDA from GetEQUAL — as well as concern expressed by groups like the American Civil Liberties Union — recalls the discontinued support for ENDA in 2007 when the transgender protections were dropped before a House vote took place. Despite this concern, groups such as Freedom to Work and the Human Rights Campaign continue to support ENDA with its current religious exemption.

Merkley reiterated on Tuesday he’s happy with the current language, but noted there will be a debate process and opportunity for amendments on the Senate floor.

“I’m very satisfied with the religious exemption” Merkley said. “I’m sure there’ll be a variety of amendments put forward, but I think it strikes the right balance.”

According to sources familiar with the bill, Merkley rejected an ACLU proposal prior to ENDA’s introduction to limit the religious exemption.

One question is whether the White House is actively engaged in pushing lawmakers to support ENDA. On Monday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told the Blade that President Obama “will encourage continued movement” on ENDA, but wouldn’t go into details about legislative strategy.

Merkley said he hasn’t seen the White House or Obama engage in lobbying efforts on ENDA, but assumed that would take place at a later point in time.

“At this point, the conversation has been mostly within the Senate, but I’m sure they’ll have something to say about it before we’re done,” Merkley said.

Among the undecided senators claiming that he hasn’t heard from the White House is Toomey. Asked by the Blade whether Obama or the White House has reached out to him about the bill, Toomey said he hasn’t heard anything.

Even if the Senate approves ENDA, the more challenging obstacle is passage in the House, where Republican control will make progress significantly more challenging.

For his part, Schumer said the vote in the Senate will create momentum regardless of the fate of ENDA in the House.

“You never know,” Schumer said. “You build momentum in the Senate and it’s the right thing do. Remember what Martin Luther King said, ‘The arc of history is long, but it bends in the direction of justice.’ So, that’s what I say with the House of Representatives.”

UPDATE: This article has been updated in the aftermath of news that Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) would sign on as an ENDA supporter.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Maryland

Md. lawmakers reaffirm legislative priorities

2026 General Assembly to end April 13

Published

on

The Maryland State House in Annapolis, Md.(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Maryland’s legislative caucuses outlined their legislative priorities heading into the final weeks of the 2026 General Assembly during a joint press conference on March 24.

The press conference was titled “We are Maryland,” where a representative for each of the legislative caucuses outlined priorities. 

State Del. Kris Fair (D-Frederick County) of the LGBTQ+ Caucus opened the press conference with a statement on the unity of Maryland’s caucus. 

“Together we can show our state and our community a different world, one where we mutually support one another and through that support uplift every Marylander,” he said. 

In a press conference on March 5, the LGBTQ+ Caucus outlined its top legislative priorities. Fair highlighted two of those bills again during the “We are Maryland” press conference. 

The first of the two highlighted pieces of legislation was Senate Bill 626 and House Bill 1589. 

The bills would simplify the process of updating an individual’s birth certificate and align the Department of Health and DMV systems to reflect those changes. The bill is being led by state Sen. Clarence Lam (D-Anne Arundel and Howard Counties) and state Del. Ashanti Martinez (D-Prince George’s County). 

The second piece of legislation is Senate Bill 950 and House Bill 1209, which would update and modernize laws and regulations around so-called conversion therapy. The bills have failed to pass either chamber thus far. They are being led by state Sen. Cheryl Kagan (D-Montgomery County) and state Del. Bonnie Cullison (D-Montgomery County). 

(The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled against a Colorado law that bans so-called conversion therapy for minors. Maryland is among the U.S. jurisdictions that prohibit the widely discredited practice for anyone under 18.)

Martinez and Lam have introduced bills in their respective chambers that would expand PrEP access in Maryland. Martinez did not attend the press conference, and Fair did not mention it when he spoke.

State Del. N. Scott Phillips (D-Baltimore County) represented the Black Caucus during the press conference. State Del. Dana Jones (D-Anne Arundel County) spoke on behalf of the Women’s Caucus, State Del. Teresa Woorman (D-Montgomery County) represented the Latino Caucus, and State Del. Lily Qi (D-Montgomery County) represented the Asian-American and Pacific Islander Caucus. State Del. Jared Solomon (D-Montgomery County) represented the Jewish Caucus, and state Del. Sean Stinnett (D-Baltimore County) represented the Muslim Caucus during the press conference. 

Solomon ended the press conference by explaining the importance of all the caucuses coming out together. 

“We are stronger when we’re together, and many of these issues that we have talked about, again, impact all of us,” said Solomon.

Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court rules against Colo. law banning conversion therapy for minors

8-1 decision could have sweeping impact

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled against a Colorado law that bans so-called conversion therapy for minors.

The justices last October heard oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar. They ruled 8-1 in favor of Kaley Chiles, a Christian therapist who challenged the 2019 law.

In the case, which was heard by the justices in October 2025, Chiles successfully argued to the court that the law restricting this type of therapy was unconstitutional, leading to it being struck down.

The Supreme Court ultimately found that lower state and federal courts has “erred by failing to apply sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny,” ultimately reversing the widely discredited “medical” treatment that has support by a very narrow margin of mental health specialists — specifically religious and socially conservative ones. This is despite the fact that Colorado state officials have never enforced the measure in practice, and included a religious exemption for people “engaged in the practice of religious ministry.” The now moot law carried fines of up to $5,000 for each violation and possible suspension or revocation of a counselor’s license.

In the ruling, the court said the law, that specifically applies to talk therapy “impermissibly” interferes with free speech rights of Americans, and despite it being “regard[ed] its policy as essential to public health and safety, but the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for himself and seven other justices from across the ideological spectrum who overturned the low court’s ruling. He went on to add that the original ban “trains directly on the content of her speech and permits her to express some viewpoints but not others.”

Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, which included an in depth summary of her departure from the other eight justices, explaining her fears about the verdict — and its eventual chilling effect on legislation that could attempts to restrict religious attitudes in specifically regulatory contexts — despite that these regulations are often made as a direct creation of years of essentially unanimous research and are vetted though regulatory boards for specific jobs.

“This decision might make speech-only therapies and other medical treatments involving practitioner speech effectively unregulatable,” Jackson wrote on page 32 of the 35-page opinion issued by court in response to her opposing eight members comments on the bench.

Since the ruling late Tuesday morning, LGBTQ advocacy groups have issued statments on the directly harmful effects the rule reversal will have across the country.

Polly Crozier, director of family advocacy at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law), provided a statement to the Washington Blade on the court’s decision.

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling limited Colorado’s statute that preemptively shielded minors from conversion therapy, but it leaves open avenues for states to protect families from harmful, unscrupulous, and misleading practices that divide parents from their children and put LGBTQ+ youth at risk,” Crozier wrote, pointing to the overwhelming evidence on conversion therapy that argues this type of regulatory legislation is helping those suffering rather than harming. “The evidence is clear that conversion practices lead to increased anxiety, depression, and suicidality. This is a dangerous practice that has been condemned by every major medical association in the country. Today’s decision does not change the science, and it does not change the fact that conversion therapists who harm patients will still face legal consequences, and that family advocates, mental health practitioners, and all of us who care about the wellbeing of youth will continue working to shield LGBTQ+ young people and their families from this dangerous practice.”

Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson, who leads the nation’s largest LGBTQ advocacy group, also provided a statement, calling the courts choice a “reckless decision.”  The statement also points out how their own data (from the group’s philanthropic arm of the organization) was cited in Brown Jackson’s dissent in the amicus brief.

“The court has weaponized free-speech in order to prioritize anti-LGBTQ+ bias over the safety, health and wellbeing of children,” her statement reads. “So-called ‘conversion therapy’ is pseudoscience, not real therapy. It has been condemned by every mainstream medical and mental health association and harms families, traumatizes children, and robs people of their faith communities. It is cruel and should never be offered under the guise of legitimate mental healthcare. To undermine protections that keep kids and families safe from these abusive practices is shocking — and our children deserve better.”

In an consistently updated document started in 2018 that cites the major harms risks conversion therapy poses to LGBTQ people, the Trevor Project, the leading suicide prevention and crisis intervention organization for LGBTQ young people, included that the federal government’s own research proved the practice at best questionable and at worst deadly.

“In a 2023 report entitled Moving Beyond Change Efforts: Evidence and Action to Support and Affirm LGBTQI+ Youth, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration stressed that “[sexual orientation and gender identity] change efforts are harmful practices that are never appropriate with LGBTQI+
youth, and efforts are needed to end these practices,” the summary of the fight against conversion therapy in the U.S. reads.

More than 20 states and D.C. banned the widely discredited practice for minors prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The Blade last October spoke to conversion therapy survivors after the justices heard oral arguments in the Chiles case.

Continue Reading

The White House

Thousands attend ‘No Kings’ protests in D.C.

Protesters demand accountability, defend democracy, and oppose Trump administration

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Joe Reberkenny)

Across all 50 states — and D.C. — more than 8 million people came out nationwide from towns big and small, red and blue, to make their voices heard. That united voice echoed what nearly 20,000 protesters declared in the nation’s capital back in October 2025: the citizens of the U.S. would not sit idly by as President Donald Trump and his administration erode democracy, attempt to restrict human rights, loosens First Amendment protections, and begin wars without congressional approval.

While there were countless differences among the thousands who joined the “No Kings” protests this weekend in the DMV — from creeds and socioeconomic statuses to races, sexualities, and gender identities — there was one thing that united them all during the chilly March 28 weather: a commitment to making their voices heard.

By 10 a.m., the Washington Blade estimated around 200 people had braved bitter winds and temperatures hovering around 40 degrees, with bright sun, to stand along the cherry blossom-adorned streets of Kalorama and Connecticut Avenue. Protesters carried signs large and small from criticizing Trump’s disregard for the “everyman” to handmade signs emphasizing love, calling for the melting of ICE, and addressing issue-specific concerns like ending the wars in Gaza and Iran — both policies propagated by Trump.

Protesters standing, chanting, and yelling about the growingly authoritarian regime taking over the federal government in front of cherry blossom tress in Kalorama. (Washington Blade photo by Joe Reberkenny)

While a solid group of D.C. residents came out with babies in strollers and dogs on leashes, the Kalorama protest skewed older with a majority-white crowd.

On the other side of town, the more heavily attended protest in Anacostia started at 1:30 p.m., crossing the Frederick Douglass Bridge.

MS Now estimates that over 20,000 people marched across the bridge, sending a clear message to the president, his administration, and the Republican-controlled federal government: federal overreach is not what the majority of Americans want to see, hear, or witness as protesters in the thousands came out for, as organizers say “the single largest non-violent day of action” in American history.

The two marches on Saturday differed in both theme and location — the Kalorama protest felt like a small-town demonstration in a big city, covering a wide variety of topics, whereas the Anacostia protest was more focused, directly calling out and pushing back against the actions of Stephen Miller (the White House chief of staff)and other Trump allies.

Many participants shared their reasons for marching with glee — shouting as cars honked in support passing by and discussing the broader issues within the current political climate with those standing next to them: some neighbors, some friends, others complete strangers. Regardless, an important discussion was happening across the city.

A surprise to many participants — and the Blade reporter covering the event — was seeing U.S. Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) stand outside in near-freezing temperatures with her staff and some signs.

Jacobs used the exclusive — and more intimate — ability to speak on her experience watching everything unfold from inside the halls of Congress.

“We had votes until midnight last night, so I couldn’t make it back to San Diego for the march, but it’s important to show up and cheer on people standing up and making their voices heard,” Jacobs said. “This is just the start. We need to make our voices heard every day through the end of the year.”

Jacobs also used the opportunity to criticize congressional inaction from those on the other side of the aisle, reminding the Blade that a legislator’s job is to protect and secure the people they represent — not the interests of a wannabe king or corporations that back many congressional campaigns through PACs.

“It makes me angry at my Republican colleagues who won’t stand up to Trump. Actions like this inject courage into my colleagues — they need to see that the American people have their back,” she added, eventually emphasizing the public responsibility lawmakers have to protect the Constitution and everyone in the country (which the Supreme Court had pointed out as far back as 1886 with Yick Wo v. Hopkins). “Congress is not going to save people. This is about everyone showing up and making our voices heard and building the democracy we want.”

The second—and primary D.C. ‘No Kings’ protest in Anacostia on Saturday afternoon. (Washington Blade Photo by Michael Key)

Ashley Gould, a tourist visiting from Missouri, told the Blade that despite Washington being seen as one of the most politically active towns in the country, over the past few years, she and many other politically active Missourians have been preparing for this moment and were zealous to have their voices heard together as one.

“I’m actually visiting my sister from Missouri, and we’ve been doing this since the first No Kings protest [there]. I wanted to see how you guys did it here,” she said. “As someone in a red state, we’re not represented in Congress right now, so I don’t personally have a say in any of this. If I can do one small thing, I want kids in our town to see me trying to make a difference, get petitions signed. This is all we have.”

Gould continued, “I don’t know if it’s going to cause an impact for elected officials, but I hope that little kid who sees us with the posters sees that we do have a voice—and maybe one day they can, if they can’t right now.”

Gary Bowman, another early protest-goer, held a sign that pointed out the obscurity — and unconstitutional nature — of the current administration’s actions.

“I hate the direction the country is going in, and Donald Trump is not fit to be in office,” Bowman said, adding that his choice of sign exemplified that. “It’s obvious based on his policies — his attacks on the trans and LGBTQ communities — that he’s trying to suppress people. And the Republican Congress isn’t helping.”

When asked how the phrase “No Kings” resonates with him, especially since this is the third one held in two years, Bowman said it may be catchy for headlines or help inspire creative signs (like Trump on a golden throne or toilet), but the march and protest are about something much more important.

“‘No Kings’ is a catchphrase for me; I’m more concerned about losing our democracy. We, the people, have a voice we should use,” he said, elaborating on how this administration’s course of action disregards rules designed to prevent an authoritarian — or wannabe-authoritarian — from taking power. “I don’t think Trump is overstepping … I think he’s shattering democratic norms. He wants to do what’s right for Donald Trump, not for anyone else.”

He concluded bluntly that unless everyone — including Republicans in power — stand up to the president for these ludicrous choices, change won’t happen, regardless of how loud he or any other Trump critics scream at protests.

“Until we have a Congress that would actually look at protests and take action, it won’t matter. He’ll just get pissed off and act against them,” Bowman said. 

When asked what he could say to those in charge, he finished strongly: “If I could say one thing to him? Fuck off, Donald Trump.”

Jameson Woosley and Elena Lacayo were standing on the corner of Kalorama Road, holding their baby tight as pink cherry blossom trees swayed behind them, as if to cheer on the protesters.

“It’s the degradation of democracy. Every day there’s an overreach by the executive branch, and Congress just sits on their hands,” Woosley said, standing side by side with Lacayo.

“It’s terrifying for my baby. This administration has turned people who’ve done nothing wrong into criminals — it’s Orwellian. Up is down, war is peace,” Lacayo noted. “I was raised in another country with authoritarians… I’m a citizen here, and I’m going to use every right I have to advocate for those who can’t.”

Lacayo then spoke about how, for many, direct protests against government action (and inaction) are the only choice — especially under a supermajority federal government with the White House, Supreme Court, and both chambers of Congress.

“We have no choice but to believe change can come. This is what we can do. We must continue fighting; that’s what the human spirit is about,” she said.

Woosley emphasized the growing impact of the protests, saying, “Every protest gets bigger, and opinion polls keep swinging in the right direction … We need to speak up and get all the right people out to bring positive change.”

“These people are nothing without us,” Lacayo added.

Protesters at the corner of Connecticut Avenue and Kalorama Road on Saturday morning. (Washington Blade photo by Joe Reberkenny)

Beth Davis, a former resident of Kalorama, shared with the Blade that this place holds special meaning for her — and her children — which is in part why she chose this one over the larger protest in Anacostia.

“I used to live in the neighborhood, so this is special for me. It’s easy to bring the kids and let them be part of the movement,” Davis said, as her elementary-aged children ran around the manicured grass while bundled up, enjoying the lively atmosphere.

“What’s happening to immigrant communities is horrific, and I want to show solidarity. Also, the Iran war — it’s terrifying what’s happening,” she added before explaining what the “No Kings” name actually means to her. “’No Kings’ makes me think of the extreme grab for power — it’s unprecedented.”

Davis then noted the importance of protesting when it seems like the main goal is often to iisolate : “Coming to protests makes people feel like they’re not alone, and that momentum carries into elections,” she explained, noting why she not only brought her two children to this protest—and many others in the past as well– but uses these as real world teaching moments. “We bring kids to teach them their civic responsibilities. My oldest has been to about ten protests.”

Another remarkable aspect of D.C. protests is the diversity of participants. Teachers, retail workers, students, and even some congresspeople turned out. In Kalorama on Saturday, the No Kings protest brought out Anne Plant, a biochemist and fellow at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, where she was previously chief of the Biosystems and Biomaterials Division.

Plant focused on many issues when speaking to the Blade, but started with what many consider the most important: Trump-era policies making civic engagement more difficult, particularly regarding civil rights.

“A lot of things are going wrong, and the only way to change them is for people to act. D.C. has no statehood, no vote — it’s a civil rights issue,” Plant said. “To deny the vote to any group of U.S. citizens doesn’t make sense. These people work for us; we should be able to hold them accountable.”

She held a small, hand-painted sign with two cohesive messages: “Reject Fascism. Defend democracy.”

“Some of what’s going on now is not healthy for society. No one will benefit; it’s just ruination,” Plant concluded. “Seeing more people out here shows that others feel the same, and momentum is what it takes to move things.”

Religious activists also joined the marches. Sister Diane and Sister Claire, two Catholic nuns, were out protesting Trump and his agenda.

“We’re sisters, Catholics in support of LGBTQ rights. I work with immigrants, and we wanted to stand in solidarity,” Sister Diane said.

Sister Claire reflected on the era the U.S. is in now: “It’s so disturbing. I’m almost glad my folks aren’t alive anymore for all they cared about. It’s heartbreaking, but we need something for the future.”

John Jones, another attendee teeming with energy and anger against the regime, captured the urgency of the moment succinctly.

“We’ve got to do something. I needed to be part of the community and let them know we’re tired of all the madness,” Jones told the Blade before detailing specific atrocities by the Trump-Vance administration.

“Rounding up legal people who follow the rules — throwing them away just because he’s racist, or his friends tell him to be racist. Helping pay for a war, bombing Gaza, killing people for no reason, manipulating the stock market for personal gain. It’s crazy,” he said, still holding out hope that small acts — like the protest gathering — show everyday Americans they have power, advocating for even more people to come out for the next No Kings protest.

“I hope protests can spark change. I won’t hold my breath, but the more people out here, the more they [in power] seem to be listening.”

Patty Bowring, who had moved with her family from the United Kingdom to join her husband in D.C. for his career, is set to return soon due to immigration restrictions. She, her children, and her mother came out to protest because she believes it is just as important for non-citizens to have the right to both protest and exist in a country founded and enriched by immigrant and enslaved labor.

“Even though we’re British, we’re leaving America in two months because of the administration. But this affects everybody — it’s hugely dangerous and worrying,” Bowring said.

Despite the somber mood, she kept a smile and joked: “I hope it’s the death of dinosaurs and that nothing more radical comes next. I want them to be happy,” also pointing out that the mixed messages at the protest could dilute impact. “Protests need a clearer message. ‘Anti-fascist’ should be the focus; too many other messages muddy things.”

Finally, John Norrin highlighted the continuity of civic engagement, informing the Blade that this protest — albeit a smaller version — happens every week on the corner.

“I’m here with friends, looking for more,” Norrin said. “There’s a regular protest every Thursday morning, and I’m going to start joining … The kings today are mostly figureheads, but we also have dictators not called kings who act like one. We have an elected representative trying to be a king.”

He, much like others around him — even with Jacobs standing mere feet away — criticized Congress’ inaction.

“Congress is understepping. They should assert their rights under Article One — declare war, impose tariffs — but they’re too afraid to follow their oath,” Norrin said, eventually shifting to a note of hope. “If at least 3.5 percent of the populace regularly protests, there’s a good possibility for change. I hope that happens here. Some friends will go to Connecticut to join larger groups. I had to figure out which protest in D.C. to join—it took a while.”

Continue Reading

Popular