Connect with us

News

White House: anti-LGBT language in defense bill ‘ridiculous’

But White House stops short of threatening a veto

Published

on

Josh Earnest, gay news, Washington Blade
Josh Earnest, gay news, Washington Blade

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the potential inclusion of anti-LGBT language in defense legislation is “ridiculous.” (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Amid concerns about the possibility of anti-LGBT language in major defense legislation coming to President Obama’s desk, the White House has condemned the provision as “ridiculous,” but stopped short of saying the provision alone is enough to trigger a veto.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said he’s “not prepared to single out particular elements” of the fiscal year 2017 defense authorization bill as worthy of vetoing the entire measure.

But Earnest but said inclusion of the language, which would undermine President Obama’s executive order barring anti-LGBT discrimination among federal contractors, in the House bill is “absolutely one of the reasons” Obama would veto the bill in the unlikely event Congress submitted that version of the legislation.

“And the prospect that Republicans would hold hostage funding for our national security unless the president makes it easier for companies to discriminate against gay people is ridiculous, but unfortunately consistent with the pattern of behavior we’ve seen from Republicans in Congress over the past several years,” Earnest added. “So, the president does feel strongly about this, but I’m not prepared to single out specific provisions.”

The House version of the defense authorization bill contains language Rep. Steve Russell (R-Okla.) inserted in committee markup that would allow religiously affiliated federal contractors to discriminate against LGBT workers, undermining Obama’s 2014 executive order against anti-LGBT discrimination. The Senate version of the bill contains no such provisions.

The lack of definition for “religious corporation” in the provision could allow courts to construe the term broadly to mean any federal contractor — not just religious organizations — in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in the Hobby Lobby case.

As lawmakers in conference committee are busy hammering out the two versions of the legislation to produce a final bill to send to Obama, Democrats led by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) are sounding the alarm. The conference committee is expected to produce a final report after Election Day.

Earnest said Obama’s views about the provision “have been communicated very clearly to Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill.”

“I don’t have any meetings to read out to you, but there’s no mistaking the president’s strong opinion on the issue,” Earnest said.

Asked how confident he is Republicans would submit to Obama a defense bill free of the language, Earnest demurred, but again condemned the provision.

“I’m not in the business of predicting future congressional actions,” Earnest said. “We’ll see what they do. It certainly is their responsibility to move that kind of legislation along, but they shouldn’t use the need to pass that kind of legislation to try to jam through controversial provisions that, for example, make it easier to discriminate against gay people. That’s not the right thing to do.”

Earnest’s comments are consistent with the White House Statement of Administration Policy on the House version of the defense bill, which cites the anti-LGBT language as well as other components, such as language inhibiting the removal of detainees from the facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as reasons Obama would veto the measure.

Earlier this week, Roll Call cited anonymous sources saying White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough has personally reached out to key lawmakers on the issue and Obama is prepared to veto the fiscal 2017 defense policy bill over that language. The White House didn’t immediately respond to a follow-up email asking about the difference between Roll Call’s reporting and Earnest’s public remarks.

A Democratic insider with knowledge of the negotiations, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Earnest’s comments and the reporting earlier this week aren’t significantly different.

“In an ideal world, would he say this on its own would be enough? Sure,” the insider said. “But the White House hardly says anything like that, so I think this is probably about the closest they could have come to saying it.”

The insider said the White House has indeed communicated its view to other people behind the scenes and McDonough has been making phone calls to Capitol Hill, so “it’s happening at the highest level, other than the president himself.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Commentary

Is Ghana’s selective justice a human rights contradiction?

Country’s commitment to human rights appears inconsistent

Published

on

Ghanaian flag (Public domain photo from Pixabay)

Ghana’s mission to have the United Nations recognize the trafficking of enslaved Africans and racialized chattel enslavement as the gravest crime against humanity is a historic milestone. The resolution adopted on March 25, 2026, with 123 out of about 180 countries in support, marks a major step toward global acknowledgement of the brutality and inhumanity of slavery. A 2022 report by the Equal Justice Initiative, “The Transatlantic Slave Trade,” highlights how during the slave trade, Africans who were enslaved had no rights, freedom, recognition or protection under the law. They had no voice, no bodily autonomy, no respected identity and could be brutally violated with no legal protection. This history represents a grave crime against humanity.

In my opinion, Ghana and the other countries that voted in favor are entirely right to say that such historic events cannot be sanitized or reduced to diplomatic language. Recognition is the first step towards accountability. This matter is important because it is arguably the foundation of the modern-day injustice and inequality people experience, including wealth inequality, racism, sexism, xenophobia, and queerphobia.

The double standard

Yet, despite this important step on the world stage, Ghana’s commitment to human rights appears inconsistent. The same government advocating for justice for enslaved Africans is enacting laws that jeopardies the rights of Africans today. This contradiction between Ghana’s international stance and its domestic policies is at the heart of the discussion.

In February 2026, the Ghanaian parliament formally received the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill. The bill is a grave threat to the rights to nondiscrimination, protection under the law, privacy and freedom of association, assembly, and expression. It expands criminalization of LGBTQ+ people, and anyone associated with them. This Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill calls for a three-year imprisonment for anyone who identifies as LGBTQ+, anyone who has gender affirming treatment, anyone who enters into a same-sex marriage or attends a same-sex wedding and anyone who promotes equal rights for LGBTQ+ people. It turns enforcement into a societal obligation rather than just a state function, encouraging people to report anyone who looks suspicious or different. This further legitimizes the brutal attacks on LGBTQ+ people socially, which leaves the people of Ghana with blood on their hands.  

Ghana’s proposed and reintroduced anti-LGBTQ+ legislation is said to be among the most restrictive in the world and will result in the inhumane treatment of LGBTQ+ people. It not only further criminalizes consensual same-sex relations but also targets civil society organizations that are perceived to be supporting equal rights for LGBTQ+ people. So, if this law passes, it will be illegal to support equal rights and challenge the inhuman treatment of queer Ghanaians and allies. Is this not a double standard? Ghana seeks justice for the ill-treatment of Africans during the transatlantic slave trade but is actively in the process of seeking to harm its own people.

This is not theoretical harm; it is practical harm. According to the Human Rights Watch, LGBTQ+ people in Ghana already face systemic stigma, discrimination, harassment and violence, often enabled by both legal frameworks and social stigma, resulting in a hostile climate.

Ghana falls short of upholding human rights at home

On the global stage, Ghana is arguing that the dehumanization of Africans through slavery was so severe that it constitutes the gravest possible violation of human dignity. This argument rests on a core principle that reducing people to less than fully human is unacceptable under any circumstances.

Back at home, the state is endorsing laws that do exactly that to LGBTQ+ people. Criminalizing identity, suppressing expression, clamping down on civic space, monitoring and surveilling citizens and advocating for social exclusion. These are elements of dehumanization signaling that some are less deserving of protection, dignity, respect, and justice. That is the definition of a double standard.

Supporters of these laws often frame homosexuality as un-African, but this claim does not hold up under scrutiny. In his article, “The ‘Deviant’ African Genders That Colonialism Condemned”, Mohammed Elnaiem emphasizes that historical and anthropological evidence shows that diverse sexualities and gender expressions existed across African societies long before colonial rule. Ironically, many of the laws used to criminalize LGBTQ+ people today trace directly back to the colonial-era. This is even supported by the African Court, which, in December 2020, through its Advisory opinion, made it clear that these colonial-era laws are discriminatory and perpetuated marginalization. The African Court also called on African states to take action in this regard.

It is no secret that anti-rights actors are actively operating in Ghana and supporting leaders to advance their anti-rights agenda. They are increasingly organized, visible, well-funded, and influential in shaping state policy. The upcoming 4th African Inter-Parliamentary Conference on Family and Sovereignty, scheduled to take place in Accra from May 27-30, 2026, is a clear example of this coordination. The conference endorses the so-called African Charter on Family Values, a deeply contested initiative that frames LGBTQ+ people as a threat to children and positions queer identities as foreign ideologies. This platform is being used to legitimize and advance anti-LGBTIQ+ legislation, restrict comprehensive sexuality education and roll back sexual and reproductive health rights. In this context, the treatment of LGBTQ+ people in Ghana cannot be viewed as isolated policy choices, but rather as part of a broader coordinated anti-rights agenda that normalizes and legalizes discrimination. It fuels increasingly inhumane conditions for queer communities and civil society. Ghana is simultaneously rejecting colonial injustice in one breath while enforcing colonial-era morality laws in another.

There is also a legal inconsistency worth noting. Ghana’s own Constitution guarantees the right to life, protection from violence, the right to personal liberty, the right to human dignity, equality and freedom from discrimination and the right to a fair trial. Yet, in practice these rights are not equally applied to LGBTQ+ individuals. Depriving equal rights to LGBTQ+ persons is the same as what the slave owners did to slaves.

You cannot build a credible human rights position on selective application

To be clear, recognizing slavery as a crime against humanity is not diminished by pointing out this contradiction. Both truths can coexist: the UN resolution is a victory and Ghana’s domestic policies remain deeply troubling. In fact, holding both realities together is necessary if the language of human rights is to mean anything at all. Ghana has taken a powerful stand on the global stage. The question now is whether it is willing to apply that same moral clarity at home.

Bradley Fortuin is a consultant at the Southern Africa Litigation Center and a human rights activist.

Continue Reading

Maryland

Supreme Court ruling against conversion therapy bans could affect Md. law

Then-Gov. Larry Hogan signed statute in 2018

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

By PAMELA WOOD, JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV, and MADELEINE O’NEILL | The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled against a law banning “conversion therapy” for LGBTQ kids in Colorado, a ruling that also could apply to Maryland’s ban on the discredited practice.

An 8-1 high court majority sided with a Christian counselor who argues the law banning talk therapy violates the First Amendment. The justices agreed that the law raises free speech concerns and sent it back to a lower court to decide whether it meets a legal standard that few laws pass.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the court’s majority, said the law “censors speech based on viewpoint.” The First Amendment, he wrote, “stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.”

The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.

Continue Reading

Research/Study

Glisten report details hostile climate for LGBTQ students

Survey details persistent harassment, feeling unsafe in classroom

Published

on

(Photo by ishook/Bigstock)

The Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (now referred to as Glisten rather than GLSEN following a February rebrand) released its 13th National School Climate Survey on Tuesday, offering an often under-evaluated and under-addressed look at the realities LGBTQ students are dealing with within America’s K-12 schools.

The revised report provides new data points that could indicate the future of the current LGBTQ youth population, highlighting rising issues within school structures that often disproportionately impact LGBTQ students, while also offering a more “nuanced portrait” of how they are maneuvering these challenges.

The most alarming piece of data shows that “two in three students” reported feeling unsafe in school during the 2023–2024 school year due to their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. That high number becomes clearer as other findings in the research corroborate the points made — especially for those who haven’t stepped into a modern American classroom recently — which seems to be the best way to get a sense of what it is like to learn in one.

An additional data point showing LGBTQ students’ heightened sense of insecurity is reinforced by the widespread and constant harassment students face for their sexuality or gender identity.

The survey found that 62 percent of students experienced verbal, physical, or online harassment based on sexual orientation, while 68 percent reported the same due to their gender identity or expression.

Fifty-three percent — slightly more than half of all respondents — said they faced LGBTQ-related discrimination, including being barred from using facilities aligned with their gender identity in schools.

The survey also highlights disparities within the community — particularly within the 2023–2024 data, which emphasizes the unique struggles faced by transgender and non-white students. Trans students reported that 86 percent of them avoided certain school spaces out of fear for their safety. Non-white LGBTQ students (including Black, Indigenous, and people of color, referred to in the data as BIPOC) face a particularly difficult time within schools, with 48 percent reporting harassment based on their race or ethnicity.

In addition to these high levels of harassment, survey respondents also noted that the broader political climate shaping Washington is impacting their daily experiences in negative ways. Many reported that school environments felt more hostile during the 2024–2025 school year amid escalating anti-LGBTQ rhetoric across the country, in the news, and within the White House as policy debates continue.

Despite these conditions — which attempt to generalize and adequately compare the discrimination, harassment, and bullying faced by LGBTQ students in K-12 schools — the report underscores that LGBTQ students are not easily categorized.

“Young people actually defy the static labels of victim or hero,” said Glisten CEO Melanie Willingham-Jaggers, speaking to the Washington Blade at a reception for the data’s release. “They are neither all downtrodden nor all resilient — they are complicated and multifaceted. What we are finding through our research is that they are actually creating solutions with and for each other. They understand they can’t rely on these systems, so they are doing something themselves.”

That dual reality — that LGBTQ students appear hyper-resilient amid systemic failure in school systems that make their experiences more difficult — is a defining theme of this year’s findings.

“There’s a resilience and a power and a clarity in young people that says there is no use in trying to change who I am because I am who I am,” Willingham-Jaggers said at the event held in the NEA building. “What is also true is that a super hostile political environment is really terrible for everyone’s mental health, including children. It ought not be on a 13-year-old or a 16-year-old to keep themselves safe. That’s what parents are for, that’s what adults in schools are for, and that’s what education is supposed to do.”

She added that the data reflects broader institutional shortcomings, especially as many attempts to fix these systemic issues continue to fall short or worsen conditions for the most marginalized. Trans people of color often face the worst instances of discrimination, harassment, and bullying, and the structures in place to alleviate these issues can sometimes make them worse.

“Unfortunately, our leaders and our institutions are failing our children,” she said, pointing out that education should serve as a pathway out of adversity and into a better future. “Education is supposed to be helping our young people connect with each other, and allow for them to envision a world so they can leave school, and come out into the world, and be leaders … I think you can take the moral temperature of a country by how they treat their children. And we are — the collective ‘we,’ personified by our leaders — failing our children.”

Despite the troubling data highlighting how difficult it is to be an LGBTQ K-12 student today, the survey points to clear pathways for improvement.

These include being upfront and inclusive with LGBTQ students in a variety of ways. When schools provide comprehensive anti-bullying policies, LGBTQ students reported they were more likely to look forward to school and feel like they belonged. This also extends to expanding sex education to include often-overlooked sexual and gender minorities. Increased instances of positive LGBTQ inclusion were linked to better academic performance, attendance, and overall belonging, while negative depictions and exclusionary practices were linked to worse outcomes.

A major positive finding of the study is that when LGBTQ students reported having access to supportive educators, inclusive curricula, explicit anti-bullying policies, and Gender and Sexuality Alliances (GSAs), they also reported higher GPAs and a stronger sense of belonging — suggesting that even small, targeted policy shifts can meaningfully improve outcomes.

In a statement accompanying the report, Willingham-Jaggers emphasized the importance of listening to students’ experiences in full, which they acknowledged can be difficult to capture.

“LGBTQ+ youth, including intersex, asexual, and two-spirit students, are whole people with complex lives that defy the tired boxes of ‘victim’ or ‘leader’ into which they are so often placed,” she said. “Safety is not just the absence of harm; it is active affirmation. At a moment when young people’s identities are being debated and restricted, this study speaks truth to a menacing power.”

Researchers behind the survey also noted a shift in methodology this year, incorporating more qualitative data through student focus groups. By broadening beyond strictly quantitative measures, the data offers a deeper understanding of students’ lived experiences and strengthens the overall findings.

“Similar to previous findings, we continue to find that schools continue to be hostile sites for LGBTQ+ students and in particular for trans and gender-expanding students and BIPOC students,” said Yu-Chi Wang and Shweta Moorthy. “Students provided us with more context and emotion behind our findings … helping us better understand what was happening in our schools and brainstorm ways we can improve it.”

For Willingham-Jaggers, the stakes extend beyond education alone and into the kind of adults these students will become — and, for some, the leaders who will shape the future. By instilling the values of understanding, equality, and democracy early, young people are better equipped to navigate future challenges and reshape the systems they inherit.

“Education is the cornerstone of democracy,” she said. “Education provides an immune system for autocracy. Democracy is born anew every generation, and education is its midwife. We need young people to be ready to build a future that is bigger than the tiny, weak vision of those currently in power.”

Even in a moment she described as “dark and frightening,” Willingham-Jaggers framed the report as both a warning and a call to action. “I feel really privileged to be leading this organization at this moment, because this moment is really critical,” she said. “I’m glad it’s me building the team and envisioning with our young people the future that we’re trying to build.”

The report concludes by recognizing the many organizations that contributed to the development of its findings. Focus group partners included Able South Carolina, Advocates for Youth, Freedom Oklahoma, interACT: Advocates for Intersex Youth, Louisville Youth Group, the Montrose Center, National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance, National Black Justice Collective, Trans Mentor Project, and Youth Celebrate Diversity. Additional organizations — including GenderCool, Immigration Equality, interACT, SIECUS, and UnidosUS — also helped review and update the survey.

The methodology and data collection instruments used in Glisten’s 2025 National School Climate Survey were reviewed and approved by an independent Institutional Review Board, ensuring the study met established ethical standards and best practices for research involving human subjects.

The full report can be accessed at Glisten’s website at glisten.org.

Continue Reading

Popular