News
White House: anti-LGBT language in defense bill ‘ridiculous’
But White House stops short of threatening a veto
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 triggerĀ 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 āreligious corporationā in the provision could allow courts to construe the term broadly to mean any federal contractor ā not just religious organizations ā in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Courtās 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 toĀ 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 toĀ 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 aboutĀ 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’tĀ 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.”
The White House
Karine Jean-Pierre becomes Biden’s fourth openly LGBTQ senior adviser
Press secretary’s promotion was reported on Monday
Following White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre’s promotion to a top role on Monday, four of the 10 officials serving as senior advisers to President Joe Biden are openly LGBTQ.
The other LGBTQ members of the president’s innermost circle are White House Communications Director Ben LaBolt, senior adviser to first lady Jill Biden Anthony Bernal, and White House Director of Political Strategy and Outreach Emmy Ruiz.
Jean-Pierre became the first Black and the first LGBTQ White House press secretary in May 2022. She spoke with the Washington Blade for an exclusive interview last spring, shortly before the two-year anniversary of her appointment to that position.
“Jill and I have known and respected Karine a long time and she will be a strong voice speaking for me and this Administration,” Biden said in 2022 when announcing her as press secretary.
Breaking the news of Jean-Pierre’s promotion on Monday, ABC noted the power and influence of the White House communications and press office, given that LaBolt was appointed in August to succeed Anita Dunn when she left her role as senior adviser to the president.
As press secretary, Jean-Pierre has consistently advocated for the LGBTQ community ā pushing back forcefully on anti-LGBTQ legislation and reaffirming the president and vice president’s commitments to expanding rights and protections.
TEL AVIV, Israel ā I was sound asleep at 11 p.m. (4 p.m. ET) on Monday when Tzofar, an app that notifies users of incoming rockets, started to go off. The blaring alarm woke me up. It indicated a “red alert” for “incoming (missiles and rocket fire.)”
I sat up in bed, opened the app to see whether I was under “red alert.” I was just south of it, so I did not need to seek refuge in the stairwell, which is the building’s designated safe room. Less than a minute later I heard a series of loud booms that shook the building.
Hezbollah launched five ballistic missiles from Lebanon towards an Israel Defense Forces base north of Tel Aviv. The explosions that I heard were Israel’s Iron Dome air defense system intercepting them.
The whole situation was over in less than two minutes ā it was the third “red alert” for “incoming (missiles and rocket fire)” that I received on my phone on Monday, which was a year since Hamas launched its surprise attack against southern Israel.
Hamas at around 11 a.m. (4 a.m. ET) launched five rockets that triggered alerts in southern Tel Aviv. Iron Dome intercepted four of them. Shrapnel from the rocket that hit the ground left two women slightly injured. I heard the interceptions in the distance. I walked onto my balcony a couple of minutes later, and saw a man hugging a young woman who was standing on her balcony across the street. She was clearly upset.
I walked to a nearby coffee shop about half an hour later, and ordered an iced coffee. I walked back to my building and started working again. I called my mother a short time later to let her know that everything was fine. I also sent several text messages to my husband and other loved ones and friends that reiterated that point.
The Houthis in Yemen launched a ballistic missile towards Israel shortly after 5:30 p.m. (10:30 a.m. ET) that the IDF intercepted. I was in Hostage Square outside the Tel Aviv Museum of Art when I heard warning messages on people’s phones. I looked at the Tzofar app, and saw Hostage Square was outside of the “red alert” area. I then logged onto two Israeli media outlets’ ā the Times of Israel and Haaretz ā websites that I have bookmarked on my phone and read the IDF had intercepted the Houthi missile.
More than a thousand people were gathered in Hostage Square less than 90 minutes later, watching an Oct. 7 memorial concert on a large screen that had been set up. The IDF Home Front Command has limited the number of people who can gather in one place in Tel Aviv because of the continued threats of rocket and missile attacks from Gaza and Lebanon.
This limit is 2,000.
The sounds of war have been a constant backdrop of this trip.
I begin every day with a swim in the Mediterranean Sea at Hilton Beach, which is Tel Aviv’s gay beach. These swims help me stay somewhat sane while I am here in Israel.
Israeli fighter jets and helicopters with missiles strapped to them regularly fly north along the coast towards Lebanon. Drones can also be heard. This scene plays out against the context of people swimming, kayaking, and paddleboarding in the water, and others walking and jogging on the nearby beach promenade.
The Nova Music Festival site where Hamas militants killed 360 people and took 40 others hostage on Oct. 7 is located outside of Re’im, a kibbutz that is roughly two miles from the Gaza Strip. It is about an hour and 20 minutes south of Tel Aviv.
I visited the site on Oct. 5.
Large IDF Home Front Command banners warn visitors they had 15 seconds to reach makeshift shelters ā large concrete barriers placed together ā in case of incoming rockets.
“If you receive an alert, lie on the ground and protect your head with your hands for 10 minutes,” the banner reads.
There were no alerts while I was at Nova. I did, however, hear several Israeli airstrikes in Gaza.
I stopped at a roadside restaurant in Yad Mordechai, a kibbutz that is roughly three miles north of the Erez crossing between Israel and Gaza, after I left Nova. I had a sandwich for lunch and ordered an ice coffee for the drive back to Tel Aviv. I was walking to my car and I heard two distant Israeli airstrikes in Gaza. The second one shook the ground beneath my feet.
I was back in Tel Aviv less than an hour later. It was the last day of Rosh Hashanah, and Shabbat. Hilton Beach, where I had taken my morning swim earlier in the day, was packed.
Life, at least for Israelis who live in Tel Aviv, goes on amid the sounds of war.
Politics
Trump, GOP candidates spend $65 million on anti-trans ads
The strategy was unsuccessful for the GOP in key 2022, 2023 races
With just four weeks until Election Day, Donald Trump and Republican candidates in key down-ballot races have spent more than $65 million on anti-trans television ads since the start of August, The New York Times reported on Tuesday.
The move signals that Republicans believe attacking the vice president and other Democratic candidates over their support for trans rights will be an effective strategy along with exploiting their opponents’ perceived weaknesses on issues of immigration and inflation.
However, as Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson told the Times, conservatives had tried using the transgender community as a cudgel to attack Democrats during the 2022 midterms and in the off-year elections in 2023. In most cases, they were unsuccessful.
The GOP’s decision to, nevertheless, revive anti-trans messaging in this election cycle “shows that Republicans are desperate right now,ā she said. “Instead of articulating how theyāre going to make the economy better or our schools safer, theyāre focused on sowing fear and chaos.ā
The Times said most Republican ads focus on issues where they believe their opponents are out of step with the views held by most Americans ā for example, on access to taxpayer funded transition-related healthcare interventions for minors and incarcerated people.
At the same time, there is hardly a clear distinction between ads focusing on divisive policy disagreements and those designed to foment and exploit rank anti-trans bigotry.
For example, the Trump campaign’s most-aired ad about Harris in recent weeks targets her support for providing gender affirming care to inmates (per an interview in 2019, when she was attorney general of California, and a questionnaire from the ACLU that she completed in 2020 when running for president).
The ad “plays on anti-trans prejudices, inviting viewers to recoil from images of Ms. Harris alongside those of people who plainly do not conform to traditional gender norms, to try to portray Ms. Harris herself as out of the ordinary,” the Times wrote in an article last month analyzing the 30-second spot, which had run on television stations in Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina and Wisconsin.
-
World5 days ago
Out in the World: LGBTQ news from Asia, Europe, and Canada
-
Middle East4 days ago
‘I don’t want a genocide to be done on queer people’s behalf’
-
District of Columbia2 days ago
Gay Episcopal minister to be reinstated 40 years after being defrocked
-
Israel2 days ago
Hundreds attend gay IDF soldier’s memorial service