News
DOJ touts anti-LGBT views, task force at ‘religious freedom’ summit
Sessions accused of ‘undermining LGBTQ rights’
Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the creation of a Religious Liberty Task Force. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
A summit at the U.S. Justice Department on Monday ostensibly intended to promote religious freedom, including the creation of a Religious Liberty Task Force, often highlighted efforts to enable anti-LGBT discrimination.
At the summit in the Justice Department’s Great Hall, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the creation of the task force to implement “religious freedom” guidance he issued last year.
“The task force will help the department fully implement our religious liberty guidance by ensuring that all Justice Department components — and we got a lot of components around the country — are upholding that guidance in the cases they bring and defend, the arguments they make in court, the policies and regulations they adopt and how we conduct our operations,” Sessions said.
According to the Justice Department, Sessions will serve as chair of the task force, which will be co-chaired by Acting Associate Attorney General Jesse Panuccio and Associate Attorney General for the Office of Legal Policy Beth Williams.
Sessions said a primary mission of the Religious Liberty Task Force will be ensuring Justice Department employees “know their duty is to accommodate people of faith.”
“This administration is animated by the same American view that has led us for 242 years that every American has a right to believe and worship and exercise their faith in the public square,” Sessions added.
The underlying guidance on which the task force is based seeks to allow individuals and businesses to act in the name of religious freedom — often used as an exercise for anti-LGBT discrimination — without fear of government reprisal. Nowhere in the guidance is there a limiting principle assuring the right to free exercise of religion should be an excuse to engage in anti-LGBT discrimination.
Announcing the new task force, Sessions referenced the Masterpiece Cakeshop case in which a Colorado baker was sued after he refused to make a custom-made wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The U.S. Supreme Court narrowly ruled in his favor based on the facts of his case, citing anti-religion sentiment on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
Sessions commended Phillips for having endured an “ordeal faced so gravely,” touting an amicus brief the Justice Department filed on his behalf before the Supreme Court. U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco also argued in favor of Phillips before justices in oral arguments.
“Let’s be frank: A dangerous movement, undetected by many, but real, is now challenging and eroding our great tradition of religious freedom,” Sessions said at the start of his remarks. “There can be no doubt, it’s no little matter. It must be confronted intellectually and politically, and defeated.”
LGBT rights supporters said in response to the creation of the Religious Liberty Task Force its purpose was to further the Trump administration’s goal of compromising LGBT rights.
Louise Melling, deputy legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the agenda of the Religious Liberty Task Force “isn’t consistent with religious freedom.”
“Religious freedom protects our right to our beliefs, not a right to discriminate or harm others,” Melling said. “Jeff Session’s Department of Justice is again turning that understanding of religious freedom on its head.”
Lucas Acosta, director of LGBTQ media for the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement the task force is “just the latest assault in this administration’s continued campaign against LGBTQ people and our civil rights.”
“By creating this task force, Sessions is establishing a unit dedicated to undermining LGBTQ rights and giving anti-LGBTQ far-right extremists like task force head Jesse Panuccio a taxpayer-funded platform to push their anti-equality agenda,” Acosta said. “Rather than ensuring every person has equal protections and opportunities, Sessions is shamefully doubling down on bigotry.”
But the creation of the Religious Liberty Task Force was just one portion of the summit, which also included the voices of participants who urged a commitment to religious freedom to advance anti-LGBT discrimination.
Archbishop of Louisville Joseph Edward Kurtz, who formerly served as president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said religious freedom is facing challenges that amount to “power-seeking for the purpose of imposing one’s will on others.”
Kurtz cited as an example Catholic adoption agencies being “targeted for closure” for refusing to place children with LGBT families out of religious objections.
“One of the biggest concerns is the ability of our child welfare providers to continue to be able to place children with foster and adoptive families consistent with our teaching,” Kurtz said.
Although no government is actively seeking to close Catholic adoption agencies, they have threatened to shut their doors on their own in the wake of the legalization of same-sex marriage because they feel they’ll be forced to place children with gay couples who marry.
As a result, a growing number or states have enacted anti-LGBT adoption laws allowing taxpayer-funded agencies to refuse to place children with LGBT families over religious objections. House Republicans have inserted an amendment in a pending appropriations bill that would penalize states and localities for having policies barring anti-LGBT discrimination among adoption agencies.
Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, was himself present at the summit and took part in a panel of individuals who say they are facing challenges to their religious freedom.
Moderating his panel was Justice Department spokesperson Kerri Kupec, formerly a spokesperson for the anti-LGBT Alliance Defending Freedom. At a time when that term is used as justification for anti-LGBT discrimination, Kupec said in her introduction of the panel religious freedom is often “housed in scare quotes, as if it’s not a real thing, or even worse, a bad thing, which is tragic.”
Much of Kupec’s questioning of Phillips sought to elicit sympathy for him, which meant his act of refusing to make a custom-made wedding cake for a same-sex couple who entered his store was glossed over as he explained his commitment to his religious views.
In addition to refusing to make a same-sex wedding cake, Phillips said his religious beliefs compel him to close on Sundays, refuse to service Halloween celebrations or make cakes with denigrating messages.
“It’s the message of the cake that I evaluate, not the person who ordered the cake,” Phillips said. “In one instance, I had a man who wanted me to make a cake basically telling his boss that he was a jerk, so I wouldn’t do that, but I’ve also had people asked me to do cakes that would disparage gay people, the gay lifestyle, but I wouldn’t do that either because they’re hurtful cakes.”
As the litigation went forward, Phillips said he received death threats as well as a threat over the phone against his daughter. As a result, Phillips said he wouldn’t allow employees to answer the phone at Masterpiece Cakeshop and would only take calls himself.
Noting the U.S. Supreme Court only takes a few select cases each year, Phillips became emotional when he recalled news that justices had agreed to take up his petition after the state of Colorado ruled against him.
Even though the result of the case was narrowly in his favor and didn’t open up a First Amendment right for anti-LGBT discrimination, Phillips said it was worth the effort.
“True tolerance has to be a two-way street,” Phillips said. “We’re thrilled that the United States ruled in our favor, this ruling solidifying religious freedom in our country, but it’s not just for me, it’s for all us, every American should now be able to live and work freely and according to their conscience without fear of punishment from the government.”
Other speakers at the summit expressed concerns about threats to religious minorities in a manner that progressives would likely agree is a threat to religious freedom.
Among them was Harpreet Singh, who works with Muslim, Arab, Sikh, South Asian and Hindu religions on behalf of the Justice Department, and Asma Uddin, senior scholar at the Religious Freedom Center of the Freedom Forum Institute, who talked about anti-Muslim sentiments.
Singh said his agency has found hate crimes against minority religions have been increasing, which he said is substantiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s annual reports and studies from universities, although “there’s a lot of underreporting going on.”
But other speakers on the panel railed against efforts to uphold LGBT rights as they face compromise in the name of religious freedom, including Emilie Kao, director of the Richard & Helen DeVos Center for Religion & Civil Society at the anti-LGBT Heritage Foundation.
Kao was critical of litigation filed by the ACLU against the Michigan law enabling Catholic adoption agencies to refuse placement to LGBT families over religious objections.
Asserting same-sex couples seeking to adopt face no problem in access to adoption, Kao said the plaintiff in the lawsuit drove past four other adoption agencies to reach St. Vincent’s Catholic Charities, which she said “still holds the belief that they should put every child with a mother and father.”
“The lesbian couple says they were personally offended by St. Vincent’s not placing a child with them,” Kao said. “I think it’s important for us to recognize that throughout the history of our country and the Supreme Court’s cases, we have always protected the right of people to follow their religious beliefs, and we’ve never protected the right not to have your feelings hurt.”
Michael McConnell, a law professor at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University, warned of the growing compromise that religious liberty faces in the wake of growing “sexual freedom.”
“An extremely popular argument in religious circles has been that religious accommodations are necessarily unconstitutional if they lead to so-called third-party harm,” McConnell said. “If there’s anyone whose rights or interests…are interfered with, that that means the accommodation is simply unconstitutional. To my mind, that’s an extremely implausible argument because virtually every accommodation, and indeed, virtually any application of any constitutional right — free speech, property, due process — there’s always someone on the other side of ledger who’s interests are being harmed.”
Honduras
Corte IDH reconoce a Thalía Rodríguez como familia social de Leonela Zelaya
Se construyeron una familia tras más de una década de convivencia
Por DORIS GONZÁLEZ * | TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras — En la sentencia del caso Leonela Zelaya y otra vs Honduras emitida por la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos se estableció un hito jurisprudencial para las personas LGBTQ en Honduras, así como en la región en relación a las diversas conformaciones de familias existentes. La Corte IDH interpretó por primera vez el concepto de familia social, indicando que la construcción de familia no debe restringirse a la familia nuclear o a nociones tradicionales, bajo el entendido de que hay diferentes formas en las que se materializan los vínculos familiares.
Este análisis se trae a colación debido al contexto de discriminación, prejuicio y violencia que atravesamos las personas LGBTQ, el cual se puede manifestar incluso dentro de nuestras propias familias. Esta violencia se manifiesta a través de actos de odio como ser el desarraigo familiar, violencia física, psicológica, social, económica, expulsiones de los hogares, violaciones correctivas e incluso, culminando en muertes violentas. Esta violencia motivada por la orientación sexual, identidad y expresión de género de las personas imposibilita la convivencia familiar.
Ante esto, las personas LGBTQ construimos vínculos sociales fuera del vínculo familiar tradicional, los cuales a través de la convivencia, amistad, apoyo económico-social y construcción de vida en común constituyen familias, tal como ocurrió en este caso.
Tras el abandono de su familia biológica, Leonela Zelaya y Thalía Rodríguez construyeron una familia tras más de una década de convivencia, en los cuales se apoyaron mutuamente en diversas situaciones, viviendo como mujeres trans, portadoras de VIH, ejerciendo el trabajo sexual y en situación de pobreza, enfrentando constantes episodios de detenciones arbitrarias y violentas por parte de los órganos policiales.
Tras su asesinato, fue Thalía quien recogió el cuerpo de Leonela en la morgue de Tegucigalpa y quien gestionó el féretro a través de la Funeraria del Pueblo. Los servicios fúnebres de Leonela Zelaya fueron realizados en un bar por mujeres trans, trabajadoras sexuales, al cual no asistió ningún miembro de su familia biológica.
El asesinato de Leonela y la falta de esclarecimiento generaron a Thalía un sentimiento de inseguridad, frustración e impotencia. Por estas violaciones de derechos humanos, la Corte reconoció a Thalía Rodríguez, en calidad de familiar de Leonela, como víctima del caso, generando estándares aplicables a todas las personas LGBTQ.
A juicio de la Corte, esta situación lleva a que, en casos de muertes violentas de mujeres trans, las personas que integren las redes de apoyo de la persona fallecida puedan ser declaradas víctimas por la violación de sus derechos a la integridad psíquica o moral, siempre que se acredite la existencia de un vínculo estrecho con la víctima y una afectación a sus derechos, derivada, por ejemplo, de las gestiones realizadas para obtener justicia. Esta sentencia logra reconocer que las personas LGBTQ construimos familias sociales, familias elegidas, e indica que estas deben ser reconocidas y validadas.
* Abogada litigante del caso Leonela Zelaya y otra vs Honduras, Red Lésbica Cattrachas
District of Columbia
Eleanor Holmes Norton ends 2026 reelection campaign
Longtime LGBTQ rights supporter introduced, backed LGBTQ-supportive legislation
The reelection campaign for D.C. Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, who has been an outspoken supporter of LGBTQ rights since first taking office in 1991, filed a termination report on Jan. 25 with the Federal Elections Commission, indicating she will not run for a 19th term in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Norton’s decision not to run again, which was first reported by the online news publication NOTUS, comes at a time when many of her longtime supporters questioned her ability to continue in office at the age of 88.
NOTUS cited local political observers who pointed out that Norton has in the past year or two curtailed public appearances and, according to critics, has not taken sufficient action to oppose efforts by the Trump-Vance administration and Republican members of Congress to curtail D.C.’s limited home rule government.
Those same critics, however, have praised Norton for her 35-year tenure as the city’s non-voting delegate in the House and as a champion for a wide range of issues of interest to D.C. LGBTQ rights advocates have also praised her longstanding support for LGBTQ rights issues both locally and nationally.
D.C. gay Democratic Party activist Cartwright Moore, who has worked on Norton’s congressional staff from the time she first took office in 1991 until his retirement in 2021, points out that Norton’s role as a staunch LGBTQ ally dates back to the 1970s when she served as head of the New York City Commission on Human Rights.
“The congresswoman is a great person,” Moore told the Washington Blade in recounting his 30 years working on her staff, most recently as senior case worker dealing with local constituent issues.
Norton has been among the lead co-sponsors and outspoken supporters of LGBTQ rights legislation introduced in Congress since first taking office, including the currently pending Equality Act, which would ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
She has introduced multiple LGBTQ supportive bills, including her most recent bill introduced in June 2025, the District of Columbia Local Juror Non-Discrimination Act, which would ban D.C. residents from being disqualified from jury service in D.C. Superior Court based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
For many years, Norton has marched in the city’s annual Pride parade.
Her decision not to run for another term in office also comes at a time when, for the first time in many years, several prominent candidates emerged to run against her in the June 2026 D.C. Democratic primary. Among them are D.C. Council members Robert White (D-At-Large) and Brooke Pinto (D-Ward 2).
Others who have announced their candidacy for Norton’s seat include Jacque Patterson, president of the D.C. State Board of Education; Kinney Zalesne, a local Democratic party activist; and Trent Holbrook, who until recently served as Norton’s senior legislative counsel.
“For more than three decades, Congresswoman Norton has been Washington, D.C.’s steadfast warrior on Capitol Hill, a relentless advocate for our city’s right to self-determination, full democracy, and statehood,” said Oye Owolewa, the city’s elected U.S. shadow representative in a statement. “At every pivotal moment, she has stood firm on behalf of D.C. residents, never wavering in her pursuit of justice, equity, and meaningful representation for a city too often denied its rightful voice,” he said.
A spokesperson for Norton’s soon-to-close re-election campaign couldn’t immediately be reached for a comment by Norton on her decision not to seek another term in office.
Uganda
LGBTQ Ugandans targeted ahead of country’s elections
President Yoweri Museveni won 7th term in disputed Jan. 15 vote
Barely a week after Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni secured a 7th term in an election marred by state violence, intimidation, and allegations of fraud, the country’s queer community spoke about how the election environment impacted it.
The LGBTQ lobby groups who spoke with the Washington Blade noted that, besides government institutions’ failure to create a safe and inclusive environment for civic participation by all Ugandans, authorities weaponized the Anti-Homosexuality Act to silence dissent and discourage queer voter engagement.
The rights groups note that candidates aligned with Museveni’s ruling National Resistance Movement — including Parliament Speaker Anita Among — during the campaigns accused their rivals of “promoting homosexuality” to discredit them while wooing conservative voters.
Queer people and LGBTQ rights organizations as a result were largely excluded from the formal political processes for the election as voters, mobilizers, or civic actors due to fear of exposure, stigma, violence, and legal reprisals.
“This homophobic rhetoric fueled public hostility and emboldened vigilante violence, forcing many queer Ugandans into deeper hiding during the election period,” Uganda Minority Shelters Consortium Coordinator John Grace stated.
Some queer people had expressed an interest in running for local council seats, but none of them formally registered as candidates or campaigned openly because of safety concerns and local electoral bodies’ discriminatory vetting of candidates.
“UMSC documented at least three incidents of election-related violence or intimidation targeting LGBTQ+ individuals and activists,” Grace noted. “These included harassment, arbitrary detentions, extortions by state and non-state actors, digital cat-fishing, and threats of outing.”
Amid such a militarized and repressive election environment, Let’s Walk Uganda Executive Director Edward Mutebi noted queer-led and allied organizations engaged in the election process through restricted informal voter education, community discussions, and documenting human rights violations.
“Fear of backlash limited visibility and direct participation throughout the election cycle,” Mutebi said. “But despite the hostile environment of work, Let’s Walk Uganda was able to organize a successful transgender and gender diverse youth training on electoral security and safety.”
Museveni’s government escalated its repressive actions during the Jan. 15 elections by shutting down the internet and suspending nine civil society organizations, including Chapter Four Uganda and the National Coalition of Human Rights Defenders, for allegedly engaging in activities that are prejudicial to the security and laws of the country.
The suspension of the rights organizations remains in force, an action both Mutebi and Grace condemn. They say it prevents queer Ugandans from accessing urgent services from the affected groups.
“For the LGBTQ community, the impact has been immediate and deeply harmful. Many of the suspended organizations, like Chapter Four Uganda, were critical partners in providing legal representation, emergency response, and documentation of rights violations,” Grace said.
This has compelled UMSC and its other partners to handle increased caseloads with limited resources, while navigating heightened scrutiny and operational risk.
“The suspension has disrupted referral pathways, delayed urgent interventions, and weakened collective advocacy for marginalized groups and minority rights defenders, which calls for urgent international solidarity, flexible funding, and protection mechanisms to safeguard the work of grassroots organizations operating under threat,” Grace stated.
Mutebi warned that such repressive actions are tyrannical and are indicative of shrinking civic space, which undermines democratic accountability as the promotion and protection of human rights is ignored.
With Museveni, 81, extending his tenure at State House from a landslide win of 72 percent, UMSC and LWU consider a bleak future in the protection of rights for queer Ugandans and other minority groups.
“Without significant political and legal shifts, LGBTQ persons will face continued criminalization, reduced civic space, and heightened insecurity, making sustained advocacy and international solidarity more critical than ever,” Mutebi said. “ It is unimaginable how it feels to live in a country with no hope.”
Grace, however, affirmed the resistance by local queer lobby groups will continue through underground networks, regional solidarity, and digital organizing.
The duo noted that a win by Museveni’s main challenger and rapper, Bobi Wine, who only managed 24 percent of the total votes cast, could have enabled the opening up of civil space and human rights protections in Uganda.
Wine, for his part, spoke in favor of the respect for the rule of law and human rights during his campaign.
“While Bobi Wine’s past stance on LGBTQ rights was inconsistent, his recent shift toward more inclusive rhetoric and international engagement suggested a potential opening for dialogue,” Grace said. “A win might have created space for policy reform or at least reduced state-sponsored homophobia, though structural change would still require sustained pressure and coalition-building.”
Mutebi stated that a change in Uganda’s leadership to a youthful leader like Wine could have offered an opening, but not a guarantee for progress on inclusion and human rights. Mutebi added existing institutionalized and societal homophobia remain in place.
‘The Director’ highlights film director who collaborated with Hitler
ICE agents murder another American citizen in Minneapolis
Corte IDH reconoce a Thalía Rodríguez como familia social de Leonela Zelaya
Eleanor Holmes Norton ends 2026 reelection campaign
Convert rent check into an automatic investment, Marjorie!
The felon in the White House must be stopped
Companies participate in ‘Pride on the Promenade’ at World Economic Forum
El 2026 bajo presión
Few openly queer nominees land Oscar nominations
