National
Internal emails reveal questions, confusion on Trump religious freedom directive
Labor Department guidance seen to enable anti-LGBTQ discrimination
Emails obtained by the Washington Blade through a FOIA lawsuit reveal officials in the Trump administration’s Labor Department were mired in questions and confusion about a 2018 religious freedom directive to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.
Befuddlement and inquiries from business leaders, lawmakers, and media as well as progressive and conservative advocates alike reflect the criticism of the Labor Department’s religious freedom directive as a means to enable anti-LGBTQ discrimination.
A 2018 Blade story on the religious freedom directive, titled “New Trump administration memo on Obama order alarms LGBT advocates,” was circulated in an email chain among officials within the Office of Federal Contract Compliance. One of the top officials in that office, Christopher Seely, recognized the predictable impact the directive would have by writing in response to the Blade article: “It is not surprising that the LGBT community sees the directive as targeting them.”
The Masterpiece Cakeshop directive, as of now, is still in place, a Labor Department spokesperson confirmed for the Blade on Wednesday. However, the Biden administration has issued a proposed notice to rescind the rule implementing the legal requirements regarding the Equal Opportunity clause’s religious exemption.
The proposed rule, the Labor Department spokesperson said, is at the White House Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs pending review and will be published when that is concluded, which will lead to a public comment period and additional steps to make the rule final.
As reported by the Blade in August 2018, the Labor Department guidance purported to “incorporate recent developments in the law regarding religion-exercising organizations and individuals” with the enforcement of the executive order signed by former President Obama in 2014 barring federal contractors from engaging in discrimination against LGBTQ people in the workplace.
The imprint of former President Trump’s executive orders on religious freedom, which critics said were a means to allow federal grantees and contractors to engage in anti-LGBTQ discrimination, is also seen in the directive. It says that guidance has “similarly reminded the federal government of its duty to protect religious exercise — and not to impede it.”
All in all, the instructions seems aimed at allowing religiously affiliated non-profits to discriminate against LGBTQ workers despite Obama’s executive order prohibiting such bias in employment. Previously, religious non-profits, including religious schools and universities, were required to abide by the executive order and received no religious exemption.
The Washington Blade obtained the internal emails as a result of a lawsuit filed in September 2020 under the Freedom of Information Act with attorneys from the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, which sought communications within OFCCP to uncover information about the motivation behind the rule change in religious freedom. The Labor Department continues to produce emails to the Blade as a result of the ongoing litigation.
Labor Department officials appear to have anticipated the confusion and flurry of questions they would receive over the 2018 religious freedom directive. One email chain details discussions on a proposed email to stakeholders for when the guidance would be issued. The actual talking points are redacted in the email obtained by the Blade. Craig Leen, then director at OFFCP, concludes after the discussion: “[W]e are planning to proceed tomorrow.”
Among the emails obtained through this lawsuit were several from LGBTQ advocates questioning officials within the Labor Department on the 2018 Masterpiece Cakeshop directive, including representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Center for Transgender Equality and one separate FOIA request that appears to have come from the Center for American Progress.
One email chain discusses a FOIA request — identified as “Gruberg 865067,” which is presumably from Sharita Gruberg, vice president of LGBTQ research and communications at the Center for American Progress — seeking the number of requests made by federal contractors for a religious freedom exemption under Obama’s executive order. (Gruberg wasn’t available to comment by Blade deadline to confirm she was the one to make that FOIA request.)
A Labor Department official in the email chain describes the request as the “first FOIA request making inquiry as to whether or not a religious exemption has been requested since the directive was issued.” Another official responds, “I am not aware of one,” although it’s unclear from the email chain whether or not it was in response to the question about any federal contractors seeking a religious exemption or knowledge of any other FOIA requests on the directive.
But another email chain, one with officials preparing for a meeting with Democrats on the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee, reveals the absence of any complaints from religious freedom non-profits in complying with Obama’s executive order against anti-LGBTQ discrimination.
One Labor Department official asks for the number of reviews of religious organizations and the number of complaints received from religious organizations. A detailed chart from another official reveals a total of 11 reviews between fiscal years 2007 and 2016 with an average of about one per year. However, the official concludes in terms of complaints: “There were no complaint investigations.”
Marika Litras, an official within the Labor Department responds: “Very few which is what I suspected.” In response to a follow-up question from Litras on whether any complaints were received, the other official responds, “No complaints received either for 813110.” Litras replies: “Wow interesting thank you.”
Another top OFFCP official, John Haymaker, chimes in with a response uncharacteristically glib for government officials, but revealing of the basic understanding of the fairness of adhering to non-discrimination principles: “Well, I would hope that religious organizations would be better-behaved than most at least in public.”
The Labor Department’s internal responses to an ACLU inquiry in September 2018 are found in a separate email chain, which reveals a meeting scheduled for Sept. 17, 2018 between Ian Thompson, legislative director of the ACLU, and U.S. government officials on the religious freedom directive. Not much is revealed in the email chain other than talk about the right room to host the meeting.
Thompson, responding Wednesday to a question from the Blade on the email exchange, confirmed the meeting between the ACLU and Labor Department officials took place.
“As we repeatedly saw, the Trump administration had an agenda of using religion as a license to discriminate,” Thompson said. “We used this meeting to speak truth to power directly, raising our objections about how this directive would harm LGBTQ people and people from minority faith groups. Ultimately – as we knew they would – the Trump administration decided to move forward with this dangerous, discriminatory agenda.”
One email from Debra Carr, a Labor Department career official who had been serving director of policy for OFCCP, writing to colleagues about the meeting and discussing possible questions.”Who do you want to take a shot at drafting answers should they be needed?” Carr said. (The possible questions Carr writes, however, are redacted in the email obtained by the Blade.)
Another meeting between LGBTQ advocates and Trump administration officials is revealed to have taken place with the National Center for Transgender Equality taking the lead.
The job of drafting answers apparently went back to Carr. Litras, the other official at the Labor Department, responds: “Debra, can you take a stab at drafting brief responses?”
Carr passes the assignment to Christopher Seeley: “Hi Chris, take a shot at drafting responses to these.” Seeley, in turn, forwarded notice of the assignment to his supervisor, Harvey Fort: “This just came through as an assignment for me. I’m not sure the urgency, but it may eat into my week.” Fort replies: “Understood. That issue is very important to Craig and OFCCP.”
Seeley appears to have come with responses to the potential NCTE questions with a subsequent email to Carr: “Here are the responses I drafted.” (The actual email responses, however, are an attachment and not included in the email dump obtained by the Blade.)
The meeting between Labor Department offices and OFCPP, however, apparently did little if anything to allay the concerns of the transgender group. A subsequent chain includes an email from Ma’ayan Anafi, then policy counsel for the National Center for Transgender Equality, who says she has attached a letter from groups with “grave concerns” about the religious freedom directive.
“Please find attached a letter on behalf of 42 organizations expressing our grave concerns regarding Directive 2018-03, issued to OFCCP staff on August 10,” Anafi writes.
A proposed response to the letter is included in the email chain, although the content of the letter is redacted in the version obtained by Blade. Leen asks colleagues for review, which he said will be sent on OFCCP letterhead and sent to the Office of the Executive Secretariat. NCTE wasn’t immediately available to comment Wednesday on the whether it had obtained the directive and its reaction.
There were also inquiries from social conservative groups, including the Texas-based First Liberty Institute and the House Values Action Team, a group of conservative lawmakers led by Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.).
One email from Katie Doherty, executive director of the Values Action Team, suggests possible dates and times for a meeting with Labor Department officials and invites them to brief lawmakers at an upcoming coalition meeting for the purpose of “providing a brief overview of DOL’s changes.”
The meeting appears to have taken place. In a subsequent exchange, a Labor Department official talks about a proposal from social conservatives “regarding their recommendations for implementing Directive 2018-03” as proposed in an email from Mike Berry, deputy general counsel at the First Liberty Institute.
“It was great to meet you and Mr. Leen last week at the House VAT meeting,” Berry writes. “Per our post-meeting discussion, I am sending you a document outlining our proposals for implementing Directive 2018-03. We would be happy to discuss this further, whether with representatives from OFCCP, or via a listening session, etc.”
Leen, in a subsequent email, affirms receipt of the recommendations, but asks his colleague to remind the First Liberty Institute he has little jurisdiction to implement them.
“Please thank Mr. Berry for providing this information and let him know we will review it,” Leen writes. “I am available to meet with him to discuss the directive if he would like. As for the rulemaking process, please let him know we are unable to comment on that, and he will have the opportunity to submit comments in response to a proposed rule.”
Other emails circulated questions on the religious freedom directive from business community groups, including the New York-based Equality Institute and the Center for Workplace Compliance. In addition to the Blade, questions from Buzzfeed are discussed, as well as an article from Bloomberg and a joint letter from Jewish religious leaders objecting to the directive.
Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel and director of strategic initiatives for the LGBTQ group Lamdba Legal, said Wednesday in response to a Blade inquiry on internal talk at the Labor Department the guidance was “just one of the slew of outrageous rule changes the Trump administration issued to greenlight harmful, legally inexcusable religion-based discrimination.
“Such discrimination continues to be widespread in employment as well as in medical and social services delivery, education, and other areas of public life for LGBTQ people and many others,” Pizer said. “And it hits hardest those who have limited options.”
Federal Government
Republicans attach five anti-LGBTQ riders to State Department funding bill
Spending package would restrict Pride flags on federal buildings, trans healthcare, LGBTQ envoys
As Congress finalizes its funding for fiscal year 2027, Republicans are attempting to include five anti-LGBTQ riders in the National Security and Department of State Appropriations Act.
A rider is an unrelated provision tacked onto a bill that must pass — in this instance, the bill provides funding for national security policy and for the State Department.
The riders range from restricting Pride flags in federal buildings to banning transgender healthcare, but all aim to limit the visibility and rights of LGBTQ Americans.
The five riders are:
Section 7067(a) prohibits Pride flags from being flown over federal buildings.
Section 7067(c) restricts the United States’ ability to appoint special envoys, representatives, or coordinators unless expressly authorized by Congress. These roles have historically been used to promote U.S. interests in international forums — including advancing human and LGBTQ and intersex rights and other policy priorities. The change would halt what the Congressional Equality Caucus describes as providing “critical expertise to U.S. foreign policy and leadership abroad.”
Section 7067(d) reinforces multiple anti-equality executive orders signed by President Donald Trump, effectively requiring that foreign assistance funded by the United States comply with those orders. This includes rescinding federal contractor nondiscrimination protections, including for LGBTQ people.
Section 7067(e) prohibits funding for any organization that provides or promotes medically necessary healthcare for trans people or “promotes transgenderism” — effectively banning funds for organizations that recognize trans people exist. This is despite the practice of gender-affirming care being supported by nearly every major medical association.
Section 7067(g) reinforces two global gag rules put forward by the Trump-Vance administration. One is the Trans Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign assistance funding for organizations that acknowledge the existence of trans people or advocate for nondiscrimination protections for them, among other activities. The second is the DEI Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign assistance funding for organizations that engage in efforts to address the ongoing effects of racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry outside the United States.
The global gag rule has its roots in anti-abortion policy introduced by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, when the 40th president barred foreign organizations receiving U.S. global health assistance from providing information, referrals, or services for legal abortion, or from advocating for access to abortion services in their own countries. Planned Parenthood notes that the policy also affects programs beyond abortion, including efforts to expand access to contraception, prevent and treat HIV/AIDS, combat malaria, and improve maternal and child health.
If organizations funded by the State Department engage in these activities, they could lose funding.
This anti-LGBTQ push aligns with broader actions from the Trump-Vance administration since the start of Trump’s second term, which have focused on restricting human rights — particularly those of trans Americans.
The House Appropriations Committee is responsible for drafting the appropriations legislation. U.S. Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) serves as chair, with U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) as ranking member. The committee includes 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.
For FY27 appropriations, Congress is supposed to pass and have the president sign the funding bills by Sept. 30, 2026.
Noticias en Español
The university that refuses to let go
Joanna Cifredo is a trans woman participating in University of Puerto Rico strike
Over the past days, I have been walking with a question that refuses to leave me. Not the kind of question you answer from a desk or from a distance, but one that grows out of what you witness in real time, at the gates, in the faces of those who remain there without knowing how any of this will end. What is truly happening inside the University of Puerto Rico, and why have so many students decided to risk everything at a moment when they can least afford to lose anything.
I write as someone who lives just steps away from the Río Piedras campus. These days, the silence has replaced the constant movement that once defined this space. The absence is felt in every corner where students used to pass at all hours. Since arriving in Puerto Rico three years ago, I have come to know firsthand stories that rarely make it into reports or official statements. One of the reasons I chose to stay was precisely this, to serve the university community, to help create a space where students could find something as basic as a safe meal at night and, in some way, ease burdens that are often carried in silence.
I have listened, asked questions, and tried to understand without imposing answers. What I have found is not a collective outburst or a generational whim. What exists is a fracture, a deep break between those making decisions and those living with their consequences every single day.
There has been an effort to reduce this strike to an issue of order, scheduling, or academic disruption. Conversations revolve around missed classes, delayed semesters, and students supposedly unaware of the consequences of their actions. What is rarely addressed are the conditions that lead an entire student body to pause its own future to sustain a protest that offers no guarantees.
Because that is the reality. These are students who fully understand what they are risking, and yet they remain. When someone reaches that point, the least they deserve is not judgment, but to be heard.
From the outside, there have also been attempts to discredit what is happening. Familiar narratives are repeated, legitimacy is questioned, and doubt is cast over intentions. It is easier to do that than to acknowledge that this did not begin at the gates, but long before, in decisions made without building trust.
And something must be said clearly. This is not limited to the gates of Río Piedras. What we are witnessing extends across every unit of the University of Puerto Rico system. Mayagüez, Ponce, Arecibo, Bayamón, Cayey, Humacao, Carolina, Aguadilla, Utuado, and the Medical Sciences Campus. This is not an isolated reaction. It is a movement that runs through the entire institution. Río Piedras may be more visible, but it is not alone. What is happening there reflects a broader unrest felt across the system.
Within that context, one demand has grown increasingly present, the call for the resignation of University of Puerto Rico President Zayira Jordán Conde. This is not the voice of a small group. It reflects a deeper level of mistrust that has spread across multiple campuses.
The Puerto Rican Association of University Professors has also made it clear that this is not solely a student issue. There is real concern among faculty, and a shared recognition of the conditions currently shaping the university. When students and professors arrive at the same conclusion, the problem can no longer be minimized.
Meanwhile, the administration continues to speak in the language of dialogue. But dialogue is not a word, it is a practice. And when trust has been broken, it cannot be restored through statements alone, but through decisions that prove a willingness to truly listen.
In the midst of all of this, there are voices that cannot be ignored. Voices grounded not in theory, but in lived experience. One of them is Joanna Cifredo, a student at the Mayagüez campus, a young Puerto Rican trans woman, and someone widely recognized for her advocacy.
I spoke with her in recent days. What follows is her voice, exactly as it is.
How would you describe what is happening inside the University of Puerto Rico right now, beyond what people see from the outside?
Estamos viviendo momentos muy difíciles, en el sentido de que hay mucha incertidumbre y una presión constante por parte de la administración para reabrir el recinto, pero, entre todo el caos e inestabilidad provocado por las decisiones de esta administración, también hemos vivido momentos muy poderosos. Esta lucha ha sacado lo mejor de nuestra comunidad.
Lo vimos en las asambleas y plenos, donde 1,500, 1,700, hasta 1,800 estudiantes llegaron —bajo lluvia, bajo advertencias de inundaciones— y aun así se quedaron, participaron y votaron a favor de una manifestación indefinida hasta que se atiendan nuestros reclamos.
He conocido a tantas personas en los diferentes portones, estudiantes graduados, aletas, estudiantes de intercambio, estudiantes de todo tipo de concentraciones y se unieron para apoyar el movimiento estudiantil. Estudiantes que vienen a los portones después del trabajo o antes de trabajar. Estudiantes que vienen a dejar agua y suministros entre turnos de trabajo. Viejitos que vienen a los portones con desayuno, almuerzo o cena.
Más allá de lo que se ve desde afuera, lo que estamos viviendo es una mezcla de tensión y resistencia, pero también de comunidad, solidaridad y compromiso colectivo.
Much of what is discussed remains at the level of headlines or social media. From your direct experience, what specific decisions or actions from the administration have led to this level of mobilization?
Desde el inicio, la designación de la Dra. Zayira Jordán Conde careció de respaldo dentro de la comunidad universitaria. No contaba con experiencia administrativa en la UPR ni con un conocimiento básico de nuestros procesos, cultura y reglamentos. Por eso, en asamblea, el estudiantado votó para solicitarle a la Junta de Gobierno que no considerara su candidatura, y múltiples organizaciones docentes hicieron lo mismo. Existía un consenso amplio de que no tenía la experiencia necesaria para liderar una institución como la nuestra.
A pesar de ese rechazo claro, la Junta de Gobierno decidió ignorar los reclamos de la comunidad universitaria e imponer su nombramiento.
Una vez en el cargo, su estilo de gobernanza ha sido poco transparente y poco colaborativo. Sin embargo, el detonante principal de la movilización en el Recinto Universitario de Mayagüez fue su decisión de destituir, de manera unilateral y en medio del semestre, a cinco rectores, incluyendo al nuestro, el Dr. Agustín Rullán Toro, para reemplazarlo por un rector interino, el Dr. Miguel Muñoz Muñoz.
Esta acción, tomada de forma abrupta, provocó de inmediato un clima de caos e inestabilidad dentro de la institución. Y deja una pregunta inevitable: ¿no anticipó el impacto de esa decisión, lo que evidenciaría una falta de experiencia? ¿O lo anticipó y aun así decidió proceder? No está claro cuál de las dos es más preocupante.
Además, esta decisión tuvo consecuencias concretas para el estudiantado, incluyendo el retiro de becas educativas para nuevos integrantes del RUM por parte de la Fundación Ceiba, que calificó la movida como “sorprendente” y “preocupante”. Decisiones impulsivas como la que tomó la presidenta ponen en peligro la estabilidad de nuestra institución y la acreditación de la universidad.
As a trans woman within this movement, how does your identity intersect with what is happening, and why does this also shape the future of people like you?
Soy una de varias chicas trans que formamos parte activa de este movimiento estudiantil.
For those outside the UPR who believe this does not affect them, what are the real consequences of this crisis?
La Universidad de Puerto Rico se fundó para servir al pueblo.
It is impossible to overstate the role the University of Puerto Rico and its students have played in shaping the social, cultural, and economic life of this country. Its impact extends into science, medicine, and every profession that has sustained Puerto Rico over time. No other educational institution has contributed more.
After listening to her, one thing becomes undeniable. This is not just another protest, but a generation refusing to let go of what little remains within its reach. And when a generation reaches that point, the issue is no longer the strike, the issue becomes the country itself.
National
Advocacy groups issue US travel advisory ahead of World Cup
Renee Good’s death in Minneapolis among incidents cited
More than 100 organizations have issued a travel advisory for the U.S. ahead of the 2026 World Cup.
The World Cup will take place in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico from June 11-July 19.
“In light of the deteriorating human rights situation in the United States and in the absence of meaningful action and concrete guarantees from FIFA, host cities, or the U.S. government, the undersigned organizations are issuing this travel advisory for fans, players, journalists, and other visitors traveling to and within the United States for the June 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup. World Cup games will be played in 11 different cities across the United States, which, like many localities, have already been the target of the Trump administration’s violent and abusive immigration crackdown,” reads the advisory that the Council for Global Equality and other groups that include the American Civil Liberties Union issued on April 23. “The impacts of these policies vary by locality.”
“While the Trump administration’s rising authoritarianism and increasing violence pose serious risks to all, those from immigrant communities, racial and ethnic minority groups, and LGBTQ+ individuals have been and continue to be disproportionately targeted and affected by the administration’s policies and, as such, are most vulnerable to serious harm when traveling to and/or within the United States,” it adds. “This travel advisory calls on fans, players, journalists, and other visitors to exercise caution.”
The advisory specifically mentions Renee Good.
A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent on Jan. 7 shot and killed her in Minneapolis. Good, 37, left behind her wife and three children.
The full advisory can be read here.
Republicans attach five anti-LGBTQ riders to State Department funding bill
Calendar: May 1-7
The university that refuses to let go
Judge issues revised order in Capital Pride stalking case
New Zealand blood donation rules shift
House Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
From red carpet to chaos: A first-person narrative of the WHCD shooting
European Parliament backs EU-wide conversion therapy ban
LGBTQ people are leaving Orthodox Judaism behind
Democracy Forward files FOIA request for State Department bathroom policy records
-
Federal Government4 days agoHouse Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
-
The White House5 days ago
From red carpet to chaos: A first-person narrative of the WHCD shooting
-
European Union2 days ago
European Parliament backs EU-wide conversion therapy ban
-
News4 days ago
LGBTQ people are leaving Orthodox Judaism behind
