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.”
New York
Court orders Pride flag to return to Stonewall
Lambda Legal, Washington Litigation Group filed federal lawsuit
The Pride flag will once again fly over the Stonewall National Monument in New York following a court order requiring the National Park Service to raise it over the site.
The decision follows a lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal and the Washington Litigation Group in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which challenged the removal as unconstitutional under the Administrative Procedure Act and argued that the government unlawfully targeted the LGBTQ community.
In February, the NPS removed the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument, the first national monument dedicated to LGBTQ rights and history in the U.S. The move followed a Jan. 21 memorandum issued by President Donald Trump-appointed NPS Director Jessica Bowron restricting which flags may be flown at national parks. The directive limited displays to official government flags, with narrow exceptions for those deemed to serve an “official purpose.”
Plaintiffs successfully argued that the Pride flag meets that standard, given Stonewall’s status as the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement. They also contended that the policy violated the APA by bypassing required public input and improperly applying agency rules.
The lawsuit named Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Bowron, and Amy Sebring, superintendent of Manhattan sites for the NPS, as defendants. Plaintiffs included the Gilbert Baker Foundation, Village Preservation, Equality New York, and several individuals.
The court found that the memorandum — while allowing limited exceptions for historical context purposes — was applied unlawfully in this case. As part of the settlement, the NPS is required to rehang the Pride flag on the monument’s official flagpole within seven days, where it will remain permanently.
“The sudden, arbitrary, and capricious removal of the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument was yet another act by this administration to erase the LGBTQ+ community,” said Karen Loewy, co-counsel for plaintiffs and Lambda Legal’s Senior Counsel and Director of Constitutional Law Practice. “Today, the government has pledged to restore this important symbol back to where it belongs.”
“This is a complete victory for our clients and for the LGBTQ+ community,” said Alexander Kristofcak, lead counsel for plaintiffs and a lawyer with Washington Litigation Group. “The government has acknowledged what we argued from day one: the Pride flag belongs at Stonewall. The flag will be restored and it will fly officially and permanently. And we will remain vigilant to ensure that the government sticks to the deal.”
“Gilbert Baker created the Rainbow Pride flag as a symbol of hope and liberation,” said Charles Beal, president of the Gilbert Baker Foundation. “Today, that symbol is restored to the place where it belongs, standing watch over the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement.”
“The government tried to erase an important symbol of the LGBTQ+ community, and the community said no,” said Amanda Babine, executive director of Equality New York. “Today’s accomplishment proves that when we stand together and fight back, we win.”
“The removal of the Pride flag from Stonewall was an attempt to erase LGBTQ+ history and undermine the rule of law,” said Andrew Berman, executive director of Village Preservation. “This settlement restores both.”
With Loewy on the complaint are Douglas F. Curtis, Camilla B. Taylor, Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, Kenneth D. Upton Jr., Jennifer C. Pizer, and Nephetari Smith from Lambda Legal. With Kristofcak on the complaint are Mary L. Dohrmann, Sydney Foster, Kyle Freeny, James I. Pearce, and Nathaniel Zelinsky from Washington Litigation Group.
Federal Government
Trump budget targets ‘gender extremism’
Proposed spending package would target ‘leftist’ political ideologies
The White House submitted its 2027 budget request to Congress last month, outlining a push for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to “proactively” target what it describes as “extremism” related to gender — raising concerns about the potential for law enforcement to target LGBTQ people.
The Trump-Vance administration’s 2027 budget request, submitted to Congress on April 4, proposes a dramatic increase in national security and law enforcement spending, while reducing foreign aid and restructuring multiple domestic security programs. In total, the administration is requesting $2.16 trillion in discretionary budget authority (including mandatory resources), a 15.3 percent increase over the 2026 proposal.
Central to the proposal is the creation of a new “NSPM-7 Joint Mission Center,” a direct follow-up to the September 2025 National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7). The directive instructs the Justice Department, the FBI, and other national security agencies to combat what the administration defines as “political violence in America,” effectively reshaping the Joint Terrorism Task Force network to focus on “leftist” political ideologies, according to reporting by independent journalist Ken Klippenstein.
The American Civil Liberties Union has characterized NSPM-7 as a way for President Donald Trump to intimidate his political enemies.
In a press release following the memorandum, Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, said, “President Trump has launched yet another effort to investigate and intimidate his critics,” and had described the move as an “intimidation tactic against those standing up for human rights and civil liberties.”
The proposed mission center would include personnel from 10 federal agencies tasked with targeting “domestic terrorists” associated with a wide range of ideologies. Among them is what the administration labels “extremism” related to gender, alongside categories such as “anti-Americanism,” “anti-capitalism,” “anti-Christianity,” and “support for the overthrow of the U.S. government.” The document also cites “hostility toward those who hold traditional American views” on family, religion, and morality — language LGBTQ advocates have increasingly warned could be used to frame queer and transgender rights movements as ideological threats.
The mission center is one component of a proposed $166 million increase in the FBI’s counterterrorism budget.
In total, the FBI would receive $12.5 billion for salaries and expenses under the proposal, a $1.9 billion increase. Planned investments include unmanned aerial systems operations and counter-drone capabilities, counterterrorism efforts, and security preparations for the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. The budget also cites 67,000 FBI arrests since Jan. 20, 2026, which it describes as a 197 percent increase from the prior year.
When Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, it also enacted 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5), which defines domestic terrorism as activities involving acts dangerous to human life that violate criminal laws and are intended to intimidate or coerce civilians or influence government policy through violence. That statutory definition has not changed.
However, federal agencies have historically categorized domestic terrorism threats into groups such as racially or ethnically motivated violent extremism, anti-government or anti-authority violent extremism, and other threats, including those tied to bias based on religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
The language in the budget suggests a shift in how those categories are interpreted and applied — particularly by explicitly linking “extremism” to gender and to perceived opposition to “traditional” views — without any corresponding change to federal law. Only Congress has the power to change the definition of domestic terrorism by passing legislation.
The budget document states:
“DT lone offenders will continue to pose significant detection and disruption challenges because of their capacity for independent radicalization to violence, ability to mobilize discretely, and access to firearms. Additionally, in recent years, heinous assassinations and other acts of political violence in the United States have dramatically increased. Commonly, this violent conduct relates to views associated with anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the U.S. government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility toward those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.”
This language echoes earlier actions by the Trump-Vance administration targeting trans people.
On the first day of his second term, President Trump signed Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”
The order establishes a strict binary definition of sex and withdraws federal recognition of trans people.
“It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female,” the order states. “‘Sex’ shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female. ‘Sex’ is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of ‘gender identity.’”
Appropriations committees in both chambers are expected to begin hearings in the coming weeks.
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
Court orders Pride flag to return to Stonewall
Sri Lankan government withdraws support for LGBTQ tourism initiative
In an act of artistic defiance, Baltimore Center Stage stays focused on DEI
Trump budget targets ‘gender extremism’
Susan Lucci on love, loss, and ‘All My Children’
Trump’s war threats trigger rare 25th Amendment discussion
New book celebrates 1970s dance music icons
ROSENSTEIN: Vote McDuffie for mayor of D.C.
A Sondheim masterpiece ‘Merrily’ rolls onto Netflix
