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
Pride flag raised at Stonewall after National Park Service took it down
‘Our flag represents dignity and human rights’
A Pride flag was raised at the site of the Stonewall National Monument days after a National Park Service directive banned flying the flag at the birthplace of the LGBTQ rights movement in the U.S.
The flag-raising was led by Manhattan Borough President Brad Hoylman-Sigal and supported by other elected officials.
“The community should rejoice. We have prevailed,” Hoylman-Sigal said shortly after the flag was hoisted. “Our flag represents dignity and human rights.”
The flag now sits in Christopher Street Park, feet away from the Stonewall Inn, where in 1969 a police raid of the gay bar sparked outrage and led to a rising of LGBTQ people pushing back on NYPD brutality and unjust treatment.
Elected officials brought a new flagpole with them, using plastic zip ties to attach it to the existing pole.
In 2016, President Barack Obama declared the site a national monument.
One day before the planned re-raising of the Pride flag, the National Park Service installed only an American flag on the flagpole, which days prior had flown a rainbow flag bearing the NPS logo.
The directive removing the flag was put forward by Trump-appointed National Park Service Acting Director Jessica Bowron.
This comes one day after more than 20 LGBTQ organizations from across the country co-signed a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and General Services Administrator Ed Forst, demanding the flag be restored to the monument.
“It is our understanding that the policy provides limited exceptions for non-agency flags that provide historical context or play a role in historic reenactments. Simply put, we urge you to grant this flag an exception and raise it once again, immediately,” the letter read. “It also serves as an important reminder to the 30+ million LGBTQ+ Americans, who continue to face disproportionate threats to our lives and our liberty, that the sites and symbols that tell our stories are worth honoring … However, given recent removals of the site’s references to transgender and bisexual people — people who irrefutably played a pivotal role in this history — it is clear that this is not about the preservation of the historical record.”
The letter finished with a message of resilience the LGBTQ community is known for: “The history and the legacy of Stonewall must live on. Our community cannot simply be erased with the removal of a flag. We will continue to stand up and fight to ensure that LGBTQ+ history should not only be protected — it should be celebrated as a milestone in American resilience and progress.”
When asked about the directive, the NPS responded with this statement:
“Current Department of the Interior policy provides that the National Park Service may only fly the U.S. flag, Department of the Interior flags, and the Prisoner of War/Missing in Action flag on flagpoles and public display points. The policy allows limited exceptions, permitting non-agency flags when they serve an official purpose. These include historical context or reenactments, current military branch flags, flags of federally recognized tribal nations affiliated with a park, flags at sites co-managed with other federal, state, or municipal partners, flags required for international park designations, and flags displayed under agreements with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for Naturalization ceremonies.”
An Interior Department spokesperson on Thursday called the move to return the flag to the monument a “political stunt.”
“Today’s political pageantry shows how utterly incompetent and misaligned the New York City officials are with the problems their city is facing,” a department spokesperson said when reached for comment.
The clash comes amid broader efforts by the Trump-Vance administration to minimize LGBTQ history and political power. The White House has spent much of President Donald Trump’s second presidency restricting transgender rights — stopping gender-affirming care for transgender youth, issuing an executive order stating the federal government will recognize only two sexes, male and female, and blocking Medicaid and Medicare from being used for gender-affirming care.
State Department
FOIA lawsuit filed against State Department for PEPFAR records
Council for Global Equality, Physicians for Human Rights seeking data, documents
The Council for Global Equality and Physicians for Human Rights have filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department for PEPFAR-related data and documents.
The groups, which Democracy Forward represents, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Wednesday.
Then-President George W. Bush in 2003 signed legislation that created PEPFAR. UNAIDS Executive Director Winnie Byanyima last March said PEPFAR has saved 26 million lives around the world.
The Trump-Vance administration in January 2025 froze nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending for at least 90 days. Secretary of State Marco Rubio later issued a waiver that allowed PEPFAR and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during the freeze.
The Washington Blade has previously reported PEPFAR-funded programs in Kenya and other African countries have been forced to suspend services and even shut down because of gaps in U.S. funding. HIV/AIDS activists have also sharply criticized the Trump-Vance administration over reported plans it will not fully fund PEPFAR in the current fiscal year.
The lawsuit notes the Council for Global Equality and Physicians for Human Rights have “filed several FOIA requests” with the State Department for PEPFAR-related data and documents. The groups filed their most recent request on Jan. 30.
“On Jan. 30, 2026, plaintiffs, through counsel, sent State a letter asking it to commit to prompt production of the requested records,” reads the lawsuit. “State responded that the request was being processed but did not commit to any timeline for production.”
“Plaintiffs have received no subsequent communication from State regarding this FOIA request,” it notes.
“Transparency and inclusion have been hallmarks of PEPFAR’s success in the last decade,” said Beirne Roose-Snyder, a senior policy fellow at the Council for Global Equality, in a press release that announced the lawsuit. “This unprecedented withholding of data, and concurrent ideological misdirection of foreign assistance to exclude LGBTQI+ people and others who need inclusive programming, has potentially devastating and asymmetrical impacts on already marginalized communities.”
“This data is vital to understanding who’s getting access to care and who’s being left behind,” added Roose-Snyder.
“We filed this lawsuit to seek transparency: the administration’s PEPFAR data blackout withholds information the public, health providers, and affected communities need to track the HIV epidemic and prevent avoidable illness and death, obscuring the true human cost of these policy decisions,” said Physicians for Human Rights Research, Legal, and Advocacy Director Payal Shah.
The State Department has yet to respond to the Blade’s request for comment on the lawsuit.
New York
N.Y. lawmaker vows ‘Pride flag will fly again’ at Stonewall Monument
After a Jan. 21 policy shift, Pride flags were banned at national parks, prompting backlash from Bottcher and LGBTQ advocates.
Hours after news broke that the National Park Service would no longer allow Pride flags to fly at the Stonewall National Monument — the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement in the United States — the Washington Blade spoke with New York State Sen. Erik Bottcher, who represents the area surrounding the Stonewall Inn and the national monument.
During the interview, Bottcher, who is gay, spoke about the policy change and outlined steps he plans to take in the coming days to push for its reversal.
“This is another act of erasure,” Bottcher told the Blade. “It’s a cowardly attempt to rewrite history and to intimidate our community. This is Stonewall — it’s where we fought back, where we ignited a global movement for equality — and we refuse to go back. We’re not going to accept these acts of erasure.”
The Stonewall Inn became a flashpoint in 1969 after NYPD officers raided the bar, part of a longstanding pattern of police harassment of LGBTQ spaces. The raid sparked days of protest and resistance along Christopher Street, now widely recognized as the catalyst for the modern LGBTQ rights movement.
While the events are often referred to as the “Stonewall Riots,” many activists and historians prefer the term “Stonewall Uprising,” emphasizing that the resistance was a response to systemic oppression rather than senseless violence. LGBTQ patrons and community members fought back — shouting “Gay Power!” and “Liberate Christopher Street!” — as crowds grew and frustration with police abuse boiled over.
Since the uprising, LGBTQ people and allies have gathered annually in June to commemorate Stonewall and to celebrate Pride, honoring the movement that placed LGBTQ voices at the center of the fight for equality.
In June 2016, then President Barack Obama officially designated the space as the Stonewall National Monument, making it the United States’s first national monument designated for an LGBTQ historic site.
Now, nearly 10 years later, President Trump’s appointed NPS acting director Jessica Bowron changed policy on Jan. 21 regarding which flags are allowed to be flown in national parks. Many, including Bottcher, say this is part of a larger targeted and deliberate attempt by the administration to erase LGBTQ history.
“It’s clear they’re making a conscious decision to erase the symbols of our community from a monument to our community’s struggle,” he said. “This is a calculated and premeditated decision, and it could be — and should be — reversed.”
“Let’s be clear,” Bottcher added, “they wish we didn’t exist … But we’re not going anywhere. We refuse to go back into the shadows.”
When asked why it is critical to challenge the policy, Bottcher emphasized the importance of visibility in preserving LGBTQ history.
“This is why it’s so important that we not let this stand,” he said. “Visibility is critical. When people see us, learn about us, and get to know us, that’s how we break down prejudice and stereotypes. We cannot allow them to push us back into the shadows.”
Other LGBTQ leaders and elected officials were quick to condemn the removal of the Pride flag, which had flown since the site’s official designation as a national monument.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani called the decision “outrageous.”
“I am outraged by the removal of the Rainbow Pride Flag from Stonewall National Monument,” Mamdani said in a statement. “New York is the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement, and no act of erasure will ever change or silence that history.”
“Our city has a duty not just to honor this legacy, but to live up to it,” he added. “I will always fight for a New York City that invests in our LGBTQ+ community, defends their dignity, and protects every one of our neighbors — without exception.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also condemned the move.
“The removal of the Pride Rainbow Flag from the Stonewall National Monument is a deeply outrageous action that must be reversed immediately,” Schumer said in a statement to The Advocate. “Stonewall is a landmark because it is the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement, and symbols of that legacy belong there by both history and principle.”
Cathy Renna, communications director for the National LGBTQ Task Force, said the flag’s removal will not erase the movement it represents.
“They can take down a flag, but they can’t take down our history,” Renna said. “Stonewall is sacred ground rooted in resistance, liberation, and the legacy of trans and queer trailblazers who changed the course of history.”
Human Rights Campaign National Press Secretary Brandon Wolf echoed that sentiment.
“Bad news for the Trump administration: these colors don’t run,” Wolf said. “The Stonewall Inn and Visitors Center are privately owned, their flags are still flying high, and that community is just as queer today as it was yesterday.”
Tyler Hack, executive director of the Christopher Street Project, said the removal was aimed squarely at LGBTQ visibility.
“The Pride flag was removed from Stonewall for one reason: to further erase queer and trans people from public life,” Hack said. “Stonewall marks the moment when queer and trans people fought back and demanded dignity. Our history is not theirs to erase.”
Bottcher closed with a promise to his constituents — and to the broader LGBTQ community — that the Pride flag’s removal would not be permanent.
“We will not be erased. We will not be silenced,” he said. “And the Pride flag will fly again at the birthplace of our movement.”
Unconventional love: Or, fuck it, let’s choose each other again
Pride flag raised at Stonewall after National Park Service took it down
Trans students not included in new India University Grants Commission equity rules
Calendar: February 13-19
FOIA lawsuit filed against State Department for PEPFAR records
I keep getting rejected on the apps
Pride flag removed from Stonewall Monument as Trump targets LGBTQ landmarks
Olympics Pride House ‘really important for the community’
Gay man details secret struggle with bulimia
