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
Inside the LGBTQ records of Todd Blanche and Markwayne Mullin
Two men are acting attorney general, DHS secretary
President Donald Trump became famous for his use of the phrase “You’re fired!” while hosting the reality TV show “The Apprentice” in the early 2000s. However, during his time in the Oval Office, he has attempted to distance himself from that image.
Despite those efforts, the phrase once again comes to mind as Trump has fired two high-level female Cabinet members within the past month: Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem.
Their replacements — Todd Blanche at the Justice Department and Markwayne Mullin at the Department of Homeland Security — bring records that, while different in depth, both reflect limited support for LGBTQ protections and, in some cases, direct opposition.
Todd Blanche
Acting attorney general
Little has been found regarding Todd Blanche’s LGBTQ history prior to his role as acting head of the Department of Justice. Unlike those who have worked within the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division or served as state attorneys general, he has not developed a public-facing legal ideology on LGBTQ issues.
Blanche attended American University for his undergraduate studies — like fellow Trump attorney Michael Cohen — where he met his future wife, Kristin, who was studying at nearby Catholic University in D.C.
He began his legal career as an intern at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, which eventually became a full-time position. He later worked as a paralegal in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York while attending Brooklyn Law School at night. Blanche graduated cum laude in 2003. He and his wife later married and had two children.
Blanche left the U.S. attorney’s office in 2014, taking a job in the Manhattan office of the law firm WilmerHale. In September 2017, he moved to Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, where he was a partner in the White Collar Defense and Investigations practice.
In his personal capacity, he represented several figures associated with Donald Trump and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, including Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort, businessman Igor Fruman, and attorney Boris Epshteyn.
In 2024, Blanche switched from Democrat to Republican, aligning himself with Trump’s political orbit. He later served as Trump’s personal defense attorney in the New York State case that led to Trump’s 2024 conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up hush-money payments to bisexual adult film star Stormy Daniels.
Now the highest-ranking official at the Justice Department, Blanche has played a central role in overseeing the department and has been involved in leadership decisions tied to several controversial actions affecting LGBTQ people.
In a letter to New York Attorney General Letitia James, Blanche declared that the Justice Department “will not sit idly by while you attempt to use your office to force harmful procedures on our most vulnerable population,” if legal action were taken against NYU Langone. The hospital had “permanently” ended a program earlier that month after the Trump-Vance administration threatened to pull all federal funding if it continued prescribing puberty blockers and hormones to minors.
Blanche wrote that “the Justice Department believes the law is clear, and anti-discrimination laws cannot be used to force NYU Langone to perform sex-rejecting procedures on children.”
“As just one example, your office’s position would require a hospital to prescribe certain medications for certain diagnoses, regardless of the hospital’s or its doctors’ independent medical determination about the propriety of such treatment,” he said.
Blanche also echoed his predecessor’s public stance on limiting LGBTQ-related protections at the federal level, aligning with Bondi’s sentiments in June 2025 regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision that restricted LGBTQ history lessions in schools and limits lower federal courts from issuing nationwide injunctions — rulings that have often blocked Trump administration policies.
Calling it “another great decision that came down today,” Blanche argued that the ruling “restores parents’ rights to decide their child’s education,” adding: “It seems like a basic idea, but it took the Supreme Court to set the record straight, and we thank them for that. And now that ruling allows parents to opt out of dangerous trans ideology and make the decisions for their children that they believe is correct.”
In December 2025, a Justice Department memo stated that, “effective immediately,” prisons and jails would no longer be held responsible for violations of standards meant to protect LGBTQ people from harassment, abuse, and rape under the Prison Rape Elimination Act. The law, passed unanimously by Congress in 2003, requires that incarcerated people be screened for their risk of sexual assault, including consideration of LGBTQ status, and applies to all correctional facilities.
Additionally, when the Justice Department, under Blanche’s deputy leadership and at Trump’s behest, attempted to force Children’s National Hospital in D.C. to turn over medical records related to gender-affirming care, U.S. District Judge Julie R. Rubin ruled that the effort “appears to have no purpose other than to intimidate and harass.”
Blanche is also described as having a “strong belief in executive authority.”
Markwayne Mullin
Secretary of Homeland Security
While Blanche’s record is defined more by recent actions than a long paper trail, Markwayne Mullin brings a more established history on LGBTQ issues from his time in Congress.
The head of the Department of Homeland Security has served in Congress since 2013, in both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. He has been actively engaged in shaping restrictions and aligns with broader cultural rhetoric that frames anti-LGBTQ speech as protected expression.
In May 2016, Mullin criticized the Department of Education and the Justice Department’s “Dear Colleague” letter on transgender students, arguing that trans girls should not use girls’ restrooms in public schools.
By January 2021, Mullin and then-Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard had introduced a bill to prevent trans women from participating in women’s sports.
Mullin was not recorded as voting on the final passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, which codified federal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriage.
In 2023, Mullin received a rating of just 6 percent from the Human Rights Campaign.
While serving in the Senate and as a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, Mullin has been a vocal critic of policies aimed at expanding LGBTQ inclusion in federal programs. He has participated in broader Republican efforts questioning equity-based implementation of the Older Americans Act, including guidance related to sexual orientation and gender identity in aging services, arguing such policies could have unintended consequences.
Mullin also makes history as the first Native American — and a citizen of the Cherokee Nation — to lead the Department of Homeland Security.
He was among the 147 Republicans who voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election results despite no evidence of widespread fraud, and was present in the House on Jan. 6.
Noticias en Español
La X vuelve al tribunal
Primer Circuito examina caso del reconocimiento de personas no binarias en Puerto Rico
Hace ocho meses escribí sobre este tema cuando todavía no había llegado al nivel judicial en el que se encuentra hoy. En ese momento, la discusión se movía entre decisiones administrativas, debates públicos y resistencias políticas. No era un asunto cerrado, pero tampoco había alcanzado el punto actual.
Hoy el escenario es distinto.
La organización Lambda Legal compareció ante el Tribunal de Apelaciones del Primer Circuito en Boston para solicitar que se confirme una decisión que obliga al gobierno de Puerto Rico a emitir certificados de nacimiento que reflejen la identidad de las personas no binarias. La apelación se produce luego de que un tribunal de distrito concluyera que negar esa posibilidad constituye una violación a la Constitución de Estados Unidos.
Este elemento marca la diferencia. Ya no se trata de una discusión conceptual. Existe una determinación judicial que identificó un trato desigual.
El planteamiento de la parte demandante se sostiene en el propio marco legal vigente en Puerto Rico. Los certificados de nacimiento de identidad no son registros históricos inmutables. Son documentos utilizados para fines actuales y esenciales. Permiten acceder a empleo, educación y servicios, y son requeridos en múltiples gestiones ante el Estado. Su función es operativa.
En ese contexto, la exclusión de las personas no binarias no responde a una limitación jurídica. Puerto Rico permite la corrección de marcadores de género en certificados de nacimiento para personas trans binarias desde el caso Arroyo González v. Rosselló Nevares. Además, el Código Civil reconoce la existencia de certificados que reflejan la identidad de la persona más allá del registro original.
La diferencia radica en la aplicación.
El reconocimiento se concede dentro de categorías específicas, mientras que se excluye a quienes no se identifican dentro de ese esquema. Esa exclusión es el eje de la controversia actual.
El argumento presentado por Lambda Legal es preciso. Obligar a una persona a utilizar documentos que no reflejan su identidad implica someterla a una representación incorrecta en procesos fundamentales de la vida cotidiana. Esto puede generar dificultades prácticas, exposición innecesaria y situaciones de vulnerabilidad.
Las personas demandantes, nacidas en Puerto Rico, han planteado que el acceso a documentos precisos no es una cuestión simbólica, sino una necesidad básica para poder desenvolverse sin contradicciones impuestas por el propio Estado.
El hecho de que este caso se encuentre en el sistema federal introduce una dimensión adicional. No se trata de un proyecto legislativo ni de una política pública en discusión. Es una controversia constitucional. El análisis gira en torno a derechos y a la aplicación equitativa de las leyes.
Este proceso tampoco ocurre en aislamiento.
Se desarrolla en un contexto donde los debates sobre identidad y derechos han estado marcados por una mayor presencia de posturas conservadoras en la esfera pública, tanto en Estados Unidos como en Puerto Rico. En el ámbito local, esa influencia ha sido visible en discusiones legislativas recientes, donde argumentos de carácter religioso han comenzado a formar parte del debate sobre política pública. Esa intersección introduce tensiones en torno a la separación entre iglesia y Estado y tiene efectos concretos en el acceso a derechos.
Señalar este contexto no implica cuestionar la fe ni la práctica religiosa. Implica reconocer que, cuando determinados argumentos se trasladan al ejercicio del poder público, pueden incidir en decisiones que afectan a sectores específicos de la población.
Desde Puerto Rico, esta situación no se observa a distancia. Se experimenta en la práctica diaria. En la necesidad de presentar documentos que no corresponden con la identidad de quien los porta. En las implicaciones que esto tiene en espacios laborales, educativos y administrativos.
El avance de este caso abre una posibilidad de cambio en el marco legal aplicable. No porque resuelva de inmediato todas las tensiones en torno al tema, sino porque establece un punto de análisis jurídico sobre una práctica que hasta ahora ha operado bajo criterios restrictivos.
A diferencia de hace ocho meses, el escenario actual incluye una determinación judicial que ya identificó una violación de derechos. Lo que corresponde ahora es evaluar si esa determinación se sostiene en una instancia superior.
Ese proceso no define un resultado inmediato, pero sí establece un nuevo punto de referencia.
El debate ya no es teórico.
Ahora es judicial.
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.
Inside the LGBTQ records of Todd Blanche and Markwayne Mullin
PHOTOS: Denali at Pitchers
Whitman-Walker Health to present ‘Pro Bono Excellence’ award to law firm
La X vuelve al tribunal
Court orders Pride flag to return to Stonewall
HRC endorses Va. ballot initiative to redraw congressional districts
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
The emperor has no clothes: how rhetoric fuels repression in Eswatini
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
-
2026 Midterm Elections4 days agoHRC endorses Va. ballot initiative to redraw congressional districts
-
Rehoboth Beach4 days ago
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
-
Eswatini4 days ago
The emperor has no clothes: how rhetoric fuels repression in Eswatini
-
National4 days ago
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
