National
Pride police bans stir debate in D.C., around country
Uniformed officers prohibited from Capital Pride parade
As cities across the U.S. once again hold in-person Pride month festivities after two years of pandemic-related pauses, a growing trend among Pride organizations attempting to restrict police presence at Pride events is gaining momentum.
The trend, which has only grown in recent years, has ignited debate among the LGBTQ community and outside groups attempting to balance support for the community with support for local law enforcement.
These calls for an end to police involvement in the events largely stem from a detailed history of discrimination and use of force among police departments toward the LGBTQ community and communities of color.
The Stonewall rebellion, during which patrons and local residents protested a police raid on the Stonewall Inn in New York’s Greenwich Village, are largely credited with sparking the modern-day LGBTQ rights movement. The narrative set by this history has organizations in some of the country’s largest cities trying to ban uniformed law enforcement personnel from Pride parades and festivals.
Pride groups in San Francisco and other cities have recently engaged in their own efforts to ban uniformed police from marching in their annual parades altogether.
Drawing the ire of San Francisco Mayor London Breed and the city’s police department, San Francisco Pride last month banned police in its annual Pride parade.
“One of the top priorities is that San Francisco Pride remains a positive, celebratory event for all, especially for our Black, trans, and lesbian/gay/queer+ family,” San Francisco Pride said in its statement announcing the ban. “For the 2022 [San Francisco] Pride Parade, [San Francisco] Pride requested that those participating from law enforcement agencies do so out of uniform and in an alternative attire that still represents their organization.”
In announcing their initial decision, San Francisco Pride directly related their reasoning to past harm done by law enforcement to the LGBTQ community.
“[San Francisco] Pride remains committed to practicing radical inclusion, practicing harm reduction in our space, and supporting those who are marginalized within our community,” the group stated. “We acknowledge and appreciate the steps that have been taken to heal decades of distrust between law enforcement agencies and the LGBTQ+ communities.”
Although the ban has since been reversed following a compromise between San Francisco Pride and the San Francisco Police Officers Pride Alliance, debate still lingers in other major cities with large LGBTQ communities.
New York, Seattle, and Denver are among the cities in which activists have banned or requested an absence of uniformed police presence at Pride events.
NYC Pride announced last year it would prohibit uniformed police officers’ participation in its events through at least 2025.
“NYC Pride is unwilling to contribute in any way to creating an atmosphere of fear or harm for members of the community,” the group said in a statement. “The steps being taken by the organization challenge law enforcement to acknowledge their harm and to correct course moving forward, in hopes of making an impactful change.”
But the bans are not met with open arms by all, with some believing the trend does more harm than good.
The New York Times Editorial Board characterized NYC Pride’s decision as a “misstep.”
“The organizers are certainly within their rights to reduce the number of armed police officers providing security, but let’s be honest: It’s a poke in the eye at law enforcement more than a meaningful action to address police violence or foster a dialogue about law enforcement reform,” said the board in an editorial. “These moves do nothing to celebrate and demonstrate solidarity within the LGBTQ community.”
Even among members of the LGBTQ community, opinions on banning police from Pride events remain divided.
In their response to NYC Pride’s ban on uniformed police at Pride, the New York Times Editorial Board cited a 2019 poll of 801 LGBTQ Americans conducted by Whitman Insight Strategies and Buzzfeed that found 79 percent of respondents favored having police participation in Pride events.
In D.C., the situation is a bit confusing. The Capital Pride Alliance adopted a policy in 2018 that bans uniformed police from participating in the Pride parade it organizes. The ban remained in place last year, and the Capital Pride Alliance has not publicly stated any change or retraction of the policy.
“In 2018 the decision was made that [Metropolitan Police Department] would not participate as a contingent in the Pride parade, and has not since,” the group said in a 2020 statement. “Going forward, [Capital Pride Alliance] will not permit any uniformed and armed police officers to march in the Pride parade or participate in [Capital Pride Alliance]-sanctioned events.”
But uniformed police did walk at the start of the D.C. Pride parade in 2019 (see photo), raising questions about the policy. Technically, the officers were not part of an official parade contingent, and rather were on duty. But they were seen waving to the crowd with at least one officer carrying a Pride flag.
Going into this year, it remains unclear whether the ban on uniformed police presence in D.C.’s Pride parade will lead to any friction with government officials similar to that seen during the events that played out in San Francisco. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser’s office in a press release said she remains supportive of the efforts being made throughout June to highlight the LGBTQ community and intends to march in the city’s Pride parade.
“We are focused, especially this year, on using Pride to bring people back together and to uplift and advance our D.C. values,” Bowser said in the statement. “We are proud that, for years, D.C. has led the nation in supporting LGBTQ+ rights, and together we will keep it that way. We are the District of Pride, and I look forward to seeing people at the return of the Pride Parade on June 11.”
Bowser’s office did not respond to request for further comment regarding the issue.
National
Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information
Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources
Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.
“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.
“These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.
It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”
The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question.
A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit.
While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management.
The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.
Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.
“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.
“Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says.
Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”
Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”
Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.
“As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from the Washington Blade.
“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said.
The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”
It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”
The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society.
The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.
While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”
“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.
The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.
Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.
The White House
Trump travels to Middle East countries with death penalty for homosexuality
President traveled to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates
Homosexuality remains punishable by death in two of the three Middle East countries that President Donald Trump visited last week.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are among the handful of countries in which anyone found guilty of engaging in consensual same-sex sexual relations could face the death penalty.
Trump was in Saudi Arabia from May 13-14. He traveled to Qatar on May 14.
“The law prohibited consensual same-sex sexual conduct between men but did not explicitly prohibit same-sex sexual relations between women,” notes the State Department’s 2023 human rights report, referring specifically to Qatar’s criminalization law. “The law was not systematically enforced. A man convicted of having consensual same-sex sexual relations could receive a sentence of seven years in prison. Under sharia, homosexuality was punishable by death; there were no reports of executions for this reason.”
Trump on May 15 arrived in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates.
The State Department’s 2023 human rights report notes the “penalty for individuals who engaged in ‘consensual sodomy with a man'” in the country “was a minimum prison sentence of six months if the individual’s partner or guardian filed a complaint.”
“There were no known reports of arrests or prosecutions for consensual same-sex sexual conduct. LGBTQI+ identity, real or perceived, could be deemed an act against ‘decency or public morality,’ but there were no reports during the year of persons prosecuted under these provisions,” reads the report.
The report notes Emirati law also criminalizes “men who dressed as women or entered a place designated for women while ‘disguised’ as a woman.” Anyone found guilty could face up to a year in prison and a fine of up to 10,000 dirhams ($2,722.60.)
Trump returned to the U.S. on May 16.
The White House notes Trump during the trip secured more than $2 trillion “in investment agreements with Middle Eastern nations ($200 billion with the United Arab Emirates, $600 billion with Saudi Arabia, and $1.2 trillion with Qatar) for a more safe and prosperous future.”
Former President Joe Biden traveled to Saudi Arabia in 2022.
Saudi Arabia is scheduled to host the 2034 World Cup. The 2022 World Cup took place in Qatar.
Let love and compassion guide our response to Joe Biden’s cancer diagnosis
D.C. Black Pride 2025: Events, parties, and empowerment
Cuban lawmakers to consider simplifying process for trans people to change IDs
Frank Kameny’s legacy lives on
