Politics
Floyd Abrams: GOP-backed Fla. bill targeting the press is ‘plainly inconsistent with’ First Amendment
LGBTQ groups have criticized measure
A bill by Florida Republicans that would relax the standards required for public officials to sue journalists and media organizations for libel is “plainly inconsistent with the First Amendment” according to the acclaimed attorney and constitutional law expert Floyd Abrams.
“The statute is a frontal attack” on the U.S. Supreme Court’s longstanding interpretation of the principles “governing First Amendment libel law as it currently exists,” Abrams told the Washington Blade by phone on Wednesday.
Abrams has represented parties in litigation before the Supreme Court more than a dozen times in some of the most important and high-profile First Amendment cases brought over the last 50 years, which has led to landmark rulings including on matters governing press freedoms.
Abrams is senior counsel at Cahill Gordon and Reindel, the multinational law firm where he has worked since 1963. He is widely considered among the country’s preeminent litigators and experts in constitutional law and was described by the late diplomat and U.S. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) as “the most significant First Amendment lawyer of our age.”
With this Florida statute, Abrams said it appears Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and his conservative allies in the legislature are making “an effort to come up with something which will lead the Supreme Court to take another look” at its 1964 ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan, which established that the First Amendment confers certain protections for the press against libel lawsuits by public figures.
The ruling, reaffirmed and developed in subsequent cases over the years, acts as a bulwark preventing powerful public figures including elected officials from weaponizing lawsuits or the threat of litigation to silence or censor reporters and news organizations.
DeSantis and Florida’s GOP legislators are hardly out of step with leaders in the Republican Party including former President Donald Trump, who repeatedly pledged to change the libel laws so he could more easily sue media companies.
When Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska and 2008 vice presidential candidate, sued the New York Times for libel in 2016, the paper wrote that advocates for weakening the press’ protections against libel lawsuits were “more emboldened now than at any point” since the Sullivan case. They have ideological allies in the right-wing legal establishment, too: In 2021, conservative Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch expressed an interest in revisiting the court’s ruling in Sullivan.
Supreme Court unlikely to revisit longstanding approach to First Amendment, libel law
Abrams said if the Florida bill is signed into law, given that “virtually any entity, which reports the news would be imperiled by this statute,” he can envision legal challenges from a variety of entities, from groups like the “ACLU to the Reporters’ Committee [for Freedom of the Press] to organizations of journalists to newspapers.” Litigation over the law’s constitutionality could, of course, reach the Supreme Court.
At the same time, Abrams said he doubts there is much appetite among the justices to abrogate or weaken the decades-old ruling in Sullivan, which stipulates that to bring a successful libel case against the press, public officials must first prove the offending material was defamatory and then show it was published with “actual malice,” either with the knowledge that it was false or with “reckless disregard” for whether it was true.
“I would be very surprised if Chief Justice Roberts is in favor of revisiting New York Times against Sullivan because he has been a strong First Amendment defender,” Abrams said, and based on “Justice Kavanaugh’s opinions when he was on the Court of Appeals, I would be surprised if he is prepared to challenge” Sullivan.
Abrams conceded “there may be more reasons to think that one or more conservative jurists” on the Supreme Court could be convinced to join Thomas and Gorsuch’s calls to reconsider libel protections for the press. Working against this effort, however, is the extent to which the Florida statute is inconsistent from the court’s analysis of the relevant legal questions, Abrams said.
Examples, he said, include: (1) the proposal’s narrowing of the parameters used to define certain plaintiffs as “public figures” for purposes of First Amendment libel law, a distinction that carries a higher burden of proof than that which is required of private citizens suing members of the press; (2) its treatment of information attributed to anonymous sources as presumably false, a finding that plaintiffs claiming defamation would otherwise be required to prove; and (3) its characterization as inherently defamatory any accusations published by the press of discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity.
The statute’s presumption that material attributed to anonymous sources is false would undermine the method by which the courts evaluate libel claims brought by public figures, Abrams said: “The Supreme Court has certainly made clear that the legal test requires the party suing to demonstrate the newspaper [or] journalist didn’t believe what he or she was saying.”
Put differently, Abrams said, the analysis turns on the defendant’s state of mind “as a basis for determining if the alleged libel of a public figure is actionable.”
Therefore, Abrams said, to “have a flat presumption that any use of confidential sources will be held against the journalist is inconsistent” with the type of claims that might “lead the Supreme Court to take another look at the law” established with Sullivan.
Censoring criticism of anti-LGBTQ discrimination
Likewise with the legislation’s provision that the press’s accusation of discrimination by a public official would constitute prima facie evidence of defamation, Abrams said “The Supreme Court has said more than once, and often in the voice of conservative jurists, that such speech is protected by the First Amendment.”
Florida’s statute goes even further, however. Per the substantial truth doctrine, a defendant accused of defamation can avoid legal liability by showing that the gist of the material at issue in the complaint was true. Under the proposed bill, a journalist who is sued for publishing accusations of discrimination (now considered inherently defamatory) may not cite as evidence of their truth (or substantial truth) the public official’s membership in any religious or scientific organization — even if that organization has a documented pattern and practice of discrimination, or well-known views that are unambiguously sexist, racist or anti-LGBTQ.
The bill’s apparent effort to censor media coverage of discrimination by public officials raised red flags with LGBTQ groups like GLAAD, whose president, Sarah Kate Ellis said, in a statement shared with the Blade on Wednesday: “Those spewing harmful and inaccurate words do not have the support for their dangerous rhetoric and policies, and they’re rightfully afraid they’ll be held accountable by voters and a free press that accurately reports on efforts to scapegoat and target vulnerable people.”
“This bill is another futile attack on LGBTQ Floridians, a sign of full-blown panic against a rising tide of acceptance for LGBTQ people and for the full equality of women, people of color and queer people of color,” Ellis said.
Jon Harris Maurer, an attorney who serves as public policy director for Equality Florida, the state’s largest LGBTQ advocacy organization, told the Blade by phone on Thursday that based on the alignment of DeSantis and Republicans in the legislature, chances are the bill will be signed into law.
Maurer said Florida’s Republican lawmakers, with supermajorities in both chambers, “have made clear they are prioritizing Gov. DeSantis’ legislative agenda.” At, or at least near, the top of that agenda is the state’s proposal to weaken libel protections for journalists, Maurer said, noting DeSantis’ decision to convene a recent roundtable discussion on the matter where speakers explained their reasons for wanting the Supreme Court to revisit Sullivan.
Other recent high-priority policy items for DeSantis and his allies have focused on using “the LGBTQ community to score political points with a far-right presidential primary base,” Maurer said. Florida’s governor, state lawmakers, or other officials might find the press coverage of these matters unflattering, Maurer said, but that hardly means the coverage is false or even defamatory.
So, the proposal to relax the standards required for public officials to sue reporters and media organizations for libel “is intended to have a chilling effect on media, particularly media that would be critical of Gov. DeSantis and those who share his positions,” Maurer said.
Maurer agreed with Abrams that the bill’s proponents likely have their sights set on the Supreme Court — and that the proposal, as currently written, is totally inconsistent with the court’s treatment of First Amendment libel law.
If the bill is signed into law and litigation over its constitutionality reaches the Supreme Court, Maurer declined to speculate what the outcome might be. The court’s conservative justices have scrapped longstanding precedent in other recent cases, he said, noting last year’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that revoked the constitutional right to abortion first established in 1973 with Roe v. Wade.
Removing protections for confidentiality of anonymous sources
Particularly in circumstances that raise national security concerns, the U.S. government has sometimes sought to prevent news organizations from publishing sensitive information in their possession or issued subpoenas demanding that journalists reveal the identities of the confidential sources who leaked it to them.
In 1971, Abrams successfully represented the Times before the Supreme Court in a landmark First Amendment case challenging the Nixon administration’s claims of executive authority to suppress the paper’s publication of confidential documents. The court’s ruling allowed the Times and other organizations to publish the material, known as the Pentagon Papers, which revealed the Johnson administration had “systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress” about America’s political and military involvement in Vietnam.
The government employee responsible for providing the documents to the Times was charged with espionage, though the charges were later dismissed.
The Supreme Court ruled in the 1972 case Branzburg v. Hayes that the First Amendment does not protect reporters from being called to testify before grand juries, but the government must “convincingly show a substantial relation between the information sought and a subject of overriding and compelling state interest.”
The decision was cited by Judge Thomas Hogan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in his 2004 memorandum opinion rejecting a motion to rescind grand jury subpoenas issued to two reporters, one represented by Abrams, in connection with criminal investigations of leaks that had revealed the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson (in what became known as the “Plame affair”).
Abrams’ client, who had not published a story about Plame but learned she was working as a covert CIA operative through a confidential government source, served several months in jail for her refusal to reveal his identity as demanded by the subpoena.
Some courts have upheld the concept that journalists have a constitutional right to conceal the identities of their sources, and some states and jurisdictions have codified these rulings with so-called “shield laws,” which vary in the extent of their protections afforded to members of the press.
Florida’s proposed statute, in addition to presuming that published information attributed to anonymous sources is false, would revoke the state’s shield laws that protect journalists’ right to keep their identities confidential.
Congress
EXCLUSIVE: Pelosi reflects on four decades of LGBTQ advocacy
Blade spoke with House speaker emerita before her 2027 retirement
For nearly four decades, House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has been one of the most influential champions of LGBTQ rights in American politics.
The former U.S. House of Representatives speaker helped lead landmark LGBTQ legislation through Congress; including the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and multiple House approvals of the Equality Act. She also played a central role in congressional efforts to combat HIV/AIDS and oppose restrictions targeting transgender Americans.
In an exclusive interview with the Washington Blade; Pelosi reflected on those accomplishments, the role grassroots activists played in achieving them, and the ongoing challenges facing the LGBTQ community during President Donald Trump’s second term.
When asked which LGBTQ-related achievement she is most proud of, Pelosi pointed not to a specific bill, but to the movement that made those victories possible — and the loud, strong-willed grassroots believers in a better America than the one they had found themselves in.
“Anything that we accomplished, whether it was fighting HIV and AIDS, ending discrimination, passing hate crimes legislation, or ending ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ would never have happened without outside mobilization,” Pelosi said, expressing gratitude for those who saw a problem and dared to speak its solution into existence. “Our inside maneuvering was important, but we couldn’t do our best job without the community. Every chance I get, I thank them for their patriotism because they make democracy function.”
Pelosi explained that her initial LGBTQ advocacy efforts were directly shaped by the LGBTQ community in the San Francisco area and by the HIV/AIDS epidemic that decimated the community during the 1980s.
The former speaker recalled arriving in Congress in 1987 and making HIV/AIDS a centerpiece of her agenda from the start.
“My first words on the House floor were that I had come here to fight HIV and AIDS,” Pelosi told the Blade. “People asked why I would make that my first statement. To me, that reaction showed just how much discrimination still existed and how much work remained to be done.”
She continued, explaining that advocating for San Francisco — with its once-vibrant LGBTQ community that was dying more with every passing day — became a joint effort between community-driven activists and government officials trying to manage and mitigate the crisis that claimed more American lives than the Vietnam War.
“When we were trying to bring the Democratic convention to San Francisco, people were saying they couldn’t come because of HIV/AIDS,” she said. “What emerged from that moment was community-based advocacy, community-based care, prevention, and research. Every success we had sprang from the community itself.”
Multiple times during the interview, Pelosi returned to those four pillars of the effort to combat HIV/AIDS: community-based advocacy, community-based care, prevention, and research.
She argued that the epidemic, despite its horrific toll, ultimately helped many Americans better understand and accept LGBTQ people in a society that had not been as tolerant.
“When families learned that a son or daughter was HIV-positive and gay, barriers started to break down,” Pelosi said. “Love prevailed in many cases. I actually give HIV/AIDS some credit for the acceptance of marriage equality because people began seeing these issues through the lens of family.”
Pelosi also highlighted the passage of federal hate crimes legislation as one of her — and the LGBTQ rights movement’s — most defining victories.
“Matthew Shepard’s mother came and spoke to members. (The late-former Massachusetts Congressman) Barney Frank told his story. We had to convince people that leadership means leading, not following,” Pelosi said. “That legislation was incredibly important because it forced people to confront the real consequences of hate.”
She said she refused pressure to remove transgender protections from the bill, despite promises from others that it would pass more easily if lawmakers only protected what they viewed as the least vulnerable groups.
“People told me, ‘You can pass this in a minute if you take out trans,'” Pelosi recalled. “I said, ‘I won’t pass it in 100 years because I’m not ever taking out trans.’ We passed it with trans protections included.”
The Blade also asked Pelosi about the stalled passage of the Equality Act — which would add federal protections for LGBTQ people through amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that would explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity. She expressed confidence that the Equality Act will eventually become law, though she acknowledged the political obstacles that have persisted since its creation in the 1970s.
In her office, among bowls of Ghirardelli chocolates and prints depicting national parks in her district, a large photo hangs on the wall showing Pelosi standing at the House rostrum with LGBTQ advocates beneath the words “#EQUALITY ACT” — photographic proof that she had already passed the landmark legislation in the House, if only the U.S. Senate had agreed.
“We passed it in the House again and again,” she said. “The Senate is more difficult because of the procedural hurdles, but we’re not stopping. We’ll stick with it until the job is done.”
The longtime Democratic leader also credited civil rights icon John Lewis with helping build support for the legislation when others argued the growing LGBTQ rights movement was, as one California Democratic legislator put it, “too fast, too much, too soon.”
“There were people who worried about opening up the Civil Rights Act to include LGBTQ protections,” Pelosi said. “John Lewis told us, ‘We can’t wait. We must do it now.’ He was instrumental in helping move that effort forward.”
Much of the conversation eventually turned to the Trump-Vance administration’s policies affecting trans Americans.
Pelosi argued that Executive Order 14183, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” which puts restrictions on trans military service weakens national security, and efforts to limit gender-affirming healthcare for trans children with the Executive Order “Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” ignores the needs of families.
“When they diminish the ability of transgender people to serve in the military, they diminish our national security,” she said. “At the same time, families are being told they can’t get the care their children need. That is deeply troubling.”
She recounted hearing testimony from conservative parents whose views changed after their own children came out as trans — a transformation she said changed hearts and minds, even among people she had once seen wearing red MAGA hats.
“One mother told us she was a Trump supporter until her child needed medical care and her state wouldn’t allow it,” Pelosi said. “She said she had to leave Texas to care for her child. Hearing stories like that reminds people that these are families, not political talking points.”
Pelosi described efforts to restrict healthcare access for trans youth as both discriminatory and morally wrong.
“Some of the things they’re doing by refusing to support clinics that meet the needs of trans kids are sinful,” she said. “I’m a religious person, and I believe every child is God’s child. We have a responsibility to meet their needs.”
Asked what she would say to people who oppose LGBTQ equality, Pelosi returned to a theme that surfaced throughout the interview: love.
“I’ve seen families completely transform when these issues become personal,” she said. “People who once opposed HIV/AIDS funding became advocates when someone they loved was affected. Love has a way of changing hearts.”
As for how she hopes history remembers her role in the movement, Pelosi again shifted attention away from herself and toward activists.
“People were dying, and the community demanded action,” she said. “I hope people remember that the progress we made came from the very vocal participation of LGBTQ people and their allies. I was honored that they trusted me to carry that fight in Congress.”
Pelosi, who has announced she will not seek reelection and plans to retire from the House in 2027, said the struggle for equality is far from over.
“Every major expansion of rights in this country has been a long struggle,” she said. “We’ve laid a foundation, but there is still more work to do. We still have to pass the Equality Act.”
When asked what she credits for the change in public understanding and the growth of the LGBTQ movement, she said respect lies at its foundation.
“This month, Pride Month, people would say to me, ‘It’s easy for you because you’re from San Francisco, and San Francisco is so tolerant,'” Pelosi said. “And I would say to them, ‘Tolerant to me is a condescending word.’ Tolerance is a good word writ large, but in terms of the subject, it’s not about tolerance — it’s about respect. Respect is what made it almost inevitable that I would have nothing but enthusiasm for what I was doing. We don’t just respect — we take pride in our community. But that pride springs from respect that people have to have for everything, including the differences that they see.”
Congress
Ogles faces bipartisan backlash over anti-gay social media post
Tenn. congressman blamed the comment on staffer
U.S. Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.), who represents Tennessee’s 5th Congressional District, is facing backlash from LGBTQ advocates and fellow Republicans after a social media post declared that “homosexuality has no place in America.”
“Homosexuality has no place in America. Happy Nuclear Family Month,” the congressman wrote in a post on X that was later deleted.
According to the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, an estimated 6.3 percent of U.S. adults identify as LGBTQ.
Following widespread criticism, Ogles removed the post and blamed it on a staff member.
“The post was stupid, hurtful and a complete distraction from my America First focus. The employee has been reprimanded,” Ogles said in a statement.
The Washington Blade reached out to Ogles’s office for comment but did not receive a response by press time.
Among those condemning the message was U.S. Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), who called it “absolutely idiotic” in a social media post.
“Homosexuality exists. In America,” Lawler wrote on X. “In fact, Andy, you have family, friends, neighbors, colleagues, and constituents who are gay and lesbian. It doesn’t make them less than or somehow unworthy of being an American.”
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) also criticized Ogles’s remarks.
“For all of recorded history, homosexuals have been a part of humanity,” Cruz told TMZ DC. “I think the behavior of consenting adults is their business.”
Chris Sanders, the executive director for the Tennessee Equality Project and Tennessee Equality Project Foundation provided a statement to the Blade about Ogles’s comment.
“The Tennessee Nuclear Family Month resolution has really backfired on conservatives by ensnaring Congressman Ogles in scandal. He used the resolution as a pretext to say that our community doesn’t belong in America, resulting in incredible backlash from across the partisan divide,” Sanders said. “It is a good opportunity for him to pause and reflect on whether it’s time for him to resign. Fighting one’s own constituents is not the purpose of serving in Congress.”
Human Rights Campaign Senior Press Secretary Jarred Keller provided a statement to the Blade regarding Ogles’s comments.
“LGBTQ+ people are woven into the fabric of America, and any politician who questions that is severely out of touch with reality. When so many people are worried about whether they can afford gas to get to work or groceries for their families, the last thing we need is right-wing Republicans targeting marginalized communities with hateful attacks,” Keller said. “Representative Ogles should spend less time attacking LGBTQ+ people and start addressing the issues that actually matter, because last I checked, our community isn’t the reason families are struggling to make ends meet.”
The controversy comes as Tennessee continues to advance legislation affecting LGBTQ residents. The state already has several laws on the books that LGBTQ advocates have criticized, including the Adult Entertainment Act, enacted in 2023, which restricts certain “adult cabaret performances.”
Lawmakers have also introduced additional measures this legislative session, including the “No Pride Flag or Month Act,” which would prohibit state employees, volunteers, and agents from displaying Pride flags or participating in Pride observances while acting in an official capacity.
Another proposal, the “Banning Bostock Act” would seek to limit the application of state anti-discrimination protections based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. Tennessee lawmakers have also passed other measures restricting LGBTQ rights and access to gender-affirming health care.
Congress
10 HIV/AIDS activists arrested on Capitol Hill
Protesters interrupted Secretary of State Marco Rubio during hearing
U.S. Capitol Police on Tuesday arrested 10 HIV/AIDS activists who protested Secretary of State Marco Rubio during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.
The activists from Housing Works, Health GAP, the Treatment Action Group, and ACT UP held signs and chanted “Rubio’s Cuts Kill People with AIDS, PEPFAR Saves Lives!” before officers removed them from Dirksen Senate Office Building room where the hearing took place.
A media advisory the Washington Blade received before the protest noted “mounting evidence of Rubio’s attempts to sabotage PEPFAR (the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, U.S. bilateral AIDS program) and vital global health programs.” The press release specifically highlighted three specific points:
• Eliminating Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) lifesaving PEPFAR programs, which currently support approximately 12 million people on HIV treatment across 51 countries. Instead, Rubio intends to dismantle CDC’s current PEPFAR role and stamp out their global footprint in disease outbreak and surveillance for pandemics beyond HIV. Experts including eight former CDC Directors under Republican and Democratic administrations have spoken out against this effort to dismantle PEPFAR. Recent PEPFAR data showed sharp decreases in the numbers of people newly tested, diagnosed, and treated for HIV, but these data would have been even worse if not for CDC’s PEPFAR programs.
• Withholding $2 billion in Congressionally appropriated FY25 funding, including $330 million to combat HIV, $250 million to fight malaria, $320 million for maternal and child health programs, and nearly $650 million in global health security programs.
• Negotiating secret bilateral deals blackmailing African governments by demanding access to critical mineral wealth as a condition of access to HIV treatment and prevention funding.
The groups have staged several protests against the Trump-Vance administration’s HIV/AIDS policies since it took office.
Rubio on Jan. 28, 2025, issued a waiver that allowed PEPFAR and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during a freeze on nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending. HIV/AIDS service providers around the world with whom the Blade has spoken say PEPFAR cuts and the loss of funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, which officially closed on July 1, 2025, has severely impacted their work.
The State Department last September announced PEPFAR will distribute lenacapavir in countries with high prevalence rates.
The New York Times last summer reported Vought “apportioned” only $2.9 billion of $6 billion that Congress set aside for PEPFAR for fiscal year 2025. (PEPFAR in the coming fiscal year will use funds allocated in fiscal year 2024.)
Bipartisan opposition in the U.S. Senate prompted the Trump-Vance administration last July withdraw a proposal to cut $400 million from PEPFAR’s budget. Vought a few weeks later said he would use a “pocket rescission” to cancel $4.9 billion for HIV/AIDS prevention and global health programs and other foreign aid assistance initiatives that Congress had already approved.
The White House in January expanded the global gag rule to ban U.S. foreign aid for groups that promote “gender ideology.” President Ronald Reagan in 1985 implemented the original regulation, also known as the “Mexico City” policy, which bans U.S. foreign aid for groups that support abortion and/or offer abortion-related services. Advocacy groups insist the expanded rule will adversely impact HIV prevention efforts around the world.
“Congress must stop Secretary Rubio before he dismantles PEPFAR,” said Treatment Action Group’s Kendall Martinez-Wright. “Rubio continues to defy the will of Congress and the American people who want this program restored and repaired. Under his leadership he is diverting funding and trying to eliminate the essential role of technical experts in global HIV and global health, while program performance is flailing.”
Rehoboth’s Pride on the Bay set for June 27
Blade editor inducted into D.C. Society of Professional Journalists Hall of Fame
Pride in a new world order
McDuffie on LGBTQ support and standing up to Trump
PHOTOS: Fairfax City Pride
Controversial ‘Blue Film’ pushes past taboos for gripping drama
Timothy Nelson on the premiere of his opera ‘Song of Sakuntala’
PHOTOS: ‘Soul Divas’
‘Mighty Real’ explores history of LGBTQ music
