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.

A panel of federal appeals court judges ruled that President Donald Trump’s policy banning transgender troops likely violates their constitutional rights.

The three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that Trump’s Executive Order 14183, also known as “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” was created with the intent to exclude people from the military based on their gender identity.

The policy argues that trans people are inherently incapable of meeting the military’s “high standards of readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity,” citing a history of or signs of gender dysphoria as the cause. According to the Defense Department, this creates “medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on [an] individual.”

The policy states that, regardless of the physical or intellectual capabilities of each applicant, it views trans military applicants as a monolith, considering them less qualified than their cisgender peers.

Despite the panel’s majority opinion issued on Monday, the first day of Pride Month, the ban remains in effect. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Pentagon to enforce the policy last year and will continue to allow it to remain in place as litigation proceeds.

The panel’s new ruling will prevent the military from discharging current service members named in the lawsuit, but it does not allow new transrecruits to join.

The policy “appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender,” Judge Robert Wilkins, a Democratic appointee of President Barack Obama wrote for the majority.

Judge Justin Walker, the author of the dissenting opinion and a Republican Trump appointee, argued that the authority to determine military policy does not rest with the courts. Instead, he wrote, the Constitution grants that power to Congress through legislation and to the president as commander in chief of the armed forces.

“We have neither the expertise nor the authority to decide whether the military can exclude the plaintiffs from its ranks. The Constitution assigns that authority to Congress and the commander-in-chief,” Walker wrote.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth indicated that an appeal is in the works, posting, “See you at SCOTUS” on X on Monday in response to the ruling.

Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, which has led the litigation since last November, applauded the decision.

“Today’s decision is a powerful vindication of the plaintiffs’ extraordinary courage and unwavering commitment to their country,” Levi said.

The Washington Blade spoke with Second Lt. Nicolas (Nic) Talbott of the U.S. Army, the lead plaintiff in the case, and Levi from GLAD Law back in November.

While discussing the case and his experiences as a trans service member, Talbott said his identity is an asset rather than a hindrance, particularly when it comes to identifying problems and finding solutions, regardless of what others may think or say.

“Being transgender is not some sad thing that people go through,” Talbott told the Blade. “This is something that has taken years and years and years of dedication and discipline and research and ups and downs to get to the point where I am today … my ability to transition was essential to getting me to that point where I am today.”

He also discussed the impact of removing qualified and dedicated service members from the military, arguing that the consequences will be felt long after Trump leaves office.

“When we’re losing thousands of those qualified, experienced individuals … those are seats that are not just going to be able to be filled by anybody,” he said. “[That’s] military training that’s not going to be able to be replaced for years and years to come.”

“Every person who puts on the uniform is expected to make a tremendous amount of sacrifice,” Talbott said. “Who I am under this uniform should have no bearing on that … We shouldn’t be picking and choosing which veterans are worthy of our thanks on that day.”

Levi characterized the policy as overtly cruel and legally indefensible to the Blade.

“This policy and its rollout is even more cruel than the first in a number of ways,” Levi explained. “For one, the policy itself says that transgender people are dishonest, untrustworthy and undisciplined, which is deeply offensive and degrading and demeaning.”

She also argued that the administration’s cost justification is flawed, saying that removing and replacing trans service members is more expensive than retaining them.

“There’s no legitimate justification relating to cost … it is far more expensive to both purge the military of people who are serving and also to replace people … than to provide the minuscule amount of costs for medications other service members routinely get.”

State officials in California had not called the governor’s race as of Wednesday morning but Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra appear likely to advance to the general election. 

The race for governor has been scrambled several times after Kamala Harris opted not to run, Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out after sexual misconduct allegations surfaced, and Rep. Katie Porter’s campaign fizzled. Becerra would be the state’s first Latino governor since 1875 if elected. Hilton was endorsed by President Trump. 

In the Los Angeles mayor’s race, the AP declared that incumbent Mayor Karen Bass will advance to the Nov. 3 runoff while former reality TV star Spencer Pratt and LA Council member Nithya Raman were competing for second place. California is notoriously slow in counting ballots and only about half of the results were available by Wednesday morning.

In San Francisco, Democratic State Sen. Scott Wiener advanced to the general election in November, besting Supervisor Connie Chan, who was endorsed by House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is retiring from Congress after nearly 40 years in the House.

In Iowa, Democratic state Rep. Josh Turek won the primary for an open U.S. Senate seat, defeating state Sen. Zach Wahls. Turek will face Rep. Ashley Hinson, who won the GOP primary with President Donald Trump’s endorsement, in the general election.  

The Iowa seat is open because Sen. Joni Ernst (R) decided not to seek re-election. The primary was closely watched by LGBTQ advocates because Wahls rose to national prominence after a speech he made defending marriage equality went viral in 2011. Wahls was raised by a lesbian couple.