Connect with us

Federal Government

National Park Service clarifies uniform policy

Announcement has implications for Pride

Published

on

National Park Service rangers from the Stonewall National Monument march in the 2021 New York City Pride parade. (Photo courtesy of the National Park Service’s Facebook page)

BY ERIN REED | The National Park Service on May 17 clarified its policy on employees wearing official uniforms to non-sanctioned events, which has implications for Pride events.

It’s unclear what triggered the clarification. A source at the National Park Service told the Blade in a statement that the uniform policy “has not changed,” but some LGBTQ employees report feeling betrayed and note that official Pride participation in major cities is uncertain as applications to participate in parades remain unprocessed.

The clarification comes amid increasing crackdowns on Pride flags and LGBTQ people nationwide.

The announcement was first disclosed in a memo to park service employees that did not directly address Pride but stated that “requests from employees asking to participate in uniform in a variety of events and activities, including events not organized by the NPS” conflict with park service policy.

The specific provision cited states that park service employees cannot wear the uniform to events that would construe support for “a particular issue, position, or political party.” Applying this provision to bar Pride participation drew ire from some LGBTQ employees who assert that LGBTQ Pride is not about an “issue, position, or political party,” but about identity and diversity. The employees, who spoke on condition of anonymity, also pointed out that the internal ERG guide allowed for participation in Pride events and that park employees had participated in Pride events with approval for years under the current set of rules.

In a follow-up, the park service stated that the ERG resource known as the “OUTsiders Guide to Pride” conflicts with its policy and that it is in discussion with ERG leaders to review it and similar documents.

Meanwhile, it stated that park service participation in Pride “could imply agency support … on a particular issue of public concern,” essentially stating that celebrations of LGBTQ employees would be considered an “issue of public concern” rather than a non-political celebration of diversity. As such, they determined that park service official participation in parades “should be extremely limited.”

Concern spread among some park service employees . They noted that the park service has participated in Pride parades across the United States for years under the same set of rules, including during the Trump administration, which notably cracked down on LGBTQ Pride in government agencies, such as at embassies abroad.

They also noted that Stonewall National Monument is run by the park service. Importantly, Stonewall National Monument’s founding documents state, “The purpose of Stonewall National Monument is to preserve and protect Christopher Park and the historic resources associated with it and to interpret the Stonewall National Historic Landmark’s resources and values related to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender civil rights movement.”

One park service employee, speaking on condition of anonymity, stated that multiple Pride parade requests are currently sitting on desks “collecting dust” for participation and representation in major city Pride festivities. When asked about the determination that Pride festivals are an “issue of public concern,” they said, “Pride is not political, it’s not a cause, you just are LGBTQ+. It’s a celebration of who we are.” They added, “Morale is just so low right now. There’s not a lot of fight left in us.”

The Blade reached out to a park service spokesperson to ask about Pride parades in major cities and whether the park service would continue participating this year as they have in previous years. The spokesperson stated that the policy “had not changed” and that “Previous interpretations of the uniform policy were inconsistent and, as you can imagine, approving participation in some events and not others could be seen as discrimination based on viewpoint.” They added that in-park Pride events have not been canceled and that community events outside of the parks that “directly relate to a park’s mission” could be approved. However, they did not indicate whether these events would include continued contingents in major U.S. city Pride parades and celebrations and could not be reached for a follow-up on this question.

Park service resources currently live on the site call for people to “Celebrate Pride,” citing Stonewall National Monument to state that “The LGBTQ experience is a vital facet of America’s rich and diverse past.” This resource emphasizes the importance of not rendering LGBTQ people invisible, stating, “By recovering the voices that have been erased and marginalized, the NPS embarks on an important project to capture and celebrate our multi-vocal past.”

Park Service employees have marched in uniform for years. According to the Bay Area Reporter, in 2014, Christine Lenhertz of the park service requested that a group of LGBTQ park service employees be allowed to wear their uniforms in the Pride parade. They were initially barred from doing so, prompting the group to file a complaint. She then sought a ruling from the Office of the Solicitor for the Department of the Interior, who ruled that there was no reason to bar her and other LGBTQ people from participating in uniform. Since then, many park service contingents have participated in Pride events.

The future of Pride parade participation with in-uniform park service employees is uncertain. While it appears that there will be some Pride events in certain national parks, such as Stonewall, external participation in major city Pride events seems to be on hold in at least some major American cities.

You can see the full response to the request for comment from a park service spokesperson here:

The NPS uniform policy has not changed. There are no restrictions on wearing of uniforms in NPS-organized in-park events. There has been no directive to cancel NPS-organized in-park events. Superintendents have discretion to approve park-organized events, which support park purpose and mission, and departmental mission, initiatives, and priorities (e.g., diversity, inclusion, climate change, and tribal engagement.) This would include many of the events planned to celebrate Pride month. 

Official NPS participation in community events that directly relate to a park’s mission can be approved by the park superintendent, provided it is consistent with applicable laws, rules, regulations, and NPS policies.

Last week, the service sent out a reminder about the uniform policy — specifically because there has been an in-flux of requests from folks asking to wear their uniforms for non-park service events. These requests run the gamut of topics, but could include weekend, off duty events that folks are of course able to do in their personal capacity, but not while wearing a uniform representing the federal government. Previous interpretations of the uniform policy were inconsistent and as you can imagine, approving participation in some events and not others could be seen as discrimination based on viewpoint. 

NPS employees represent a diversity of identities, cultures, and experiences, and we are committed to supporting all of our workforce. Like any large organization, we have a diverse workforce supporting myriad causes, and we welcome employees to express their personal support for various issues, positions, and political parties, provided they do not imply their presence or endorsement constitutes official NPS support for the same.  And, also like other large organizations, there are limits to what employees can do while on-duty and in uniform and seen as communicating on behalf of the NPS.

******************************************************************************************

Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.

******************************************************************************************

The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Federal Government

HHS ‘peer-reviewed’ report calls gender-affirming care for trans youth dangerous

Advocates denounce document as ‘sham science’

Published

on

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on Nov. 19 released what it called an updated “peer reviewed” version of an earlier report claiming scientific evidence shows that gender-affirming care or treatment for juveniles that attempts to change their gender is harmful and presents a danger to “vulnerable children.”

“The report, released through the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health, finds that the harms from sex-rejecting procedures — including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical operations — are significant, long term, and too often ignored or inadequately tracked,” according to a statement released by HHS announcing the release of the report.

“The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics peddled the lie that chemical and surgical sex-rejecting procedures could be good for children,” said HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in  the HHS statement, “They betrayed their oath to first do no harm, and their so-called ‘gender affirming care’ has inflicted lasting physical and psychological damage on vulnerable young people,” Kennedy says in the statement.

The national LGBTQ advocacy organizations Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD issued statements on the same day the HHS report was released, denouncing it as a sham based on fake science and politics.

HRC called the report “a politically motivated document filled with outright lies and misinformation.”  

In its own statement released on the same day the HHS report was released, HRC said HHS’s so-called peer reviewed report is similar to an earlier HHS report released in May that had a “predetermined outcome dictated by grossly uninformed political actors that have deliberately mischaracterized  health care for transgender youth despite the uniform, science backed conclusion of the American medical and mental health experts to the contrary.”

The HRC statement adds, “Trans people’s health care is delivered in age-appropriate, evidence-based ways, and decisions to provide care are made in consultation with doctors and parents, just like health care for all other people.”

In a separate statement, GLAAD CEO Sarah Kate Ellis called the HHS report a form of “discredited junk science.” She added the report makes claims that are “grossly misleading and in direct contrast to the recommendations of every leading health authority in the world … This report amounts to nothing more than forcing the same discredited idea of conversion therapy that ripped families apart and harmed gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people for decades.”

In its statement announcing the release of its report, HHS insists its own experts rather than those cited by its critics are the ones invoking true science.

“Before submitting its report for peer review, HHS commissioned the most comprehensive study to date of the scientific evidence and clinical practices surrounding the treatment of children and adolescents for ‘gender dysphoria,’” the statement continues. “The authors were drawn from disciplines and professional backgrounds spanning medicine, bioethics, psychology, and philosophy.”

In a concluding comment in the HHS statement, Assistant Secretary for Health Brian Christine says, “Our report is an urgent wake-up call to doctors and parents about the clear dangers of trying to turn girls into boys and vice versa.”

Continue Reading

Federal Government

Federal government reopens

Shutdown lasted 43 days.

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed a bill that reopens the federal government.

Six Democrats — U.S. Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.), Adam Gray (D-Calif.), Don Davis (D-N.C.), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) — voted for the funding bill that passed in the U.S. House of Representatives. Two Republicans — Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Greg Steube (R-Fla.) — opposed it.

The 43-day shutdown is over after eight Democratic senators gave in to Republicans’ push to roll back parts of the Affordable Care Act. According to CNBC, the average ACA recipient could see premiums more than double in 2026, and about one in 10 enrollees could lose a premium tax credit altogether.

These eight senators — U.S. Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Angus King (I-Maine), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) — sided with Republicans to pass legislation reopening the government for a set number of days. They emphasized that their primary goal was to reopen the government, with discussions about ACA tax credits to continue afterward.

None of the senators who supported the deal are up for reelection.

King said on Sunday night that the Senate deal represents “a victory” because it gives Democrats “an opportunity” to extend ACA tax credits, now that Senate Republican leaders have agreed to hold a vote on the issue in December. (The House has not made any similar commitment.)

The government’s reopening also brought a win for Democrats’ other priorities: Arizona Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva was sworn in after a record-breaking delay in swearing in, eventually becoming the 218th signer of a discharge petition to release the Epstein files.

This story is being updated as more information becomes available.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

41 days and counting: Arizona’s Adelita Grijalva says ‘this has gone way too far’

Representative Adelita Grijalva sits down with the Blade to discuss the Epstein files, transgender rights, and her fight to represent Arizona.

Published

on

The yet-to-be sworn in Adelita Grijalva holds up Pride flags during a campaign event earlier this year. (Photo courtesy of Adelita Grijalva for Congress)

Adelita Grijalva, the recently elected representative from Arizona’s Seventh Congressional District, has already begun making history—without having stepped foot into the Capitol. Grijalva is now officially the longest-delayed member of the House to be sworn in—41 days and counting.

She was elected in a special election on Sept. 23 by a two-to-one margin over her Republican opponent, following the death of her father, Raúl Grijalva, who had represented the district from 2003 until early 2025. The district includes a large portion of Arizona’s southern border with Mexico.

Despite being elected more than 40 days ago, Grijalva has not been given the opportunity to begin her work representing Arizona in the House of Representatives.

Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House and a representative from Louisiana, has offered several explanations for the delay in swearing in Grijalva—ranging from waiting until all votes were certified in the special election (despite not requiring Republicans who also won special elections to wait) to claiming the House needed to return from recess (despite precedent showing new members are typically sworn in the day after their election, regardless of whether the House is in session). Most recently, Johnson has said Grijalva will not be sworn in until the government reopens.

The Washington Blade sat down with Grijalva to discuss the historic delay in her swearing-in, the importance of protecting transgender rights, book bans, environmental issues, and much more.

While Speaker Johnson has given many explanations for the delay, Grijalva said one stands out above the rest—the Epstein files. She ran on a promise to sign a discharge petition to force a vote for the release of the complete Epstein files, a hypothesized document containing the names of high-profile clients to whom the American financier and convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein trafficked young girls. Her signature on the petition would be the 218th, the minimum number required to force a vote.

“I’ve now broken all the records for speaker obstruction. Nobody else has ever had to wait this long just to represent their constituents… I never received one communication directly from his office,” Grijalva said of Speaker Johnson’s lack of reasoning for the delay. “It seems to me they’re doing everything they can to stop the release of the Epstein files, and I just don’t know what else it could be.”

She added that Johnson’s obstruction isn’t just about her—it’s about the people she was elected to serve.

“We have 812,000 people here in Congressional District 7, and my problem is there’s so much we can’t do,” she said. “So when Speaker Johnson has little side comments to say about what I should and shouldn’t be doing, it’s like—why don’t you do your job so I can do mine?”

For Grijalva, the issue isn’t partisan—it’s about principle. “It shouldn’t matter my party. I won my election fairly and legally, and there’s no reason why my voters should be punished because the Speaker doesn’t like what I stand for,” she said.

She also pointed out the irony that her call for transparency on the Epstein files mirrors one made by Donald Trump himself during his presidential campaign.

“Trump ran on day one, ‘I’m going to release those files,’ and I think he got into office, saw what was in them, and said, ‘Maybe we wait on that,’” she explained. “That’s what I feel is happening now—they’re trying to delay and distract from something that’s going to make a lot of powerful people look bad.”

Still, Grijalva said not all Republicans support Johnson’s decision to keep her from being sworn in. “A couple Republicans have said, ‘Yeah, she should be sworn in. This is crazy.’ I appreciate that—it shouldn’t matter my party. I should be sworn in, period. I think some people on their side know this has gone way too far.”

As the government shutdown drags on, Grijalva said the consequences of congressional inaction are becoming increasingly dire for ordinary Americans.

“Who’s really suffering are the federal workers—people on federal grants, SNAP benefits—who don’t know when they’ll get their next paycheck or how they’ll feed their families,” she said. “These are real-life consequences while they play political games.”

Her frustration over the Epstein files remains steadfast. Grijalva said accountability and transparency must come before politics.

“I don’t care who’s implicated. I don’t care what party they are. If you committed a crime—if you raped children and women—you deserve legal consequences. Survivors deserve transparency and justice so they can begin healing.”

Beyond political accountability, Grijalva also emphasized the urgent need to address environmental degradation—a crisis that hits especially close to home.

“Trump doesn’t care about our environment. If there’s a dollar to be made, he’s going to do it, and he’s not thinking about the long-term consequences for people who actually have to live with the damage,” she said.

The Trump-Vance administration has rolled back a slew of Biden-era environmental policies, from pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accords to weakening pollution standards and expanding drilling for fossil fuels. For Grijalva, these choices have real, human consequences.

“My dad lived in a Superfund site and drank poisoned water for 15 years. Cancer is now part of our family because of that. These policies aren’t abstract—they hurt real people.”

Her father, the late Raúl Grijalva, passed away from lung cancer earlier this year. The Environmental Working Group estimates that between 100,000 and 122,000 cancer cases in the U.S. may stem from contaminated water—something Grijalva said her family understand all too well.

She also pointed out how allowing environmental destruction by repealing laws meant to protect natural resources threatens Arizona’s economy and identity.

“Arizona is an ecotourism hotspot—there are thousands of jobs tied to protecting our lands. When you destroy it, you can’t put it back together,” she said. “The mining laws are so old that we don’t even get any proceeds for years. It’s like someone digging in your backyard, taking your gold, and then telling you to buy it back later.”

“When people say environmental protection isn’t a priority, I just think of my dad and of our state,” she added. “You don’t gamble with people’s health for a quick profit.”

Shifting to social issues, Grijalva spoke at length about protecting transgender rights during a time when many—particularly on the right—continue to villainize the community.

“Trans rights are human rights. That’s it,” she said firmly. “When I say I’ll speak up for those who don’t feel they have a voice, I mean everybody—especially people who’ve been pushed to the margins.”

She didn’t shy away from calling out members of her own party who, in her view, haven’t done enough. “It’s disappointing that some Democrats are willing to stay silent as a whole community is being attacked,” she said. “Maybe they’ve never known what it’s like to be targeted, but once you have, you stand up for those who need more support.”

“I believe gender-affirming care is life-saving care,” she continued. “We have to push back against these anti-LGBTQ laws and fight for the Equality Act because the federal government has a responsibility to protect people, not erase them.”

“It’s not the government’s business who you love or who you are,” she added. “You should have the autonomy to be whoever you want to be—that is America.”

The congresswoman also spoke passionately about the growing movement to ban books and target libraries—something she called “deeply personal.”

“I’m not only the wife—I’m the daughter and sister of librarians,” Grijalva said with a laugh. “So if I’m not an advocate for our libraries, I’m in a lot of trouble. There should not be banned books. Those stories are a lifeline for students who don’t have support at home.”

She recalled a conversation that underscored her frustration with the movement. “A woman once showed me a book and said, ‘Do you think this should be available to children?’ I said, ‘Are the pictures anatomically inaccurate? Because if they’re correct, why do you care?’ We shouldn’t be policing truth or reality just because it makes some adults uncomfortable.”

Public service, for Grijalva, has always been personal. She was the youngest woman ever elected to the Tucson Unified School District Governing Board in 2002 and served in that role for 20 years—making her one of the longest-serving board members in history.

“I’ve been in elected office for 22 years,” she reflected. “People from high school tell me I’m the same person—and that’s what I want. You don’t let the environment change you; you change the environment.”

“I always have to look my kids in the eye at the end of the day,” she added. “If I have to explain a vote too much, then it’s wrong. That’s the standard I hold myself to.”

Even amid the uncertainty of her delayed swearing-in, Grijalva said she remains focused on the people she was elected to serve.

“The privilege of being able to speak for 812,000 people—it’s overwhelming, but it’s such an honor,” she said. “I’m excited to get sworn in and finally start doing the work my community sent me to do.”

Continue Reading

Popular