GLAAD has identified and catalogued LGBTQ-inclusive content or references to HIV that appear on WhiteHouse.gov and the websites for several federal government agencies, anticipating that these pages might be deleted, archived, or otherwise changed shortly after the incoming administration takes over on Monday.

The organization found a total of 54 links on WhiteHouse.gov and provided the Washington Blade with a non-exhaustive list of the “major pages” on websites for the Departments of Defense (12), Justice (three), State (12), Education (15), Health and Human Services (10), and Labor (14), along with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (10).

The White House web pages compiled by GLAAD range from the transcript of a seven-minute speech delivered by President Joe Biden to mark the opening of the Stonewall National Monument Visitor Center to a readout of a roundtable with leaders in the LGBTQ and gun violence prevention movements and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy’s 338-page FY2024 budget summary, which contains at least a dozen references to LGBTQ-focused health equity initiatives and programs administered by agencies like the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Just days after Trump took office in his first term, news outlets reported that LGBTQ related content had disappeared from WhiteHouse.gov and websites for multiple federal agencies.

Chad Griffin, who was then president of the Human Rights Campaign, accused the Trump-Pence administration of “systematically scrubbing the progress made for LGBTQ people from official websites,” raising specific objection to the State Department’s removal of an official apology for the Lavender Scare by the outgoing secretary, John Kerry, in January 2017.

Acknowledging the harm caused by the department’s dismissal of at least 1,000 employees for suspected homosexuality during the 1950s and 60s “set the right tone for the State Department, he said, adding, “It is outrageous that the new administration would attempt to erase from the record this historic apology for witch hunts that destroyed the lives of innocent Americans.”

In response to an inquiry from NBC News into why LGBTQ content was removed and whether the pages would return, a spokesperson said “As per standard practice, the secretary’s remarks have been archived.” However, NBC noted that “a search of the State Department’s website reveals not much else has changed.”

A new rule announced Tuesday by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will allow HIV positive patients to receive organs from HIV positive donors, a move that will expand the pool of available organs and reduce wait times.

“This rule removes unnecessary barriers to kidney and liver transplants, expanding the organ donor pool and improving outcomes for transplant recipients with HIV,” said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra in a statement.

The agency noted that the final rule also aims to combat stigma and health inequities associated with HIV.

“Research shows that kidney and liver transplants between donors and recipients with HIV can be performed safely and effectively,” Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine added. “This policy change reflects our commitment to following the evidence and updating our approaches as we learn more. By removing research requirements where they are no longer needed, we can help more people with HIV access life-saving transplants.”

HHS notes that the rule applies to kidney and liver transplants, which correspond with the areas in which the evidence from biomedical research is the most “robust.”

Donald Trump’s return to the White House promises to shake up Washington in ways not seen even during the norm-shattering Trump 1.0 years: on the table are blueprints for radically reforming the federal civil service into a more partisan institution where loyalty is prized at the expense of expertise and competence; off the table, among other things, are anti-discrimination protections that had long bolstered the rights and welfare of LGBTQ federal government employees.

Washington proudly boasts, per-capita, the highest LGBTQ population of any city in any state in America. Ninety-two percent of the city’s 678,000+ residents voted for Vice President Kamala Harris. So, according to exit polls, did 86 percent of LGBTQ voters.

Many of D.C.’s LGBTQ residents who work for the federal government find themselves, now, at an unenviable crossroads. Some stood to lose their jobs regardless of who won in November because they serve in higher-ranking “political” roles that typically turn over administration-to-administration, but more are “career” employees with experience serving with both parties in charge of the White House.

Many find themselves choosing whether to wade into a hyperlocal job market that is, at the moment, competitive for job seekers — or continue, if they can, working under institutions run by Republicans who have vowed to destroy them (or at least shake them up, whatever that will mean).

The Washington Blade has spoken with LGBTQ employees in the federal government who worry about the welfare of gay, queer, and trans colleagues they plan to leave behind for jobs in the private sector. They share a deep concern, too, for the LGBTQ Americans who, they believe, will suffer harmful consequences of policy and governance under the incoming administration.

A lesbian attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice and a gay senior official for the U.S. Department of Commerce spoke anonymously with the Blade to share experiences and observations at their respective agencies.

Do you expect to be working elsewhere when Trump 2.0 begins in January

[Justice Department]: I plan to leave shortly after the inauguration.

[Commerce Department]: I hope to be working elsewhere by the next term. The job market is incredibly competitive, but that’s because the Biden administration hired the best and brightest public servants that represent every community in America. It’s particularly important that companies and nonprofits seek out the great early/mid-career staff from the administration. Many finished college remotely during the pandemic, to then immediately serve their country. They have exceptional work experience, but can be at a hiring disadvantage behind their classmates who immediately entered the workforce.

Would you be (or might you be) allowed to continue in your role under the next administration if you wished to do so?

[Justice]: Probably not.

Under the next administration, if you were allowed to continue in your role or serve in a different position at your agency or perhaps work elsewhere in the federal government, would you? Why or why not?

[Justice]: No—risk of doxing is too high; did it once before and not interested in doing it again.

[Commerce]: I would not work in the Trump administration, even if allowed. To work for someone who believes in retribution over public service would violate the oath I took to my country and the Constitution he refuses to respect. I look forward to doing what queer people have done for all of American history: shining brightly in the face of hate and being a success in spite of every attempt to shame.

What can you tell me about the post-election turnover at your agency that you’ve seen so far or expect to see in the coming months, as compared to that which you might have experienced during previous transitions?

[Justice]: I expect to see many more people leave than in any previous admin change.

[Commerce]: Experienced career staff who survived the first Trump years are burned out and leaving. This is a horrible loss for the American people who are losing the dedicated subject matter experts who do the hard work of making their lives easier, safer, and healthier. So many of them work for the federal government because of how it can be used to help people in big ways. They’re horrified to think of all the people, especially minorities, women, and queer people, will, instead, be targeted. They don’t want to be a part of that. They can’t live with that.

Are any of your LGBTQ colleagues staying in their jobs? If so, what can you share about the reasons you’ve heard for their decision to stay?

[Justice]: Yes; many will stay because they don’t have the luxury of leaving without a job lined up. 

What are some of your biggest concerns specific to how your agency might be run under the Trump 2.0 regime?

[Justice]: They will dismantle the civil rights division at DOJ or completely shift its focus. 

[Commerce]: I’m horrified at how data may be weaponized against vulnerable people.  So much work has been done to help communities by building close-knit relationships with leaders across the countries. Will all these programs focused on supporting the most vulnerable and underserved among us be turned on them to identify easy targets to victimize? 

Broadly speaking, what concerns do you have about the rights, safety, and wellbeing of LGBTQ folks who will remain in the civil service post-January, or those who might join the federal government’s civilian workforce after Trump takes over?

[Justice]: LGBTQ+ people will be at greater risk of doxing; bathroom flexibilities will disappear; harassment will go unchecked.

[Commerce]: We are barely out of the shadow of the Lavender Scare, where thousands of queer American public servants were harassed, humiliated, and often fired in shame. It starts with removing Pride flags, then the photos of our partners on our desks, and then we’re escorted from the building for being security risks. LGBTQ Americans are the soldiers, and scientists, and civil servants and should never, ever have to worry if their mere existence could suddenly cost them their security clearance, their career path, or their safety.

How do you think staff turnover at your agency will impact its work under the next administration? 

[Justice]: Staff turnover will severely undermine DOJ’s work and protecting the rule of law. 

If, ultimately, a disproportionate number of LGBTQ workers leave for jobs in the private sector, are you concerned about harms that might result from the loss of voices representing the community in the federal government and/or in your agency specifically?

[Justice]: Re: loss of voices, yes. The federal government cannot function as effectively when it doesn’t reflect the public it serves.