Politics
Adam Schiff calls on Biden to exit 2024 race
Calif. Democrat is frontrunner to win US Senate race
U.S. Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), the leading candidate for U.S. Senate in California, has formally called for President Joe Biden to withdraw from the 2024 presidential race.
Schiff, who is heavily favored to win his Senate race, made his statement exclusively to the Los Angeles Times on Wednesday.
While praising Biden’s accomplishments, calling him “one of the most consequential presidents in our nation’s history,” Schiff expressed “serious concerns” about Biden’s ability to defeat Trump in November. He urged the president to “pass the torch” and allow another Democrat to secure the party’s nomination, arguing that this would help “secure his legacy of leadership.”
The move comes amid growing concern within the Democratic Party about Biden’s age and mental fitness, particularly in light of his recent debate performance against former President Donald Trump.
Anxiety within the Democratic Party has also risen exponentially since the Trump assassination attempt, which occurred just as the Republican National Convention began.
Though polling has shown little change in support nationally for Biden since his disastrous debate performance, there has been a pronounced increase in support for Trump in many of the swing states. CNN’s John King on Wednesday revealed that Trump’s support in seven of the eight swing states has surged dramatically and that the Electoral College now favors Trump.
The congressman’s call for Biden to step aside is particularly significant given his prominent role in the party and his history as a vocal critic of Trump.
Schiff played a key role in the congressional efforts to impeach the former president and notably led the House inquiry on the Trump-led Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol. His involvement in these high-profile investigations has made him a well-known figure in national politics.
Recent polling suggests that nearly two-thirds of Democrats believe the 81-year-old Biden should step aside and allow the party to nominate someone else. This sentiment has been growing since Biden’s widely criticized debate performance last month, where he at times appeared confused and struggled to articulate his positions clearly.
Adding to the complexity of the situation, the Democratic National Committee recently announced plans for a virtual roll-call vote in early August to formally nominate Biden as the party’s candidate. This decision was reportedly made to comply with a candidate certification deadline in Ohio on Aug. 7. However, the move has been met with resistance from some party members who are calling for an open convention instead.
The controversy surrounding the nomination process has exposed divisions within the party.
DNC Chair Jaime Harrison has defended the decision, stating that the party “will have this vote by Aug. 5.” However, some Democrats have criticized the move as a “terrible idea,” arguing that forcing through an early vote while discussions about replacing Biden continue could undermine party unity and morale.
In a significant development, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) have reportedly pushed for a delay in the nominating process. This information, coming from multiple sources speaking to ABC News, suggests that even top party leadership may be reconsidering Biden’s candidacy. Schumer’s recent private meeting with Biden in Rehoboth Beach, Del., which the Senate leader only described as a “good meeting,” has further fueled speculation about the party’s plans.
ABC News reported Wednesday night, July 17, that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer privately urged President Joe Biden to withdraw from the 2024 presidential race. According to ABC’s Jonathan Karl, reporting from the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Schumer made a compelling argument that Biden’s exit would benefit not only the president himself but also the Democratic Party and the nation as a whole.
Karl noted that Schumer’s office has not denied the report. Instead, they issued a statement saying, “Leader Schumer conveyed the views of his caucus.” This response suggests that Schumer’s position may reflect broader sentiments within the Democratic Senate leadership.
The reported conversation between Schumer and Biden adds to growing speculation about the president’s political future and the Democrats’ strategy for the upcoming election.
The growing calls for Biden’s withdrawal have not been limited to party insiders.
Moderate House Democrats have expressed frustration with the president’s campaign strategy and performance. In a recent call between Biden and a group of moderate House Democrats, participants described the president as “defensive” and “rambling” in his answers. Colorado Democrat Jason Crow went so far as to say on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that there is now a “high risk” Democrats will lose the election “unless there is a major change.”

Biden, however, has continued to defend his record and mental acuity.
In a Monday interview with NBC News, he stated, “I’ve gotten more done than any president has in a long, long time in three and a half years. So I’m willing to be judged on that.” The president has also resumed campaigning in battleground states like Nevada, joined by some of his top defenders, including U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) and the chairs of the Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
The growing calls for Biden’s withdrawal, including from prominent figures like Schiff, indicate significant uncertainty within the party about its presidential nominee at a time when GOP voters have rallied more strongly than ever to support Trump.
Schiff is recognized as a key ally to the LGBTQ community and served as one of the vice chairs of the Congressional LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus, a status that is likely to fuel LGBTQ politicos concern about Biden’s chances for success.
There is a growing sense of fear among Biden’s LGBTQ supporters as second Trump presidency could lead to significant setbacks for the community: The rollback of LGBTQ protections in areas like healthcare, employment, and housing; the appointment of conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices who might weaken or overturn LGBTQ rights decisions; further restrictions on transgender rights; expanded religious exemptions allowing discrimination; cuts to HIV/AIDS programs; removal of LGBTQ-inclusive materials from schools; reduced global advocacy for LGBTQ rights; discrimination in adoption and foster care; elimination of LGBTQ demographic questions in federal surveys; and a general worsening of the social climate for LGBTQ people.
The White House
HRC files class action over federal ban on gender-affirming care coverage
Lawsuit filed Monday challenges White House effort to restrict care
The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the nonprofit sister organization to the largest LGBTQ human rights lobbying and advocacy organization in the U.S., along with law firms Correia & Puth and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, filed a class action lawsuit against the government as it attempts to restrict gender-affirming healthcare for federal employees.
The suit, filed on Monday, alleges that the Office of Personnel Management, run by Trump appointee Scott Kupor, is discriminating against LGBTQ federal employees (and their families and retired employees) by prohibiting health insurance coverage for gender-affirming care under the Federal Employees Health Benefits and Postal Service Health Benefits plans. There are five plaintiffs named in the complaint, but it extends to others who have those healthcare plans.
The document asserts that OPM’s prohibition on coverage for “gender transition” care in the FEHB and PSHB programs violates Title VII, the federal law that prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, or national origin.
The policy, which was implemented on Jan. 1 following the 2025 issuing of Program Carrier Letter, mandated that insurance providers in these programs deny any coverage for gender-affirming care. In February, HRC filed a federal complaint with OPM over the change in healthcare policy, which was ultimately passed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for review. That complaint is now an officially filed class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Research from the Williams Institute at UCLA Law, a think tank that collects data and conducts research on issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity, indicates that this policy denying gender-affirming care will impact healthcare access for at least 39,400 current and former federal employees and their dependents.
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson released a statement following the lawsuit’s filing.
“Our message to the Trump administration is simple: we’ll see you in court,” said Robinson. “Healthcare access should never be weaponized to advance discrimination — and the denial of coverage for critical healthcare based simply on who you are blatantly violates the rights of all of us.”
Gender-affirming care has been under constant attack by the Trump-Vance administration since its return to the White House, despite the practice being considered as extensively evidence-based but also supported by nearly every major medical organization. This type of care is provided to all people—not just transgender people—and includes things such as social affirmation, including using correct names and pronouns and wearing clothing that matches a person’s gender identity; mental health support, such as counseling to reduce depression and anxiety; and, in some cases, medical interventions such as reversible puberty blockers or hormone therapy when deemed medically appropriate.
“Federal employees have been through the wringer with the Trump administration,” said Cathy Harris, partner at Correia & Puth. “We draw the line at blatant discrimination to deny healthcare to our nation’s dedicated civil servants.”
“This odious policy is the latest example of the Trump administration’s obsession with targeting transgender people, using shameful and cruel tactics to threaten their employment, their health, and the well-being of themselves and their families,” Robinson added. “OPM’s actions will not go unchallenged, and we’ll continue to fight so that federal employees and their families receive the dignity they deserve.”
This is not the first time the White House has directly attacked gender-affirming care.
In January 2025, the administration issued Executive Order 14187, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.” The order directs federal agencies to restrict gender-affirming medical care — including puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries — for individuals under the age of 19.
For more information on how to get involved with the lawsuit, visit hrc.org.
Politics
Buttigieg indicates he may run for president in 2028
Former Transportation Secretary was in Biden-Harris administration’s Cabinet
Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg told a podcaster he is considering throwing his hat in the ring for president once again.
“I don’t know,” Buttigieg told Steven Bartlett, the British host of The Diary of a CEO, the most popular top business and tech podcast on Spotify, which aired Monday. “I think I’m more inclined than not, but there’s so much we don’t know.”
“There’s so much I don’t even know about what’s going to happen this year, let alone … what we need to know later,” he added.
Buttigieg is no stranger to running for the Oval Office.
In 2019, the former South Bend, Ind., mayor was a serious contender in the Democratic primary for the 2020 presidential election but ultimately ended his campaign and endorsed Joe Biden.
In May, an Emerson College Polling survey found Buttigieg at the top of the list of potential presidential contenders, leading California Gov. Gavin Newsom, New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, former Vice President Kamala Harris, and others.
In addition to discussing his future in federal politics, Buttigieg also discussed President Donald Trump’s handling of the Iran war — which reached its 5-month mark two weeks ago — the changing landscape of U.S. jobs due to the rise of artificial intelligence, and the growing national debt, all issues he could face if he ultimately returns to the White House.
Following his 2020 presidential campaign, Buttigieg gained prominence within the Democratic Party, eventually leading to his confirmation as Transportation Secretary. In February 2021, he became the first openly gay Cabinet member to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
In addition to his experience as an elected official, the 44-year-old served as a Navy intelligence officer in the reserves from 2009-2017, including a seven-month deployment to Afghanistan in 2014. Buttigieg came out as gay in 2015 and later married his husband, Chasten Glezman, in 2018. The couple now has two children: twins.
Buttigieg also has an extensive educational background.
He graduated from Harvard University with a bachelor’s degree in history and literature and later became a Rhodes Scholar, attending the University of Oxford, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in philosophy, politics, and economics.
This is not the first time Buttigieg has made headlines this year.
In June, he went public about being falsely accused of posing a threat to his children’s safety. An anonymous police report claimed he was a danger to his 4-year-old twins and was not allowed to be with them until after police interviews were conducted.
The police report was later determined to be false. The Washington Blade reached out to the Michigan State Police to ask what course of action, if any, would be taken against the woman who filed the false report, but the agency did not answer the question.
The Blade reached out to Buttigieg’s team for comment on his potential 2028 presidential bid, but did not hear back before publication.
Congress
House blocks effort to codify transgender servicemember ban into law
Lawmakers approved two anti-trans NDAA amendments
The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday rejected an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have codified a ban transgender servicemembers in the military.
The bipartisan vote was 212-217.
The NDAA is for the 2027 fiscal year and sets policies for the Defense Department programs and activities and the national security programs of the Department of Energy.
U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) proposed the amendment on July 21. It stated that all personnel are required to serve in accordance with their biological sex, citing military readiness and discipline.
Human Rights Campaign Senior Director of Government Affairs Jennifer Pike Bailey stated that she is grateful for the bipartisan vote that rejected President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s “dangerous and discriminatory policy that has kicked brave transgender servicemembers out of the military and weakened our national security.”
“Everyone who meets the same rigorous standards should be able to serve their country. We should honor that patriotism, particularly in this moment where we are witnessing brave servicemembers making the ultimate sacrifice for our country, instead of ending their careers and politicizing their existence. We’re grateful that a permanent extension of this ban failed, and we will keep fighting to reverse this senseless policy,” Bailey said.
Mark Takano, chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, stated that he and his members put in countless hours of work to kill the amendment.
“When Americans know they or their families are going to be targeted by or not supported by the military, that leads them to avoid signing up to serve or staying in the service — making it harder to keep the ranks of the armed services full and our nation safe. My colleagues in the Equality Caucus and I will continue working to prevent these attacks on our servicemembers and their families from becoming law,” Takano said.
According to the Congressional Equality Caucus, two other bills could potentially be passed that would also target the transgender community, both of which were proposed by U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.).
The first was a bill that would have prohibited gender-related medical care under TRICARE and to prevent TRICARE from covering certain gender-related medical procedures and treatments, which was approved in a vote of 219-208.
The second was a bill that would have prohibited male participation in female sports at DoDEA schools. DoDEA schools are Department of Defense Dependents Schools, which is a network of primary and secondary schools.
The amendment was approved in a vote of 221-203.
