Connect with us

Federal Government

LGBTQ federal workers face tough decisions, big worries amid Trump transition

‘I plan to leave after the inauguration’

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

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.

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