Connect with us

Politics

Companies grapple with uncertainty as Trump targets private sector DEI

Latham & Watkins lawyer spoke with Blade on Wednesday

Published

on

President Donald Trump (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Powerful companies and well known organizations have made headlines in the weeks since President Donald Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion in the private sector, whether by announcing changes or rollbacks to their DEI programs, by defending their policies and practices, or by declining to wade into the debate at this early stage.

Danielle Conley, a partner at Latham & Watkins who leads the law firm’s anti-discrimination and civil rights practice, spoke with the Washington Blade on Wednesday about how companies and organizations are navigating an uncertain and rapidly evolving landscape.

“So much of this is it just comes down to what is the risk tolerance of the leadership of your company or your organization,” she said, noting that some firms have taken steps to avoid scrutiny from the federal government while others are standing firm in their policies and practices concerning DEI with the expectation that they would be ruled lawful if challenged. “We’ve seen organizations and institutions on both ends of the spectrum.”

Conley said private sector companies and the types of organizations specified in Trump’s order are working on “making sure that they’re on the right side of the legal lines, in the way that the civil rights laws exist right now, and also reviewing their practices and policies for political risks, and seeing whether there are potential changes that they need to make in order to not come under federal scrutiny.”

She stressed, however, that this type of audit is “very difficult to do in light of all of the uncertainty” about how to interpret the orders and how the lawsuits challenging them will ultimately be decided.

“Folks expected that there would be a domestic policy priority around diversity, equity and inclusion issues,” as Trump promised during his campaign, “but at the same time, the language of those executive orders sweep very broadly, and so there were certainly aspects of the executive orders that clients are still very much grappling with and trying to understand the implications of,” she said.

Issued on the first day of Trump’s second term, the first order stipulates that “the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), assisted by the attorney general and the director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), shall coordinate the termination of all discriminatory programs, including illegal DEI and “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (DEIA) mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the federal government, under whatever name they appear.”

The directive issued on the following day includes a section titled “Encouraging the Private Sector to End Illegal DEI Discrimination and Preferences,” which mandates that the attorney general takes “appropriate measures to encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI,” “deter” such “programs or principles” and “identify … potential civil compliance investigations” to accomplish such “deter[rence.]”

Conley noted that DEI is not well defined, nor has the administration given “any specifics about what amounts to illegal DEI,” let alone an indication of “how the federal government is going to read the civil rights laws and interpret the civil rights laws to preclude certain DEI programs, and where they’re going to draw those particular lines.”

Risks and how to mitigate them

On one end of the spectrum are the “things that we’ve always known that you couldn’t do under the law, like using race based and gender based preferences in hiring programs,” she said—conduct covered by longstanding federal anti-discrimination laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits “employers from considering race or gender in employment based decisions outside very narrow circumstances.”

On the other hand, “In light of the failure to really define DEI or to really set out any specific guidance of the kinds of programs that the government believes, under their interpretation of the civil rights laws, run afoul of those particular laws, that’s where the questions are coming from,” Conley said.

Companies, their lawyers, and the broader public are likely to soon find out, though, how and in which circumstances the Trump administration will bring an enforcement action or file a lawsuit against a company over “illegal” DEI.

The second executive action directs Attorney General Pam Bondi “to within 120 days of this order, in consultation with the heads of relevant agencies and in coordination with the Director of OMB, shall submit a report to the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy containing recommendations for enforcing federal civil-rights laws and taking other appropriate measures to encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI.”  

Along with other types of information and recommendations, the report must include “a plan of specific steps or measures to deter DEI programs or principles (whether specifically denominated “DEI” or otherwise) that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences. As a part of this plan, each agency shall identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations, large non-profit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of 500 million dollars or more, state and local bar and medical associations, and institutions of higher education with endowments over one billion dollars.”

Broadly, the sectors targeted by each agency will correspond with its remit, Conley said. “HHS has an office for civil rights, and they enforce both Title VI, which prohibits race discrimination in federally funded programming, and also section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits race and gender-based discrimination and other forms of discrimination in health care programming.”

She continued, “So, based on their authority, you can imagine the Office for Civil Rights at HHS, would open up investigations, potentially, into health care companies, medical schools, other health care providers.”

Meanwhile, “the Department of Education has an Office for Civil Rights. Obviously, their enforcement authority is over institutions of higher education that receive federal funds. They enforce VI, that same statute that prohibits race based discrimination in federally funded programming. And so you can imagine the Department of Education opening up investigations into colleges and universities over these issues.”

With the DOJ’s authority under Title VI, the department would be able to investigate and bring enforcement actions or litigation against healthcare companies or institutes of higher education or “any company that receives any sort of federal funding,” Conley said.

In the meantime, as companies look for clarity as evaluate the extent to which their policies and practices may draw legal or political scrutiny, Conley said there has been an “uptick in private litigation” over DEI, which means recent cases have been brought before federal courts—and, in some cases, have been decided by their judges.

These lawsuits have tended to focus on “scholarship, internship, or fellowship programs” or “grant programs” that “are restrictive on the basis of race,” or “supplier diversity initiatives” that might “have very prescriptive guidance” like requirements that a certain percentage of a company’s vendors are Black or brown or women-owned businesses, Conley explained.

Still, she cautioned, “It’s super hard to speculate, because some of this stuff just hasn’t made its way through the courts,” she said.

While firms can expect these policies and practices targeted by private litigants are likely to be a focus for the Trump administration, the question, she said, will will be how far “beyond the kind of race based restrictions that we’ve already seen come under significant challenge in the context of private litigation, how far beyond those kinds of programs will they go, as potentially being violative of the civil rights laws?”

Conley added that these firms should focus not on programs and policies that present negligible or no legal risk, like dedicating a private room in an office space for nursing mothers. Rather, she said, they should consider questions like, “What do we do in the hiring and promotion space? What are we doing with respect to scholarship programs, internship programs and our outside partnerships? What are we doing with respect to any grants that we give? Where do we have risk? Do we have any programs that are explicitly race conscious? Because we know that if we do, the legal risk there is significantly elevated.”

The process is about “really assessing each of those buckets,” she said, adding “It’s that careful analysis—it’s really all you can do in this environment, again, as things are sort of constantly shifting.”

At the same time, Conley said, “we have to remember that the vast majority of DEI programs really do remain completely lawful under any interpretation of the civil rights laws.”

“A lot of these programs were put into place to ensure and to protect against discrimination in organizations,” she said. A consequence of “the executive orders and the uncertainty around how the federal government will be interpreting the civil rights laws and the kinds of programs that may violate them could cause a lot of organizations to overcorrect.”

“Big picture,” Conley said:

  • “Anytime something restricted on the basis of race, we’ve talked about how that really heightens legal risk. But I would also say [there tends to be risk] anytime that there’s a benefit being given that can be traced to race, or a burden that’s being imposed that can be traced to race.”
  • “So, for example, employee resource groups at companies have been completely lawful, and plenty of companies and organizations have them. You can imagine that there could be a legal argument that if there’s an employee resource group where those members are getting certain benefits that would help them in the promotion process, that’s something that could potentially be attacked as being potentially violative of Title VII.”
  • “There’s actually danger in in saying this program violates the law and this program doesn’t, because it’s super nuanced, and really does depend on the facts and circumstances of these programs and how they’re designed.”
  • “Because, again, I just want to make sure that I’m not on the record [saying] that, like, employee resource groups are illegal. They’re not.”
  • “But I do think that if there could be arguments made that those employee resource groups, when they’re not open to all (most are) and those employee members are getting certain benefits that could potentially help them in, let’s say, a promotion process—that could be something that, I would say, as their counsel, that could elevate your legal risk.”

Risks specific to pro-LGBTQ and pro-trans DEI in the private sector

Responding to a question about whether pro-transgender DEI programs will face heightened risk amid the administration’s broader attacks against trans and gender diverse communities, Conley pointed to provisions of Trump’s executive order “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”

“That sort of set out this notion that it was the policy of the United States that there were only two sexes, male and female, and that federal funds shouldn’t be used to promote unlawful gender ideology, which seems specifically aimed at transgender individuals,” she said.

In practice, Conley said, “to the extent that an organization is receiving a federal grant, and that federal grant is being used in a way that the government [claims] is promoting unlawful gender ideology, then there’s a very real threat that that grant money will stop.”

Asked whether the administration may target a company for its financial, charitable support for trans people and causes, she noted that “some challenges that we’ve seen have been not to corporate giving, but to grants that were racially restrictive.”

“In the context of corporate giving,” though, “where you’re just talking about a gift—again, this is very fact specific, but if you’re just talking about a gift, then it’s hard to see how just a straight gift violates any federal civil rights laws,” Conley said.

She added, “An internship, a scholarship, something that’s reciprocal, something that is a contract, that’s a different analysis, right? But it is not, to my mind, nor have I ever seen a case suggesting that it’s illegal for organization X to write a $20,000 check to X civil rights organization.”

LGBTQ-focused nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations and charities are grappling with the loss of federal grant funding, particularly for overseas work. If the business community’s move away from DEI means declined corporate giving, these groups would struggle to continue their work, which includes efforts to push back against the administration’s attacks against LGBTQ and especially trans communities.

Courts will soon step in

Importantly, “all of these EOS are caught up in litigation right now,” Conley said, noting that parts of the DEI executive actions were struck down on Feb. 21 by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

Earlier this month, a federal judge struck down Trump’s executive orders restricting access to transgender medicine for patients younger than 19 and requiring trans women to be housed with cisgender men in prisons.

“I am watching closely to see what happens in the challenges to the DEI executive orders,” Conley said, noting that the Trump administration has already appealed the case, which “will go to the 4th Circuit pretty quickly.”

If the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in, “especially around the arguments that the executive order was unconstitutional because of the lack of clarity and guidance it gave to organizations about what violates the law in a way that wouldn’t allow them to comply, I’m watching that one, because it’ll be interesting to see how the 4th Circuit and maybe even the Supreme Court addresses that particular argument,” she said.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Congress

Marjorie Taylor Greene’s bill to criminalize gender affirming care advances

Judiciary Committee markup slated for Wednesday morning

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.)’s “Protect Children’s Innocence Act,” which would criminalize guideline-directed gender affirming health care for minors, will advance to markup in the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning.

Doctors and providers who administer medical treatments for gender dysphoria to patients younger than 18, including hormones and puberty blockers, would be subject to Class 3 felony charges punishable by up to 10 years in prison if the legislation is enacted.

LGBTQ advocates warn conservative lawmakers want to go after families who travel out of state to obtain medical care for their transgender kids that is banned or restricted in the places where they reside, using legislation like Greene’s to expand federal jurisdiction over these decisions. They also point to the medically inaccurate way in which the bill characterizes evidence-based interventions delineated in standards of care for trans and gender diverse youth as “mutilation” or “chemical castration.”

Days into his second term, President Donald Trump signed “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” an executive order declaring that the U.S. would not “fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called ‘transition’ of a child from one sex to another, and it will rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit” medical treatments and interventions intended for this purpose.

Greene, who has introduced the bill in years past, noted the president’s endorsement of her bill during his address to the joint session of Congress in March when he said “I want Congress to pass a bill permanently banning and criminalizing sex changes on children and forever ending the lie that any child is trapped in the wrong body.”

Continue Reading

Congress

Pappas in Senate race focuses on costs, health care, and personal freedoms

Gay NH congressman hopes to succeed retiring US Sen. Jeanne Shaheen

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Chris Pappas (D-N.H.) launches his U.S. Senate campaign with a kick-off event at his family's restaurant in Manchester, N.H., on April 3, 2025 (Photo courtesy of Chris Pappas for Senate)

U.S. Rep. Chris Pappas (D-N.H.) recently sat down with the Washington Blade for an exclusive interview following the official launch of his bid for New Hampshire’s open U.S. Senate seat, which is expected to be among the most closely watched contests of the 2026 midterm election cycle. 

The congressman, who is serving his fourth term as the representative for New Hampshire’s 1st Congressional District, expects next year’s race will be “very high profile” and “challenging.” The New York Times, meanwhile, anticipates “an expensive and dogged affair.” 

Senate elections tend to attract a disproportionate share of attention and resources especially in recent years as control over the chamber has tended to change hands more often and with smaller margins, but Pappas’s race is expected to be a bellwether for Democrats as they work to mount a comeback after last year’s electoral defeat. 

At the same time, Pappas is gearing up for the battle over the Republican led reconciliation spending bill, with Democratic lawmakers exercising what little leverage they may have in the minority to fight against “disastrous cuts to Medicaid” while “finding other ways to protect what’s important to the people that we represent.” 

Lawmakers on Sunday night gave the go-ahead for the GOP’s tax and spending package, but negotiations continue into this week as Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) works to appease conservative hardliners and swing district Republicans. 

Granite Staters are “really concerned” about negotiations in Washington over spending, but also with the exigencies created by President Donald Trump over the past 100+ days of his second term, which have cropped up repeatedly during the town hall-style events in New Hampshire that Pappas has headlined over the spring. 

“That’s part of the reason why things are so challenging here in Washington,” the congressman said. “Oftentimes you’re pulled in 10 different directions on any given day based on what this administration is trying to do, based on what Republicans in Congress are trying to do.” 

“We’ve got to figure out how we can shed light on what’s happening, try to confront the damage, and use whatever tools we have to fight back,” he said, while remaining “focused on those things that matter most, whether that’s people losing their health insurance, cuts to programs like Social Security, and people’s access to their benefits.” 

The US Senate election

“I’ve got a strong foundation of support” for the Senate race, Pappas told the Blade, noting “I’ve run four campaigns for the House in half the state of New Hampshire” whose congressional map is cleaved into halves with the congressman’s constituents in the eastern portion of the state while freshman Democratic Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander represents the 2nd District. 

Following the announcement in March that New Hampshire’s senior U.S. senator, Jeanne Shaheen (D), would not be seeking reelection next year, “I spent the first couple weeks,” Pappas said, “talking directly with folks all across New Hampshire to see what was on their minds, and increasingly, I was hearing from people that they wanted me to jump into the race.” 

The sentiment was shared by Shaheen and the rest of the state’s congressional delegation — Goodlander and U.S. Sen. Maggie Hassan (D) — who quickly endorsed Pappas’s bid. Speculation that the state’s popular former governor Chris Sununu, a Republican, might mount a formidable challenge for the seat ended with his announcement last month that he would not enter the race. 

Even if Pappas is on the glidepath for the Senate, which is difficult to handicap so far in advance of November 2026, the election is expected to draw substantial attention and resources. 

According to the Cook Political Report, of the Senate seats that will be up for grabs in the midterms, nine are held by incumbent Democrats and 19 by incumbent Republicans who are expected to easily win reelection, which leaves just five races whose outcomes are less certain and which therefore are likely to earn most of the attention and resources next year: The blue-leaning open seat in New Hampshire, an open seat in Michigan that is currently deemed a toss-up, the seat in Georgia held by incumbent Democratic U.S. Sen. Jon Ossoff, which is also considered a toss-up, and the red-leaning seats held by incumbent GOP U.S. Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

While the maps present long-shot odds of Democrats regaining control of the upper chamber even though Republicans had reclaimed the Senate majority last year by flipping just four seats for a modest margin of 53-47, races like Pappas’s are expected to be testing grounds for the minority party’s major campaigns midway through Trump’s second term. 

New Hampshire has long been a political battleground where elections tend to be close and voters tend to split the ticket. According to the Cook Partisan Voting Index, only three U.S. states are less politically partisan: Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia. The determination is based on data collated from the 2020 and 2024 presidential elections, where voters in both of the Granite State’s two congressional districts favored Joe Biden and Kamala Harris over Donald Trump while supporting the Republican gubernatorial nominees, Chris Sununu and Kelly Ayotte. 

Shaheen has “really built a brand that’s based on serving people and delivering for the constituents of New Hampshire,” Pappas said. “So that’s the kind of work that I want to carry on — but recognizing, in this time, that we really have to stand up and fight and be a part of our response to what this administration is doing.”

“We do need to re-establish some basic checks and balances here in Washington, so that there is oversight and accountability of an administration that’s blowing through all the guardrails and is really estranged from public opinion and from the Constitution,” he said, while continuing “to find ways to meet people where they are, to hear their stories, and to connect the fight here in Washington to people’s lives back home.” 

Responding to the needs of Granite Staters

Specifically, while “people are responding to a lot of different stories,” Pappas highlighted concerns about “cuts to specific programs, the fact that we’ve got 80,000 VA employees that are going to be fired,” and over the direction in which care for veterans is headed under the new administration. 

“The big fight right now is around health care,” he said. “It’s around defending Medicaid coverage, ensuring we’re going to continue to have a Medicaid expansion program in New Hampshire, which is something that I’ve worked with then-Gov. Maggie Hassan to implement, and whether we’re going to have tax fairness and prevent huge tax breaks from going to the wealthiest Americans and the biggest corporations.”

Asked about cuts to medical research that are impacting research universities across the country, Pappas said the issue has been raised often in discussions with people in his home state.

“The University of New Hampshire does a tremendous amount of research with federal funds,” he noted, “and that’s something that we’ve worked hard through the years to advocate for, and it’s really important for the university to continue to be able to do that work and help us understand the world around us, how it’s changing, and how we can respond to protect public health, for instance, to protect our communities against sea level rise — those are just important priorities.” 

Unlocking “breakthroughs in science and medicine” is important for America’s global competitiveness, the congressman added, whether by “homegrown talent here in the United States or research scientists from around the world that want to come to our country and share their expertise and help the United States move forward.”

“Donald Trump has decided that universities and colleges are a political enemy of his, and he’s trying to punish them, but in doing that, he’s really short changing our economy and the future of the United States,” Pappas said, adding, “most people recognize that, especially people in New Hampshire.” 

The congressman recounted how he was able to work closely with his colleagues in the state’s congressional delegation to leverage public pressure and influence by labor unions to reinstate probationary employees at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard who were let go following drastic cuts to the federal workforce under the Trump-Vance administration. 

“It’s really critical to the future of that facility, which rehabilitates our nuclear submarine fleet and has nearly 7,000 civilian employees,” Pappas said. “So that was one case where we found that we were able to get a lot of local attention and support around an issue, and perhaps that news made it all the way back here to the Defense Department who were concerned about public pressure.”

“We’ve got a lot of long-time employees at that shipyard,” along with “a lot of new people that have been brought on board as a result of an expansion over the last several years,” the congressman noted. “Across the board, people want to know that we’re focused, especially on our families’ bottom line right now,” which is why it was important for him and his colleagues to “go to bat for a facility that’s really important to people’s livelihoods, but also to our overall economy” and for national security. 

Moving forward, Pappas said, they will continue pushing back against “efforts to attack the right to organize and collective bargaining,” because “unions at the shipyard have a great relationship with management, but that could be disrupted by political efforts from this administration to attack labor unions.” 

The economy and protecting personal freedoms

The congressman said that while “we need to try a little bit of everything to try to identify what is going to break through,” at the same time, “I do have the sense that the last election hinged on the economy, that every election really hinges on the economy, and those are the issues that are going to be, I think, most salient to folks next year.” 

“We’ve got to make sure that we’re making progress at addressing inequities in the economy and are lowering costs,” he said. “Right now, the top issues that I hear about in New Hampshire include the high cost of housing, the lack of affordability of child care, the fact that our health care system is still inaccessible, and far too expensive for most people to be able to get the care that they need.” 

“We’re not getting any of that from Republicans right now,” Pappas said, when it comes to the “work we have to do to level the playing field in our economy,” adding, “they talked a big game in the last campaign about lowering costs, but they’re taking no meaningful action to do it, and so we need to be thoughtful about a really forward-thinking agenda that can focus on how we allow people to get ahead and stand in this economy.” 

Asked about whether and to what extent Pappas will focus his messaging on the president’s tariffs, he noted “people are already responding,” especially in “a state like New Hampshire that has a longstanding close relationship with Canada.”

He continued, “88 percent of our small businesses import something. We have a lot of exporting businesses that rely on their markets overseas, including in places like Canada and China, and some of those markets are going away because of the tariffs that have been slapped on U.S. goods that we export.” 

Trump’s trade war “has generated so much instability in our economy, it’s really hard for our small businesses to navigate,” Pappas said, with these new “disruptions to supply chains and the threat of increased costs” following a “really tough 5-year period from inflation and workforce shortages to the pandemic that predated that.” 

“This is an issue that I think brings people together across party lines,” Pappas said. “Folks understand that we have trade agreements in place that have been negotiated [and] supported on a bipartisan basis, including” the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, “which was renegotiated during the first Trump administration.” 

The congressman continued, “it only makes sense to move forward in a way where we are focused on how we can make more things in the United States, but also recognize that we can’t make everything and we can’t go it alone, so we need to be working with close partners like Canada, and there’s no there’s no reason for this sort of trade war that only hurts our businesses and our ability to create jobs and have a thriving economy.”

“I also think, with respect to personal freedoms, in the wake of the Dobbs decision, we have to continue to take steps to re-establish Roe v. Wade as the law of the land and defend reproductive freedom,” Pappas said. 

“I’m the only candidate in this race right now, and I think regardless of who the Republican is, we’re going to be fighting for the Women’s Health Protection Act and to make sure that we’re re-establishing the precedent that Roe set for more than half a century, which is broadly supported in New Hampshire,” he said. 

LGBTQ issues

A co-chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, Pappas is the first openly gay member of Congress to represent New Hampshire. If elected, he would be the third out LGBTQ U.S. senator behind U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Laphonza Butler, who served from 2023 to 2024.  

Trump, along with his Republican allies in Congress and appointees serving in his second administration, has undermined rights and protections for LGBTQ people on a variety of fronts, including by dismantling and defunding efforts to fight against HIV. Cuts to basic and clinical science research along with public health programs have been advanced by the president’s budget and the GOP lawmakers’ reconciliation package, as well as through the reorganization of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 

Now in the minority, House Democrats “will not be in the room negotiating, as much as we would love to tell the majority exactly how we feel about all these items,” Pappas conceded. At the same time, “to get a budget put in place and appropriations bills passed, you’ll need 60 votes in the Senate, which means you need some sort of bipartisan consensus, at least in that body,” which “could potentially be a difference maker in defending some of these programs that folks care about, that the president has sought to eliminate.”

“Services for people with HIV, access to health care, vital research — those are things that Americans broadly support,” the congressman said. “We’re going to stand up against it, and where there’s harm to people and important priorities, I’ll certainly be speaking out, and I know that members of the Equality Caucus will be taking that very seriously.” 

“Many people in this administration,” Pappas said, “are not traditional Republicans and don’t support the same set of policies that we’ve seen even Republican presidents put in place,” like the PEPFAR initiative led by George W. Bush, “which has changed the trajectory of the treatment of HIV and AIDS around the world.” 

“Now, they are attacking that program and its ability to provide care for people in some of the most vulnerable regions of the world, and it’s been reported that individuals in Africa have died as a result of not getting the treatments that they were counting on through that program,” the congressman noted. 

He continued, “We really have a human responsibility to do whatever we can to meet the needs of people who are susceptible to disease or who have been exposed to it, and the fact that this administration is breaking with that long bipartisan tradition of research, of humanitarianism, I think is incredibly cruel, and it’s not what the United States should stand for.” 

What has been especially frustrating, Pappas said, is the silence from Republicans in Congress including those who “have championed these programs for decades.” 

“I don’t know what to say to that,” he said, except that “people need to be paying attention and we need to do everything possible to speak out and fight back against it” because “we can’t see an interruption in terms of the progress that’s been made in fighting disease and developing new therapies.” 

Public health aside, when asked about how the Democratic Party should approach messaging on issues of transgender rights and gender identity, Pappas stressed that “Americans largely embrace equality” and people want others “to have the same rights and responsibilities.” 

The congressman raised the Equality Act as an example — a bill that would protect Americans against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in areas from housing to employment, which was reintroduced last month with a press conference headlined by Pappas and top Democrats from both chambers of Congress. 

Democrats should not shy away from advancing bills that advance “fairness and equality before the law,” he said, “especially at a time where we know that the LGBTQ community is being targeted by really cynical political attacks.”

“Where I come from, in New Hampshire, we’ve adopted protections for trans individuals in our state’s non discrimination statutes,” Pappas noted, “and so I think when you come from an environment like New Hampshire, you understand that people do respect their neighbors for their differences.” 

He continued, “We’re a live and let live state, and so I think it’s really consistent with who we are to be tolerant and embrace people of different identities and orientations. That’s who we are as Granite Staters. And I think people recognize that in order to have a future where everyone can live a full and productive life, you need to provide people with equality before the law.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Joe Biden diagnosed with ‘aggressive form’ of prostate cancer

The former president and his family are reviewing treatment options, according to a statement

Published

on

President Joe Biden (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

According to a statement from his personal office on Sunday, former President Joe Biden has been diagnosed with an “aggressive form” of prostate cancer that has spread to his bones.

“Last week, President Joe Biden was seen for a new finding of a prostate nodule after experiencing increasing urinary symptoms. On Friday, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, characterized by a Gleason score of 9 (Grade Group 5) with metastasis to the bone,” the statement said.

Biden and his family “are reviewing treatment options with his physicians,” the statement said. “While this represents a more aggressive form of the disease, the cancer appears to be hormone-sensitive which allows for effective management.”

“Cancer touches us all,” the former president posted on X Monday. “Like so many of you, Jill and I have learned that we are strongest in the broken places. Thank you for lifting us up with love and support.”

Continue Reading

Popular