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 ā€œdiversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibilityā€ (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 ā€¦ 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 saidā€”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.” Ā 

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 ā€œDEIā€ or otherwise) that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences.Ā 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 courtsā€”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 analysisā€”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 processā€”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 giftā€”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

Garcia warns U.S. government faces a ‘five-alarm fire’

Congressman blasted Senate Leader Schumer for supporting GOP budget

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Although U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia (D) has only served in Congress since 2023, the representative for California’s 42nd Congressional District quickly emerged as a rising star in the Democratic Party who has become known as an especially outspoken critic of President Donald Trump since his return to the White House in January.

Delivering memorable hits on cable news programs, punchy sound bites in congressional hearings, and spirited spats with political opponents on X, Garcia is among a handful of leaders on the left who have been feted for their outspokenness at a time when pushback against the administration by Democrats has widely been criticized as anemic, ineffectual, inconsistent, or insufficiently aggressive.

Last week, the California congressman, who is gay, sat down with the Washington Blade in his office for an interview that was continued by phone on Tuesday in the wake of Friday’s move by nine Senate Democrats and their leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) to avert a government shutdown by supporting the controversial budget proposal advanced by congressional Republicans.

Critics blasted Schumer and the senators who voted with him, arguing that they had voluntarily forfeited leverage that their party will rarely again have the opportunity to exercise ā€” at least, not until the 120th Congress is seated in 2027, and only then if Democrats are able to recapture control of either or both legislative chambers.

Calling the Democratic leader’s decision “out of touch” and “a huge disservice to the American people,” Garcia said he was “incredibly angered and beyond disappointed,” adding “I think that he’s turned his back, in my opinion, on the rank and file base of the party, and certainly on his own members.”

The congressman said he agrees with remarks made in recent days by Senate Democrats who have deemed this battle over the budget “the moment to actually stand up to Donald Trump and Elon Musk in a way that was forceful and strong.”

“Those that voted to support this budget resolution are completely not aligned with the vast majority of Americans and certainly [not with] Democrats who wanted to actually fight Elon Musk and push back much harder,” Garcia said, contrasting Schumer’s leadership with Jeffries who “did the right thing” and was able to bring “the caucus together,” successfully convincing “everyone, I mean, almost unanimously, to vote against the budget.”

More than that, Garcia said Friday’s vote exemplifies a broader failure among some elected Democrats “especially, maybe, among those that have been in government for a long time” to reckon with the existential risks presented by the Trump administration and powerful allies like Musk.

The congressman said these political leaders “are thinking that somehow this is just another year or just another cycle, and things will just get better and go back to the way they were” because they have failed to recognize the ultimate ambitions of the president, his administration, Musk, and their allies, who endeavor to “fundamentally restructure the way government works, to build a system where you have an authoritarian at the top with enormous amounts of power” unchecked by the federal judiciary or the legislative branch.

“Itā€™s supreme executive authority,” he said, coupled with “disregard” for the powers ordained by the Constitution to the courts and to the Congress. “That is a very dangerous formula when youā€™re sitting on top of the wealthiest country in the world with an enormous military and enormous power over what happens in the rest of the world.”

“We live in a very dangerous time and I just donā€™t feel like everyone is understanding that, including people in our own party,” Garcia added.  

The congressman noted that reasonable people might reach different conclusions about whether Trump’s second term has yet presented such a grave threat to America’s political and democratic institutions and the rule of law that the time has come to declare a state of emergency or break the glass, to to speak, to release the fire alarm.

In Garcia’s view, “you have the richest man on the planet who’s getting only richer since the election of Trump, who has an unobstructed ability to go into agency after agency, access people’s personal information, essentially eliminate jobs, directly email federal employees about having to report their activities to him ā€” that is a five alarm fire.”

“That is unconstitutional and itā€™s a real challenge to the way we operate our government,” he added.

Organizing grassroots resistance at home

Returning to more familiar territory for inter-party debate the congressman criticized the GOP’s budget package, warning that it might “slash other types of health care, could slash Social Security,” but because it proposes trillions of dollars in cuts, lawmakers will have no option but to “take Medicare and Medicaid apart.”

Together with the “destruction of our agencies” led by Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, Garcia said the effort by congressional Republicans to trim the budget in ways that will imperil access to critical medical care for populations that depend on it, including “low-income folks, seniors, and working class people” is meant to free up money for “huge tax cuts to Elon Musk, the billionaires, and large corporations.”

More specifically, during an interview Friday with MSNBC’s Alex Witt, Garcia warned the funding bill will “cut billions and billions of dollars, for example, for veteransā€™ health care” while prohibiting Congress from pushing back “on the tariffs that Donald Trump is trying to implement,” giving “a rubber stamp of approval to what Elon Musk is doing raiding our federal agencies,” and gutting programs by agencies like the U.S. Department of Education that serve students with disabilities and special needs.

Garcia further explained that “sending the money to the states as Trump wants to do essentially gives states the ability to send that money to private schools and to provide a system where actually public schools get defunded because private schools won’t take those programs up.”

Speaking with the Blade on Tuesday from Long Beach, the city in the center of CA-42 where he served as mayor from 2014 to 2022, Garcia explained how he was using the House’s district work period to organize opposition against the Trump regime.

After the congressman’s plane touched down from Washington, he took the opportunity to record a video for social media to explain that “We should be investing in our airports and passenger safety, not cutting 400 FAA positions” as the administration did last month.

“We need to hire more air traffic controllers and ensure that flying remains the safest way to travel,” he said.

After Republican leadership encouraged its members to avoid holding in-person meetings with constituents because they had complained and expressed anger about the cutting or suspension of federal agencies, grants, programs, and services, Garcia announced he would hold town halls in GOP districts in California, a strategy that has been touted by other leaders in his party like Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the 2024 Democratic candidate for vice president.

“Not this weekend but the next weekend Iā€™ll be launching in a Republican memberā€™s district in California and doing a town hall there,” Garcia told the Blade. “It will be in a Republican swing district.”

In the meantime, the congressman said he has been visiting with and listening to his constituents. “I just left a school here in southeast L.A. where I met with the principal and a bunch of teachers, and talked about the students that they have in special programs that are receiving funds from the federal government.”

“They were showing me kind of a center where they have, like, toiletries and shoes and backpacks for kids that they’ve received through support from the U.S. Department of Education,” he said. “So there’s just so much need, in talking to folks, and so much anger from people about what’s happening.”

“Earlier today, I was at the Social Security Administration center here in one of the cities I represent, so I am going around talking to people where they are getting their services and people are really frustrated,” Garcia added. “I don’t think people realize that most of these people that depend on a lot of these programs are working families, that they need the support to survive, and yet they have the richest man on the planet cutting their services because he feels like it and he wants a bigger tax cut.”

During last week’s interview, when asked what he hopes to gain from engaging with constituents in competitive neighboring districts that are now represented by Republicans, the congressman said he hopes that attendees recognize that “you have a member of Congress too scared to actually answer these questions” but his aim is foremost to listen to their concerns and address their questions.

Garcia recounted some of the reports in the media detailing scenes from town halls in GOP districts that were held prior to the effort by party leadership to contain the bad press. Attendees “were pissed,” he said. “They were demanding answers. Why am I losing my job? Why are my veterans’ benefits going to be cut? Why are you trying to dismantle the federal Department of Education when my kid has a disability and depends on these programs?”

Democratic leaders bring different strengths, styles

None of the nine House Republicans that the Democratic National Committee identified as “most vulnerable” represent districts in California, and it remains to be seen how many House Democrats will follow Garcia’s lead and stage town halls in red or purple areas of their respective states to take advantage of the anger and frustration over Trump’s second term.

Nevertheless, and notwithstanding his criticism for the Senate Democrats who cosigned the Republican budget, or his concerns that some leaders in the party may not have come to terms with the exigencies demanded by this tumultuous moment in American politics, Garcia stressed that House Democrats benefit from the different strengths and different styles brought by its diverse members.

There is even room to accommodate differences of opinion, he said, on questions like whether and in which circumstances transgender female athletes should be permitted to participate in girls’ and women’s sports.

Breaking from the position that, at least in recent years, has been held almost without exception by Democratic elected officials serving in national and statewide office, California’s ardently pro-LGBTQ Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom argued during an interview earlier this month that allowing these athletes to compete against their cisgender counterparts was “deeply unfair.”

The comments, which drew criticism from groups like the Human Rights Campaign, came as some Democrats had begun to question whether their electoral defeat in 2024 might have been partly attributable to daylight between the party’s position and where the broader electorate lands on the issue, with most Americans tending to support restrictions targeting trans players in at least some circumstances, according to data from surveys and polls.

Garcia said his position is and always has been that far too much focus and attention has been paid to the issue, which ultimately concerns such a small population that becomes smaller, still, when the aperture is narrowed further to focus just on athletes. Young people, he said, should be able to reap the benefits that come with participating in competitive sports, including those who will encounter additional challenges or hardship because they are trans.

Still, the congressman said he continues to support the governor, noting that few Americans have done more for LGBTQ rights than Newsom has.

Besides, Garcia said, rather than trying to reconcile minor party differences about the sports question, Democrats should instead band together against extreme efforts by the anti-trans Republicans “trying to police bathrooms or trying to take away their health care.”

“People are gonna have different positions,” Garcia said, and “our party has various different positions on this issue” just as Democrats can bring different approaches to communicating about policy or styles of messaging about politics to their work on Capitol Hill.

While “some of us have figured out ways of taking on the administration that also get some attention” or offer chances to “shine a light on the policies” thus exposing their harms, on the other hand Garcia said “There are other people in our caucus that are so good at what they do, and I would have a hard time doing what they do, because they’re so good at it.”

Leaning in to differences

During his time in Congress, the California Democrat, 47, said he has tried to capitalize on his knowledge of pop culture and entertainment “to get attention on a policy issue.”

For instance, last summer when Republicans went after Hunter Biden’s overseas business dealings during an Oversight Committee hearing and in response Democrats sought to redirect the focus toward Trump’s conduct involving foreign business interests during his first term, Garcia quoted from a monologue delivered by Heather Gay during the finale episode of Season 4 of Bravo’s “The Real Housewives of Salt Lake City.”

In 2023, amid a GOP-led effort to restrict young people’s access to drag performances, the congressman kicked off Pride month with a tribute on the House floor honoring “RuPaul’s Drag Race,” the popular program that has been credited with bringing the art form to wider attention and appreciation, including among non-LGBTQ audiences.

“The show has served as a critical space to discuss issues around inclusion, trans rights, mental health and self worth,” Garcia said at the time. “And this message couldnā€™t be more important as the LGBTQ-plus community continues to fight for equality and acceptance.”

Last month, a couple of years after Republican U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene famously displayed explicit photos of Hunter Biden that were taken when the former president’s son was struggling with substance abuse, Garcia referenced the incident during the first hearing of the House Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency.

After announcing that he had a “dick pic” to share, a large image of Musk’s face appeared on screen behind the congressman, who then delivered a message about how the controversial tech billionaire was “trying to take away your Medicare and Social Security and doing all these awful things to you.”

Garcia explained that this kind of creativity can help Democrats reach audiences that might be less inclined to see or less eager to consume traditional sources of information about politics. “I think that we have to remember that not everybody reads The New York Times and watches cable news,” he said. “You can do all the cable news you want. You can get quoted in The New York Times as much as you want, and put out statements, [but] there’s a huge segment of the population thatā€™s never going to see that.”

“Itā€™s important that we use moments that speak to different groups to drive a message,” the congressman added. “Because I am gay, and because I know a lot about pop culture and stuff ā€” because, you know, we like to know a lot about stuff like that, I think it does help. I am still actively watching RuPaul. I follow things that maybe the average political person is not following.”

This familiarity that comes with membership in marginalized communities can become especially important in the context of working in a legislative body where their rights and protections are under attack.

“There’s an active dismantling of our rights,” Garcia said, “and gay marriage could be on the line [along with] gay adoptions, teaching history about leaders in our community in our schools. All of that is on the line, and so we’ve got to be very clear about that.” 

Reciprocally, the congressman said, that responsibility also applies when people who belong to marginalized communities are present in those spaces. “I talk to gay friends back home, and I remind them thereā€™s an attack happening right now on trans people, on gay people,” he said, “and you have to wake up to that and know that it’s your job to, like, stand up and be loud, and you just can’t live your life every day thinking everything’s just gonna get better when Donald Trump’s not the president.”

Standing up to Musk and the Trump administration can be risky

Of course, there is always a risk of attracting negative attention, particularly when a member of Congress stands up to a public figure as polarizing and powerful as Musk or Trump and with a message that is designed to reach audiences that might not otherwise watch clips from a hearing or floor debate in the U.S. House of Representatives.

In February, Garcia was targeted by Ed Martin, a close Trump ally who shortly after his appointment by the president to serve as U.S. attorney for D.C. issued a “letter of inquiry” to the congressman’s office over remarks he had made during an interview on CNN.

“When asked how Democrats can stop Elon Musk,” Martin explained, “you spoke clearly: ā€˜What the American public wants is for us to bring actual weapons to this bar fight. This is an actual fight for democracy.’ā€

He continued, ā€œThis sounds to some like a threat to Mr. Musk ā€“ an appointed representative of President Donald Trump who you call a ā€˜dickā€™ ā€“ and government staff who work for him. Their concerns have led to this inquiry.ā€

In response, Garcia vowed that his criticism would not be stifled by attempts to intimidate him with the specter of an investigation or charges by the Justice Department for comments that any reasonable person would interpret as a metaphor or figure of speech rather than a legally actionable call for violence against a public official.

The congressman told the Blade he believes the effort was meant to silence not just his criticism of Musk but also to create a chilling effect that would dissuade others from speaking out publicly against the billionaire.

“And so we’re going to continue to call out what Elon Musk does, the damage he’s doing, and I’m certainly not going to stop using metaphors,” Garcia said.

As of Tuesday, the congressman said his office did not reply after their receipt of the letter from Martin, adding that he had consulted with House counsel “which is the proper approach.”

Asked to share how he evaluates the risks and potential rewards of speaking out against powerful interests who lead a regime that is bent on retribution against critics and political enemies, Garcia said that as a lifelong comic book aficionado, to some extent he sees taking on real-life villains in Congress as a necessary part of his work on behalf of the people.

“I’ve learned my values through comic books,” he said, “and I view the world very much in terms of people that are doing the right thing in truth and justice and people that are, I mean, who better exemplifies Lex Luthor than folks like Elon Musk?”

Garcia said that earning the ire of Musk, Trump, and Republican colleagues like the anti-trans extremist U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (S.C.) is a sign that he is on the right path, adding that these folks should feel opposition from elected Democrats and other leaders along with the anger they might witness from X users who might post on the platform to vent their frustrations with its owner, demonstrators who might picket outside the White House, or angry constituents who might show up to their representative’s town hall meetings.

Additionally, he said, “I’ve told other members of Congress this, whether weā€™re in a meeting or sharing a meal, I said, ā€˜when you look back at this moment, and we think about who should be opposing Elon Musk and Donald Trump in this moment, thatā€™s us.”

Garcia also expressed gratitude for his “fantastic, very supportive” family and close friends including pals from college who are part of his “great support system back home.” The congressman said that while he and his husband split up and are now divorced, the two have remained “very close” and share custody of their cat.

Support also comes from strangers, he said, who increasingly have been approaching him in public to express gratitude because they feel he is giving voice to their feelings about the administration. In fact, Garcia said he feels more embraced than ever before by his community in Long Beach, including compared to his tenure as mayor.

What’s next for the Democratic Party?

Garcia is realistic about the extent to which he and his Democratic colleagues can hold the administration accountable so long as they remain in the minority, where they are unable to even access all the documents and paperwork necessary to do their work on the Oversight Committee let alone pass legislation without buy-in from Republicans. 

At the same time, he cautions that Democrats must not focus on the midterms to such an extent that they do not recognize or call attention to their opponentsā€™ effort to gut the federal government, causing harm on a scale that will be difficult to quantify for savings that will be used to carve out tax breaks for the countryā€™s richest people and corporations. 

As Democrats work to rebuild after their losses in the 2024 cycle, Garcia said he has been influenced by proposals such as those floated recently by Ezra Klein of The New York Times, who has urged the party to focus on creating a politics of abundance as an alternative to the politics of scarcity that empowers Republican coalitions. 

The Democratic Party has ā€œmade it difficult to build housing, by over regulating, by not allowing there to be more for everyone,ā€ the congressman said. ā€œI’ve seen it happen in the way we do our environmental policy, our housing policies,ā€ the latter being a challenge that ā€œI struggled with when I was mayor.ā€ 

ā€œIn our states and in our cities, everyone is talking about this question,ā€ he said. ā€œI mean, maybe they’re not calling it ā€˜abundanceā€™ in the way that Ezra Klein is referring to it,ā€ but there has been a lot of self-reflection and dialogue among Democrats about how ā€œwe have been creating communities in states where people are leaving,ā€ where because they can no longer afford to live there, ā€œworking class people are leaving.ā€ 

Garcia in November helped to launch the bipartisan YIMBY caucus which works to promote the development of new housing across the country, leading the effort with fellow founding co-chairs, U.S. Reps. Scott Peters (D-Calif.), Marc Molinaro (R-N.Y.), Juan Ciscomani (R-Ariz.), Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.), Brittany Pettersen (D-Colo.), and Chuck Edwards (R-N.C.).

Along with substantive reforms designed to deliver real results for working people, the congressman discussed some of the ways he would like to see Democrats refine their media strategy, including by making appearances on conservative media outlets like Fox News ā€” without compromising or softening their message or policy positions. 

Watching former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg spar with the networkā€™s right-wing hosts, Garcia said, was eye-opening in terms of how the segments were mutually beneficial for the Democratic cabinet secretary and members of the right-wing cable networkā€™s audience. 

The California Democrat said that he was probably the only guest who appeared on Griff Jenkinsā€™ 60-minute Fox News program during his most recent interview on March 1 with the networkā€™s Washington based national correspondent to offer a take that was critical of Musk but grounded in facts.Ā 

ā€œIt’s about reaching as many people as possible and in as many venues as possible,ā€

Garcia said. ā€œThat’s why Iā€™m going on Fox News. And honestly, I encourage all Democrats to do it. I feel good about our growing opposition. But, you know, it’s also taken us a while ā€” I mean, we went through a really bad loss, and I think that a lot of the party apparatus was unprepared for how strong and fast Trump was going to be.ā€

Continue Reading

Politics

Former GOP Sen. Alan Simpson, longtime supporter of LGBTQ rights, dies at 93

Longtime Wyo. lawmaker spoke with Blade in 2013

Published

on

Former U.S. Sen. Alan K. Simpson urged President Trump to reject an anti-LGBT executive order. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Former U.S. Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming, a Republican who long championed LGBTQ rights, died on Friday at age 93.

After serving in the Senate from 1979 to 1997, including a stint as the GOP whip from 1985 to 1995, Simpson continued to maintain an active role in American politics for decades. Much of his work on behalf of LGBTQ issues came through his appointment as honorary chair of the Republican Unity Coalition, gay-straight alliance group within the party, starting in 2001.

The former lawmaker spoke with the Washington Blade’s Lou Chibbaro Jr. for an interview in 2013 about how he was able to reconcile his work in Republican politics with his support for expanding rights and protections for LGBTQ people.

ā€œAll I know is we have made great strides for gays and lesbians and transvestites,ā€ he said when asked if he thought Congress would soon approve the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, a bill calling for banning job discrimination against LGBT people.

The legislation did not ultimately pass, but at the time Simpson said he was hopeful the effort would overcome obstruction from some corners of the Republican conference because “other people know these people and they love them.”

ā€œAnd Iā€™m very pleased,” the former senator added. “Anyone who is on the side of justice and freedom and caring about fellow human beings is pleased about whatā€™s going on.ā€

Simpson explained that his approach to LGBTQ rights was informed by his commitment to fairness and equality for everyone, telling the Blade that he shares these convictions with his wife of (then) 59 years, Ann Schroll Simpson, who survives him.

The couple had come to know gay people over the years, he said. ā€œI had a gay cousin who was a war hero in World War II ā€” a wonderful man.”

Asked whether he has received flak from some fellow Republicans and others over his support for LGBT rights and same-sex marriage, Simpson said, ā€œEverything Iā€™ve done has had flak. Iā€™m 82 now and Iā€™ve effectively pissed off everyone in America. So yeah, but I just say weā€™re all Godā€™s children. Weā€™re all human beings.ā€

After leaving the Senate, Simpson’s advocacy for LGBTQ people included helping to convince former President Gerald Ford to join a gay rights organization, a first for a U.S. president; signing on to amicus briefs filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in support cases that that led to the overturning of state sodomy laws and established marriage equality as the law of the land; supporting the movement to overturn the discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law; writing to the late former Rev. Fred Phelps in objection to his protests of gay events, including funerals of gay people; and supporting creative works about the anti-gay advocacy of the late former U.S. Sen. Joseph McCarthy and the hate crime against murdered gay college student Matthew Shepard.

An obituary published Friday in The New York Times notes Simpson’s work on behalf of immigration reform and reproductive rights including abortion in addition to his stances on LGBTQ issues including his longtime support for same-sex marriage.

Simpson in 2017 published an opinion piece in the paper objecting to efforts by “fringe-right groups and raging extremists” to convince President Donald Trump to sign an executive order “that would allow discrimination against gays, women and religious minorities.”

In 2022, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by then-President Joe Biden.

Continue Reading

Congress

House Republican misgenders Sarah McBride in transphobic attack

Comment derailed subcommittee hearing

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) attends the joint session of Congress on March 4, 2025. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

U.S. Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas) deliberately and repeatedly used the honorific “Mr.” for U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.), the first and only transgender member of Congress, sparking a confrontation that derailed a House subcommittee hearing on Tuesday.

After Self, who leads the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Europe Subcommittee, misgendered the congresswoman from Delaware, she replied “Thank you, Madam Chair.”

The top Democrat in the room, Massachusetts Congressman Bill Keating, then spoke up to request that the chair repeat his introduction, which he did, again referring to McBride as “Mr.”

“You are out of order. Mr. Chairman,” Keating said, raising his voice. “Have you no decency? I mean, I have come to know you a little bit, but this is not decent.”

Self then started to adjourn the hearing, telling colleagues “we will continue this” before he was interrupted by the ranking member, who told him, “You will not continue it with me unless you introduce a duly elected representative the right way.”

McBride addressed the matter in a post on X Tuesday night, writing, “No matter how I’m treated by some colleagues, nothing diminishes my awe and gratitude at getting to represent Delaware in Congress. It is truly the honor and privilege of a lifetime. I simply want to serve and to try to make this world a better place.”

Self doubled down again, writing on social media “it is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female,ā€ citing President Donald Trump’s day-one executive order mandating that the federal government treat gender as a binary that cannot and does not deviate from one’s birth sex.

The policy is out of step with mainstream science and medicine, which recognizes that human biology is complex and one’s gender identity is often but not always linked to one’s sex at birth. Critics of the order have also noted that its narrow definitions for sex and gender exclude people who are born intersex, with a combination of male and female biological traits (genitals, chromosomes, hormones.)

“While there are some areas of active debate, scientists are in wide agreement that biological sex in humans as well as the rest of life on earth is much more complicated than a simple binary,” a biology professor said in a report published by the Washington Post last month.

ā€œItā€™s trying to explain away people,ā€ a health law professor told the paper, referring to the executive order. The administration, he added, wants “to try to present it as this extremely simple issue ā€” as if itā€™s really just one or the other, youā€™re male or youā€™re female.ā€

McBride’s historic election last year came as Trump and other Republicans were running on promises to enact increasingly extreme anti-trans legislation or policies, with GOP campaigns, spending $21.5 million on anti-trans ads, with much of that spend coming at the tail end o the 2024 cycle.

Transphobic attacks against the congresswoman, including from House Republicans, began before she was even seated. U.S. Reps. Nancy Mace of South Carolina and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia both misgendered her repeatedly while touting Mace’s proposal to prohibit trans women from using sex-segregated women’s bathrooms at the Capitol, publicly acknowledging that the move was intended to target McBride. More recently, U.S. Rep. Mary Miller of West Virginia misgendered her in February on the House floor.

When serving in the Delaware Senate, McBride was recognized for her successful sponsorship of a bill providing 12-week paid family and medical leave for workers, an issue that was central to her congressional campaign along with her focus on healthcare reform and is a key piece of her focus on reforming care infrastructure in Congress.

In cases where she has elected to address the cruel and bigoted attacks against her from GOP colleagues and others, McBride, has consistently tried to redirect attention towards her work on behalf of the constituents she serves, as seen in her post on Tuesday.

In January, McBride partnered with U.S. Rep. Young Kim (R-Calif.) on the first bill she introduced in Washington, which aims to protect consumers from scams in the credit repair industry.

Last week, the congresswoman joined her colleagues in reintroducing the bipartisan Protecting the Right to Organize Act, and together with other Democrats introduced the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act which, per a press release, would “restore and modernize the protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and prevent states with a history of voter discrimination from erecting new barriers to the ballot box.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular