Federal Government
EXCLUSIVE: Trump admin blocks $1.25 million in LGBTQ, DEI grants, which may violate federal law
‘A separation of powers issue,’ that raises questions about Impoundment Control Act
The Trump administration has withheld $1.25 million in congressionally appropriated funds from 20 organizations focused on projects related to LGBTQ and other underrepresented groups in a move that may violate federal law, according to multiple sources.
The National Park Service in January publicly announced the grants, noting that Congress created the Underrepresented Communities Grant Program in 2014 and that it “has provided $8.25 million to State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, Certified Local Governments, and nonprofit organizations to expand the National Register of Historic Places through historic surveys and nominations.”
The 2025 grants included three for LGBTQ-related projects.
But within days of that NPS announcement, President Trump took office and signed executive orders halting all federal grants for review by a newly created agency, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Its mission: to root out diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and purge what Trump has called “woke” programs from the federal government.
Among the funding now frozen is money for the National Park Service. Established more than a century ago by President Woodrow Wilson, the NPS was tasked with preserving the nation’s natural and cultural resources “for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.”
The Recognizing Historic Underrepresented Communities initiative was meant to provide long-overdue support for projects highlighting marginalized communities whose histories had often been ignored. Funding was approved for 20 projects across 17 states and D.C.
Officials from the three organizations focused on LGBTQ-related work confirmed to the Blade that they have not received a penny of their grants — or even heard from NPS about when, or if, the money will arrive. In Washington, D.C., the Preservation League was awarded $75,000 to document LGBTQ+ historic resources in the city. In Providence, R.I., the Preservation Society was slated for $74,692 to conduct an LGBTQ+ survey and prepare a National Register nomination. And in New York, the Fund for the City of New York, Inc., was awarded $32,000 to nominate the residence of Bayard Rustin — the iconic civil rights and LGBTQ activist — as a National Historic Landmark.
If these congressionally appropriated funds are not dispersed by Sept. 30 — the end of the fiscal year — the move would appear to violate the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. One expert on the issue told the Blade that the deadline has already passed because it takes time for the government to distribute funds.
Rebecca Miller, executive director of the D.C. Preservation League, saw funds withheld for LGBTQ-related historical recognition — $75,000 that she called a “tremendous grant.”
“A number of years ago, around 2017, the DC Historic Preservation Office received a grant to do a historic context study, which basically documents the history of the gay movement in D.C.,” Miller told the Blade. “[The historic context study] lays out the groundwork for further identification of spaces that are significant under that particular historic context.”
Some of the landmarks mentioned in that $1.25 million grant included well-known institutions that have supported the D.C. LGBTQ community for decades.
“Specific designated landmarks in D.C. that came out of the context study [include] the Furies collective, the Kameny house, the Slowe-Burrill House, and Annie’s Steakhouse is also designated,” she added.
Those significant locations are integral to understanding LGBTQ history not only in the city but the nation as well, Miller said.
“You can’t tell the nation’s history without telling everyone’s history, and I think in Washington in particular, our grant was supported by Capital Pride and SMYAL, two of the foremost LGBTQ organizations in the city, and it would really be a disappointment to all of us if we can’t continue on with these types of projects.”
“I think D.C. is an inclusive environment, and our goal is to tell the full story of the history of the city of Washington, and you can’t do that without this particular group that’s been so important to its history,” Miller added.
Dr. Marisa Angell Brown, executive director of the Providence Preservation Society, told the Blade the organization received notice that it was chosen for a grant — and then nothing.
“We had a notification of an award, but there was no fund transfer,” Brown said. “With the NPS, that email just never came. And as we were emailing the contact people to ask for more information … it was just silence.”
Brown explained that the funding was going to be used to gain a better understanding of the robust queer history of Providence.
“Basically, what we were going to be able to do was hire a consulting historian to, for the very first time, produce a survey of sites that are associated with LGBTQ+ history in the broadest sense in the city of Providence.”
She added that by withholding the funding specifically for LGBTQ-related projects, the Trump administration is attempting to selectively choose the history it wants to be remembered and preserved.
“What preservation really is is a kind of decision making about whose history deserves space and resources, and so a lot of the history of preservation has been preserving sites that are associated mostly with white men,” Brown said. “I absolutely think that these kinds of moves are direct attempts to curtail civil rights. … Good history contributes to the expansion of civil rights, and that is what we were hoping to do with this project.”
Other groups also confirmed they had not received the funding, including the Diocese of Georgia and the City of Denton, Texas.
Ken Lustbader, co-founder of the NYC LGBT Historic Sites Project, said it also has not heard anything from the National Park Service.
“I know that we were awarded on paper, but I don’t have a contract,” Lustbader told the Blade. “The fund doesn’t have a contract at this point.”
Walter Naegle, Bayard Rustin’s longtime partner, told the Blade he was not aware of the grant application and that his emails to the organization about the status of the grant have not been returned.
Robert L. Glicksman, a law professor at George Washington University, said without notifying Congress of a recommendation to change the grants — and a subsequent passage of legislation to reappropriate the funding — this might constitute a violation of the Constitution.
“The president has no inherent authority to refuse to spend funds appropriated by Congress,” Glicksman said. “Congress has the control of the purse under Article I of the Constitution. Any attempt by the president to ignore congressional instructions to spend funds presents a separation of powers issue.”
He added that if the Trump administration is doing this without complying with the law, the implications are serious.
“If he is just doing this without complying with the procedures of the Impoundment Control Act, it seems to me it’s an exercise of authority that’s outside his powers in Article II of the Constitution, and it’s infringing on Congress’s Article I power of the purse.”
“If the president is unilaterally refusing to spend money that a statute requires the executive branch to use, that’s a separation of powers problem,” Glicksman said. “It’s the president usurping power that the Constitution delegates to the legislative branch and not the executive branch.”
He also pointed to the broader stakes of Trump’s move.
“What seems to be going on here is the president’s determination that he knows better about what federal money should be spent on than Congress does. He just doesn’t have the prerogative to make that determination.”
And on why these particular grants matter: “The fact that these properties are all supposed to be dedicated to historical acknowledgments of past improper treatment of minorities and underserved communities seems to me to at least arguably indicate this ideological cast to the decision to not spend these particular funds.”
The Blade reached out to the National Park Service for comment on the status of the grant funds. The agency responded with a short email: “Pending financial assistance obligations are under review for compliance with recent executive orders and memoranda.”
Trump’s second violation of Impoundment law?
The concept of checks and balances has been central to the United States federal government since the Constitution’s creation — born out of the founders’ determination to guard against a king, or an oligarchy, taking hold. But the Trump administration is chipping away at the institutions designed to uphold those checks, as the Blade uncovered, by withholding payments to agencies that support ideas it doesn’t like.
In Federalist No. 51, written by James Madison in 1788, he laid out the system clearly: the legislative branch creates laws, the executive executes them, and the judiciary interprets them. To prevent tyranny, the founders layered in limits on each branch’s powers, hoping to make it impossible for any one leader to impose their will unchecked.
Anyone who sat through civics class might recall one of Congress’s most important roles: the power of the purse. Raising money through taxes and deciding how it gets spent falls squarely on lawmakers — with occasional oversight from the Supreme Court when disputes arise.
That idea appeared again in Federalist No. 78, in which Alexander Hamilton described Congress as holding “the will,” the executive “force,” and the judiciary “merely judgment.” The “will,” Hamilton explained, meant not only making laws but financing them.
That balance was tested in the 20th century. President Richard Nixon, like Trump decades later, began impounding — or withholding — funds that had been explicitly allocated by Congress but clashed with his own views. In response, Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, making it illegal for any president to block congressionally approved funding except under very narrow circumstances.
Trump ran into this law before. In 2019, he attempted to withhold congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine unless its government agreed to investigate his political rivals, most notably Hunter Biden, the son of then–Vice President Joe Biden. That decision triggered Trump’s first impeachment trial, which became less about the law and more about Republican loyalty to the president.
Fast forward to 2025 and Trump is at it again, this time targeting domestic programs.
Federal Government
HHS ‘peer-reviewed’ report calls gender-affirming care for trans youth dangerous
Advocates denounce document as ‘sham science’
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.”
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.
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.
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.”
-
District of Columbia4 days agoNew LGBTQ bar Rush set to debut
-
Opinions4 days agoMTG should keep up the pressure on Trump, MAGA
-
Eswatini5 days agoPEPFAR delivers first doses of groundbreaking HIV prevention drug to two African countries
-
a&e features4 days agoGuillermo Diaz on his role as a queer, Latino actor in Hollywood
