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
Todd Blanche’s record on LGBTQ issues comes under scrutiny as he takes over DOJ
Blanche was confirmed by the Republican controlled Senate 50-49.
Todd Blanche, President Trump’s former personal lawyer, was sworn in as attorney general of the United States on Monday.
Blanche secured the position as the country’s 88th chief law enforcement officer on Sunday night after a contentious Senate confirmation process, ultimately ending with a 50-49 vote in his favor. All Democrats, as well as Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, voted against him.
The confirmation hearing — and subsequent vote — brought questions surrounding Blanche’s credibility and integrity, as well as concerns about Trump’s ethical dilemmas surrounding cronyism, to the forefront.
The attorney general acts as the head of the Department of Justice, responsible for enforcing federal laws, representing the U.S. in court, and advising the president.
Blanche has a long history in Washington, beginning when he attended American University for his undergraduate education, like fellow former Trump attorney Michael Cohen. He began his legal career as an intern in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, which eventually became a full-time position.
That job eventually led him to work as a paralegal in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York while attending Brooklyn Law School at night. Blanche graduated cum laude in 2003.
Blanche left the public sector in 2014, taking a job in the Manhattan office of the law firm WilmerHale. In September 2017, he moved to Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, where he was a partner in the White Collar Defense and Investigations practice.
There, Blanche represented several figures associated with President Donald Trump, including former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort.
In 2024, Blanche switched from Democrat to Republican and moved from New York City to Palm Beach, Fla., where he would be closer to Trump’s primary legal residence at Mar-a-Lago.
He then served as Trump’s personal defense attorney in the New York state case that led to Trump’s 2024 conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up hush-money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels.
While serving as acting head of the Department of Justice before his official confirmation, Blanche played a central role in overseeing the department and was involved in leadership decisions tied to several controversial actions affecting LGBTQ people.
One of the first issues was transgender rights and gender-affirming care, particularly for minors — an issue the White House and Republican Party have made a key part of their broader cultural agenda and federal policy efforts.
In a letter to New York Attorney General Letitia James, Blanche declared that the Justice Department “will not sit idly by while you attempt to use your office to force harmful procedures on our most vulnerable population.”
The letter came before NYU Langone ended its gender-affirming care at the behest of the president, forcing the hospital system to stop prescribing puberty blockers and hormones to minors.
The hospital’s change in policy came after the Trump-Vance administration threatened to pull all federal funding if it continued providing the care.
Blanche wrote that “the Justice Department believes the law is clear, and anti-discrimination laws cannot be used to force NYU Langone to perform sex-rejecting procedures on children.”
“As just one example, your office’s position would require a hospital to prescribe certain medications for certain diagnoses, regardless of the hospital’s or its doctors’ independent medical determination about the propriety of such treatment,” he continued in the letter.
In addition to his anti-transgender positions, Blanche also echoed his predecessor, Pam Bondi, in taking a public stance on limiting LGBTQ-related protections at the federal level.
He aligned with Bondi’s sentiments in June 2025 regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision that restricted LGBTQ history lessons in schools and limited lower federal courts from issuing nationwide injunctions — rulings that have often blocked Trump administration policies.
Blanche called it “another great decision that came down today,” arguing the ruling “restores parents’ rights to decide their child’s education.”
“It took the Supreme Court to set the record straight, and we thank them for that,” he said. “Now that ruling allows parents to opt out of dangerous trans ideology and make the decisions for their children that they believe is correct.”
In December 2025, a Justice Department memo stated that, “effective immediately,” prisons and jails would no longer be held responsible for violations of standards meant to protect LGBTQ people from harassment, abuse and rape under the Prison Rape Elimination Act.
The law, passed unanimously by Congress in 2003, requires that incarcerated people be screened for their risk of sexual assault, including consideration of LGBTQ status, and applies to all correctional facilities.
Additionally, when the Justice Department, under Blanche’s deputy leadership and at Trump’s behest, attempted to force Children’s National Hospital in D.C. to turn over medical records related to gender-affirming care, U.S. District Judge Julie R. Rubin ruled that the effort “appears to have no purpose other than to intimidate and harass.”
Blanche also faced scrutiny over a slew of other issues surrounding his leadership during his tenure as acting AG.
The Justice Connection, a watchdog organization that works to protect current and former civil servants working in the U.S. Department of Justice, called his work so far “devastating.”
The organization said Blanche “harmed the department’s workforce, advanced the politicization of the department, undermined the rule of law, and threatened public safety.”
The group cited several issues, including what it described as Blanche minimizing the violent reality of the January 6 insurrection led by Trump supporters; investigating and attempting to prosecute President Trump’s perceived political enemies; the botched release of the Epstein Files to Congress and the public, including the release of victim and witness details and censorship surrounding the scope of Trump’s relationship with the convicted sex trafficker and pedophile; and the expansion of federal immigration enforcement in Minnesota which lead to the death of two U.S. citizens by federal officials.
Sharon McGowan, senior vice president of Policy & Litigation at the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy group in the country, provided a statement to the Blade about Blanche’s confirmation calling it “chilling.”
“The last thing Todd Blanche deserves is a promotion,” McGowan said via email. “For months, Blanche has used his position as Acting Attorney General to advance President Trump’s personal and financial interests and to weaponize the Justice Department against the President’s enemies, whether they be transgender kids or civil rights organizations trying to help people vote. His notion of justice is warped and dangerous, and LGBTQ+ Americans deserve better.”
Federal Government
Trump holds housing bill hostage to anti-trans SAVE Act
President’s SAVE Act failed in the Senate
President Donald Trump is refusing to sign a new bipartisan housing bill unless his SAVE Act is approved by the legislative branch.
The bill being prevented from being enacted into law is the “21st Century ROAD to Housing Act.” The legislation is an attempt by Congress to make buying a home in the U.S. Senate more affordable in response to various factors — including housing shortages and regulatory constraints — that have made homeownership increasingly difficult. The total number of homeowners has nearly stopped growing, with high interest rates and surging home prices pushing more Americans toward renting.
The housing bill was considered highly bipartisan, something that is rare in this Congress. The House voted to pass the bill 358-32 on Tuesday after the Senate approved the measure 85-5 a day earlier. The legislation was led by U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.) in the Senate and U.S. Reps. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and French Hill (R-Ark.) in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Some of the highlights of the legislation are aimed at increasing the supply of affordable housing while making homeownership more accessible. The bill would streamline environmental reviews and direct the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide guidance to communities on reforming zoning and land-use policies that can create barriers to housing development.
The legislation would also expand the definition of “manufactured housing,” making it cheaper and easier to mass-produce homes built in factories before being transported to their sites. To encourage additional development, the bill would provide grants and loans for the construction of new housing, the rehabilitation of aging properties, and the conversion of vacant buildings into residential units. It would also increase certain banks’ Public Welfare Investment cap, allowing them to direct more capital toward low-income and affordable housing projects.
In an effort to help more Americans purchase homes, the legislation would create a program to expand access to small-dollar mortgages, which are often used to finance lower-cost homes, while also seeking to improve housing opportunities for veterans. The bill would further promote homeownership by limiting the number of single-family homes that large institutional investors can own and requiring them to disclose how many such properties they control, a measure intended to prioritize American families over corporate buyers.
The bill the president wants enacted — the SAVE Act — is a restrictive and anti-transgender piece of proposed legislation.
The bill would impose a number of new limitations on voter registration across the country by amending the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require in-person proof of citizenship for anyone seeking to vote in U.S. elections. The bill would also limit acceptable forms of identification to documents such as a birth certificate or passport — records that the Brennan Center for Justice estimates more than 21 million Americans do not possess — effectively restricting access to the ballot. It would also ban online voter registration, DMV voter registration efforts, and mail-in voter registration.
Trump pushed for the SAVE Act to include a provision that would ban gender-affirming medical care for trans minors, even with parental consent, and prohibit trans people from participating in school or professional sports consistent with their gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth.
Trump also pressed Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) to eliminate the filibuster so the Republican-controlled Congress could pass the SAVE Act, saying Republicans will never win another election without it.
It is expected that Congress will override the president’s veto and pass the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, as it requires a two-thirds supermajority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate — a threshold the legislation currently exceeds.
It is not expected that the SAVE Act will pass the Senate in its current form. It passed the House, but every Democrat and four Republicans voted against it in the Senate.
Federal Government
Advocates push back on proposed FCC warning labels
New rating system public notice seeking comments issued on April 22
The Federal Communications Commission is considering a new rating system that would require a warning label to appear before any television content that includes LGBTQ characters.
On April 22, the FCC issued a public notice asking Americans to submit comments on whether the TV Oversight Management Board should create new TV ratings to alert viewers to “transgender and gender nonbinary programming” and “the discussion or promotion of gender identity themes.”
This proposed warning would appear before content, similar to warnings that explain a program contains sexual content, drug use, or violence — categories that Congress explicitly included in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 on the grounds of obscenity and violence that some parents “believe is harmful to their children.”
The public notice says that “recently, parents have raised concerns that controversial gender identity issues are being included or promoted in children’s programs without providing any disclosure or transparency to parents.”
It goes on to say that not having a warning for trans and nonbinary people is “undermining the ability of parents to make informed choices for their families.”
LGBT Tech is an organization that works to provide LGBTQ representation in mainstream media or entertainment. The group notes 81 percent of trans respondents it surveyed said these representations had a positive impact on them discovering or learning about their identity.
“These numbers reflect a basic truth: for many people, and especially young people, seeing LGBTQ+ lives represented in ordinary media is not harmful. It is formative, affirming, and often lifesaving.”
Since the public notice’s publication, more than 40 organizations have come out against the proposed alert.
GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis issued a statement in May on the proposal, highlighting what she described as a concerted effort by the Trump-Vance administration to other trans and nonbinary people.
“The FCC does not set TV ratings, but under this administration the FCC has repeatedly tried to control what Americans can see on their own televisions. This government overreach is dangerous and a threat to our community and our democracy,” Ellis said.
“LGBTQ+ people and their families deserve to see their lives represented in the media they watch. And media companies must have the freedom to create programming that appeals to their viewers and subscribers without interference from a government pursuing its own anti-LGBTQ+ political agenda.”
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson pointed out that this is an act of politically motivated policy, not one based on any rhyme or reason.
“LGBTQ+ stories matter and deserve to be told, seen, and heard,” Robinson said. “The Trump administration does not get to use the FCC to try and erase us simply because they want to pretend to live in a world where we don’t exist. This is a brazen form of political interference that will hurt the ability of all people to appreciate, understand, and learn about the world and people around them.”
Brian Dittmeier, director of LGBTQI+ equality at the National Women’s Law Center Action Fund, echoed Robinson’s concerns that this is attempted censorship for the sake of political gain.
“The FCC is cloaking itself in purported concern for parents in an attempt to censor content, intimidate industry, and silence depictions of our trans siblings and neighbors,” Dittmeier wrote. “The FCC is overstepping its authority to undermine the existing ratings system, which is well understood by parents and enjoys broad public support. The FCC’s presumption that it knows better does not reflect parents’ priorities and reeks of government overreach.”
PFLAG National Vice President of Policy and Government Affairs Diego Sanchez said this is federal government overreach into censorship — something the First Amendment protects against.
“The FCC has given us yet another example of what ‘small government’ means: small enough to fit in your living room; to interrupt family movie night; small enough to make home feel unsafe,” Sanchez said. “Parents and families with transgender loved ones in particular know too well how big government actions impact their families directly, because they feel those impacts before everyone else.”
This proposed warning follows a slew of other federal actions targeting trans people in America, including Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which mandated that only sex assigned at birth be used on federal government documents regardless of gender identity, as well as broad-based restrictions on gender-affirming care, particularly for trans minors.
2 former NBA players launch cheap anti-trans stunt to exploit WNBA rules
Same-sex couples challenges India income tax law
HISTORIC: Susan Stewart elected Rehoboth’s first out mayor
Todd Blanche’s record on LGBTQ issues comes under scrutiny as he takes over DOJ
Don’t miss summer productions at Clear Space in Rehoboth Beach
Calendar: August 7-13
Greg Araki still wants your sex
Insured on paper, excluded in practice
Mr. Henry’s to host 60th anniversary party
