Federal Government
LGBTQ federal workers face growing strain, fear of backsliding rights
Government shutdown began on Oct. 1
The federal government has been shut down since Oct. 1, marking the second-longest shutdown in American history. This is the third government shutdown under a Trump presidency.
Government shutdowns have become a somewhat normalized part of American governance. Their circumstances often vary, but the solution is always the same: Congress must appropriate the funding for the federal government.
At the heart of the current shutdown is a disagreement over healthcare: Democrats want to extend Medicaid and Affordable Care Act subsidies granted during COVID-19, while Republicans, with the Trump-Vance administration at the helm, argue these subsidies should expire to save money. The standoff has left millions at risk of losing coverage because they otherwise won’t be able to afford it.
As Congress fails to reach a decision on healthcare, roughly 4.5 million paychecks will be withheld from federal civilian employees. Additionally, 1.3 million active-duty personnel and over 750,000 National Guard and Reserve members are required to serve, potentially without pay, according to an Oct. 24 study by the Bipartisan Policy Center.
The Washington Blade spoke with two LGBTQ federal employees from different parts of the government to understand how the shutdown has disrupted their lives and added stress to an already uncertain future.
Both sources spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of retribution amid the current political climate surrounding federal employment and their sexuality. For LGBTQ federal employees, the stakes are often higher, as they must navigate not only financial and professional uncertainty but also a political environment that can threaten hard-won rights and recognition.
The first federal employee with whom the Blade spoke described the difficulty of focusing on work amid the chaos.
“I feel like I expected a certain amount of crazy with the shutdown, but I wasn’t quite ready for, as Steve Bannon said, ‘the muzzle velocity of all this’ — just how quickly they would implement things across the board,” they said. “That’s made it really hard to focus on any one issue, and I think even trans issues almost get buried under all the other things happening.”
They noted that the current shutdown differs from previous ones, in part because of the sheer number of concurrent crises and the quiet targeting of LGBTQ-related programs.
“Even the last shutdown felt huge, it galvanized the news, but this time there are so many other critical things happening at the same time — ICE kidnapping people, the Epstein files, changes in the LGBT space,” they said. “A lot of it happens quietly, under the radar, and it’s troubling.”
The employee also raised concerns about the slow erosion of government services and oversight, particularly in ways that affect LGBTQ representation and history.
“It’s scary how quickly some government agencies can be stripped of their oversight and history. Like the National Park Service scrubbing things off the Stonewall historic marker, or LGBT references from museum exhibits in the Smithsonian, or kicking drag queens and Pride events from the Kennedy Center,” they said. “I feel like there are so many things that would have been huge stories, but just because of how fast everything has happened, it’s allowed a lot of stuff to happen quietly under the radar that’s pretty troubling.”
Despite these challenges, they emphasized the dedication of federal workers, many of whom choose public service over higher-paying private-sector jobs.
“One of the coolest things about D.C. is meeting people who were top of their class, who could have gone into business for themselves, but instead chose to give back and do work that has an impact on the country,” they said. “There are so many people quietly doing fascinating, important work, and they want to keep doing that.”
The employee expressed frustration over the broken budget system, which adds to the instability of federal employment.
“The budgeting system is broken. No other country operates the way we do, and it creates constant uncertainty for federal workers,” they said. “If budgets continued automatically unless changed, we could plan multi-year projects and make government work more effectively.”
Despite the challenges, they stressed that federal workers’ contributions benefit real people, often in ways that go unnoticed.
“Most federal workers do not want to be the story. We want the story to be about real people whose lives are better because of our work. Even during a shutdown, the focus should not be on us, but on the services we provide and the impact we make,” they said.
The Blade also spoke with a second federal employee, who works with the military. They highlighted the personal and financial pressures that accompany a furlough.
“I’ve always worked with the military, and I don’t have a sense of purpose being here without my job … I also need my paycheck, obviously,” they said.
They described the toll the shutdown is taking on mental health — specifically the anxiety over housing costs and the uncertainty of back pay.
“I bought a house, and now I have a mortgage to pay, and I can’t pay it. This is my source of income. I got three months of forbearance on my mortgage, which is a huge relief, because that’s probably my biggest bill,” they said.
Being part of the LGBTQ community has offered some support — particularly from smaller groups and businesses providing free or reduced-cost meals, events, and drinks to federal employees. Many LGBTQ bars and restaurants have begun offering free drink hours in response to the shutdown, including Crush, Shaw’s Tavern, and Shakers. These discounts provide a few moments of relief, the first federal employee explained, but they don’t fully shield workers from the pressures of a shutdown.
“As an out gay federal employee, there’s a broad network of support within the LGBTQ community … I have access to those networks, and I might be better off than my straight counterparts because of that,” they said.
The second federal employee also voiced concern about political bargaining over federal pay and protections.
“It’s troubling to see lawyers in the administration argue that we may not be entitled to back pay, when we are guaranteed this by law,” they said. “I would like to see them not use our pay and our livelihoods as a bargaining chip for their political agenda.”
Reflecting on the broader implications, the employee tied the shutdown to historical challenges for LGBTQ people in federal service.
“I joined the military after ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ and now serve as a civilian in the same military … I’ve seen LGBT rights advance a lot in my lifetime,” they said. “I would hate to see that backslide and feel like I have to be concerned in my position … because of my sexuality.”
Another factor complicating the shutdown is the optics — both the visuals and rhetoric coming from the White House.
The Trump-Vance administration continues to push the narrative that Democrats alone are to blame, rather than acknowledging the broader lack of bipartisan cooperation. Coupled with the White House’s visible efforts to renovate and upgrade the presidential living quarters, it all carries a certain “let them eat cake” undertone.
“It’s heartbreaking to see the East Wing being demolished so quickly without process or public input, while other government workers are furloughed,” the second federal employee with whom the Blade spoke said. “It makes the White House feel like a commodity for sale, and it’s demoralizing for those who maintain it.”
“Seeing bulldozers funded by corporations plow through the White House grounds while National Park Service employees are furloughed is demoralizing,” they added. “It’s a very visual metaphor for what’s happening across the government: those entrusted to maintain it are out of work, while other interests move forward unchecked.”
They continued, explaining that unity — not division — is needed to do the type of work millions of federal employees perform every day.
“I can’t always tell who among my colleagues is conservative or liberal, and honestly, most people just want the government to work efficiently. Even conservatives, when they see potential improvements, want the government to deliver,” they said. “It’s the follow-through that really matters — the thousands of people slogging away doing the actual work.”
Federal Government
Holiday week brings setbacks for Trump-Vance trans agenda
Federal courts begin to deliver end-of-year responses to lawsuits involving federal transgender healthcare policy.
While many Americans took the week of Christmas to rest and relax, LGBTQ politics in the U.S. continued to shift. This week’s short recap of federal updates highlights two major blows to the Trump-Vance administration’s efforts to restrict gender-affirming care for minors.
19 states sue RFK Jr. to end gender-affirming care ban
New York Attorney General Letitia James announced on Tuesday that the NYAG’s office, along with 18 other states (and the District of Columbia), filed a lawsuit to stop U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from restricting gender-affirming care for minors.
In the press release, Attorney General James stressed that the push by the Trump-Vance administration’s crusade against the transgender community — specifically transgender youth — is a “clear overreach by the federal government” and relies on conservative and medically unvalidated practices to “punish providers who adhere to well-established, evidence-based care” that support gender-affirming care.
“At the core of this so-called declaration are real people: young people who need care, parents trying to support their children, and doctors who are simply following the best medical evidence available,” said Attorney General James. “Secretary Kennedy cannot unilaterally change medical standards by posting a document online, and no one should lose access to medically necessary health care because their federal government tried to interfere in decisions that belong in doctors’ offices. My office will always stand up for New Yorkers’ health, dignity, and right to make medical decisions free from intimidation.”
The lawsuit is a direct response to HHS’ Dec. 18 announcement that it will pursue regulatory changes that would make gender-affirming health care for transgender children more difficult, if not impossible, to access. It would also restrict federal funding for any hospital that does not comply with the directive. KFF, an independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism, found that in 2023 federal funding covered nearly 45% of total spending on hospital care in the U.S.
The HHS directive stems directly from President Donald Trump’s Jan. 28 Executive Order, Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation, which formally establishes U.S. opposition to gender-affirming care and pledges to end federal funding for such treatments.
The American Medical Association, the nation’s largest and most influential physician organization, has repeatedly opposed measures like the one pushed by President Trump’s administration that restrict access to trans health care.
“The AMA supports public and private health insurance coverage for treatment of gender dysphoria and opposes the denial of health insurance based on sexual orientation or gender identity,” a statement on the AMA’s website reads. “Improving access to gender-affirming care is an important means of improving health outcomes for the transgender population.”
The lawsuit also names Oregon, Washington, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin as having joined New York in the push against restricting gender-affirming care.
At the HHS news conference last Thursday, Jim O’Neill, deputy secretary of the department, asserted, “Men are men. Men can never become women. Women are women. Women can never become men.”
DOJ stopped from gaining health care records of trans youth
U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon blocked an attempt by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to gain “personally identifiable information about those minor transgender patients” from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), saying the DOJ’s efforts “fly in the face of the Supreme Court.”
Journalist Chris Geidner originally reported the news on Dec. 25, highlighting that the Western District of Pennsylvania judge’s decision is a major blow to the Trump-Vance administration’s agenda to curtail transgender rights.
“[T]his Court joins the others in finding that the government’s demand for deeply private and personal patient information carries more than a whiff of ill intent,” Bissoon wrote in her ruling. “This is apparent from its rhetoric.”
Bissoon cited the DOJ’s “incendiary characterization” of trans youth care on the DOJ website as proof, which calls the practice politically motivated rather than medically sound and seeks to “…mutilate children in the service of a warped ideology.” This is despite the fact that a majority of gender-affirming care has nothing to do with surgery.
In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court ruled along party lines that states — namely Tennessee — have the right to pass legislation that can prohibit certain medical treatments for transgender minors, saying the law is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it does not involve suspect categories like race, national origin, alienage, and religion, which would require the government to show the law serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored, sending decision-making power back to the states.
“The government cannot pick and choose the aspects of Skrmetti to honor, and which to ignore,” Judge Bissoon added.
The government argued unsuccessfully that the parents of the children whose records would have been made available to the DOJ “lacked standing” because the subpoena was directed at UPMC and that they did not respond in a timely manner. Bissoon rejected the timeliness argument in particular as “disingenuous.”
Bissoon, who was nominated to the bench by then-President Obama, is at least the fourth judge to reject the DOJ’s attempted intrusion into the health care of trans youth according to Geidner.
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.
D.C.’s 10 best theater productions of 2025
A look back at the best books of 2025
A dangerous precedent on trans rights in Texas
Top 10 international LGBTQ news stories of 2025
A pledge to keep fighting in 2026
How to cope when a partner gives you the silent treatment
The 25 greatest queer movies of the 21st century so far
Top 10 LGBTQ local news stories of 2025
Kazakh president signs anti-LGBTQ propaganda bill
