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.”
Federal Government
DOE investigates Smith College’s trans-inclusive policy
Mass. college accused of violating Title IX
The U.S. Department of Education announced on Monday that it opened an investigation into Smith College for admitting transgender women.
Smith College, a private and famously all-women’s college in Northampton, Mass., established in 1871 and opened in 1875, has a long list of women who make up its historic alumni — including first ladies, influential political figures, and cultural leaders.
The DOE released a statement about the investigation into the institution through the Department’s Office for Civil Rights, saying it was looking into the possibility that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 was violated by allowing trans women, referred to in the statement as “biological males,” into women’s intimate spaces protected by IX.
The statement explicitly highlighted that this stems from trans women being granted “access to women-only spaces, including dormitories, bathrooms, locker rooms, and athletic teams” while also allowing their audience into the school itself.
This is the first time the Trump-Vance administration has taken a step into admissions processes, a stark jump past investigating policies that allowed trans women to participate in women’s sports and use women’s bathrooms, and allows for the administration to go more after trans acceptance policy as a whole.
Smith’s admission policy allows for “any applicants who self-identify as women,” including “cis, trans, and nonbinary women,” according to the college’s website, and has since 2015, when it updated its policy.
“The college is fully committed to its institutional values, including compliance with civil rights laws,” Smith’s statement in response to the DOE’s investigation said. “The college does not comment on pending government investigations.”
“An all-women’s college loses all meaning if it is admitting biological males,” said Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey. “Allowing biological males into spaces designed for women raises serious concerns about privacy, fairness, and compliance under federal law. The Trump administration will continue to uphold the law and fight to restore common sense.”
This move continues to align with actions the Trump-Vance administration has taken to curtail LGBTQ — and specifically trans — rights in America, as members of the administration attempt to break down safeguards and protections that have long been used to protect marginalized communities.
Since Trump took office in his second term, there have been significant legal challenges. According to the National LGBTQ+ Bar Association, there are over 35 court cases that have emerged since his second swearing-in that directly relate to the administration’s attempts to minimize the rights and protections of trans Americans — from medical care and educational protections to military policy.
Much of this anti-trans policy direction was outlined beginning in 2022 with the Project 2025 playbook, which Trump officials have used as a guide to scale back protections for LGBTQ people, Black Americans, poor and Indigenous communities, while also increasing costs for lower-income Americans and providing tax cuts to the wealthy and ultra-wealthy. The plans also “erode” Americans’ freedoms and remove crucial checks and balances that have allowed the executive branch to remain in line with the Constitution without becoming too powerful over either the courts or the legislative branch.
Federal Government
Republicans attach five anti-LGBTQ riders to State Department funding bill
Spending package would restrict Pride flags on federal buildings, trans healthcare, LGBTQ envoys
As Congress finalizes its funding for fiscal year 2027, Republicans are attempting to include five anti-LGBTQ riders in the National Security and Department of State Appropriations Act.
A rider is an unrelated provision tacked onto a bill that must pass — in this instance, the bill provides funding for national security policy and for the State Department.
The riders range from restricting Pride flags in federal buildings to banning transgender healthcare, but all aim to limit the visibility and rights of LGBTQ Americans.
The five riders are:
Section 7067(a) prohibits Pride flags from being flown over federal buildings.
Section 7067(c) restricts the United States’ ability to appoint special envoys, representatives, or coordinators unless expressly authorized by Congress. These roles have historically been used to promote U.S. interests in international forums — including advancing human and LGBTQ and intersex rights and other policy priorities. The change would halt what the Congressional Equality Caucus describes as providing “critical expertise to U.S. foreign policy and leadership abroad.”
Section 7067(d) reinforces multiple anti-equality executive orders signed by President Donald Trump, effectively requiring that foreign assistance funded by the United States comply with those orders. This includes rescinding federal contractor nondiscrimination protections, including for LGBTQ people.
Section 7067(e) prohibits funding for any organization that provides or promotes medically necessary healthcare for trans people or “promotes transgenderism” — effectively banning funds for organizations that recognize trans people exist. This is despite the practice of gender-affirming care being supported by nearly every major medical association.
Section 7067(g) reinforces two global gag rules put forward by the Trump-Vance administration. One is the Trans Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign assistance funding for organizations that acknowledge the existence of trans people or advocate for nondiscrimination protections for them, among other activities. The second is the DEI Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign assistance funding for organizations that engage in efforts to address the ongoing effects of racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry outside the United States.
The global gag rule has its roots in anti-abortion policy introduced by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, when the 40th president barred foreign organizations receiving U.S. global health assistance from providing information, referrals, or services for legal abortion, or from advocating for access to abortion services in their own countries. Planned Parenthood notes that the policy also affects programs beyond abortion, including efforts to expand access to contraception, prevent and treat HIV/AIDS, combat malaria, and improve maternal and child health.
If organizations funded by the State Department engage in these activities, they could lose funding.
This anti-LGBTQ push aligns with broader actions from the Trump-Vance administration since the start of Trump’s second term, which have focused on restricting human rights — particularly those of trans Americans.
The House Appropriations Committee is responsible for drafting the appropriations legislation. U.S. Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) serves as chair, with U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) as ranking member. The committee includes 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.
For FY27 appropriations, Congress is supposed to pass and have the president sign the funding bills by Sept. 30, 2026.
Federal Government
House Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
Measures would restrict federal funding for LGBTQ-affirming schools
Republicans have been gaining ground in reshaping education policy to be less inclusive toward LGBTQ students at the state level, and now they are turning their focus to Capitol Hill.
Some GOP lawmakers are pushing for a nationwide “Don’t Say Gay” and “Don’t say Trans” bill, doubling down on their commitment to being the party of “traditional family values” by excluding anyone who does not identify with their sex at birth.
The largest anti-LGBTQ education legislation to reach the House chamber is Bill 2616 — the Parental Rights Over the Education and Care of Their Kids Act, or the PROTECT Kids Act. The PROTECT Kids Act, proposed by U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), and co-sponsored by U.S. Reps. Burgess Owens (R-Utah), Mary Miller (R-Ill.), Robert Onder (R-Mo.), and Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.), would require any public elementary and middle schools that receive federal funding to require parental consent to change a child’s gender expression in school.
The bill, which was discussed during Tuesday’s House Rules Committee hearing, would specifically require any schools that get federal money from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 — which was created to minimize financial discrepancies in education for low-income students — to get parental approval before identifying any child’s gender identity as anything other than what was provided to the school initially. This includes getting approval before allowing children to use their preferred locker room or bathroom.
It reads that any school receiving this funding “shall obtain parental consent before changing a covered student’s (1) gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form; or (2) sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms.”
LGBTQ rights advocates have criticized both national and state efforts to require parental permission for a child to use their preferred gender identity, arguing it raises serious at-home safety concerns — especially in non-LGBTQ-affirming households — and could lead to the outing of transgender or gender-curious students.
The bill has since been combined with another measure, H.R.2617 – Say No to Indoctrination Act which would prohibit the use of federal funding to “advance concepts related to gender ideology,” using the definition outlined in President Donald Trump’s 2025 Executive Order 14168. This would codify that definition of sex into law, rather than leaving it solely as an executive order. A companion measure with the same text is also making its way through the Senate as Senate Bill 2251.
Advocates have also criticized this follow-up legislation, as it would restrict school staff — including teachers and counselors — from acknowledging trans students’ identities or providing any support. They have said that this kind of isolation can worsen mental health outcomes for LGBTQ youth and allows for education to be politicized rather than being based in reality.
David Stacy, the Human Rights Campaign’s vice president of government affairs, called this legislation out for using LGBTQ children as political pawns in an ideology fight — one that could greatly harm the safety of these children if passed.
“Trans kids are not a political agenda — they are students who deserve safety and affirmation at school like anyone else,” Stacy said in a statement. “Despite the many pressing issues facing our nation, House Republicans continue their bizarre obsession with trans people. H.R. 2616 does not protect children. It targets them. This bill is cruel, and we’re prepared to fight it.”
This is similar to Florida House Bills 1557 and 1069, referred to as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill and “Don’t Say They” bill, respectively, restricting classroom discussions on sexual orientation and gender identity, prohibiting the use of pronouns consistent with one’s gender identity, expanding book banning procedures, and censoring health curriculum.
The American Civil Liberties Union is tracking 233 bills related to restricting student and educator rights in the U.S.
Comings & Goings
Learn more about queer love
Calendar: May 8-14
Va. Supreme Court invalidates Democrat-backed redistricting plan
Maren Morris to headline Capital Pride Concert
Diverse cast tackles ‘Aguardiente’ at GALA Hispanic Theatre
Under new extremism laws, LGBTQ Russians must fight to survive
How do you vote a child out of their future?
Gay ICE detainee freed after 150 days in detention
