National
Has the gay agenda been shelved?
Further action on LGBT bills looking less likely this Congress
On the long-stalled Employment Non-Discrimination Act, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank said ‘we’re still trying to figure out a way to get that done.’ (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
The limited time remaining in the legislative calendar for this Congress is raising questions about whether lawmakers will pass any further pro-LGBT bills before year’s end — and whether it will be politically feasible to pass such bills next year.
Congress advanced LGBT-related legislation last year when it passed hate crimes protections. This year, a measure that would lead to repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” seems likely to reach President Obama’s desk.
Still, some LGBT activists and voters are frustrated that Congress has taken no action to advance the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Supporters of the legislation have said several times a vote was imminent, but no such action has yet been taken.
Other pending measures include the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act, which would allow LGBT federal workers to receive spousal benefits for their same-sex partners, as well as the Uniting American Families Act and repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Further complicating the situation is the specter of reduced Democratic majorities in the next Congress — or even a Republican takeover — and whether measures unaddressed this year would be viable in 2011.
Despite the limited time remaining this year, some LGBT rights supporters are hopeful that Congress will move forward with additional legislation. U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), a gay lawmaker and House sponsor of ENDA, expressed optimism about the bill passing the House this year.
“That’s going to be next thing we’ll turn our attention to,” Frank said. “We have the speaker’s support and we’re still trying to figure out a way to get that done.”
The scheduling for a House vote on ENDA remains an issue. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi earlier told the Blade that a House vote on ENDA wouldn’t occur until Congress finishes legislative action on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Drew Hammill, a Pelosi spokesperson, said ENDA remains “a top priority for the speaker,” but a vote on the bill before work on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is complete “jeopardizes both initiatives.”
“Until then, we should encourage the Senate to develop a course for ENDA to ensure that when the House passes the legislation, the Senate can move quickly to send the legislation to the president’s desk,” Hammill said.
Frank said efforts toward repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” displaced ENDA in the batting order for Congress because the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill came to lawmakers before a vote could happen on ENDA.
“If the defense authorization hadn’t come up earlier, we might have been able to do ENDA first,” he said.
Frank noted that he thinks the votes exist in the House to pass a trans-inclusive ENDA, but he wouldn’t give a timetable for when the legislation would move forward in Congress because he didn’t want to tip off opponents of the bill.
Michael Cole, a Human Rights Campaign spokesperson, said a House vote on ENDA is among the pro-LGBT items his organization has pressed for in the time remaining in this year’s legislative calendar.
“We’re certainly interested in seeing the House take a vote on ENDA,” Cole said. “We’ve been advocating for that for a long time, and as recess comes, we’ll be doing a lot of work to make sure our members are getting in touch with members of Congress to push for a vote on it.”
But if the House manages to pass ENDA this year, getting the legislation through the Senate remains a significant challenge. Sources have said 60 votes are lacking in the Senate to overcome a filibuster on the legislation. Also, because the Senate allows non-germane amendments, opponents of the bill could attach additional measures in an attempt to block its passage.
Still, Frank said he believes passage of ENDA in the Senate remains a possibility.
“If you ask them if they think they can pass it, they’ll say ‘no,’ so the important thing to do is for us [in the House] to try [to] pass it and send it over there, so they can’t just avoid it,” Frank said.
Activists also foresee a possibility of passing the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act before year’s end.
Cole said the legislation, as well as the Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act, which would eliminate the tax penalty paid on employer-provided health insurance for domestic partners, could be made part of upcoming omnibus authorization or appropriations bills.
“We’re following what the plans appear to be on the Hill to see how we might be able to get those pieces of legislation [advanced] as part of them,” Cole said.
Frank also acknowledged the possibility of passing the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act and said that legislation is “in serious conversation.”
Still, Frank noted the bill comes with a price tag — estimated at one time by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management to be $56 million a year — and that concerns associated with raising the federal deficit may cause problems in passing the bill.
Frank said finding a way to offset the legislation’s cost remains an issue for the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act and “we have to find a way to pay for that.”
Whatever progress this Congress makes on passing pro-LGBT bills, recent polls are casting doubts on whether enough Democratic lawmakers will retain their seats next Congress to pass such bills.
Several recent polls have shown considerable opposition toward Democrats and the Obama administration as persistent unemployment and concerns about government spending linger across the country.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs gained media attention and inspired consternation among Democratic House members when, during an appearance earlier this month on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” he said Republicans could regain control of the House.
“I think people are going to have a choice to make in the fall,” Gibbs said. “But I think there’s no doubt there are enough seats in play that could cause Republicans to gain control. There’s no doubt about that.”
Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, is projecting that Republicans will win seven seats in the Senate and 32 seats in House after the election.
Because of this potential shift, Sabato said passage of more pro-LGBT bills next Congress is unlikely if it doesn’t happen this year.
“If these pieces of legislation don’t pass now, when both houses have swollen Democratic majorities, they certainly aren’t going to pass in the next Congress, when Democrats will have narrow majorities, or even be in the minority,” Sabato said.
Sabato said the loss of a half-dozen Democratic seats in the Senate could be enough to “kill these bills” entirely in the next Congress because proponents wouldn’t be able to find 60 votes to thwart a filibuster.
But Frank said the possibility of passing more pro-LGBT legislation in a future Congress is unknown because the fallout of the November elections is yet to be seen.
“I don’t think there’s any question there will be Republican gains in both chambers,” he said. “But what kind of gains? How much? Three senators? Eight senators? Fifteen representatives? Thirty-five representatives?”
Frank also said some members of Congress that would lose in the upcoming election wouldn’t “be supportive of ENDA anyway.”
Additionally, he said Congress could more easily take up other pro-LGBT bills in the future after items like hate crimes and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are off the table.
“To some extent, the more you have to work on, the harder it is to do any one of them,” he said.
Cole said although no one knows what the future holds for support for pro-LGBT legislation after year’s end, he noted several supportive incumbents are in danger of losing their seats.
“The thing to keep in mind, though, is cobbling together a pro-LGBT majority for any piece of legislation has never been a slam dunk,” Cole said. “It’s not necessarily about party affiliation — it’s about people who have taken stances toward equality measures.”
Federal Government
Inside the LGBTQ records of Todd Blanche and Markwayne Mullin
Two men are acting attorney general, DHS secretary
President Donald Trump became famous for his use of the phrase “You’re fired!” while hosting the reality TV show “The Apprentice” in the early 2000s. However, during his time in the Oval Office, he has attempted to distance himself from that image.
Despite those efforts, the phrase once again comes to mind as Trump has fired two high-level female Cabinet members within the past month: Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem.
Their replacements — Todd Blanche at the Justice Department and Markwayne Mullin at the Department of Homeland Security — bring records that, while different in depth, both reflect limited support for LGBTQ protections and, in some cases, direct opposition.
Todd Blanche
Acting attorney general
Little has been found regarding Todd Blanche’s LGBTQ history prior to his role as acting head of the Department of Justice. Unlike those who have worked within the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division or served as state attorneys general, he has not developed a public-facing legal ideology on LGBTQ issues.
Blanche attended American University for his undergraduate studies — like fellow Trump attorney Michael Cohen — where he met his future wife, Kristin, who was studying at nearby Catholic University in D.C.
He began his legal career as an intern at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, which eventually became a full-time position. He later worked 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. He and his wife later married and had two children.
Blanche left the U.S. attorney’s office 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.
In his personal capacity, he represented several figures associated with Donald Trump and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, including Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort, businessman Igor Fruman, and attorney Boris Epshteyn.
In 2024, Blanche switched from Democrat to Republican, aligning himself with Trump’s political orbit. He later 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 bisexual adult film star Stormy Daniels.
Now the highest-ranking official at the Justice Department, Blanche has played a central role in overseeing the department and has been involved in leadership decisions tied to several controversial actions affecting LGBTQ people.
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,” if legal action were taken against NYU Langone. The hospital had “permanently” ended a program earlier that month after the Trump-Vance administration threatened to pull all federal funding if it continued prescribing puberty blockers and hormones to minors.
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 said.
Blanche also echoed his predecessor’s public stance on limiting LGBTQ-related protections at the federal level, aligning with Bondi’s sentiments in June 2025 regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision that restricted LGBTQ history lessions in schools and limits lower federal courts from issuing nationwide injunctions — rulings that have often blocked Trump administration policies.
Calling it “another great decision that came down today,” Blanche argued that the ruling “restores parents’ rights to decide their child’s education,” adding: “It seems like a basic idea, but it took the Supreme Court to set the record straight, and we thank them for that. And 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 is also described as having a “strong belief in executive authority.”
Markwayne Mullin
Secretary of Homeland Security
While Blanche’s record is defined more by recent actions than a long paper trail, Markwayne Mullin brings a more established history on LGBTQ issues from his time in Congress.
The head of the Department of Homeland Security has served in Congress since 2013, in both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. He has been actively engaged in shaping restrictions and aligns with broader cultural rhetoric that frames anti-LGBTQ speech as protected expression.
In May 2016, Mullin criticized the Department of Education and the Justice Department’s “Dear Colleague” letter on transgender students, arguing that trans girls should not use girls’ restrooms in public schools.
By January 2021, Mullin and then-Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard had introduced a bill to prevent trans women from participating in women’s sports.
Mullin was not recorded as voting on the final passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, which codified federal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriage.
In 2023, Mullin received a rating of just 6 percent from the Human Rights Campaign.
While serving in the Senate and as a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, Mullin has been a vocal critic of policies aimed at expanding LGBTQ inclusion in federal programs. He has participated in broader Republican efforts questioning equity-based implementation of the Older Americans Act, including guidance related to sexual orientation and gender identity in aging services, arguing such policies could have unintended consequences.
Mullin also makes history as the first Native American — and a citizen of the Cherokee Nation — to lead the Department of Homeland Security.
He was among the 147 Republicans who voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election results despite no evidence of widespread fraud, and was present in the House on Jan. 6.
Noticias en Español
La X vuelve al tribunal
Primer Circuito examina caso del reconocimiento de personas no binarias en Puerto Rico
Hace ocho meses escribí sobre este tema cuando todavía no había llegado al nivel judicial en el que se encuentra hoy. En ese momento, la discusión se movía entre decisiones administrativas, debates públicos y resistencias políticas. No era un asunto cerrado, pero tampoco había alcanzado el punto actual.
Hoy el escenario es distinto.
La organización Lambda Legal compareció ante el Tribunal de Apelaciones del Primer Circuito en Boston para solicitar que se confirme una decisión que obliga al gobierno de Puerto Rico a emitir certificados de nacimiento que reflejen la identidad de las personas no binarias. La apelación se produce luego de que un tribunal de distrito concluyera que negar esa posibilidad constituye una violación a la Constitución de Estados Unidos.
Este elemento marca la diferencia. Ya no se trata de una discusión conceptual. Existe una determinación judicial que identificó un trato desigual.
El planteamiento de la parte demandante se sostiene en el propio marco legal vigente en Puerto Rico. Los certificados de nacimiento de identidad no son registros históricos inmutables. Son documentos utilizados para fines actuales y esenciales. Permiten acceder a empleo, educación y servicios, y son requeridos en múltiples gestiones ante el Estado. Su función es operativa.
En ese contexto, la exclusión de las personas no binarias no responde a una limitación jurídica. Puerto Rico permite la corrección de marcadores de género en certificados de nacimiento para personas trans binarias desde el caso Arroyo González v. Rosselló Nevares. Además, el Código Civil reconoce la existencia de certificados que reflejan la identidad de la persona más allá del registro original.
La diferencia radica en la aplicación.
El reconocimiento se concede dentro de categorías específicas, mientras que se excluye a quienes no se identifican dentro de ese esquema. Esa exclusión es el eje de la controversia actual.
El argumento presentado por Lambda Legal es preciso. Obligar a una persona a utilizar documentos que no reflejan su identidad implica someterla a una representación incorrecta en procesos fundamentales de la vida cotidiana. Esto puede generar dificultades prácticas, exposición innecesaria y situaciones de vulnerabilidad.
Las personas demandantes, nacidas en Puerto Rico, han planteado que el acceso a documentos precisos no es una cuestión simbólica, sino una necesidad básica para poder desenvolverse sin contradicciones impuestas por el propio Estado.
El hecho de que este caso se encuentre en el sistema federal introduce una dimensión adicional. No se trata de un proyecto legislativo ni de una política pública en discusión. Es una controversia constitucional. El análisis gira en torno a derechos y a la aplicación equitativa de las leyes.
Este proceso tampoco ocurre en aislamiento.
Se desarrolla en un contexto donde los debates sobre identidad y derechos han estado marcados por una mayor presencia de posturas conservadoras en la esfera pública, tanto en Estados Unidos como en Puerto Rico. En el ámbito local, esa influencia ha sido visible en discusiones legislativas recientes, donde argumentos de carácter religioso han comenzado a formar parte del debate sobre política pública. Esa intersección introduce tensiones en torno a la separación entre iglesia y Estado y tiene efectos concretos en el acceso a derechos.
Señalar este contexto no implica cuestionar la fe ni la práctica religiosa. Implica reconocer que, cuando determinados argumentos se trasladan al ejercicio del poder público, pueden incidir en decisiones que afectan a sectores específicos de la población.
Desde Puerto Rico, esta situación no se observa a distancia. Se experimenta en la práctica diaria. En la necesidad de presentar documentos que no corresponden con la identidad de quien los porta. En las implicaciones que esto tiene en espacios laborales, educativos y administrativos.
El avance de este caso abre una posibilidad de cambio en el marco legal aplicable. No porque resuelva de inmediato todas las tensiones en torno al tema, sino porque establece un punto de análisis jurídico sobre una práctica que hasta ahora ha operado bajo criterios restrictivos.
A diferencia de hace ocho meses, el escenario actual incluye una determinación judicial que ya identificó una violación de derechos. Lo que corresponde ahora es evaluar si esa determinación se sostiene en una instancia superior.
Ese proceso no define un resultado inmediato, pero sí establece un nuevo punto de referencia.
El debate ya no es teórico.
Ahora es judicial.
New York
Court orders Pride flag to return to Stonewall
Lambda Legal, Washington Litigation Group filed federal lawsuit
The Pride flag will once again fly over the Stonewall National Monument in New York following a court order requiring the National Park Service to raise it over the site.
The decision follows a lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal and the Washington Litigation Group in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which challenged the removal as unconstitutional under the Administrative Procedure Act and argued that the government unlawfully targeted the LGBTQ community.
In February, the NPS removed the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument, the first national monument dedicated to LGBTQ rights and history in the U.S. The move followed a Jan. 21 memorandum issued by President Donald Trump-appointed NPS Director Jessica Bowron restricting which flags may be flown at national parks. The directive limited displays to official government flags, with narrow exceptions for those deemed to serve an “official purpose.”
Plaintiffs successfully argued that the Pride flag meets that standard, given Stonewall’s status as the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement. They also contended that the policy violated the APA by bypassing required public input and improperly applying agency rules.
The lawsuit named Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Bowron, and Amy Sebring, superintendent of Manhattan sites for the NPS, as defendants. Plaintiffs included the Gilbert Baker Foundation, Village Preservation, Equality New York, and several individuals.
The court found that the memorandum — while allowing limited exceptions for historical context purposes — was applied unlawfully in this case. As part of the settlement, the NPS is required to rehang the Pride flag on the monument’s official flagpole within seven days, where it will remain permanently.
“The sudden, arbitrary, and capricious removal of the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument was yet another act by this administration to erase the LGBTQ+ community,” said Karen Loewy, co-counsel for plaintiffs and Lambda Legal’s Senior Counsel and Director of Constitutional Law Practice. “Today, the government has pledged to restore this important symbol back to where it belongs.”
“This is a complete victory for our clients and for the LGBTQ+ community,” said Alexander Kristofcak, lead counsel for plaintiffs and a lawyer with Washington Litigation Group. “The government has acknowledged what we argued from day one: the Pride flag belongs at Stonewall. The flag will be restored and it will fly officially and permanently. And we will remain vigilant to ensure that the government sticks to the deal.”
“Gilbert Baker created the Rainbow Pride flag as a symbol of hope and liberation,” said Charles Beal, president of the Gilbert Baker Foundation. “Today, that symbol is restored to the place where it belongs, standing watch over the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement.”
“The government tried to erase an important symbol of the LGBTQ+ community, and the community said no,” said Amanda Babine, executive director of Equality New York. “Today’s accomplishment proves that when we stand together and fight back, we win.”
“The removal of the Pride flag from Stonewall was an attempt to erase LGBTQ+ history and undermine the rule of law,” said Andrew Berman, executive director of Village Preservation. “This settlement restores both.”
With Loewy on the complaint are Douglas F. Curtis, Camilla B. Taylor, Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, Kenneth D. Upton Jr., Jennifer C. Pizer, and Nephetari Smith from Lambda Legal. With Kristofcak on the complaint are Mary L. Dohrmann, Sydney Foster, Kyle Freeny, James I. Pearce, and Nathaniel Zelinsky from Washington Litigation Group.
Lebanese LGBTQ group responds to latest war
Inside the LGBTQ records of Todd Blanche and Markwayne Mullin
PHOTOS: Denali at Pitchers
Whitman-Walker Health to present ‘Pro Bono Excellence’ award to law firm
La X vuelve al tribunal
HRC endorses Va. ballot initiative to redraw congressional districts
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
The emperor has no clothes: how rhetoric fuels repression in Eswatini
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
-
2026 Midterm Elections4 days agoHRC endorses Va. ballot initiative to redraw congressional districts
-
Rehoboth Beach4 days ago
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
-
Eswatini4 days ago
The emperor has no clothes: how rhetoric fuels repression in Eswatini
-
National4 days ago
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
