Connect with us

National

Gay soldier accused of leaking classified files

Did anger over ‘Don’t Ask’ motivate Manning to act?

Published

on

Reports that a U.S. Army intelligence analyst who’s accused of leaking classified information is gay have raised questions about whether a resentment of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” could have motivated his alleged crime.

Pfc. Bradley Manning, 22, is the prime suspect in the investigation of leaked video footage showing a U.S. Apache helicopter strike in Baghdad that killed 12 civilians, including employees of a Reuters news agency.

Manning allegedly gave the footage to WikiLeaks, a whistle-blowing website devoted to disclosing the secrets of governments and corporations.

In an instant message conversation with a friend, Manning reportedly said he was responsible for the leak as well as another video showing a 2009 Garani air strike in Afghanistan. He also reportedly claimed to have 260,000 classified U.S. diplomatic cables that would reveal the inner workings of U.S. embassies.

“Hillary Clinton, and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning, and find an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available, in searchable format, to the public,” Manning said in the conversation, according to Wired.com.

Additionally, Manning is a person of interest in an investigation seeking to determine the source of thousands of secret documents leaked related to the Afghanistan war. But as of earlier this week, Manning reportedly hadn’t been formally named as a suspect in the matter.

The charges against Manning are serious. Lt. Col. Rene White, a Pentagon spokesperson, said Manning is under investigation “for allegedly improperly downloading, storing and disclosing to unauthorized third parties classified or sensitive [U.S. government] documents or media.”

White said Manning is being held in the brig at the U.S. Marine Corps base in Quantico, Va.

“Manning will remain in pre-trial confinement as the Army continues its investigation,” White said. “We don’t know if Pfc. Manning is the source of the recently leaked documents. We are assessing them now to determine the potential damage to lives, sources and methods and national security.”

Courtney Whittmann, a spokesperson for U.S. Army Military District of Washington, said Manning could face up to 52 years in prison and a dishonorable discharge as well as forfeiture of all pay and allowances. She said the court of his appearance is yet to be determined.

As this investigation is underway, a report from British media describing Manning as gay is raising questions about whether discontent with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” contributed to his alleged decision to leak the classified material.

The Daily Telegraph reported that Manning is openly gay and had several postings on his Facebook page that he was unhappy with the military and was going through relationship troubles with a same-sex partner.

At the beginning of May, Manning reportedly wrote he was “livid” after being “lectured by ex-boyfriend,” then later posted that he was “not a piece of equipment” and was “beyond frustrated with people and society at large.”

In the same month, when he was serving at a U.S. military base near Baghdad, Manning reportedly changed his status to: “Bradley Manning is now left with the sinking feeling that he doesn’t have anything left.”

The publicly viewable portion of his Facebook profile this week listed the Washington Blade as among his favorite pages as well as several other LGBT-related pages, including the Human Rights Campaign, gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and “REPEAL THE BAN — End ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’”

After Window Media closed the Blade late last year, Manning donated $120 to a “Save the Blade” initiative that helped re-launch the paper, according to Blade records.

Manning has also been seen in gay venues in D.C. and was present at the National Stonewall Democrats’ Capital Champions event in 2009.

Jon Hoadley, a gay activist and former Stonewall Democrats president, is among those who know Manning. Still, Hoadley said he said he didn’t know Manning well and hasn’t seen him in more than a year.

“Other [than] through some Stonewall events and stuff like that — and through a few friends — I didn’t know him really well,” Hoadley said.

Whittmann, the Army military district of Washington spokesperson, said she didn’t immediately know whether “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was a factor in the investigation of Manning, but said she would look to find more information on the matter.

The co-director of OutServe, an organization for LGBT active duty service members, said he was skeptical that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” played a role in Manning’s alleged decision to leak classified information.

OutServe’s co-director, who’s adopted the alias J.D. Smith to avoid being outed under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” said he didn’t think Manning’s discontent with the law led him to his alleged decision to leak classified information.

“From what I’ve being reading on this situation, he had a lot of issues that he was dealing with — not just about his homosexuality,” said Smith, who noted OutServe has had no contact with Manning. “We don’t know all the factors. All the details haven’t come out to the public yet.”

The Family Research Council has seized on reports that Manning is gay to drum up opposition to repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

In an e-mail blast, Tony Perkins, president of FRC, called Manning an “extreme homosexual activist” and said his “fury over the services’ homosexual policy may have led him to publicize highly classified documents about the wars.”

“Unfortunately for all of us, Manning’s betrayal painfully confirms what groups like FRC have argued all along: the instability of the homosexual lifestyle is a detriment to military readiness,” Perkins wrote.

John Aravosis, a gay D.C.-based blogger, responded to the FRC mailing on his website, Americablog.com, calling it evidence of the continued lies and distortion that FRC puts forth on LGBT issues.

“FRC cites the Telegraph, and claims that the Telegraph says Manning has an ‘extensive history’ of campaigning for gay rights,” Aravosis wrote. “In fact, the Telegraph article mentions that Manning once showed up at a single gay rights rally — that’s it. How is that an ‘extensive’ history as an ‘extreme’ gay activist? It’s not.”

Aravosis also disputed the notion that evidence exists showing that anger over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” led Manning to leak classified information.

“Finally, there’s nothing, anywhere, to suggest that Manning had any ‘fury’ over [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’], or that, even if he did, such fury led him to leak the documents,” Aravosis said. “Where did FRC come up with it?”

Smith said FRC’s decision to try to solicit funds over the charges against Manning is “pretty awful.”

“There are plenty of instances where straight soldiers have done things as well,” Smith said. “And I don’t think they should [be] playing this as homosexual treason at all. I think that we need to be very careful in how this is portrayed.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

State Department

Rubio mum on Hungary’s Pride ban

Lawmakers on April 30 urged secretary of state to condemn anti-LGBTQ bill, constitutional amendment

Published

on

Secretary of State Marco Rubio during his confirmation hearing on Jan. 15, 2025. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

More than 20 members of Congress have urged Secretary of State Marco Rubio to publicly condemn a Hungarian law that bans Pride events.

California Congressman Mark Takano, a Democrat who co-chairs the Congressional Equality Caucus, and U.S. Rep. Bill Keating (D-Mass.), who is the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Europe Subcommittee, spearheaded the letter that lawmakers sent to Rubio on April 30.

Hungarian lawmakers in March passed a bill that bans Pride events and allow authorities to use facial recognition technology to identify those who participate in them. MPs last month amended the Hungarian constitution to ban public LGBTQ events.

“As a NATO ally which hosts U.S. service members, we expect the Hungarian government to abide by certain values which underpin the historic U.S.-Hungary bilateral relationship,” reads the letter. “Unfortunately, this new legislation and constitutional amendment disproportionately and arbitrarily target sexual and gender minorities.”

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government over the last decade has moved to curtail LGBTQ and intersex rights in Hungary.

A law that bans legal recognition of transgender and intersex people took effect in 2020. Hungarian MPs that year also effectively banned same-sex couples from adopting children and defined marriage in the constitution as between a man and a woman.

An anti-LGBTQ propaganda law took effect in 2021. The European Commission sued Hungary, which is a member of the European Union, over it.

MPs in 2023 approved the “snitch on your gay neighbor” bill that would have allowed Hungarians to anonymously report same-sex couples who are raising children. The Budapest Metropolitan Government Office in 2023 fined Lira Konyv, the country’s second-largest bookstore chain, 12 million forints ($33,733.67), for selling copies of British author Alice Oseman’s “Heartstopper.”

Former U.S. Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman, who is gay, participated in the Budapest Pride march in 2024 and 2023. Pressman was also a vocal critic of Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ crackdown.

“Along with years of democratic backsliding in Hungary, it flies in the face of those values and the passage of this legislation deserves quick and decisive criticism and action in response by the Department of State,” reads the letter, referring to the Pride ban and constitutional amendment against public LGBTQ events. “Therefore, we strongly urge you to publicly condemn this legislation and constitutional change which targets the LGBTQ community and undermines the rights of Hungarians to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.”

U.S. Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Sarah McBride (D-Del.), Jim Costa (D-Calif.), James McGovern (D-Mass.), Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Julie Johnson (D-Texas), Ami Bera (D-Calif.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Gabe Amo (D-R.I.), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Dina Titus (D-Nev.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) signed the letter alongside Takano and Keating.

A State Department spokesperson on Wednesday declined to comment.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

HRC memo details threats to LGBTQ community in Trump budget

‘It’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives’

Published

on

President Donald Trump (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

A memo issued Monday by the Human Rights Campaign details threats to LGBTQ people from the “skinny” budget proposal issued by President Donald Trump on May 2.

HRC estimates the total cost of “funding cuts, program eliminations, and policy changes” impacting the community will exceed approximately $2.6 billion.

Matthew Rose, the organization’s senior public policy advocate, said in a statement that “This budget is more than cuts on a page—it’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives.”

“Trump is taking away life-saving healthcare, support for LGBTQ-owned businesses, protections against hate crimes, and even housing help for people living with HIV,” he said. “Stripping away more than $2 billion in support sends one clear message: we don’t matter. But we’ve fought back before, and we’ll do it again—we’re not going anywhere.”

Proposed rollbacks or changes at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will target the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, other programs related to STI prevention, viral hepatitis, and HIV, initiatives housed under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and research by the National Institutes of Health and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Other agencies whose work on behalf of LGBTQ populations would be jeopardized or eliminated under Trump’s budget include the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Department of Education.

Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban

Litigation challenging the policy continues in the 9th Circuit

Published

on

The Supreme Court as composed June 30, 2022 to present. Front row, left to right: Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. Back row, left to right: Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. (Photo Credit: Fred Schilling, The Supreme Court of the U.S.)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump-Vance administration to enforce a ban on transgender personnel serving in the U.S. Armed Forces pending the outcome of litigation challenging the policy.

The brief order staying a March 27 preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington notes the dissents from liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

On the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump issued an executive order requiring Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to effectuate a ban against transgender individuals, going further than efforts under his first administration — which did not target those currently serving.

The DoD’s Feb. 26 ban argued that “the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.” 

The case challenging the Pentagon’s policy is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The lead plaintiff is U.S. Navy Commander Emily Shilling, who is joined in the litigation by other current transgender members of the armed forces, one transgender person who would like to join, and a nonprofit whose members either are transgender troops or would like to be.

Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, both representing the plaintiffs, issued a statement Tuesday in response to the Supreme Court’s decision:

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a devastating blow to transgender servicemembers who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation’s defense.

“By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the Court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice.

“Transgender individuals meet the same standards and demonstrate the same values as all who serve. We remain steadfast in our belief that this ban violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and will ultimately be struck down.”

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer noted that courts must show “substantial deference” to DoD decision making on military issues.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the military ban to go into effect is devastating for the thousands of qualified transgender servicemembers who have met the standards and are serving honorably, putting their lives on the line for their country every single day,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “Today’s decision only adds to the chaos and destruction caused by this administration. It’s not the end of the case, but the havoc it will wreak is devastating and irreparable. History will confirm the weight of the injustice done today.”

“The Court has upended the lives of thousands of servicemembers without even the decency of explaining why,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “As a result of this decision, reached without benefit of full briefing or argument, brave troops who have dedicated their lives to the service of our country will be targeted and forced into harsh administrative separation process usually reserved for misconduct. They have proven themselves time and time again and met the same standards as every other soldier, deploying in critical positions around the globe. This is a deeply sad day for our country.”

Levi and Minter are the lead attorneys in the first two transgender military ban cases to be heard in federal court, Talbott v. Trump and Ireland v. Hegseth.

U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) issued a statement on behalf of the Congressional Equality Caucus, where he serves as chair.

“By lifting the lower court’s preliminary injunction and allowing Trump to enforce his trans troop ban as litigation continues, the Supreme Court is causing real harm to brave Americans who simply want to serve their nation in uniform.

“The difference between Donald Trump, a draft dodger, and the countless brave Americans serving their country who just happen to be trans couldn’t be starker. Let me be clear: Trump’s ban isn’t going to make our country safer—it will needlessly create gaps in critical chains of military command and actively undermine our national security.

“The Supreme Court was absolutely wrong to allow this ban to take effect. I hope that lower courts move swiftly so this ban can ultimately be struck down.”

SPARTA Pride also issued a statement:

“The Roberts Court’s decision staying the preliminary injunction will allow the Trump purge of transgender service members from the military to proceed.

“Transgender Americans have served openly, honorably, and effectively in the U.S. Armed Forces for nearly a decade. Thousands of transgender troops are currently serving, and are fully qualified for the positions in which they serve.

“Every court up to now has found that this order is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the Roberts Court – without hearing any evidence or argument – decided to allow it to go forward. So while the case continues to be argued, thousands of trans troops will be purged from the Armed Forces.

“They will lose their jobs. They will lose their commands, their promotions, their training, pay and benefits, and time. Their units will lose key players; the mission will be disrupted. This is the very definition of irreparable harm.”

Imara Jones, CEO of TransLash Media, issued the following statement:

“The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Trump’s ban on transgender soldiers in the military, even as the judicial process works its way through the overall question of service,  signals that open discrimination against trans people is fair game across American society.

“It will allow the Trump Administration to further advance its larger goal of  pushing trans people from mainstream society by discharging transgender military members who are currently serving their country, even at a time when the military has struggled recently  to meet its recruiting goals.

“But even more than this, all of my reporting tells me that this is a further slide down the mountain towards authoritarianism. The hard truth is that governments with authoritarian ambitions have to  separate citizens between who is worthy of protection and who’s not. Trans people are clearly in the later category. And this separation justifies the authoritarian quest  for more and more power. This  appears to be what we are witnessing here and targeting trans people in the military is  just a means to an end.”

Continue Reading

Popular