National
Picking up the pieces after ‘Don’t Ask’ defeat
Repeal supporters pin hopes on lame duck session after election
Supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal are picking up the pieces after a devastating loss in the U.S. Senate and — amid fears the opportunity for repeal has been lost — anticipating another shot at passing legislation that would end the law after Election Day.
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said he continues to see a path for legislative repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this Congress as he acknowledged the need for new efforts.
“We do have a shot in the lame duck,” he said. “And, I think, frankly, it’s better than 50/50, but we’ve got to change the mix. … It’s unlikely the vote will be that different.”
Still, Sarvis said “time is the enemy” even as he maintained that sufficient time remains this year to move forward with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
“We’re only talking about four or five days in November, and it’s unclear how many days in December,” Sarvis said. “This bill is tough to do in the best of circumstances when you aren’t up against time. I think it can be done, but time is a factor for sure.”
Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said the legislative route to repeal will be a “challenge” and “those who let this vote fail yesterday really made it difficult for us all moving forward.”
“But we have no choice but to give it our all and try our best to push it through,” Nicholson said.
Jim Manley, a spokesperson for Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), confirmed the majority leader’s plans to move forward with the defense authorization bill later this year.
“Sen. Reid reserved the right to reconsider the vote and that is what we intend to do at some point in the future,” Manley said.
Even before the vote, speculation and promises that Senate leaders would try again to start work on the defense authorization had emerged.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), the sponsor of Senate standalone repeal legislation, said Tuesday during a news conference he’s received assurances from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that the bill would come up again in the lame duck session after Election Day.
“If for some reason, we don’t get the 60 votes to proceed, this ain’t over,” Lieberman said. “We’re going to come back into session in November or December. I spoke to Sen. Reid [Tuesday]. He’s very clear and strong that he’s going to bring this bill to the floor in November or December.”
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said during a later news conference that he hopes the prospects for passing the defense authorization bill would be different after Election Day, but couldn’t offer more details.
“But as chairman of the committee, I’m going to do everything I can to get this bill before the Senate so that it’s subject to debate and amendment,” Levin said. “But I can’t discern what that path is at the moment. It’s too soon after the filibuster damage has been done.”
At least one political analyst is skeptical about the passage of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal in Congress this year.
Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, expressed doubt about passage after Election Day — even as he acknowledged that “a lame duck session can be unpredictable.”
“From the perspective of September, the odds seem clearly against passage this year,” Sabato said. “Repeal of [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] would have to be fast-tracked, and that requires broad agreement in the Senate. That’s unlikely.”
On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate failed to invoke cloture to bring to the floor the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill — legislation to which “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language is attached.
The vote in the Senate was 56-43, which was shy of the 60 votes necessary to end the filibuster from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
A unified GOP caucus — in addition to Democratic Arkansas Sens. Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln — comprised the “no” votes that defeated a cloture vote. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) was the only senator who didn’t vote.
Reid changed his vote to “no” on the legislation in a procedural move that would enable him to bring the legislation to the floor again.
Sarvis said the failure of the Senate to invoke cloture on the defense authorization bill is “shameful” because it means the continued discharge of gay, lesbian and bisexual service members.
“That vote means that gay and lesbian service members are going to continue to be discharged every day while Republicans and Democrats in the Senate figure out how to move forward,” Sarvis said.
Sarvis said the LGBT community needs to “express more outrage” over the vote to convince Senate leaders to schedule the vote again and for successful passage.
“If we aren’t offended, if we aren’t outraged by this vote, I’m not sure how the political dynamics change,” Sarvis said. “Yes, things will be somewhat better after the mid-term elections are behind us, but the few determined opponents are still going to be there.”
Various explanations have been offered for the loss on Tuesday, although partisan politics are widely seen as the reason for failure.
Some faulted the GOP caucus for being obstinate in its vote against cloture even though many Republican senators previously expressed support for the defense authorization bill as a whole.
In a news conference following the vote, Levin called the unified GOP obstruction of the defense authorization bill “outrageous and sad.”
Levin accused the GOP of initially opposing the move forward with the defense authorization bill because of the language that would lead to an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“For two days, we’ve heard here that they objected to our proceeding because of the language in the bill relative to ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ even though that language is very moderate language,” Levin said.
The senator noted that the provision provides that repeal would only take effect after the Pentagon working group completes its study on the issue and the president, defense secretary and chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify the U.S. military is ready for repeal.
Levin added he couldn’t recall a previous time in which the U.S. Senate couldn’t proceed to debate on defense authorization legislation.
“It’s important to know that we were just simply trying to get to the point where we could debate a bill,” he said. “I don’t think a filibuster has ever before prevented the Senate from getting to a defense authorization bill.”
GOP senators — including Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who supported the repeal amendment to the defense authorization bill in committee — accused Democratic leadership on the Senate floor Tuesday of being intransigent by limiting the number of amendments that could come to the floor.
“That is why I am so disappointed that rather than allowing full and open debate and the opportunity for amendments from both sides of the aisle, the majority leader apparently intends to shut down the debate and exclude Republicans from offering a number of amendments,” Collins said.
Sarvis said a number of factors played into the unsuccessful cloture vote on Tuesday, including the pressure that repeal advocates placed on Reid to schedule the vote regardless of whether 60 votes were present to move forward.
“Those who were advocating a vote this Congress always understood that we would need 60 votes to succeed,” Sarvis said. “So the reality is, the majority leader scheduled the vote, but we came up short. We lost Democrats that we thought would be with us up until a few days ago and we lost some Republicans until late last week that we thought would be with us.”
Sarvis said Levin and McCain may have to reach some agreement on the number of amendments that can be offered to move forward.
“It doesn’t look good for Democrats or for Republicans — and especially this Congress — to be the first Congress in almost 50 years not to approve an authorization for the funding of our troops, especially when we are in war,” Sarvis said.
Supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal have also cited insufficient support from the White House as a reason why the cloture vote was defeated.
Sarvis said President Obama didn’t make an effort to encourage senators to vote for cloture in the days prior to Tuesday.
“I did not see the White House whipping the vote for 72 hours before,” Sarvis said.
Nicholson ascribed blame to Obama as well as Reid and other LGBT organizations.
“The White House didn’t lift a finger to help and certain gay rights organizations refused to criticize Senator Reid while he derailed the vote in advance,” he said. “It’s just not a good position to be in with all of the hurdles and challenges of a highly polarized lame duck session ahead.”
During a Tuesday news conference, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs denied Lady Gaga had done more to advance the bill than President Obama. The pop singer appeared at a rally in Maine to promote passage of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal legislation and tweeted with senators to encourage them to move forward.
“We wouldn’t be taking on these issues if it weren’t for the president,” Gibbs said. “This is an issue that passed the House because of the president and this administration’s work and the work of many members in Congress.”
Gibbs also ascribed blame to the 60-vote threshold needed to move forward with legislation in the Senate — even for a bill to authorize funds for the Pentagon — and said “it’s certainly not healthy for the way our government works and it sets an awful precedent for getting things done in the future.”
Sarvis said support from the White House during the lame duck session would be crucial to advancing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
“We need the president speaking on this issue in the lame duck asking senators to be with him,” Sarvis said. “We know he favors repeal, but now we need him engaged more than ever.”
In the wake of Senate defeat, repeal advocates are seeking other options to move forward on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Litigation seeking to overturn the law has received renewed attention. Both Log Cabin v. United States and Witt v. Air Force are moving through the courts and could lead to an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” although legal experts expect those cases won’t be resolved for years.
In a statement following the Senate vote, Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, urged the Obama administration not to appeal a recent California federal court’s decision against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the case of Log Cabin v. United States.
“We expect the Justice Department to recognize the overwhelming evidence that proves [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] is unconstitutional,” Solmonese said.
Even with litigation proceeding, Sarvis maintained that the legislative route is the best path for moving forward with repeal.
“The ball game is still in the Senate,” he said. “Yes, there’s some good things going on in the courts with Maj. Witt and the Log Cabin Republican case, but in all likelihood, those are going to be tied up for years.”
One question about a possible future vote on the defense authorization bill is what impact the Pentagon working group’s study on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” due Dec. 1 would have on the legislation.
Sarvis dismissed the notion that the report represents a complication because he said he thinks the report would favor “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
“They were asked to provide the [defense] secretary with a set of recommendations on how to implement open service,” Sarvis said. “Well, that is not going to be hurtful. Indeed, I’m not that concerned about the results of the survey.”
Nicholson said the completion of the Pentagon report should make voting for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” easier for many senators, but said its release will be “thrown into the highly charged and high politicized environment of the lame duck session.”
“Unfortunately, the working group itself has become so politicized that its utility in this whole processed has been diminished because of that as well,” Nicholson said. “Bottom line — the administration really screwed this one up.”
Many senators, including McCain, have said they want to see the report before acting on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Sarvis predicted continued equivocation from these senators upon the completion of the report and congressional hearings may be necessary following the completion of the study to address concerns.
“Sen. McCain says, ‘Oh, I’m going to need some time to study that report and analyze how they came up with those recommendations,’” Sarvis said. “‘We may need some hearings on that.’ So that’s going to remain a moving target.”
Another possible complication in the legislative effort to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” later this year is state election laws.
According to Bloomberg News, state laws in Illinois, Delaware and West Virginia terminate the terms of appointed senators immediately after Election Day. Their elected successors may start in the lame duck session this year as opposed to the start of the next Congress.
These laws mean Sens. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.), Carte Goodwin (D-W.Va.) and Roland Burris (D-Ill.) — who voted in favor of cloture on Tuesday — may have to give up their seats to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal opponents in the lame duck session.
Sarvis acknowledged that a worst-case scenario of the loss of all three seats would complicate efforts to move forward with the defense authorization if the Senate faces another filibuster.
“If we’re facing another filibuster, I think it’s very, very challenging if we lose those three seats,” Sarvis said.
Sarvis said he’s spoken with Chris Coons, the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Delaware, about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
“He looked me in the eye and told me that if he’s in the U.S. Senate, he will be voting for repeal,” Sarvis said. “So, I take heart from that commitment.”
Sarvis said he has “no idea” how Republican candidate Christine O’Donnell would vote should she win in the November election. O’Donnell is known for her opposition to gays and has spoken out against homosexuality.
Illustration courtesy of Georgia Voice
U.S. Military/Pentagon
4th Circuit rules against discharged service members with HIV
Judges overturned lower court ruling
A federal appeals court on Wednesday reversed a lower court ruling that struck down the Pentagon’s ban on people with HIV enlisting in the military.
The conservative three-judge panel on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a 2024 ruling that had declared the Defense Department and Army policies barring all people living with HIV from military service unconstitutional.
The 4th Circuit, which covers Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia, held that the military has a “rational basis” for maintaining medical standards that categorically exclude people living with HIV from enlisting, even those with undetectable viral loads — meaning their viral levels are so low that they cannot transmit the virus and can perform all duties without health limitations.
This decision could have implications for other federal circuits dealing with HIV discrimination cases, as well as for nationwide military policy.
The case, Wilkins v. Hegseth, was filed in November 2022 by Lambda Legal and other HIV advocacy groups on behalf of three individual plaintiffs who could not enlist or re-enlist based on their HIV status, as well as the organizational plaintiff Minority Veterans of America.
The plaintiffs include a transgender woman who was honorably discharged from the Army for being HIV-positive, a gay man who was in the Georgia National Guard but cannot join the Army, and a cisgender woman who cannot enlist in the Army because she has HIV, along with the advocacy organization Minority Veterans of America.
Isaiah Wilkins, the gay man, was separated from the Army Reserves and disenrolled from the U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School after testing positive for HIV. His legal counsel argued that the military’s policy violates his equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
In August 2024, a U.S. District Court sided with Wilkins, forcing the military to remove the policy barring all people living with HIV from joining the U.S. Armed Services. The court cited that this policy — and ones like it that discriminate based on HIV status — are “irrational, arbitrary, and capricious” and “contribute to the ongoing stigma surrounding HIV-positive individuals while actively hampering the military’s own recruitment goals.”
The Pentagon appealed the decision, seeking to reinstate the ban, and succeeded with Wednesday’s court ruling.
Judge Paul V. Niemeyer, one of the three-judge panel nominated to the 4th Circuit by President George H. W. Bush, wrote in his judicial opinion that the military is “a specialized society separate from civilian society,” and that the military’s “professional judgments in this case [are] reasonably related to its military mission,” and thus “we conclude that the plaintiffs’ claims fail as a matter of law.”
“We are deeply disappointed that the 4th Circuit has chosen to uphold discrimination over medical reality,” said Gregory Nevins, senior counsel and employment fairness project director for Lambda Legal. “Modern science has unequivocally shown that HIV is a chronic, treatable condition. People with undetectable viral loads can deploy anywhere, perform all duties without limitation, and pose no transmission risk to others. This ruling ignores decades of medical advancement and the proven ability of people living with HIV to serve with distinction.”
“As both the 4th Circuit and the district court previously held, deference to the military does not extend to irrational decision-making,” said Scott Schoettes, who argued the case on appeal. “Today, servicemembers living with HIV are performing all kinds of roles in the military and are fully deployable into combat. Denying others the opportunity to join their ranks is just as irrational as the military’s former policy.”
New York
Lawsuit to restore Stonewall Pride flag filed
Lambda Legal, Washington Litigation Group brought case in federal court
Lambda Legal and Washington Litigation Group filed a lawsuit on Tuesday, challenging the Trump-Vance administration’s removal of the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument in New York earlier this month.
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asks the court to rule the removal of the Pride flag at the Stonewall National Monument is unconstitutional under the Administrative Procedures Act — and demands it be restored.
The National Park Service issued a memorandum on Jan. 21 restricting the flags that are allowed to fly at National Parks. The directive was signed by Trump-appointed National Park Service Acting Director Jessica Bowron.
“Current Department of the Interior policy provides that the National Park Service may only fly the U.S. flag, Department of the Interior flags, and the Prisoner of War/Missing in Action flag on flagpoles and public display points,” the letter from the National Park Service reads. “The policy allows limited exceptions, permitting non-agency flags when they serve an official purpose.”
That “official purpose” is the grounds on which Lambda Legal and the Washington Litigation Group are hoping a judge will agree with them — that the Pride flag at the Stonewall National Monument, the birthplace of LGBTQ rights movement in the U.S., is justified to fly there.
The plaintiffs include the Gilbert Baker Foundation, Charles Beal, Village Preservation, and Equality New York.
The defendants include Interior Secretary Doug Burgum; Bowron; and Amy Sebring, the Superintendent of Manhattan Sites for the National Park Service.
“The government’s decision is deeply disturbing and is just the latest example of the Trump administration targeting the LGBTQ+ community. The Park Service’s policies permit flying flags that provide historical context at monuments,” said Alexander Kristofcak, a lawyer with the Washington Litigation Group, which is lead counsel for plaintiffs. “That is precisely what the Pride flag does. It provides important context for a monument that honors a watershed moment in LGBTQ+ history. At best, the government misread its regulations. At worst, the government singled out the LGBTQ+ community. Either way, its actions are unlawful.”
“Stonewall is the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement,” said Beal, the president of the Gilbert Baker Foundation. The foundation’s mission is to protect and extend the legacy of Gilbert Baker, the creator of the Pride flag.
“The Pride flag is recognized globally as a symbol of hope and liberation for the LGBTQ+ community, whose efforts and resistance define this monument. Removing it would, in fact, erase its history and the voices Stonewall honors,” Beal added.
The APA was first enacted in 1946 following President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s creation of multiple new government agencies under the New Deal. As these agencies began to find their footing, Congress grew increasingly worried that the expanding powers these autonomous federal agencies possessed might grow too large without regulation.
The 79th Congress passed legislation to minimize the scope of these new agencies — and to give them guardrails for their work. In the APA, there are four outlined goals: 1) to require agencies to keep the public informed of their organization, procedures, and rules; 2) to provide for public participation in the rule-making process, for instance through public commenting; 3) to establish uniform standards for the conduct of formal rule-making and adjudication; and 4) to define the scope of judicial review.
In layman’s terms, the APA was designed “to avoid dictatorship and central planning,” as George Shepherd wrote in the Northwestern Law Review in 1996, explaining its function.
Lambda Legal and the Washington Litigation Group are arguing that not only is the flag justified to fly at the Stonewall National Monument, making the directive obsolete, but also that the National Park Service violated the APA by bypassing the second element outlined in the law.
“The Pride flag at the Stonewall National Monument honors the history of the fight for LGBTQ+ liberation. It is an integral part of the story this site was created to tell,” said Lambda Legal Chief Legal Advocacy Officer Douglas F. Curtis in a statement. “Its removal continues the Trump administration’s disregard for what the law actually requires in their endless campaign to target our community for erasure and we will not let it stand.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the NPS for comment, and received no response.
Massachusetts
EXCLUSIVE: Markey says transgender rights fight is ‘next frontier’
Mass. senator, 79, running for re-election
For more than half a century, U.S. Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) has built a career around the idea that government can — and should — expand rights rather than restrict them. From pushing for environmental protections to consumer safeguards and civil liberties, the Massachusetts Democrat has long aligned himself with progressive causes.
In this political moment, as transgender Americans face a wave of federal and state-level attacks, Markey says this fight in particular demands urgent attention.
The Washington Blade spoke with Markey on Tuesday to discuss his reintroduction of the Trans Bill of Rights, his long record on LGBTQ rights, and his reelection campaign — a campaign he frames not simply as a bid for another term, but as part of a broader struggle over the direction of American democracy.
Markey’s political career spans more than five decades.
From 1973 to 1976, he served in the Massachusetts House of Representatives, representing the 16th Middlesex District, which includes the Boston suburbs of Malden and Melrose, as well as the 26th Middlesex District.
In 1976, he successfully ran for Congress, winning the Democratic primary and defeating Republican Richard Daly in the general election by a 77-18 percent margin. He went on to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives for nearly four decades, from 1976 until 2013.
Markey in 2013 ran in the special election to fill an open Senate seat after John Kerry became secretary of state in the Obama-Biden administration. Markey defeated Republican Gabriel E. Gomez and completed the remaining 17 months of Kerry’s term. Markey took office on July 16, 2013, and has represented Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate ever since.
Over the years, Markey has built a reputation as a progressive Democrat focused on human rights. From environmental protection and consumer advocacy to civil liberties, he has consistently pushed for an expansive view of constitutional protections. In the Senate, he co-authored the Green New Deal, has advocated for Medicare for All, and has broadly championed civil rights. His committee work has included leadership roles on Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee.
Now, amid what he describes as escalating federal attacks on trans Americans, Markey said the reintroduction of the Trans Bill of Rights is not only urgent, but necessary for thousands of Americans simply trying to live their lives.
“The first day Donald Trump was in office, he began a relentless assault on the rights of transgender and nonbinary people,” Markey told the Blade. “It started with Executive Order 14168 ‘Defending women from gender ideology extremism and restoring biological truth to the federal government.’ That executive order mandates that federal agencies define gender as an unchangeable male/female binary determined by sex assigned at birth or conception.”
He argued that the executive action coincided with a sweeping legislative push in Republican-controlled statehouses.
“Last year, we saw over 1,000 anti trans bills across 49 states and the federal government were introduced. In January of 2026, to today, we’ve already seen 689 bills introduced,” he said. “The trans community needs to know there are allies who are willing to stand up for them and affirmatively declare that trans people deserve all of the rights to fully participate in public life like everyone else — so Trump and MAGA Republicans have tried hard over the last year to legislate all of these, all of these restrictions.”
Markey said the updated version of the Trans Bill of Rights is designed as a direct response to what he views as an increasingly aggressive posture from the Trump-Vance administration and its GOP congressional allies. He emphasized that the legislation reflects new threats that have emerged since the bill’s original introduction.
In order to respond to those developments, Markey worked with U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) to draft a revised version that would more comprehensively codify protections for trans Americans under federal law.
“What we’ve added to the legislation is this is all new,” he explained, describing how these proposed protections would fit into all facets of trans Americans’ lives. “This year’s version of it that Congresswoman Jayapal and I drafted, there’s an anti-trans bias in the immigration system should be eliminated.”
“Providers of gender affirming care should be protected from specious consumer and medical fraud accusations. The sexual and gender minority research office at the National Institutes of Health should be reopened and remain operational,” he continued. “Military discharges or transgender and nonbinary veterans and reclassification of discharge status should be reviewed. Housing assignments for transgender and nonbinary people in government custody should be based on their safety needs and involuntary, solitary or affirmative administrative confinement of a transgender or nonbinary individual because of their gender identity should be prohibited, so without it, all of those additional protections, and that’s Just to respond to the to the ever increasingly aggressive posture which Donald Trump and his mega Republicans are taking towards the transgender.”
The scope of the bill, he argued, reflects the breadth of challenges trans Americans face — from immigration and health care access to military service and incarceration conditions. In his view, the legislation is both a substantive policy response and a moral declaration.
On whether the bill can pass in the current Congress, Markey acknowledged the political hardships but insisted the effort itself carries as much significance as the bill’s success.
“Well, Republicans have become the party of capitulation, not courage,” Markey said. “We need Republicans of courage to stand up to Donald Trump and his hateful attacks. But amid the relentless attacks on the rights and lives of transgender people across the country by Trump and MAGA Republicans, it is critical to show the community that they have allies in Congress — the Trans Bill of Rights is an affirmative declaration that federal lawmakers believe trans rights are human eights and the trans people have the right to fully participate in public life, just like everyone else.”
Even if the legislation does not advance in this congress, Markey said, it establishes a framework for future action.
“It is very important that Congresswoman Jayapal and I introduce this legislation as a benchmark for what it is that we are going to be fighting for, not just this year, but next year,” he said when asked if the bill stood a legitimate chance of passing the federal legislative office when margins are so tight. “After we win the House and Senate to create a brand new, you know, floor for what we have to pass as legislation … We can give permanent protections.”
He framed the bill as groundwork for a future Congress in which Democrats regain control of both chambers, creating what he described as a necessary roadblock to what he views as the Trump-Vance administration’s increasingly restrictive agenda.
Markey also placed the current political climate within the longer arc of LGBTQ history and activism.
When asked how LGBTQ Americans should respond to the removal of the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument — the first national monument dedicated to recognizing the LGBTQ rights movement — Markey was unwavering.
“My message from Stonewall to today is that there has been an ongoing battle to change the way in which our country responds to the needs of the LGBTQ and more specifically the transgender community,” he said. “When they seek to take down symbols of progress, we have to raise our voices.”
“We can’t agonize,” Markey stressed. “We have to organize in order to ensure that that community understands, and believes that we have their back and that we’re not going away — and that ultimately we will prevail.”
Markey added, “That this hatefully picketed White House is going to continue to demonize the transgender community for political gain, and they just have to know that there’s going to be an active, energetic resistance, that that is going to be there in the Senate and across our country.”
Pam Bondi ‘is clearly part’ of Epstein cover up
Beyond LGBTQ issues, Markey also addressed controversy surrounding Attorney General Pam Bondi and the handling of the Epstein files, sharply criticizing the administration’s response to congressional inquiries.
“Well, Pam Bondi is clearly part of a cover up,” Markey said when asked about the attorney general’s testimony to Congress amid growing bipartisan outrage over the way the White House has handled the release of the Epstein files. “She is clearly part of a whitewash which is taking place in the Trump administration … According to the New York Times, Trump has been mentioned 38,000 times in the [Epstein] files which have been released thus far. There are still 3 million more pages that have yet to be released. So this is clearly a cover up. Bondi was nothing more than disgraceful in the way in which she was responding to our questions.”
“I think in many ways, she worsened the position of the Trump administration by the willful ignoring of the central questions which were being asked by the committee,” he added.
‘I am as energized as I have ever been’
As he campaigns for reelection, Markey said the stakes extend beyond any single issue or piece of legislation. He framed his candidacy as part of a broader fight for democracy and constitutional protections — and one that makes him, as a 79-year-old, feel more capable and spirited than ever.
“Well, I am as energized as I have ever been,” he said. “Donald Trump is bringing out the Malden in me. My father was a truck driver in Malden, Mass., and I have had the opportunity of becoming a United States senator, and in this fight, I am looking ahead and leading the way, affirming rights for the trans community, showing up to defend their rights when they are threatened from this administration.”
He continued, reiterating his commitment not only to the trans community but to a future in which progressive and proactive pushes for expanded rights are seen, heard, and actualized.
“Our democracy is under threat from Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans who are trying to roll back everything we fought for and threaten everything we stand for in Massachusetts, and their corruption, their greed, their hate, just make me want to fight harder.”
When asked why Massachusetts voters should reelect him, he said his age and experience as a 79-year-old are assets rather than hindrances.
“That’s exactly what I’m doing and what I’m focused upon, traveling across the state, showing up for the families of Massachusetts, and I’m focused on the fights of today and the future to ensure that people have access to affordable health care, to clean air, clean water, the ability to pay for everyday necessities like energy and groceries.”
“I just don’t talk about progress. I deliver it,” he added. “There’s more to deliver for the people of Massachusetts and across this country, and I’m not stopping now as energized as I’ve ever been, and a focus on the future, and that future includes ensuring that the transgender community receives all of the protections of the United States Constitution that every American is entitled to, and that is the next frontier, and we have to continue to fight to make that promise a reality for that beleaguered community that Trump is deliberately targeting.”
Rob Jetten becomes first gay Dutch prime minister
US Embassy in Mexico issues shelter in place order for Puerto Vallarta
José Zayas brings ‘The House of Bernarda Alba’ to GALA Hispanic Theatre
2026: prices, pace, and winter weather
PHOTOS: Cupid’s Undie Run
Gay Treasury Secretary’s silence on LGBTQ issues shows he is scum
Lawsuit to restore Stonewall Pride flag filed
4th Circuit rules against discharged service members with HIV
PHOTOS: Clash
