National
Election results put LGBT advocates back on defense
Baldwin says chances ‘slim’ for ENDA in new Congress
In the wake of the seismic change brought about by Election Day results on Tuesday, supporters of LGBT rights are making new plans to advance their agenda in Congress as many signature bills now seem out of reach.
On Tuesday, the Republicans swept back into power by winning a majority of seats in the U.S. House and by shrinking the Democratic majority in the Senate.
CNN on Wednesday projected the GOP will take control of the U.S. House in the 112th Congress by winning at least 60 seats in the election — far more than the 39 seats the party needed to take control of the chamber.
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), who was given a score of “0” on the Human Rights Campaign’s most recent congressional scorecard, will likely replace House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in that role when Republicans come into power in the next Congress.
Democrats fared better in the Senate and retained control of the chamber. Many U.S. senators credited with being allies of the LGBT community, such as Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), won re-election in tight races.
Still, Democrats in the Senate are left with a reduced majority and some LGBT allies, such as Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), were ousted by voters.
The major wins by the GOP raises serious doubts about moving big ticket pro-LGBT legislation — such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act — in the next Congress.
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), the only out lesbian in Congress, predicted the shift in control of the House will have a “very significant impact” on advancing pro-LGBT legislation.
“What I hope is that the Republican majority that takes over will not revert to its agenda of the last time they were in the majority, which put us frequently on the defense fighting back anti-gay measures,” she said.
Baldwin said the “chances are very slim” that ENDA or legislation providing partner benefits to federal workers would pass.
“I have seen no great signs that the Republicans who have been re-elected have changed their previous stances, and I certainly don’t feel like the new crop of candidates coming in are champions of gay rights,” she said.
Still, LGBT advocates say they see a path forward for advancing certain rights even with the challenge of Republican control of the House and reduced Democratic majorities in the Senate.
Fred Sainz, HRC’s vice president of communications, said the loss of the House will “certainly impede, but not entirely stop” his organization’s pursuit of LGBT rights through legislation.
Among the items that Sainz identified as having a chance for passing are legislation eliminating the tax penalty on employer-provided health benefits to same-sex partners. Sainz also said he sees a way forward for the Domestic Partner Benefits & Obligations Act.
“There could be space to pass something like a domestic partnership taxation bill, or even a [Domestic Partner Benefits & Obligations Act] bill,” Sainz said. “So, in terms of the federal legislative front, I think that that’s probably the best assessment at this point.”
Winnie Stachelberg, senior vice president for external affairs at the Center for American Progress, also said she sees room for the passage of tax equality legislation or a bill to extend partner benefits to federal workers.
“I think if you take a look at some of the issues around equality in benefits, equality in tax treatment — those are issues that I would make investments in and talk about when it comes to Congress,” she said.
Even though Democrats will be in the minority in the House, Sainz said HRC expects lawmakers to introduce major pro-LGBT legislation, such as ENDA and a bill that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.
Supporters of LGBT rights are also preparing for the possibility of anti-gay measures. Sainz said he expected “targeted attacks” with anti-LGBT bills and amendments in the Republican-controlled House.
“We will work to stop the legislative rollback at every turn,” Sainz said.
Which anti-gay measures might the House pursue? Sainz said he wouldn’t rule out the possibility of a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
“At the highest of levels, we may very well see another Federal Marriage Amendment,” Sainz said. “At probably the more opportunistic level, we may see things inserted into bills as amendments that may be harder to spot.”
Baldwin said LGBT advocates “need to be vigilant” and prepare for any number of anti-gay initiatives that might emerge from the House. Still, Baldwin said she thinks the passage of a Federal Marriage Amendment in the 112th Congress would be “unlikely.”
“I think that is unlikely simply because we still have the super majority requirements in the U.S. Senate, but it may come up, we will have to see,” she said.
Stachelberg said the Republican pledge to repeal the health care reform law should also be seen as an anti-gay initiative. Among other things, the law prohibits insurance companies from discriminating based on HIV status.
“Our community needs to be as vocal as any in beating back those efforts to repeal the health care bill,” Stachelberg said. “It would be devastating to our community.”
The Republican takeover of Congress has also augmented the sense of urgency around finishing legislative work on repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year while Democrats control Congress.
Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said the results on Election Day “underscore the urgent need” to wrap up efforts on repealing the military’s gay ban. A repeal measure is included as part of major defense budget legislation currently pending before the Senate.
“It would be a huge blow, not only to ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal advocates but also to defense contractors and military families, if we don’t get an authorization bill by the end of the year,” Nicholson said.
Nicholson said an “abdication” of the authorization of funds for new defense expenditures and personnel measures would be “unthinkable.”
“This Congress should not want to end its term with that enormous failure on its shoulders,” Nicholson said.
Baldwin also emphasized the importance of the lame duck session in moving forward with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal — although she characterized the Senate’s chances of passing repeal as only “possible.”
“My hope is that since the lame duck will occur with the hold over incumbents, that they can work their way through a filibuster or avoid a filibuster and resolve to pass legislation that would repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” she said.
Many see passage of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the lame duck session of Congress before Republicans take control as a challenge. One Democratic aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said a lot has to come into alignment for the Senate to pass such legislation.
“The political climate during the lame duck session will be toxic,” the aide said. “Passage of the defense bill will require all the stars aligning. And it will be impossible to pass this bill without the active support and pressure from President Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.”
With pro-LGBT initiatives possibly tied up for at least the next two years, many advocates are looking more closely at the Obama administration to make changes.
Stachelberg said the LGBT community needs to consider “a range” of ways to address inequality, including non-congressional action.
“Congress is part of that, for sure, but it would be terribly short-sighted if we didn’t invest in efforts to … build on the success that this administration has begun to develop with respect to the executive branch,” she said.
Among the administrative changes that Stachelberg said could be explored are regulatory changes, data collection, non-discrimination policies and funding streams.
Sainz said HRC would continue to push for non-legislative changes from the Obama administration.
“Where federal policy changes are concerned, we believe that non-legislative policy changes will become our continued avenue for progress at the federal level,” Sainz said. “That’s where we’re going to put an awful lot of resources over the next few years.”
According to an HRC document provided by Sainz, among the policy changes the organization is seeking from the administration is LGBT inclusion in health care reform implementation.
Specifically, HRC wants the Department of Health & Human Services to ensure that:
• health disparity and data collection efforts include sexual orientation and gender identity;
• state health insurance exchanges provide coverage available to same-sex partners and their children;
• and benefits packages that insurance plans offer don’t exclude treatments for gender transition.
Another policy change that HRC is seeking is ensuring that LGBT families are included in federal disaster relief.
According to HRC, LGBT families affected by Hurricane Katrina in 2005 were excluded from government services and subjected to anti-gay harassment in shelter facilities. HRC also asserts same-sex couples had difficulty obtaining housing or relief payments.
Consequently, HRC is urging urged the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to adopt policies barring discrimination against LGBT people and to ensure that their families can receive household aid.
Editor’s note: Tammy Baldwin photo is a Blade file photo by Michael Key
The White House
Trump tells Fox News he won the ‘gay vote’ — but polls tell a different story
Trump falsely claims LGBTQ support on Fox despite polling showing overwhelming opposition.
President Donald Trump claimed he won the “gay vote” in 2024, despite evidence showing otherwise.
While appearing by phone on Fox News’s panel show “The Five” on Thursday, Trump falsely claimed he performed particularly well among gay voters while discussing the ongoing war in Iran — a conflict he initiated without formal congressional approval.
“Now I think I did very well with the gay vote, OK? I even played the gay national anthem as my walk-off, OK?” Trump said on air.
“And I think it probably helped me. But I did great. No Republican’s ever gotten the gay vote like I did and I’m very proud of it, I think it’s great. Perhaps it’s because I’m from New York City, I don’t know…”
His claim contradicts 2024 polling from NBC News, which found that the GOP presidential ticket captured fewer than 1 in 5 LGBTQ male voters — a figure that may also include bisexual and transgender men. Trump’s support among LGBTQ female voters was even lower, at just 8%.
White LGBTQ voters favored Vice President Kamala Harris over Trump by a margin of 82% to 16%, while LGBTQ voters of color backed Harris by an even wider 91% to 5%.
Trump also used the appearance to criticize “Gays for Palestine,” saying: “Look at ‘Gays for Palestine’… they kill gays, they kill them instantly, they throw them off buildings, and I’m saying, ‘Who are the gays for Palestine?’”
He further pointed to his campaign’s use of the song “Y.M.C.A.” by the Village People — which he has repeatedly described as a “gay national anthem” — noting that it was frequently used as a walk-off song at rallies, as an indication that he and his campaign were supported by the gay community. The track, long associated with camp and hyper-masculine gay imagery, became a staple of Trump campaign events.
The Village People were later booked to perform at Turning Point USA’s inaugural ball celebrating Trump’s second inauguration. Lead singer Victor Willis previously criticized Trump’s use of the song dating back to 2020 and considered legal action to block it, but ultimately said there was “not much he can do about it.” He later acknowledged the renewed exposure was “beneficial” and “good for business,” boosting the song’s popularity and chart performance.
Despite Trump’s claims of strong support from gay voters, polling has consistently shown otherwise — even as several prominent gay men have held roles in or around his orbit, sometimes dubbed the “A-gays.” These include Richard Grenell, former executive director of the Kennedy Center and Special Presidential Envoy for Special Missions; Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent; Under Secretary of State Jacob Helberg; Department of Energy official Charles T. Moran; and longtime supporter Peter Thiel, co-founder and CEO of Palantir.
His efforts to portray himself as aligned with the gay community stand in conflict with policies advanced under his leadership. These include removing LGBTQ-related data from State Department reports, attempting to narrowly redefine gender identity in federal policy, restricting access to gender-affirming health care, and rolling back anti-discrimination protections. His administration also rescinded initiatives focused on LGBTQ health equity, data collection, and nondiscrimination in health care and education — moves advocates say contribute to stigma and worsen mental health outcomes.
Additionally, some HIV programs and community health centers have lost funding from the federal government after supporting initiatives inclusive of transgender people as a direct result of Trump-Vance policies.
National
Anti-trans visa ruling echoes Nazi regime destroying trans documents
Trump administration escalates attacks on queer community
The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security earlier this month released its third Red Flag Alert for the United States about the Trump administration’s anti-trans legislation. As the Lemkin Institute shared in the press release, “the Administration has moved from identifying transgender people as as threat to the family and to the nation’s military prowess to claiming that transgender people constitute a cosmic threat to the spiritual health of the nation and the great direct threat to the US national security in the world.”
The news came the same day that the State Department issued a new rule, “Enhancing Vetting and Combatting Fraud in the Immigrant Visa Program.” Under this new guidance, all visa applicants are required to disclose their “biological sex at birth” during all stages of the process, “even if that differs from the sex listed on the applicant’s foreign passport or identifying documentation.”
This rule also orders that applicants to the green card lottery program share their passport information, so in knowingly collecting passport information that the agency knows will not match a person’s biological sex at birth, it’s creating grounds to deny trans peoples’ biases on the basis of “fraud,” Aleksandra Vaca of Transitics explains.
As is written in the new ruling, “the Department is replacing ‘gender’ with ‘sex’ in accordance with E.O. 14168, Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, which provides that the term ‘sex’ shall refer to an individual’s sex at birth. Only male and female sex options are available for entrants completing the Diversity Visa entry form.”
Along with outright denying the existence of nonbinary, genderqueer and gender expansive people, this policy creates a precedence for trans people to be stripped of their visas and deported because under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), any foreigner found to have obtained or possess a visa “by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact” will have their visa revoked and face deportation.
By requesting information on “biological sex at birth,” the State Department is forcing a mismatch between documents and enabling officials to accuse trans, nonbinary, and gender expansive immigrants of fraud. Thus, trans and nonbinary immigrants can have their visas revoked and can be deported, and information gathered from immigrants during the visa request process can be added to federal databases and used by immigration authorities, including ICE agents.
With the Supreme Court’s decision this past year allowing ICE officers to use racial profiling, Vaca argues that “now, The Trump administration has given ICE the reason it needs. Under this rule, ICE agents now have the enforcement rationale to assert that trans people–especially those belonging to racial minority groups–are more likely than cis people to have ‘misrepresented’ themselves during the visa process, and therefore, are more likely to enter the country ‘unlawfully.’”
This would enable ICE agents to target trans individuals specifically for being trans. If the goal of this were unclear, a day later the Trump administration released its statement for Women’s History Month 2026, writing that “we are keeping men out of women’s sports, enforcing Title IX as it was originally written and ensuring colleges preserve–and, where possible, expand–scholarships and roster opportunities for female athletes. We are restoring public safety and upholding the rule of law in every city so women, children, and families can feel safe and secure.”
And this is not the first time that ICE has targeted and harmed trans and nonbinary immigrants. Last June, Vera reported that ICE is not including trans people in detection in their public reports, and back in 2020, AFSC reported that trans people held in ICE detention faced “dreadful, ugly” conditions.
While it seems like a new development in Trump’s anti-trans escalation, it echoes a deeply upsetting history of denying and destroying transgender people’s documents following members of the Nazi party seizing power in 1933.
In the early 20th century, Weimar, Germany was an epicenter for gender affirming care with Maganus Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science. One of the first book burnings of the rising Nazi regime destroyed the Institute’s extensive clinical records and library on trans health and history by Nazi students and stormtroopers. In doing so, the Nazis effectively destroyed the world’s first trans health clinic and one of the richest and most comprehensive collective of information about trans healthcare.
Similarly, the Nazi government invalidated or refused to recognize what was called “transvestite passes,” or passing certificates that allowed trans people to avoid arrest under Paragraph 175 which prohibited cross-dressing. During the Weimar Republic — the regime that preceded the Third Reich — recognized and affirmed the identities of trans people (in limited ways) with specific documentation that helped prevent them from arrest. Invalidating and disregarding these passes allowed police and Nazi officials to target trans people and harass, extort and arrest them, and the record of passes themselves helped officials target trans people.
The changes to visa guidelines — alongside Kansas’s move to revoke trans drivers’ licenses last month — is reflective of this escalation of violence against trans people during the Nazi’s rise to power, which scholars like Dr. Laurie Marhoefer is just beginning to uncover. And along with the revocation of identification documents this past week, a recent Fourth Circuit Court ruled that states can deny Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming surgery.
The Fourth Circuit Court decision affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision in Skrmetti, which ruled that bans on gender affirming healthcare for young people are constitutional. This ruling extends this ban to include adult healthcare bans, allowing West Virginia’s exclusion of Medicaid coverage for adult gender affirming healthcare to take full effect. Even more upsetting was what the ruling itself said, calling gender affirming healthcare “dangerous.”
As was written in the Fourth Circuit Opinion, “it’s not irrational for a legislature to encourage citizens ‘to appreciate their sex’ and not ‘become disdainful of their sex’ by refusing to fund experimental procedures that may have the opposite effect.”
In reality, what this ruling and the opinion reflect, is the next step in government regulation and oversight over marginalized peoples’ bodies. From the overturn of Roe v. Wade, which removed federal protection of access to abortion, this next step represents the denial of people’s access to vital, lifesaving care–and to be clear, gender affirming care is not just for trans, nonbinary, and intersex people. It’s a dangerous escalation and one that echoes previous violence against trans people under fascist regimes; the Lemkin Institute is right to raise concern.
Pennsylvania
Pa. House passes bill to codify marriage equality in state law
Governor supports gay state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta’s measure
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a bill that would codify marriage equality in state law.
House Bill 1800 passed by a 127-72 vote margin. Twenty-six Republicans voted for the measure.
The Republican-controlled Pennsylvania Senate will now consider the bill that state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta (D-Philadelphia), who is the first openly gay person of color elected to the state’s General Assembly, introduced. Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro supports the measure.
“Here in Pennsylvania, we believe in your freedom to marry who you love,” said Shapiro on Wednesday. “Today, the House has stepped up to protect that right.”
BREAKING: The Pennsylvania House just passed @RepKenyatta's bill to codify marriage equality into law in PA — and they did it with broad bipartisan support.
— Governor Josh Shapiro (@GovernorShapiro) March 25, 2026
Here in Pennsylvania, we believe in your freedom to marry who you love. Today, the House has stepped up to protect that…
Trump tells Fox News he won the ‘gay vote’ — but polls tell a different story
Anti-trans visa ruling echoes Nazi regime destroying trans documents
Japanese Supreme Court to consider marriage equality
The outrage economy is not the LGBTQ community
Calendar: March 27-April 2
PHOTOS: Capital Stonewall Democrats 50th anniversary
Polish court rules country must recognize same-sex marriages from EU states
Capital Stonewall Democrats 50th anniversary gala draws sold out crowd
Trans Day of Visibility events planned
Virginia General Assembly’s 2026 legislative session ends
-
Photos5 days agoPHOTOS: Capital Stonewall Democrats 50th anniversary
-
Poland5 days ago
Polish court rules country must recognize same-sex marriages from EU states
-
District of Columbia5 days ago
Capital Stonewall Democrats 50th anniversary gala draws sold out crowd
-
District of Columbia4 days ago
Trans Day of Visibility events planned
