Connect with us

National

Time running short for ending ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

Activists pressure Senators to end ban during lame duck session

Published

on

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs rankled LGBT advocates after he failed to mention ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal when asked about legislative priorities in the lame duck session of Congress. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal are pushing the Senate to end the law in the lame duck session of Congress amid questions about whether sufficient support exists to complete the task by year’s end.

One Democratic aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told the Blade that Senate passage of major defense budget legislation to which “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal is attached would require “all the stars aligning” as well as active support from President Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Asked this week whether those elements were coming into alignment as the lame duck session approaches, the aide said, “Hell no. We ain’t anywhere near alignment.”

Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin (D-Mich.) told reporters on Tuesday that passing the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill with the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language presents challenges.

“We’re trying to get both things accomplished, and we just don’t know if we can,” Levin said, according to the Grand Rapids Press.

“Republicans have filibustered the whole defense bill because of that [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] provision. There’s some people who say that unless the defense bill has that provision, that we shouldn’t pass it,” he continued. “My position is, we should try to get both things done some way or another.”

Media reports circulated this week that Levin was engaged in talks with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to advance the defense authorization bill after stripping it of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language.

But while some see challenges in moving forward with legislative repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” others see a path forward if certain conditions are met.

Winnie Stachelberg, senior vice president for external relations at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, said Tuesday in a conference call with reporters that advocates are in a “solid position” to see legislative repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before year’s end.

Stachelberg cited recent public statements from the White House, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Gates to back that assertion.

“The administration’s really strong statement [Monday], Sen. Reid’s statement saying they are not going to stand for a defense authorization bill that strips out the repeal measure are really strong signals that people are moving to a phase where it’s about procedures, not about the will to get this done,” Stachelberg said.

In the statement on Monday, Pfeiffer said the White House “opposes any effort to strip ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ from the National Defense Authorization Act.”

On Sunday, Gates made news when he told reporters that he supports legislative repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” but isn’t sure of the likelihood of that happening. Previously, he said waiting for the Pentagon working group report on the issue, due Dec. 1, would be the best approach for congressional action.

“I would like to see the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ but I’m not sure what the prospects for that are,” Gates said. “And we’ll just have to see.”

Jim Manley, a Reid spokesperson, said the senator wants to see passage of the defense authorization in lame duck, but added an agreement with Republicans is necessary to move forward.

“Like Defense Secretary Gates, Sen. Reid strongly supports the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ to help strengthen our volunteer force and is continuing to work toward passing the repeal this year,” Manley said. “He, of course, can’t do it alone. The senator needs Republicans to at least agree to have a debate on this issue — a debate he firmly believes the Senate should have.”

In a joint statement on Tuesday, senators known for supporting repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” called for legislative action before the year’s end. Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) said the Senate “should act immediately to debate and pass” the defense authorization bill along the with the repeal language in the lame duck session.

“The Senate has passed a defense bill for forty-eight consecutive years,” the senators said. “We should not fail to meet that responsibility now, especially while our nation is at war. We must also act to put an end to the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy that not only discriminates against but also dishonors the service of gay and lesbian service members.”

The senators said a failure to act legislatively on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal could mean “a federal judge may do so unilaterally in a way that is disruptive to our troops and ongoing military efforts.” Last month, U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips issued an injunction against enforcing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” that confirmed her earlier ruling striking down the statute, but her decision was stayed by a higher court upon appeal.

“It is important that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ be dealt with this year, and it appears that the only way that can happen is if it’s on the defense bill,” the senators concluded.

Influencing moderate senators who may have voted “no” when the defense bill previously came before the Senate in September to change their votes a second time around is seen as essential for moving forward.

On Tuesday, the Human Rights Campaign announced that it deployed field organizers to eight states — Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Ohio, Virginia and West Virginia — to persuade senators there to vote in favor of the defense authorization bill and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal. According to HRC, the efforts include mobilizing veterans to speak out, holding public events and blanketing local media with pro-repeal messages.

In a statement, Joe Solmonese, HRC’s president, said lawmakers have “one last chance” in the 111th Congress to “follow the advice of the president and top military leaders by sending ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ to the dustbin of history.”

“It would be a travesty for a small group of senators to continue to hold hostage a bill with critical military equipment and pay raises just because some senators don’t want to even debate repeal,” Solmonese said.

The time limit for acting on legislative repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the lame duck session is among the challenges in getting it passed. Most repeal supporters say the Senate would need two weeks to debate and vote on the defense authorization bill, and more time is needed to conference the legislation with the U.S. House.

One Republican aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the problem with passing the defense authorization bill isn’t having insufficient votes; it’s having insufficient time. The aide said waiting for a vote on defense authorization bill until December would mean repeal won’t happen this year.

“If Reid is serious about bringing this up, he needs to bring it up next week, he needs to cancel Thanksgiving recess and he needs to get it off the floor and into conference that first week of December,” the aide said.

But Stachelberg said she thinks Congress would stay in session for longer than what many Capitol Hill observers are expecting and would have more time to act on the defense authorization bill.

“Congress has to pass a [continuing resolution] and deal with expiring tax cuts,” Stachelberg said. “We anticipate that these issues will take longer than most people anticipate. A longer lame duck increases the likelihood of passing the defense authorization bill with ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ in it.”

Even with a longer lame duck session, whether “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is a priority for the administration remains in question.

Last week, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs didn’t mention repeal when asked during a news conference about legislative priorities in the lame duck session of Congress. Instead, Gibbs mentioned extending tax cuts to middle-class Americans and ratification of the START treaty, a nuclear arms reduction agreement with Russia.

Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, criticized the remarks and said the administration needs to make clear that it’ll push for repeal during lame duck.

“These omissions stand in stark contrast to what the president and his staff are saying elsewhere,” Nicholson said. “Mr. President, either your administration is with us or it’s against us, and a mediocre level of public advocacy from your White House is not standing with us.”

Stachelberg said she thinks Dan Pfeiffer’s statement on Monday offers a better sense of what the White House is thinking as opposed to Gibbs’ comments.

“Rather than looking earlier in the day from Gibbs’ comments … I would look to the later comments from Dan Pfeiffer showing that the administration really does care that this gets done and that they’ll stand firm on the defense authorization bill in ensuring that it includes ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal,” she said.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said he’s “very concerned” Gibbs didn’t list the defense authorization bill as a priority for the lame duck session, but said he doesn’t think in that instance the White House press secretary “was speaking for the president.”

“The president has made it clear to some of us that he wants to get this done in the lame duck and I believe the president will be good on his word on this,” Sarvis said.

Another possible game changer for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal is the completion of the Pentagon working group study on implementing an end to the law. The group has a deadline of Dec. 1 to deliver its report to the defense secretary, but one source said a draft copy is already circulating within the Pentagon.

Sarvis mentioned the circulation of the draft copy and said his understanding is Levin has asked the Pentagon for a report on the status of the Pentagon working group’s recommendations.

“It’s appropriate that he do so when we know that a draft of that report is being circulated and that a draft of that report is in the hands of each one of the service chiefs,” Sarvis said.

Last weekend, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos, who assumed his position as service chief last month, said now isn’t the time for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and that he’s trying to determine how to “measure that risk” of ending the law.

On Monday, the general’s comments were rebuked by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen, who said he was “surprised” by Amos’ remarks and surprised he said them publicly.

Sarvis said he thinks what he called Amos’ “tirade” is related to “his being disappointed in what he saw in that report.” Media reports have stated the report will reveal that a majority of U.S. troops don’t care if gays are serving openly in the U.S. armed forces.

Could the report bolster legislative efforts to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”? Stachelberg said the Dec. 1 deadline for the report gives senators ample time to review the findings and take action in lame duck.

“Gates’ comments over the weekend, I think, suggest that this study — in alignment with the legislative process — will be positive,” she said.

The Center for American Progress has identified 10 senators who’ve said they want to see the Pentagon study to help inform their decision on lifting the military’s gay ban.

Among them are Sens. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), McCain, Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), George Voinovich (R-Ohio) and Jim Webb (D-Va.). The newly elected senators who, because of state election laws, are expected to take their seats during lame duck — Mark Kirk of Illinois and Joe Manchin of West Virginia — have also made statements along these lines.

“Some of these had opportunities to vote for or against repeal in either the House or Senate Armed Services Armed Committee, but each of them took the opportunity to say that — notwithstanding their ‘no’ votes — they wanted to see the complete assessment before Congress moves forward,” Stachelberg said. “We believe this gives them an opportunity to do so.”

Sarvis said he thinks the completion of this report, as well as Gates’ comments saying he wants congressional action on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” will be helpful in moving moderate senators to support repeal.

“I believe the report is going to satisfy a number of those senators who said they didn’t want to vote until that report was finished and they didn’t want to vote until they heard from Secretary Gates,” Sarvis said. “Well, they heard from Secretary Gates and they’re going to have the report shortly.”

The election of Kirk in Illinois has been nettlesome to many supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” because he voted against a repeal measure as a U.S. House member, and, upon taking his seat in lame duck, would replace Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.), among the strongest supporters of repeal.

Sarvis said Kirk’s position is “not entirely clear,” but emphasized that the newly elected wouldn’t even be in the Senate if Reid schedules the defense authorization bill for a vote early in the lame session.

“If the Senate moves to lay the bill down the week of the 15th when they come back, and we have the critical vote to proceed in November, Sen. Burris will still be in the Senate,” Sarvis said. “The secretary of state of Illinois has indicated that there will not be any certification [to seat Kirk] until December.”

Among those senators identified by the Center for American Progress, McCain has opposed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal even before the Pentagon announced its intention to end the law. Repeal advocates have said they believe McCain will continue to oppose an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” no matter the results of the report.

But Stachelberg said the completion of the report may prompt McCain to at least drop his objection to moving the defense authorization bill as a whole to the Senate floor.

“I think he will continue to vote ‘no’ on repeal,” she said. “I think it’s a question about whether he will obstruct and stand in the way of passage of a defense authorization bill — a bill that he has cared about for years.”

After the completion of the Pentagon study, it’s possible that members of the Senate Armed Services Committee would call for hearings to examine the working group’s findings. Having to wait for hearings could delay congressional action on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

But Rudy DeLeon, senior vice president of national security and international policy for the Center for American Progress Action Fund, said the Senate can take action to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before holding hearings on the issue.

DeLeon noted that the legislation pending before Congress has a 60-day waiting period from the time that repeal is certified to the time that an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is enacted.

“There really is a clock that will give the military a full voice, give the military a seat at the table, so the Joint Chiefs and the combatant commanders will certainly be able to offer their views on the implementation of the repeal,” he said.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

National

Man charged in Mall of America shooting plot inspired by Pulse massacre: report

Suspect exchanged hundreds of messages, pledged loyalty to ISIS

Published

on

The U.S. Department of Justice charged Sheikhdoon Abdullahi Mohamud with planning a crime of terrorism.

The U.S. Department of Justice charged Sheikhdoon Abdullahi Mohamud, 18, of Richfield, Minn., on Oct. 7 with one count of knowingly receiving a firearm and ammunition in order to commit a federal crime of terrorism. Mohamud allegedly planned to carry out a mass-casualty attack in support of ISIS, inspired in part by the Pulse nightclub massacre that took place on June 12, 2016 when then-29-year-old Omar Mateen murdered 49 people and wounded 58 – one of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history, and the deadliest targeting the LGBTQ+ community. 

According to a DOJ statement release, Mohamud was arrested on Oct. 6 by the FBI, which had arranged to sell him an AK-47 assault rifle, magazines, and ammunition through an undercover FBI employee. Mohamud was arrested shortly after paying $600 in cash and taking possession of those items; he reaffirmed his intention to shoot people at the Mall of America during the transaction.

“Mohamud allegedly sought to carry out a mass-casualty shooting at the Mall of America, expressing a desire to emulate some of the most horrific ISIS-inspired attacks in the United States, including the atrocities at Pulse Nightclub and 2025 New Year’s Day attack in New Orleans,” said Assistant Attorney General for National Security John A. Eisenberg in the statement by the DOJ. “The National Security Division will continue to work closely with the FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force to track down and prosecute ISIS-inspired terrorists in the United States.”

According to the complaint, beginning on or about December 2024, Mohamud had exchanged hundreds of messages through multiple social media and messaging apps with a confidential source, and expressed a desire to travel to Somalia to join a designated foreign terrorist organization to fight on their behalf.

The defendant stated many times that if he was unable to travel overseas because of a lack of funds, he planned to carry out a mass-casualty event in Minnesota in support of ISIS. 

According to the DOJ, “In July 2026, Mohamud sent messages discussing his intent to carry out a mass-casualty shooting attack at the Mall of America because he claimed it was owned by Jews. He wrote that [he] wanted to kill 30 to 60 people so no one would go there.”

“During the course of his communications, Mohamud stated that he wanted to commit an attack similar to those of the Pulse Nightclub mass-shooting in Orlando, the Bondi Beach mass-shooting in Australia, and the New Year’s Day vehicle-ramming attack in New Orleans.”

This case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Ryan White of the National Security Division’s Counterterrorism Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Benjamin Bejar for the District of Minnesota.

Continue Reading

California

Calif. GOP gubernatorial candidate ad ‘disgusting attempt to exploit lesbian intimacy’

Activists, anti-LGBTQ religious leaders criticized Steve Hilton spot

Published

on

(Screenshot of Steven Hilton ad)

Two women sit on a bed, a Pride flag hanging behind them. One is nervous; the other tells her to be calm and that she’ll do “all the work.” The music swells. The two hold hands and —  fill out a ballot voting for Steve Hilton? 

This is the new advertisement from the Hilton gubernatorial campaign that is drawing rebuke from both sides of the aisle, but for very different reasons. 

Jorge Reyes Salinas, the communications director at Equality California, said the ad was an insult to the queer community. 

“This ad is a disgusting attempt to exploit lesbian intimacy for political attention,” he said. The advertisement plays on media tropes that Salinas says “reduce lesbian and bisexual women … to sexual entertainment,” rather than showing them as well-rounded characters. “Any group of the LGBTQ+ community deserves the same dignity and respect as everyone else,” he said. 

The ad is truly hyper-sexualized. It ends with one woman telling the other, “Now lick it.” The two pause and stare before she reveals an envelope to send the ballot, and large text pops up saying, “Just try it!”  

Salinas characterized the ad as a desperate attempt to get attention from a candidate who is trailing far behind in the polls in heavily Democratic California. The Democratic candidate Xavier Becerra, who is endorsed by Equality California, holds a 25-point lead over Hilton according to recent polling by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies. 

Conservatives have also criticized the ad.

Influential evangelical Pastor Jack Hibbs thought the ad was distasteful and said, “lesbianism among college girls and some high school girls that right now is an actual pandemic of social ill.” Republican attorney general candidate Michael Gates said it undermines “the sanctity of the relationship between parents and their children.” This criticism is rather confusing because although the ad features two relatively young women, they both appear to be adults, not minors. 

“The comments from Pastor Jack Hibbs should be criticized because there is nothing wrong with two women being attracted to each other,” Salinas said. “We’re calling out the ad’s stereotypes, while also rejecting the homophobia in the response to it … by other Republicans.” 

The backlash from Hilton’s own party and supporters shows that an advertisement full of queer innuendo was ill-considered, considering the national GOP’s attacks on LGBTQ people in recent years. Hilton himself has been campaigning against transgender girls and women competing in school sports and using locker rooms that correspond with their gender identity. This context might be why Hilton’s political base responded to the ad just as poorly as the liberal voters he was attempting to court. 

Hilton says the ad is part of a new series rolling out before Election Day, showing stereotypical California liberal archetypes voting for Hilton. He claims these ads are authentically filmed with real actors, as opposed to being A.I. generated, like many of his previous ads. One other advertisement has been released so far by the campaign showing a man at a spiritual retreat also being swayed to vote for Hilton, although it is notably absent of sexual innuendo.

Caleb Kaufman is a California Local News Fellow placed with the Los Angeles Blade. The California Local News Fellowship is a state-funded initiative to support and strengthen local news reporting. Learn more about it at fellowships.journalism.berkeley.edu/cafellows.

Continue Reading

2026 Midterm Elections

Trump uses anti-trans slur against Democratic Senate candidate

President mocked Annie Andrews

Published

on

President Donald Trump (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

President Donald Trump used an anti-trans slur against Democratic South Carolina Senate candidate Annie Andrews on Monday as he sought to rally support for Republicans in the state’s Senate race.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump attacked Andrews three times, referring to her as “trannie” while promoting U.S. Sen. Darline Graham (R-S.C.)’s campaign.

Andrews is running against Graham for a Senate seat in the solidly Republican state.

Earlier this year, Graham was specially appointed to the seat following the death of her brother, Lindsey Graham, who represented South Carolina in the Senate from 2003 to 2026.

Andrews, the Democratic nominee from the state, is a pediatrician that lives in Charleston with her three children. She told NBC News that she will “work with anyone to put South Carolina first.”

“As a mom and a pediatrician, I’m in this race to fight for my patients, my three kids, and South Carolina,” Andrews said, adding that “lowering costs and making life better for families across our state is going to take all of us working together.”

Andrews used the attention from the president’s attack to emphasize what she described as a focus on policy issues rather than the culture wars that have dominated much of the political debate.

“If you care more about your bills than the politics in Washington, this campaign is for you,” she added.

Trump’s remarks have drawn criticism from leaders on both sides of the aisle.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) condemned Trump’s words Monday night on social media, calling his attacks on Andrews “despicable.”

“Annie Andrews is a mom and pediatrician who’s always put her community first — and she’s exactly who South Carolina needs representing them in the Senate,” Schumer said on X.

Former South Carolina Gov. David Beasley, a Republican, also criticized the president’s attack on Andrews, urging voters to “reject politics based on division and hate.”

“This is abhorrent. Elections don’t have to be about cruelty and lies. South Carolina deserves better,” Beasley wrote Monday night on X.

South Carolina has not elected a Democratic senator in nearly three decades.

Andrews’s campaign website does not mention her positions on LGBTQ issues.

The Washington Blade reached out to Andrews’s campaign for comment on Trump’s attack and her positions on transgender rights but did not hear back by time of publication.

Continue Reading

Popular