National
GOP senators push back on ‘Don’t Ask’ report
McCain criticizes questions, response rate of survey
Sens. John McCain and Jim Inhofe were critical of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” report during the hearing (Blade photo by Michael Key).
Republican senators during a hearing on Thursday attempted to undermine a recently released Pentagon report on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal by questioning the study’s conclusions and methodology.
The GOP senators raised their concerns and criticism during a hearing that marked the first day of two days of scheduled testimony on the Pentagon working group’s report on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which was made public earlier this week by the Defense Department.
Pentagon leaders — as well as LGBT advocates — in turn rebuked or attempted to alleviate these concerns from Republican senators.
Testimony came from Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen as well as both co-chairs of the Pentagon working group report: Pentagon general counsel Jeh Johnson and Gen. Carter Ham, commander of U.S. Army Europe.
The witnesses endorsed the Pentagon report and its findings pave a way for the Defense Department to institute a end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” if Congress repeals the statute. The defense officials urged senators to take action to repeal the law.
In his opening statement, Mullen said the Pentagon report backs his earlier testimony from February in which he said he personally believes gays should serve openly in the U.S. military.
“I am convinced that repeal of the law governing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is the right thing to do,” Mullen said. “Back in February, when I testified to this sentiment, I also said that I believed the men and women of the armed forces could accomodate such a change. But I did not know it for a fact. Now, I do.”
But Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a leading opponent of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal in the Senate, attempted to poke holes in the report during the hearing.
One of the Arizona senator’s main concerns was that the surveys sent out to 400,000 service members as part of the report — which were returned by about 115,000 respondents — didn’t ask troops whether they favored a change in “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and instead focused on an implementation of repeal.
“What I want to know and what it is that Congress is going to be determining is not can our armed forces implement a repeal of this law, but whether the law should be repealed,” McCain said. “Unfortunately, that key issue was not the focus of the study.”
McCain also argued that the limited number of troops who responded to the survey — around 28 percent — brings the results into question.
“That’s almost six percent of the force at large,” McCain said. “I find it hard to view that that is a fully representative sample set.”
Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) also expressed concerns about the return rate on the surveys and recalled troops’ reaction in May when Congress had taken the initial steps to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before the questionnaire was distributed.
“Halfway through the process when we took certain actions, they felt it was a done deal and as a result they didn’t participate in the survey,” Brown said. “Twenty-eight percent does not seem like a high number of participation.”
But Ham said the 28 percent response rate is well within the norm for previous surveys for military personnel.
“I’m comfortable that the response rate overall is within norms and probably more importantly, senator, that each category that can be analyzed has a statistically significant number of responses,” Ham said.
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, later rebuked the McCain’s point that service members should be polled on whether they want to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“That would be a dangerous precedent to set irrespective of how you feel about ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,'” Sarvis said. “That has never been done on any major personnel policy initiative that the military has undertaken. Never.”
Sarvis also pushed back on claims that 28 percent response rate on the survey was insufficient as he maintained the number represented “an extraordinary response rate.”
“As a matter of fact, I think … most pollsters would gratified by such a response,” Sarvis said.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said during her questioning that although the direct question isn’t directly asked, the survey does have information on whether troops would support a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“Given the extensive feedback that the authors of the report and the task force did and that they received from tens of thousands of service members in the forms of survey responses, e-mails, and town hall meetings, the report, in fact, does convey a sense of what service members think about repeal of the law, even if a direct question was not included in the survey,” Collins said.
The Maine senator voted for a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal amendment when it before the committee in May, but angered many LGBT advocates in September when she voted with the Republican caucus to prevent “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” legislation from coming to the Senate floor over what she said was a lack of a fair amendment process.
While attacking the methodology of the report, McCain also used information in the study in his effort to derail legislative efforts to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
The Arizona senator noted the survey accompanying the report found that between 40 to 60 percent of service members serving in the Marine Corps as well as combat arms specialties predicted a negative impact of repeal.
“I remain concerned as I have in the past — and is demonstrated in this study — that the closer we get to service members in combat, the more we encounter concerns about whether ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ should be repealed and what impact that would have on the ability of these units to perform their mission,” McCain said.
During the hearing, Gates predicted this opposition could be overcome. The defense secretary said with “proper time for preparation, for training” concerns among these groups would be mitigated.
For the example of Marines in combat arms specialties, Gates noted that many of these service members are under 25 years old.
“Most of them have never served with women either, and so they’ve had a very focused, very limited experience in the military … but I think that with time and adequate preparation, we can mitigate their concerns,” Gates said.
McCain also noted that 12.6 percent of survey responders — which he said translates into 264,600 service members — said they’d leave the U.S. military sooner than they had planned if “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is repealed.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) also expressed concerns about the effect of lifting “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” on what he said is historic levels of retention in the U.S. military as he said, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
“Right now, we have probably the best retention and recruitment percentages, over 100 percent, in everywhere except, I think, just the Army guard, and there’s other reasons for that,” Inhofe said. “There is some concern to me about how this would affect that.”
Gates said the experience of foreign militaries who have lifted their gay ban has been that number of people who actually quite the force was “far smaller” than those who threatened to leave.
“As far as the force as a whole, I don’t think any of us expect that the numbers would be anything like what the survey suggests,” Gates said.
Gates also noted the service members couldn’t immediately leave the armed services because they’re contractually obligated to continue to duration of their service.
At the start of the hearing, when Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said each committee member would have five minutes for questioning, McCain objected and said if only that time was allowed, another hearing would be necessary.
Gates said he could extend the time he could testify before the committee for another half-hour, and Levin extended the questioning time for senator to six minutes each.
Notably, after complaining that five minutes wasn’t enough time to question Gates, McCain used some of his time to question Pentagon leaders about the impact of the leaked information regarding U.S. foreign policy on Wikileaks.
Some of the strongest support for repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” during the hearing came from conservative Democrats who are known for often riling their party’s base, including Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.).
“To me, the issue seems to be not whether to allow gays to serve in the military, but whether to allow them to serve openly,” Nelson said. “Permitting them to serve, but not openly, undermines the basic values of the military: honesty, integrity and trust. When that’s undermined anywhere, it’s undermined everywhere.”
Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), who has heretofore opposed repeal efforts, praised the report and disputed assertations from Republicans that the study and survey wasn’t useful as a guide to repeal.
“It’s a 345-page report, 115,000 respondents, and, most importantly, this was done without politicizing men and women in uniform, which is vitally important in our society,” Webb said. “I would like to say that this report is probably the most crucial piece of information that we have in terms of really, objectively moving forward in order to address the law.”
Federal Government
Republicans attach five anti-LGBTQ riders to State Department funding bill
Spending package would restrict Pride flags on federal buildings, trans healthcare, LGBTQ envoys
As Congress finalizes its funding for fiscal year 2027, Republicans are attempting to include five anti-LGBTQ riders in the National Security and Department of State Appropriations Act.
A rider is an unrelated provision tacked onto a bill that must pass — in this instance, the bill provides funding for national security policy and for the State Department.
The riders range from restricting Pride flags in federal buildings to banning transgender healthcare, but all aim to limit the visibility and rights of LGBTQ Americans.
The five riders are:
Section 7067(a) prohibits Pride flags from being flown over federal buildings.
Section 7067(c) restricts the United States’ ability to appoint special envoys, representatives, or coordinators unless expressly authorized by Congress. These roles have historically been used to promote U.S. interests in international forums — including advancing human and LGBTQ and intersex rights and other policy priorities. The change would halt what the Congressional Equality Caucus describes as providing “critical expertise to U.S. foreign policy and leadership abroad.”
Section 7067(d) reinforces multiple anti-equality executive orders signed by President Donald Trump, effectively requiring that foreign assistance funded by the United States comply with those orders. This includes rescinding federal contractor nondiscrimination protections, including for LGBTQ people.
Section 7067(e) prohibits funding for any organization that provides or promotes medically necessary healthcare for trans people or “promotes transgenderism” — effectively banning funds for organizations that recognize trans people exist. This is despite the practice of gender-affirming care being supported by nearly every major medical association.
Section 7067(g) reinforces two global gag rules put forward by the Trump-Vance administration. One is the Trans Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign assistance funding for organizations that acknowledge the existence of trans people or advocate for nondiscrimination protections for them, among other activities. The second is the DEI Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign assistance funding for organizations that engage in efforts to address the ongoing effects of racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry outside the United States.
The global gag rule has its roots in anti-abortion policy introduced by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, when the 40th president barred foreign organizations receiving U.S. global health assistance from providing information, referrals, or services for legal abortion, or from advocating for access to abortion services in their own countries. Planned Parenthood notes that the policy also affects programs beyond abortion, including efforts to expand access to contraception, prevent and treat HIV/AIDS, combat malaria, and improve maternal and child health.
If organizations funded by the State Department engage in these activities, they could lose funding.
This anti-LGBTQ push aligns with broader actions from the Trump-Vance administration since the start of Trump’s second term, which have focused on restricting human rights — particularly those of trans Americans.
The House Appropriations Committee is responsible for drafting the appropriations legislation. U.S. Representative Tom Cole (R-Okla.) serves as chair, with U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) as ranking member. The committee includes 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.
For FY27 appropriations, Congress is supposed to pass and have the president sign the funding bills by Sept. 30, 2026.
Noticias en Español
The university that refuses to let go
Joanna Cifredo is a trans woman participating in University of Puerto Rico strike
Over the past days, I have been walking with a question that refuses to leave me. Not the kind of question you answer from a desk or from a distance, but one that grows out of what you witness in real time, at the gates, in the faces of those who remain there without knowing how any of this will end. What is truly happening inside the University of Puerto Rico, and why have so many students decided to risk everything at a moment when they can least afford to lose anything.
I write as someone who lives just steps away from the Río Piedras campus. These days, the silence has replaced the constant movement that once defined this space. The absence is felt in every corner where students used to pass at all hours. Since arriving in Puerto Rico three years ago, I have come to know firsthand stories that rarely make it into reports or official statements. One of the reasons I chose to stay was precisely this, to serve the university community, to help create a space where students could find something as basic as a safe meal at night and, in some way, ease burdens that are often carried in silence.
I have listened, asked questions, and tried to understand without imposing answers. What I have found is not a collective outburst or a generational whim. What exists is a fracture, a deep break between those making decisions and those living with their consequences every single day.
There has been an effort to reduce this strike to an issue of order, scheduling, or academic disruption. Conversations revolve around missed classes, delayed semesters, and students supposedly unaware of the consequences of their actions. What is rarely addressed are the conditions that lead an entire student body to pause its own future to sustain a protest that offers no guarantees.
Because that is the reality. These are students who fully understand what they are risking, and yet they remain. When someone reaches that point, the least they deserve is not judgment, but to be heard.
From the outside, there have also been attempts to discredit what is happening. Familiar narratives are repeated, legitimacy is questioned, and doubt is cast over intentions. It is easier to do that than to acknowledge that this did not begin at the gates, but long before, in decisions made without building trust.
And something must be said clearly. This is not limited to the gates of Río Piedras. What we are witnessing extends across every unit of the University of Puerto Rico system. Mayagüez, Ponce, Arecibo, Bayamón, Cayey, Humacao, Carolina, Aguadilla, Utuado, and the Medical Sciences Campus. This is not an isolated reaction. It is a movement that runs through the entire institution. Río Piedras may be more visible, but it is not alone. What is happening there reflects a broader unrest felt across the system.
Within that context, one demand has grown increasingly present, the call for the resignation of University of Puerto Rico President Zayira Jordán Conde. This is not the voice of a small group. It reflects a deeper level of mistrust that has spread across multiple campuses.
The Puerto Rican Association of University Professors has also made it clear that this is not solely a student issue. There is real concern among faculty, and a shared recognition of the conditions currently shaping the university. When students and professors arrive at the same conclusion, the problem can no longer be minimized.
Meanwhile, the administration continues to speak in the language of dialogue. But dialogue is not a word, it is a practice. And when trust has been broken, it cannot be restored through statements alone, but through decisions that prove a willingness to truly listen.
In the midst of all of this, there are voices that cannot be ignored. Voices grounded not in theory, but in lived experience. One of them is Joanna Cifredo, a student at the Mayagüez campus, a young Puerto Rican trans woman, and someone widely recognized for her advocacy.
I spoke with her in recent days. What follows is her voice, exactly as it is.
How would you describe what is happening inside the University of Puerto Rico right now, beyond what people see from the outside?
Estamos viviendo momentos muy difíciles, en el sentido de que hay mucha incertidumbre y una presión constante por parte de la administración para reabrir el recinto, pero, entre todo el caos e inestabilidad provocado por las decisiones de esta administración, también hemos vivido momentos muy poderosos. Esta lucha ha sacado lo mejor de nuestra comunidad.
Lo vimos en las asambleas y plenos, donde 1,500, 1,700, hasta 1,800 estudiantes llegaron —bajo lluvia, bajo advertencias de inundaciones— y aun así se quedaron, participaron y votaron a favor de una manifestación indefinida hasta que se atiendan nuestros reclamos.
He conocido a tantas personas en los diferentes portones, estudiantes graduados, aletas, estudiantes de intercambio, estudiantes de todo tipo de concentraciones y se unieron para apoyar el movimiento estudiantil. Estudiantes que vienen a los portones después del trabajo o antes de trabajar. Estudiantes que vienen a dejar agua y suministros entre turnos de trabajo. Viejitos que vienen a los portones con desayuno, almuerzo o cena.
Más allá de lo que se ve desde afuera, lo que estamos viviendo es una mezcla de tensión y resistencia, pero también de comunidad, solidaridad y compromiso colectivo.
Much of what is discussed remains at the level of headlines or social media. From your direct experience, what specific decisions or actions from the administration have led to this level of mobilization?
Desde el inicio, la designación de la Dra. Zayira Jordán Conde careció de respaldo dentro de la comunidad universitaria. No contaba con experiencia administrativa en la UPR ni con un conocimiento básico de nuestros procesos, cultura y reglamentos. Por eso, en asamblea, el estudiantado votó para solicitarle a la Junta de Gobierno que no considerara su candidatura, y múltiples organizaciones docentes hicieron lo mismo. Existía un consenso amplio de que no tenía la experiencia necesaria para liderar una institución como la nuestra.
A pesar de ese rechazo claro, la Junta de Gobierno decidió ignorar los reclamos de la comunidad universitaria e imponer su nombramiento.
Una vez en el cargo, su estilo de gobernanza ha sido poco transparente y poco colaborativo. Sin embargo, el detonante principal de la movilización en el Recinto Universitario de Mayagüez fue su decisión de destituir, de manera unilateral y en medio del semestre, a cinco rectores, incluyendo al nuestro, el Dr. Agustín Rullán Toro, para reemplazarlo por un rector interino, el Dr. Miguel Muñoz Muñoz.
Esta acción, tomada de forma abrupta, provocó de inmediato un clima de caos e inestabilidad dentro de la institución. Y deja una pregunta inevitable: ¿no anticipó el impacto de esa decisión, lo que evidenciaría una falta de experiencia? ¿O lo anticipó y aun así decidió proceder? No está claro cuál de las dos es más preocupante.
Además, esta decisión tuvo consecuencias concretas para el estudiantado, incluyendo el retiro de becas educativas para nuevos integrantes del RUM por parte de la Fundación Ceiba, que calificó la movida como “sorprendente” y “preocupante”. Decisiones impulsivas como la que tomó la presidenta ponen en peligro la estabilidad de nuestra institución y la acreditación de la universidad.
As a trans woman within this movement, how does your identity intersect with what is happening, and why does this also shape the future of people like you?
Soy una de varias chicas trans que formamos parte activa de este movimiento estudiantil.
For those outside the UPR who believe this does not affect them, what are the real consequences of this crisis?
La Universidad de Puerto Rico se fundó para servir al pueblo.
It is impossible to overstate the role the University of Puerto Rico and its students have played in shaping the social, cultural, and economic life of this country. Its impact extends into science, medicine, and every profession that has sustained Puerto Rico over time. No other educational institution has contributed more.
After listening to her, one thing becomes undeniable. This is not just another protest, but a generation refusing to let go of what little remains within its reach. And when a generation reaches that point, the issue is no longer the strike, the issue becomes the country itself.
National
Advocacy groups issue US travel advisory ahead of World Cup
Renee Good’s death in Minneapolis among incidents cited
More than 100 organizations have issued a travel advisory for the U.S. ahead of the 2026 World Cup.
The World Cup will take place in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico from June 11-July 19.
“In light of the deteriorating human rights situation in the United States and in the absence of meaningful action and concrete guarantees from FIFA, host cities, or the U.S. government, the undersigned organizations are issuing this travel advisory for fans, players, journalists, and other visitors traveling to and within the United States for the June 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup. World Cup games will be played in 11 different cities across the United States, which, like many localities, have already been the target of the Trump administration’s violent and abusive immigration crackdown,” reads the advisory that the Council for Global Equality and other groups that include the American Civil Liberties Union issued on April 23. “The impacts of these policies vary by locality.”
“While the Trump administration’s rising authoritarianism and increasing violence pose serious risks to all, those from immigrant communities, racial and ethnic minority groups, and LGBTQ+ individuals have been and continue to be disproportionately targeted and affected by the administration’s policies and, as such, are most vulnerable to serious harm when traveling to and/or within the United States,” it adds. “This travel advisory calls on fans, players, journalists, and other visitors to exercise caution.”
The advisory specifically mentions Renee Good.
A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent on Jan. 7 shot and killed her in Minneapolis. Good, 37, left behind her wife and three children.
The full advisory can be read here.
Republicans attach five anti-LGBTQ riders to State Department funding bill
Calendar: May 1-7
The university that refuses to let go
Judge issues revised order in Capital Pride stalking case
New Zealand blood donation rules shift
From red carpet to chaos: A first-person narrative of the WHCD shooting
House Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
LGBTQ people are leaving Orthodox Judaism behind
Democracy Forward files FOIA request for State Department bathroom policy records
Madonna makes rare club appearance in West Hollywood
-
The White House4 days agoFrom red carpet to chaos: A first-person narrative of the WHCD shooting
-
Federal Government3 days ago
House Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
-
News3 days ago
LGBTQ people are leaving Orthodox Judaism behind
-
State Department3 days ago
Democracy Forward files FOIA request for State Department bathroom policy records
