National
GOP in last ditch effort to block ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal?
McCain denies dropping START support over gay ban
Gay rights supporters continue to express optimism that the Senate is on its way to repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as Republican senators have reportedly threatened to withdraw support from a nuclear arms reduction treaty if a vote on the miltary’s gay ban proceeds as planned.
According to Congressional Quarterly, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have said they would no longer support the START Treaty if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) proceeds with a vote on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the DREAM Act, an immigration-related bill.
Reid on Thursday night filed cloture on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal legislation as well as the DREAM Act. The vote on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” could come as soon as Saturday if the Senate fails to invoke cloture first on the DREAM Act.
On the Senate floor, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) predicted the treaty’s failure if the chamber moves onto what he called “partisan, political, issues, brought forth to basically accommodate activist groups around this country,” presumably referring to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and immigration.
“I’m hoping that those will be taken down or else I don’t think the future of the START treaty over the next several days is going to be successful, based on what I’m watching,” Corker said.
On the Senate floor, McCain seemed to distance himself from Corker and dispute the reporting that he and Graham were basing their support for the START Treaty on other measures that were coming to the floor.
“There continues to swirl allegations that there is going to be a vote for it or against it because of another piece of legislation or for other reasons — for other political reasons,” McCain said. “I reject that allegation.”
Brooke Buchanan, a McCain spokesperson, said via e-mail to the Washington Blade, that the assertions that McCain is threatening to withdraw support from the START Treaty over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are “not true.”
“McCain will base his support on START on the merits of the Treaty and if his concerns regarding Missile Defense have been addressed,” Buchanan said.
Graham’s office didn’t respond on short notice to the Blade’s request for comment on the issue.
An informed source said Congressional Quarterly is standing by its reporting in the article.
The START Treaty has been a priority for the White House in the lame duck session of Congress and support from McCain and Graham is seen as essential to reaching the 67-vote threshold necessary to ratify the treaty.
The reported ultimatum offered by Republicans senator could put the White House and Democratic leadership in the difficult position of having to choose between the two agenda items.
Still, the plan seems to be to continue with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal as planned. Regan Lachapelle, a Reid spokesperson, said Senate leadership intends to hold a vote Saturday as announced Thursday.
A White House spokesperson didn’t respond on short notice to a request for comment on whether the reported threats from Republicans would disrupt plans for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Optimism over ‘Don’t Ask’ vote
Amid these reported threats, supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal said prospects look good for the Senate vote and pledged to keep up the pressure until Congress finishes the job.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), the sponsor of the stand-alone bill, said he’s “very optimistic” the legislation will pass the Senate and noted the bill currently has more than 50 co-sponsors.
“But we know it ain’t over till it’s over and until all the votes are counted,” Lieberman said.
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, also predicted the Senate will vote to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” on Saturday.
“I believe senators will do that,” Sarvis said. “I think we’re going to have a good weekend, and I just want to say we are delighted to be here after 17 years having this historic opporunity. I believe we’re on the brink of victory in the next day or two.”
To increase pressure on the Senate, gay troops who were discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and who are affiliated with SLDN are pledging to sit in the Senate gallery until the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal vote is taken.
Sarvis said these service members have come to the Senate to say they’re going to stay here until the Senate repeals “‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“So between now and adjournment, these service members and others like them — somewhere between two and 10 each hour — will be in the Senate galleries until the Senate acts,” Sarvis said.
Anthony Woods, an Army Iraq war veteran who was discharged in 2008, said during the news conference that implementation of open service in the U.S. military would have no impact on battle effectiveness.
“My soldiers didn’t care about anyone’s sexual orientation,” Woods said. “I was an armor officer, so we were on tanks in some of the toughest of parts of Iraq and it didn’t matter one bit what someone’s sexual orientation was.”
During the news conference, other lawmakers who have worked to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” railed against the gay ban as they called for an end to the law.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said she thinks “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is “unconstiutional” as she commended gay service members for serving under “difficult circumstances.”
“I want to thank you for your dedication and commitment despite such difficulties and despite such requirements that, I think, fundamentally, are not only unfair and unconstitutional, but in violation of who we are as Americans,” Gillibrand said.
Many gay rights advocates have been calling on President Obama to declare “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” unconstitutional so he could discontinue enforcement of the law.
A vote for final passage normally takes place 30 hours after the Senate invokes cloture on a bill, but Lieberman said a final vote could take place on the same day if cloture is invoked and the Senate has unanimous consent to move forward ahead of time.
“I hope that we may reason together and decide to yield back some time and perhaps get to final passage tomorrow before the end of the day.”
If all 57 senators who voted in favor of the motion to proceed last week on the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill vote to invoke cloture on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” legislation, only three more votes would be needed to reach the 60-vote threshold necessary to move forward with the bill.
Lieberman has said Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who didn’t vote this month on the defense authorization bill, would vote in favor of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” stand-alone bill. Sens. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) have also indicated they would support the stand-alone bill, which should bring the vote tally up to 61.
Still, SLDN has included Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) on its list of senators whom repeal supporters need to pressure before the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” vote. If Conrad votes “no” or takes a walk, his action could put the repeal bill right at the 60-vote threshold neeeded to go forward — or even below that threshold if there are any surprises.
During the news conference, Lieberman declined to elaborate on what he believed Conrad’s position was on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and said he’d let the North Dakota senator speak for himself.
“I think you’ll have to talk to him,” Lieberman said. “Let’s say for now, I’m confident that got more than 60 votes.”
Conrad’s office didn’t respond on short notice to a request to comment on how the senator would vote on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Amendments not an issue for ‘Don’t Ask’ bill
Debate over amendments had previously been an issue with the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill to which “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was attached, which failed to pass in the Senate earlier this month, but that doesn’t seem to be a factor in the vote on the standalone repeal legislation.
Many Republican senators said they voted “no” on the defense authorization bill because they didn’t feel the amendment process for the legislation was fair to the minority party.
For the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” legislation, Reid has “filled the tree” and is not permitting amendments on the bill to ensure that the legislation the Senate approves will be identical to the measure passed earlier this week by the House.
Lachapelle said the cloture vote on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is “an opportunity for senators to show where they stand on the issue.”
“Amendments at this point would only serve to kill the bill,” she said.
Even though senators who expressed support for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” have previously voted “no” on the defense authorization bill based on concerns on the amendment process, Lieberman said no senators who have been supportive said they would vote “no” based on amendment on the standalone bill.
In fact, Lieberman said two senators — Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowksi (R-Alaska) — confirmed they would vote in favor of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” bill even with no amendments.”
“Although both of them wanted their to be a number of amendments allowed on the defense authorization bill, they said that was very different because it was a big bill, 900 pages — there ought to be a free and reasonable debate,” Lieberman said. “The repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” I think, at this point is four or five pages.”
Lieberman said both Collins and Murkowski indicated that opponents of repeal “will have full opportunity to speak against it, but we ought not to give people the opportunity to delay it further or try to pass an amemdment that effectively kill the bill.”
State Department
Rubio mum on Hungary’s Pride ban
Lawmakers on April 30 urged secretary of state to condemn anti-LGBTQ bill, constitutional amendment
More than 20 members of Congress have urged Secretary of State Marco Rubio to publicly condemn a Hungarian law that bans Pride events.
California Congressman Mark Takano, a Democrat who co-chairs the Congressional Equality Caucus, and U.S. Rep. Bill Keating (D-Mass.), who is the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Europe Subcommittee, spearheaded the letter that lawmakers sent to Rubio on April 30.
Hungarian lawmakers in March passed a bill that bans Pride events and allow authorities to use facial recognition technology to identify those who participate in them. MPs last month amended the Hungarian constitution to ban public LGBTQ events.
“As a NATO ally which hosts U.S. service members, we expect the Hungarian government to abide by certain values which underpin the historic U.S.-Hungary bilateral relationship,” reads the letter. “Unfortunately, this new legislation and constitutional amendment disproportionately and arbitrarily target sexual and gender minorities.”
Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government over the last decade has moved to curtail LGBTQ and intersex rights in Hungary.
A law that bans legal recognition of transgender and intersex people took effect in 2020. Hungarian MPs that year also effectively banned same-sex couples from adopting children and defined marriage in the constitution as between a man and a woman.
An anti-LGBTQ propaganda law took effect in 2021. The European Commission sued Hungary, which is a member of the European Union, over it.
MPs in 2023 approved the “snitch on your gay neighbor” bill that would have allowed Hungarians to anonymously report same-sex couples who are raising children. The Budapest Metropolitan Government Office in 2023 fined Lira Konyv, the country’s second-largest bookstore chain, 12 million forints ($33,733.67), for selling copies of British author Alice Oseman’s “Heartstopper.”
Former U.S. Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman, who is gay, participated in the Budapest Pride march in 2024 and 2023. Pressman was also a vocal critic of Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ crackdown.
“Along with years of democratic backsliding in Hungary, it flies in the face of those values and the passage of this legislation deserves quick and decisive criticism and action in response by the Department of State,” reads the letter, referring to the Pride ban and constitutional amendment against public LGBTQ events. “Therefore, we strongly urge you to publicly condemn this legislation and constitutional change which targets the LGBTQ community and undermines the rights of Hungarians to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.”
U.S. Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Sarah McBride (D-Del.), Jim Costa (D-Calif.), James McGovern (D-Mass.), Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Julie Johnson (D-Texas), Ami Bera (D-Calif.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Gabe Amo (D-R.I.), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Dina Titus (D-Nev.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) signed the letter alongside Takano and Keating.
A State Department spokesperson on Wednesday declined to comment.
Federal Government
HRC memo details threats to LGBTQ community in Trump budget
‘It’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives’
A memo issued Monday by the Human Rights Campaign details threats to LGBTQ people from the “skinny” budget proposal issued by President Donald Trump on May 2.
HRC estimates the total cost of “funding cuts, program eliminations, and policy changes” impacting the community will exceed approximately $2.6 billion.
Matthew Rose, the organization’s senior public policy advocate, said in a statement that “This budget is more than cuts on a page—it’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives.”
“Trump is taking away life-saving healthcare, support for LGBTQ-owned businesses, protections against hate crimes, and even housing help for people living with HIV,” he said. “Stripping away more than $2 billion in support sends one clear message: we don’t matter. But we’ve fought back before, and we’ll do it again—we’re not going anywhere.”
Proposed rollbacks or changes at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will target the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, other programs related to STI prevention, viral hepatitis, and HIV, initiatives housed under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and research by the National Institutes of Health and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Other agencies whose work on behalf of LGBTQ populations would be jeopardized or eliminated under Trump’s budget include the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Department of Education.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
Litigation challenging the policy continues in the 9th Circuit
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump-Vance administration to enforce a ban on transgender personnel serving in the U.S. Armed Forces pending the outcome of litigation challenging the policy.
The brief order staying a March 27 preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington notes the dissents from liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
On the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump issued an executive order requiring Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to effectuate a ban against transgender individuals, going further than efforts under his first administration — which did not target those currently serving.
The DoD’s Feb. 26 ban argued that “the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.”
The case challenging the Pentagon’s policy is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The lead plaintiff is U.S. Navy Commander Emily Shilling, who is joined in the litigation by other current transgender members of the armed forces, one transgender person who would like to join, and a nonprofit whose members either are transgender troops or would like to be.
Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, both representing the plaintiffs, issued a statement Tuesday in response to the Supreme Court’s decision:
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a devastating blow to transgender servicemembers who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation’s defense.
“By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the Court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice.
“Transgender individuals meet the same standards and demonstrate the same values as all who serve. We remain steadfast in our belief that this ban violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and will ultimately be struck down.”
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer noted that courts must show “substantial deference” to DoD decision making on military issues.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the military ban to go into effect is devastating for the thousands of qualified transgender servicemembers who have met the standards and are serving honorably, putting their lives on the line for their country every single day,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “Today’s decision only adds to the chaos and destruction caused by this administration. It’s not the end of the case, but the havoc it will wreak is devastating and irreparable. History will confirm the weight of the injustice done today.”
“The Court has upended the lives of thousands of servicemembers without even the decency of explaining why,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “As a result of this decision, reached without benefit of full briefing or argument, brave troops who have dedicated their lives to the service of our country will be targeted and forced into harsh administrative separation process usually reserved for misconduct. They have proven themselves time and time again and met the same standards as every other soldier, deploying in critical positions around the globe. This is a deeply sad day for our country.”
Levi and Minter are the lead attorneys in the first two transgender military ban cases to be heard in federal court, Talbott v. Trump and Ireland v. Hegseth.
U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) issued a statement on behalf of the Congressional Equality Caucus, where he serves as chair.
“By lifting the lower court’s preliminary injunction and allowing Trump to enforce his trans troop ban as litigation continues, the Supreme Court is causing real harm to brave Americans who simply want to serve their nation in uniform.
“The difference between Donald Trump, a draft dodger, and the countless brave Americans serving their country who just happen to be trans couldn’t be starker. Let me be clear: Trump’s ban isn’t going to make our country safer—it will needlessly create gaps in critical chains of military command and actively undermine our national security.
“The Supreme Court was absolutely wrong to allow this ban to take effect. I hope that lower courts move swiftly so this ban can ultimately be struck down.”
SPARTA Pride also issued a statement:
“The Roberts Court’s decision staying the preliminary injunction will allow the Trump purge of transgender service members from the military to proceed.
“Transgender Americans have served openly, honorably, and effectively in the U.S. Armed Forces for nearly a decade. Thousands of transgender troops are currently serving, and are fully qualified for the positions in which they serve.
“Every court up to now has found that this order is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the Roberts Court – without hearing any evidence or argument – decided to allow it to go forward. So while the case continues to be argued, thousands of trans troops will be purged from the Armed Forces.
“They will lose their jobs. They will lose their commands, their promotions, their training, pay and benefits, and time. Their units will lose key players; the mission will be disrupted. This is the very definition of irreparable harm.”
Imara Jones, CEO of TransLash Media, issued the following statement:
“The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Trump’s ban on transgender soldiers in the military, even as the judicial process works its way through the overall question of service, signals that open discrimination against trans people is fair game across American society.
“It will allow the Trump Administration to further advance its larger goal of pushing trans people from mainstream society by discharging transgender military members who are currently serving their country, even at a time when the military has struggled recently to meet its recruiting goals.
“But even more than this, all of my reporting tells me that this is a further slide down the mountain towards authoritarianism. The hard truth is that governments with authoritarian ambitions have to separate citizens between who is worthy of protection and who’s not. Trans people are clearly in the later category. And this separation justifies the authoritarian quest for more and more power. This appears to be what we are witnessing here and targeting trans people in the military is just a means to an end.”
My chance encounter with a pope and why goodness still matters
Underdog glorious: a personal remembrance of Jill Sobule
Dr. Fauci receives Harvey Milk Award, reflects on legacy of love and public health
I’m a lesbian and LGBTQ books would have changed my life
Comings & Goings
American cardinal chosen as next pope
Your guide to the many Pride celebrations in D.C. region
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
WorldPride permits for National Mall have yet to be approved
Trump admin cancels more than $800 million in LGBTQ health grants
-
The Vatican3 days agoAmerican cardinal chosen as next pope
-
a&e features3 days agoYour guide to the many Pride celebrations in D.C. region
-
U.S. Supreme Court5 days agoSupreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
-
District of Columbia4 days agoWorldPride permits for National Mall have yet to be approved