National
Boehner denies DOMA contract violates law
Dodges question on whether cost to defend DOMA will exceed $500K
U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) asserted on Thursday that a contract executed to hire a private attorney to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court complies with the law — despite earlier reporting that the agreement may be in violation of rules regarding government contracts.
During a news conference, Boehner denied the agreement was in violation of any House rules when asked by the Washington Blade if he’s confident the contract doesn’t violate a law mandating that government-allocated funds be approved through the congressional appropriations process before they’re obligated for any purpose.
“This hiring was approved by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group,” Boehner said. “I’m confident that it complies with all of the rules of the House.”
Boehner didn’t answer a subsequent question on whether he could assure taxpayers that the cost of hiring attorney Paul Clement won’t exceed the $500,000 initial top sum cap that was agreed to in the contract.
In April, House General Counsel Kerry Kircher, under direction from Boehner, executed a contract with Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general, to assist with defense of DOMA in court for an initial total sum cap that could reach $500,000 and a blended rate of $520 an hour. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group had previously voted 3-2 on a party-line basis to take up defense of DOMA, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage, after the Obama administration announced in February it would no longer defend the anti-gay law in court.
The contract was executed with Clement through his partnership with the law firm Bancroft LLC. Clement had earlier been contracted to defend DOMA in court through his employment at King & Spalding, but the firm dropped the agreement to defend DOMA, citing an inadequate vetting process prior to taking up defense of the statute. Clement resigned from his position at King & Spalding and went to Bancroft, where he pledged to continue litigating on behalf of the law.
But many lawmakers have questioned the source of the funds for hiring Clement because they weren’t appropriated before his contract was executed and the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group has no budget to allocate funds for this purpose.
Last month during a House Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee hearing, Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) asked Kircher and Dan Strodel, the House’s chief administrative officer, about the source of the funds for hiring Clement. Kircher replied they they wouldn’t come out of the Office of General Counsel’s budget and Strodel said he didn’t know from where the money would come.
According to The Huffington Post, Honda believes that the contract could be violating the Anti-Deficiency Act, which prohibits “involving the government in any obligation to pay money before funds have been appropriated for that purpose.” Violating the law with prior knowledge could lead to a fine or imprisonment.
In a statement provided to the Blade, Honda criticized Boehner for his response during the news conference and said continued defense of DOMA in court shouldn’t happen when the economy is the priority for Americans.
“Speaker Boehner just doesn’t get it,” Honda said. “The American people want Congress to focus on creating jobs and finding a way to preserve Medicare for future generations, not paying a high-priced private law firm $520 per hour to defend a constitutionally flawed and discriminatory law.”
Following the publication of The Huffington Post report, Democrats on the Committee on House Administration raised the question of whether the contract violated the Anti-Deficiency Act in a May 18 letter to Boehner. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had also raised concerns about the contract in April 18 and April 20 letters to the House speaker.
Drew Hammill, a Pelosi spokesperson, said Pelosi has yet to receive a response from the letters she sent on April 18 or April 20, nor have Democrats on the Committee on House Administration received a response to their inquiries.
“It is long overdue for Mr. Boehner to answer the questions raised by Leader Pelosi and Members of the Committee on House Administration,” Hammill said. “Mr. Boehner has put taxpayers on the hook for his legal boondoggle to defend an indefensible statute. Apparently, the Republican mantra of spending cuts does not apply to their rightwing ideological agenda.”
Hammill noted the decision to defend DOMA in court was approved by the Republicans on the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group with strong objections voiced by Pelosi and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). Additionally, Hammill said the contact wasn’t shared with Democrats on the Committee on House Administration before it was signed.
Michael Cole-Schwartz, spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, said Boehner’s response during the news conference is insufficient in the wake of questions that House Democrats raised following the execution of the contract.
“As the speaker remains adamant about defending discrimination with taxpayer dollars, members of Congress have rightly questioned the contract and procedure that brought in outside counsel,” Cole-Schwartz said. “This non-answer from Speaker Boehner isn’t even close to adequate especially given that it’s a member of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, Minority Leader Pelosi, who has been demanding answers to these exact questions.”
The exchange between the Blade and Boehner follows:
Washington Blade: Mister Speaker, two questions on your decision to hire Paul Clement to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. First, are you confident that this contract isn’t in violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act? The amount of money to pay Clement seems to have been agreed upon first without being appropriated by Congress. Second, the contract hires Clement for initial total sum cap of $500,000. Can you assure the U.S. taxpayer that the cost of hiring Clement won’t exceed that amount?
Boehner: This hiring was approved by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group. I’m confident that it complies with all of the rules of the House.
Puerto Rico
Bad Bunny shares Super Bowl stage with Ricky Martin, Lady Gaga
Puerto Rican activist celebrates half time show
Bad Bunny on Sunday shared the stage with Ricky Martin and Lady Gaga at the Super Bowl halftime show in Santa Clara, Calif.
Martin came out as gay in 2010. Gaga, who headlined the 2017 Super Bowl halftime show, is bisexual. Bad Bunny has championed LGBTQ rights in his native Puerto Rico and elsewhere.
“Not only was a sophisticated political statement, but it was a celebration of who we are as Puerto Ricans,” Pedro Julio Serrano, president of the LGBTQ+ Federation of Puerto Rico, told the Washington Blade on Monday. “That includes us as LGBTQ+ people by including a ground-breaking superstar and legend, Ricky Martin singing an anti-colonial anthem and showcasing Young Miko, an up-and-coming star at La Casita. And, of course, having queer icon Lady Gaga sing salsa was the cherry on the top.”
La Casita is a house that Bad Bunny included in his residency in San Juan, the Puerto Rican capital, last year. He recreated it during the halftime show.
“His performance brought us together as Puerto Ricans, as Latin Americans, as Americans (from the Americas) and as human beings,” said Serrano. “He embraced his own words by showcasing, through his performance, that the ‘only thing more powerful than hate is love.’”
National
Human Rights Watch sharply criticizes US in annual report
Trump-Vance administration ‘working to undermine … very idea of human rights’
Human Rights Watch Executive Director Philippe Bolopion on Wednesday sharply criticized the Trump-Vance administration over its foreign policy that includes opposition to LGBTQ rights.
“The U.S. used to actually be a government that was advancing the rights of LGBT people around the world and making sure that it was finding its way into resolutions, into U.N. documents,” he said in response to a question the Washington Blade asked during a press conference at Human Rights Watch’s D.C. offices. “Now we see the opposite movement.”
Human Rights Watch on Wednesday released its annual human rights report that is highly critical of the U.S., among other countries.
“Under relentless pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump, and persistently undermined by China and Russia, the rules-based international order is being crushed, threatening to take with it the architecture human rights defenders have come to rely on to advance norms and protect freedoms,” said Bolopion in its introductory paragraph. “To defy this trend, governments that still value human rights, alongside social movements, civil society, and international institutions, need to form a strategic alliance to push back.”

The report, among other things, specifically notes the U.S. Supreme Court’s Skrmetti decision that uphold a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming medical interventions for minors.
The Trump-Vance administration has withdrawn the U.S. from the U.N. LGBTI Core Group, a group of U.N. member states that have pledged to support LGBTQ and intersex rights, and the U.N. Human Rights Council. Bolopion in response to the Blade’s question during Wednesday’s press conference noted the U.S. has also voted against LGBTQ-inclusive U.N. resolutions.
Maria Sjödin, executive director of Outright International, a global LGBTQ and intersex advocacy group, in an op-ed the Blade published on Jan. 28 wrote the movement around the world since the Trump-Vance administration took office has lost more than $125 million in funding.
The U.S. Agency for International Development, which funded myriad LGBTQ and intersex organizations around the world, officially shut down on July 1, 2025. The Trump-Vance administration last month announced it will expand the global gag rule, which bans U.S. foreign aid for groups that support abortion and/or offer abortion-related services, to include organizations that promote “gender ideology.”
“LGBTQ rights are not just a casualty of the Trump foreign policy,” said Human Rights Watch Washington Director Sarah Yager during the press conference. “It is the intent of the Trump foreign policy.”
The report specifically notes Ugandan authorities since the enactment of the country’s Anti-Homosexuality Act in 2023, which punishes “‘carnal knowledge’ between people of the same gender” with up to life in prison, “have perpetrated widespread discrimination and violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people, their families, and their supporters.” It also highlights Russian authorities “continued to widely use the ‘gay propaganda’ ban” and prosecuted at least two people in 2025 for their alleged role in “‘involving’ people in the ‘international LGBT movement’” that the country’s Supreme Court has deemed an extremist organization.
The report indicates the Hungarian government “continued its attacks on and scapegoating of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people” in 2025, specifically noting its efforts to ban Budapest Pride that more than 100,000 people defied. The report also notes new provisions of Indonesia’s penal code that took effect on Jan. 2 “violate the rights of women, religious minorities, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people, and undermine the rights to freedom of speech and association.”
“This includes the criminalization of all sex outside of marriage, effectively rendering adult consensual same-sex conduct a crime in Indonesia for the first time in the country’s history,” it states.
Bolopion at Wednesday’s press conference said women, people with disabilities, religious minorities, and other marginalized groups lose rights “when democracy is retreating.”
“It’s actually a really good example of how the global retreat from the U.S. as an actor that used to be very imperfectly — you know, with a lot of double standards — but used to be part of this global effort to advance rights and norms for everyone,” he said. “Now, not only has it retreated, which many people expected, but in fact, is now working against it, is working to undermine the system, is working to undermine, at times, the very idea of human rights.”
“That’s definitely something we are acutely aware of, and that we are pushing back,” he added.
Maryland
4th Circuit dismisses lawsuit against Montgomery County schools’ pronoun policy
Substitute teacher Kimberly Polk challenged regulation in 2024
A federal appeals court has ruled Montgomery County Public Schools did not violate a substitute teacher’s constitutional rights when it required her to use students’ preferred pronouns in the classroom.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision it released on Jan. 28 ruled against Kimberly Polk.
The policy states that “all students have the right to be referred to by their identified name and/or pronoun.”
“School staff members should address students by the name and pronoun corresponding to the gender identity that is consistently asserted at school,” it reads. “Students are not required to change their permanent student records as described in the next section (e.g., obtain a court-ordered name and/or new birth certificate) as a prerequisite to being addressed by the name and pronoun that corresponds to their identified name. To the extent possible, and consistent with these guidelines, school personnel will make efforts to maintain the confidentiality of the student’s transgender status.”
The Washington Post reported Polk, who became a substitute teacher in Montgomery County in 2021, in November 2022 requested a “religious accommodation, claiming that the policy went against her ‘sincerely held religious beliefs,’ which are ‘based on her understanding of her Christian religion and the Holy Bible.’”
U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in January 2025 dismissed Polk’s lawsuit that she filed in federal court in Beltsville. Polk appealed the decision to the 4th Circuit.
-
a&e features4 days agoMarc Shaiman reflects on musical success stories
-
Television4 days agoNetflix’s ‘The Boyfriend’ is more than a dating show
-
Movies4 days ago50 years later, it’s still worth a return trip to ‘Grey Gardens’
-
Opinions4 days agoSnow, ice, and politics: what is (and isn’t) happening

