National
Frank embraces title of LGBT rights pioneer
Retiring gay lawmaker talks ENDA, 2012 election
Retiring Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) acknowledged on Tuesday his role as a pioneer for LGBT rights during a Washington news conference.
Asked by the Washington Blade whether he thinks characterizations of him following his retirement announcement as a gay rights pioneer are accurate, Frank replied, “Yeah, in the sense that I was the first person to volunteer that I was gay.”
Frank made the comments during a news conference on Capitol Hill following his announcement from the previous day that he won’t pursue a 17th term in the U.S. House. He took questions from Washington-area reporters after participating in a similar event on Monday in his home district in Massachusetts.
MORE IN THE BLADE: PRESIDENT OBAMA PRAISES BARNEY FRANK AS A ‘FIERCE ADVOCATE’ FOR AMERICANS
Frank, 71, was first elected to Congress in 1980 and publicly came out as gay in 1987. The lawmaker was the second openly gay person to serve in Congress. The late Rep. Gerry Studds had come out as gay in 1983, but only after revelations emerged that he had an affair with a 17-year-old male page.
“My colleague Gerry Studds was first person courageously to acknowledge it,” Frank continued. “Before Gerry, a number of members of Congress had been caught in sexual activity that would have led people to infer that they were gay. As I recall, all of them announced that they were too drunk to remember what they were doing, which is an unusual description of one’s capacity to be drunk to remember things, but that’s what they said.”
On his own coming out, Frank continued, “I was the first to acknowledge being gay. … I didn’t do it until I was 47. I was not the daring young man on the flying trapeze here.”
Among those dubbing Frank a “pioneer” for being openly gay as member of Congress decades ago was fellow gay U.S. Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), who Monday in a statement called Frank “a groundbreaking pioneer and one of the most insightful, knowledgeable and humorous people ever to grace the halls of Congress.”
Over the course of the news conference, Frank took questions on matters including the sustainability of the financial reform law known as Dodd-Frank that he helped shepherd through Congress and into law last year and his oversight as House Financial Services Committee chair of subprime mortgage lending that some say contributed to the 2008 financial crisis. However, the lawmaker also took a handful of LGBT-related questions.
Asked why ENDA hasn’t yet become law, Frank said the answer is “very simple” and pro-LGBT bills need Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress and a Democratic administration to become law.
“The only way you can get any law passed that fights discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity is if you have a Democratic president, House and Senate,” Frank said. “Now, people don’t realize how rarely we’ve had that. We’ve had a Democratic president, House and Senate for four years out of the 32 I’ve been in Congress. We had it for the first two years under Bill Clinton and we had it for the first two years under Barack Obama.”
Under Clinton, Frank said Americans hadn’t evolved enough in terms of LGBT rights to pass ENDA, although he said LGBT rights were advanced by executive orders enabling LGBT government workers to have security clearances and allowing foreigners to claim asylum in the United States based on their LGBT status.
MORE IN THE BLADE: BARNEY FRANK’S LEGACY
Frank noted that hate crimes protection legislation and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal were able to pass during the 111th Congress. As for why ENDA wasn’t among those bills, Frank said a crowded schedule under which lawmakers worked on health care reform as well as the issue of transgender inclusion were factors.
Frank said the recently passed transgender workplace protections bill in Massachusetts could be a “model” for addressing transgender inclusion issues for ENDA in Congress because of the state law’s more limited scope omitting public accommodations.
“The Massachusetts Legislature just passed and the governor signed a bill that prohibits discrimination on people based on gender identity,” Frank said. “They already had one on sexual orientation. But it’s in employment; it does not include public accommodations. It avoids the whole issue of what happens in locker rooms and bathrooms.”
Frank added he thinks ENDA will become law when the Democrats have control of the White House and both chambers of Congress.
“Given the polarization of this issue and the extent to which the Republican Party has moved to a virtually unanimous overwhelmingly anti-LGBT position — with some exceptions in the Senate on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ — it’ll be the next time you get a Democratic House, Senate and president,” Frank said.
Frank also commented on the importance of having openly LGBT members of Congress, saying, “Personal factors mean a lot.” Frank’s departure could lead to a reduction in the number of openly gay members of Congress, although other candidates are in the running.
“Voting in the abstract on an issue is one thing,” Frank said. “Telling someone with whom you have had good personal relations that you think he’s inferior — that’s harder. … If you believe we should be finishing the fight against … legal discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender [identity], it is important to have people who are gay or transgender or lesbian in the mix.”
As far as issues that weren’t LGBT-specific, Frank also responded to what he thought would happen to Congress after the 2012 election. He said Democrats could win control of both chambers of Congress, but he doesn’t believe Democrats would have sufficient seats for a “workable majority.”
“I don’t think we will have the unusual circumstances we had of having enough senators to almost break a filibuster,” Frank said. “I don’t think in either House you’re going to have workable majorities. I guess that’s the best way to put it. I think it’s very possible that we will have a Democratic majority, but I don’t think you’re going to see a workable congressional majority for the next two years in the House or the Senate.”
Frank also ruled out the possibility of being appointed as secretary of the Department of Housing & Urban Development. Frank had earlier expressed interest in the position in a biography published in 2009. If he had received such an appointment, he would have become the first openly gay Cabinet member.
“My hope that was that Obama would get elected, we would have four years under Obama’s presidency of Democratic control and we could establish some new housing programs,” Frank said. “We would establish some new housing programs and I would like to have the chance to administer them. Unfortunately, it didn’t work out.”
Frank continued that his “biggest disappointment” over his congressional career was that he didn’t advance rental housing programs over which HUD would have jurisdiction as much as would have liked.
“So the reasons that I would have liked to be secretary of HUD would be to administer programs that don’t exist,” Frank said.
Frank also followed up on comments he made Monday saying he “lived a good enough life to be rewarded by Newt Gingrich being the Republican nominee.” The former House speaker is currently the front-runner among the GOP presidential candidates, according to some polls.
The lawmaker said he “isn’t an expert on the Republican nominating process” but believes the rise of Gingrich is the result of dissatisfaction with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, whom some consider the establishment candidate for the Republicans.
“I must say, when I saw the Sunday edition of the Union Leader endorse Newt Gingrich, I guess I channeled my grandmother, ‘From Joe McQuaid’s lips to God’s ears,'” Frank said. “It just seemed to me — given the Freddie Mac thing, the marital difficulties, the other issues that he’s got, the fact that he was forced to pay a fine by the House of Representatives — it just seemed to me unlikely. I guess, but, again, I’m not an expert on this, the distaste for Mitt Romney is so strong, it outweighs some of Gingrich’s problems.”
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.
State Department
Democracy Forward files FOIA request for State Department bathroom policy records
April 20 memo outlined anti-transgender rule
Democracy Forward on Tuesday filed a Freedom of Information Act request for records on the State Department’s new bathroom policy.
A memo titled “Updates Regarding Biological Sex and Intimate Spaces, Including Restrooms” that the State Department issued on April 20 notes employees can no longer use bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity.
“The administration affirms that there are two sexes — male and female — and that federal facilities should operate on this objective and longstanding basis to ensure consistency, privacy, and safety in shared spaces,” State Department spokesperson Tommy Piggot told the Daily Signal, a conservative news website that first reported on the memo. “In line with President Trump’s executive order this provides clear, uniform guidance to the department by grounding policy in biological sex as determined at birth.”
President Donald Trump shortly after he took office in January 2025 issued an executive order that directed the federal government to only recognize two genders: male and female. The sweeping directive also ordered federal government agencies to “effectuate this policy by taking appropriate action to ensure that intimate spaces designated for women, girls, or females (or for men, boys, or males) are designated by sex and not identity.”
Democracy Forward’s FOIA request that the Washington Blade exclusively obtained on Tuesday is specifically seeking a copy of the memo that details the State Department’s new bathroom policy. Democracy Forward has also requested “all” memo-specific communications between the State Department’s Bureau of Global Public Affairs and the Daily Signal from April 1-21.
Federal Government
House Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
Measures would restrict federal funding for LGBTQ-affirming schools
Republicans have been gaining ground in reshaping education policy to be less inclusive toward LGBTQ students at the state level, and now they are turning their focus to Capitol Hill.
Some GOP lawmakers are pushing for a nationwide “Don’t Say Gay” bill, doubling down on their commitment to being the party of “traditional family values” by excluding anyone who does not identify with their sex at birth.
The largest anti-LGBTQ education legislation to reach the House chamber is House Bill 2616 — the Parental Rights Over the Education and Care of Their Kids Act, or the PROTECT Kids Act. The PROTECT Kids Act, proposed by U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), and co-sponsored by U.S. Reps. Burgess Owens (R-Utah), Mary Miller (R-Ill.), Robert Onder (R-Mo.), and Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.), would require any public elementary and middle schools that receive federal funding to require parental consent to change a child’s gender expression in school.
The bill, which was discussed during Tuesday’s House Rules Committee hearing, would specifically require any schools that get federal money from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 — which was created to minimize financial discrepancies in education for low-income students — to get parental approval before identifying any child’s gender identity as anything other than what was provided to the school initially. This includes getting approval before allowing children to use their preferred locker room or bathroom.
It reads that any school receiving this funding “shall obtain parental consent before changing a covered student’s (1) gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form; or (2) sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms.”
LGBTQ rights advocates have criticized both national and state efforts to require parental permission to use a child’s preferred gender identity, as it raises issues of at-home safety — especially if the home is not LGBTQ-affirming — and could lead to the outing of transgender or gender-curious students.
A follow-up bill, HB 2617, proposed by Owens, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, prevents the use of federal funding to “advance concepts related to gender ideology,” using the definition from President Donald Trump’s 2025 Executive Order 14168, making that an enshrined definition in law of sex rather than just by executive order. There is also a bill making its way through the senate with the same text— Senate Bill 2251.
Advocates have also criticized this follow-up legislation, as it would restrict school staff — including teachers and counselors — from acknowledging trans students’ identities or providing any support. They have said that this kind of isolation can worsen mental health outcomes for LGBTQ youth and allows for education to be politicized rather than being based in reality.
David Stacy, the Human Rights Campaign’s vice president of government affairs, called this legislation out for using LGBTQ children as political pawns in an ideology fight — one that could greatly harm the safety of these children if passed.
“Trans kids are not a political agenda — they are students who deserve safety and affirmation at school like anyone else,” Stacy said in a statement. “Despite the many pressing issues facing our nation, House Republicans continue their bizarre obsession with trans people. H.R. 2616 does not protect children. It targets them. This bill is cruel, and we’re prepared to fight it.”
This is similar to Florida House Bills 1557 and 1069, referred to as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill and “Don’t Say They” bill, respectively, restricting classroom discussions on sexual orientation and gender identity, prohibiting the use of pronouns consistent with one’s gender identity, expanding book banning procedures, and censoring health curriculum.
The American Civil Liberties Union is tracking 233 bills related to restricting student and educator rights in the U.S.
-
National5 days agoBREAKING NEWS: Shots fired at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner
-
Movies5 days agoAn acting legend meets his match in ‘The Christophers’
-
Theater4 days agoWorld premiere of ‘Everything, Devoured’ oozes queer energy
-
The White House3 days agoFrom red carpet to chaos: A first-person narrative of the WHCD shooting

