National
Frank embraces title of LGBT rights pioneer
Retiring gay lawmaker talks ENDA, 2012 election
Rep. Barney Frank (Blade photo by Michael Key)
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.”
Federal Government
Protesters say SAVE Act targets voters, transgender youth
Bill described as ‘Jim Crow 2.0’
Members of Congress, advocates, and people from across the country gathered outside the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday to protest proposed federal legislation that voting rights activists have deemed “Jim Crow 2.0.”
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require in-person proof of citizenship for anyone seeking to vote in U.S. elections.
President Donald Trump has also pushed for the proposed legislation to include a section that would ban gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, even with parental consent, and prohibit trans people from participating in school or professional sports consistent with their gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth.
In addition to changing voter registration requirements, the bill would limit acceptable forms of identification to documents such as a birth certificate or passport — records that the Brennan Center for Justice estimates more than 21 million Americans do not have — effectively restricting access to the ballot. It would also ban online voter registration, DMV voter registration efforts, and mail-in voter registration.
A 2021 investigation by the Associated Press found that fewer than 475 people voted illegally or improperly, a tiny fraction of the estimated 160 million Americans who voted in the 2020 election.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) spoke at the event.
“It will kick millions of American citizens off the rolls. And they don’t even require you to be told,” the highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate told protesters and reporters outside the Capitol. “If this law passes — and it won’t — you’re gonna show up in November … and they’ll say… sorry, you’re no longer on the voting rolls.”
He, like many other speakers, emphasized the bill in the context of American history, pointing to what he described as its racist roots and its impact on Black and brown Americans.
“I have called this act, over and over again, Jim Crow 2.0 … because they know it’s the truth.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was one of the lawmakers leading opposition to the legislation and spoke at the rally.
“It’s not just voting rights that are on the line — our democracy is on the line,” the California lawmaker said. “It’s not a voter I.D. bill. It’s a bait and switch bill.”
He added historical context, noting the significance of voting rights legislation passed more than 60 years ago. In 1965, Alabama civil rights activists marched to protest barriers to voter registration. Alabama state troopers violently attacked peaceful demonstrators at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, using tear gas, clubs, and whips against more than 500 — mostly Black — protesters.
“61 years ago — not to the day — but this week, President Lyndon Johnson came to the Capitol and addressed a joint session of Congress in the wake of Bloody Sunday and pushed Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act,” Padilla said. “61 years later, Donald Trump and this Republican majority wants to take us backwards. We’re not gonna let that happen.”
U.S. Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) also spoke, emphasizing that he views the effort as a Republican-led and Trump-backed attempt to restrict voting access, particularly among Black, brown, and predominantly Democratic communities.
“President Trump told Republicans when they were meeting behind closed doors that ‘The SAVE Act will guarantee Republicans win the midterms and ensure they do not lose an election for 50 years,’” Luján said. “The first time I think Donald Trump’s been honest … This voter suppression bill is only that. Taking away vote by mail? I hope my Republican colleagues from states that voted for Donald Trump or where vote by mail is popular have the courage and the backbone to stand up and say no to this nonsense, because their constituents are going to push back.”
U.S. Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) also spoke.
“Our Republican colleagues have already cut Medicaid, Medicare, people don’t know how they’re gonna be able to afford energy,” she said, providing context for the broader political moment. “We’re in the middle of a war that they can’t even get straight while we’re in it and don’t have a way to get out of it. And we are now faced with defending our democracy?”
She then showed the crowd something that she said has been with her throughout her political journey in Washington.
“I brought with me something that I carried on the day that I was sworn into the House of Representatives when I was elected in 2016, and I carried it with me on the day that I was sworn in as United States senator. And I also carried it with me when I was trapped up in the gallery on Jan. 6 and all I could think to do was pray … This document allowed my great great great grandfather, who had been enslaved in Georgia, to have the right to vote. We took this and turned it into a scarf. It is the returns of qualified voters and reconstruction code from 1867. This is my proof of what we’ve been through. This is also our inspiration.”
“I got to travel between the Edmund Pettus Bridge two times. And even as I thought about this moment, I recognized that while we wish we weren’t in it, while we don’t know why we’re in it, I do know we were made for it … So I came today to tell you that, um, just like the leader said, that he calls it Jim Crow 2.0. I call it Jim Crow 2.NO.”
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy organization in the U.S., also spoke, highlighting the impact of the bill’s proposed provisions affecting trans people.
“This bill is not about saving America. This bill is about stealing an election. This bill is about suppressing voters,” Robinson said. “This bill not only tries to disenfranchise voters that deserve their right to vote, it also tries to criminalize trans kids and their families … It tries to criminalize doctors providing medically necessary care for our trans youth.”
The SAVE Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Feb. 11 but has not yet been considered in the U.S. Senate.
Idaho
Idaho advances bill to restrict bathroom access for transgender residents
HB 752 passed in state House of Representatives on Monday
The Idaho House of Representatives passed House Bill 752 on Monday, a measure that would make it a crime for a person to use a bathroom other than the one designated for their “biological sex.”
The story was first reported by the Idaho Capitol Sun after the bill cleared the House.
House Bill 752 would make it a criminal offense — either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the number of prior offenses — for individuals who “knowingly and willfully” enter a bathroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex.
The bill would apply to public buildings, including government-owned spaces, and places of “public accommodation,” a category that includes private businesses.
According to the bill’s text, it would “prohibit a person from entering a restroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex; provide a penalty; provide exceptions; define terms; and declare an emergency and provide an effective date.”
A first offense would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison. A second or subsequent offense within five years would be a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.
The bill passed in a 54–15 vote on Monday. Six Republicans broke with their party’s majority to join nine Democrats in opposing the measure.
The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Cornel Rasor, a Republican from Sagle near the Washington-Idaho border, told House lawmakers that the legislation is intended to protect women and girls.
“It prevents discomfort and voyeurism escalation and assaults, while preserving single-user options and narrow exceptions so no one is denied access for emergency aid,” Rasor said.
State Rep. Chris Mathias, a Democrat from Boise, disagreed, arguing that the legislation would unfairly target transgender Idahoans.
“The truth of the matter is — and I know a lot of people don’t want to say it — but forcing people who don’t look like the sex they were assigned at birth, or transgender folks, to use other people’s bathrooms is going to put a lot of people in danger,” Mathias said.
The Idaho American Civil Liberties Union made a statement about the bill following its passage.
“Idaho lawmakers continue pushing these harmful, invasive bathroom laws, yet cannot present credible evidence that transgender people using gender-aligned bathrooms threaten public safety,” the Idaho ACLU said. “The bill does nothing to address real criminal acts, such as sexual assault or voyeurism, and disregards concerns from law enforcement about the burden enforcement would place on local resources.”
In addition to human rights advocates, who have spoken out against similar bills advancing in state legislatures across the country, Idaho law enforcement groups have also opposed the measure. They argue that the way the legislation is written would “pose significant practical enforcement challenges,” noting that officers are tasked with maintaining public safety — not conducting gender checks or policing bathroom access.
During a committee hearing last week, law enforcement representatives and several trans Idahoans testified that the bill would make many residents less safe.
“Officers responding to a complaint would be placed in the difficult position of determining an individual’s biological sex in order to enforce the statute,” Idaho Fraternal Order of Police President Bryan Lovell wrote. “In many circumstances, there is no clear or reasonable way for officers to make that determination without engaging in questioning or investigative actions that could be viewed as invasive and inappropriate.”
The Idaho Sheriffs’ Association requested that lawmakers amend the bill to require that individuals be given an opportunity to leave a bathroom immediately before facing potential prosecution.
The bill now heads to the Idaho Senate for consideration. To become law, it must pass both chambers and avoid a veto from the governor.
A separate bathroom bill, House Bill 607, which would be enforced through civil lawsuits, passed the House last month but has not yet received a committee hearing in the Senate.
State Department
Report: US to withhold HIV aid to Zambia unless mineral access expanded
New York Times obtained Secretary of State Marco Rubio memo
The State Department is reportedly considering withholding assistance for Zambians with HIV unless the country’s government allows the U.S. to access more of its minerals.
The New York Times on Monday reported Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a memo to State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs staffers wrote the U.S. “will only secure our priorities by demonstrating willingness to publicly take support away from Zambia on a massive scale.” The newspaper said it obtained a copy of the letter.
Zambia is a country in southern Africa that borders Tanzania, Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The Times notes upwards of 1.3 million Zambians receive daily HIV medications through PEPFAR. The newspaper reported Rubio in his memo said the Trump-Vance administration could “significantly cut assistance” as soon as May.
“Reports of (the) State Department withholding lifesaving HIV treatment in return for mining concessions in Zambia does not make us safer, stronger, or more prosperous,” said U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on Tuesday. “Monetizing innocent people’s lives further undermines U.S. global leadership and is just plain wrong.”
The Washington Blade has reached out to the State Department for comment.
Zambia received breakthrough HIV prevention drug through PEPFAR
Rubio on Jan. 28, 2025, issued a waiver that allowed PEPFAR and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during a freeze on nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending. HIV/AIDS service providers around the world with whom the Blade has spoken say PEPFAR cuts and the loss of funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, which officially closed on July 1, 2025, has severely impacted their work.
The State Department last September announced PEPFAR will distribute lenacapavir in countries with high prevalence rates. Zambia two months later received the first doses of the breakthrough HIV prevention drug.
Kenya and Uganda are among the African countries have signed health agreements with the U.S. since the Trump-Vance administration took office.
The Times notes the countries that signed these agreements pledged to increase health spending. The Blade last month reported LGBTQ rights groups have questioned whether these agreements will lead to further exclusion and government-sanctioned discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Housewives take Capitol Hill by storm
Protesters say SAVE Act targets voters, transgender youth
‘It’s Dorothy’ traces lasting influence of a cultural icon
SAVE Act could silence millions of trans voters
The frightening rise of antisemitism, Islamophobia
Ensuring safer drinking water
A season of renewal for D.C. theater
PHOTOS: Awesome Con
Kennedy Center leadership changes as Trump ally Grenell departs
