National
Richard Hatch maintains his innocence
Gay ‘Survivor’ winner sees judicial system as ‘corrupt’


‘Survivor’ Richard Hatch is out of prison again and still maintains his innocence against tax evasion charges. (Photo courtesy Richard Hatch)
Richard Hatch became the first winner of the hit CBS show “Survivor” in 2000, but in the 11 years since, he’s had to survive more than backstabbing teammates, physical challenges and meals consisting of insects.
In 2006, Hatch, who is gay, was sentenced by a judge in Rhode Island to 51 months in federal prison on tax evasion charges, and was freed on probation in 2009. Prosecutors argued that Hatch failed to report his $1 million in winnings from “Survivor,” and money from subsequent public appearances. Hatch denied all charges. Earlier this year he was back in prison on charges of violating his parole after prosecutors claimed the 50-year-old reality TV star failed to re-file his 2000 federal income tax returns, a charge that Hatch denies.
“The prosecutor in this case is nothing short of a bully, and what I’ve been subjected to is nothing short of institutionalized bullying by the prosecutors, the probation department and the judge involved,” Hatch told the Blade just days after his Dec. 12 release from prison. “That’s provable, that’s observable by any objective viewers.”
“I’m absolutely innocent and have been since day one,” Hatch insisted.
Since winning “Survivor,” Hatch has been in and out of legal trouble, including a short arrest in 2009 as a result of granting several interviews with media outlets that were seen as a violation of the terms of his probation. Since his legal woes began in 2005, Hatch has maintained he never intentionally broke the law.
“It’s 2011 and they haven’t yet determined if something is owed for 2000,” Hatch told the Blade. “And all the prosecutor has done is prevented us from getting to the truth by lying to the court and claiming that my arguments aren’t valid when the IRS agents have verified everything I’ve claimed all along from day one.”
He continued, “They convicted me of attempting to evade taxes in 2006 that to this day have never been determined to be due,” Hatch said. “I filed that return in 2002 at the instruction and direction of the IRS using the numbers that they told me to use, I’ve been working with them through a tax attorney and a CPA ever since, and they have yet to complete the assessment for that year, 11 years later now.”
Hatch says he’s fully complied with the terms of his probation.
“When I was on probation, ‘Survivor’ created a show for me this ‘Redemption Island’ they invited me back to face Russell [Hantz],” Hatch told the Blade. “I’d completed my entire sentence, was on probation, perfectly compliant with anything and everything they ever asked, and probation fought the return of my passport, and prevented me, basically, from going on ‘Survivor.’”
“That’s twice now that I’ve been invited and they’ve refused to give me my passport while hypocritically lying, claiming I owe taxes — which I don’t — and arguing with the court that I’m refusing to pay them,” he continued. “So they’re blocking my ability to earn an income, and at the same time telling the court that I won’t pay. And none of it’s true.”
Hatch said that his jail time is the result of bias.
“I’ve learned how absurd these courts are. The original judge, who was biased against me, and held off his retirement to hear the case because he’d been admonished in an earlier case of mine for overstepping his bounds, he should have recused himself and didn’t — [Earnest C.] Torres — and this current judge, his mentee, his protege, William Smith, know so little about taxes they just don’t care. They listen to the prosecutor’s lies, and do whatever they tell them to do.”
“That in itself is reprehensible,” he added.
Hatch declined to answer questions about whether he’s found a job and a place to live after several media reports claimed that Hatch was homeless after his stint in prison.
“It’s just nobody’s business where I’m living and what I’m doing. I have much on my plate, I have some really fascinating opportunities that I’m working on. I’m not interested in talking about it.”
When asked whether he is homeless, Hatch replied, “Again, report whatever you’d like, I’ll give you the same answer, I don’t know where I’m staying.”
Hatch views the American justice system as deeply flawed.
“It’s not just because of my notoriety. It’s mostly because of my unconventionality, part of which is because I’m gay.”
Hatch said that unconventional people like himself — gay people, women, and African Americans — are unfairly targeted and “bullied” by a broken justice system.
“When you have people who want to take advantage of you, abuse you, persecute you, continue to feed the media caricature of this negative image, just because I’m an unconventional guy, that’s what they’ll do.”
Hatch said that the homophobia he claims he faced during his ordeal was not in prison, but in the court system.
“In prison I didn’t face anything significant that’s worth talking about as far as negativity from my peers,” he said. “I faced the same variety of subtle indignities that are brought by people in positions of power who don’t respect those positions and are insecure and otherwise mentally ill. And do things to abuse people who aren’t able to defend themselves.”
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.”
-
The Vatican3 days ago
American cardinal chosen as next pope
-
a&e features3 days ago
Your guide to the many Pride celebrations in D.C. region
-
U.S. Supreme Court5 days ago
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
-
District of Columbia4 days ago
WorldPride permits for National Mall have yet to be approved