National
Boehner on ENDA: ‘I haven’t thought much about it’
Advocates continue to press Obama on exec order

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) expressed little interest Wednesday in advancing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in the wake of an announcement from the White House last week that the Obama administration won’t take action against LGBT workplace discrimination at this time.
Although the administration insists it will work with Congress to pass legislation in lieu of an executive order barring federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT workers, Boehner seemed unaware of ENDA in response to a question from the Washington Blade, saying, “I haven’t seen the bill. I haven’t thought much about it.”
Asked whether passage of ENDA might alleviate the 8.2 percent unemployment rate if employers were barred from firing LGBT workers, Boehner said “ample laws” are in place and deferred further comment to the House Committee on Education & the Workforce. The committee didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
“No one should face discrimination in the workforce,” Boehner said. “There are ample laws already in place to deal with this. Having been the chairman of the Education & Workforce Committee, I’m quite familiar with employment law. But if there are further changes that are necessary, I’m sure the committee will look at it.”
Even if Boehner were to bring the bill to a vote, it is unlikely to pass the House where Republican lawmakers hold the majority. ENDA has 161 co-sponsors in the House, far short of the 218 votes that would be needed for passage.
But Boehner’s lack of interest in ENDA raises questions about how the administration expects to move forward with legislation prohibiting LGBT workplace discrimination in the wake of announced plans to work with Congress to the pass the bill instead of taking administrative action and issuing an executive order.
On Monday, White House spokesperson Shin Inouye told the Blade and other media outlets that the “time is right” for a comprehensive legislative approach to passage of ENDA.
Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, said Boehner’s response indicates he doesn’t want to appear to go against the majority of the American public, which backs the idea of legislation protecting LGBT workers from discrimination, according to several polls. Some of those polls show that many Americans remain under the false impression that such a law is already in place.
“I think Speaker Boehner ducked this question from the Washington Blade because he does not want to have to publicly side with the small and decreasing number of Americans who tell pollsters that simply being gay should be grounds for firing a talented and hard working employee,” Almeida said. “Polling data shows that LGBT workplace fairness is quickly becoming a winning wedge issue to use against pro-discrimination politicians who hold antiquated and un-American beliefs.”
Meanwhile, LGBT advocates continue to push President Obama to issue the executive order — despite the announced “no” on the proposed action delivered to them last week — as they call for congressional action in the Democratic-controlled Senate on ENDA. The Blade reported extensively on the importance of a trans-inclusive hearing and markup on the bill last month.
Michael Cole-Schwartz, an HRC spokesperson, alluded to the importance of a hearing as he lambasted Boehner for his response to the legislation.
“If the speaker is so familiar with employment law he should know it’s perfectly legal to fire LGBT people in most states,” Cole-Schwartz said. “This attitude is precisely why we need congressional hearings on an inclusive ENDA so the costs of employment discrimination are put on full display.”
No federal law or federal regulation bars employers from firing LGBT workers based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Firing or discriminating against someone because they’re gay is legal in 29 states; firing or discriminating against someone because they’re transgender is legal in 34 states.
Despite calls for a Senate hearing on ENDA, the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee hasn’t yet scheduled a hearing on the legislation.
Justine Sessions, a Senate HELP Committee spokesperson, said this week no plans are in place to hold a hearing on the bill.
“Sen. Harkin is strongly supportive of an inclusive ENDA and looks forward to working with Sen. Merkley and other supporters to advance this important issue,” Sessions said. “The HELP Committee has not planned any hearings beyond the month of May, but I am happy to keep you posted.”
On the same day Boehner punted to the House Committee on Education & the Workforce on ENDA, the committee in fact held a hearing on a related issue: the impact of regulatory and enforcement actions of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.
The hearing is significant because it would have been an opportunity to discuss the proposed executive order requiring companies doing business with the U.S. government to have non-discrimination policies protecting LGBT employees. Multiple sources have said the Labor and Justice Departments cleared the measure before sending it to the White House, which announced last week it won’t take action at this time on the directive.
According to a news statement from Freedom to Work, no complaints were voiced about the executive order despite the nature of the hearing.
“Today’s congressional hearing featured three Republican-selected witnesses, including business representatives, and not a single one of them complained about the proposal to add LGBT Americans to the Labor Department’s rules that ensure taxpayer dollars are not squandered by discriminatory contractors who allow anti-gay hostile work environments,” Almeida said. “Not a single Republican member of Congress who attended the hearing complained either.”
In an email to the Blade, Almeida clarified that the executive order didn’t come up in any capacity during the hearing in addition to no one voicing any complaints about it. Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), ranking Democrat on the committee, was among 72 House members who wrote to Obama urging him to sign the executive order.
Almeida stressed the importance of signing the executive order as the most immediate way to provide protections to LGBT workers.
“Ever since I attended the White House meeting last Wednesday with Valerie Jarrett, White House spokesperson Jay Carney has been ducking questions from the press and making up lame excuses to justify the president’s delay in signing this executive order that Barack Obama promised four years ago he would sign if we helped elect him,” Almeida said. “I agree with the Center for American Progress and the Human Rights Campaign that President Obama should sign the LGBT order now. To quote the president’s own words, ‘We can’t wait.’”
A transcript of the exchange between Boehner and the Blade follows:
Washington Blade: Mr. Speaker, the White House announced the president won’t issue an executive order requiring federal contractors to have non-discrimination policies in place preventing them from firing workers who are gay or transgender. Instead, they said he wants to work with Congress to pass legislation known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would bar most employers from discriminating against workers on this basis. What are your views on this legislation and would you be open to bringing it up for a vote?
Boehner: I haven’t seen the bill. I haven’t thought much about it.
Blade: Arguably, among those who are in the 8.2 percent who are unemployed are in that situation because they faced discrimination on this basis. Wouldn’t passage of this legislation —
Boehner: Well, no one should face discrimination in the workforce. There are ample laws already in place to deal with this. Having been the chairman of the Education & Workforce Committee, I’m quite familiar with employment law. But if there are further changes that are necessary, I’m sure the committee will look at it.
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 Vatican16 hours ago
American cardinal chosen as next pope
-
a&e features22 hours ago
Your guide to the many Pride celebrations in D.C. region
-
U.S. Supreme Court3 days ago
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
-
District of Columbia2 days ago
WorldPride permits for National Mall have yet to be approved