National
9 U.S. senators to Harkin: Time to move on ENDA
Bipartisan group calls for vote on non-discrimination bill
A bipartisan group of nine senators is backing the idea of having the Senate panel with jurisdiction over the Employment Non-Discrimination Act advance the legislation to the floor by a committee vote.
The group is asking for Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee, to hold a markup on ENDA in the wake of the panel’s hearing on the legislation last week and the senator’s remarks to the Washington Blade immediately afterward that he wanted “to poll the committee” about moving the bill forward.

Sen. Mark Kirk is among those calling for an ENDA markup (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
In the week after the hearing, the Blade solicited statements from the offices of all 22 members of the Senate panel on whether they want to see the committee move the legislation to the Senate floor. Those who responded affirmatively were spokespersons for Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), ENDA’s lead sponsor, as well as Sens. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), the only Republican on the panel who responded to the Blade’s inquiry.
All 12 Democrats on the panel — as well as Kirk, an original co-sponsor of the bill — are among the 41 total co-sponsors of ENDA, so the bill should have no trouble moving out of committee. The legislation would bar employers in most situations in the public and private workforce from discriminating against workers because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Sanders’ office accompanied his call for a committee vote on ENDA with a statement saying the time is now to pass ENDA to end workforce discrimination against LGBT people.
“As I’ve said many times before, discrimination of any kind is not what America is supposed to be about,” Sanders said. “Yet only 16 states, including my own state of Vermont, and D.C. currently prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. I will fully support Sen. Merkley and Chairman Harkin in their efforts to move the Employment Non-Discrimination Act out of committee, because no Americans should have to live with the fear of losing their jobs simply because of who they are.”
The support that Murray’s office conveyed to the Blade echoes the sentiment she expressed about moving the legislation forward during the committee hearing last week. Murray was explicit in calling for a markup, saying she wants to see ENDA pass out of committee “expeditiously.” In response, Harkin said, “I hope so.”
But speaking to the Washington Blade after the hearing, Harkin was non-committal about holding a markup, saying he wants to speak with panel members before moving forward.
“I’m going to poll my committee and see,” Harkin said. “Right now, I’m kind of up to here in getting [Food & Drug Administration] bill through, as you know. We got it through the Senate; we’ve got to work with the House on that trying to get that put to bed, and then I’m going to poll the committee and see what we want to do.”
The Senate HELP Committee didn’t respond to a request for comment on the possibility of holding a markup on ENDA. It’s unclear whether the seven senators who expressed support for a markup to the Blade’s solicitation is enough support for Harkin to schedule a markup.
Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, said a markup would enable the committee to make technical changes to the bill before taking it to the Senate floor for final passage.
“Senate rules allow leader Reid to bring ENDA to the floor of the Senate without a committee vote, but a committee mark-up would present a good opportunity for Chairman Harkin to make technical improvements to ENDA, for example, by fixing the legal loophole created by a bad Supreme Court decision called Gross vs. FBL Financial,” Almeida said. “Mr. Harkin recently introduced legislation to fix the same loophole in the age discrimination statute, and ENDA needs the same fix to be incorporated into the bill.”
Ian Thompson, legislative representative for the American Civil Liberties Union, also backed the idea of a committee markup as a way to advance ENDA.
“The Senate HELP Committee should move forward with a markup of this critical and long overdue legislation that will allow American workers who stand side-by-side at the workplace and contribute with equal measure in their jobs to also stand on the same equal footing under the law,” Thompson said.
Thompson added the committee should make modifications to the bill when it comes up for consideration: (a) narrowing the legislation’s exemption so that it doesn’t provide religious organizations “with a blank check” to discriminate against LGBT people for any reason and not just religious teachings, and (b) removing a provision that expands the Defense of Marriage Act and allows employers in states where same-sex couples can legally marry to treat married gay employees as unmarried for the purposes of employee benefits.
Reporting the legislation to the floor would be similar to what Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) did for the Respect for Marriage Act, legislation that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. In November, Leahy held a markup on the bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee, passing the bill via a party-line vote.
A committee markup may be the furthest extent to which ENDA can advance during the 112th Congress. The 41 co-sponsors of the legislation fall significantly short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a Senate filibuster. Additionally, it’s highly unlikely that the Republican-controlled House would consider ENDA as long as House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is the presiding officer of that chamber.
The office of Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) reiterated the senator’s support for ENDA in response to the Blade inquiry without explicitly calling for a markup. Jude McCartin, a Bingaman spokesperson said, “Sen. Bingaman is a cosponsor of the bill and as such intends to vote for it.” McCartin didn’t respond to follow up inquiries to clarify whether this means Bingaman wants to see a markup.
But some of the committee members who responded affirmatively to the idea of a markup — Merkley, Murray, Casey and Kirk — went further and volunteered they also want to see a floor vote on the legislation despite the lack of assured passage of the legislation. Even a vote that failed would demonstrate where senators stand on the bill — and which lawmakers ENDA supporters should work to expel on Election Day.
Merkley expressed support for the idea of a markup and floor vote in response to a question from the Washington Blade during a conference call with reporters following the ENDA hearing last week.
“I support any effort that takes this issue forward whether it’s a markup in committee or it going straight to the floor,” Merkley said. “I’ll defer to the leadership of the committee on the most effective legislative strategy, but I think it is long past time for the Senate as a whole to debate and vote on this bill.”
In a statement to the Blade, Casey expressed support for a Senate vote on ENDA in a statement accompanying his backing a markup of the bill.
“I hope that the Senate moves quickly toward bipartisan passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act,” Casey said. “This common-sense legislation ensures that employees are judged on their skills and abilities in the workplace and not on their sexual orientation or gender identity and I am hopeful that it will see swift passage.”
Kirk’s support for both a markup and floor vote on ENDA puts him ahead of many Democrats on where he wants to take the legislation. Kate Dickens, a Kirk spokesperson, said, “Sen. Kirk is supportive of committee passage and floor consideration of ENDA.”
Christian Berle, deputy executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, said his organization supports Kirk’s call to advance the legislation as far as possible in the Senate.
“Jobs and the economy must be the first priority for Congress, and the freedom to work is fundamental to getting all Americans back to work,” Berle said. “Log Cabin Republicans support Sen. Mark Kirk’s effort to secure a markup both in committee and on the floor. Sen. Harry Reid remains the majority leader and could easily schedule a vote to maintain his commitment to equality and should not delay in doing so.”
Support for a floor vote on ENDA echoes a letter that Freedom to Work sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) calling for a floor vote this summer on the legislation. The letter notes that Reid said during a 2009 Human Rights Campaign dinner in Utah a floor vote on ENDA would take place “soon” — but has yet to happen — as well as the Blade’s questioning of then-White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs at the start of this Congress.
In response to a question on whether the administration sees values in passing ENDA in one chamber of Congress, Gibbs acknowledged, “there’s no doubt that whenever you get something done in one [chamber], you’re closer to certainly seeing it come to fruition.”
A number of LGBT groups — including the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force — had previously called for a markup of ENDA as they sought a Senate hearing on the legislation. But the call for a full Senate vote on ENDA wasn’t as unified.
Fred Sainz, HRC’s vice president of communications, wasn’t explicit in calling for a floor vote when asked by the Blade if his organization wants to see the Senate take the legislation that far during this Congress.
“HRC supports advancing the bill in the smartest, most strategic fashion and at the most opportune time,” Sainz said. “We will continue to work with our ally organizations as well as fair-minded members of both houses of Congress to find that time.”
Stacey Long, the Task Force’s director of public policy and government affairs at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said her organization wants to see a Senate vote, but only after the committee has first marked up the bill.
“We want it to follow the procedure — first voted out of committee, then sent to the Senate floor, followed by a full Senate vote,” Long said.
But Almeida insisted that a Senate floor vote on ENDA is the best possible route for the bill in the immediate future regardless of what action the committee takes.
“The most opportune time for a Senate vote on ENDA is right away,” Almeida said. “We should not accept excuses for further delay on a Senate vote for legislation supported by super-majorities of the American people. … ENDA now has Republicans calling for a full Senate vote, and that is consistent with the White House’s position that right now the administration prefers a congressional vote on ENDA rather than an executive order that is waiting for the president’s signature.”
Almeida was referring to the proposed executive order barring federal contractors from discriminating against workers based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In April, the White House announced it wouldn’t issue such a directive at this time.
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.

