National
What’s next for health care reform?
After court ruling, focus turns to state plans for Medicaid
Now that the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of President Obama’s health care reform law, advocates are pushing for additional efforts to extend coverage of the law to LGBT people and people with HIV/AIDS to the fullest extent possible.
For the most part, the next step in the process involves looking to the states to determine whether they will adopt health policies afforded to them under the law — foremost among them is the Medicaid expansion to cover all people with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level.
Although the Supreme Court ruled the majority of the health care law is constitutional, it prevented the federal government from withholding all Medicaid funds from states if they decline to take part in the Medicaid expansion. As a result, states can decide whether or not to enter the expansion without fear of losing money.
Patrick Paschall, a policy advocate at the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, said the Medicaid expansion is particularly important for LGBT people because they disproportionately live below the poverty level.
“The Medicaid expansions are going to end up being hugely important for LGBT people because it expands coverage to low-income people, and LGBT people are disproportionately low-income,” Paschall said. “We know this because of rampant employment discrimination and housing discrimination.”
A report on transgender people published earlier this year by the Task Force and the National Center for Transgender Equality, titled “Injustice at Every Turn: A Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey,” found that transgender people experience unemployment at rates twice that of the national population, and black transgender people experience it at a rate of four times as much.
Carl Schmid, deputy executive director of the AIDS Institute, said the Medicaid expansion is particularly important for people with HIV/AIDS because of 50 percent of those in care rely on that program for support and those numbers will “grow substantially” if states decide to participate.
“Those who are really poor, they’re going to be covered under Medicaid,” Schmid said. “The question is what are we expecting from the states.”
But a number of states may not take part. According to a report in The Hill newspaper, at least 15 governors have signaled they won’t participate in the Medicaid expansion now that the Supreme Court has enabled them to wiggle out of participation.
Florida Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican elected to office during the Tea Party wave in 2010, was among those saying his state wouldn’t take part in the Medicaid expansion — or other parts of the health care law that are optional to the states.
“We’re not going to implement Obamacare in Florida,” Scott said last week on Fox News. “We’re not going to expand Medicaid because we’re going to do the right thing. We’re not going to do the exchange.”
Under the health care reform law, the federal government will pay for the Medicaid expansion for the first few years. Expenses for states come up in 2017, when the federal government will pay 95 percent; That’s reduced to 94 percent in 2018 and in 2019 it goes down to 93 percent. Starting in 2010 and then on out, the federal government will pay 90 percent of the total amount.
Schmid said the bargain that was set up for states under the health care law makes the governors’ decision not to participate in the law questionable.
“Here their taxpayers are going to be paying their taxes to pay for this; this is federal funds,” Schmid said. “Their state is not going to take responsibility for covering. The hospitals? Don’t they want people to be covered? They’re going to have unconstituted care if they don’t.”
For the states that don’t participate in the Medicaid expansion, Schmid said people living there with HIV/AIDS will have to continue relying on the Ryan White Care Program, which provides funds for AIDS medications for low-income people with HIV. The program will be up for reauthorization in 2013.
As advocates push for states to adopt the Medicaid expansion, the law has several key components that already offer protections and benefits for LGBT people and people with HIV/AIDS. State and federal health insurance will be set up in the law starting in 2014.
For the first time, the law extends federal non-discrimination protection in the health care system on the basis of gender.
Paschall noted that provision is key as courts and agencies have determined that discrimination against transgender people amounts to gender discrimination.
“We know that federal agencies like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Housing & Urban Development as well as federal courts have interpreted sex-based discrimination to include protections on the basis of gender identity and sex stereotypes,” Paschall said. “What this means is that in the context of health care, LGBT people, especially transgender people have now for the first time protections in that setting, which is hugely important.”
Earlier this year, the Department of Health & Human Services issued rules saying that no program activity in an exchange, nor a health plan, can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The rule takes effect when exchanges open in 2014.
The administration has taken additional efforts to help the LGBT community when it comes to accessing health care. Same-sex couples can now search for health plans that cover domestic partners through the health care finder tool at healthfinder.gov. HHS has also undertaken data collection efforts to include questions about sexual orientation and gender identity in surveys like the National Health Interview Survey.
Still, advocates are looking for additional efforts from the administration — in addition to the adoption of the Medicaid expansion by the states — to ensure LGBT people are included in health care reform to the greatest extent possible.
Paschall said the Task Force wants to see data collection efforts expanded beyond the federal surveys already designated by the administration.
“Generally speaking, we would like to see sexual orientation and gender identity questions added to all federal surveys where demographic data is collected,” he said. “Our priorities include a number of federal surveys, maybe most notably the American Community Survey, which is an annual survey that collects demographic data and is considered one of the largest annual data sources on the American population.”
For people living with HIV/AIDS, Schmid said he is awaiting from the administration regulatory guidance in the next couple months on essential health benefits to cover people in the Medicaid program and federal exchanges.
“We’ll see if the coverage will be strong enough for medications and for all different other services,” Schmid said.
Federal Government
Trump budget targets ‘gender extremism’
Proposed spending package would target ‘leftist’ political ideologies
The White House submitted its 2027 budget request to Congress last month, outlining a push for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to “proactively” target what it describes as “extremism” related to gender — raising concerns about the potential for law enforcement to target LGBTQ people.
The Trump-Vance administration’s 2027 budget request, submitted to Congress on April 4, proposes a dramatic increase in national security and law enforcement spending, while reducing foreign aid and restructuring multiple domestic security programs. In total, the administration is requesting $2.16 trillion in discretionary budget authority (including mandatory resources), a 15.3 percent increase over the 2026 proposal.
Central to the proposal is the creation of a new “NSPM-7 Joint Mission Center,” a direct follow-up to the September 2025 National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7). The directive instructs the Justice Department, the FBI, and other national security agencies to combat what the administration defines as “political violence in America,” effectively reshaping the Joint Terrorism Task Force network to focus on “leftist” political ideologies, according to reporting by independent journalist Ken Klippenstein.
The American Civil Liberties Union has characterized NSPM-7 as a way for President Donald Trump to intimidate his political enemies.
In a press release following the memorandum, Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, said, “President Trump has launched yet another effort to investigate and intimidate his critics,” and had described the move as an “intimidation tactic against those standing up for human rights and civil liberties.”
The proposed mission center would include personnel from 10 federal agencies tasked with targeting “domestic terrorists” associated with a wide range of ideologies. Among them is what the administration labels “extremism” related to gender, alongside categories such as “anti-Americanism,” “anti-capitalism,” “anti-Christianity,” and “support for the overthrow of the U.S. government.” The document also cites “hostility toward those who hold traditional American views” on family, religion, and morality — language LGBTQ advocates have increasingly warned could be used to frame queer and transgender rights movements as ideological threats.
The mission center is one component of a proposed $166 million increase in the FBI’s counterterrorism budget.
In total, the FBI would receive $12.5 billion for salaries and expenses under the proposal, a $1.9 billion increase. Planned investments include unmanned aerial systems operations and counter-drone capabilities, counterterrorism efforts, and security preparations for the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. The budget also cites 67,000 FBI arrests since Jan. 20, 2026, which it describes as a 197 percent increase from the prior year.
When Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, it also enacted 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5), which defines domestic terrorism as activities involving acts dangerous to human life that violate criminal laws and are intended to intimidate or coerce civilians or influence government policy through violence. That statutory definition has not changed.
However, federal agencies have historically categorized domestic terrorism threats into groups such as racially or ethnically motivated violent extremism, anti-government or anti-authority violent extremism, and other threats, including those tied to bias based on religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
The language in the budget suggests a shift in how those categories are interpreted and applied — particularly by explicitly linking “extremism” to gender and to perceived opposition to “traditional” views — without any corresponding change to federal law. Only Congress has the power to change the definition of domestic terrorism by passing legislation.
The budget document states:
“DT lone offenders will continue to pose significant detection and disruption challenges because of their capacity for independent radicalization to violence, ability to mobilize discretely, and access to firearms. Additionally, in recent years, heinous assassinations and other acts of political violence in the United States have dramatically increased. Commonly, this violent conduct relates to views associated with anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the U.S. government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility toward those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.”
This language echoes earlier actions by the Trump-Vance administration targeting trans people.
On the first day of his second term, President Trump signed Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”
The order establishes a strict binary definition of sex and withdraws federal recognition of trans people.
“It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female,” the order states. “‘Sex’ shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female. ‘Sex’ is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of ‘gender identity.’”
Appropriations committees in both chambers are expected to begin hearings in the coming weeks.
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Sri Lankan government withdraws support for LGBTQ tourism initiative
In an act of artistic defiance, Baltimore Center Stage stays focused on DEI
Trump budget targets ‘gender extremism’
Susan Lucci on love, loss, and ‘All My Children’
How to navigate shifting tenant expectations
Trump’s war threats trigger rare 25th Amendment discussion
New book celebrates 1970s dance music icons
ROSENSTEIN: Vote McDuffie for mayor of D.C.
A Sondheim masterpiece ‘Merrily’ rolls onto Netflix
