National
Despite assurances, LGBT advocates want more for bi-national couples
DHS says same-sex marriage a factor in evaluating deportation cases
The US Department of Homeland Security
The issue of keeping married bi-national gay couples together in the United States is receiving fresh attention as LGBT advocates call for more action beyond a recent statement from the Department of Homeland Security saying being in a same-sex marriage is a factor in determining whether a potential deportee should be able to stay in the country.
On Thursday, Peter Boogaard, a DHS spokesperson, affirmed that the Obama administration would examine whether an individual is in a same-sex marriage when deciding to exercise prosecutorial discretion in a deportation for an undocumented immigrant.
“Pursuant to the Attorney General’s guidance, the Defense of Marriage Act remains in effect and the Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce it unless and until Congress repeals it, or there is a final judicial determination that it is unconstitutional,” Boogaard said. “However, when exercising prosecutorial discretion in enforcement matters, DHS looks at the totality of the circumstances presented in individual cases, including whether an individual has close family ties to the United States as demonstrated by his or her same-sex marriage or other longstanding relationship to a United States citizen.”
Boogaard’s statement marks the first time the Obama administration has said on the record it will factor in whether someone is in a same-sex marriage when determining whether to exercise prosecutorial discretion in a deportation case. The administration previously communicated in August 2011 that it would “consider LGBT families” under a policy in which officials would examine on a case-by-case basis the potential deportations of about 300,000 undocumented immigrants, but that was only said without attribution. The new statement also changes “LGBT families” to “same-sex marriage.”
Additionally, the words mark one of the few times that the Obama administration has said it would recognize married same-sex couples even though DOMA, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage, remains on the books. Last year, the Justice Department announced it would allow married same-sex couples to file jointly for bankruptcy; the Office of Personnel Management gave U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals employee Karen Golinski health benefits for her same-sex spouse, but both of those decisions were more limited in scope and the result of court orders.
The DHS statement comes in response to a letter that 84 House Democrats signed calling for DHS to issue guidance for providing prosecutorial discretion for married bi-national same-sex couples in situations where the foreign national in the relationship is undocumented and possibly in danger of deportation. Straight Americans can sponsor their spouses for residency in the United States through a marriage-based green card application, but that option isn’t available to gay Americans because of DOMA.
In a letter dated Aug. 3, the signers — who include House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), and Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) — ask for “written field guidance or a memorandum” indicating DHS will “consider LGBT family ties as a positive factor for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.” It’s not the first time such a letter has been sent. Last year, 69 House Democrats sent a letter to DHS calling for similar action.
Despite the new statement from DHS, those behind the letter say they want more and a response from a DHS spokesperson doesn’t take the place of written guidance. Some behind the letter say the statement from DHS reflects a policy that is already understood to be in place.
Nadler, sponsor of the Uniting American Families Act, which would enable gay Americans to sponsor their foreign partners for residency in the United States, was among those saying more is necessary.
“I appreciate the response from DHS’s spokesperson on the issue of prosecutorial discretion, but the policy mentioned is the one I already understood to be in place,” Nadler said. “What my colleagues and I are asking, and have been requesting since 2011, is that those guidelines now be put clearly onto paper for DHS agents in the field so that there is no longer any confusion as to their mission vis-à-vis the deportation of gays and lesbians with demonstrated family and community ties in the U.S.”
Drew Hammill, a spokesperson for Nancy Pelosi, called the statement a “welcome development,” but echoed the sentiment that more was sought in the letter.
“It’s a welcome development that a DHS spokesperson is explicitly and publicly acknowledging that DHS’s consideration of family ties includes same-sex couples and spouses,” Hammill said. “We look forward to the written guidance that we expect would be a logical next step.”
Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Honda, sponsor of the Reuniting Families Act, which has UAFA-inclusive language, said he “greatly appreciate[s]” the statement from DHS, but also wants the policy clearly written in guidance for U.S. Customs & Immigration Enforcement officials.
“I greatly appreciate the Department of Homeland Security’s explicit verbal statement recognizing the value of same-sex relationships in immigration proceedings,” Honda said. “However, for the sake of those LGBT families, who — today or tomorrow — may face a tragic and senseless separation, their attorneys, and ICE field officials, an indubitable and unequivocal written policy and implementation guideline remain the best assurance for protection. I look forward to working with DHS to ensure that this becomes a reality.”
That sentiment was echoed by an LGBT advocacy group that focuses on immigration issues. Steve Ralls, a spokesperson for Immigration Equality, noted there’s nothing new in the statement provided by DHS.
“We’ve heard verbally before that they intend for their guidelines to be inclusive, but then, on the flipside of that, we’ve heard from field officers that they’ve never received that instruction in writing,” Ralls said. “Leader Pelosi and the other signers of the letter were very clear that they want to see that policy articulated in writing and distributed to the field, and that doesn’t seem to be the commitment that we’re getting in the statement today from DHS.”
Asked whether he thinks it’s significant that DHS is for the first time articulating this policy on the record, Ralls said, “Again, I think the real issue is who they say it to and not who says it. It needs to be a written policy directed squarely to the field. … That’s what we need. That’s what Nadler, Honda and Pelosi wanted. That’s not what DHS delivered today.”
The exception to the nonplussed reactions was Lavi Soloway, an immigration attorney and co-founder of Stop the Deportations, who called the news “a giant step forward in the fight against DOMA” and the first formal recognition from the Obama administration of married same-sex couples.
“This move is significant beyond the immigration context, as it constitutes the first time any agency of the federal government has created a policy explicitly recognizing same-sex marriages,” Soloway added. “By giving legal effect to the lawful marriages of gay and lesbian couples, the Obama administration has demonstrated what we have argued all along to be true: that executive branch agencies can create policy to mitigate the discriminatory impact of DOMA on gay and lesbian binational couples, even while DOMA continues to prevent approval of those couples’ green card petitions.”
Still, Soloway said he wants to see the policy articulated in guidance, saying, “To ensure that our families are protected with consistent application of this newly inclusive prosecutorial discretion policy, it is crucial that detailed written guidance encompassing this official announcement be issued without delay.“
Despite these calls for having instructions explicitly written in guidance, DHS maintains agents and attorneys have been trained to know that LGBT families and same-sex couples are covered under the new policy. Since the DHS announcement last year, ICE has already announced that several bi-national couples have been taken out of the deportation pipeline, such as Anthony Makk and Bradford Wells of San Francisco.
DHS didn’t respond to a request to comment on reactions from lawmakers and advocates to the statement provided last week.
Letter renews call to hold marriage-based green cards
The House Democrats’ letter isn’t the only one that the Obama administration has received recently on married bi-national same-sex couples. Immigration Equality delivered a letter to the White House and the Justice Department on Friday asking for the marriage-based green card applications to be held in abeyance now that a time for when the Supreme Court will review DOMA has become more clear.
The letter, signed by Immigration Equality Executive Director Rachel Tiven and Legal Director Victoria Neilson, is dated July 26 and renews an earlier request from the organization that was denied by the Obama administration, saying the administration should reconsider because “it is now clear that a final judicial determination on the constitutionality of DOMA is imminent.”
“[I]t is now clear that the Supreme Court will render a decision on the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA within a year. In the meanwhile, if USCIS continues to deny the applications of lawfully married couples, lesbian and gay immigrant families will continue to suffer irreparable harm through forced separations, forced exile, or the accrual of unlawful presence in the United States,” the letter states. “Holding green card petitions and applications without adjudicating them will preserve agency resources and prevent real harm to real families until the Supreme Court resolves this issue next year.”
Among the reasons cited in the letter for a likely imminent decision from the Supreme Court on DOMA are rulings against the anti-gay law from the First Circuit and district courts as well as multiple pending petitions asking the high court to take up the law.
The letter is dated the day after U.S. Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon of the Eastern District of New York placed a stay on Immigration Equality’s lawsuit against DOMA, Blesch v. Holder, pending resolution of another DOMA lawsuit, Windsor v. United States, before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Justice Department didn’t respond to a request for comment. A White House spokesperson deferred to DHS, which provided the same statement in response to the letter signed by House Democrats. As of Monday, Immigration Equality has said it hasn’t yet received a response from the Obama administration.
Soloway also said putting marriage-based green card applications in abeyance for same-sex couples is the best way for the Obama administration to ensure these families can remain together in the United States without fear of separation.
“To address this immediate, irreparable harm, the administration should stop denying green card petitions filed by gay and lesbian binational couples and instead put those cases on hold pending a ruling by the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of DOMA expected next year,” Soloway said.
National
White House orders warning signs at Smithsonian over gender identity exhibits
Administration criticizes National Museum of American History
The Trump administration will install temporary warning signs outside the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History after releasing a report accusing the museum of promoting what it calls “radical” gender ideology and other politically biased content.
According to the Executive Order, “For purposes of policy formulation under EO 14253, this review of the National Museum of American History concludes that NMAH, by the intention and at the direction of current Museum and Smithsonian leadership, has become subject to institutional capture by a radical, activist ideology that is fundamentally opposed to telling the noble, honest story of the great country we know and love.”
Executive Order 14253 refers to what the White House has deemed the “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” order. Therefore, the Trump administration has said it will take all available steps to ensure that the issues in the report are addressed and rectified.
Without specifying, the White House has stated that warnings will be posted along NMAH to alert visitors to sections of the museum it has deemed are in violation according to the report.
“The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National Park Service (NPS) and in coordination with the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, shall install temporary signage along the NPS-maintained sidewalks and walkways used by the public to access the Museum, informing visitors of the findings of the Report and of the policy set forth in section 1 of this order,” the Executive Order states.
The warnings were raised in a 162-page report issued by the Domestic Policy Council. The report detailed ways in which the National Museum of American History (NMAH) has “poorly” portrayed American history and insufficiently highlighted the founding story during America 250th celebrations.
The report outlined key findings of the NMAH. One of these findings was the Center for Restorative History within the museum, which has stated its purpose is to “encourage systemic change” by highlighting diverse groups. However, the report states that it highlights every group of Americans except for straight and white Americans.
The Domestic Policy Council accused the museum of engaging in “transgender activism.” According to the report, examples include referring to “biological men” as women or girls, displaying what it describes as sexually suggestive content, and incorporating discussions of gender fluidity, gender identity, and gender nonconformity into the museum’s educational curriculum, “Becoming US.”
The report also criticizes the curriculum for using the term “transgender” when discussing gender-nonconforming people and encouraging individuals to ask a person’s pronouns when meeting them. It further objects to exhibits stating that “transgender, nonbinary, and cisgender female athletes” continue to struggle for and demand equality.
It also condemns what it refers to as explicit content in an exhibition, “Girlhood (It’s Complicated)”, such as chest binders, questioning gender testing in women’s sports, and referring to biological females as “people inhabiting female bodies.”
Additionally, the report accuses the museum of no longer participating in flag-celebrating ceremonies because it was “too busy” preparing for June Pride and WorldPride events. It states, “As Director Hartig explained in a June 2024 presentation, all her attention was focused on flying the Smithsonian Pride Alliance’s ‘intersexual pride flag during June’ in 2023 and 2024.”
On July 9, the American Historical Association issued a statement rejecting the report’s findings.
In regard to the report, it states, “Its anonymous authors overlook a central lesson of the nation’s founding: the United States was forged by finding common purpose amid intense divisions, conflicts, and disagreements.” They argue that only “honest history” can tell the true history of the nation.
House Republicans led a subcommittee hearing that questioned Smithsonian Director Hartig extensively. A main focus of the questions was on the exhibits related to gender identity and whether they were appropriate. In the hearing, Rep. Nancy Mace asked: “When was your gender revealed to you, Dr. Hartig?”
In response to questioning, Hartig stated that the institution is nonpartisan and does not push a specific agenda.
Hartig published a two-page statement ahead of her hearing outlining her thoughts on the situation. In the report, she states that the institution is always open to criticism and will continue to look for ways to improve, but she sees the report as misleading.
“I can attest that the report does not fairly characterize the full body of work at this museum. I am familiar with the depth and breadth of our collections, exhibits, and programming. And while I recognize there is always room for improvement, I also know the beauty, inspiration, and expertise that exists in our museum,” Hartig wrote.
Democrats created their own 16-page report as a rebuttal to the Domestic Policy Council’s report. It argued that the attacks by the current Trump administration are another example of its attempt to rewrite history. Additionally, the report states that no policy changes were included in the Executive Order, as that is beyond the President’s role. “The Report recommends nothing. That is no accident. To recommend an action, the Report would need to identify who is legally empowered to take it, and its own opening chapter concedes the President’s only power is to ‘urge’,” House Democrats wrote.
It is still unclear when the temporary warnings will be installed or what form they will take beyond the requirements outlined in the executive order.
National
Trump ends direct HIV prevention funding to community groups
Advocates say transfer of funds to states may disrupt local programs
A decision by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the request of the Trump administration to discontinue direct federal funding of community-based organizations and clinics that provide HIV prevention services has raised concern among community health advocates, including LGBTQ advocates.
News surfaced earlier this month that the OMB informed the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that it would not renew $46 million in funding for 96 community-based organizations that provide HIV testing, referrals to medical care, and arrangements for obtaining pre-exposure HIV prevention medication known as PrEP that has been shown to be 99 percent effective in preventing HIV infection.
Under the new policy arranged by OMB, the funds will be redirected to the states to be allocated to state and local health departments. The policy calls for states to encourage but not require their respective state and local health departments to allocate some of those funds for community-based organizations. Under the new policy, the funding is scheduled to last until May of 2027, before a renewal decision is made.
Some political observers have speculated that the decision to end direct federal funding to community-based organizations could be motivated by the Trump administration’s hostility to diversity, equity, and inclusion or DEI programs and organizations that promote those programs, with the belief that some of the groups receiving the federal HIV prevention funds are promoting DEI.
Carl Schmid, executive director of the D.C.-based HIV+ Hepatitis Policy Institute, is among the leaders of many AIDS advocacy organizations expressing strong opposition to the OMB action. Schmid said that in places like D.C. and some states, local officials will be willing to redirect the federal funds to local community-based organizations.
A list of the 96 community-based organizations across the country that are currently receiving the federal AIDS funds includes the D.C.-based Whitman-Walker Health, which has a long history of healthcare support for the LGBTQ community, and La Clinica del Pueblo, which reaches out to the Latino community.
Schmid said Whitman-Walker and La Clinica del Pueblo have longstanding good relationships with the local D.C. government.
“But other states and jurisdictions don’t have that relationship with the community-based organizations,” Schmid said. “It depends on the state,” he said, adding, “Not all states send their money to the communities that really need it most. And not all states are fast in getting money to the community-based organizations.”
Spokespersons for Whitman-Walker and La Clinica del Pueblo couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on whether they think the Trump administration’s latest action related to funding will adversely impact their respective organizations.
Schmid said under the current federal grant program slated to be discontinued, which has been in effect for at least five years, HIV-related health organizations receiving the federal grant funds were eligible for an existing federal policy enabling them to purchase HIV-related medication, including the PrEP prevention medication, at a significant discount from pharmaceutical companies. With the ending of the direct federal HIV funds to community-based organizations, Schmid said it was unclear whether problems may surface in obtaining drug discounts.
“They could still qualify as a sub-grantee from a state,” Schmid said. “But what if they don’t get that grant again? They would not be able to qualify to obtain the drugs” at the discounted price, he said.
Among the organizations expressing strong concern over the decision to discontinue the direct HIV prevention funding to community-based organizations has been the Federal AIDS Policy Institute and its subgroup called the HIV Prevention Action Coalition.
In a July 22 letter bearing the names of 71 community-based organizations from throughout the country sent to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Acting Director Jay Bhattacharya, the group called for the Trump administration to “reconsider” ending the current funding policy.
“Ending this program without a clear plan for what comes next would dismantle prevention infrastructure that has taken more than three decades of federal investment to build and do so just as that long record of measurable returns is accelerating,” the letter states.
It says the initiative by President Trump in his first term as president to end the HIV epidemic and reduce new HIV infections by 90 percent by 2030 was moving ahead by the funding program for community-based organizations that the administration now wants to end.
“Discontinuing this program would also cost far more than it saves,” the letter says. “Every HIV transmission prevented avoids an estimated lifetime treatment cost of roughly half a million dollars per person to the healthcare system – costs that fall heavily on taxpayer-funded programs, including Medicaid, Medicare, and the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program,” the letter continues.
“The choice before the administration is straightforward: a modest, targeted investment in prevention now, or far greater public expense for treatment later,” the letter concludes.
Spokespersons for the OMB and the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC, have not immediately responded to news media requests for comment on the opposition to the funding change policy.
National
At Alliance Defending Freedom’s summit, church and state are one
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) among speakers
Uncloseted Media published this article on July 23.
By SPENCER MACNAUGHTON | Earlier this month, hundreds of people filled a conference room in San Diego. These included Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, Assistant Secretary of Health Admiral Brian Christine, OpenAI executive Dean Ball, and the attorneys general of West Virginia and Idaho.
They all came together for Alliance Defending Freedom’s 2026 Summit. The Christian legal group, also a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated anti-LGBTQ hate group, described the event as a “gathering of leaders from many different spheres, including law, public policy, media, business, education, and Christian leadership.”
Johnson — who has said that “homosexual relationships are inherently unnatural and … society cannot give its stamp of approval to such a dangerous lifestyle” — was a featured speaker.
In his speech, he seemed unconcerned with the separation of church and state: “It is so encouraging to Kelly and I to be among friends and fellow warriors for this cause and people who understand that God is not done with America yet. … ADF’s on the very tip of the spear, front line, defending those very truths and keeping the door open for the spread of the Gospel. This is our moment. I’m telling you, I believe the next season … is going to be the greatest season of this ministry since its inception.”
That ministry is one that has espoused aggressively anti-LGBTQ views since its inception in the early 1990s. It was co-founded by a group of evangelical men, including Alan Sears, who co-authored a book called “The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today.” Since then, ADF has opposed gay marriage and supported bans on gay sex and on gender-affirming care for minors.
After helping overturn Roe v. Wade, ADF lawyers have led key victories at the Supreme Court. In 303 Creative v. Elenis, SCOTUS ruled that a website designer could refuse service to gay weddings. And this year they convinced the Court to overturn Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy and to uphold state laws in West Virginia and Idaho that ban trans girls from playing on girls’ sports teams.
At the summit, ADF President Kristen Waggoner, who has promoted conversion therapists and consistently misgenders trans people, interviewed these states’ attorneys general.
“The lawyers who were defending women’s sports were among the best I’ve ever seen in my entire life,” West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey told Waggoner.
Similar to Johnson, Trump’s Assistant Secretary of Health Christine showed his commitment to governing based on conservative Christianity. He gave a Bible-thumping speech against gender transition and trans healthcare, saying that it “contradicts … the deeper moral order that is woven into creation itself. For Genesis 1:27 informs us that God created man in his own image. … Male and female” He also said the “complementary relationship between man and woman is divine” and advocated for youth with gender dysphoria to receive care from a pastor.
All of these remarks from politicians made me think of the interview I published earlier this week with Pete Hegseth’s pastor, Doug Wilson. He wants a Christian theocracy in America and told me that: both the perpetrator and the victim should be disciplined in some cases of marital rape; that transgender people are “sad;” that execution is justifiable for certain homosexual acts; and that gay sex should be illegal.
The ADF Summit is glossy and polished. And while its messaging may be less explicit than Pastor Wilson’s, the track record of the organizations shows they have the exact same desires. They’re just deeply strategic in what they say and when and how they say it.
I believe the political power players who attended this year’s summit know this. They know they are endorsing an organization whose members have essentially called for the illegalization of most — if not all ‚ forms of queer behavior and presentation.
In the last few years, these perspectives have become increasingly embedded in the highest rooms of the federal government and they have been effective in stripping away LGBTQ rights. Wilson, who just installed a full-time pastor in Washington to lead services, says there are 10 to 20 government officials who align with his church’s ideology.
It is vital for Americans to keep their eyes wide open to the ultimate goal of groups like ADF: to create a United States that leaves LGBTQ people without rights and that pushes us back in the closet.
Matthew Rosenstein in ‘Make Me French’ a hit at Clear Space Theatre
White House orders warning signs at Smithsonian over gender identity exhibits
Rainbows in Revolt on a mission to make LGBTQ artists’ voices heard
Officials raise troubling concerns about Rehoboth mayoral candidate Suzanne Goode
Blade participates in Dutch university course on international LGBTQ rights law
Pentagon says hormones make trans troops unfit but gives them to men
Winsome Earle-Sears launches campaign against Va. marriage equality amendment
Calendar: July 24-30
1 dead, 29 injured in Berlin Pride attack
