National
Will session expire before Uganda acts on anti-gay bill?
AP report saying death penalty no longer in bill disputed; Citi and Barclays weigh in


Mark Bromley, chair of the Council for Global Equality (photo courtesy of Council for Global Equality)
A new hope is emerging that the legislative session for Uganda’s parliament will expire before lawmakers take action on a draconian anti-gay bill amid new developments related to the legislation on Friday in various parts of the world.
LGBT advocates had previously said the parliament as soon as this week would take up the anti-gay legislation, which would institute a sentence of life prison for homosexual acts and perhaps in some cases the death penalty. The bill would also prohibit the promotion of LGBT rights and fine or jail certain individuals who neglect to report gay people to the authorities.
However, those fears were abated after Parliament Speaker Kadaga Rebecca reportedly suspended sessions this week after a raucous that broke out over an unrelated bill about authority on petroleum agreements.
Mark Bromley, chair of the Council for Global Equality, said parliament may come into session again at the start next week, but the oil bill and not the anti-gay bill would likely be the first order the business.
“The parliament is still suspended,” Bromley said. “My understanding is the speaker asked for a report on the raucous two days and that report should go to her on Monday, so I think there’s a chance the parliament might come back into session on Monday, and if so, the expectation is that they will continue with the oil bill, which is still quite contentious and could take up a certain amount time.”
LGBT advocates had been hoping the legislative session for the Ugandan parliament would expire on Dec. 14 before lawmakers have an opportunity to take up the anti-gay bill. Kadaga, a supporter of the legislation, has said Uganda wants to see the legislation passed as a Christmas present.
Bromley expressed hope that these difficulties facing the parliament may mean the legislature won’t take action on the anti-gay bill.
“It’s dangerous to predict anything and certainly the bill is dangerous enough and popular enough that we shouldn’t let our guard down,” Bromley said. “But I think given the intense debate and some of the procedural hurdles that still remain in front of the anti-homosexuality bill, I think there is at least a hope that it could be delayed until after the holiday, which would advocates on the ground and elsewhere more time to really try to make a persuasive case for the parliament to drop the bill altogether.”
Bahati quoted as saying death penalty removed, but report meets skepticism
Perhaps the most noteworthy development on Friday was a report from the Associated Press in which David Bahati, the author of the legislation, asserted the controversial death penalty provision had been removed from the bill.
Parliamentarian David Bahati said the bill, which is expected to be voted on next month, had “moved away from the death penalty after considering all the issues that have been raised.”
“There is no death penalty,” he told The Associated Press.
Bahati said the bill now focuses on protecting children from gay pornography, banning gay marriage, counseling gays, as well as punishing those who promote gay culture. Jail terms are prescribed for various offenses, he said, offering no details. The most recent version of the bill hasn’t been publicly released.
In response to an inquiry from the Washington Blade, Hillary Renner, a State Department spokesperson for African affairs, said she’s unable to confirm the death penalty was dropped and referred to the Uganda government from more information.
“With or without the inclusion of the death penalty, we have made clear on numerous occasions that the United States opposes the anti-homosexuality bill,” Renner added. “The bill is currently in committee and has not reached the full parliament for consideration. As with all domestic legislation, it is up to the Ugandan parliament to determine whether to approve this bill.”
Box Turtle Bulletin’s Jim Burroway took issue with reporting and — in a blog post titled “AP Is Wrong: Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill Still Has The Death Penalty” — warned readers not to believe the report because the only full parliament has the authority to change the bill. Earlier this week, a source at the U.S. embassy in Kampala, the Ugandan capital, told the Blade the committee doesn’t have authority to change the bill or remove its death penalty and can only make recommendations for the full parliament to consider.
Andre Banks, executive director and co-founder of All Out, a grassroots organization in the United States drawing attention to the anti-gay bill, was among those expressing skepticism that the death penalty provision has in fact been removed.
“David Bahati is one of the architects of Uganda’s anti-gay bill,” Banks said. “Bahati told the AP the death penalty was removed from the bill, yet no one has actually seen the latest version of the bill to confirm Bahati’s claim, Until we see the bill, and it has moved out of a committee that actually has the power to make substantive changes, we must assume the worst.”
Germany suspends foreign aid to Uganda for structural assistance
Another news development took place in Germany where Dirk Niebel, the country’s minister of Economic Cooperation & Development, reportedly said it is suspending foreign aid for Uganda for three years as result of reports of misuse of 13 million euros in foreign funds.
German funds weren’t affected, and other concerns, such as the misuse of funds and violence in the neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo, are the reason. Nonetheless Niebel cites the anti-homosexuality bill as a reason for concern.
Via Google Translate, Niebel is quoted as saying, “We are concerned that the debate about a tightening of legislation against homosexuals in Uganda resurgence Who fired the debate in Uganda, know the needs that he so the international image of the country causing damage Should human rights discrimination in.. Ugandan Parliament be adopted, it could not remain without consequences for our cooperation.”
Bromley clarified these cuts are related to structural assistance only and wouldn’t affect certain programs.
“My understanding is that the German government decided to cut direct structural assistance from Germany to the government to the government of Uganda, but that their investments in development and other programs will continue,” Bromley said. “So, it’s not an across-the-board cut, but it’s a temporary suspension of direct structural assistance to the government.”
Britain, Sweden and the European Union have also threatened to cut foreign aid from Uganda directly as result of the anti-gay bill if it’s passed into law. U.S. Ambassador to Uganda Scott DeLisi was quoted in a Uganda paper as saying foreign aid won’t be cut to Uganda as a result of the reported misuse of funds, but the United States hasn’t weighed in on cuts as a result of the anti-gay legislation.
Citi, Barclays respond to calls for them to condemn anti-gay bill
Two financial institutions with significant investments in Uganda have also weighed in on the anti-gay petition, although advocates who were seeking statements from the companies say a greater public outcry is needed.
David Roskin, a Citi spokesperson, delivered the response to the Blade via email in response to Change.org petition asking Citibank – as well as Barclays — to speak out publicly against the legislation. As of Friday, the online petition had more than 513,000 signatures.
“While the laws and cultural norms in some countries where Citi operates differ from commonly accepted global standards for human rights, Citi supports equality without regard for race, gender, disability, age, nationality, sexual orientation, or other personal characteristics,” Roskin said.
The response makes no direct mention of the anti-gay bill in Uganda. Asked in a follow-up email whether this response mean Citi opposes the anti-gay Uganda legislation, Roskin referred to earlier his statement.
A Change.org statement published on Friday also includes a statement from Barclays saying the company is “engaging at appropriate levels of the Ugandan government” with respect to the anti-gay legislation.
“Barclays has a strong history of supporting all aspects of diversity, both in the workplace and in wider society. Equally, we are proud of playing our part in the development of economies across Africa, and the key role Barclays plays in the lives of millions of our African customers.”
“Barclays is aware of the proposed legislation relating to homosexuality in Uganda and we are engaging at appropriate levels of the Ugandan Government to express our views.”
According to Change.org, Citibank has almost $300 million in assets invested in Uganda and is a major leader in a U.S. Chamber of Commerce based in Kampala. Barclays, Uganda’s third largest bank, has more than 1,000 employees and 51 branches throughout the country.
Collin Burton, a Citibank customer who launched the petition, rebuked the companies for the response — calling the Citi statement “dismissive” and “contradictory” — and said the company needs to come out more explicitly against the legislation.
“I’m disappointed that Citi delivered a dismissive statement that is not only contradictory in its very nature, but also serves as a reminder that Citi’s refusal to speak boldly on the issue poses a very real and dangerous threat to LGBT Ugandans, many of whom are also Citi customers,” Burton said. “I encourage Citibank and Barclays officials to live the values of equality outlined in their non-discrimination policies and courageously come out in staunch opposition to the Ugandan ‘Kill The Gays’ Bill. Their corporate voices will positively amplify those of the over 500,000 global citizens who have already spoken out by signing the petition.”
Asked whether he’ll continue to bank at Citi, Burton replied, “I’ll make that decision based upon the final outcome of our efforts.”
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.”
Federal Government
Trump admin cancels more than $800 million in LGBTQ health grants
As of early May, half of scrapped NIH grants were LGBTQ focused

The Trump-Vance administration has cancelled more than $800 million in research into the health of sexual and gender minority groups, according to a report Sunday in The New York Times.
The paper found more than half of the grants through the National Institutes of Health that were scrapped through early May involved the study of cancers and viruses that tend to affect LGBTQ people.
The move goes further than efforts to claw back diversity related programs and gender affirming care for transgender and gender diverse youth, implicating swaths of research by institutions like Johns Hopkins and Columbia along with public universities.
The Times notes that a $41 million cut impacting Florida State University will stall “a major effort to prevent HIV in adolescents and young adults, who experience a fifth of new infections in the United States each year.”
A surge of federal funding for LGBTQ health research began under the Obama-Biden administration and continued since. Under his first term, Trump dedicated substantial resources toward his Ending the HIV Epidemic in the United States initiative.
Cuts administered under the health secretary appointed in his second term, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have put the future of that program in question.
-
U.S. Supreme Court13 hours ago
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
-
World Pride 20255 days ago
Episcopal bishop to speak at WorldPride human rights conference
-
World Pride 20255 days ago
D.C. liquor board extends drinking hours for WorldPride
-
The Vatican5 days ago
Executive director of LGBTQ Catholic group to travel to Rome for conclave