Connect with us

National

‘Don’t Ask’ changes too late for discharged officer

Revisions would have enabled gay man to stay in Air Force

Published

on

Mike Almy, a former Air Force officer, is among the plaintiffs seeking reinstatement in the military through the new 'Don't Ask' legislation (Blade photo by Michael Key).

New regulations unveiled last week to ease the burden of LGBT service members serving under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” were well received by advocacy groups — but a former Air Force officer discharged under the law called news of the changes “bittersweet” because they came too late to help him.

Mike Almy, a gay former Air Force communications officer who recently testified before the Senate on being discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” said the new changes would have helped him stay in the service when he faced expulsion from the U.S. military.

“On a personal level, it’s kind of bittersweet from the standpoint that these regulations, this new guidance would have helped me a few years ago when I was going through my discharge proceedings,” Almy said. “In all likelihood, I would still be on active duty under the new guidance that Gates issued.”

Almy was discharged from the Air Force after another service member discovered personal e-mails revealing information about his sexual orientation and reported them to commanders. Almy said he was expelled from the Air Force even though he never made a statement to the military divulging he’s gay.

Even though Almy said he’s disappointed the new regulations weren’t in place to help him at the time of his proceedings, he noted that on a larger scale, the changes represent “a positive step” forward that provides more momentum for a full repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“It’s still not a substitute, but it’s a definitely a move in the right direction, and it’s going to help thousands of service members who are in the military today,” he said.

The new changes, unveiled last week by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, will limit third-party outings by requiring such information to be given under oath, and raise the rank of the officers handling inquiries and discharges.

Almy said the new regulations will have a “direct bearing” on many LGBT service members he knows on active duty.

“The ones that I know that are still on active duty that are still serving — they’re very encouraged by the first initial step as well as the climate overall and the momentum that’s going on in the House and the Senate, and certainly the Pentagon, to fully repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” he said.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said his organization is still examining the implications of the changes and what they mean for LGBT service members.

“It’s premature to say until we complete our legal analysis,” he said. “I think it will be helpful for some service members. It will reduce the number of investigations and, therefore, it will, in all likelihood, reduce the number of discharges.”

Sarvis said he wasn’t yet in a position to quantify how discharges would be reduced under the new regulations, but he noted that fewer people would face “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” discharges.

Among the issues SLDN is examining, Sarvis said, is what will happen in pending cases where a service member was outed by a third party under the old regulations, and subsequently announced their sexual orientation of their own accord.

“I would imagine in many cases that service members who are in the pipeline for discharge under the old regulations and the old [Department of Defense] directives, in essence, would have the opportunity to start over again,” he said. “In many cases, we know it’ll go back to their commanders.”

As SLDN examines the changes, Sarvis said his organization plans to publish this week new guidance for LGBT service members serving under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” He said SLDN has received numerous inquiries from active duty and reserve service members regarding the new regulations.

Among those serving who are pleased with the changes is a gay U.S. Army soldier currently in Iraq, who spoke to DC Agenda on condition of anonymity to avoid being discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

The soldier, who has been seeing a psychotherapist in part because of the stress of serving under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” said the new change allowing LGBT service members to disclose their sexual orientation to mental health experts would be particularly beneficial for him.

During his therapy sessions, the soldier said he had been dodging questions about his sexual orientation, or even unrelated matters that he thought may have outed him under the law. But with the new regulations in place, the soldier said he plans to come out to his psychotherapist in an upcoming session.

“In my particular instance, it’s the fact that I can talk about more than just any problems that I’m having at work or any problems that I’m having at home,” he said. “I can talk about issues that I’m having with my ex-boyfriend — and just identity issues. It just takes off a lot of stress because you can discuss more without having to censor yourself.”

The soldier said he also thinks Gates’ decision to raise the rank of those starting and conducting inquiries under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was “a remarkably ingenious way” to limit discharges.

“It makes it virtually un-enforceable, except for cases where disclosure would be unprofessional anyway,” the soldier said. “Generals [and] admirals have far more important things to do than worry about whether Private John Smith, or Lt. Jane Doe, are homosexual.”

Another case on which the new regulations could have an impact is the pending discharge of Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, an Air Force pilot who’s facing discharge under the law.

In 2008, Fehrenbach was accused of raping another man and was only able to clear his name after saying he had consensual sex with his accuser. But his admission of having homosexual sex meant outing himself under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Sarvis said he doesn’t think Fehrenbach is moving toward discharge as a result of the new announcement.

“But I think in all likelihood, his file should go back to the [the commanding officer] and the [commanding officer] will make a determination on whether or not to reinitiate the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ investigation,” Sarvis said. “Without going into a great deal of detail, we think that there may be more than one avenue that will be beneficial for Lt. Col. Fehrenbach under the changes announced by Secretary Gates last week.”

Sarvis said SLDN has advised Fehrenbach not to engage in further media interviews while his case is pending.

What affect the new regulations will have on efforts to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” legislatively remains to be seen. Sarvis said the new regulations could “work both ways” in the effort to repeal, leading some members of Congress to say the situation has been addressed and others to say discharges must be reduced to zero.

“One side will say, ‘What’s the rush? Why should Congress have to deal with this? Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen just announced some significant changes?” Sarvis said. “And the flip side of that is, ‘OK, they’ve made some changes, but you still have the statute on the books. You’re not getting down to zero discharges because of sexual orientation until you repeal the statute.”

Sarvis said that full repeal is necessary to eliminate completely the discharges of LGBT service members.

“The most important thing is ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ has not gone away,” he said. “Service members are still at risk and LGBT service members cannot serve openly under ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

New York

Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced

One of the victims, John Umberger, was D.C. political consultant

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

A New York judge on Wednesday sentenced three men convicted of killing a D.C. political consultant and another man who they targeted at gay bars in Manhattan.

NBC New York notes a jury in February convicted Jayqwan Hamilton, Jacob Barroso, and Robert DeMaio of murder, robbery, and conspiracy in relation to druggings and robberies that targeted gay bars in Manhattan from March 2021 to June 2022.

John Umberger, a 33-year-old political consultant from D.C., and Julio Ramirez, a 25-year-old social worker, died. Prosecutors said Hamilton, Barroso, and DeMaio targeted three other men at gay bars.

The jury convicted Hamilton and DeMaio of murdering Umberger. State Supreme Court Judge Felicia Mennin sentenced Hamilton and DeMaio to 40 years to life in prison.

Barroso, who was convicted of killing Ramirez, received a 20 years to life sentence.

Continue Reading

National

Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information

Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources

Published

on

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is named as a defendant in the lawsuit. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.

“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.

 “These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.

It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”

 The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question. 

A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit. 

While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management. 

The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.

 Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.   

“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.

 “Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says. 

Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”

 Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”

Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.

 “As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from  the Washington Blade. 

“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said. 

The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”

It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”

The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society. 

The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.

Continue Reading

U.S. Federal Courts

Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections

Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent

Published

on

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Screen capture: YouTube)

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.

The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.

While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”

“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.

The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.

Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.

Continue Reading

Popular