National
Will Obama include gay couples in immigration reform?
White House sounds amenable, but divided Congress an obstacle
(Washington Blade photos by Michael Key)
There are signs that President Obama will include relief for bi-national same-sex couples as part of his proposals for comprehensive immigration reform, but whether the Senate will agree to such language as part of bipartisan compromise legislation remains an open question.
Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, declined to preview whether Obama will include a provision for bi-national same-sex couples as part of his highly anticipated proposal for immigration reform, but maintained the president is committed to bi-national same-sex couples.
“The president has made it clear on a number of occasions that comprehensive immigration reform is a key priority, including in major speeches over the last four years,” Inouye said. “While I’m not going to preview the president’s proposal, he has long believed that Americans with same-sex partners from other countries should not be faced with the painful choice between staying with the person they love or staying in the country they love, and he welcomes changes that would help keep families together.”
Although not a commitment, that response is the strongest on-the-record statement yet from a White House official on Obama’s support for bi-national couples and whether he’ll seek language to include them as part of his immigration reform plan.
Unlike straight Americans in opposite-sex marriages, gay Americans are unable to sponsor their foreign partners for residency in the United States because they can’t marry in most states and in states where they can, the Obama administration continues to deny marriage-based green card applications because of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Current law could lead to separation for many bi-national same-sex couples — and in some extreme cases deportation of the foreign national in the relationship if they lose their immigration status. Standalone legislation that would address this issue is known as the Uniting American Families Act.
According to a November 2011 report from the Williams Institute, there are an estimated 28,500 bi-national same-sex couples and nearly 11,500 same-sex couples in which neither partner is a U.S. citizen — making for a total of 40,000 couples that are ineligible to take advantage of immigration preferences available to different-sex spouses.
LGBT advocates have been calling on the Obama administration and Congress to address the issue as part of comprehensive immigration reform. While such legislation didn’t move during the first four years of the administration, Obama has pledged to take the lead on reform at the start of his second term.
Obama emphasized that he would pursue comprehensive immigration reform last month during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” saying, “I’ve said that fixing our broken immigration system is a top priority. I will introduce legislation in the first year to get that done.”
According to a report in the New York Times earlier this month, Obama plans to push Congress to enact a massive overhaul of the immigration system — a large proposal as opposed to a series of separate bills — that would include a path to citizenship for most of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country. Additionally, it would set up a nationwide verification system of legal status for all newly hired workers; add visas to relieve backlogs and allow skilled immigrants to stay in the country; and create a guest-worker program to attract low-wage immigrants in the future.
That proposal could be made public in the coming weeks. The Times reported that Obama may elect to lay out his plan in the upcoming State of the Union address. U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) invited Obama to deliver the address before a joint session of Congress on Feb. 12.
LGBT advocates, including some who spoke to the Washington Blade on condition of anonymity, said they fully expect Obama to include language for bi-national same-sex couples as part of his plan for immigration overhaul. One anonymous advocate said the Obama administration has given them “positive feedback” on an LGBT-inclusive proposal.
Steve Ralls, a spokesperson for Immigration Equality, was among those expressing confidence that Obama would choose to include UAFA in any immigration package that he would propose to Congress.
“Immigration Equality has been very encouraged by our ongoing conversations with the administration,” Ralls said. “We believe the president and his team will help craft and pass a bill that keeps families, gay and straight, together. We are looking forward to the president outlining his vision for reform in the coming weeks, and we take him at his word that keeping LGBT families together is a goal we all share.”
Calls on Obama to address this issue in his immigration plan are concurrent with calls on him to take administrative action. LGBT rights supporters — most recently Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who a led a group of 13 senators in a letter to the administration — are asking the Department of Homeland Security to hold in abeyance marriage-based green card applications for bi-national couples as a temporary solution to ensure they won’t be separated. The Obama administration has responded by saying it must continue to enforce DOMA and continues to deny these applications.
Still, the Obama administration has taken steps to address this issue, but nothing has been codified into law. In October, the Department of Homeland Security issued guidance stipulating immigration officers should consider “long-term, same-sex partners” as families when considering whether to exercise prosecutorial discretion in the potential deportation of an undocumented immigrant.
Will Senate agree to UAFA-inclusive package?
But while signs indicate that Obama will ask Congress to pass a UAFA-inclusive immigration reform bill, questions linger over whether the Senate will come to an agreement to pass an immigration package that would protect LGBT families.
Concurrent with the plan the White House is developing, a bipartisan group of senators has engaged in talks to craft a comprehensive bill that, according to the Times, could be introduced as early as March with the plan to hold a floor vote before August. Legislation is expected to start in the Democratic-controlled Senate before moving over the Republican-controlled House for final passage.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has championed the legislation in the past, is the lead Democrat involved with the talks, while Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is the lead Republican. Others reportedly involved in the talks are Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) on the Democratic side and Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) on the Republican side.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Many Capitol Hill sources said it’s simply too early in the process to determine whether the agreement in the Senate would include UAFA. But one anonymous LGBT advocate said he doesn’t expect the Senate to come up with a proposal that includes UAFA because whatever agreement is concocted must meet the approval of the Republicans involved in the talks, and they won’t be keen on agreeing to explicit LGBT provisions.
In the Human Rights Campaign’s most recent scorecard for the 112th Congress, Republicans involved in the discussions didn’t have strong scores. Lee scored 40, Rubio scored 47 while both McCain and Graham earned low scores of 15. None of the offices of the senators involved in the talks — Democratic or Republican — responded to the Washington Blade’s request for comment on including UAFA in their agreement.
That doesn’t even take into account the chances of passing an LGBT-inclusive bill in the House. Last year, the Senate was able to pass an LGBT-inclusive reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, but the version the House passed lacked such language.
Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) says immigration reform will be ‘very difficult to pass.’ (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
Gay Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), who’s also been a leading advocate of immigration reform, remains skeptical about the prospects for passing immigration reform this Congress — with or without inclusion of UAFA.
“Immigration reform is going to be very difficult to pass,” Polis said. “The consideration of LGBT families is one of the less controversial aspects. The most controversial aspect is the treatment of the 10 to 15 million people who are already here illegally. So, it’s going to be difficult to get it through. If there is a vehicle to pass immigration reform, I’m going to work hard and I know that Sen. Schumer is also committed to immigration equality for gay and lesbian families.”
Immigration Equality’s Ralls said he’s “increasingly optimistic” that senators would agree to a proposal that would include a provision for bi-national couples — particularly if Obama exercises leadership by including such language in his proposal to Congress.
And in a video report produced by Raw Story earlier this month, a Schumer staffer told a dozen same-sex couples and activists who came to his New York City office that the senator believes UAFA should be part of comprehensive immigration reform. The staffer was later identified as Nick Martin, Schumer’s director of intergovernmental relations.
“He is a co-sponsor of UAFA,” the staffer said. “It is part of his vision for what the comprehensive immigration bill will — it will be included in that. I don’t think the issue is — we’ve quite gotten to that issue yet. We’re really focused right now in terms of a path to citizenship. But it is a key issue for him to get to that as part of that process.”
An earlier version of comprehensive immigration reform introduced by Menendez in the 111th and 112th Congress included UAFA-like language, but that legislation had only Democratic co-sponsors and saw no movement.
In any event, members of Congress still plan on moving forward with standalone legislation that would enable gay Americans to sponsor their foreign partners for residency in the United States. In the past, the bill has been introduced by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) in the House and Senate Judiciary Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) in the Senate.
“Fairness in our immigration laws for all Americans and their loved ones is of the utmost importance, and in pursuit of that, I look forward to again introducing the Uniting American Families Act early this year,” Leahy said in a statement to the Blade. “I was proud to have a bipartisan bill in the last Congress, and I look forward to working with members from both parties on this issue this year.”
Another key question is whether a provision for bi-national couples is even necessary as part of comprehensive immigration reform if DOMA is struck down by the Supreme Court before the end of June. Justices are weighing a challenge to the anti-gay statute known as Windsor v. United States.
That decision could remove a major barrier for bi-national same-sex couples. Without DOMA, the administration would no longer have an excuse for denying marriage-based green card applications for same-sex couples. Gay Americans who are married to foreign same-sex partners would logically be able to sponsor their partners for residency in the United States.
The sentiment that UAFA will be unnecessary if the court strikes down DOMA was held by Polis, who said the court would be the source of relief for bi-national couples, not legislation.
“Keep in mind one thing, there’s also the pending Supreme Court case, where if DOMA is invalidated, there will not need to be special consideration in the law,” Polis said. “Gay and lesbian marriages would simply be allowed for immigration purposes. So, that’s also happening concurrent with this debate about immigration reform.”
But Ralls said UAFA-inclusive immigration reform is still necessary. First, he noted the court is unpredictable and there’s no guarantee that justices will deliver a ruling in a few months that will be favorable to bi-national couples.
“UAFA in immigration reform is a critical safety net for all couples, should the court not rule favorably,” Ralls said. “Until there is a Supreme Court ruling striking down DOMA once and for all, we are committed to pursuing every possible avenue — in Congress and administratively — to protect the families we represent.”
Further, Ralls said striking down DOMA would not have an impact on all same-sex bi-national couples, such as couples where one spouse is a recent asylee.
Straight asylum seekers who leave a spouse behind in the country of persecution can immediately file to bring a spouse to the United States after winning asylum here. But countries that persecute gays aren’t likely to have marriage equality laws, so the gay asylee would not have been able to marry a partner before fleeing. Even without DOMA, such a gay asylee would have to naturalize — which would take more than five years after arriving in the United States — before that person could sponsor a partner on a visa.
“Of course, the end of DOMA would be a terrific solution for bi-national couples, but until we have that ruling in hand, we are committed to pursuing other options — like inclusive immigration reform — which will give all couples access to a green card,” Ralls concluded.
National
HRC condemns DoE removal of LGBTQ bullying data from federal survey
Organization cites rise in homophobic, transphobic policies, worse mental health outcomes
The Human Rights Campaign is slamming the White House — and the Department of Education — following their removal of some LGBTQ bullying data from federal data collection.
The Civil Rights Data Collection is a mandated survey of all public school districts that collects figures on a wide variety of statistics about students — including demographics that include race, ethnicity, sex, disability status, and English learner status; course-level enrollment data, such as how many students are enrolled in advanced placement or honors classes; and school climate information, such as rates of bullying, harassment, suspensions, and expulsions.
That data collection has been ongoing since 1968 — nearly six decades — but now has a major change in what questions are being asked, or not asked, that advocates are largely attributing to the Trump-Vance administration’s culture war fight on LGBTQ children in the country.
Changes to the 2025-2026 survey questions — approved by the Office of Budget and Management in July — eliminated a space for schools to report how many students identify as nonbinary, how often those students are victims of harassment and bullying, and whether school districts have policies prohibiting gender identity-based incidents.
K-12 Dive, a publication that focuses its reporting on news related to K-12 education, first published a list of these data collection changes from 2024-2025 to 2025-2026.
These questions, as well as others that included LGBTQ student topics on treatment in schools, were added to the CRDC under the Biden-Harris administration. By including these questions, policymakers hoped this would lead to increased investigations into discrimination complaints, initiate compliance reviews, and provide policy guidance to districts, according to Education Department documents.
The CRDC also eliminated the mention of “gender identity” from the definition of rape and sexual assault. The prior collection of data (before the Trump-Vance administration changed it) defined rape as something that could be done to “all students, regardless of sex, or sexual orientation, or gender identity.” Now, the new data collection questions say, “All students, regardless of sex, or sexual orientation can be victims of rape,” removing “gender identity” from the new definition.
By removing and changing definitions, this could have a real-world impact on some of the school’s most vulnerable students. According to CRDC data from 2021-2022, more than 1,800 school districts reported enrolling one or more nonbinary students.
Additional data also shows that the changes to data collection is harming public school students. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee released a report in April finding that the Trump-Vance administration’s efforts to all but close the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights has left students facing discrimination and harassment throughout the country without the federal recourse they are entitled to under federal law.
The Williams Institute, a think tank that collects data and conducts research on issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity, has data indicating the true number of nonbinary and transgender children is much higher — they estimate that for children ages 13 to 17, nearly 724,000 identify as nonbinary or trans.
This is in line with a slew of policies pushed by the Trump-Vance administration since their federal takeover. Within his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” This directive attempts to make the federal definition of gender unchangeable, determined by sex assigned at birth alone.
Within his first month of his second term, Trump issued Executive Order 14187, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.” The order directs federal agencies to restrict gender-affirming medical care — including puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries — for individuals under the age of 19.
He also pushed multiple anti-trans executive orders, including Executive Order 14201, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” and Executive Order 14183, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” targeting trans athletes and military members, respectively.
These policies have a real-world impact on trans people.
The Trevor Project, a nonprofit dedicated to crisis and suicide prevention for LGBTQ people under 25, reported that, for the seventh year in a row, LGBTQ youth are at higher risk for suicide as a result of mistreatment and stigmatization.
Trevor Project data showed that nearly 60 percent of LGBTQ young people ages 13-17 said they were bullied in the past year, and that 36 percent of LGBTQ youth seriously considered suicide in the last year. The data shows a bigger discrepancy for trans youth, with that number hovering around 40 percent considering suicide.
HRC President Kelley Robinson issued a statement following the approval of the new data collection questions that leaves LGBTQ students’ bullying statistics under — if not completely unreported.
“If there was even a shadow of a doubt, this latest move by the Trump administration makes it abundantly clear they do not care about the safety of LGBTQ+ students, and trans students in particular,” Robinson said. “These are adults who should be protecting our kids. And instead, they are making sure bullying and harassment are not tracked. If they are not tracked, bullying and harassment cannot be prevented or stopped — which is exactly what the Trump administration wants. Parents deserve to know their kids are safe at school, and every single young person deserves dignity and safety at school. Anything less is plain evil.”
HRC has a “Welcoming Schools” initiative that they say is the “most comprehensive” bias-based bullying prevention program in the nation. The program includes LGBTQ and gender-inclusive resources for schools, help navigating special education and disability resources for LGBTQ-identifying students, and other tools to help schools become more inclusive.
This program has been in effect for nearly two decades and, according to HRC, reaches nearly 750,000 students.
The Washington Blade reached out to both the Department of Education and Office of Management and Budget for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.
Michigan
Progressives score victory as El-Sayed wins Mich. Senate primary
Democratic newcomer will face Rogers in November
Michigan held its primary on Tuesday, allowing the two major political parties to select their nominees to go head-to-head for the state’s U.S. Senate seat.
NBC News called the Democratic race early, giving the victory to physician Abdul El-Sayed over incumbent U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) in an extremely close primary. El-Sayed won 48.5 percent of the primary vote, with Stevens trailing by just one percentage point at 47.5 percent.
Both candidates have campagined on supporting the LGBTQ community through different avenues— for El-Sayed he focused on his past promoting HIV and PrEP funding and research. Stevens focused on her legislative history working to support transgender rights in the state.
This is a major win for progressive Democrats, who have been bearing the brunt of political attacks from President Donald Trump, the Republican Party, and centrist Democrats.
El-Sayed, a former health director in Detroit, ran his campaign largely on making life in the Great Lakes State more affordable amid rising costs. His policies include promoting “Medicare for All,” pushing health policy that targets the regressive efforts of the Trump-Vance administration that rolls back funding for both Women and LGBTQ people, minimizing the growing amount of money in politics, and he was very vocal in his criticism of Stevens for supporting aid to Israel. He was endorsed by two major progressives — U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-N.Y.).
Stevens, the four-term congresswoman, is much closer to establishment Democrats on policy than El-Sayed.
During her time in the federal government, she has consistently supported the Equality Act, which would add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She has also emphasized supporting local manufacturing and lowering housing costs in the state.
She was named to Advocates for Trans Equality’s 118th Congressional Champions list for her pro-trans policies and was endorsed by establishment heavy hitters Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
The contentious race boiled down not only to Michigan affairs but also extended to international conflicts — namely Palestine. (South Africa has filed a case in the International Court of Justice in The Hague that accuses Israel of committing genocide in the Gaza Strip after Oct. 7.) This primary also acted as one of the first major races that pushed back against AIPAC, a lobbying group that works to promote pro-Israel candidates in U.S. elections. The group has been involved in domestic politics since 1954.
AIPAC devoted a massive amount of money to this race.
The Associated Press reported that the pro-Israel lobbying group spent more than $30 million on ads against El-Sayed because of his vocal denunciation of Israel and his continued criticism of its policies towards Palestine.
Michigan has a large Muslim and Arab American population, which could, in part, explain how El-Sayed was able to win.
The Republican side was far less competitive. Former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) ran unopposed and clinched the GOP nomination. He has consistently held anti-LGBTQ positions, going as far as voting multiple times for a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, voting against repealing the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, and supporting efforts to directly target the attempted expansion of Title IX protections to include trans people.
El-Sayed will face off against Rogers in November for Michigan’s Senate seat — one that could have lasting impacts not only on the state’s politics but also on the Republicans’ narrow Senate majority and Trump’s political agenda.
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.
An exhibit at the Smithsonian. (Washington Blade photo by Landon Shackelford)
PHOTOS: World Pride March
Tens of thousands take part in World Pride March
PHOTOS: Daddy Issues at Kiki
Something’s off about Dad. When is it time to step in?
New book chronicles gay man’s life in hippie commune
Continue to engage in community after Pride month
D.C.’s Mary’s House For Older Adults names new executive director
Suzanne Goode is not good for Rehoboth Beach
Calendar: August 7-13
