Connect with us

Politics

Carney dismisses questions on ENDA executive order

White House spokesperson says he’s addressed EO issues, reiterates legislative path

Published

on

Jay Carney, White House, gay news, Washington Blade
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney dodged additional questions about LGBT workplace discrimination (Blade file photo by Michael Key).

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney dodged additional questions about LGBT workplace discrimination (Blade file photo by Michael Key).

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney wouldn’t say on Wednesday why President Obama won’t take administrative action against workplace discrimination at the same time as he pursues a legislative solution to address the issue — prompting a tongue-lashing from one LGBT advocate who said he’ll tweet at the spokesperson additional reading material.

Under questioning from the Washington Blade, Carney insisted he’s previously explained why Obama can’t signed an executive order prohibiting LGBT workplace discrimination among federal contractors while calling for passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Without enumerating that explanation, Carney shifted to talking about the bill.

“I think it’s a fair question, but I have answered it,” Carney said. “And one thing I noted recently is that we saw some progress on the legislation, ENDA, in Congress as it was passed out of committee. And the president supports that and welcomes it, and will continue to work with Congress to move forward with that.”

When the Blade pointed out that LGBT discrimination continues to occur — just this month, two transgender people, one who worked for a federal contractor, won damages for discrimination they faced on the job by suing under Title VII — Carney dismissed the conclusion that administrative action is necessary.

“The president opposes discrimination, as you know,” Carney said. “And the president is pursuing a path that he thinks has the best chance of success, which is trying to get Congress to pass ENDA, the legislative action that he supports.”

In additional to signing an executive order, another method of administrative action to institute workplace non-discrimination protections being discussed by LGBT advocates is enforcing Executive Order 11246, which prohibits gender discrimination among federal contractors, in a way that would protect transgender workers as well.

That action would bring enforcement of that executive order into alignment with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s ruling last year that transgender people are protected under workplace non-discrimination law prohibiting gender discrimination.

It’s unclear whether the Labor Department is enforcing the existing executive order in this way. Buzzfeed reported earlier this month that the White House “forbade” the department from doing so.

Asked about this report, Carney said he no knowledge of it and maintained the administration’s position on the issue is clear.

“I’m not aware of that report,” Carney said. “I think our position is clear. I don’t have any updates on it for you. We support the legislation that has moved forward, importantly, in one house of Congress and we’ll continue to make that support known.”

The White House news briefing took place immediately after Obama met with the House and Senate Democratic caucuses on Capitol Hill. Asked whether Obama brought up moving forward with ENDA at those meetings, Carney said he doesn’t have complete knowledge of what was said.

“I wasn’t in the meetings; I don’t have the full readout,” Carney said. “But the president’s position on this issue is well known. It is one he expresses frequently in his conversations with lawmakers of both parties. And we will continue to push for action on that legislation.”

Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, said Carney is feigning ignorance over matters of LGBT workplace discrimination in attempt to dodge questions.

“I don’t think Jay Carney is as ignorant as he pretends to be whenever he wants to avoid tough questioning from the Washington Blade and other reporters who rightfully ask about the President’s five-year delay on his written campaign promise to LGBT Americans,” Carney said. “Mr. Carney is being intentionally obtuse and falsely claiming he’s answered questions that he has in fact skillfully ducked for years.”

Almeida said his organization will deliver to Carney via Twitter “a summer reading list” including the story of President Franklin Roosevelt issuing an executive order prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race among defense contractors as well as the stories of black leaders like Bayard Rustin and A. Phillip Randolph who urged him to take action.

“If Carney reads that American history during his August vacation, maybe he will regain some sense of shame and stop avoiding important questions about how to give LGBT Americans a fair shot at the American Dream,” Almeida said.

Additionally, Almeida took Carney to task for not answering the question about whether the White House forbade the Labor Department from enforcing the existing executive order to protect transgender workers.

“Numerous federal government employees and national leaders have told us that the White House has blocked what the Labor Department wanted to do last year,” Almeida said. “This issue is going to get even more embarrassing for Labor Secretary Tom Perez as time passes, and I hope he will use his considerable intellect and passion to re-start the debate with the White House senior staff who have been dragging their feet on our pathway toward LGBT workplace opportunity.”

A transcript of the exchange between the Washington Blade and Carney follows:

Washington Blade: Thanks, Jay. I want to talk about the issue of LGBT workplace discrimination once more. I know when I’ve asked you questions about the White House issuing an executive order to address this issue before, you said that the administration prefers a legislative push of the issue. But can you explain to me why you think they’re mutually exclusive? Can’t the President sign an executive order and then pursue a legislative solution at the same time?

Jay Carney: You know, Chris, I think it’s a fair question, but I have answered it. And one thing I noted recently is that we saw some progress on the legislation, ENDA, in Congress as it was passed out of committee. And the President supports that and welcomes it, and will continue to work with Congress to move forward with that. He continues to think that’s the best approach in addressing these issues.

Blade: Even as this legislative process is underway, discrimination is still happening. In this past month, two transgender victims of discrimination won damages for discrimination based on a job. One was a federal contractor. Doesn’t this continued discrimination demonstrate the need for immediate action from the administration?

Carney: Well, the President opposes discrimination, as you know. And the President is pursuing a path that he thinks has the best chance of success, which is trying to get Congress to pass ENDA, the legislative action that he supports.

Blade: Another idea that’s being talked about is the Labor Department enforcing the existing executive order protecting gender discrimination in a way that also protects transgender workers. There was a report in Buzzfeed earlier this month saying the White House forbade the Labor Department from enforcing that existing executive order in this way. Are you aware of this issue and do you deny —

Carney: I’m not aware of that report. I think our position is clear. I don’t have any updates on it for you. We support the legislation that has moved forward, importantly, in one house of Congress and we’ll continue to make that support known.

Blade: One last question, I swear.

Carney: He should get a seat up in the front row, don’t you think? (Laughter.)

Blade: Did the President, in the meeting with the Senate Democratic caucus, did he encourage lawmakers to move forward on this with senators today?

Carney: I wasn’t in the meetings; I don’t have the full readout. But the President’s position on this issue is well known. It is one he expresses frequently in his conversations with lawmakers of both parties. And we will continue to push for action on that legislation.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Politics

After Biden signs TikTok ban its CEO vows federal court battle

“Rest assured, we aren’t going anywhere,” CEO said

Published

on

TikTok mobile phone app. (Screenshot/YouTube)

President Joe Biden signed an appropriations bill into law on Wednesday that provides multi-billion dollar funding and military aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan after months of delay and Congressional infighting.

A separate bill Biden signed within the aid package contained a bipartisan provision that will ban the popular social media app TikTok from the United States if its Chinese parent company ByteDance does not sell off the American subsidiary.

Reacting, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew said Wednesday that the Culver City, Calif.-based company would go to court to try to remain online in the U.S.

In a video posted on the company’s social media accounts, Chew denounced the potential ban: “Make no mistake, this is a ban, a ban of TikTok and a ban on you and your voice,” Chew said. “Rest assured, we aren’t going anywhere. We are confident and we will keep fighting for your rights in the courts. The facts and the constitution are on our side, and we expect to prevail,” he added.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre adamantly denied during a press briefing on Wednesday that the bill constitutes a ban, reiterating the administration’s hope that TikTok will be purchased by a third-party buyer and referencing media reports about the many firms that are interested.

Chew has repeatedly testified in both the House and Senate regarding ByteDance’s ability to mine personal data of its 170 million plus American subscribers, maintaining that user data is secure and not shared with either ByteDance nor agencies of the Chinese government. The testimony failed to assuage lawmakers’ doubts.

In an email, the former chair of the House Intelligence Committee, U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who doesn’t support a blanket ban of the app, told the Washington Blade:

“As the former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, I have long worked to safeguard Americans’ freedoms and security both at home and abroad. The Chinese Communist Party’s ability to exploit private user data and to manipulate public opinion through TikTok present serious national security concerns. For that reason, I believe that divestiture presents the best option to preserve access to the platform, while ameliorating these risks. I do not support a ban on TikTok while there are other less restrictive means available, and this legislation will give the administration the leverage and authority to require divestiture.”

A spokesperson for U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) told the Blade: “Senator Padilla believes we can support speech and creativity while also protecting data privacy and security. TikTok’s relationship to the Chinese Communist Party poses significant data privacy concerns. He will continue working with the Biden-Harris administration and his colleagues in Congress to safeguard Americans’ data privacy and foster continued innovation.”

The law, which gives ByteDance 270 days to divest TikTok’s U.S. assets, expires with a January 19, 2025 deadline for a sale. The date is one day before Biden’s term is set to expire, although he could extend the deadline by three months if he determines ByteDance is making progress or the transaction faces uncertainty in a federal court.

Former President Donald Trump’s executive order in 2020, which sought to ban TikTok and Chinese-owned WeChat, a unit of Beijing-based Tencent, in the U.S., was blocked by federal courts.

TikTok has previously fought efforts to ban its widely popular app by the state of Montana last year, in a case that saw a federal judge in Helena block that state ban, citing free-speech grounds.

The South China Morning Post reported this week that the four-year battle over TikTok is a significant front in a war over the internet and technology between Washington and Beijing. Last week, Apple said China had ordered it to remove Meta Platforms’s WhatsApp and Threads from its App Store in China over Chinese national security concerns.

A spokesperson for the ACLU told the Blade in a statement that “banning or requiring divestiture of TikTok would set an alarming global precedent for excessive government control over social media platforms.”

LGBTQ TikToker users are alarmed, fearing that a ban will represent the disruption of networks of support and activism. However, queer social media influencers who operate on multiple platforms expressed some doubts as to long term impact.

Los Angeles Blade contributor Chris Stanley told the Blade:

“It might affect us slightly, because TikTok is so easy to go viral on. Which obviously means more brand deals, etc. However they also suppress and shadow ban LGBTQ creators frequently. But we will definitely be focusing our energy more on other platforms with this uncertainty going forward. Lucky for us, we aren’t one trick ponies and have multiple other platforms built.”

Brooklyn, N.Y.,-based gay social media creator and influencer Artem Bezrukavenko told the Blade:

“For smart creators it won’t because they have multiple platforms. For people who put all their livelihood yes. Like people who do livestreams,” he said adding: “Personally I’m happy it gets banned or American company will own it so they will be less homophobic to us.”

TikTok’s LGBTQ following has generally positive experiences although there have been widely reported instances of users, notably transgender users, seemingly targeted by the platform’s algorithms and having their accounts banned or repeatedly suspended.

Of greater concern is the staggering rise in anti-LGBTQ violence and threats on the platform prompting LGBTQ advocacy group GLAAD, in its annual Social Media Safety Index, to give TikTok a failing score on LGBTQ safety.

Additional reporting by Christopher Kane

Continue Reading

Politics

Smithsonian staff concerned about future of LGBTQ programming amid GOP scrutiny

Secretary Lonnie Bunch says ‘LGBTQ+ content is welcome’

Published

on

Lonnie G. Bunch III, secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, appears before a Dec. 2023 hearing of the U.S. Committee on House Administration (Screen capture: Forbes/YouTube)

Staff at the Smithsonian Institution are concerned about the future of LGBTQ programming as several events featuring a drag performer were cancelled or postponed following scrutiny by House Republicans, according to emails reviewed by the Washington Post.

In December, Secretary Lonnie G. Bunch III appeared before a hearing led by GOP members of the Committee on House Administration, who flagged concerns about the Smithsonian’s involvement in “the Left’s indoctrination of our children.”

Under questioning from U.S. Rep. Stephanie Bice (R-Okla.), Bunch said he was “surprised” to learn the Smithsonian had hosted six drag events over the past three years, telling the lawmakers “It’s not appropriate to expose children” to these performances.

Collaborations with drag artist Pattie Gonia in December, January, and March were subsequently postponed or cancelled, the Post reported on Saturday, adding that a Smithsonian spokesperson blamed “budgetary constraints and other resource issues” and the museums are still developing programming for Pride month in June.

“I, along with all senior leaders, take seriously the concerns expressed by staff and will continue to do so,” Bunch said in a statement to the paper. “As we have reiterated, LGBTQ+ content is welcome at the Smithsonian.”

The secretary sent an email on Friday expressing plans to meet with leaders of the Smithsonian Pride Alliance, one of the two groups that detailed their concerns to him following December’s hearing.

Bunch told the Pride Alliance in January that with his response to Bice’s question, his intention was to “immediately stress that the Smithsonian does not expose children to inappropriate content.”

“A hearing setting does not give you ample time to expand,” he said, adding that with more time he would have spoken “more broadly about the merits and goals of our programming and content development and how we equip parents to make choices about what content their children experience.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Survey finds support for Biden among LGBTQ adults persists despite misgivings

Data for Progress previewed the results exclusively with the Blade

Published

on

Former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

A new survey by Data for Progress found LGBTQ adults overwhelmingly favor President Joe Biden and Democrats over his 2024 rival former President Donald Trump and Republicans, but responses to other questions may signal potential headwinds for Biden’s reelection campaign.

The organization shared the findings of its poll, which included 873 respondents from across the country including an oversample of transgender adults, exclusively with the Washington Blade on Thursday.

Despite the clear margin of support for the president, with only 22 percent of respondents reporting that they have a very favorable or somewhat favorable opinion of Trump, answers were more mixed when it came to assessments of Biden’s performance over the past four years and his party’s record of protecting queer and trans Americans.

Forty-five percent of respondents said the Biden-Harris administration has performed better than they expected, while 47 percent said the administration’s record has been worse than they anticipated. A greater margin of trans adults in the survey — 52 vs. 37 percent — said their expectations were not met.

Seventy precent of all LGBTQ respondents and 81 percent of those who identify as trans said the Democratic Party should be doing more for queer and trans folks, while just 24 percent of all survey participants and 17 percent of trans participants agreed the party is already doing enough.

With respect to the issues respondents care about the most when deciding between the candidates on their ballots, LGBTQ issues were second only to the economy, eclipsing other considerations like abortion and threats to democracy.

These answers may reflect heightened fear and anxiety among LGBTQ adults as a consequence of the dramatic uptick over the past few years in rhetorical, legislative, and violent bias-motivated attacks against the community, especially targeting queer and trans folks.

The survey found that while LGBTQ adults are highly motivated to vote in November, there are signs of ennui. For example, enthusiasm was substantially lower among those aged 18 to 24 and 25 to 39 compared with adults 40 and older. And a plurality of younger LGBTQ respondents said they believe that neither of the country’s two major political parties care about them.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular