National
Mission accomplished or another setback?
‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ compromise draws mixed reactions
President Barack Obama's administration endorsed Monday a path to repeal the law that prohibits gays, lesbians and bisexuals from serving openly in the U.S. armed forces. (Photo by Pete Souza, courtesy of White House))
The legislative compromise that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal supporters in Congress unveiled this week has inspired mixed reactions and led LGBT leaders to advocate for its passage even as some expressed disappointment over its shortcomings.
Among those expressing displeasure was Lt. Dan Choi, a gay U.S. Army infantry soldier who was arrested twice for chaining himself to the White House fence in protest of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
In an interview with the Blade on Monday, Choi said the proposal requires LGBT people to compromise themselves without getting much in return.
“In a compromise, it’s insinuated that both sides have given something, and I don’t see that,” he said. “So it’s too generous to call it that. It’s a delay and it’s asking us to further put our political agenda before the needs of the soldiers, and that’s who’s getting compromised.”
Despite his disappointment in the compromise language, Choi said he didn’t want the measure to fail this week when it came before Congress. He noted that “it’s only one step” in the path for non-discrimination in the U.S. military and people should keep fighting.
The measure in the Senate was made public Monday by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), the sponsor of standalone legislation for repeal in the Senate. On Tuesday, Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), champion of standalone repeal legislation in the House, unveiled an identically worded companion bill.
The Senate Armed Services Committee and the full House were expected to vote on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” measures this week during consideration of Pentagon budget legislation known as the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill. Neither vote occurred before Blade deadline.
The measures presented by Lieberman and Murphy would repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” statute mandating that openly gay, lesbian and bisexual people be discharged from the U.S. armed forces.
However, the law would only be repealed after the Pentagon completes its study — due Dec. 1 — on how to implement repeal in the U.S. military.
Further, President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen would have to certify that the U.S. military is ready for the transition and that the change “is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion and recruiting and retention.”
The legislation doesn’t give a timeline when the president, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would have to issue the certification. On Monday, the Associated Press reported that meeting those conditions for repeal would allow the Pentagon “perhaps even years” to prepare for repeal.
Notably, the legislation also lacks non-discrimination language and would return authority on discharging LGBT service members to the Pentagon.
Choi said the provisions in the legislation are “essentially compromising the integrity of the soldiers until a time to be determined” and compared the lack of a deadline for certification to a military commander issuing an order without a timeline.
“It’s devastating to the soldiers who don’t know and it leaves a lot of questions out there,” Choi said. “My question back to the president is how long are we going to force our soldiers to lie? Nobody can answer the question when.”
But Choi said “what bothers” him the most is the absence of the non-discrimination language that was contained in the standalone version of the bill.
“I thought the most heinous part of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ was that it enforced discrimination, and now it just says that’s altogether not as important,” Choi said. “I think it’s within everybody’s mandate to get rid of discrimination where it exists.”
Choi said as a result of the compromise, LGBT soldiers could be subject to a policy that’s “turbulent and precarious.”
Also expressing disappointment about the lack of non-discrimination language was Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, who said removal of the non-discrimination language was “unnecessary” to get more support for repeal.
“I think we would have been in the same position had we not made three concessions and only made two,” he said. “Other minority groups have not received statutory non-discrimination protection in the military — this would have been something extra — but it was something we were on track to secure.”
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said he’s not sure who initiated the idea of omitting non-discrimination language, but said those supporting repeal thought such a move would improve its chances of passage.
“It’s not anything that SLDN volunteered to give up,” Sarvis said. “I think at the end of the day, we all realized that we would have to live with this new compromise.”
The idea of removing non-discrimination language and returning authority on discharges to the Pentagon was advanced previously by the Palm Center, a think tank on gays in the military. Earlier this month, the Blade reported that the Palm Center had been asking other LGBT groups to support such a move.
But Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, said he didn’t know why the non-discrimination language was removed and noted that Palm wasn’t active in pushing for such a move as part of the compromise measure.
“This was news to me when I was told,” he said. “I was actually in bed when I was told and I promise you we had nothing to do with it.”
Still, Belkin said passing legislation with non-discrimination language is “not politically realistic” and the compromise measure advanced earlier this week is “what we can get.”
But Nicholson said the Palm Center pushed hard to have the non-discrimination language removed from the legislation, noting recent reports in which Belkin advocated the proposal.
Nicholson said Belkin was responsible for Saturday’s opinion piece in the Washington Post in which former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Shalikashvili advocated for a return of authority to the Pentagon.
“There’s been no secret about that fact that the Palm Center has lobbied hard to take out the non-discrimination language, including the [Shalikashvili] op-ed and several other pieces of media that the Palm Center has done,” Nicholson said.
Compromise brought White House support
While the compromise fell short of what repeal supporters initially sought, the conditions set forth in the proposal brought support from the White House, which opponents of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” had long sought.
In a letter published Monday, Peter Orzag, director of the Office of Management & Budget, writes the repeal measure adheres to the Pentagon’s request to finish its study on the issue at the end of the year and therefore is supported by the Obama administration.
Orzag says that the Pentagon review would be “ideally” completed before Congress takes action on the issue, but notes the administration “understands that Congress has chosen to move forward with the legislation now and seeks the administration’s views on the proposed amendment.”
In the letter, Orzag says he understands the amendment would ensure implementation of repeal is consistent with “standards of military readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting and retention.”
“The administration therefore supports the proposed amendment,” Orzag writes.
Geoff Morrell, a Pentagon spokesperson, issued a statement Tuesday saying Gates supports the measure, although he still believes Congress should hold off on tackling the issue until after the Pentagon completes its study.
“Secretary Gates continues to believe that ideally the [Defense Department] review should be completed before there is any legislation to repeal the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law,” he said. “With Congress having indicated that is not possible, the secretary can accept the language in the proposed amendment.”
Having earned support from the administration, Sarvis said the amendment is “a path to repeal” and predicted that its passage could lead to open service “by the end of the first quarter of next year.”
After the review is complete and certification happens, Sarvis said the Pentagon “would then be free” to implement regulations for open service and Obama could issue an executive order for non-discrimination in the U.S. military.
“In fact, all of the federal policies of non-discrimination have been issued by executive order since 1948,” Sarvis said, referring to the order that President Truman issued to end racial segregation in the armed forces.
Sarvis said he didn’t think a future administration would tamper with such an executive order or “try to tinker with this and make it a political football.”
“For instance, the four executive orders that I’ve referred to since 1948 have not been undone by new administrations,” Sarvis said. “I think that if the president issues an executive order after ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is eliminated — I don’t see a new Congress or a new administration trying to undo an executive order.”
But Choi said he doesn’t want supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal mistaking the Orzag letter in support of the proposal as Obama taking action on the issue. He noted the president could have transmitted repeal language to Congress for the defense budget legislation.
“Obviously, if he would have put the defense authorization bill language through to include the repeal legislation, then we wouldn’t be in this situation where he’s trying to get us to celebrate a win,” Choi said.
To follow-up on his earlier arrests at the White House and put more pressure on the president, Choi said he plans to take part in new acts of civil disobedience to draw attention to the issue of LGBT service members serving openly in the U.S. military.
“I not only plan to, but I encourage everybody else to,” Choi said. “The fact of the matter is so long as telling the truth is considered civil disobedience, we need to be committing civil disobedience every single day.”
Mission accomplished?
Several major LGBT organizations issued statements this week praising the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” compromise shortly after it was announced.
In a statement, Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese said Monday the new support from the administration means people rallying against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are “on the brink of historic action to both strengthen our military and respect the service of lesbian and gay troops.”
“Today’s announcement paves the path to fulfill the president’s call to end ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ this year and puts us one step closer to removing this stain from the laws of our nation,” Solmonese said.
Nicholson of Servicemembers United said in a statement that Monday’s letter was “long awaited, much needed, and immensely helpful.”
Choi said the organizations apparently had their statements “all set up” to celebrate the compromise regardless of the deal’s content.
“Just from my military perspective, it seems very much like they’re putting a ‘mission accomplished’ banner on top of a carrier, and saying our part is done and we have fulfilled our mission,” Choi said. “For people to revel in this kind of celebration instead of encouraging people to demand the fullness of repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is certainly a misstep.”
Other LGBT groups that advocate for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal as one issue in their portfolios indicated support for the compromise measure, although they acknowledged some shortcomings.
In a statement to the Blade, Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, said her organization was “encouraged” that Congress and the administration was “taking a step” to address the legal discrimination of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“This presents a path that could end in men and women being able to serve openly, honestly and to great benefit of our country, but it falls short of providing clear assurances of protection and a specific timeline for implementation,” she said. “The important action this week is to ensure passage of this step toward full repeal.”
In another statement, Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, offered a similarly lukewarm statement on the compromise measure.
“The amendment and compromise fall short of an outright repeal, which was what we had all been hoping for,” she said. “While we are cautiously optimistic that this agreement will lead to a full repeal, it is not yet time to celebrate the end of this appalling and shameful law.”
Among the organizations to strongly support the White House’s endorsement of the compromise was SLDN. In a statement, Sarvis called the agreement a “dramatic breakthrough.”
In response to Choi’s criticism of the statements of support for reaching an agreement with the White House, Sarvis said he respects Choi’s service and commitment to overturning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“His view of the legislative process and the strategy is not a view that I share,” Sarvis said. “On this one, in terms of legislative strategy and timing, I have a different view and my view is I want to get what’s realistic and I want to get something that will ensure that service members can serve openly as soon as possible.”
Federal Government
Republicans attach five anti-LGBTQ riders to State Department funding bill
Spending package would restrict Pride flags on federal buildings, trans healthcare, LGBTQ envoys
As Congress finalizes its funding for fiscal year 2027, Republicans are attempting to include five anti-LGBTQ riders in the National Security and Department of State Appropriations Act.
A rider is an unrelated provision tacked onto a bill that must pass — in this instance, the bill provides funding for national security policy and for the State Department.
The riders range from restricting Pride flags in federal buildings to banning transgender healthcare, but all aim to limit the visibility and rights of LGBTQ Americans.
The five riders are:
Section 7067(a) prohibits Pride flags from being flown over federal buildings.
Section 7067(c) restricts the United States’ ability to appoint special envoys, representatives, or coordinators unless expressly authorized by Congress. These roles have historically been used to promote U.S. interests in international forums — including advancing human and LGBTQ and intersex rights and other policy priorities. The change would halt what the Congressional Equality Caucus describes as providing “critical expertise to U.S. foreign policy and leadership abroad.”
Section 7067(d) reinforces multiple anti-equality executive orders signed by President Donald Trump, effectively requiring that foreign assistance funded by the United States comply with those orders. This includes rescinding federal contractor nondiscrimination protections, including for LGBTQ people.
Section 7067(e) prohibits funding for any organization that provides or promotes medically necessary healthcare for trans people or “promotes transgenderism” — effectively banning funds for organizations that recognize trans people exist. This is despite the practice of gender-affirming care being supported by nearly every major medical association.
Section 7067(g) reinforces two global gag rules put forward by the Trump-Vance administration. One is the Trans Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign assistance funding for organizations that acknowledge the existence of trans people or advocate for nondiscrimination protections for them, among other activities. The second is the DEI Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign assistance funding for organizations that engage in efforts to address the ongoing effects of racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry outside the United States.
The global gag rule has its roots in anti-abortion policy introduced by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, when the 40th president barred foreign organizations receiving U.S. global health assistance from providing information, referrals, or services for legal abortion, or from advocating for access to abortion services in their own countries. Planned Parenthood notes that the policy also affects programs beyond abortion, including efforts to expand access to contraception, prevent and treat HIV/AIDS, combat malaria, and improve maternal and child health.
If organizations funded by the State Department engage in these activities, they could lose funding.
This anti-LGBTQ push aligns with broader actions from the Trump-Vance administration since the start of Trump’s second term, which have focused on restricting human rights — particularly those of trans Americans.
The House Appropriations Committee is responsible for drafting the appropriations legislation. U.S. Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) serves as chair, with U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) as ranking member. The committee includes 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.
For FY27 appropriations, Congress is supposed to pass and have the president sign the funding bills by Sept. 30, 2026.
Noticias en Español
The university that refuses to let go
Joanna Cifredo is a trans woman participating in University of Puerto Rico strike
Over the past days, I have been walking with a question that refuses to leave me. Not the kind of question you answer from a desk or from a distance, but one that grows out of what you witness in real time, at the gates, in the faces of those who remain there without knowing how any of this will end. What is truly happening inside the University of Puerto Rico, and why have so many students decided to risk everything at a moment when they can least afford to lose anything.
I write as someone who lives just steps away from the Río Piedras campus. These days, the silence has replaced the constant movement that once defined this space. The absence is felt in every corner where students used to pass at all hours. Since arriving in Puerto Rico three years ago, I have come to know firsthand stories that rarely make it into reports or official statements. One of the reasons I chose to stay was precisely this, to serve the university community, to help create a space where students could find something as basic as a safe meal at night and, in some way, ease burdens that are often carried in silence.
I have listened, asked questions, and tried to understand without imposing answers. What I have found is not a collective outburst or a generational whim. What exists is a fracture, a deep break between those making decisions and those living with their consequences every single day.
There has been an effort to reduce this strike to an issue of order, scheduling, or academic disruption. Conversations revolve around missed classes, delayed semesters, and students supposedly unaware of the consequences of their actions. What is rarely addressed are the conditions that lead an entire student body to pause its own future to sustain a protest that offers no guarantees.
Because that is the reality. These are students who fully understand what they are risking, and yet they remain. When someone reaches that point, the least they deserve is not judgment, but to be heard.
From the outside, there have also been attempts to discredit what is happening. Familiar narratives are repeated, legitimacy is questioned, and doubt is cast over intentions. It is easier to do that than to acknowledge that this did not begin at the gates, but long before, in decisions made without building trust.
And something must be said clearly. This is not limited to the gates of Río Piedras. What we are witnessing extends across every unit of the University of Puerto Rico system. Mayagüez, Ponce, Arecibo, Bayamón, Cayey, Humacao, Carolina, Aguadilla, Utuado, and the Medical Sciences Campus. This is not an isolated reaction. It is a movement that runs through the entire institution. Río Piedras may be more visible, but it is not alone. What is happening there reflects a broader unrest felt across the system.
Within that context, one demand has grown increasingly present, the call for the resignation of University of Puerto Rico President Zayira Jordán Conde. This is not the voice of a small group. It reflects a deeper level of mistrust that has spread across multiple campuses.
The Puerto Rican Association of University Professors has also made it clear that this is not solely a student issue. There is real concern among faculty, and a shared recognition of the conditions currently shaping the university. When students and professors arrive at the same conclusion, the problem can no longer be minimized.
Meanwhile, the administration continues to speak in the language of dialogue. But dialogue is not a word, it is a practice. And when trust has been broken, it cannot be restored through statements alone, but through decisions that prove a willingness to truly listen.
In the midst of all of this, there are voices that cannot be ignored. Voices grounded not in theory, but in lived experience. One of them is Joanna Cifredo, a student at the Mayagüez campus, a young Puerto Rican trans woman, and someone widely recognized for her advocacy.
I spoke with her in recent days. What follows is her voice, exactly as it is.
How would you describe what is happening inside the University of Puerto Rico right now, beyond what people see from the outside?
Estamos viviendo momentos muy difíciles, en el sentido de que hay mucha incertidumbre y una presión constante por parte de la administración para reabrir el recinto, pero, entre todo el caos e inestabilidad provocado por las decisiones de esta administración, también hemos vivido momentos muy poderosos. Esta lucha ha sacado lo mejor de nuestra comunidad.
Lo vimos en las asambleas y plenos, donde 1,500, 1,700, hasta 1,800 estudiantes llegaron —bajo lluvia, bajo advertencias de inundaciones— y aun así se quedaron, participaron y votaron a favor de una manifestación indefinida hasta que se atiendan nuestros reclamos.
He conocido a tantas personas en los diferentes portones, estudiantes graduados, aletas, estudiantes de intercambio, estudiantes de todo tipo de concentraciones y se unieron para apoyar el movimiento estudiantil. Estudiantes que vienen a los portones después del trabajo o antes de trabajar. Estudiantes que vienen a dejar agua y suministros entre turnos de trabajo. Viejitos que vienen a los portones con desayuno, almuerzo o cena.
Más allá de lo que se ve desde afuera, lo que estamos viviendo es una mezcla de tensión y resistencia, pero también de comunidad, solidaridad y compromiso colectivo.
Much of what is discussed remains at the level of headlines or social media. From your direct experience, what specific decisions or actions from the administration have led to this level of mobilization?
Desde el inicio, la designación de la Dra. Zayira Jordán Conde careció de respaldo dentro de la comunidad universitaria. No contaba con experiencia administrativa en la UPR ni con un conocimiento básico de nuestros procesos, cultura y reglamentos. Por eso, en asamblea, el estudiantado votó para solicitarle a la Junta de Gobierno que no considerara su candidatura, y múltiples organizaciones docentes hicieron lo mismo. Existía un consenso amplio de que no tenía la experiencia necesaria para liderar una institución como la nuestra.
A pesar de ese rechazo claro, la Junta de Gobierno decidió ignorar los reclamos de la comunidad universitaria e imponer su nombramiento.
Una vez en el cargo, su estilo de gobernanza ha sido poco transparente y poco colaborativo. Sin embargo, el detonante principal de la movilización en el Recinto Universitario de Mayagüez fue su decisión de destituir, de manera unilateral y en medio del semestre, a cinco rectores, incluyendo al nuestro, el Dr. Agustín Rullán Toro, para reemplazarlo por un rector interino, el Dr. Miguel Muñoz Muñoz.
Esta acción, tomada de forma abrupta, provocó de inmediato un clima de caos e inestabilidad dentro de la institución. Y deja una pregunta inevitable: ¿no anticipó el impacto de esa decisión, lo que evidenciaría una falta de experiencia? ¿O lo anticipó y aun así decidió proceder? No está claro cuál de las dos es más preocupante.
Además, esta decisión tuvo consecuencias concretas para el estudiantado, incluyendo el retiro de becas educativas para nuevos integrantes del RUM por parte de la Fundación Ceiba, que calificó la movida como “sorprendente” y “preocupante”. Decisiones impulsivas como la que tomó la presidenta ponen en peligro la estabilidad de nuestra institución y la acreditación de la universidad.
As a trans woman within this movement, how does your identity intersect with what is happening, and why does this also shape the future of people like you?
Soy una de varias chicas trans que formamos parte activa de este movimiento estudiantil.
For those outside the UPR who believe this does not affect them, what are the real consequences of this crisis?
La Universidad de Puerto Rico se fundó para servir al pueblo.
It is impossible to overstate the role the University of Puerto Rico and its students have played in shaping the social, cultural, and economic life of this country. Its impact extends into science, medicine, and every profession that has sustained Puerto Rico over time. No other educational institution has contributed more.
After listening to her, one thing becomes undeniable. This is not just another protest, but a generation refusing to let go of what little remains within its reach. And when a generation reaches that point, the issue is no longer the strike, the issue becomes the country itself.
National
Advocacy groups issue US travel advisory ahead of World Cup
Renee Good’s death in Minneapolis among incidents cited
More than 100 organizations have issued a travel advisory for the U.S. ahead of the 2026 World Cup.
The World Cup will take place in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico from June 11-July 19.
“In light of the deteriorating human rights situation in the United States and in the absence of meaningful action and concrete guarantees from FIFA, host cities, or the U.S. government, the undersigned organizations are issuing this travel advisory for fans, players, journalists, and other visitors traveling to and within the United States for the June 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup. World Cup games will be played in 11 different cities across the United States, which, like many localities, have already been the target of the Trump administration’s violent and abusive immigration crackdown,” reads the advisory that the Council for Global Equality and other groups that include the American Civil Liberties Union issued on April 23. “The impacts of these policies vary by locality.”
“While the Trump administration’s rising authoritarianism and increasing violence pose serious risks to all, those from immigrant communities, racial and ethnic minority groups, and LGBTQ+ individuals have been and continue to be disproportionately targeted and affected by the administration’s policies and, as such, are most vulnerable to serious harm when traveling to and/or within the United States,” it adds. “This travel advisory calls on fans, players, journalists, and other visitors to exercise caution.”
The advisory specifically mentions Renee Good.
A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent on Jan. 7 shot and killed her in Minneapolis. Good, 37, left behind her wife and three children.
The full advisory can be read here.
Tennessee’s trans data bill a frightening omen
The queer appeal of ‘The Devil Wears Prada’
Lesbifriends Travel to host queer night out
Republicans attach five anti-LGBTQ riders to State Department funding bill
Calendar: May 1-7
House Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
European Parliament backs EU-wide conversion therapy ban
Rep. Sarah McBride reflects on first year in Congress amid political backlash
LGBTQ people are leaving Orthodox Judaism behind
Democracy Forward files FOIA request for State Department bathroom policy records
-
Federal Government5 days agoHouse Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
-
European Union3 days ago
European Parliament backs EU-wide conversion therapy ban
-
Delaware4 days ago
Rep. Sarah McBride reflects on first year in Congress amid political backlash
-
News5 days ago
LGBTQ people are leaving Orthodox Judaism behind
