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However, the law would only be repealed after the Pentagon completes its study — due Dec. 1 — on how to implement repeal in the U.S. military.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.”
Idaho
Idaho advances bill to restrict bathroom access for transgender residents
HB 752 passed in state House of Representatives on Monday
The Idaho House of Representatives passed House Bill 752 on Monday, a measure that would make it a crime for a person to use a bathroom other than the one designated for their “biological sex.”
The story was first reported by the Idaho Capitol Sun after the bill cleared the House.
House Bill 752 would make it a criminal offense — either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the number of prior offenses — for individuals who “knowingly and willfully” enter a bathroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex.
The bill would apply to public buildings, including government-owned spaces, and places of “public accommodation,” a category that includes private businesses.
According to the bill’s text, it would “prohibit a person from entering a restroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex; provide a penalty; provide exceptions; define terms; and declare an emergency and provide an effective date.”
A first offense would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison. A second or subsequent offense within five years would be a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.
The bill passed in a 54–15 vote on Monday. Six Republicans broke with their party’s majority to join nine Democrats in opposing the measure.
The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Cornel Rasor, a Republican from Sagle near the Washington-Idaho border, told House lawmakers that the legislation is intended to protect women and girls.
“It prevents discomfort and voyeurism escalation and assaults, while preserving single-user options and narrow exceptions so no one is denied access for emergency aid,” Rasor said.
State Rep. Chris Mathias, a Democrat from Boise, disagreed, arguing that the legislation would unfairly target transgender Idahoans.
“The truth of the matter is — and I know a lot of people don’t want to say it — but forcing people who don’t look like the sex they were assigned at birth, or transgender folks, to use other people’s bathrooms is going to put a lot of people in danger,” Mathias said.
The Idaho American Civil Liberties Union made a statement about the bill following its passage.
“Idaho lawmakers continue pushing these harmful, invasive bathroom laws, yet cannot present credible evidence that transgender people using gender-aligned bathrooms threaten public safety,” the Idaho ACLU said. “The bill does nothing to address real criminal acts, such as sexual assault or voyeurism, and disregards concerns from law enforcement about the burden enforcement would place on local resources.”
In addition to human rights advocates, who have spoken out against similar bills advancing in state legislatures across the country, Idaho law enforcement groups have also opposed the measure. They argue that the way the legislation is written would “pose significant practical enforcement challenges,” noting that officers are tasked with maintaining public safety — not conducting gender checks or policing bathroom access.
During a committee hearing last week, law enforcement representatives and several trans Idahoans testified that the bill would make many residents less safe.
“Officers responding to a complaint would be placed in the difficult position of determining an individual’s biological sex in order to enforce the statute,” Idaho Fraternal Order of Police President Bryan Lovell wrote. “In many circumstances, there is no clear or reasonable way for officers to make that determination without engaging in questioning or investigative actions that could be viewed as invasive and inappropriate.”
The Idaho Sheriffs’ Association requested that lawmakers amend the bill to require that individuals be given an opportunity to leave a bathroom immediately before facing potential prosecution.
The bill now heads to the Idaho Senate for consideration. To become law, it must pass both chambers and avoid a veto from the governor.
A separate bathroom bill, House Bill 607, which would be enforced through civil lawsuits, passed the House last month but has not yet received a committee hearing in the Senate.
State Department
Report: US to withhold HIV aid to Zambia unless mineral access expanded
New York Times obtained Secretary of State Marco Rubio memo
The State Department is reportedly considering withholding assistance for Zambians with HIV unless the country’s government allows the U.S. to access more of its minerals.
The New York Times on Monday reported Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a memo to State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs staffers wrote the U.S. “will only secure our priorities by demonstrating willingness to publicly take support away from Zambia on a massive scale.” The newspaper said it obtained a copy of the letter.
Zambia is a country in southern Africa that borders Tanzania, Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The Times notes upwards of 1.3 million Zambians receive daily HIV medications through PEPFAR. The newspaper reported Rubio in his memo said the Trump-Vance administration could “significantly cut assistance” as soon as May.
“Reports of (the) State Department withholding lifesaving HIV treatment in return for mining concessions in Zambia does not make us safer, stronger, or more prosperous,” said U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on Tuesday. “Monetizing innocent people’s lives further undermines U.S. global leadership and is just plain wrong.”
The Washington Blade has reached out to the State Department for comment.
Zambia received breakthrough HIV prevention drug through PEPFAR
Rubio on Jan. 28, 2025, issued a waiver that allowed PEPFAR and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during a freeze on nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending. HIV/AIDS service providers around the world with whom the Blade has spoken say PEPFAR cuts and the loss of funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, which officially closed on July 1, 2025, has severely impacted their work.
The State Department last September announced PEPFAR will distribute lenacapavir in countries with high prevalence rates. Zambia two months later received the first doses of the breakthrough HIV prevention drug.
Kenya and Uganda are among the African countries have signed health agreements with the U.S. since the Trump-Vance administration took office.
The Times notes the countries that signed these agreements pledged to increase health spending. The Blade last month reported LGBTQ rights groups have questioned whether these agreements will lead to further exclusion and government-sanctioned discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
National
‘They took him!’ Gay married couple torn apart by ICE
As Allan Marrero remains in ICE custody, his husband Matt continues to fight tirelessly for his release.
For 113 days, Allan Marrero has been in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody, while his husband, Matthew Marrero, has been using every available avenue to secure his release.
Since Nov. 24, 2025, Allan—originally from the Cayman Islands—has been held at multiple detention facilities across the United States. His detention began after what was meant to be a routine, good-faith marriage-based green card interview at Federal Plaza in New York City, marking two years of marriage with Matthew.
Advocates, including Rev. Amanda Hambrick Ashcraft, Rev. Dr. Jacqui Lewis, and attorney Alexandra Rizio, have been actively involved in supporting the couple and navigating the legal challenges posed by ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The case highlights the Trump-Vance administration’s aggressive use of immigration enforcement to detain and deport individuals, even in circumstances where applicants have established legal claims to remain in the U.S.
Timeline of Allan’s detainment
On Nov. 24, Allan and his husband Matt arrived at 26 Federal Plaza in New York City for what was supposed to be a routine, marriage-based green card interview. They were accompanied by Rev. Amanda Hambrick Ashcraft, a minister from Middle Church in Manhattan, where the couple attended and Matthew sang in the choir.
They arrived early for their 8 a.m. appointment, prepared and hopeful. Despite growing news coverage about increased immigration enforcement under President Donald Trump, they believed in the process and felt confident they had done everything right.
“They brought with them a three-inch binder documenting their entire life together—photos, letters, legal records, and other evidence,” Ashcraft said.
“From the moment you get to Federal Plaza, the process is extremely traumatic—and that’s by design,” she explained. “There’s nothing warm or intuitive about it. It’s dehumanizing, and parts of it feel barbaric.”
Immediately after meeting the USCIS officer, something felt off.
“We came with a three-inch binder of our entire life—photos, letters, everything,” Matt said. “We were dressed up, ready, confident we had done everything right. The first thing she said was, ‘I don’t want that. Take it all apart.’ That was the moment I knew something wasn’t right.”
The officer then asked the couple for their passports—something neither of them had on hand. That seemed to be strike two, signaling that, just as with previous steps in this process, the interview was already off course because of the woman behind the desk.
As the couple was told to move to a new room for their interview, Ashcraft was denied entry with them. This struck all three as odd; Ashcraft had attended immigration and green card interviews before to provide spiritual guidance and bolster claims of legitimacy, with no issues. Coupled with the initial hostility over the binder, it was a clear sign that the day would not go as hoped.
“There’s no real policy—it’s whoever is in front of you deciding what the rules are at that moment,” Ashcraft added. “Whatever they say goes. That’s what makes it so dangerous.”
Inside the tightly controlled interview, tensions escalated.
“I looked over at my husband when she asked how we met—just instinct. He’s the love of my life,” Matt said. “She snapped her fingers in my face and said, ‘Don’t look at him.’ We’re telling our love story, and I’m not even allowed to look at my husband.”
The officer then raised questions about a missed immigration hearing for Allan in 2022.
Allan had lived in the United States since 2013 and had been diligent about maintaining his legal status and personal growth. During that time, he had entered a rehabilitation program for alcohol addiction—a commitment that, coincidentally, caused him to miss the scheduled court hearing. Medical records explained by Alexandra Rizio, Allan’s attorney, corroborate this.
Because the judge did not know Allan was in rehab, a removal order was issued in his absence.
“He didn’t realize that he had a removal order in his name,” Rizio, the Make the Road New York attorney, explained. “When you have a removal order, it means ICE can pick you up at any moment. He walked into that interview completely unaware that he was at risk of being arrested on the spot.”
The officer acknowledged that their marriage was legitimate but denied Allan’s green card application. She told them they would need to appear before an immigration judge, signaling that his journey to legal status was far from over and still subject to the whims of others.
“She told us, ‘Out of the goodness of my heart, I’ll let you leave today. I could have called ICE, but I won’t,’” Matt recalled. “My husband started crying, I was a wreck.”
Despite that comment, the couple was escorted through a series of back hallways. Allan’s file was handed off to ICE officers, and the supervisor walked away.
“They walked us down this long hallway, took his file, handed it to ICE agents, and just left. No explanation, no warning. Suddenly they’re telling him to put his hands behind his back, and I’m standing there asking, ‘What is happening?’”
The gravity of the situation escalated.
“He was crying, I was crying, we were hugging, and I kept saying, ‘It’s going to be okay,’” Matt said. “And then they just pulled him away into an elevator and left me there. It happened so fast it didn’t even feel real.”
A supervisor entered briefly to distinguish between what could be controlled inside the office and what could not be controlled outside. Rizio called this a deliberate choice to intensify the emotional pressure.
“What the officer could have done was say, ‘You have a removal order—go hire a lawyer,’” Rizio said. “That would have been the humane and reasonable response. Instead, ICE was called, and they arrested him.”
Outside the room, Ashcraft heard the chaos unfold.
“The next thing I heard was Matthew screaming down the hallway: ‘Amanda! Amanda! They took him!’” she recounted. “That’s how it happened—just like that, after everything they had prepared.”
For the next 36 hours, Matt had no information about his husband’s whereabouts.
“For 36 hours, I had no idea where my husband was,” he said. “No phone call, no information, nothing. It felt like he had just disappeared.”
The following morning, Matt’s mother and sister drove down from Connecticut to help. They returned to Federal Plaza with Allan’s anxiety medication and contact information, only to be told minutes later that Allan was no longer there. The couple could not locate him through the ICE online system. Only after contacting an attorney did they learn he had been transferred to Delaney Hall, a detention facility in New Jersey.
Matt and Allan’s mother drove to Delaney Hall in Newark, an industrial area where families—including children—waited in the rain. Inside, staff initially insisted Allan was not present, despite documentation proving otherwise. After long delays, they were finally allowed to see him.
This was the first time Matt felt the point-blank homophobia of the detention system.
“When I finally saw him, they told us we couldn’t touch,” Matt said. “I’m watching straight couples kiss and hold each other, but I can’t even hold my husband’s hand.”
“You ripped my husband away, didn’t tell me where he was for 36 hours, and now I’m not allowed to console him?” he added. “It was so cold—it felt completely inhuman.”
Conditions inside detention quickly became grueling.
“He was moved in the middle of the night, chained at his wrists and ankles, not told where he was going,” Matt said. “They kept the cuffs on for days—he had cuts and bruises.”
“The worst part isn’t even the facilities—it’s the transport,” Matt continued. “You’re chained like an animal, trying to eat a bologna sandwich and drink water while shackled. You can barely move your body.”
Allan remained at Delaney Hall for approximately two weeks. One night, he told Matt that groups of detainees were being taken out in the middle of the night without warning. Shortly afterward, he was among them.
Around 12:30 a.m., Allan called to say he was being moved. He and others were gathered in a visitation room and held for hours without food or beds. By midday, they were shackled again, loaded onto transport, and flown out of state. His location once again disappeared from the ICE tracking system.
Over the next several days, Allan was moved through multiple locations, including a holding area near an airport in Phoenix, where detainees were kept in overcrowded, tent-like enclosures without seating. He remained in restraints for extended periods and was denied access to his medication.
From there, he was transferred through facilities in Texas and Louisiana before ultimately being sent to a remote detention site in the Florida Everglades, informally known as “Alligator Alcatraz.”
Conditions there were severe. Detainees were held in cages with dozens of men in each enclosure. Sanitation was poor, with overflowing toilets near sleeping areas. Exposure to the elements and limited access to medical care caused Allan’s health to deteriorate. Phone calls were limited to short, scheduled windows.
“He told me about being in a cage in the Everglades—30 men, toilets overflowing next to where they sleep,” Matt said. “There were signs about poisonous snakes, and he said, ‘If one shows up, I’m going to die—there’s nobody here.’”
“ICE officers would tell them, ‘You’re a burden to your family. Just sign your self-deportation papers,’” Matt added. “He would call me crying, saying, ‘Just let me go, forget about me.’ That’s psychological warfare.”
Ashcraft reflected on the system’s cruelty.
“At every step, it feels designed to be as insular, as cruel, and as impenetrable as possible,” she said. “At every turn, we’re seeing a new kind of cruelty…Someone will say, ‘They can’t do that,’ and we have to say, ‘Actually, they are.’”
Eventually, Allan was transferred to a detention facility in Natchez, Miss., where conditions were more stable and he was finally able to receive his prescribed medications. Around this time, his legal case began to shift.
His attorney submitted documentation showing that the missed 2022 hearing had occurred while he was in a verified rehabilitation program. The same immigration judge who had issued the original removal order agreed to reopen the case and rescinded that order, restoring Allan’s standing.
“The judge agreed with us and granted bond. At that point, we thought he would be released and we could move forward. That’s how the system is supposed to work,” Rizio said.
In early February, a bond hearing was scheduled. Matt traveled to Mississippi in anticipation of Allan’s release. The legal team presented extensive documentation, including letters of support from members of Congress, as well as evidence of Allan’s marriage and community ties.
Instead of releasing him, ICE exercised its authority to place a 10-day hold while considering an appeal. During that time, Matt remained in Mississippi, visiting Allan regularly.
“ICE decided to just ignore that and not release him. They used something called the ‘auto stay’ provision to keep him locked up anyway,” Rizio said. “It’s essentially them saying, ‘We don’t like the judge’s order, so we’re not going to follow it….That feels crazy—because it is crazy. There’s no real statutory basis for it. It’s a regulation that allows them to operate outside the bounds of what the law actually says.”
Before the hold period ended, a second immigration judge became involved. Without reviewing the full evidence or receiving a newly filed green card application, the judge issued a decision in advance.
“A completely different judge—who isn’t even an immigration specialist—stepped in and denied an application that wasn’t even before him,” Rizio explained. “I have never seen anything like that in 14 years of practice.”
She has argued that the decision was procedurally improper and legally flawed.
“He decided, based on rehab records showing recovery and sobriety, to label Allan a ‘habitual drunkard.’ He cherry-picked information and ignored the evidence that he had successfully completed treatment.”
When the 10-day hold expired, Allan’s legal team attempted to secure his release again, but ICE cited the new ruling to continue detaining him. By that point, Allan had been in detention for more than 100 days.
“He could have walked out of detention with a green card,” Rizio said. “Instead, he’s still sitting in detention because of actions that simply shouldn’t have happened.”
“None of what I just described reflects a system that cares about justice,” she said. “It feels like punishment. I feel very confident these actions are designed to make people give up… Allan has already lost over three months of his life. He’s never going to get that time back.”
“We did everything right,” Matt said. “We followed the law, built a life, got married, had a clear pathway to citizenship. And now my whole life is on pause. If someone wants to understand this, imagine someone coming in and kidnapping the person you love most—taking away all your control. That’s what this feels like.”
Allan remains in detention in Natchez while legal challenges move forward. Throughout his time in custody, detainees have reported being pressured to accept voluntary deportation, often being told they are burdens to their families. Despite the mounting legal and emotional toll, Allan continues to fight his case from inside detention, while his family and community advocate for his release on the outside.
The couple has set up a Go-Fund-Me to help with the financial costs of this ongoing situation.
The Blade contacted ICE and DHS for comment but did not receive a response.
Thomas A. Decker of Arlington dies at 73
Gay candidate running for D.C. congressional delegate seat
Idaho advances bill to restrict bathroom access for transgender residents
Report: US to withhold HIV aid to Zambia unless mineral access expanded
‘They took him!’ Gay married couple torn apart by ICE
BMA celebrates enduring influence of Henri Matisse
Ensuring safer drinking water
A season of renewal for D.C. theater
PHOTOS: Awesome Con
