National
Despite compromise, advocates celebrate votes to repeal ‘Don’t Ask’
McCain pledges to derail ‘Don’t Ask’ momentum
U.S. Sen. John McCain (Blade photo by Michael Key)
Gay veterans are celebrating congressional action last week to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” 17 years after Congress passed a law banning gays from serving openly in the U.S. military.
The House and Senate took separate actions that would lead to an end of the statute. Both chambers approved amendments repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as part of major defense budget legislation known as the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill.
On May 27, the House voted 234-194 on the floor in favor of an amendment sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.). The next day, the chamber voted 229-186 in favor of passing the entire defense bill.
Five Republicans voted in the affirmative on the amendment: Reps. Judy Biggert (Ill.), Joseph Cao (La.), Charles Djou (Hawaii), Ron Paul (Texas) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.). Joining other Republicans to vote against the measure were 26 Democrats.
The Senate Armed Services Committee voted 16-12 in favor of an identical repeal measure sponsored by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.).
In that chamber, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) was the only Republican to vote in favor of repeal. The sole Democrat who voted against the amendment was Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.). He had earlier told media outlets that he sees no need to preempt the Pentagon’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” study by voting in favor of repeal at this time.
The legislative compromise adopted by both chambers of Congress would repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” only after the Defense Department completes its study on the issue, due Dec. 1.
Additionally, President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen would have to certify that repeal won’t undermine military readiness — and 60 days would have to pass after this certification before repeal would take effect.
The measure also notably lacks the non-discrimination language for gay, lesbian and bisexual service members that standalone repeal bills contained.
Even with the compromise, though, many gay former service members were delighted with Congress for taking action.
Mike Almy, a gay former Air Force communications officer who was discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in 2006 and recently testified before the Senate on the issue, witnessed the vote in the House chamber.
“The whole floor and the gallery erupted with a cheer,” he said. “There were quite a few tears of joy and disbelief, including myself. I still get choked up when I think about it.”
Following the vote in the Senate Armed Services Committee, Almy said repeal supporters visited the office of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) to thank him for his vote in favor of ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Nelson told the Blade last month that he wouldn’t vote in favor of a measure repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” But after Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) unveiled his compromise legislation, Nelson signaled he would vote in favor of the measure.
Almy said Nelson’s staffers told repeal supporters that they received 40,000 phone calls in Nebraska for repeal and 1,100 against.
“I was speechless,” Almy said. “I was completely dumbfounded there was that much support in Nebraska for repeal. It was just an incredible week overall.”
Retired Navy Capt. Joan Darrah, a lesbian who retired from service in 2002 because of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” also said she was pleased with Congress, calling the votes “a tremendous effort and a great result.”
But Darrah, who lives in Alexandria, Va., said she’s “distressed” about Webb’s vote against repeal.
“I’ve met and corresponded with Sen. Webb many times and I’m disappointed,” she said.
Darrah said she’s willing to live with the compromise, though, and didn’t think Mullen would delay certification of repeal once the Pentagon study is complete.
“This approach that they’ve come up with allows the study to conclude — and the study is supposed to be how to implement it, not if we should,” she said. “I think that this is an excellent compromise. We need the Senate to vote on it and then get on with getting rid of this, frankly, un-American and discriminatory law.”
Also expressing excitement about the congressional votes was a gay man from Chesapeake, Va. The active duty Navy sailor, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, spoke to the Blade on the condition of anonymity to avoid to being outed under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
He called the action from Congress “long overdue” and said “it’s been a rough hell” serving in the military for seven of the 17 years since “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was enacted.
He said he’s willing to accept the compromise advanced by Congress because “we’re standing on the right side of history” and didn’t think Obama, Gates or Mullen would delay certification of repeal.
“Adm. Mullen said it best — men and women are serving in an institution where integrity is key, but we’re asking them — asking us — to hide who we are,” said the man. “I don’t think we’ll have any problem at all.”
Following the vote, Obama issued a statement on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” action. The White House previously said it would support the compromise legislation because it allows the Pentagon to complete its study on the issue.
Obama said he was “pleased” with the outcome while stressing the importance of the Pentagon’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” study due at year’s end.
“I have long advocated that we repeal ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,’ and I am pleased that both the House of Representatives and the Senate Armed Services Committee took important bipartisan steps toward repeal tonight,” Obama said.
The president said the Pentagon’s review was “key to successful repeal” and that he was grateful the amendments approved by Congress “will ensure that the Department of Defense can complete that comprehensive review that will allow our military and their families the opportunity to inform and shape the implementation process.”
Hurdles remain in repeal process
Even with Congress taking action to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the legislation approved by the House and the Senate committee still has to make its way to the president’s desk and win his signature before it’s enacted.
And a number of obstacles could prevent the bill from reaching the White House or being signed into law. However, supporters of repeal are saying these roadblocks are less numerous than obstacles before the congressional votes on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said the legislation didn’t “have a lot” of possible roadblocks preventing it from being signed by the president.
Still, one problem that supporters of repeal could face is a filibuster of the defense authorization bill when it reaches the Senate floor.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and chief opponent of repeal in the Senate, had pledged to find the 60 votes in the Senate necessary to block the bill from moving forward.
Roll Call newspaper reported May 27 that McCain said he’ll “without a doubt” support a filibuster if the bill goes to the floor with repeal language.
“I’ll do everything in my power,” McCain was quoted as saying. “I’m going to do everything I can to support the men and women of the military and to fight what is clearly a political agenda.”
But mustering 60 votes to filibuster the defense bill could prove a challenge for McCain.
Two senators who voted against the inclusion of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language in the defense bill — Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Scott Brown (R-Mass.) — later voted in favor of reporting out of committee the defense bill as a whole. Their votes could be seen as signs they wouldn’t support filibustering the legislation on the floor.
Nicholson said he believes Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has the votes to shut down McCain’s filibuster threat on the bill, but added it’s “never a guaranteed thing.”
“I personally think Jim Webb and Scott Brown’s votes are still a little volatile,” Nicholson said. “While they voted to report the bill out of committee, I don’t know that they’re solid allies on this. If McCain figures out a way to try to block this with a filibuster, I wouldn’t count Brown and Webb in our camp 100 percent.”
During a press conference last week, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), hailed as a champion of repeal in the Senate, dismissed the chances of a successful filibuster on the defense authorization bill.
“I think it’s hard to filibuster a defense bill,” Levin said. “There’s so much in here for our troops. The fact that there’s one provision in here that some people don’t like — it seems to me [that] would not be [a] sufficient deal for 41 senators to filibuster a defense bill.”
Levin said he wants to bring the legislation before the full Senate sometime before the August recess.
Nicholson said another threat on the Senate floor could be a strike-and-replace amendment modifying the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” language, such as one that changes the scope of the Pentagon study on the issue.
Conservatives have called for legislation that reconfigures the study so that it would focus on whether repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would have a significant impact on improving military readiness.
“Something like that could be very appealing, especially if it’s rather moderate in nature,” Nicholson said.
Making the language different in both bills would mean the differences would have to be hashed out by conference committee, which could jeopardize any repeal provision being in the final bill.
An unrelated issue that could preclude Obama from signing the defense bill is funding for an alternate engine program for a next generation military aircraft known as the Joint Strike Fighter.
The House version of the legislation authorizes $485 million in funds for the second engine for the aircraft. Last week, an amendment failed in the House that would have stripped the funding from the legislation. The Senate committee’s version of the legislation authorizes no funding for the program.
In a statement, Obama spoke out against the funds for the alternate engine program in a Statement of Administration Policy on the defense bill as a whole. He subsequently warned Congress he would veto the legislation if it reaches his desk with such funding.
“As the Statement of Administration Policy made clear, our military does not want or need these programs being pushed by the Congress, and should Congress ignore this fact, I will veto any such legislation so that it can be returned to me without those provisions,” Obama said.
The issue of funding for the alternate engine program has perennially been a point of contention between Congress and the White House. According to Reuters, 2010 marks the fourth consecutive year in which the Pentagon has voiced concern about the program.
Nicholson said he didn’t know if the veto threat was “too serious of a problem,” but noted it’s something supporters of repeal should monitor.
He said repeal supporters could either push Congress to take out funding for the alternate engine program or lobby Obama not to veto the bill over the funding.
“In the end, I don’t think that’s going to be a big problem,” Nicholson said. “Even if he did veto it and it went back, I feel certain with the majorities by which we won the House and the way it’s aligned in the Senate, I don’t really fear that the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ language will be threatened or in play.”
Levin, a supporter of funding for the alternate engine program, also said during the press conference last week that Congress and the administration would find a way to work through the disagreement on the issue.
“There’s all kinds of items in this bill,” he said. “It’s difficult for me to believe the president would veto an entire bill over just one provision.”
Federal Government
Holiday week brings setbacks for Trump-Vance trans agenda
Federal courts begin to deliver end-of-year responses to lawsuits involving federal transgender healthcare policy.
While many Americans took the week of Christmas to rest and relax, LGBTQ politics in the U.S. continued to shift. This week’s short recap of federal updates highlights two major blows to the Trump-Vance administration’s efforts to restrict gender-affirming care for minors.
19 states sue RFK Jr. to end gender-affirming care ban
New York Attorney General Letitia James announced on Tuesday that the NYAG’s office, along with 18 other states (and the District of Columbia), filed a lawsuit to stop U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from restricting gender-affirming care for minors.
In the press release, Attorney General James stressed that the push by the Trump-Vance administration’s crusade against the transgender community — specifically transgender youth — is a “clear overreach by the federal government” and relies on conservative and medically unvalidated practices to “punish providers who adhere to well-established, evidence-based care” that support gender-affirming care.
“At the core of this so-called declaration are real people: young people who need care, parents trying to support their children, and doctors who are simply following the best medical evidence available,” said Attorney General James. “Secretary Kennedy cannot unilaterally change medical standards by posting a document online, and no one should lose access to medically necessary health care because their federal government tried to interfere in decisions that belong in doctors’ offices. My office will always stand up for New Yorkers’ health, dignity, and right to make medical decisions free from intimidation.”
The lawsuit is a direct response to HHS’ Dec. 18 announcement that it will pursue regulatory changes that would make gender-affirming health care for transgender children more difficult, if not impossible, to access. It would also restrict federal funding for any hospital that does not comply with the directive. KFF, an independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism, found that in 2023 federal funding covered nearly 45% of total spending on hospital care in the U.S.
The HHS directive stems directly from President Donald Trump’s Jan. 28 Executive Order, Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation, which formally establishes U.S. opposition to gender-affirming care and pledges to end federal funding for such treatments.
The American Medical Association, the nation’s largest and most influential physician organization, has repeatedly opposed measures like the one pushed by President Trump’s administration that restrict access to trans health care.
“The AMA supports public and private health insurance coverage for treatment of gender dysphoria and opposes the denial of health insurance based on sexual orientation or gender identity,” a statement on the AMA’s website reads. “Improving access to gender-affirming care is an important means of improving health outcomes for the transgender population.”
The lawsuit also names Oregon, Washington, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin as having joined New York in the push against restricting gender-affirming care.
At the HHS news conference last Thursday, Jim O’Neill, deputy secretary of the department, asserted, “Men are men. Men can never become women. Women are women. Women can never become men.”
DOJ stopped from gaining health care records of trans youth
U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon blocked an attempt by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to gain “personally identifiable information about those minor transgender patients” from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), saying the DOJ’s efforts “fly in the face of the Supreme Court.”
Journalist Chris Geidner originally reported the news on Dec. 25, highlighting that the Western District of Pennsylvania judge’s decision is a major blow to the Trump-Vance administration’s agenda to curtail transgender rights.
“[T]his Court joins the others in finding that the government’s demand for deeply private and personal patient information carries more than a whiff of ill intent,” Bissoon wrote in her ruling. “This is apparent from its rhetoric.”
Bissoon cited the DOJ’s “incendiary characterization” of trans youth care on the DOJ website as proof, which calls the practice politically motivated rather than medically sound and seeks to “…mutilate children in the service of a warped ideology.” This is despite the fact that a majority of gender-affirming care has nothing to do with surgery.
In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court ruled along party lines that states — namely Tennessee — have the right to pass legislation that can prohibit certain medical treatments for transgender minors, saying the law is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it does not involve suspect categories like race, national origin, alienage, and religion, which would require the government to show the law serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored, sending decision-making power back to the states.
“The government cannot pick and choose the aspects of Skrmetti to honor, and which to ignore,” Judge Bissoon added.
The government argued unsuccessfully that the parents of the children whose records would have been made available to the DOJ “lacked standing” because the subpoena was directed at UPMC and that they did not respond in a timely manner. Bissoon rejected the timeliness argument in particular as “disingenuous.”
Bissoon, who was nominated to the bench by then-President Obama, is at least the fourth judge to reject the DOJ’s attempted intrusion into the health care of trans youth according to Geidner.
A Wider Bridge on Friday announced it will shut down at the end of the month.
The group that “mobilizes the LGBTQ community to fight antisemitism and support Israel and its LGBTQ community” in a letter to supporters said financial challenges prompted the decision.
“After 15 years of building bridges between LGBTQ communities in North America and Israel, A Wider Bridge has made the difficult decision to wind down operations as of Dec. 31, 2025,” it reads.
“This decision comes after challenging financial realities despite our best efforts to secure sustainable funding. We deeply appreciate our supporters and partners who made this work possible.”
Arthur Slepian founded A Wider Bridge in 2010.
The organization in 2016 organized a reception at the National LGBTQ Task Force’s Creating Change Conference in Chicago that was to have featured to Israeli activists. More than 200 people who protested against A Wider Bridge forced the event’s cancellation.
A Wider Bridge in 2024 urged the Capital Pride Alliance and other Pride organizers to ensure Jewish people can safely participate in their events in response to an increase in antisemitic attacks after Hamas militants attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported authorities in Vermont late last year charged Ethan Felson, who was A Wider Bridge’s then-executive director, with lewd and lascivious conduct after alleged sexual misconduct against a museum employee. Rabbi Denise Eger succeeded Felson as A Wider Bridge’s interim executive director.
A Wider Bridge in June honored U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) at its Pride event that took place at the Capital Jewish Museum in D.C. The event took place 15 days after a gunman killed two Israeli Embassy employees — Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim — as they were leaving an event at the museum.
“Though we are winding down, this is not a time to back down. We recognize the deep importance of our mission and work amid attacks on Jewish people and LGBTQ people – and LGBTQ Jews at the intersection,” said A Wider Bridge in its letter. “Our board members remain committed to showing up in their individual capacities to represent queer Jews across diverse spaces — and we know our partners and supporters will continue to do the same.”
Editor’s note: Washington Blade International News Editor Michael K. Lavers traveled to Israel and Palestine with A Wider Bridge in 2016.
The White House
‘Trump Rx’ plan includes sharp cuts to HIV drug prices
President made announcement on Friday
President Donald Trump met with leaders from some of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies at the White House on Friday to announce his new “Trump Rx” plan and outline efforts to reduce medication costs for Americans.
During the roughly 47-minute meeting in the Roosevelt Room, Trump detailed his administration’s efforts to cut prescription drug prices and make medications more affordable for U.S. patients.
“Starting next year, American drug prices will come down fast, furious, and will soon be among the lowest in the developed world,” Trump said during the meeting. “For decades, Americans have been forced to pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs by far … We will get the lowest price of anyone in the world.”
Trump signed an executive order in May directing his administration “to do everything in its power to slash prescription drug prices for Americans while getting other countries to pay more.”
“This represents the greatest victory for patient affordability in the history of American health care, by far, and every single American will benefit,” he added.
Several pharmaceutical executives stood behind the president during the announcement, including Sanofi CEO Paul Hudson, Novartis CEO Vas Narasimhan, Genentech CEO Ashley Magargee, Boehringer Ingelheim (USA) CEO Jean-Michel Boers, Gilead Sciences CEO Dan O’Day, Bristol Myers Squibb General Counsel Cari Gallman, GSK CEO Emma Walmsley, Merck CEO Robert Davis, and Amgen Executive Vice President Peter Griffith.
Also in attendance were Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, and Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary.
Under the Trump Rx plan, the administration outlined a series of proposed drug price changes across multiple companies and therapeutic areas. Among them were reductions for Amgen’s cholesterol-lowering drug repatha from $573 to $239; Bristol Myers Squibb’s HIV medication reyataz from $1,449 to $217; Boehringer Ingelheim’s type 2 diabetes medication jentadueto from $525 to $55; Genentech’s flu medication xofluza from $168 to $50; and Gilead Sciences’ hepatitis C medication epclusa from $24,920 to $2,425.
Additional reductions included several GSK inhalers — such as the asthma inhaler advair diskus 500/50, from $265 to $89 — Merck’s diabetes medication januvia from $330 to $100, Novartis’ multiple sclerosis medication mayzent from $9,987 to $1,137, and Sanofi’s blood thinner plavix from $756 to $16. Sanofi insulin products would also be capped at $35 per month’s supply.
These prices, however, would only be available to patients who purchase medications directly through TrumpRx. According to the program’s website, TrumpRx “connects patients directly with the best prices, increasing transparency, and cutting out costly third-party markups.”
Kennedy spoke after Trump, thanking the president for efforts to lower pharmaceutical costs in the U.S., where evidence has shown that drug prices — including both brand-name and generic medications — are nearly 2.78 times higher than prices in comparable countries. According to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, roughly half of every dollar spent on brand-name drugs goes to entities that play no role in their research, development, or manufacturing.
“This is affordability in action,” Kennedy said. “We are reversing that trend and making sure that Americans can afford to get the life-saving solutions.”
Gilead CEO Dan O’Day also spoke about how the restructuring of drug costs under TrumpRx, combined with emerging technologies, could help reduce HIV transmission — a virus that, if untreated, can progress to AIDS. The LGBTQ community remains disproportionately affected by HIV.
“Thank you, Mr. President — you and the administration,” O’Day said. “I think this objective of achieving the commitment to affordability and future innovation is extraordinary … We just recently launched a new medicine that’s only given twice a year to prevent HIV, and we’re working with Secretary Kennedy and his entire team, as well as the State Department, as a part of your strategy to support ending the epidemic during your term.
“I’ve never been more optimistic about the innovation that exists across these companies and the impact this could have on America’s health and economy,” he added.
Trump interjected, asking, “And that’s working well with HIV?”
“Yes,” O’Day replied.
“It’s a big event,” Trump said.
“It literally prevents HIV almost 100 percent given twice a year,” O’Day responded.
A similar anti-HIV medication is currently prescribed more than injectable form mentioned by O’Day. PrEP, is a medication regimen proven to significantly reduce HIV infection rates for people at high risk. Without insurance, brand-name Truvada can cost roughly $2,000 per month, while a generic version costs about $60 per month.
Even when medication prices are reduced, PrEP access carries additional costs, including clinic and laboratory fees, office visits, required HIV and sexually transmitted infection testing, adherence services and counseling, and outreach to potentially eligible patients and providers.
According to a 2022 study, the annual total cost per person for PrEP — including medication and required clinical and laboratory monitoring — is approximately $12,000 to $13,000 per year.
The TrumpRx federal platform website is now live at TrumpRx.gov, but the program is not slated to begin offering reduced drug prices until January.
Out actor talks lead role in ‘Fiddler on the Roof’
This gay author sees dead people
Holiday week brings setbacks for Trump-Vance trans agenda
Your guide to D.C.’s queer New Year’s Eve parties
Long-awaited ‘Pillion’ surpasses the sexy buzz
Reasons to be optimistic about 2026
Long-awaited ‘Pillion’ surpasses the sexy buzz
Trump’s ‘American people derangement syndrome’
Using movement to boost your mental health during holidays
