National
In Congress: Many bills, but no timetable for progress
Pro-LGBT legislation stalls as November elections loom
Congress could be poised to pass several pro-LGBT bills in the months that remain in this year’s legislative calendar, although Capitol Hill observers say the schedule for when the bills would see votes remains unclear.
In the wake of successful votes late last month to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Congress could see momentum to pass other major legislation, such as the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) said in an interview with the Blade this week that she had renewed optimism about the domestic partner benefits bill, which she sponsors in the House.
“One issue that got renewed momentum over this Memorial Day recess was my bill to provide domestic partnership and obligations to federal employees and their partners,” she said.
Baldwin, the only out lesbian in Congress, said the issue received additional attention last week when President Obama enacted limited partner benefits for federal employees through administrative action.
“At the same time as he signed this presidential memorandum, he called on the Congress to send [my bill] to his desk because he can’t provide some of these very important benefits like health insurance and certain pension benefits without our passing legislation,” Baldwin said.
In a statement commending Obama for issuing the benefits, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also spoke favorably about the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act as one way to offer additional benefits to federal workers.
“Congresswoman Baldwin’s bill will continue to move forward in the House and we look forward to its progress in the Senate,” Pelosi said.
The domestic partner bill had significant momentum late last year when House and Senate committees reported it to the floor in each chamber. For a time, the legislation had stalled due to cost offset questions, but congressional leaders have said they’ve since received the necessary information.
Baldwin said staffers of the House and Senate leaders on the legislation met Monday to discuss the bill’s path, and lawmakers in both chambers are ready to move forward.
In a statement to the Blade, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), the sponsor of the bill in the Senate, said the bill would be ready for floor consideration “within weeks.” Lieberman noted this estimate was for when the bill would be ready to go to the floor, not when a vote would occur, and that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is “responsible for setting a timetable for consideration of legislation.”
Jim Manley, a Reid spokesperson, said a vote hasn’t yet been scheduled.
Baldwin said she couldn’t offer a more specific timetable for when she expects the legislation to advance.
“A lot happened over the course of this recess in terms of adding momentum for the legislation,” she said. “Because it happened over the recess, and I’ve been in Wisconsin, and not in Washington, and not able to have conversations with my leadership and with the other players in this, I can’t tell you if there’s a timetable yet.”
Allison Herwitt, legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, also said she doesn’t know when Congress would bring the measure to the floor for consideration.
“Again, the question is how to move forward and what’s the timeframe for moving it forward, so we continue, as we have been for the past year, advocating to get this bill done,” she said.
ENDA faces obstacles
LGBT rights supporters have also strongly pushed for Congress to take up ENDA, which would bar employment discrimination against LGBT people in most public and private workplace settings.
The legislation remains pending in House and Senate committees. Capitol Hill observers have said ENDA supporters lack the 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in the Senate.
Still, supporters have expressed optimism about moving forward with the bill in the House. Baldwin said the LGBT Equality Caucus has been “counting the votes” and asking lawmakers how they would vote on the legislation or a harmful motion to recommit on the measure.
“It’s looking strong,” Baldwin said. “I’m hopeful that we can see committee consideration and floor passage very shortly.”
Rep. Barney Frank, who’s sponsoring the bill in the House, has told media outlets that a vote could take place this month or next.
But a more specific time for when Congress might take up ENDA is unclear. Aaron Albright, a spokesperson for the Education & Labor Committee, said he didn’t have an update or estimate on the schedule for committee action on the legislation.
Baldwin said her “crystal ball has been very unclear” for ENDA consideration and that she couldn’t offer a more definite timeframe.
“I was hoping it would be some months ago, but we continue to go through the vote counts, try to make sure they’re as solid as possible,” she said.
Herwitt was similarly unsure about when ENDA would come to the House floor, although she said HRC was pushing for it to come before lawmakers.
“Obviously, HRC wants a committee markup and a floor vote as soon as possible,” she said. “We would like to continue the momentum on moving LGBT equality forward and we would like a House vote as soon as possible.”
One danger for ENDA in the House is a legislative maneuver known as the motion to recommit, which could derail the legislation once it comes to the floor. A successful vote on the maneuver on the floor would enable opponents to send the motion back to committee.
Supporters have said opponents could target the bill’s gender identity provisions in the motion to recommit, although what’s targeted wouldn’t necessarily be such language.
Baldwin said “there are a lot of meddlesome things” that ENDA’s opponents can do through a motion to recommit when the bill comes to the floor.
“So we have been really trying to ask colleagues how they would vote in a wide variety of scenarios, so that we can feel confident that we have the votes to defeat such a motion to recommit,” she said.
Herwitt noted there’s “still some concern” and “vote counting” happening around the motion to recommit.
“We remain concerned to the extent that we want to continue working with leadership to shore up the votes that we need, so that when the bill comes to the floor, we have the ability to beat back a motion to recommit,” Herwitt said.
Herwitt said Pelosi has expressed a commitment to move ENDA to the floor, but wants to “make sure that we’re looking at angles in terms of what the motion to recommit would be, to protect the integrity of the bill.”
“If she brings the bill to the floor, she doesn’t want to lose,” Herwitt said. “So, she’s an expert vote-counter. She was a whip for many years, and so she knows what it takes to get a bill to the floor. From everything I’ve heard from her people, she wants to get it done, but she wants to get it done right.”
Another pro-LGBT bill pending before Congress is legislation that would enable same-sex bi-national couples to remain together in the U.S.
Current immigration law prohibits LGBT Americans from sponsoring their foreign partners for residency in the United States. Consequently, some LGBT Americans are faced with losing their partners after visas expire, while others expatriate with their partners to other countries with more favorable immigration laws.
Standalone legislation known as the Uniting American Families Act would rectify this situation. But supporters of the measure see its inclusion as part of upcoming immigration reform as the optimal path for passage.
Heading the legislative effort for comprehensive immigration reform in the Senate is Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). His office didn’t respond to a request to comment on the timing for immigration reform or whether UAFA would be included in the legislation.
Still, Schumer has spoken favorably about the inclusion of UAFA in comprehensive immigration reform, and advocates are expecting him to include the provision in the bill once it’s introduced.
According to the news website IrishCentral.com, Schumer said last week at a fundraising event for Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform that he thinks Congress will finish immigration reform by March 2011 — if not by the end of this year.
Steve Ralls, spokesperson for Immigration Equality, said supporters of the legislation have been assured Schumer wants UAFA as part of comprehensive immigration reform.
“I would even say, at this point, that the expectation is that UAFA will be part of comprehensive reform,” Ralls said. “I think Immigration Equality and other immigrant advocates fully expect it to be an inclusive bill when it’s introduced.”
Still, when Schumer will introduce the legislation in the Senate remains unclear. Since the Senate Judiciary Committee would handle both immigration reform and U.S. Supreme Court nominations, many Capitol Hill observers believe the Senate will first approve the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court before taking up the immigration issue.
If Schumer includes UAFA as part of comprehensive immigration reform, the larger bill could find opposition from conservative groups that say they won’t support immigration reform with language benefitting same-sex couples.
Last week, the Liberty Counsel issued a statement signed by other Christian evangelical leaders saying comprehensive immigration reform that includes UAFA would not advance in Congress.
“Same-sex domestic partnerships will doom any effort for bipartisan support of immigration and will cause religious conservatives to withdraw their support,” said Mat Staver, founder and chair of the Liberty Counsel. “If same-sex domestic partnerships are included, the immigration bill will have no chance of passing.”
In response, Ralls said the “cornerstone” of the U.S. immigration system has been family unification and that LGBT families “should be part of that noble commitment.”
“Despite the protests of a few, many people, including many faith communities, continue to support an inclusive immigration reform bill,” Ralls said. “Methodists, Episcopalians, Jewish organizations, Unitarians and others are holding strong to a belief that a truly pro-family bill must include every family.”
Other bills on deck
Other pro-LGBT bills also could come up for consideration by the end of this year.
One bill, known as the Student Non-Discrimination Act, would bar schools from discriminating against LGBT students or ignoring harassing behavior against them. Potential penalties for discrimination could include a loss of federal funding or a legal cause of action for victims.
As standalone versions of the legislation remain pending in the House and Senate, supporters have said they envision passage of the bill as part of the upcoming Elementary & Secondary Education Act reauthorization.
Still, it’s unclear when Congress will take up this major education budget legislation. A House Democratic leadership aide noted the bill hadn’t yet been introduced, and “we can’t determine the timeline until that happens.”
Should Congress begin work on the education bill, Herwitt said HRC would push for the Student Non-Discrimination Act’s inclusion as part of the larger legislation.
“If the ESEA bill moves forward, you will see HRC and other groups like [the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network] working hard on the bill to make every effort to have it be part of the reauthorization bill,” Herwitt said.
Herwitt said she’s heard conflicting stories on the education reauthorization, though, and was unsure time remains in this year’s legislative calendar to tackle the legislation.
Baldwin said the Student Non-Discrimination Act’s “brightest prospect” is inclusion as part of this larger legislation, but she noted if the process stalls, congressional hearings would help educate members of Congress on the importance of the issue.
“One of the things I would really hope for is hearings on that legislation to really educate members and the public on what a significant issue this is,” she said. “I think many are unaware, and I think you could build some real momentum for passage of the legislation if it were highlighted in that way.”
Also of interest to LGBT rights supporters is passage of the fiscal years 2010 and 2011 foreign affairs reauthorization legislation.
Last year, the House approved a version of the State Department budget legislation that would call for greater U.S. action against LGBT abuses abroad. In the Senate, legislation with identical language has been reported out of committee, but hasn’t yet reached the floor.
The language urges the State Department to task more officers in the Human Rights Bureau to track violence overseas related to sexual orientation and laws criminalizing homosexuality.
Additionally, the provision calls on U.S. embassies to work to reform or repeal laws overseas criminalizing homosexuality and directs the State Department to strengthen its annual human rights report with regard to reporting on abuses against LGBT people.
But whether Congress will manage to pass the reauthorization bill for the State Department remains in question. The last time this legislation made its way to president’s desk was in 2002, and Manley said nothing has been scheduled for when the bill would come to the Senate floor.
Mark Bromley, chair of the Council for Global Equality, was skeptical that the full Senate would find time soon to take up the measure.
“I haven’t heard anything about them being able to find floor time for it,” he said. “It doesn’t seem like there’s any momentum in terms of getting it to the floor in the short term.”
Herwitt noted that passage of foreign affairs authorization has often been a difficult task for Congress.
“There have been many years when the State Department authorization bill never made it to the floor just because it becomes a heavy legislative lift — not because of our issues, but because of the bigger issues that are in the bill,” she said.
Baldwin said she was nonetheless optimistic about the bill’s chances this year because both chambers of Congress have moved forward on it.
“I would be hopeful — given that there’s interest now in both houses of Congress — that we can see it through,” she said.
National
HRC report: LGBTQ students face ‘far greater challenges’ in non-supportive states
Survey finds anti-LGBTQ school harassment, bullying highest in 17 states
The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the educational arm of the national LGBTQ advocacy organization Human Rights Campaign, has released a report showing LGBTQ public school students are more likely to face bullying, harassment, and “other barriers” in states that have less overall supportive LGBTQ laws and policies.
The report is based on the HRC Foundation’s National Educator Survey of School Climate and Bullying, which was released on Sept. 17.
“The report finds that harassment, bullying, and other barriers to LGBTQ+ inclusion are more prevalent in states with limiting policies, where educators report widespread restrictions on LGBTQ+ resources, visible expressions of support, and assistance for transgender students,” a statement released by HRC says.
“As just one example,” the statement adds, “while 59 percent of educators in states with limiting policies report restrictions on supporting their transgender students, just 6 percent to 8 percent of educators in states with supportive policies report the same, underscoring the impact of these policies on school climate, student well-being, and the stakes of the upcoming midterm elections for LGBTQ+ youth and inclusive classrooms.”
The report says the survey consisted of responses by 826 educators in 42 states who worked as teachers, principals, counselors, administrators, and others who worked in support services. All worked at schools with students from pre-kindergarten to 12th grade, most being public schools and a smaller number being charter schools, the report says.
It says the survey was conducted between April 15 and May 21, 2026, and included a survey questionnaire with about 55 questions covering a wide range of LGBTQ related school issues.
According to the report, its classification of LGBTQ supportive and non-LGBTQ supportive states is based on a detailed analysis of the LGBTQ related laws and policies of all 50 states, D.C., and U.S. territories conducted by the Movement Advancement Project, or MAP, which describes itself as an “independent, nonprofit thinktank.”
The report includes a chart consisting of 51 boxes representing the 50 states and D.C., with 32 plus D.C. colored as blue and said to have overall LGBTQ supportive policies. The 17 boxes colored in red are said to have overall non-LGBTQ supportive policies and laws, Each of the boxes has the initial of a state or D.C. printed inside it.
In addition to D.C., the chart shows Maryland, Virginia, New York, California, and Massachusetts as among the supportive states. Florida, Texas, West Virginia, and Ohio are among the states shown to be non-LGBTQ supportive.
The HRC statement includes these “key” findings from the survey:
- In states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 59 percent of educators report restrictions on supporting transgender students, compared to just 6-8 percent of educators in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with restrictive policies, nearly 50 percent of educators reported restrictions on LGBTQ+ books or resources, compared to just 7 percent of educators in states with supportive policies.
- Roughly 32 percent of educators in states with restrictive policies reported anti-LGBTQ+ harassment was a moderate or serious problem, compared with 11 percent of educators in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 29 percent of educators were very worried about anti-LGBTQ+ harassment, compared to 15 percent in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 36 percent of educators witnessed anti-LGBTQ+ student bullying, compared to 27 percent in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 75 percent of educators reported no restrictions on LGBTQ+-supportive displays, highlighting a substantially more supportive school environment than in states with restrictive policies.
- Educators in states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies also reported significant harassment of students based on appearance (57 percent), race or ethnicity (43 percent), sexual orientation (42 percent), and gender identity or expression (39 percent). (No direct comparison figure from supportive-policy states is provided in the data above.)
“Every young person deserves to feel safe and supportive at school, but this report makes clear that for too many LGBTQ+ students, especially transgender youth, are being failed by policies designed to exclude them,” said HRC President Kelley Robinson in the HRC statement.
“We know that when students feel seen, supported, and affirmed, they are more likely to thrive, but when schools become places of exclusion or hostility, young people pay the price through lower engagement, missed opportunities to learn, and poorer mental and physical health,” Robinson said.
The HRC statement notes that the survey findings come at a time when a growing number of states have passed laws targeting LGBTQ students and the school officials and teachers who support them. It says that for the first time, the survey found that “educators themselves are also experiencing anti-LGBTQ+ harassment, highlighting the growing impact of these policies on school staff as well as students.”
The full survey findings and report can be accessed here:
U.S. Supreme Court
Trump asks Supreme Court to allow restrictions on gender-affirming care in prisons
SCOTUS could further restrict rights of trans inmates
The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow its policy limiting gender-affirming treatment for federal inmates to take effect while a legal challenge plays out in court.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the government to continue providing gender-affirming care, such as hormone therapy, which had become policy nearly a decade ago for inmates who were transitioning.
The Trump administration argues in its application that its policy restricting transgender rights was properly adopted and that the judge overstepped, posing nationwide “security and prison-administrative concerns.”
If allowed, the policy would halt surgeries, hormones and social accommodations such as wigs while allowing mental health therapy to continue as the legality of the policy reversal is litigated.
The government also argues in the application that the Bureau of Prisons had “determined that sex-trait-modification surgeries, hormone interventions in general, and social accommodations could no longer be justified as treatment for gender dysphoria.”
American Civil Liberties Union attorneys for the inmates said the policy is “a direct threat to the well-being of transgender people in federal custody and an open violation of their fundamental rights,” and said withholding necessary gender-affirming healthcare constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
The Blade has covered the ongoing developments surrounding changes to Federal Bureau of Prisons transgender inmate policy that went into effect earlier in Trump’s term. The changes primarily focus on rolling back Biden-era protections for trans inmates.
Earlier this year, the Blade published a joint letter from multiple senators in response to the rollback of the policy. Multiple senators — including Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Jeffrey A. Merkley (D-Ore.) and Mazie K. Hirono (D-Hawaii) — sent a letter to Attorney General Todd Blanche and Federal Bureau of Prisons Director William Marshall III calling for them to reverse the policy change, saying it endangers inmates’ health and safety.
The senators described how the policy shift, along with President Trump’s Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” is forcing policy changes they argued are rooted more in political rhetoric than in medical research or evidence-based correctional practices.
Federal Bureau of Prisons responded to the Blade’s request for comment in May, declining to reconsider its transgender inmate policy.
The Blade reached out to the Federal Bureau of Prisons once again over the application to the Supreme Court, but did not hear back before publication.
Federal Government
Education Department rolls back protections for LGBTQ students under Title IX
The DoE policy rescinds Biden-era protections
The Department of Education rolled back a Biden-era Title IX interpretation on Monday that secured sex-based discrimination protections for students on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Title IX was established in 1972 as landmark civil rights law. It prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or any other education program that receives funding from the federal government.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon spoke about the revision of the policy, claiming the decision would explicitly help “women and girls.”
“Thanks to today’s action, the published Title IX regulations faithfully reflect court orders and congressional intent — reducing confusion for parents, students, and educational institutions. We will continue to relentlessly champion equal opportunity for all Americans and hold accountable any school or college that violates the rights, privacy, or athletic opportunities of our women and girls,” McMahon said via press release.
Prior to her work under the Trump-Vance administration, McMahon was a World Wrestling Federation/World Wrestling Entertainment executive before resigning to pursue a career in politics. She was appointed to the Connecticut State Board of Education by then-Gov. Jodi Rell in January 2009, but resigned from her role shortly afterward to run what ultimately became two failed campaigns for Connecticut’s U.S. Senate seat in 2010 and 2012.
A “fact sheet” provided by the Department of Education also called the inclusive sexual assault and gender identity protections expanded under the Biden-Harris unlawful, saying, “This change is necessary to provide clarity in the Code of Federal Regulations so that institutions, administrations, students, and families can see the rules that are actually in force and to help eliminate public confusion about the Biden administration’s unlawful attempt to stretch Title IX’s legal protections to cover ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity.’”
This is not the first time this policy has faced judicial hurdles. While Biden was still in office, the plan was struck down in multiple courts in Republican states.
Opponents of the move say it will harm transgender athletes and weaken protections for sexual assault victims.
“Sexual harassment and assault continue to be pervasive in schools and, to the fullest extent possible, we should be working to enforce the laws that protect student survivors of sexual violence. Yet, Education Secretary Linda McMahon and the Trump administration have decided to ignore what survivors need, instead weaponizing Title IX to attack trans students,” said Shiwali Patel, senior director of education justice at the National Women’s Law Center.
This is a return to a first Trump term policy after Biden issued an executive order to attempt to curb discrimination for all — especially those with different sexual orientations and gender identities — that had been given a pass during Trump’s first term. Much of Title IX’s policy has a narrow vision of what sex protections look like that often and enthusiastically leave gender-diverse and non-heterosexual people out.
In March 2021, President Joe Biden signed Executive Order 14021, “Guaranteeing an Educational Environment Free From Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, Including Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity,” to attempt to undo some of the flagrantly anti-LGBTQ policy the Trump-Pence administration had set forth relating to Title IX protections for LGBTQ students and sexual assault survivors.
The secretary focused this “win” for the administration as one more step toward restricting transgender students from competing in women’s sports, but the 2020 rule, completed under former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, didn’t explicitly ban trans students from participating on sports teams consistent with their gender identity. It did limit the types of sexual harassment and assault complaints that schools had to investigate and required live hearings so male students could respond to accusations.
McMahon didn’t discuss those aspects in her statement or in requests for comment. The 2020 rule drew praise from conservatives and intense opposition from advocates who said it downplayed sexual abuse and left victims unprotected.
In a statement, U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), who chairs the House Education Committee, said, “Returning to the 2020 regulations restores longstanding protections for women and girls that the Biden-Harris administration attempted to dismantle and realigns Title IX policy with court precedents.”
LGBTQ activists have called this decision a direct attack on LGBTQ safety — particularly for trans students who continue to face a barrage of legislative, executive, and judicial attacks in recent years from the Trump-Vance administration.
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy group in the world, released a statement following the DoE’s announcement.
“Title IX is, quite simply, about protecting students and ensuring that they are safe from abuse, harassment, and discrimination while they pursue their education. But Donald Trump and his cronies aren’t interested in any of that,” Robinson said. “Donald Trump’s Department of Education has completely lost sight of that mission. Instead of enforcing protections for students, they’re rescinding them. They don’t care if sexual harassment and assault go unaddressed. And they’re happy to strip funding away from school districts and states that are actually trying to keep students safe.
“We know who will be hurt: women, girls, and others who are vulnerable to sexual harassment, assault and abuse — including LGBTQ+ students. The fact that they’re dropping this rule into place abruptly, without a comment period, denying families, educators, loved ones, and the students themselves a say in how they should be treated, shows how little they care about the safety of our students.
“This is a monstrous injustice, and it drives home how essential it is that we take action at the polls this November to start bringing some accountability to an administration that has turned its back on the very students Title IX was written to protect,” she added.
The Washington Blade reached out to the DoE for comment and questions on whether Title IX protections still included LGBTQ students, and received this email response from Education Spokesman Sabin Sidney:
“Your questions indicate you are clearly missing the entire point of this Final Rule. The Biden Administration illegally rewrote Title IX to include ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identification’ in the definition of sex-based discrimination. The Trump Administration is rescinding this rule—only after every federal court that heard legal challenges rejected it as unlawful.
“Since January 2025, the Department has been enforcing Title IX consistent with the President’s Executive Order grounded in biological truth that there are only two sexes. The Trump Administration is restoring the original promise of Title IX and providing clarity to students, parents, and educational institutions. We will vigorously defend equal opportunity consistent with the law’s intended purpose.”
Vote now! Best Of LGBTQ DC readers’ choice awards
Meet the LGBTQ candidates running for U.S. House, Senate
Ana Brnabić becomes world’s first openly lesbian head of state
529 openly LGBTQ candidates running in Brazilian election
