News
Why doesn’t outrage over Arizona translate to ENDA support?
Outcry over vetoed anti-gay bill not inspiring calls for Congress to act
Will U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) take note of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer‘s veto of an anti-gay measure and bring up ENDA? (Washington Blade photo of John Boehner by Michael Key; photo of Jan Brewer by Gage Skidmore courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)
Within one week, national outrage over anti-LGBT discrimination was able to kill a controversial “turn away the gay” bill in Arizona, but almost 40 years after an early version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act was introduced in Congress, the bill still hasn’t become law.
The unprecedented firestorm of opposition leading to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s veto of SB 1062 raises questions about why that energy can’t be harnessed to institute federal protections against the discrimination the legislation would have enabled.
The outcry among LGBT advocates, Republican lawmakers, faith groups and the media against the Arizona bill was widespread. The legislation would have allowed any person — which under the bill could be an individual, a religious assembly or business — to deny services based on a religious belief.
Among Republicans, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) urged a veto of the measure. They were followed by surprise calls to reject the measure from former Republican presidential contenders generally known for their opposition to LGBT rights: former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
On the business side, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce opposed the legislation as well as corporate tech giants Apple and Intel. Major companies based in Arizona — U.S. Airways and retailer PetSmart — also called on Brewer to veto the bill. The National Football League even weighed in and, according to a report in Sports Illustrated, reportedly considered moving next year’s Super Bowl XLIX out of Phoenix if the measure became law.
Scott Wooledge, a gay New York-based netroots advocate who sought to get major U.S. companies on the record against SB 1062, said he thinks the “broad and vague” language of the bill is what triggered the massive outcry among businesses.
“Individuals could assert under Arizona law that they have the right to fire their gay subordinate,” Wooledge said. “They could say you hired me and I have this gay executive assistant, and I’m firing him because he offends my religious liberty. What would Intel do under this situation because that would be a violation of their company policy, and their own employees would have the force of law behind them?”
But other religious exemption bills that would enable anti-LGBT discrimination have advanced without as much outcry. In Kansas, the state House approved a measure specifically aimed at allowing businesses to refuse services for weddings. Despite media reports that the measure is dead, at least one advocate on the ground has said he expects action soon in the Senate.
In Mississippi, the Senate passed legislation, SB 2681, which would give businesses a license to discriminate against customers based on personal religious beliefs that is under consideration in the House. Although LGBT advocates have spoken out against these measures, the level of outcry isn’t the same as in Arizona.
A number of observers who spoke to the Washington Blade pointed out an obvious distinction: SB 1062 managed to reach the governor’s desk while others haven’t made it that far.
Lanae Erickson Hatalsky, director of social policy and politics for the Third Way, also said Arizona has a special distinction because it has a reputation for passing controversial bills, such as SB 1070, which allowed law enforcement to ask individuals perceived as being immigrants for registration documents before the measure was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Folks in Arizona are particularly sensitive about their state getting a bad rap and losing business after the anti-immigrant legislation caused such an uproar,” Erickson Hatalsky said. “This bill was similarly poorly written and would’ve allowed a parade of horribles that made it easy to convince businesses and the public that it was a bad idea, especially on top of that current sensitivity about the state’s reputation.”
But the situation in Arizona was striking not just for the outcry over the legislation, but the wall-to-wall coverage from national mainstream media on the bill on networks like MSNBC and CNN.
As Media Matters notes, even Fox News, which has a reputation of shilling for conservatives, aired commentary from conservative analysts in opposition to the bill. Andrea Tantaros, co-host of “The Five,” compared the bill to the racist Jim Crow laws in the South and said she doesn’t know why “you would want to bring Jim Crow laws back to the forefront for homosexuals.”
Cathy Renna, a New York-based public affairs specialist, said the media coverage of the Arizona bill is part of a trend of growing attention to LGBT rights amid rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court on marriage equality.
“We obviously cannot turn on the TV or look at any website, or if people still flip through newspapers, not seeing a story about this,” Renna said. “It’s almost impossible, and it’s creating a whole new level of conversation about the issue of discrimination, and I think it’s really showing how we have a ton of momentum that’s come a long way, but we still have a lot that we need to do.”
Turning Arizona outrage to ENDA
But if a bill that would have enabled discrimination against LGBT people inspired so much angst, why isn’t that same energy helping to advance measures that would protect against this kind of discrimination, at least in employment, at the federal level?
John Aravosis, editor of AMERICAblog, said the distinction is the Arizona bill was a negative anti-gay measure that could have been enacted by Brewer’s signature within a week, and it’s harder to muster the energy to pass a positive law that can be constantly delayed.
“If the president had a week to decide and then ENDA would be dead forever, people might be a little more engaged, and there might be a little more pressure on him,” Aravosis said. “But the negative is always better reality in playing to the grassroots than the positive. It shouldn’t be, but it is.”
Not helping matters is a misconception that federal protections against LGBT people in the workplace are already in place. According to a YouGov/Huffington Post poll made public in October, 69 percent of Americans incorrectly believe firing someone for being gay or lesbian is illegal.
It’s that kind of false understanding that Erickson Hatalsky said makes people satisfied with the status quo and unwilling to make changes to law as other issues surrounding LGBT rights move quickly.
“If they don’t see a huge problem happening in front of them, they say, ‘Whatever the law is, it must be working,'” Erickson Hatalsky said. “So that really plays to our benefit when it’s an overly broad religious liberty attack like the one in Arizona. It does exactly the opposite when we’re trying to pass affirmative non-discrimination.”
Amid the national outcry over the Arizona bill, President Obama has remained unwilling to sign an executive order barring LGBT discrimination among federal contractors.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney instead touted the importance of ENDA when asked last week for an update on the directive in the aftermath of the Arizona veto, saying the legislative approach “would be far more comprehensive in its effect.” Still, Carney acknowledged the broad opposition to the Arizona bill.
“And it was gratifying to see Americans from all walks of life, including business leaders, faith leaders, regardless of party, speak out against this measure — and it’s further evidence that the American people fundamentally believe in equality, and it’s time to get on the right side of history,” Carney said.
But Congress has shown no signs of moving forward. Months after the Senate approved ENDA by a bipartisan 64-32 vote, U.S. House Speaker John Boehner held a meeting with the LGBT Equality Caucus and threw cold water on the bill, either saying there’s “no way” ENDA would come this session or it’s “highly unlikely.” Still, those in attendance see an opportunity for a bill to come up after Election Day during the lame duck session of Congress.
Seeking discharge petition, Paul Ryan’s help
The effort to link the discrimination that would have been allowed under the Arizona bill to the need to pass ENDA is daunting, but something observers say can happen.
Wooledge said the situation over the Arizona bill was different than the effort to enact federal workplace protections because there was a singular focus, a veto, and a singular target, Brewer. If supporters settled on a discharge petition as the method to pass ENDA in the House, Wooledge said, the results would be similar.
“I have full confidence that the progressive coalition that coalesced around SB 1062 would do a very similar campaign to persuade legislators both Democratic and Republican to sign the discharge petition, but they don’t want to do that,” Wooledge said. “Human Rights Campaign has never called for a discharge petition, never has the [National] Gay & Lesbian Task Force, so if our own 800-pound gorillas of advocacy don’t want a discharge petition, then Nancy Pelosi is not going to want a discharge petition.”
For Erickson Hatalsky, Arizona demonstrated the importance of having Republican, business and faith leaders on board with an LGBT measure, and said those efforts should continue with ENDA. One way, she said, is getting Republican star Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who voted for ENDA in 2007, to vocalize renewed support.
“I think we’ve only had Jeff Flake and John McCain and those other Republican senators on ENDA for a few months,” Erickson Hatalsky said. “That was a huge step that we’ve taken in the past year, so we just have to keep building on it and make the case to John Boehner that it’s in his best interest to get on board.”
Instead of the Arizona bill, Aravosis said supporters of federal non-discrimination protections should look to the path that led to repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” when gay discharged troops brought their stories to the media.
“With ENDA, if we had stories coming out every day, gays in the military…been screwed again today, we’d probably be more successful,” Aravosis said. “That’s the battle to compare it to because we had stories almost every day of these nice people losing their jobs. The folks getting paid to do ENDA are not putting out those stories every day.”
The extent to which national LGBT organizations will draw on the controversy to advance ENDA isn’t yet clear. Freedom to Work didn’t immediately respond to the Washington Blade’s request for comment.
Dan Rafter, spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, said his organization intends to carry the outrage over the Arizona bill to the table in engagement over ENDA.
“Bills like SB 1062 illustrate how vulnerable LGBT people remain when it comes to facing discrimination – be it in their workplace or their communities,” Rafter said. “But the backlash to the bill, including from Republicans and big business, illustrates the incredibly broad support for workplace protections. We are absolutely going to continue elevating that message as we work to build support for ENDA in the House by continuing our engagement with members all across the country.”
Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, said in a statement to the Blade the veto of the Arizona bill itself demonstrates the time has come for Congress to act on ENDA.
“America is against discrimination but the public thinks protections are already in the law,” Carey said. “The effort to successfully reject Arizona¹s SB 1062 spotlights the lack of federal LGBT anti-discrimination legislation, sends a clear message that extremism is totally unacceptable to people of all political persuasions, and highlights the urgent need for the House to take up and pass ENDA.”
New York
Pride flag raised at Stonewall after National Park Service took it down
‘Our flag represents dignity and human rights’
A Pride flag was raised at the site of the Stonewall National Monument days after a National Park Service directive banned flying the flag at the birthplace of the LGBTQ rights movement in the U.S.
The flag-raising was led by Manhattan Borough President Brad Hoylman-Sigal and supported by other elected officials.
“The community should rejoice. We have prevailed,” Hoylman-Sigal said shortly after the flag was hoisted. “Our flag represents dignity and human rights.”
The flag now sits in Christopher Street Park, feet away from the Stonewall Inn, where in 1969 a police raid of the gay bar sparked outrage and led to a rising of LGBTQ people pushing back on NYPD brutality and unjust treatment.
Elected officials brought a new flagpole with them, using plastic zip ties to attach it to the existing pole.
In 2016, President Barack Obama declared the site a national monument.
One day before the planned re-raising of the Pride flag, the National Park Service installed only an American flag on the flagpole, which days prior had flown a rainbow flag bearing the NPS logo.
The directive removing the flag was put forward by Trump-appointed National Park Service Acting Director Jessica Bowron.
This comes one day after more than 20 LGBTQ organizations from across the country co-signed a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and General Services Administrator Ed Forst, demanding the flag be restored to the monument.
“It is our understanding that the policy provides limited exceptions for non-agency flags that provide historical context or play a role in historic reenactments. Simply put, we urge you to grant this flag an exception and raise it once again, immediately,” the letter read. “It also serves as an important reminder to the 30+ million LGBTQ+ Americans, who continue to face disproportionate threats to our lives and our liberty, that the sites and symbols that tell our stories are worth honoring … However, given recent removals of the site’s references to transgender and bisexual people — people who irrefutably played a pivotal role in this history — it is clear that this is not about the preservation of the historical record.”
The letter finished with a message of resilience the LGBTQ community is known for: “The history and the legacy of Stonewall must live on. Our community cannot simply be erased with the removal of a flag. We will continue to stand up and fight to ensure that LGBTQ+ history should not only be protected — it should be celebrated as a milestone in American resilience and progress.”
When asked about the directive, the NPS responded with this statement:
“Current Department of the Interior policy provides that the National Park Service may only fly the U.S. flag, Department of the Interior flags, and the Prisoner of War/Missing in Action flag on flagpoles and public display points. The policy allows limited exceptions, permitting non-agency flags when they serve an official purpose. These include historical context or reenactments, current military branch flags, flags of federally recognized tribal nations affiliated with a park, flags at sites co-managed with other federal, state, or municipal partners, flags required for international park designations, and flags displayed under agreements with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for Naturalization ceremonies.”
An Interior Department spokesperson on Thursday called the move to return the flag to the monument a “political stunt.”
“Today’s political pageantry shows how utterly incompetent and misaligned the New York City officials are with the problems their city is facing,” a department spokesperson said when reached for comment.
The clash comes amid broader efforts by the Trump-Vance administration to minimize LGBTQ history and political power. The White House has spent much of President Donald Trump’s second presidency restricting transgender rights — stopping gender-affirming care for transgender youth, issuing an executive order stating the federal government will recognize only two sexes, male and female, and blocking Medicaid and Medicare from being used for gender-affirming care.
India
Trans students not included in new India University Grants Commission equity rules
Supreme Court on Jan. 29 delayed implementation
The University Grants Commission is a regulatory body under India’s Education Ministry that is responsible for coordinating and maintaining standards in higher education. The University Grants Commission Equity Regulations, 2026, aim to address discrimination and promote the inclusion of lower castes, tribes, people with disabilities, those who are economically disadvantaged, and other marginalized groups in higher education.
The regulations quickly triggered controversy.
Students, faculty and civil society groups criticized them, largely around concerns about potential discrimination against students and the absence of certain procedural safeguards. Yet, even as the debate intensified, there was little public discussion about the lack of explicit mention of transgender students in the framework. The omission, though not central to the overall controversy, raised questions among some advocates about the scope of the regulations and who they ultimately protect.
According to the All India Survey on Higher Education, trans student enrollment in universities and colleges rose from 302 in the 2020-2021 academic year to 1,448 in the 2022-2023 academic year, reflecting a sharp increase but still representing a very small share of India’s overall higher education population.
The Supreme Court in its 2024 National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India affirmed trans people are entitled to full constitutional protection, including equality, dignity and access to education, and directed governments to treat them as a socially and educationally disadvantaged group eligible for quota-based protections in education and public employment. The ruling recognized gender identity as integral to personal autonomy and held that discrimination on this ground violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21.
Against this legal backdrop, the regulations do not explicitly reference trans students, an omission that has drawn attention in discussions on how constitutional protections are implemented within higher education institutions.
In the Indian constitutional framework, Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 collectively form the foundation of equality and personal liberty.
Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws; Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds such as religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth; Article 16 ensures equality of opportunity in public employment; and Article 21 protects the right to life and personal liberty, which courts have interpreted to include dignity, autonomy, and access to education. These provisions underpin judicial recognition of protections for marginalized communities, including trans people, within public institutions.
Judicial and policy frameworks in India have increasingly recognized the need for institutional support for trans students, underscoring the contrast with the absence of explicit mention in the University Grants Commission Equity Regulations, 2026, regulations.
The Madras High Court has directed educational institutions to implement measures such as gender-neutral restrooms, mechanisms to update name and gender in official records, inclusion of trans identities in application forms and the appointment of LGBTQ-inclusive counselors for grievance redressal alongside enforcement of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act and its Rules.
Policy instruments have echoed similar priorities.
The National Youth Policy 2014 acknowledged trans youth as a group facing social stigma and called for targeted interventions, while the National Education Policy 2020 emphasized reducing dropout rates and ensuring equitable access to education. The University Grants Commission itself has previously indicated that universities should adopt affirmative steps and institution-specific plans to support trans people, making their absence from the current regulatory text more pronounced.
Research and policy analyses have consistently documented structural barriers faced by trans students in India’s education system. The Center for Development Policy and Practices and other academic studies note that discrimination, bullying, and the absence of gender-sensitive infrastructure contribute to high dropout risks among trans students in both school and higher education. Census data underscore this disparity.
The 2011 Census recorded a literacy rate of about 56.1 percent among trans people, significantly lower than the national average of roughly 74 percent, reflecting long-standing barriers to access and retention in formal education.
The controversy intensified after the Supreme Court on Jan. 29 stayed the implementation of the University Grants Commission Equity Regulations, 2026, and agreed to examine their constitutional validity.
A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant observed the regulations raised serious legal questions, including concerns that some provisions appeared vague and potentially open to misuse, and sought responses from the federal government and the University Grants Commission. The court directed that the earlier 2012 anti-discrimination framework would remain in force in the interim and listed the matter for further hearing, signalling the need for detailed judicial scrutiny.
Public and political reactions followed, with student groups, academics, and political actors divided over the stay and the broader policy direction. The federal government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, maintained the regulations were intended to address caste-based discrimination and strengthen accountability within higher education institutions even as debate intensified nationally.
The regulations go beyond paperwork. They require universities to create on-campus equity monitoring teams and designated officers responsible for identifying incidents of discrimination, receiving complaints and reporting them to institutional committees for action. However, while the framework spells out protections for certain caste and social categories, it does not explicitly include trans students within this structure. In practice, that absence could leave uncertainty about whether routine monitoring, reporting and grievance mechanisms would extend to them with the same clarity, particularly in campuses where implementation already varies widely.
The regulations also prescribe penalties for faculty and staff found responsible for discrimination, including suspension, withholding of promotions, or termination of service following institutional inquiry. For students, disciplinary action may range from warnings to suspension depending on the severity of the misconduct. Where an incident amounts to a violation of existing statutory or criminal law, institutions are required to refer the matter to law enforcement authorities, placing responsibility on universities to escalate cases beyond internal mechanisms when warranted.
The regulations do not create new criminal offences but require institutions to escalate cases to law enforcement when conduct violates existing statutes. These may include the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, relevant provisions of the country’s penal code, such as criminal intimidation, assault or sexual harassment, disability rights protections, workplace harassment laws, and statutes addressing campus hazing. The framework is therefore stringent: campus inquiries can lead to disciplinary action, and, where legal thresholds are met, mandatory reporting to police. In the absence of explicit mention of trans students within the framework, questions remain about how individuals from the community would navigate complaint systems, interact with authorities, and access consistent institutional protections under these processes.
The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is among India’s strictest anti-discrimination criminal laws and applies to students, staff and any individual accused of caste-based offences. It criminalizes acts such as intentional insults or humiliation, social exclusion, threats, physical assault and other forms of harassment directed at members of specific castes or tribes. Offenses under the law can lead to arrest, non-bailable charges in several categories, and imprisonment that may extend from months to years depending on the severity of the conduct, along with fines. The law also restricts anticipatory bail in many cases and mandates prompt registration of complaints, which is why it is often viewed as a powerful legal safeguard for marginalized communities while also being regarded by some as carrying serious legal consequences once invoked.
Nishikant Dubey, a member of India’s ruling Bharatiya Jana Party, welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision to stay the regulations, stating the judges had acted appropriately and that the matter required careful legal scrutiny. Indrani Chakraborty, an LGBTQ rights activist and mother of a trans woman, told the Washington Blade the University Grants Commission Equity Regulations, 2026, is a welcome step toward supporting vulnerable students.
“The saddest part is that the transgender community is excluded which is very unfair,” said Chakraborty. “Presently, the transgender community is the most vulnerable and not mentioning the community is the act. I regard it as the biggest discrimination and will never help in changing the scenario of the transgender students.”
Chakraborty told the Blade the trans community, as a minority facing persistent social stigma and taboo, is often overlooked and must repeatedly advocate even for basic rights.
“I believe that grouping of individuals under caste, religion, gender, etc., is the base of discrimination. Personally, I disagree with naming and tagging any individual. Equity over quality is the need now for the most vulnerable. And the transgender community faces discrimination the most. Discrimination against any individual in educational institutions needs immediate attention and preventive measures should be necessarily implemented.”
Chakraborty said the absence of explicit inclusion of trans students amounts to discrimination, undermining equality in education and violating human dignity.
Ankit Bhupatani, a global diversity, equity and inclusion leader and LGBTQ activist, told the Blade that debate around the University Grants Commission Equity Regulations, 2026, has largely centered on concerns raised by relatively privileged students, particularly those in the unreserved category, while communities with limited visibility in higher education have received far less attention. Bhupatani also referenced the All India Survey on Higher Education statistics.
“According to Queerbeat, more than half of these 1,448 students are clustered in a few states and several large states still report almost no transgender students at all. Any serious equity regime has to guard every individual, including upper-caste students who are unfairly targeted or stereotyped , but the public conversation cannot pretend this tiny, highly vulnerable group does not exist,” said Bhupatani. “When outrage dominates headlines and the most marginalized are barely mentioned, the word ‘equity’ starts to lose meaning.”
Bhupatani told the Blade that the University Grants Commission Equity Regulations, 2026, define gender to include the “third gender” and prohibit discrimination on that basis, but then repeatedly identify lower castes, tribes, economically disadvantaged groups, people with disabilities, and women as specific groups, while trans students and teachers are not explicitly listed. Bhupatani said that for a young trans person reading the regulations, the message can feel indirect — that others are clearly recognized while their protections depend on interpretation. He added that explicitly naming trans people as a protected group would not dilute safeguards for others, but would instead ensure those already facing stigma are not left to seek recognition case by case.
“Transgender people sit at the intersection of legal vulnerability and social prejudice, so if they are not named and centered in large regulatory exercises, they quickly disappear from view,” said Bhupatani. “Campus rules need to start with a simple moral intuition. No one, whether Dalit or Brahmin, trans or cis, rich or poor, should be harassed, excluded or denied opportunity because of who they are. The University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 already move in this direction by defining discrimination broadly for all students and staff and by listing grounds such as caste, gender, religion, disability, and place of birth. That universal shift is essential.”
Bhupatani said a fair equity framework should operate on two levels. First, it must guarantee that any individual, regardless of background, can seek redress if treated unfairly. Second, it should explicitly identify groups that face entrenched barriers — including lower castes and tribes, people with disabilities, and trans people — and build specific safeguards for them. He added that concerns about misuse could be addressed through clearer definitions, transparent procedures, trained inquiry committees, representation from diverse groups, and meaningful penalties for false or malicious complaints.
Kalki Subramaniam, a trans activist and artist, told the Blade that trans students face layered vulnerabilities — including social stigma, harassment, and systemic neglect — that often go unaddressed on campuses. When policies do not explicitly name them, she said, it signals that their struggles are not seen as warranting recognition, reinforcing isolation, and undermining their ability to access safe and dignified education.
“I have faced this and I really do not want this generation of transgender students to go through the same kind of exclusion and treatment,” said Subramaniam. “If the government truly believes in inclusive education, transgender students must be explicitly recognised in every policy conversation. Otherwise, we remain erased from the very spaces that claim to be suitable. We will certainly urge the government to ease and prioritise education for transgender community students.”
Subramaniam said limiting protections primarily to caste categories reflects a narrow approach to justice, noting that discrimination on campuses can also be shaped by gender, class, disability, and sexuality. She said a more expansive framework would protect any student facing discrimination, regardless of identity, and emphasized that equity must operate universally for campuses to function as spaces of learning rather than exclusion.
State Department
FOIA lawsuit filed against State Department for PEPFAR records
Council for Global Equality, Physicians for Human Rights seeking data, documents
The Council for Global Equality and Physicians for Human Rights have filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department for PEPFAR-related data and documents.
The groups, which Democracy Forward represents, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Wednesday.
Then-President George W. Bush in 2003 signed legislation that created PEPFAR. UNAIDS Executive Director Winnie Byanyima last March said PEPFAR has saved 26 million lives around the world.
The Trump-Vance administration in January 2025 froze nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending for at least 90 days. Secretary of State Marco Rubio later issued a waiver that allowed PEPFAR and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during the freeze.
The Washington Blade has previously reported PEPFAR-funded programs in Kenya and other African countries have been forced to suspend services and even shut down because of gaps in U.S. funding. HIV/AIDS activists have also sharply criticized the Trump-Vance administration over reported plans it will not fully fund PEPFAR in the current fiscal year.
The lawsuit notes the Council for Global Equality and Physicians for Human Rights have “filed several FOIA requests” with the State Department for PEPFAR-related data and documents. The groups filed their most recent request on Jan. 30.
“On Jan. 30, 2026, plaintiffs, through counsel, sent State a letter asking it to commit to prompt production of the requested records,” reads the lawsuit. “State responded that the request was being processed but did not commit to any timeline for production.”
“Plaintiffs have received no subsequent communication from State regarding this FOIA request,” it notes.
“Transparency and inclusion have been hallmarks of PEPFAR’s success in the last decade,” said Beirne Roose-Snyder, a senior policy fellow at the Council for Global Equality, in a press release that announced the lawsuit. “This unprecedented withholding of data, and concurrent ideological misdirection of foreign assistance to exclude LGBTQI+ people and others who need inclusive programming, has potentially devastating and asymmetrical impacts on already marginalized communities.”
“This data is vital to understanding who’s getting access to care and who’s being left behind,” added Roose-Snyder.
“We filed this lawsuit to seek transparency: the administration’s PEPFAR data blackout withholds information the public, health providers, and affected communities need to track the HIV epidemic and prevent avoidable illness and death, obscuring the true human cost of these policy decisions,” said Physicians for Human Rights Research, Legal, and Advocacy Director Payal Shah.
The State Department has yet to respond to the Blade’s request for comment on the lawsuit.
Pride flag raised at Stonewall after National Park Service took it down
Trans students not included in new India University Grants Commission equity rules
Calendar: February 13-19
FOIA lawsuit filed against State Department for PEPFAR records
Trans sports bans rooted in eugenics
I keep getting rejected on the apps
Pride flag removed from Stonewall Monument as Trump targets LGBTQ landmarks
Gay man details secret struggle with bulimia
Olympics Pride House ‘really important for the community’
