News
Meet the 8 House Dems who don’t co-sponsor ENDA
Advocates push to find 218 votes for bill

Clockwise from top left, Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.), Rep. John Barrow (D-Ga.), Rep. Pete Gallego (D-Texas), Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas), Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.), Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.) and Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) (Photos public domain)
Amid the push to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, much has been said about the daunting task of advancing the bill against Republican opposition — including from U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) himself — in the GOP-controlled chamber of Congress.
But the Democratic caucus isn’t unanimous in its sponsorship of the legislation despite a push from the White House and Democratic leaders to advance ENDA. A total of eight Democrats have so far declined to co-sponsor the bill, although at least two said they would vote for it and one has said he’s inclined to vote for it if it comes to the House floor.
The eight Democrats who don’t co-sponsor ENDA are Reps. Dan Lipinksi (Ill.), Jim Costa (Calif.), John Barrow (Ga.), Mike McIntyre (N.C.), Pete Gallego (Texas), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Gene Green (Texas) and Nick Rahall (W.Va.).
Of these eight Democrats, most are from Texas, the largest state without any laws providing non-discrimination protections on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Chuck Smith, executive director of Equality Texas, said the three Texans who don’t co-sponsor ENDA — Gallego, Cuellar and Green — likely have “a misplaced fear” about opposition to non-discrimination in their districts.
“When Texans go to work each day, they want to be judged on their professionalism, their experience, their performance, and their ability to get the job done,” Smith said. “With hard work, fulfilling their responsibilities, and playing by the rules, they are striving for a fair chance at achieving a piece of the American Dream. And in Texas, fully three-fourths of voters support prohibiting employment discrimination.”
But two of these lawmakers, Gallego and Green, have signaled they would support ENDA if it comes up for a vote on the House floor, even though they have yet to co-sponsor the legislation.
Jose Borjon, a Gallego spokesperson, said his boss “from the beginning” has said “he will vote for ENDA” on the House floor.
“Congressman Gallego’s family has a long history of protecting civil rights and opposing discrimination,” Borjon said. “Like his parents before him, Congressman Gallego is also opposed to any form of discrimination, including discrimination against individuals based on race, color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex, religion, age, disability or personal beliefs.”
Borjon didn’t respond to a follow-up email asking why Gallego won’t co-sponsor ENDA if the lawmaker would vote for the bill.
Green’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment. But according to Hair Balls, a Houston-based political blog, he’ll vote for the legislation if it comes to the House floor.
“I am opposed to discrimination in the workplace, whether based on gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation, and will vote in support of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act when it comes to the House floor for a vote,” Green is quoted as saying.
Cuellar has made no such commitment to voting for ENDA. His office didn’t respond to the Blade’s request seeking comment on the bill.
According to LoneStar Q’s John Wright, Dallas activist Jeff Strater expressed disappointment about a meeting during a Capitol Hill lobby day when he and others sought to discuss ENDA with Cuellar staff and a proposed letter seeking an executive order barring LGBT workplace discrimination.
“We had an appointment with Henry Cuellar’s office last Thursday in D.C. to talk about the letter, ENDA and other LGBT legislation,” Strater was quoted as saying. “They refused to meet with us in the office for our appointment (unlike other members of Congress) and we met in a busy hallway. The meeting was also with a legislative fellow and not a legislative aide. This was worse than our meeting with Ted Cruz’s staff. The sad part is that in our small group we had people with long ties to Cuellar’s congressional district and Laredo.”
Another Democrat in another state has also signaled he’ll likely support ENDA, even though he hasn’t yet signed on a co-sponsor to the bill.
Jessica Kahanek, a Costa spokesperson, said the lawmaker is still reviewing the legislation, but is “inclined” to vote for the bill should it come to the House floor.
“Rep. Costa is still reviewing the bill and its implications for small business owners before he makes a final decision on co-sponsoring,” Kahanek said. “He is inclined to support ENDA should there be a vote held on the bill.”
Costa supports marriage equality and co-sponsors the Student Non-Discrimination Act, which would bar schools from allowing discrimination or harassment of LGBT students.
One notable House Democrat who doesn’t co-sponsor ENDA is Lipinski, who withholds support for ENDA even though he voted for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and LGBT-inclusive hate crimes legislation. However, Lipinski opposes same-sex marriage.
Bernard Cherkasov, CEO of Equality Illinois, called on Lipinski to support ENDA as he touted his organization’s work in “building stronger and stronger support” for the legislation among his state’s delegation to Congress.
“Congressman Lipinski represents a district where many employers, community leaders, and clergy members are very vocal about their support for ENDA; and LGBT workplace protections have been the law in Illinois for almost a decade,” Cherkasov said. “In a state with broad bipartisan support for ENDA, we hope that Congressman Lipinski will carry those values to Washington and sponsor ENDA.”
Not helping in the case of Lipinski — as well as Costa and Cuellar — is the fact that they’re Catholic and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has come out in opposition to ENDA when it came up for a vote in the Senate, saying it threatens religious liberty, would enable legalization of same-sex marriage and rejects the biological basis of gender.
Other House Democrats who don’t co-sponsor ENDA have a history of assuming anti-LGBT positions as members of Congress. Most notable among them are Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) and retiring Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.), the only Democrats who currently co-sponsor a U.S. constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage in the country. Their offices didn’t respond to a request for comment on their position on ENDA.
Another longtime House Democrat who doesn’t co-sponsor ENDA and who was a one-time supporter of a Federal Marriage Amendment is Barrow. Despite voting “yes” on this amendment, Barrow has taken pro-LGBT positions, such as voting in favor of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal. His office didn’t respond to a request for comment on ENDA.
Jeff Graham, executive director of Georgia Equality, said Barrow has assumed more anti-LGBT positions after redistricting, when Barrow’s district was drawn to become more conservative.
“The politics behind this, not that it excuses it, but for the last several times that he has run for office, he has been redistricted into a district that is majority Republican,” Graham said. “And so, he actually has a voting record on LGBT issues, as well as a lot of other issues that are important to many of us, where he did not support them or voted against them. His lack of sponsorship of ENDA is not actually a surprise; it’s a disappointment, but it is not a surprise.”
Graham said getting Barrow to support ENDA would require “an immense grassroots” effort among his constituents, but his organization is prepared to support the Human Rights Campaign in planned field operations to encourage him to back the bill.
Other groups behind ENDA have launched initiatives at the national level aimed at building support for the legislation as the push to pass it continues. The Senate last year passed ENDA on bipartisan vote of 64-32, so House passage is the only remaining step necessary for approval before it would go to President Obama’s desk.
Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, said boosting the number of ENDA co-sponsors on both sides of the aisle is important “to clearly demonstrate” majority support exists for LGBT workplace protections in the House.
“We think that if a House vote were held today, ENDA would pass with more than 218 votes, but winning over the next batch of co-sponsors would help us prove that definitively to House leadership,” Almeida said. “Reaching 218 supporters would increase pressure on those who have been blocking an up-or-down vote.”
Almeida drew a distinction between co-sponsoring ENDA and merely articulating support, saying pledging a “yes” vote without co-sponsoring the bill is the “second-best option” for lawmakers.
A House Democratic leadership aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the only way to push these lawmakers to support ENDA is for constituents within their districts to ask their members to get behind the bill. The aide said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) personally whipped members to support ENDA, which is why all but eight Democratic members co-sponsor the bill this Congress.
The White House has continually called for passage of ENDA. The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment on whether it has reached out to these eight House Democrats to encourage them to support the legislation.
At a time when DNC is raising money on behalf of Democrats in the 2014 election, the DNC didn’t respond to the Blade’s request for comment on whether House Democrats who don’t co-sponsor ENDA are out of line with principles of the Democratic Party, even though the 2012 Democratic Party platform endorses the bill on the basis that “people should not be fired based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.”
Although eight House Democrats aren’t co-sponsors of ENDA, a sea of Republicans continue to withhold support of the bill in a chamber of Congress where their party holds the majority. Of the 233 Republicans in the U.S. House, only six co-sponsor ENDA: Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.), Charles Dent (R-Pa.), Jon Runyan (R-N.J.), Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.) and Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.).
Americans for Workplace Opportunity, a coalition of groups seeking to pass ENDA, have launched a $2 million push aimed at passing ENDA in the House. Much of the money is coming from Republican superdonors Paul Singer and Seth Klarman, who each donated $375,000. Nonetheless, not a single Republican co-sponsor has signed on to ENDA since the start of the campaign last month.
Jeff Cook-McCormac, senior adviser to the pro-LGBT American Unity Fund, nonetheless predicted more Republican co-sponsors of ENDA in the coming days.
“In an authentically bipartisan way, we remain laser-focused on getting to the critical number of 218, demonstrating majority support in the chamber,” Cook-McCormac said. “This much-needed engagement, member-by-member, in thoughtful and respectful conversations about the need for ENDA is what will enable support for the bill to grow, as we’ve seen it is a critical element of every successful effort that has advanced freedom for LGBT Americans in our country. I expect you will see other Republicans indicate their support for ENDA in the weeks and months to come.”
2026 Midterm Elections
Trump uses anti-trans slur against Democratic Senate candidate
President mocked Annie Andrews
President Donald Trump used an anti-trans slur against Democratic South Carolina Senate candidate Annie Andrews on Monday as he sought to rally support for Republicans in the state’s Senate race.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump attacked Andrews three times, referring to her as “trannie” while promoting U.S. Sen. Darline Graham (R-S.C.)’s campaign.
Andrews is running against Graham for a Senate seat in the solidly Republican state.
Earlier this year, Graham was specially appointed to the seat following the death of her brother, Lindsey Graham, who represented South Carolina in the Senate from 2003 to 2026.
Andrews, the Democratic nominee from the state, is a pediatrician that lives in Charleston with her three children. She told NBC News that she will “work with anyone to put South Carolina first.”
“As a mom and a pediatrician, I’m in this race to fight for my patients, my three kids, and South Carolina,” Andrews said, adding that “lowering costs and making life better for families across our state is going to take all of us working together.”
Andrews used the attention from the president’s attack to emphasize what she described as a focus on policy issues rather than the culture wars that have dominated much of the political debate.
“If you care more about your bills than the politics in Washington, this campaign is for you,” she added.
Trump’s remarks have drawn criticism from leaders on both sides of the aisle.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) condemned Trump’s words Monday night on social media, calling his attacks on Andrews “despicable.”
“Annie Andrews is a mom and pediatrician who’s always put her community first — and she’s exactly who South Carolina needs representing them in the Senate,” Schumer said on X.
Former South Carolina Gov. David Beasley, a Republican, also criticized the president’s attack on Andrews, urging voters to “reject politics based on division and hate.”
“This is abhorrent. Elections don’t have to be about cruelty and lies. South Carolina deserves better,” Beasley wrote Monday night on X.
South Carolina has not elected a Democratic senator in nearly three decades.
Andrews’s campaign website does not mention her positions on LGBTQ issues.
The Washington Blade reached out to Andrews’s campaign for comment on Trump’s attack and her positions on transgender rights but did not hear back by time of publication.
District of Columbia
D.C.’s LGBTQ homeless facilities face possible hit from Trump funding cuts
38 percent of homeless youth identify as LGBTQ, up from 2025
(Editor’s note: This article is part of our 2026 contribution to the D.C. Homeless Crisis Reporting Project in collaboration with other local newsrooms. The collective works will be published throughout the week at bit.ly/DCHCRP.)
A decision by President Trump’s administration to eliminate most federal funding for community-based programs to place homeless people in permanent subsidized housing could have a severe adverse impact on LGBTQ people facing homelessness in D.C., according to local advocates.
Officials with organizations that provide services for homeless people in the D.C. area and nationally have pointed to an executive order issued by Trump last year that calls for ending federal support for so-called “Housing First” programs that arrange for permanent subsidized housing for homeless people. The officials note that Trump’s proposed fiscal year 2027 budget calls for eliminating funding for the Housing First programs.
Advocates for programs providing support for homeless people note that ending federal funding for permanent housing for homeless people will — and in some cases already has — resulted in occupants of homeless shelters and short-term transitional housing facilities remaining in those facilities far longer than in the past, preventing openings for others who need housing.
A lawsuit filed by several states and homeless advocacy organizations, including the D.C.-based National Alliance To End Homelessness, to block the Trump efforts to cut off those funds has temporarily delayed some of the funding cuts. A decision in August by a federal judge in Rhode Island declared the Trump action a violation of a federal law for failing to open the proposal for the funding cuts to public comment before putting it in place.
Court records show the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which provides the federal funding for homeless related programs, appealed the lower court ruling and an appeals court reversed the ruling pending further appeal by the parties that filed the lawsuit.
At least two of the five D.C. organizations that provide housing for homeless LGBTQ youth have said their funding so far has not been cut due to the Trump actions.
Cesar Toledo, executive director of the Wanda Alston Foundation, which currently provides transitional housing for 20 LGBTQ homeless youth, said his organization receives local D.C. government funding but no federal funding so his group has so far not been impacted by the Trump action.
Debby Shore, executive director of the Sasha Bruce Youthwork organization that provides housing for young people ages 18-24, including some LGBTQ youth, said her organization also had not yet been impacted but it could be impacted soon.
“We have not had that funding cut,” she told the Washington Blade. “What we understand is if HUD is allowed to go through with those changes, then we will,” she said. “Because we have one of our programs that’s funded directly by HUD,” which she said could be considered the type of “long term” housing that HUD wants to cut.
A spokesperson for the local LGBTQ youth advocacy organization SMYAL, which currently provides housing for 55 homeless LGBTQ youth according to its website, didn’t immediately respond to a Blade inquiry into whether they have been impacted by the Trump actions. Toledo of the Alston Foundation said he understood that SMYAL has received federal funding for its homeless program.
At least two other D.C. organizations that provide housing for homeless youth, including some LGBTQ youth – Covenant House and the Latin American Youth Center – also couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on whether they have been impacted by the Trump funding cuts.
The city’s only shelter for homeless LGBTQ adults, which is operated by the D.C. Department of Human Services and is D.C. funded, has not been immediately impacted by the Trump funding cuts, according to a DHS statement sent to the Washington Blade in response to a Blade inquiry. Called Living Life Alternative, the low-barrier shelter accommodates 40 individuals, the statement says.
It says DHS receives federal funding for its homeless services programs, and it was awaiting HUD approval for its annual federal funding grant for the city’s Permanent Supportive Housing program for homeless residents. It says the current funding for that program expires Jan. 31, 2027.
According to the statement, a separate federal grant DHS receives from HUD for homeless assistance services was approved for next year but included “a slight reduction in funding of $22,808.”
The annual 2026 Point-In-Time (PIT) count of homeless people in D.C., conducted in January, recorded a total of 5,363 people who were homeless, a 4 percent increase over the previous year.
The PIT count report shows 424 adults, or 12 percent of the adults counted, identified as members of the LGBTQ community, a slight increase over the 11.7 percent of homeless LGBTQ people counted in 2025. It shows that 38 percent of “Transition Age Youth” ages 18-24 identified as LGBTQ, an increase of one percent over the 37 percent of LGBTQ youth counted in 2025.
The Trump administration through HUD has said it supports housing for homeless people that lasts no more than two years and participants should be required to get treatment for the mental illness and substance use disorders such as drug addiction and alcoholism that many homeless people suffer from.
The Washington Post has cited studies showing that up to two-thirds of homeless people have a mental illness and two in five have a substance use disorder.
“Housing First has failed our most vulnerable and enabled addiction,” the Post quoted HUD saying in an email message. “HUD’s proposed reforms seek to address the root cause of homelessness and advance recovery, self-sufficiency, and competition that drives accountability,” the Post quoted the HUD statement as saying.
Shore, director of Sasha Bruce Youthwork, disputes that assessment, saying treatment for disorders should not be a replacement for longer term housing programs, which she said improves the outcome of treatments for disorders.
“I think the idea of putting more services in place – I don’t have any problem with that,” she said. “But suggesting that you do that in exchange for longer term supports for people does not seem to be the right way to go.”
Federal Government
Bessent says Trump chose him for his qualifications, not his sexuality
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent talked with Axios about his sexuality — and how it played no role in his nomination for the position.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent participated in an interview in which he said his sexuality had no impact on the president’s selection of him.
On Sunday, Axios co-founder Mike Allen interviewed Secretary Bessent, the 79th person to lead the Treasury Department, in the “Cash Room” in the Treasury building. The two talked for more than 40 minutes about issues related to the current administration’s efforts for Axios’s YouTube channel.
Bessent has been something of an anomaly during this administration, breaking what many consider the “gay glass ceiling.” He is the first openly gay person to lead the U.S. Treasury Department, the first openly gay Senate-confirmed Cabinet member in a Republican administration, and the highest-ranking LGBTQ government official in U.S. history.
The two covered various ground — about the state of the U.S. economy, the various AI approaches by the Trump administration, and the war in Iran. All things that have made President Trump’s constant appraisal of the U.S. economy difficult to sell to the American people as the affordability crisis has worsened.
Toward the end of the interview, Allen asked Bessent about deciding not to attend the U.S. Naval Academy, knowing his sexuality would be a hindrance, and instead attending Yale University. Allen asked if his choice to attend the Ivy League school held him back in life.
“I don’t think it did at all, and it’s very difficult to talk about the counterfactual… but I don’t think going to Yale held me back,” Bessent said. “Maybe some people at other schools would think it might. But I think it makes you aware, and I’ve openly spoken about it before, too. I think maybe some of my career choices were influenced by it.”
The U.S. Naval Academy only began allowing openly LGBTQ students to apply — and be open about their sexuality — following the 2011 repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Prior to the policy’s removal, students could be removed from the school for violating the rules, including rules related to their sexuality.
“You said President Trump chose me because he believes I’m the best candidate, not because of my sexual preference or your green eyes…,” Allen said.
“Exactly,” Bessent replied. “And I think that’s one of the reasons we have such a great team. The president makes his decisions all the time. You know, he’ll occasionally tell me, ‘You’re breaking my friends’ hearts.’ They see you on TV and they want an intro, and we have to break the news to them.”
Bessent has been married to former New York prosecutor John Freeman since 2011, and they have lived together in South Carolina. There, they had two children through surrogacy.
Despite being a member of the LGBTQ community, Bessent has publicly supported Trump’s policies, including some that have drawn criticism from LGBTQ advocates and organizations. These include reductions to PEPFAR funding, policies removing transgender service members from the military, recognizing only two sexes, removing LGBTQ protections from Title IX, and other policies that LGBTQ advocates argue come at the cost of LGBTQ safety and protections.
The Washington Blade has reached out to the Treasury Department and Secretary Bessent’s team for comment and responses to these questions, including questions about how he views his identity and sexuality in relation to — and potentially at odds with — the policies and mission of the current administration. The Blade did not receive a response by publication time.
-
Books4 days agoEliot Glazer’s new book an engaging collection of essays
-
Out & About4 days agoEquality Chamber hosts Pride in Business Expo and Profits & Pours
-
Out & About4 days agoLearn more about Virginia’s queer history
-
Brazil3 days agoLula, Flávio Bolsonaro to face off in second round of Brazilian presidential election
