National
Senate could take up ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal this month
Lugar says he won’t support efforts to derail vote
U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar (center) said he isn’t concerned about the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal language in the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill and wouldn’t support an effort to rid the legislation of the provision. (Photo by Pete Pouza, photo courtesy White House)
As opponents of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are pushing for the Senate to take up repeal legislation this month, one key senator says he won’t support an attempt to remove the language from a larger defense bill.
U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) told the Blade last week that he isn’t concerned about the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language in the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill and wouldn’t support an effort to rid the legislation of the provision.
Asked whether he would support a substitute amendment or a motion to strike, Lugar replied, “No. I would just leave it as it is.”
Lugar said he would “presume” that he would vote against any filibuster of the defense bill as a whole, but expressed concern about the legislation being used as a vehicle for other costly programs unrelated to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“The defense bill, as it stands, seems to me to be a good piece of legislation, but I think the issue was the additions that were not paid for in various other ways,” Lugar said.
Often regarded on Capitol Hill as a centrist Republican, Lugar voted in favor of hate crimes protections legislation after twice backing the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said Lugar’s comments on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are “good news.”
“That is consistent with what we have been hearing from his staff,” Sarvis said. “My view is that Sen. Lugar’s response is very encouraging.”
Lugar’s support for allowing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language to stay in the defense bill could be a sign the provision would survive the legislative process once it reaches the Senate floor.
On May 27, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to attach language leading to repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to the defense bill. But while the repeal language has been attached to the defense bill, a number of obstacles remain that could prevent the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” language from passing in the Senate.
One such obstacle is a filibuster of the defense bill as whole. Additionally, a substitute amendment or a motion to strike could strip the legislation of repeal language.
Mounting a filibuster of the defense bill would take 41 votes in the Senate. Such an effort would be politically challenging because pay for troops and defense programs are included in the larger bill.
A substitute amendment or motion to strike with regard to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” language would require 51 votes.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin (D-Mich.), a proponent of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal, cited a filibuster and a motion to strike as potential dangers for the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” language in a brief interview.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a motion to strike,” he said. “There’s even a threat of a filibuster against the bill.”
Levin said a filibuster of the defense bill is possible based on a number of factors, including “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as well as a provision for funding for legal abortions on military bases.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the lead opponent of repeal in the Senate, has threatened to spearhead a filibuster and “do everything” he can to stop repeal language from reaching the president’s desk.
His office didn’t respond to the Blade’s request to comment on whether he’s still pursuing a filibuster or planning a legislative maneuver to strip the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” language from the bill.
Another issue for the defense bill is when the legislation would come up for Senate consideration. Levin said he didn’t know when the bill would reach the floor.
Still, Levin said he wants the Senate to take up the legislation this month. Asked about his predictions for when the defense bill would reach the Senate floor, Levin replied, “Hopefully, we’ll do it in July.”
Sarvis also said the most “immediate challenge” advocates face with the defense authorization bill is finding time for floor discussion. Like Levin, Sarvis noted that he’s hopeful the bill will come up for discussion this month.
“But the floor calendar is very crowded, so I’m not sure we’re going to get on in July,” Sarvis said.
Sarvis said he’s been told the defense bill will need several days for consideration on the floor and the scheduling wouldn’t be “a matter of getting this bill on and off the floor in a day or two.”
A knowledgeable Hill source said Senate consideration of the defense authorization bill could take two weeks before a final vote is cast.
Other senators on Capitol Hill recognized as politically moderate lawmakers have expressed varying degrees of support regarding the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language.
One is Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), the lone Democrat to vote in committee against attaching repeal to the defense bill. He said he didn’t yet know whether he would support a substitute amendment or a motion to strike regarding the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” language.
“I don’t know,” Webb said. “We’ll see what it says.”
Webb noted that his May vote in committee against ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was “to delay repeal until we received this report” from the Pentagon, which is due Dec. 1.
“I’ve been very involved in it,” he said. “In terms of putting together the study, I think it’s going to be a great piece of work that’s going out to between three and four hundred thousand people in the military.”
Webb emphasized the importance of the having the study completed before taking action as “a measure of respect” for those in the U.S. military who would implement the repeal process.
Sarvis said he’s heard reports that Webb wouldn’t support a filibuster of the defense authorization bill based on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language.
Although Webb voted against the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” language in committee, the senator also voted to report out the legislation as a whole to the Senate floor.
“He’s a member of the committee,” Sarvis said. “Historically, he’s been an advocate for the Defense Department. It would be extraordinary if he objected to Sen. Levin proceeding to a debate on the defense authorization bill.”
Still, Sarvis said his understanding is that Webb would vote to strike the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” language from the defense bill based on his earlier vote against the amendment in committee.
Many repeal advocates also are watching Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the junior senator from the state, to see if he’ll follow suit with Webb on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” when the defense bill reaches the Senate floor.
Kevin Hall, a Warner spokesperson, said via e-mail the senator is watching the process for how “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will be repealed.
“Sen. Warner supports repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in an orderly way, working with members of the uniformed services and our military leadership,” Hall said.
Hall said Warner wouldn’t support a filibuster of the defense authorization bill. Regarding whether the senator would support a substitute amendment or a motion to strike the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” language, Hall said he’d “let our previous statement speak for itself.”
Another moderate senator who’s reportedly opposed to filibuster is Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.). He voted against attaching repeal to the larger defense bill, but voted in favor of reporting the legislation as a whole to the floor.
“Filibuster’s never — it’s not my style. I want to make sure that we have a full and fair debate on it,” Brown was quoted as saying in May in a Boston Globe article.
Other senators that activists have discussed as being in question on whether they would support repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are Sens. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.). Their offices didn’t respond to the Blade’s request for comment.
State Department
Rubio mum on Hungary’s Pride ban
Lawmakers on April 30 urged secretary of state to condemn anti-LGBTQ bill, constitutional amendment
More than 20 members of Congress have urged Secretary of State Marco Rubio to publicly condemn a Hungarian law that bans Pride events.
California Congressman Mark Takano, a Democrat who co-chairs the Congressional Equality Caucus, and U.S. Rep. Bill Keating (D-Mass.), who is the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Europe Subcommittee, spearheaded the letter that lawmakers sent to Rubio on April 30.
Hungarian lawmakers in March passed a bill that bans Pride events and allow authorities to use facial recognition technology to identify those who participate in them. MPs last month amended the Hungarian constitution to ban public LGBTQ events.
“As a NATO ally which hosts U.S. service members, we expect the Hungarian government to abide by certain values which underpin the historic U.S.-Hungary bilateral relationship,” reads the letter. “Unfortunately, this new legislation and constitutional amendment disproportionately and arbitrarily target sexual and gender minorities.”
Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government over the last decade has moved to curtail LGBTQ and intersex rights in Hungary.
A law that bans legal recognition of transgender and intersex people took effect in 2020. Hungarian MPs that year also effectively banned same-sex couples from adopting children and defined marriage in the constitution as between a man and a woman.
An anti-LGBTQ propaganda law took effect in 2021. The European Commission sued Hungary, which is a member of the European Union, over it.
MPs in 2023 approved the “snitch on your gay neighbor” bill that would have allowed Hungarians to anonymously report same-sex couples who are raising children. The Budapest Metropolitan Government Office in 2023 fined Lira Konyv, the country’s second-largest bookstore chain, 12 million forints ($33,733.67), for selling copies of British author Alice Oseman’s “Heartstopper.”
Former U.S. Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman, who is gay, participated in the Budapest Pride march in 2024 and 2023. Pressman was also a vocal critic of Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ crackdown.
“Along with years of democratic backsliding in Hungary, it flies in the face of those values and the passage of this legislation deserves quick and decisive criticism and action in response by the Department of State,” reads the letter, referring to the Pride ban and constitutional amendment against public LGBTQ events. “Therefore, we strongly urge you to publicly condemn this legislation and constitutional change which targets the LGBTQ community and undermines the rights of Hungarians to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.”
U.S. Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Sarah McBride (D-Del.), Jim Costa (D-Calif.), James McGovern (D-Mass.), Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Julie Johnson (D-Texas), Ami Bera (D-Calif.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Gabe Amo (D-R.I.), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Dina Titus (D-Nev.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) signed the letter alongside Takano and Keating.
A State Department spokesperson on Wednesday declined to comment.
Federal Government
HRC memo details threats to LGBTQ community in Trump budget
‘It’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives’
A memo issued Monday by the Human Rights Campaign details threats to LGBTQ people from the “skinny” budget proposal issued by President Donald Trump on May 2.
HRC estimates the total cost of “funding cuts, program eliminations, and policy changes” impacting the community will exceed approximately $2.6 billion.
Matthew Rose, the organization’s senior public policy advocate, said in a statement that “This budget is more than cuts on a page—it’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives.”
“Trump is taking away life-saving healthcare, support for LGBTQ-owned businesses, protections against hate crimes, and even housing help for people living with HIV,” he said. “Stripping away more than $2 billion in support sends one clear message: we don’t matter. But we’ve fought back before, and we’ll do it again—we’re not going anywhere.”
Proposed rollbacks or changes at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will target the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, other programs related to STI prevention, viral hepatitis, and HIV, initiatives housed under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and research by the National Institutes of Health and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Other agencies whose work on behalf of LGBTQ populations would be jeopardized or eliminated under Trump’s budget include the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Department of Education.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
Litigation challenging the policy continues in the 9th Circuit
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump-Vance administration to enforce a ban on transgender personnel serving in the U.S. Armed Forces pending the outcome of litigation challenging the policy.
The brief order staying a March 27 preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington notes the dissents from liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
On the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump issued an executive order requiring Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to effectuate a ban against transgender individuals, going further than efforts under his first administration — which did not target those currently serving.
The DoD’s Feb. 26 ban argued that “the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.”
The case challenging the Pentagon’s policy is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The lead plaintiff is U.S. Navy Commander Emily Shilling, who is joined in the litigation by other current transgender members of the armed forces, one transgender person who would like to join, and a nonprofit whose members either are transgender troops or would like to be.
Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, both representing the plaintiffs, issued a statement Tuesday in response to the Supreme Court’s decision:
“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a devastating blow to transgender servicemembers who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation’s defense.
“By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the Court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice.
“Transgender individuals meet the same standards and demonstrate the same values as all who serve. We remain steadfast in our belief that this ban violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and will ultimately be struck down.”
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer noted that courts must show “substantial deference” to DoD decision making on military issues.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the military ban to go into effect is devastating for the thousands of qualified transgender servicemembers who have met the standards and are serving honorably, putting their lives on the line for their country every single day,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “Today’s decision only adds to the chaos and destruction caused by this administration. It’s not the end of the case, but the havoc it will wreak is devastating and irreparable. History will confirm the weight of the injustice done today.”
“The Court has upended the lives of thousands of servicemembers without even the decency of explaining why,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “As a result of this decision, reached without benefit of full briefing or argument, brave troops who have dedicated their lives to the service of our country will be targeted and forced into harsh administrative separation process usually reserved for misconduct. They have proven themselves time and time again and met the same standards as every other soldier, deploying in critical positions around the globe. This is a deeply sad day for our country.”
Levi and Minter are the lead attorneys in the first two transgender military ban cases to be heard in federal court, Talbott v. Trump and Ireland v. Hegseth.
U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) issued a statement on behalf of the Congressional Equality Caucus, where he serves as chair.
“By lifting the lower court’s preliminary injunction and allowing Trump to enforce his trans troop ban as litigation continues, the Supreme Court is causing real harm to brave Americans who simply want to serve their nation in uniform.
“The difference between Donald Trump, a draft dodger, and the countless brave Americans serving their country who just happen to be trans couldn’t be starker. Let me be clear: Trump’s ban isn’t going to make our country safer—it will needlessly create gaps in critical chains of military command and actively undermine our national security.
“The Supreme Court was absolutely wrong to allow this ban to take effect. I hope that lower courts move swiftly so this ban can ultimately be struck down.”
SPARTA Pride also issued a statement:
“The Roberts Court’s decision staying the preliminary injunction will allow the Trump purge of transgender service members from the military to proceed.
“Transgender Americans have served openly, honorably, and effectively in the U.S. Armed Forces for nearly a decade. Thousands of transgender troops are currently serving, and are fully qualified for the positions in which they serve.
“Every court up to now has found that this order is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the Roberts Court – without hearing any evidence or argument – decided to allow it to go forward. So while the case continues to be argued, thousands of trans troops will be purged from the Armed Forces.
“They will lose their jobs. They will lose their commands, their promotions, their training, pay and benefits, and time. Their units will lose key players; the mission will be disrupted. This is the very definition of irreparable harm.”
Imara Jones, CEO of TransLash Media, issued the following statement:
“The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Trump’s ban on transgender soldiers in the military, even as the judicial process works its way through the overall question of service, signals that open discrimination against trans people is fair game across American society.
“It will allow the Trump Administration to further advance its larger goal of pushing trans people from mainstream society by discharging transgender military members who are currently serving their country, even at a time when the military has struggled recently to meet its recruiting goals.
“But even more than this, all of my reporting tells me that this is a further slide down the mountain towards authoritarianism. The hard truth is that governments with authoritarian ambitions have to separate citizens between who is worthy of protection and who’s not. Trans people are clearly in the later category. And this separation justifies the authoritarian quest for more and more power. This appears to be what we are witnessing here and targeting trans people in the military is just a means to an end.”
American cardinal chosen as next pope
Blade’s 18th annual Summer Kickoff Party set for May 16
Vanuatu lawmakers consider constitutional amendment to recognize two genders
Va. officials investigate Loudoun County schools over trans student in locker room
Council must approve new Commanders stadium deal
American cardinal chosen as next pope
Your guide to the many Pride celebrations in D.C. region
Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
WorldPride permits for National Mall have yet to be approved
Va. LG opposed marriage equality affirmation bill in handwritten note
-
The Vatican16 hours agoAmerican cardinal chosen as next pope
-
a&e features22 hours agoYour guide to the many Pride celebrations in D.C. region
-
U.S. Supreme Court3 days agoSupreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban
-
District of Columbia2 days agoWorldPride permits for National Mall have yet to be approved