News
Grenell bragged to Jared Kushner about decriminalization initiative: emails
Gay ambassador said support from Germany company ‘huge’
Former U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, who was the face of LGBTQ outreach for former President Trump, bragged to Jared Kushner about a major German company’s endorsement of the Trump administration’s global initiative to decriminalize homosexuality, suggesting the former White House adviser had a greater role or interest than previously known.
The latest emails obtained by the Washington Blade from its Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department, which was filed by attorneys at Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP and seeks Grenell’s emails related to the initiative, includes the communication from Grenell to Kushner.
“Huge” says Grenell simply in the email to Kushner forwarding a tweet from Daimler AG, now known as the Mercedes-Benz Group, in support of decriminalization at a time when Grenell was working in Germany to build support for the initiative.

It’s unclear why Grenell sought to engage with Kushner on the initiative, nor whether Kushner offered any response. No reply from Kushner is included in the emails obtained by the Blade, although such a response could come in a further email production under the FOIA lawsuit or may have happened offline.
The message, however, is consistent with the perception that Kushner and Ivanka Trump were among the players in the Trump administration who supported LGBTQ rights, privately pushing to include that in President Trump’s agenda and resisting efforts to roll back LGBTQ rights. Critics would point to policies such as the transgender military ban and regulations allowing anti-LGBTQ discrimination in the name of religious freedom as evidence they failed in that effort, although bright spots, such as the decriminalization initiative and the first-ever appointment of an openly gay person to an acting Cabinet-level role, were unprecedented for a Republican administration.
Insiders close to the decriminalization initiative at the time it was underway told the Blade one White House adviser who was “all over” the effort was Ivanka Trump, although she never publicly articulated anything about the plan.
Grenell didn’t respond to a request for comment from the Blade on why he emailed Kushner about the initiative. Kushner couldn’t be reached for comment, although the Blade sought to contact him through his private equity firm, Affinity Partners.
The email from Grenell to Kushner is revealed at a time when Kushner is facing criticism and accusations of corruption after The New York Times reported the Public Investment Fund — led by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler — contributed a $2 billion investment to Affinity Partners six months after Kushner left the White House in the aftermath of the Trump administration taking no action after U.S. intelligence agencies concluded the Saudi government gave the order to assassinate and dismember Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi columnist for The Washington Post.
Zeeshan Aleem, writer and editor for MSNBC, wrote in an op-ed piece the Saudi leaders’s $2 billion contribution to Kushner’s firm “sure looks corrupt” because it’s a bad deal for the Saudi fund financially and Kushner is inexperienced in private equity.
“One cannot rule out that MBS views it as a down payment as well,” Aleem writes. “If Trump were to return to the White House, MBS has proven a willingness to pay handsomely for cushy treatment. And even if it’s not Trump returning to the White House, perhaps a Trump-influenced figure like a future President Ron DeSantis would take note of how things went down between MBS and Trump World.”
Saudi Arabia is among the 10 countries where homosexuality is punishable by death. Hillary Clinton, during the 2016 presidential election, faced criticism for accepting Saudi money as a contribution to the Clinton Foundation because of the country’s record on LGBTQ and women’s rights. The money, however, was used for human rights, including medications for HIV treatment and prevention in Africa, as opposed to personal enrichment.
Rehoboth Beach
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Attendees encouraged to wear appropriate gear
Diego’s in Rehoboth Beach hosts a monthly leather happy hour. April’s edition is scheduled for Friday, April 10, 5-7 p.m. Attendees are encouraged to wear appropriate gear. The event is billed as an official event of BLUF, the free community group for men interested in leather. After happy hour, the attendees are encouraged to reconvene at Local Bootlegging Company for dinner, which allows cigar smoking. There’s no cover charge for either event.
District of Columbia
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
Two memorial events scheduled in D.C.
Two celebrations of life are planned for Sean Christopher Bartel, 48, who was found deceased on a hiking trail in Argentina on or around March 15. Bartel began his career as a television news reporter and news anchor at stations in Louisville, Ky., and Evansville, Ind., before serving as Senior Video Producer for the D.C.-based International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union from 2013 to 2024.
A memorial gathering is planned for Friday, April 10, 11:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m. at the IBEW International Office (900 7th St., N.W.), according to a statement by the DC Gay Flag Football League, where Bartel was a longtime member. A celebration of life is planned that same evening, 6-8 p.m. at Trade (1410 14th St., N.W.).
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
