Politics
Floyd Abrams: GOP-backed Fla. bill targeting the press is ‘plainly inconsistent with’ First Amendment
LGBTQ groups have criticized measure
A bill by Florida Republicans that would relax the standards required for public officials to sue journalists and media organizations for libel is “plainly inconsistent with the First Amendment” according to the acclaimed attorney and constitutional law expert Floyd Abrams.
“The statute is a frontal attack” on the U.S. Supreme Court’s longstanding interpretation of the principles “governing First Amendment libel law as it currently exists,” Abrams told the Washington Blade by phone on Wednesday.
Abrams has represented parties in litigation before the Supreme Court more than a dozen times in some of the most important and high-profile First Amendment cases brought over the last 50 years, which has led to landmark rulings including on matters governing press freedoms.
Abrams is senior counsel at Cahill Gordon and Reindel, the multinational law firm where he has worked since 1963. He is widely considered among the country’s preeminent litigators and experts in constitutional law and was described by the late diplomat and U.S. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) as “the most significant First Amendment lawyer of our age.”
With this Florida statute, Abrams said it appears Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and his conservative allies in the legislature are making “an effort to come up with something which will lead the Supreme Court to take another look” at its 1964 ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan, which established that the First Amendment confers certain protections for the press against libel lawsuits by public figures.
The ruling, reaffirmed and developed in subsequent cases over the years, acts as a bulwark preventing powerful public figures including elected officials from weaponizing lawsuits or the threat of litigation to silence or censor reporters and news organizations.
DeSantis and Florida’s GOP legislators are hardly out of step with leaders in the Republican Party including former President Donald Trump, who repeatedly pledged to change the libel laws so he could more easily sue media companies.
When Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska and 2008 vice presidential candidate, sued the New York Times for libel in 2016, the paper wrote that advocates for weakening the press’ protections against libel lawsuits were “more emboldened now than at any point” since the Sullivan case. They have ideological allies in the right-wing legal establishment, too: In 2021, conservative Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch expressed an interest in revisiting the court’s ruling in Sullivan.
Supreme Court unlikely to revisit longstanding approach to First Amendment, libel law
Abrams said if the Florida bill is signed into law, given that “virtually any entity, which reports the news would be imperiled by this statute,” he can envision legal challenges from a variety of entities, from groups like the “ACLU to the Reporters’ Committee [for Freedom of the Press] to organizations of journalists to newspapers.” Litigation over the law’s constitutionality could, of course, reach the Supreme Court.
At the same time, Abrams said he doubts there is much appetite among the justices to abrogate or weaken the decades-old ruling in Sullivan, which stipulates that to bring a successful libel case against the press, public officials must first prove the offending material was defamatory and then show it was published with “actual malice,” either with the knowledge that it was false or with “reckless disregard” for whether it was true.
“I would be very surprised if Chief Justice Roberts is in favor of revisiting New York Times against Sullivan because he has been a strong First Amendment defender,” Abrams said, and based on “Justice Kavanaugh’s opinions when he was on the Court of Appeals, I would be surprised if he is prepared to challenge” Sullivan.
Abrams conceded “there may be more reasons to think that one or more conservative jurists” on the Supreme Court could be convinced to join Thomas and Gorsuch’s calls to reconsider libel protections for the press. Working against this effort, however, is the extent to which the Florida statute is inconsistent from the court’s analysis of the relevant legal questions, Abrams said.
Examples, he said, include: (1) the proposal’s narrowing of the parameters used to define certain plaintiffs as “public figures” for purposes of First Amendment libel law, a distinction that carries a higher burden of proof than that which is required of private citizens suing members of the press; (2) its treatment of information attributed to anonymous sources as presumably false, a finding that plaintiffs claiming defamation would otherwise be required to prove; and (3) its characterization as inherently defamatory any accusations published by the press of discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity.
The statute’s presumption that material attributed to anonymous sources is false would undermine the method by which the courts evaluate libel claims brought by public figures, Abrams said: “The Supreme Court has certainly made clear that the legal test requires the party suing to demonstrate the newspaper [or] journalist didn’t believe what he or she was saying.”
Put differently, Abrams said, the analysis turns on the defendant’s state of mind “as a basis for determining if the alleged libel of a public figure is actionable.”
Therefore, Abrams said, to “have a flat presumption that any use of confidential sources will be held against the journalist is inconsistent” with the type of claims that might “lead the Supreme Court to take another look at the law” established with Sullivan.
Censoring criticism of anti-LGBTQ discrimination
Likewise with the legislation’s provision that the press’s accusation of discrimination by a public official would constitute prima facie evidence of defamation, Abrams said “The Supreme Court has said more than once, and often in the voice of conservative jurists, that such speech is protected by the First Amendment.”
Florida’s statute goes even further, however. Per the substantial truth doctrine, a defendant accused of defamation can avoid legal liability by showing that the gist of the material at issue in the complaint was true. Under the proposed bill, a journalist who is sued for publishing accusations of discrimination (now considered inherently defamatory) may not cite as evidence of their truth (or substantial truth) the public official’s membership in any religious or scientific organization — even if that organization has a documented pattern and practice of discrimination, or well-known views that are unambiguously sexist, racist or anti-LGBTQ.
The bill’s apparent effort to censor media coverage of discrimination by public officials raised red flags with LGBTQ groups like GLAAD, whose president, Sarah Kate Ellis said, in a statement shared with the Blade on Wednesday: “Those spewing harmful and inaccurate words do not have the support for their dangerous rhetoric and policies, and they’re rightfully afraid they’ll be held accountable by voters and a free press that accurately reports on efforts to scapegoat and target vulnerable people.”
“This bill is another futile attack on LGBTQ Floridians, a sign of full-blown panic against a rising tide of acceptance for LGBTQ people and for the full equality of women, people of color and queer people of color,” Ellis said.
Jon Harris Maurer, an attorney who serves as public policy director for Equality Florida, the state’s largest LGBTQ advocacy organization, told the Blade by phone on Thursday that based on the alignment of DeSantis and Republicans in the legislature, chances are the bill will be signed into law.
Maurer said Florida’s Republican lawmakers, with supermajorities in both chambers, “have made clear they are prioritizing Gov. DeSantis’ legislative agenda.” At, or at least near, the top of that agenda is the state’s proposal to weaken libel protections for journalists, Maurer said, noting DeSantis’ decision to convene a recent roundtable discussion on the matter where speakers explained their reasons for wanting the Supreme Court to revisit Sullivan.
Other recent high-priority policy items for DeSantis and his allies have focused on using “the LGBTQ community to score political points with a far-right presidential primary base,” Maurer said. Florida’s governor, state lawmakers, or other officials might find the press coverage of these matters unflattering, Maurer said, but that hardly means the coverage is false or even defamatory.
So, the proposal to relax the standards required for public officials to sue reporters and media organizations for libel “is intended to have a chilling effect on media, particularly media that would be critical of Gov. DeSantis and those who share his positions,” Maurer said.
Maurer agreed with Abrams that the bill’s proponents likely have their sights set on the Supreme Court — and that the proposal, as currently written, is totally inconsistent with the court’s treatment of First Amendment libel law.
If the bill is signed into law and litigation over its constitutionality reaches the Supreme Court, Maurer declined to speculate what the outcome might be. The court’s conservative justices have scrapped longstanding precedent in other recent cases, he said, noting last year’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that revoked the constitutional right to abortion first established in 1973 with Roe v. Wade.
Removing protections for confidentiality of anonymous sources
Particularly in circumstances that raise national security concerns, the U.S. government has sometimes sought to prevent news organizations from publishing sensitive information in their possession or issued subpoenas demanding that journalists reveal the identities of the confidential sources who leaked it to them.
In 1971, Abrams successfully represented the Times before the Supreme Court in a landmark First Amendment case challenging the Nixon administration’s claims of executive authority to suppress the paper’s publication of confidential documents. The court’s ruling allowed the Times and other organizations to publish the material, known as the Pentagon Papers, which revealed the Johnson administration had “systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress” about America’s political and military involvement in Vietnam.
The government employee responsible for providing the documents to the Times was charged with espionage, though the charges were later dismissed.
The Supreme Court ruled in the 1972 case Branzburg v. Hayes that the First Amendment does not protect reporters from being called to testify before grand juries, but the government must “convincingly show a substantial relation between the information sought and a subject of overriding and compelling state interest.”
The decision was cited by Judge Thomas Hogan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in his 2004 memorandum opinion rejecting a motion to rescind grand jury subpoenas issued to two reporters, one represented by Abrams, in connection with criminal investigations of leaks that had revealed the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson (in what became known as the “Plame affair”).
Abrams’ client, who had not published a story about Plame but learned she was working as a covert CIA operative through a confidential government source, served several months in jail for her refusal to reveal his identity as demanded by the subpoena.
Some courts have upheld the concept that journalists have a constitutional right to conceal the identities of their sources, and some states and jurisdictions have codified these rulings with so-called “shield laws,” which vary in the extent of their protections afforded to members of the press.
Florida’s proposed statute, in addition to presuming that published information attributed to anonymous sources is false, would revoke the state’s shield laws that protect journalists’ right to keep their identities confidential.
The White House
Grindr to host first-ever White House Correspondents’ Dinner party
App’s head of global government affairs a long-time GOP-aligned lobbyist
Gay dating and hookup app Grindr will host its first-ever White House Correspondents’ Weekend party on April 24.
The event is scheduled for the night before the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, an annual gathering meant to celebrate the First Amendment, honor journalism, and raise money for scholarships.
The White House Correspondents’ Dinner is organized by the White House Correspondents’ Association, a group of journalists who regularly cover the president and the administration.
An invitation obtained by the Washington Blade’s Joe Reberkenny and Michael K. Lavers reads:
“We’d be thrilled to have you join us at Grindr’s inaugural White House Correspondents’ Dinner Weekend Party, a Friday evening gathering to bring together policymakers, journalists, and LGBTQ community leaders as we toast the First Amendment.”
The Blade requested an interview with Joe Hack, Grindr’s head of global government affairs, but was unable to reach him via phone or Zoom. He did, however, provide a statement shared with other outlets, offering limited explanation for why the company decided 2026 was the year for the app to host this event.
“Grindr represents a global community with real stakes in Washington. The issues being debated here — HIV funding, digital privacy, LGBTQ+ human rights — are daily life for our community. Nobody does connections like Grindr, and WHCD weekend is the most iconic place in the country to make them. We figured it was time to host.”
Hack said the company has been “well received” by lawmakers in both parties and has found “common ground” on issues such as HIV funding and keeping minors off the app. He credited longstanding relationships in Washington and what he described as Grindr’s “respectful” approach to lobbying.
Hack, a longtime Republican-aligned lobbyist, previously worked for several GOP lawmakers, including U.S. Sens. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), George Voinovich (R-Ohio), Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), and U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.).
According to congressional disclosure forms compiled by OpenSecrets, Grindr spent $1.3 million on lobbying in 2025— more than Tinder and Hinge’s parent company Match Group.
“This is going to be elevated Grindr,” Hack told TheWrap when describing the invite-only party that has already generated buzz on social media. “This isn’t going to be a bunch of shirtless men walking around. This is going to be very elevated, elegant, but still us.”
He also pointed to the company’s work on HIV-related initiatives, including efforts to maintain federal funding for healthcare partners that distribute HIV self-testing kits through the app.
The event comes at a particularly notable moment for an LGBTQ-focused connection platform to enter the Washington social circuit at a high-profile political weekend, as LGBTQ rights remain under constant attack from conservative lawmakers, particularly around transgender healthcare, sports participation, and public accommodations.
2026 Midterm Elections
HRC endorses Va. ballot initiative to redraw congressional districts
Referendum to take place April 21
The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBTQ civil rights organization, has endorsed a Virginia ballot initiative that would allow the state to redraw its congressional districts this year, ahead of the 2030 Census.
Currently, Virginia’s Redistricting Commission — a legislative body made up of eight legislators and eight citizens, evenly split between Republicans and Democrats — is responsible for redrawing congressional districts every 10 years following the Census. The proposed amendment would temporarily shift that authority to the Virginia General Assembly through 2030, before returning it to the commission in 2031.
Supporters say the push for the amendment comes in response to anti-democratic moves by several Republican-led state legislatures following demands from President Donald Trump, which have resulted in newly gerrymandered congressional maps that advocates argue disenfranchise pro-equality voters.
Under the proposed map in Virginia, Democrats could gain as many as four of the five seats currently held by Republicans in this fall’s midterm elections, when control of the narrowly divided House is up for grabs.
Six states — including Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina on the GOP side — enacted new maps last year at Trump’s behest. The most significant Democratic counter-effort so far has come from California.
HRC President Kelley Robinson issued a statement backing the measure, encouraging Virginia voters who support democracy to vote “yes,” saying it would ensure “the will of the people is heard.”
“Voters should choose their leaders, not the other way around. But anti-equality lawmakers around the country, in service to Donald Trump’s assaults on democracy, are trying to undermine our elections and engineer their preferred outcome in the midterms,” Robinson said. “The American people are ready to take Congress back from the anti-equality, anti-freedom politicians that have been abusing their power to hurt all our communities and bend government to the will of a wannabe king.”
U.S. Rep. Don Beyer, who represents Virginia’s 8th Congressional District that encompasses much of Washington’s suburbs, including Alexandria, Arlington, Falls Church, and parts of eastern Fairfax County — has also voiced support for the measure. He has called Trump’s attempts to influence elections ahead of the November midterms a “betrayal of our democracy,” emphasizing that while the fight is ongoing, this effort is a step toward correcting the situation.
“It’s not a done deal by any means,” Beyer said in an op-ed for the Cardinal News. “We have to effectively make the case that even though this seems unfair in Virginia, it’s totally fair for America, for those of us who believe that taking back the House is the most significant thing we can do to stop Donald Trump.”
Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger is another staunch supporter of the amendment, arguing that it would, through bipartisan means, help counterbalance Trump’s efforts in what remains an uphill battle.
“As early voting begins tomorrow on Virginia’s redistricting amendment, voters should know that Virginia’s approach is different. It is temporary, directly responsive to what other states decide to do, and — most importantly — it preserves Virginia’s bipartisan redistricting process for the future,” the first female governor of the state said in a statement. “I supported the formation of Virginia’s bipartisan redistricting commission in 2020, and that support has not changed. What has changed is what we’re seeing in states across the country — and a president who says he is ‘entitled’ to more Republican seats before this year’s midterm elections.”
“Virginians have the opportunity to take action in response to this extraordinary moment in history,” she added. “That’s why, as a Virginia voter, I’m voting in favor of this amendment.”
Virginians for Fair Elections, the group responsible for marketing the initiative, has raised nearly $50 million dollars, according to the Virginia Public Access Project, a nonpartisan organization focusing on sharing public documents related to financial matters of the state. The ads notably feature former President Barack Obama, who supports the measure and has hailed it as a way to “level the playing field.”
In a recent Politico article, a person close to the White House, granted anonymity, suggested the outlook for Trump’s governing majority is weakening — particularly following the unraveling of the Iran war — underscoring why the administration is pushing Republican-led states to maximize their advantage ahead of the midterms.
“This war in Iran almost cements the fact that we lose the midterms in November — the Senate and House,” the person said.
According to The Economist, Trump holds a 37 percent approval rating, with 56 percent of respondents disapproving of his handling of the presidency.
This is not the first time Virginia has held a special election for a statewide ballot initiative. Most recently, in 1956, voters approved a measure that led to the use of public funds to provide tuition grants for students attending nonsectarian private schools.
Early voting is already underway in the Old Dominion, with Election Day set for April 21.
Politics
Trump’s war threats trigger rare 25th Amendment discussion
President threatened to destroy Iranian civilization in Truth Social post
Following multiple brazen Truth Social posts this week related to the ongoing war with Iran — one which he said he could wipe out “a whole civilization,” — Democrats are seizing the opportunity to gain momentum in ousting President Donald Trump from office.
As the war with Iran continues to unfold, Trump appears increasingly frustrated — and willing — to use any means necessary to achieve his goals of ending the country’s nuclear capabilities, destroying its military, and ushering in regime change. So far, none of these goals have been met. As his frustration grows, so do calls to invoke a never-before-used safeguard for the nation—the 25th Amendment.
“A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again,” Trump posted on Truth Social on Tuesday morning. “I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will.”
This came only days after Trump posted a now-deleted, expletive-filled demand for the country to reopen the Strait of Hormuz on Easter Sunday, saying, “Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell.” On the same day, Trump told The Hill he would not rule out sending ground troops. And he told Fox News Sunday that he’s “considering blowing everything up and taking over the oil” if Iran doesn’t accept his deal.
The president then set a new deadline of 8 p.m. ET on Tuesday for Iran to reach a deal with the U.S., marking yet another extension, which did lead to a two-week ceasefire.
Since the president’s tirade, Democratic legislators in federal office have condemned his words, while Republicans are quietly standing behind him. Former Trump allies are among the loudest voices advocating for invoking the 25th Amendment, as some in international government organizations have sharply called Trump’s threats illegal.
“If there’s an attack on clearly civilian infrastructure, that is not allowed under international humanitarian law,” Stéphane Dujarric, spokesman for the United Nations secretary-general, said last week.
That concern is heightened by the broader human rights landscape in Iran, where violations of international legal standards are already well documented — particularly when it comes to LGBTQ people.
Iran has some of the harshest laws in the world regarding LGBTQ rights, policies that human rights advocates say are themselves in violation of international law.
Under the country’s legal system, all sexual activity outside a traditional Islamic marriage is illegal, including same-sex relations. Sexual activity between members of the same sex is criminalized and, in some cases, punishable by death under Iran’s Islamic Penal Code.
With international officials raising concerns about the legality of Trump’s threats, the conversation in Washington has increasingly shifted from condemnation to potential consequences, namely, whether the 25th Amendment could be used to hold him accountable.
“Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, which has never been invoked, allows for the vice president and a majority of Cabinet secretaries (or another body as Congress may provide) to declare the president unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office,” according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. “The vice president would then immediately assume the role of acting president.”
Although there seems to be momentum from Trump adversaries, this is unlikely, according to PolitiFact.
“For all of the partisan chatter, it is highly unlikely this legal procedure to remove a president will happen,” Louis Jacobson and Amy Sherman wrote for the nonprofit political fact-checking website that is operated by the Poynter Institute.”Trump has the support of Vice President JD Vance, his Cabinet and the majority of Republicans in Congress.”
Delaware Congresswoman — and the first transgender legislator on Capitol Hill — Sarah McBride issued a statement in response to Trump’s words.
“In a political career defined by grotesque statements, this president’s horrifying, illegal, and genocidal threat this morning is among the most dangerous and appalling,” McBride said. “You can’t shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, and a president cannot be allowed to threaten genocide with the United States military. Threats of war crimes and disregard for human life must be met with accountability under the law.”
She then, like many others, called for removing the president from office to protect the American people.
“Trump must go — and Republicans, whether in the Cabinet or Congress, must join Democrats in using any and all constitutional powers at our collective disposal to end this illegal war and take the gun out of this madman’s hands,” said McBride, the Congressional Democratic Women’s Caucus whip.
Mark Takano, the first openly gay person of color elected to Congress, pointed out that Trump’s ceasefire is only temporary, and does not ensure that Americans won’t be called to fight in a war they didn’t ask for.
“We heard no plan to end this war and no commitment to keep American boots out of Iran,” Takano said on X.
U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), the first openly gay member elected to the U.S. Senate, used her platform to remind Trump — and the world — that diplomacy remains critical.
“Diplomacy has always been the answer, which is why the president shouldn’t have gotten us into this war of choice,” a statement read on X. “It’s been reckless, cost U.S. soldiers their lives, and is raising prices on families. A ceasefire is a start, but Congress needs to do our jobs and end this war.”
“The House must pass articles of impeachment, and then the Senate must vote to convict and remove the President,” U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), vocal supporter of LGBTQ rights wrote in a statement on X. “Or, the Cabinet and vice president, with congressional concurrence, must invoke the 25th Amendment and remove Trump.”
“Donald Trump’s instability is more clear and dangerous than ever,” said former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
Multiple other Democrats also called for removing the president for violating international and constitutional law. U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) called for “this unhinged lunatic” to “be removed from office.” U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), said, “Threatening war crimes is a blatant violation of our Constitution and the Geneva Conventions.” U.S. Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), told Midas Touch Journalist Scott MacFarlane “In the last 48 hours alone, the rhetoric has crossed every line.”
In addition to Democrats, some staunch Trump supporters have also been loudly criticizing the president’s handling of the Iran war.
Conspiracy theorist, former Trump confidant, and $1.3 billion defamation case loser for spreading far-right lies, Alex Jones, asked “How do we 25th Amendment his ass?” on Monday’s InfoWars show.
Georgia Republican, former member of the House of Representatives, and former high-profile MAGA ally Marjorie Taylor Greene called Trump’s post about destroying civilizations “evil and madness” and posted a simple “25TH AMENDMENT!!!”
Judge rescinds stay-away order in Capital Pride anti-stalking case
The latest Supreme Court case erasing LGBTQ identity
Calendar: April 17-23
Team DC’s annual gala set for this weekend
LGBTQ Catholic groups slam Trump over pope criticism
Trump budget targets ‘gender extremism’
Court orders Pride flag to return to Stonewall
Sri Lankan government withdraws support for LGBTQ tourism initiative
In an act of artistic defiance, Baltimore Center Stage stays focused on DEI
Susan Lucci on love, loss, and ‘All My Children’
-
Federal Government5 days agoTrump budget targets ‘gender extremism’
-
New York4 days ago
Court orders Pride flag to return to Stonewall
-
Sri Lanka4 days ago
Sri Lankan government withdraws support for LGBTQ tourism initiative
-
Arts & Entertainment5 days ago
In an act of artistic defiance, Baltimore Center Stage stays focused on DEI
