D.C.’s Rainbow History Project is scheduled to open its WorldPride 2025 exhibition called “Pickets, Protests, and Parades: The History of Gay Pride in Washington” on Sunday, May 18, in Freedom Plaza.

Located on Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. between 13th and 14th streets less than three blocks from the White House, the exhibition will be open to the public free of charge for 24 hours through July 6.

The exhibition “will chronicle the local LGBTQ+ Pride movement and how the pickets and protests of the 1960s led to the vibrant celebrations of the 2020s,” a statement released by Rainbow History Project says.

The statement notes that the exhibition’s displays will include photos and information about a 1965 protest in front of the White House by 10 gay men and lesbians carrying picket signs in what is believed to be one of the city’s and possibly the nation’s first public demonstrations in support of the then homosexual community.

“The exhibition disrupts the popularly held belief that the LGBTQ+ rights movement began with the Stonewall Riots in 1969 in New York,” the statement points out. It says the 1965 gay protest outside the White House, which took place four years before Stonewall, represents “the start of D.C.’s rich queer history.”

“Covering 1965 to the present, the exhibition explores the history of Pride in D.C. in 10 distinct thematic eras,” according to the statement. “Large hero images around the perimeter will draw people into the exhibit to explore a timeline wall with historic quotes from Pride’s organizers. Each of the 10 eras are detailed in thematic cubes rich with history and visuals.”

The statement says Rainbow History Project is seeking community members to serve as Exhibit Monitors to assist in operating the display in four shifts each day and night to be compensated from between $80 and $100 per shift depending on the time of the shift.

Information about applying to become an exhibit monitor can be accessed at Rainbow History’s website.

Jeanine Pirro, the controversial Fox News host and commentator appointed by President Donald Trump on May 8 to become interim United States Attorney for the District of Columbia has a little-noticed record of partial support for gay rights while mostly opposing transgender rights.

She expressed support for gay rights during her tenure as a prosecutor and candidate for public office in New York State beginning in 2000, media reports show.

According to news media reports at that time in New York, Pirro actively supported the approval by the New York State Legislature of a hate crimes law that included sexual orientation as a protected class in 2000. Press reports show she also spoke out in support for anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ people during her unsuccessful election campaign for State Attorney General in 2006.

Although she supported civil unions rather than legal marriage for same-sex couples, Pirro spoke out strongly against a proposed federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, press reports show. However, media reports also show she supported the federal Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Reports show that in 2006 she acknowledged participating in both a Pride parade and a fundraising event organized by Log Cabin Republicans, the LGBTQ GOP group.

Other media reports show that Pirro called on the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) to ban transgender women from competing in women’s sports

“Women are being condemned, disavowed, and erased by allowing transgender women to compete with biological women in sports,” she stated on one of her Fox News talk shows. “This is the ultimate elimination and subjugation of women in our society,” she stated on that show.

In his decision to appoint Pirro as Acting U.S. Attorney for D.C., which by law is a temporary position, Trump has not said whether he plans to nominate Pirro for the permanent D.C. U.S. Attorney position.

Trump’s decision to name Pirro as acting U.S. Attorney came after congressional Democrats as well as some Republicans made it clear they would not support Ed Martin, Trump’s earlier appointment as acting D.C. U.S. Attorney for the permanent U.S. Attorney position.

The Washington Post reports that congressional Democrats have raised strong concerns about Pirro’s ability to serve as D.C.’s U.S. Attorney based, among other things, on her controversial statements as a Fox News talk show host.

The Post reports that she was among the Republicans who disputed the 2020 presidential election results, noting she was named as one of the Fox News commentator defendants in a defamation lawsuit filed by a company producing voting machines that accused Pirro and others with making false statements that faulty voting machines played a role in Trump receiving fewer votes than he actually received when he lost to Joe Biden in the 2020 election.

Congressional Democrats are also raising questions about whether Pirro has sufficient experience to serve as U.S. Attorney based on her past role as three-term Westchester County, N.Y. District Attorney, the Post reports. The Democrats reportedly are claiming Pirro lacks experience as a prosecutor in federal cases, which the D.C. U.S. Attorney prosecutes as well as local D.C. cases.

Trump, in a social media post, called Pirro a “powerful crusader for victims of crime.” Several prominent Republican U.S. senators also expressed strong support for Pirro’s appointment. 

“Jeanine Pirro has had a long and storied career as a prosecutor, and she is a great choice by [Trump] to serve as U.S. Attorney for D.C.,” the Post quoted Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) as saying.   

Pirro served as a judge in Westchester County, which is a suburb of New York City, before being elected as the county’s district attorney in 1993. She held that position until 2005, when she announced her GOP candidacy for New York’s U.S. Senate seat held then by Democrat Hillary Clinton, which was up for election in 2006.

The Post and other media outlets report conservative Republican leaders pressured Pirro to drop out of the U.S. Senate race on grounds that her moderate positions on a number of issues, including her support for a woman’s right to choose an abortion, would alienate conservative voters.

After withdrawing her candidacy for the Senate, Pirro became a candidate for the New York State Attorney General’s position.

She won the GOP nomination for that position and emerged, according to political observers, as a true “moderate” Republican on issues including her support for LGBTQ rights protections in employment and LGBTQ-inclusive hate crimes laws. In November 2006 Pirro lost the election to Democrat Andrew Cuomo.

Among the issues that hurt her campaign, media reports show, was her former husband’s conviction in 2000 on federal conspiracy and tax evasion charges following his tenure as Trump’s real estate attorney.

He was sentenced to 29 years in prison but served just 11 years before Trump pardoned him at the end of the last year of Trump’s first term as president. According to media reports, Jeanine Pirro lobbied Trump to pardon her ex-husband.

Wikipedia reports that in 2013 Pirro interviewed on her talk show William Owens, an official with the anti-LGBTQ National Organization for Marriage, which opposed same-sex marriage. But the Wikipedia write-up doesn’t say whether Pirro expressed her own views on that subject during the interview.

However, Wikipedia reports that in 2021 Pirro attended Log Cabin Republicans’ Spirit of Lincoln Gala, the group’s largest annual fundraising event.

Andrew Minik, president of Log Cabin Republicans of D.C., said the LGBTQ GOP group strongly supports President Trump’s decision to appoint Pirro as interim U.S. Attorney for D.C.

“Judge Pirro is a longtime friend and ally of Log Cabin Republicans, a fierce advocate for law enforcement officers, and defender of the rule of law,” Minik told the Blade in a statement. “Her appointment marks a turning point in restoring order and ending the culture of leniency that has put D.C. residents at risk,” he said.  

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest national LGBTQ advocacy organization, considers Pirro’s appointment “a slap in the face of justice,”  according to Brandon Wolf, the group’s national press secretary.

“Given her insulting comments about transgender people, the people of D.C. cannot count on Pirro to protect the rights of all of our residents and visitors,” Wolf said in a statement to the Blade.

“As U.S. Attorney, she would be responsible for prosecuting hate crimes and civil rights violations but based on her time as a Fox News talking head, she can be expected to advance the administration’s anti-LGBTQ+ agenda, including non-enforcement of critical civil rights protections,” Wolf said.

A three-judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals heard oral arguments May 7 on whether a 2023 decision by a D.C. Superior Court judge dismissing a lawsuit against seven of the eight former board members of the now-defunct Casa Ruby LGBTQ community services center should be overturned.

The Wanda Alston Foundation, an LGBTQ youth housing services group that assumed control over the operations of Casa Ruby in August 2022 under a court appointed receivership role, filed its lawsuit against the former board members in December 2022 under the Casa Ruby name.

It accuses them of violating D.C.’s nonprofit corporations’ law by failing to “hold regular meetings/or maintain official records – thereby exercising no oversight or governance over the organization.” 

Among other things, the lawsuit said the former board members failed to take steps to prevent Casa Ruby’s founder and former executive director, Ruby Corado, from embezzling large sums of Casa Ruby funds for personal use.

Corado, who was arrested in March 2024 on multiple embezzlement related charges, pleaded guilty in July 2024 to a single charge of wire fraud under a plea agreement with prosecutors. She is scheduled to be sentenced on July 29, 2025.

The lawsuit called on the court to require Corado and the former board members to pay “restitution, compensatory damages, punitive damages, receivership fees and expenses, court costs, attorneys’ fees and expenses and any other relief the court deems necessary and proper.”

In May 2023, at the request of defense attorneys, D.C. Superior Court Judge Danya A. Dayson dismissed the lawsuit against seven of the eight former board members but did not dismiss the case against Corado and one of the board members who allegedly received improper financial benefits from Corado.

Dayson stated in her dismissal decision that it was based on her interpretation of a D.C. law that members of an organization’s board of directors can only be held liable for harming an organization like Casa Ruby if they “intentionally, rather than negligently, inflicted harm on Casa Ruby.”

According to Dayson, the law in question also says board members can be held responsible for harming an organization if a “board member intentionally violated a criminal law or that the board member received some amount of money to which they were not entitled.” She states in her decision that the Alston Foundation lawsuit did not provide sufficient evidence that the seven board members committed those types of violations.

Attorneys for the Alston Foundation disputed Dayson’s interpretation of the law in their initial legal brief filed before the D.C. Court of Appeals in February 2024. Among other things, the brief argued that the Alston Foundation’s Third Interim Report in its role as Casa Ruby receiver provides sufficient evidence that the former board members are legally liable for harming Casa Ruby.

That and follow-up briefs and their oral arguments at the May 7, 2025, hearing state that the appeals court can find that the former board members “were deliberately indifferent’ or ‘willfully blind’ to the alleged wrongful conduct of the nonprofit’s executive director amounting to actual knowledge on their part that inaction would harm the non-profit, ultimately and forcibly leading to its financial inability to continue operating.”

A follow-up brief filed by Alston Foundation attorney Theodore Howard argues that the former board members violated Casa Ruby’s by-laws by conducting only one board meeting in six years.

According to the brief, that “allowed Ms. Corado to maintain complete authority over the organization, including by allowing her to unilaterally appoint new Board members” and allowed her “to maintain sole control over Casa Ruby’s bank and financial accounts, even after Ms. Corado cut off access to those accounts to anyone but herself.”

An opposing brief filed by attorney Marlin Grifith, who is representing former board member Miguel Rivera, states that the decision dismissing the lawsuit correctly interpreted the law pertaining to nonprofit corporations.

“The Superior Court did not err…,” the brief states, adding “there are no facts alleged that support a conclusion of reasonable inference that the individual board members acted with actual knowledge that their inaction would cause harm to the organization.”

Howard, the attorney representing the Alston Foundation in its role as Casa Ruby receiver, said the attorneys on both sides of the case are now waiting for the three-judge appeals court panel to issue their decision. 

If they rule in favor of Casa Ruby/Alston Foundation, the case will be sent back to the Superior Court for further proceedings on the lawsuit, Howard said. He said negotiations would likely begin for a possible out-of-court settlement.

If the appeals court rules in favor of the former board members by finding they did not intentionally and knowingly inflict harm to Casa Ruby, “then the case, at least as between Casa Ruby [via the Alston Foundation] and the former board of directors, will be over,” Howard said.