National
Would ENDA have a shot as a ‘jobs bill?’
Some see room for movement, others not so sure
LGBT rights supporters see room for passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in the U.S. Senate during the upcoming Congress — even as Republican control of the House makes final passage of the legislation highly unlikely.
The 2010 elections left the Senate in Democratic control — although by a reduced margin — providing an opportunity for passage in that chamber if certain conditions are met.
A Republican aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said passage of ENDA in the Senate is “possible” provided that President Obama strongly advocates for its passage.
“You would need the kind of push that you had behind ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,'” the aide said.
Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said “in theory” the Senate could pass ENDA because Democrats retained control of the chamber, although the conversations haven’t taken place yet about moving the bill forward.
Keisling added that the Senate is in a different position than it was in the previous Congress because it’s no longer trying to pass legislation that is being sent over by the House. With Republican control of the lower chamber, the Senate would be more inclined to vote on its own legislation.
“I don’t think of any us know what the Senate is going to be like this year,” she said. “The Senate wasn’t moving a lot of stuff regularly last Congress, but now that they have a different Democratic caucus, the Senate is now in a different position than they were before.”
Fred Sainz, vice president of communications for the Human Rights Campaign, said the prospects of ENDA passing in the Senate are “unknown” at this stage, but said his organization will continue to pursue all important pieces of legislation in both chambers of the next Congress.
“We think that it is important whether or not there’s Republican or Democrat control of the House that there would be a factual record that those pieces of legislation have been approved with even more co-sponsors in them,” Sainz said.
As it was introduced in the last Congress, ENDA would bar job discrimination against gay and transgender workers in most situations in the public and private workforce. Gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) introduced the legislation in the House and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) introduced the bill in the Senate.
The legislation stalled in the last Congress and saw no movement in either the House or the Senate. In the House, there was speculation that opponents would use a maneuver called the motion to recommit on the floor to target the transgender language and derail the legislation. Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she wouldn’t bring ENDA up for a vote until legislative action was complete on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Entering the early days of the 112th Congress, activists are uncertain about the timeline for moving forward with ENDA the next time around, such as when the bill would be introduced or when hearings might take place. Julie Edwards, a Merkley spokesperson, said the senator plans to reintroduce the legislation, although she said she doesn’t yet “have a sense of timing.”
Whether Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would bring up the legislation for a vote remains in question. Regan Lachappelle, a Reid spokesperson, said the majority leader supports ENDA, but said “Republican cooperation” will be necessary “to do anything.”
“It’s still early right now, so we’re still working on the schedule for this Congress, but it is something that he supports,” she said.
A Democratic aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the possiblity for action on ENDA in the Senate would become more clear following the week on Jan. 24 when Senate leadership makes it decisions on what the legislative priorities will be.
Even if it were passed in the Senate, most observers agree that the new Republican leadership makes passing ENDA highly difficult — if not impossible. Passage in the Senate could be a symbolic vote that would build momentum in a future Congress.
Keisling said the legislation has “zero chance” of making its way to Obama’s desk because of Republican control, citing a recent Washington Blade interview with Frank in which he said there was no chance of passing any pro-LGBT legislation this Congress.
“I never say never, but I can’t imagine the circumstances in which it’ll be signed into law this Congress,” she said.
The Republican aide said just because a clear path to passage doesn’t exist in the House, advocates shouldn’t give up on moving forward in the Senate.
“You have to approach this as kind of putting bricks in the wall,” the aide said. “With hate crimes, we were lobbing it left and right for years … but that also set us up to deal with passing it rather quickly when everything happened because we were able to say it passed the Senate five times.”
Sainz said emphasizing that ENDA is at its core a “jobs” bill could enable it to pick up support in the Republican House.
“From that sense, it should appeal to members of the House — and the Senate for that matter — because it’s really doing nothing more than putting people to work, and if they can’t work, then they’re reliant on government assistance,” Sainz said. “So it should be fairly intuitive to Republicans that this is really a ‘jobs’ measure.”
At the end of the last Congress, ENDA had 45 co-sponsors in the Senate, although former Sens. Roland Burris, Ted Kaufman, Edward Kennedy and Paul Kirk were listed as co-sponsors even though they were no longer in the Senate at the end of last year. Former co-sponsors Arlen Specter, Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold have since left the Senate.
It remains to be seen whether their successors would support ENDA, although new Democrats Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.) would be likely to support the legislation. Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) support “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and may also support ENDA. The offices of those senators didn’t respond to the Blade’s request for comment.
Kate Dickens, a spokesperson for Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), said the senator’s positions would be consistent “with his position on it while serving in the House — where he has been a supporter.”
One lingering question is whether a bill that includes protections on the basis of sexual orientation only — excluding the gender identity and expression provisions — would stand a better chance in the Senate or have a shot at passing in the House. In 2007, the U.S. House under Democratic control passed a non-inclusive ENDA that never saw a vote in the Senate.
The Republican aide said discussion about removing the transgender protections is a moot point because activists wouldn’t permit the removal of the legislation.
“They’re not going to, so I don’t even think it’s worth considering,” the aide said. “It’s just not worth saying ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ If it’s going to pass, it’s going to pass with the transgender in it. That’s all there is to it.”
Keisling said she thinks both a trans-inclusive and non-trans inclusive bill would have the same zero chance of making it through the House.
“There’s this weird notion that somehow Congress is fine with gay people,” she said. “It’s just not true. You saw how they tried to lay down in the road over ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ If Congress was so good with gay people, why are 90 percent of the gay congress people closeted?”
U.S. Military/Pentagon
Federal appeals court rules White House illegally banned trans troops
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says Pentagon will appeal to SCOTUS
A panel of federal appeals court judges ruled that President Donald Trump’s policy banning transgender troops likely violates their constitutional rights.
The three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that Trump’s Executive Order 14183, also known as “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” was created with the intent to exclude people from the military based on their gender identity.
The policy argues that trans people are inherently incapable of meeting the military’s “high standards of readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity,” citing a history of or signs of gender dysphoria as the cause. According to the Defense Department, this creates “medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on [an] individual.”
The policy states that, regardless of the physical or intellectual capabilities of each applicant, it views trans military applicants as a monolith, considering them less qualified than their cisgender peers.
Despite the panel’s majority opinion issued on Monday, the first day of Pride Month, the ban remains in effect. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Pentagon to enforce the policy last year and will continue to allow it to remain in place as litigation proceeds.
The panel’s new ruling will prevent the military from discharging current service members named in the lawsuit, but it does not allow new transrecruits to join.
The policy “appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender,” Judge Robert Wilkins, a Democratic appointee of President Barack Obama wrote for the majority.
Judge Justin Walker, the author of the dissenting opinion and a Republican Trump appointee, argued that the authority to determine military policy does not rest with the courts. Instead, he wrote, the Constitution grants that power to Congress through legislation and to the president as commander in chief of the armed forces.
“We have neither the expertise nor the authority to decide whether the military can exclude the plaintiffs from its ranks. The Constitution assigns that authority to Congress and the commander-in-chief,” Walker wrote.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth indicated that an appeal is in the works, posting, “See you at SCOTUS” on X on Monday in response to the ruling.
Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, which has led the litigation since last November, applauded the decision.
“Today’s decision is a powerful vindication of the plaintiffs’ extraordinary courage and unwavering commitment to their country,” Levi said.
The Washington Blade spoke with Second Lt. Nicolas (Nic) Talbott of the U.S. Army, the lead plaintiff in the case, and Levi from GLAD Law back in November.
While discussing the case and his experiences as a trans service member, Talbott said his identity is an asset rather than a hindrance, particularly when it comes to identifying problems and finding solutions, regardless of what others may think or say.
“Being transgender is not some sad thing that people go through,” Talbott told the Blade. “This is something that has taken years and years and years of dedication and discipline and research and ups and downs to get to the point where I am today … my ability to transition was essential to getting me to that point where I am today.”
He also discussed the impact of removing qualified and dedicated service members from the military, arguing that the consequences will be felt long after Trump leaves office.
“When we’re losing thousands of those qualified, experienced individuals … those are seats that are not just going to be able to be filled by anybody,” he said. “[That’s] military training that’s not going to be able to be replaced for years and years to come.”
“Every person who puts on the uniform is expected to make a tremendous amount of sacrifice,” Talbott said. “Who I am under this uniform should have no bearing on that … We shouldn’t be picking and choosing which veterans are worthy of our thanks on that day.”
Levi characterized the policy as overtly cruel and legally indefensible to the Blade.
“This policy and its rollout is even more cruel than the first in a number of ways,” Levi explained. “For one, the policy itself says that transgender people are dishonest, untrustworthy and undisciplined, which is deeply offensive and degrading and demeaning.”
She also argued that the administration’s cost justification is flawed, saying that removing and replacing trans service members is more expensive than retaining them.
“There’s no legitimate justification relating to cost … it is far more expensive to both purge the military of people who are serving and also to replace people … than to provide the minuscule amount of costs for medications other service members routinely get.”
National
Results from key Tuesday primary races
State officials in California had not called the governor’s race as of Wednesday morning but Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra appear likely to advance to the general election.
The race for governor has been scrambled several times after Kamala Harris opted not to run, Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out after sexual misconduct allegations surfaced, and Rep. Katie Porter’s campaign fizzled. Becerra would be the state’s first Latino governor since 1875 if elected. Hilton was endorsed by President Trump.
In the Los Angeles mayor’s race, the AP declared that incumbent Mayor Karen Bass will advance to the Nov. 3 runoff while former reality TV star Spencer Pratt and LA Council member Nithya Raman were competing for second place. California is notoriously slow in counting ballots and only about half of the results were available by Wednesday morning.
In San Francisco, Democratic State Sen. Scott Wiener advanced to the general election in November, besting Supervisor Connie Chan, who was endorsed by House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is retiring from Congress after nearly 40 years in the House.
In Iowa, Democratic state Rep. Josh Turek won the primary for an open U.S. Senate seat, defeating state Sen. Zach Wahls. Turek will face Rep. Ashley Hinson, who won the GOP primary with President Donald Trump’s endorsement, in the general election.
The Iowa seat is open because Sen. Joni Ernst (R) decided not to seek re-election. The primary was closely watched by LGBTQ advocates because Wahls rose to national prominence after a speech he made defending marriage equality went viral in 2011. Wahls was raised by a lesbian couple.
National
White House Correspondents’ Dinner rescheduled after shooting
‘We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word’
The White House Correspondents’ Association announced on Tuesday that it has rescheduled its annual dinner for July 24 after the April event was halted when gunshots rang out at the Washington Hilton.
Cole Allen, 31, is charged with the attempted assassination of President Trump, who was in the ballroom at the time of the incident. One Secret Service officer was wounded in the attack. Officers stopped Allen before he could enter the ballroom where 2,500 journalists and politicos were having dinner and waiting for Trump to speak. It was Trump’s first time attending as president.
“We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word, especially during a year when we are reflecting on the 250th anniversary of America and everything we stand for,” said WHCA President Weijia Jiang in a statement to members.
She did not announce further details, including venue and ticketing.
Washington Blade White House reporter Joe Reberkenny was in the audience when shots were fired and reported live on social media from the scene.
This post will be updated as more details are announced.
Federal appeals court rules White House illegally banned trans troops
Outright International honors Cyndi Lauper at annual NYC gala
Results from key Tuesday primary races
AIDS Healthcare Foundation announces 3 million people globally in its care
10 HIV/AIDS activists arrested on Capitol Hill
Time travelers from the AIDS era
Books for a pre-Pride celebration
Barney Frank’s powerful legacy for LGBTQ federal employees
Claudia López comes up short in Colombian presidential election
