National
U.S. commission considers ways to stop anti-gay Uganda bill
U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) (DC Agenda photo by Michael Key)
Greater involvement from first lady Michelle Obama was one option discussed during a recent congressional hearing as a way for the U.S. to help derail a harshly anti-gay bill in Uganda from becoming law.
Cary Alan Johnson, executive director of the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, was among the people who testified before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission on Thursday that Obama’s work against the international HIV/AIDS epidemic would make her a strong voice against the bill.
Johnson said the women’s caucus in the Ugandan parliament is supporting the legislation and opposition from the first lady — as well as President Obama — could influence women’s groups in Uganda to drop their support.
“I’m wondering if there is women leaders within the U.S. Congress — and perhaps the first lady herself — might be able to play some role in having discussions about the potential impact of this bill — not just on human rights, but on HIV prevention within the country,” Johnson said.
Julius Kaggwa, a leader of the Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights & Constitutional Law who came from Uganda to testify on the legislation, also said greater involvement from President Obama and Michelle Obama would be helpful in efforts to stop the bill.
“If President Obama and the first lady of the United States can engage more with our first family — especially in the area of HIV/AIDS, which is of great concern to us as sexual minorities — and the issue of human rights generally, I think that would be very, very helpful,” he said.
A stronger voice from the first lady and President Obama was one among several options considered to stop the anti-gay legislation that’s been pending the Uganda parliament since October.
Homosexual acts are already illegal in Uganda, but the bill would, among other things, institute the death penalty for repeat offenders of the homosexual acts ban and for those who have homosexual sex while HIV positive. The harsh penalties for LGBT people in the legislation have inspired growing outrage and concern around the world, including LGBT activists in the U.S.
Karl Wycoff, deputy assistant secretary of state for East African Affairs (DC Agenda photo by Michael Key)
Karl Wycoff, deputy assistant secretary of state for East African Affairs, testified that the State Department has been working to prevent the bill from being enacted into law even as the U.S. considers the country an ally.
“The introduction of this anti-homosexuality bill in Uganda characterizes just such a moment — one where we must say to our friends who’s friendship we value that together we must stand against injustice, and in this case, injustice against the LGBT community,” he said.
Wycoff noted how the White House in January issued a statement in opposition to the legislation and said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has expressed concerns about the bill with Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni in addition to publicly opposing the legislation in two speeches.
“Our embassy … has been very active on this subject with representatives of the Ugandan government, with civil society, with local gay and lesbian groups and with others who press for this bill to be dropped,” Wycoff said.
Last month, DC Agenda first reported State Department officials had received assurances from Museveni that he would work to block the legislation from becoming law and would veto the bill should it come to his desk. But during the hearing, Wycoff declined to characterize publicly the discussions the State Department had with the president.
Witnesses also discussed efforts of activists within Uganda working to prevent the bill from becoming law. Kaggwa said local groups have been trying to stop the measure, but noted that persuading lawmakers to oppose the bill is difficult because of the country’s deep cultural beliefs against homosexuality.
Kaggwa said one of the best points for opponents to bring up about the legislation is how it would require Ugandan citizens to report on those believed to be homosexual.
“The element of setting a mother against a daughter, the element of setting a sister against a brother, is something that we all can identify with,” Kaggwa said. “These are the arguments that we are using. We should make this bill really draconian, that instead of bringing together families, instead of preserving family, as purported by people who are pushing the bill, it’s [separating] families.”
Following the testimony, lesbian Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), who chaired the hearing, told reporters that bolstering the local effort in Uganda against the legislation would be one means for the United States to step up efforts against the bill.
“I do think it is important for us to listen and receive guidance from people on the ground in Uganda — not just thinking from afar what to do,” she said. “I think there’s probably additional ways where we can empower local activists, local voices in Uganda at the same time as we speak crystal clear our dedication to human rights for all [people] across the globe.”
Another option lawmakers are considering is revoking Uganda’s beneficiary trade status should the bill become law. Baldwin noted during the hearing that earlier this month, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) sent a letter to Clinton saying Uganda’s trade relationship with the United States would be revoked if the country’s parliament enacts the legislation.
While a number of strategies were put forth as ways to prevent the legislation from becoming law, one option witnesses denied as being an appropriate response was restriction of funds under the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. The program, also known as PEPFAR, is a multi-billion dollar initiative started by former President George W. Bush that provides treatment for people living with HIV/AIDS in developing countries.
Christine Lubinski, executive director of the HIV Medicine Association, said the $1.3 billion that the U.S. spends in aid to Uganda is “too much of a day-to-day lifeline for too many people.”
“It seems like there’s significant other avenues to pursue; the HIV money would not be good one,” she said.
But Johnson said there could be other avenues to pursue with AIDS relief money if Uganda passes the legislation. He said PEPFAR money could be “channeled differently” to non-governmental organizations that would implement HIV/AIDS relief programs in the country.
Another concern raised during the hearing was whether international efforts would have an adverse effect on stopping the anti-gay legislation because of the country’s history under colonial rule.
Wycoff said attention from the international community has actually contributed to some efforts in Uganda calling for the passage of the legislation.
“Ironically, foreign criticism of the bill has in some ways bolstered internal support for the legislation as many Ugandans interpret foreign condemnation as interference in their internal affairs,” he said.
But Kaggwa said international concern about the legislation is helpful, so long as local opposition against the bill is heard just as strongly.
Julius Kaggwa, a leader of the Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights & Constitutional Law (DC Agenda photo by Michael Key)
“It is important that these local, indigenous voices are heard as heavily or as loudly as the international voices,” he said. “We believe that if that voice supplements our own voices, then we will be productive. But if the foreign voices are louder than ours, then I’m afraid that might have a counter-productive effect.”
Johnson said people opposed to the legislation are working to make sure both local and regional voices are heard against the bill, and that Obama could make the local voices stronger.
“I think that could be an aspect in which the administration could be more proactive in terms of talking to other African nations, and talking to the African Union, about making its voice heard on the legislation,” he said.
A number of Democratic U.S. House members spoke out against the bill during the hearing. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), co-chairman of the commission, said the bill “is steeped in religious bigotry and homophobia.”
“I want to make it clear that there are many members in this Congress — both Democrat and Republican — who have deep, deep concerns about what’s happening in Uganda and are outraged by this draft legislation,” he said.
Baldwin called the legislation “an extreme and hateful attempt to make people criminals not because of anything they do, but because of who they are and who they love.”
She noted that 90 other U.S. House members joined her in signing a letter to presidents Obama and Museveni, requesting their strong opposition to the legislation.
“I hope that all Ugandans, and particularly those who are [LGBT], will hear the voice of this Congress state very clearly that we will not tolerate these types of human rights violations,” she said.
No Republican member of the commission attended the hearing. A Republican staffer for the commission didn’t immediately respond to DC Agenda’s request to comment on why GOP members were absent.
Federal Government
Inside the LGBTQ records of Todd Blanche and Markwayne Mullin
Two men are acting attorney general, DHS secretary
President Donald Trump became famous for his use of the phrase “You’re fired!” while hosting the reality TV show “The Apprentice” in the early 2000s. However, during his time in the Oval Office, he has attempted to distance himself from that image.
Despite those efforts, the phrase once again comes to mind as Trump has fired two high-level female Cabinet members within the past month: Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem.
Their replacements — Todd Blanche at the Justice Department and Markwayne Mullin at the Department of Homeland Security — bring records that, while different in depth, both reflect limited support for LGBTQ protections and, in some cases, direct opposition.
Todd Blanche
Acting attorney general
Little has been found regarding Todd Blanche’s LGBTQ history prior to his role as acting head of the Department of Justice. Unlike those who have worked within the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division or served as state attorneys general, he has not developed a public-facing legal ideology on LGBTQ issues.
Blanche attended American University for his undergraduate studies — like fellow Trump attorney Michael Cohen — where he met his future wife, Kristin, who was studying at nearby Catholic University in D.C.
He began his legal career as an intern at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, which eventually became a full-time position. He later worked as a paralegal in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York while attending Brooklyn Law School at night. Blanche graduated cum laude in 2003. He and his wife later married and had two children.
Blanche left the U.S. attorney’s office in 2014, taking a job in the Manhattan office of the law firm WilmerHale. In September 2017, he moved to Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, where he was a partner in the White Collar Defense and Investigations practice.
In his personal capacity, he represented several figures associated with Donald Trump and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, including Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort, businessman Igor Fruman, and attorney Boris Epshteyn.
In 2024, Blanche switched from Democrat to Republican, aligning himself with Trump’s political orbit. He later served as Trump’s personal defense attorney in the New York State case that led to Trump’s 2024 conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up hush-money payments to bisexual adult film star Stormy Daniels.
Now the highest-ranking official at the Justice Department, Blanche has played a central role in overseeing the department and has been involved in leadership decisions tied to several controversial actions affecting LGBTQ people.
In a letter to New York Attorney General Letitia James, Blanche declared that the Justice Department “will not sit idly by while you attempt to use your office to force harmful procedures on our most vulnerable population,” if legal action were taken against NYU Langone. The hospital had “permanently” ended a program earlier that month after the Trump-Vance administration threatened to pull all federal funding if it continued prescribing puberty blockers and hormones to minors.
Blanche wrote that “the Justice Department believes the law is clear, and anti-discrimination laws cannot be used to force NYU Langone to perform sex-rejecting procedures on children.”
“As just one example, your office’s position would require a hospital to prescribe certain medications for certain diagnoses, regardless of the hospital’s or its doctors’ independent medical determination about the propriety of such treatment,” he said.
Blanche also echoed his predecessor’s public stance on limiting LGBTQ-related protections at the federal level, aligning with Bondi’s sentiments in June 2025 regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision that restricted LGBTQ history lessions in schools and limits lower federal courts from issuing nationwide injunctions — rulings that have often blocked Trump administration policies.
Calling it “another great decision that came down today,” Blanche argued that the ruling “restores parents’ rights to decide their child’s education,” adding: “It seems like a basic idea, but it took the Supreme Court to set the record straight, and we thank them for that. And now that ruling allows parents to opt out of dangerous trans ideology and make the decisions for their children that they believe is correct.”
In December 2025, a Justice Department memo stated that, “effective immediately,” prisons and jails would no longer be held responsible for violations of standards meant to protect LGBTQ people from harassment, abuse, and rape under the Prison Rape Elimination Act. The law, passed unanimously by Congress in 2003, requires that incarcerated people be screened for their risk of sexual assault, including consideration of LGBTQ status, and applies to all correctional facilities.
Additionally, when the Justice Department, under Blanche’s deputy leadership and at Trump’s behest, attempted to force Children’s National Hospital in D.C. to turn over medical records related to gender-affirming care, U.S. District Judge Julie R. Rubin ruled that the effort “appears to have no purpose other than to intimidate and harass.”
Blanche is also described as having a “strong belief in executive authority.”
Markwayne Mullin
Secretary of Homeland Security
While Blanche’s record is defined more by recent actions than a long paper trail, Markwayne Mullin brings a more established history on LGBTQ issues from his time in Congress.
The head of the Department of Homeland Security has served in Congress since 2013, in both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. He has been actively engaged in shaping restrictions and aligns with broader cultural rhetoric that frames anti-LGBTQ speech as protected expression.
In May 2016, Mullin criticized the Department of Education and the Justice Department’s “Dear Colleague” letter on transgender students, arguing that trans girls should not use girls’ restrooms in public schools.
By January 2021, Mullin and then-Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard had introduced a bill to prevent trans women from participating in women’s sports.
Mullin was not recorded as voting on the final passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, which codified federal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriage.
In 2023, Mullin received a rating of just 6 percent from the Human Rights Campaign.
While serving in the Senate and as a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, Mullin has been a vocal critic of policies aimed at expanding LGBTQ inclusion in federal programs. He has participated in broader Republican efforts questioning equity-based implementation of the Older Americans Act, including guidance related to sexual orientation and gender identity in aging services, arguing such policies could have unintended consequences.
Mullin also makes history as the first Native American — and a citizen of the Cherokee Nation — to lead the Department of Homeland Security.
He was among the 147 Republicans who voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election results despite no evidence of widespread fraud, and was present in the House on Jan. 6.
Noticias en Español
La X vuelve al tribunal
Primer Circuito examina caso del reconocimiento de personas no binarias en Puerto Rico
Hace ocho meses escribí sobre este tema cuando todavía no había llegado al nivel judicial en el que se encuentra hoy. En ese momento, la discusión se movía entre decisiones administrativas, debates públicos y resistencias políticas. No era un asunto cerrado, pero tampoco había alcanzado el punto actual.
Hoy el escenario es distinto.
La organización Lambda Legal compareció ante el Tribunal de Apelaciones del Primer Circuito en Boston para solicitar que se confirme una decisión que obliga al gobierno de Puerto Rico a emitir certificados de nacimiento que reflejen la identidad de las personas no binarias. La apelación se produce luego de que un tribunal de distrito concluyera que negar esa posibilidad constituye una violación a la Constitución de Estados Unidos.
Este elemento marca la diferencia. Ya no se trata de una discusión conceptual. Existe una determinación judicial que identificó un trato desigual.
El planteamiento de la parte demandante se sostiene en el propio marco legal vigente en Puerto Rico. Los certificados de nacimiento de identidad no son registros históricos inmutables. Son documentos utilizados para fines actuales y esenciales. Permiten acceder a empleo, educación y servicios, y son requeridos en múltiples gestiones ante el Estado. Su función es operativa.
En ese contexto, la exclusión de las personas no binarias no responde a una limitación jurídica. Puerto Rico permite la corrección de marcadores de género en certificados de nacimiento para personas trans binarias desde el caso Arroyo González v. Rosselló Nevares. Además, el Código Civil reconoce la existencia de certificados que reflejan la identidad de la persona más allá del registro original.
La diferencia radica en la aplicación.
El reconocimiento se concede dentro de categorías específicas, mientras que se excluye a quienes no se identifican dentro de ese esquema. Esa exclusión es el eje de la controversia actual.
El argumento presentado por Lambda Legal es preciso. Obligar a una persona a utilizar documentos que no reflejan su identidad implica someterla a una representación incorrecta en procesos fundamentales de la vida cotidiana. Esto puede generar dificultades prácticas, exposición innecesaria y situaciones de vulnerabilidad.
Las personas demandantes, nacidas en Puerto Rico, han planteado que el acceso a documentos precisos no es una cuestión simbólica, sino una necesidad básica para poder desenvolverse sin contradicciones impuestas por el propio Estado.
El hecho de que este caso se encuentre en el sistema federal introduce una dimensión adicional. No se trata de un proyecto legislativo ni de una política pública en discusión. Es una controversia constitucional. El análisis gira en torno a derechos y a la aplicación equitativa de las leyes.
Este proceso tampoco ocurre en aislamiento.
Se desarrolla en un contexto donde los debates sobre identidad y derechos han estado marcados por una mayor presencia de posturas conservadoras en la esfera pública, tanto en Estados Unidos como en Puerto Rico. En el ámbito local, esa influencia ha sido visible en discusiones legislativas recientes, donde argumentos de carácter religioso han comenzado a formar parte del debate sobre política pública. Esa intersección introduce tensiones en torno a la separación entre iglesia y Estado y tiene efectos concretos en el acceso a derechos.
Señalar este contexto no implica cuestionar la fe ni la práctica religiosa. Implica reconocer que, cuando determinados argumentos se trasladan al ejercicio del poder público, pueden incidir en decisiones que afectan a sectores específicos de la población.
Desde Puerto Rico, esta situación no se observa a distancia. Se experimenta en la práctica diaria. En la necesidad de presentar documentos que no corresponden con la identidad de quien los porta. En las implicaciones que esto tiene en espacios laborales, educativos y administrativos.
El avance de este caso abre una posibilidad de cambio en el marco legal aplicable. No porque resuelva de inmediato todas las tensiones en torno al tema, sino porque establece un punto de análisis jurídico sobre una práctica que hasta ahora ha operado bajo criterios restrictivos.
A diferencia de hace ocho meses, el escenario actual incluye una determinación judicial que ya identificó una violación de derechos. Lo que corresponde ahora es evaluar si esa determinación se sostiene en una instancia superior.
Ese proceso no define un resultado inmediato, pero sí establece un nuevo punto de referencia.
El debate ya no es teórico.
Ahora es judicial.
New York
Court orders Pride flag to return to Stonewall
Lambda Legal, Washington Litigation Group filed federal lawsuit
The Pride flag will once again fly over the Stonewall National Monument in New York following a court order requiring the National Park Service to raise it over the site.
The decision follows a lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal and the Washington Litigation Group in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which challenged the removal as unconstitutional under the Administrative Procedure Act and argued that the government unlawfully targeted the LGBTQ community.
In February, the NPS removed the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument, the first national monument dedicated to LGBTQ rights and history in the U.S. The move followed a Jan. 21 memorandum issued by President Donald Trump-appointed NPS Director Jessica Bowron restricting which flags may be flown at national parks. The directive limited displays to official government flags, with narrow exceptions for those deemed to serve an “official purpose.”
Plaintiffs successfully argued that the Pride flag meets that standard, given Stonewall’s status as the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ rights movement. They also contended that the policy violated the APA by bypassing required public input and improperly applying agency rules.
The lawsuit named Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Bowron, and Amy Sebring, superintendent of Manhattan sites for the NPS, as defendants. Plaintiffs included the Gilbert Baker Foundation, Village Preservation, Equality New York, and several individuals.
The court found that the memorandum — while allowing limited exceptions for historical context purposes — was applied unlawfully in this case. As part of the settlement, the NPS is required to rehang the Pride flag on the monument’s official flagpole within seven days, where it will remain permanently.
“The sudden, arbitrary, and capricious removal of the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument was yet another act by this administration to erase the LGBTQ+ community,” said Karen Loewy, co-counsel for plaintiffs and Lambda Legal’s Senior Counsel and Director of Constitutional Law Practice. “Today, the government has pledged to restore this important symbol back to where it belongs.”
“This is a complete victory for our clients and for the LGBTQ+ community,” said Alexander Kristofcak, lead counsel for plaintiffs and a lawyer with Washington Litigation Group. “The government has acknowledged what we argued from day one: the Pride flag belongs at Stonewall. The flag will be restored and it will fly officially and permanently. And we will remain vigilant to ensure that the government sticks to the deal.”
“Gilbert Baker created the Rainbow Pride flag as a symbol of hope and liberation,” said Charles Beal, president of the Gilbert Baker Foundation. “Today, that symbol is restored to the place where it belongs, standing watch over the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement.”
“The government tried to erase an important symbol of the LGBTQ+ community, and the community said no,” said Amanda Babine, executive director of Equality New York. “Today’s accomplishment proves that when we stand together and fight back, we win.”
“The removal of the Pride flag from Stonewall was an attempt to erase LGBTQ+ history and undermine the rule of law,” said Andrew Berman, executive director of Village Preservation. “This settlement restores both.”
With Loewy on the complaint are Douglas F. Curtis, Camilla B. Taylor, Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, Kenneth D. Upton Jr., Jennifer C. Pizer, and Nephetari Smith from Lambda Legal. With Kristofcak on the complaint are Mary L. Dohrmann, Sydney Foster, Kyle Freeny, James I. Pearce, and Nathaniel Zelinsky from Washington Litigation Group.
Lebanese LGBTQ group responds to latest war
Inside the LGBTQ records of Todd Blanche and Markwayne Mullin
PHOTOS: Denali at Pitchers
Whitman-Walker Health to present ‘Pro Bono Excellence’ award to law firm
La X vuelve al tribunal
HRC endorses Va. ballot initiative to redraw congressional districts
The emperor has no clothes: how rhetoric fuels repression in Eswatini
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
-
2026 Midterm Elections4 days agoHRC endorses Va. ballot initiative to redraw congressional districts
-
Eswatini4 days ago
The emperor has no clothes: how rhetoric fuels repression in Eswatini
-
Rehoboth Beach4 days ago
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
-
National4 days ago
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
