National
Levin doubts votes for ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal
Sen. Carl Levin (DC Agenda photo by Michael Key)
A key senator who opposes “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is doubtful that sufficient support exists to repeal the law this year as he continues to push for a legislative moratorium on discharges.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) told reporters following a hearing Thursday he’d favor legislation to overturn “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year, but said there “will be great difficulty in succeeding in repeal.”
“I’m in favor of repeal, but I don’t favor going to a vote if it’s going to be a setback for those of us who think the program should be repealed,” he said. “I can take a whip check, but I think there’s a real problem … getting repeal approved.”
Fearing a lack of votes, Levin said he’s pushing for a legislative moratorium. The senator noted that such a measure would be “logical” because it doesn’t predetermine the outcome of the Pentagon study currently underway.
“Once the commander-in-chief says people shouldn’t be discharged for simply being gay, I think there’s real dilemma,” he said. “And when we think about that dilemma … hopefully, we’ll lead people to see that the moratorium is an attractive position because it doesn’t prejudge the outcome.”
Levin said he wants a legal opinion of the validity of a moratorium as well as what will happen with pending discharges as the Pentagon completes its review.
Asked whether the White House has been pushing for a moratorium as a way to address “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year, Levin replied, “Not to me. They may have in some other place.”
But groups opposing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are reluctant to embrace a moratorium and say there’s still an opportunity this year for repealing the law outright. In an organizational statement sent by spokesperson Trevor Thomas, the Human Rights Campaign emphasized the possibility of repeal this year.
“We believe the votes to repeal this failed law can be found and everyone who wants to see ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ end needs to strenuously lobby their elected leaders,” says the statement.
Kevin Nix, spokesperson for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, was similarly bullish in a statement on passing full repeal this year.
“It’s too early to be talking about … half measures like a moratorium,” he said. “We’re focused squarely on getting full, permanent repeal of [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’] in the defense authorization bill.”
Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said he would support any measure that “had a realistic chance” of alleviating the burden on gay service members, but noted that he was unconvinced a moratorium would be a politically easier vote than outright repeal.
“We’ve heard from some offices on the Hill that they don’t see a practical difference between the two,” he said. “So if there’s going to be a vote on anything this year, we would like it to be on full repeal.”
Nicholson said he would much prefer a push for a vote on full repeal “with modifications” rather than “settle for an equally tough vote on a temporary moratorium.”
During the hearing Thursday, lawmakers pressed Navy and Marine Corps leaders on their views on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
When Levin asked witnesses whether they support repeal of the 1993 law at this time, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said he favors repeal but also supports the study advanced earlier this month by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
“Since ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is a law, whatever happens resides in Congress,” he said. “I support the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ and I think the president has come up with a very practical and workable way to do that.”
Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway reiterated their support for the Pentagon’s review as they had done in congressional testimony Wednesday.
But Conway said he wouldn’t want any change to undermine military readiness, and noted that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is working. He advised against any change at this time.
“At this point, I think the current policy works,” he said. “My best military advice to this committee, to the secretary, to the president, would be to keep the law such as it is.”
In a statement, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis rebuked Conway for his remarks, saying the commandant was having his position both ways by supporting a study geared toward ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and opposing repeal at this time.
“General Conway was the only chief to say to Congress this week that the law is ‘working,’” Sarvis said. “It is not working. Having a law on the books that fires talented troops, at a time of two wars when all manpower is needed, is not effective and does not enhance the performance and readiness of the force.”
During the hearing, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), who’s slated next week to introduce Senate repeal legislation, said he agreed with Conway that overturning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” should be “held up to the standard of the military readiness.”
“I’m supportive of the end to ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” he said. “I believe it’s the fair and right thing to do, but in the end … this has to pass the test of military readiness.”
Lieberman said he believes repeal will pass this test based on what’s happened in other countries that have lifted their bans on open service.
“I hope that we will conclude repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ will enhance military readiness, but that’s yet to be determined as the study goes on,” he said.
The issue of what the United States can learn from foreign militaries in implementing repeal also emerged during the hearing. Roughead said the working group was necessary to examine the impact on repeal on the U.S. Navy. He said other studies on the effect of repeal on other navies that have lifted bans on open service don’t address the consequences of repeal in the United States.
“While I have high regard for those other forces, they are not us, they do not come from our culture, they do not come from the beliefs that young men and bring into the service,” he said.
Nathaniel Frank, author of “Unfriendly Fire” and research fellow at the Palm Center, has emphasized in arguments in favor of repeal how other countries have lifted bans on open service. Responding to Roughead, Frank said the United States can learn from these countries on this open service as it has on other issues.
“There’s no question that each culture is different, each military is different,” he said. “But the U.S. military has repeatedly looked to other militaries to study issues, including this issue, as well as housing and health and personnel management.”
Federal Government
Trump budget targets ‘gender extremism’
Proposed spending package would target ‘leftist’ political ideologies
The White House submitted its 2027 budget request to Congress last month, outlining a push for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to “proactively” target what it describes as “extremism” related to gender — raising concerns about the potential for law enforcement to target LGBTQ people.
The Trump-Vance administration’s 2027 budget request, submitted to Congress on April 4, proposes a dramatic increase in national security and law enforcement spending, while reducing foreign aid and restructuring multiple domestic security programs. In total, the administration is requesting $2.16 trillion in discretionary budget authority (including mandatory resources), a 15.3 percent increase over the 2026 proposal.
Central to the proposal is the creation of a new “NSPM-7 Joint Mission Center,” a direct follow-up to the September 2025 National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7). The directive instructs the Justice Department, the FBI, and other national security agencies to combat what the administration defines as “political violence in America,” effectively reshaping the Joint Terrorism Task Force network to focus on “leftist” political ideologies, according to reporting by independent journalist Ken Klippenstein.
The American Civil Liberties Union has characterized NSPM-7 as a way for President Donald Trump to intimidate his political enemies.
In a press release following the memorandum, Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, said, “President Trump has launched yet another effort to investigate and intimidate his critics,” and had described the move as an “intimidation tactic against those standing up for human rights and civil liberties.”
The proposed mission center would include personnel from 10 federal agencies tasked with targeting “domestic terrorists” associated with a wide range of ideologies. Among them is what the administration labels “extremism” related to gender, alongside categories such as “anti-Americanism,” “anti-capitalism,” “anti-Christianity,” and “support for the overthrow of the U.S. government.” The document also cites “hostility toward those who hold traditional American views” on family, religion, and morality — language LGBTQ advocates have increasingly warned could be used to frame queer and transgender rights movements as ideological threats.
The mission center is one component of a proposed $166 million increase in the FBI’s counterterrorism budget.
In total, the FBI would receive $12.5 billion for salaries and expenses under the proposal, a $1.9 billion increase. Planned investments include unmanned aerial systems operations and counter-drone capabilities, counterterrorism efforts, and security preparations for the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. The budget also cites 67,000 FBI arrests since Jan. 20, 2026, which it describes as a 197 percent increase from the prior year.
When Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, it also enacted 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5), which defines domestic terrorism as activities involving acts dangerous to human life that violate criminal laws and are intended to intimidate or coerce civilians or influence government policy through violence. That statutory definition has not changed.
However, federal agencies have historically categorized domestic terrorism threats into groups such as racially or ethnically motivated violent extremism, anti-government or anti-authority violent extremism, and other threats, including those tied to bias based on religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
The language in the budget suggests a shift in how those categories are interpreted and applied — particularly by explicitly linking “extremism” to gender and to perceived opposition to “traditional” views — without any corresponding change to federal law. Only Congress has the power to change the definition of domestic terrorism by passing legislation.
The budget document states:
“DT lone offenders will continue to pose significant detection and disruption challenges because of their capacity for independent radicalization to violence, ability to mobilize discretely, and access to firearms. Additionally, in recent years, heinous assassinations and other acts of political violence in the United States have dramatically increased. Commonly, this violent conduct relates to views associated with anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the U.S. government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility toward those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.”
This language echoes earlier actions by the Trump-Vance administration targeting trans people.
On the first day of his second term, President Trump signed Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”
The order establishes a strict binary definition of sex and withdraws federal recognition of trans people.
“It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female,” the order states. “‘Sex’ shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female. ‘Sex’ is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of ‘gender identity.’”
Appropriations committees in both chambers are expected to begin hearings in the coming weeks.
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.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Sri Lankan government withdraws support for LGBTQ tourism initiative
In an act of artistic defiance, Baltimore Center Stage stays focused on DEI
Trump budget targets ‘gender extremism’
Susan Lucci on love, loss, and ‘All My Children’
How to navigate shifting tenant expectations
Report: Grenell wants Russian ambassadorship
Trump’s war threats trigger rare 25th Amendment discussion
New book celebrates 1970s dance music icons
ROSENSTEIN: Vote McDuffie for mayor of D.C.
