National
General says open service would be problematic
A retired general who supports “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” raised eyebrows last week when he said open service in a foreign military led to a horrific massacre and suggested lifting the U.S. ban would lead to sexual assault.
During a hearing March 18 before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Gen. John Sheehan, a former commander for U.S. Atlantic Command, said lifting the ban on open service in the Netherlands contributed to the country’s inability to prevent the Srebrenica massacre in 1995.
The event, in which the Serbian military executed more than 8,000 Bosniak men and boys, occurred after a United Nations protection force of around 400 Dutch peacekeepers failed to stop the massacre.
Sheehan, who retired from the U.S. military 13 years ago, identified this event as a product of the how the Dutch — as well as other militaries throughout Europe — dropped their bans to include “open homosexuality” as part of the liberalization of these armed forces following the collapse of the Soviet Union.
“They declared a peace dividend and made a conscious effort to socialize their military,” he said. “They did not believe the Germans were going to attack again or the Soviets were coming back. That led to force that was ill-equipped to go to war.”
Sheehan said he heard from a former Dutch military leader that the Srebrenica killings were the result of the liberalization of the armed forces, which he called an effect of “social engineering.”
But Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) rebuked the notion that the massacre was the result of allowing gays to serve openly in the Dutch military.
“Any effort to connect that failure on the part of the Dutch to the fact that they have homosexuals or did allow homosexuals, I think, is totally off target,” he said. “I’ve seen no suggestion of that.”
Levin said the failures of Srebrenica were the result of Dutch troops being trained as peacekeepers and not what was required to conduct the mission.
In a statement provided by Levin, Dutch Ambassador to the United States Renée Jones-Bos said he “couldn’t disagree more” with Sheehan’s comments and that he takes pride in how lesbians and gays are allowed to serve openly in the Dutch military.
“The military mission of Dutch U.N. soldiers at Srebrenica has been exhaustively studied and evaluated, nationally and internationally,” he said. “There is nothing in these reports that suggests any relationship between gays serving in the military and the mass murder of Bosnian Muslims.”
Sheehan also expressed concern that open service would lead to sexual assault in the military, as well as other problems should gay service members engage in inappropriate contact with other troops.
Recalling his days in the Vietnam War, Sheehan said there was incident in which a young Marine was being molested by his sergeant in a foxhole. Sheehan noted that the two fought, and a machine gun section near the foxhole opened up and almost killed a combat patrol.
When the young Marine reported this incident, Sheehan said there was a disruption in unit cohesion because the sergeant denied molesting the young Marine and many didn’t believe the allegations.
“For about three days, that unit divided down the middle,” Sheehan said. “Those that supported the popular squad leader, [and] those that kind of thought the new kid might be believable.”
An end to divisiveness came, Sheehan said, when the sergeant committed the same offense three days later.
“But the real tragedy of this story is the young [private] continually insisted for a long period of time that nobody in his organization believed that it happened,” he said. “He lost faith in his chain of command.”
To further his case about concerns on sexual assault, Sheehan also cited a report from the Defense Department last year noting a net increase of 3,200 sexual assaults in the military. He said 7 percent of these incidents — or about 226 — were male-on-male assaults.
“I would stipulate that from my days in Vietnam in the early 60s, when I had this sergeant that almost got a combat patrol killed, to the 226 male soldiers and Marines who were molested, that there’s something wrong with our sexual behavior policy,” he said.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), the sponsor of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal legislation in the Senate, said he didn’t share the view that open service would lead to sexual assaults in the military.
“The episode you gave of the sexual assault, Gen. Sheehan, with one man assaulting another man, could, of course, easily and unfortunately does happen more with a man assaulting a women in uniform,” he said.
Lieberman noted statistics Sheehan gave of 7 percent of assaults being male-on-male means 93 percent are heterosexual assault.
“I know there may be fears that if we repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ there’ll be behavior inconsistent with good order and discipline, including sexual assault,” Lieberman said. “But if that happens, they’ll be held to the same account and discipline.”
Two witnesses who testified in favor of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” were Michael Almy, a gay former Air Force communications officer, and Jenny Kopfstein, a lesbian former Navy surface warfare officer. Almy was discharged from service under the ban in 2006 and Kopfstein was discharged in 2002.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) asked both Almy and Kopfstein whether they favored a “thorough, complete” review of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” as is currently underway in the Pentagon.
Kopfstein said she didn’t have a problem with the review, but that it’s clear the law should be changed.
Almy, however, said he doesn’t favor the study because other changes have taken place in the military without such work.
“We have not done this on any other issues with regard to change to the military — as far as, most recently, putting women in submarines, women in the service academies,” he said. “We did not survey the forces then on those issues. The military is not a democracy. I don’t see this issue as any different, senator.”
McCain said he was “confused about” the opposition to conducting the Pentagon study as means to find out whether “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” should be repealed.
“I will continue to argue and fight for whatever I can to make sure that we have a thorough, objective review of the impact on the military of the change of this law,” McCain said. “I think the men and women who serving in the military deserve no less.”
A number of committee members during the hearing expressed their personal viewpoints on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), who’s seen as a swing vote on repeal this year, emphasized the importance of waiting for the completion of the Pentagon review before taking action.
“I don’t want to predict at all where this is going to go,” he said. “I just think that it is vital that we can say to the people in the military and the American people that we’ve been responsible in terms of how a decision has been made.”
But Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) said that in response to the stories of people who are being expelled under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” a moratorium should be placed on the law’s enforcement to prevent further discharges.
“I think that we need to put a moratorium on this situation right now — don’t let anyone be discharged from the military because of their sexual orientation until we can change this law,” he said.
Following the hearing, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis said the hearing showed “a stark, realistic division” between young service members and retired members of the military from Sheehan’s generation.
“By and large, today’s warriors are fine with gays and lesbian serving openly,” he said. “Obviously, Gen. Sheehan, like some of the joint chiefs, are expressing resistance, dragging their feet.”
But Sarvis said the process that’s underway is examining how to bring about open service in the military “in a smooth, orderly way.”
“That’s what this debate should be about — it should be how,” he said. “It’s not if, it’s not whether, it’s about how we bring about this change.”
Last week’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing occurred alongside other events that brought attention to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” including Servicemembers Legal Defense Network’s lobby day on Capitol Hill; the Human Rights Campaign’s rally on Freedom Plaza; and an act of civil disobedience by gay U.S. Army Lt. Dan Choi, who handcuffed himself to the White House gates in protest of the law.
Michigan
Progressives score victory as El-Sayed wins Mich. Senate primary
Democratic newcomer will face Rogers in November
Michigan held its primary on Tuesday, allowing the two major political parties to select their nominees to go head-to-head for the state’s U.S. Senate seat.
NBC News called the Democratic race early, giving the victory to physician Abdul El-Sayed over incumbent U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) in an extremely close primary. El-Sayed won 48.5 percent of the primary vote, with Stevens trailing by just one percentage point at 47.5 percent.
Both candidates have campagined on supporting the LGBTQ community through different avenues— for El-Sayed he focused on his past promoting HIV and PrEP funding and research. Stevens focused on her legislative history working to support transgender rights in the state.
This is a major win for progressive Democrats, who have been bearing the brunt of political attacks from President Donald Trump, the Republican Party, and centrist Democrats.
El-Sayed, a former health director in Detroit, ran his campaign largely on making life in the Great Lakes State more affordable amid rising costs. His policies include promoting “Medicare for All,” pushing health policy that targets the regressive efforts of the Trump-Vance administration that rolls back funding for both Women and LGBTQ people, minimizing the growing amount of money in politics, and he was very vocal in his criticism of Stevens for supporting aid to Israel. He was endorsed by two major progressives — U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-N.Y.).
Stevens, the four-term congresswoman, is much closer to establishment Democrats on policy than El-Sayed.
During her time in the federal government, she has consistently supported the Equality Act, which would add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She has also emphasized supporting local manufacturing and lowering housing costs in the state.
She was named to Advocates for Trans Equality’s 118th Congressional Champions list for her pro-trans policies and was endorsed by establishment heavy hitters Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
The contentious race boiled down not only to Michigan affairs but also extended to international conflicts — namely Palestine. (South Africa has filed a case in the International Court of Justice in The Hague that accuses Israel of committing genocide in the Gaza Strip after Oct. 7.) This primary also acted as one of the first major races that pushed back against AIPAC, a lobbying group that works to promote pro-Israel candidates in U.S. elections. The group has been involved in domestic politics since 1954.
AIPAC devoted a massive amount of money to this race.
The Associated Press reported that the pro-Israel lobbying group spent more than $30 million on ads against El-Sayed because of his vocal denunciation of Israel and his continued criticism of its policies towards Palestine.
Michigan has a large Muslim and Arab American population, which could, in part, explain how El-Sayed was able to win.
The Republican side was far less competitive. Former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) ran unopposed and clinched the GOP nomination. He has consistently held anti-LGBTQ positions, going as far as voting multiple times for a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, voting against repealing the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, and supporting efforts to directly target the attempted expansion of Title IX protections to include trans people.
El-Sayed will face off against Rogers in November for Michigan’s Senate seat — one that could have lasting impacts not only on the state’s politics but also on the Republicans’ narrow Senate majority and Trump’s political agenda.
National
White House orders warning signs at Smithsonian over gender identity exhibits
Administration criticizes National Museum of American History
The Trump administration will install temporary warning signs outside the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History after releasing a report accusing the museum of promoting what it calls “radical” gender ideology and other politically biased content.
According to the Executive Order, “For purposes of policy formulation under EO 14253, this review of the National Museum of American History concludes that NMAH, by the intention and at the direction of current Museum and Smithsonian leadership, has become subject to institutional capture by a radical, activist ideology that is fundamentally opposed to telling the noble, honest story of the great country we know and love.”
Executive Order 14253 refers to what the White House has deemed the “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” order. Therefore, the Trump administration has said it will take all available steps to ensure that the issues in the report are addressed and rectified.
Without specifying, the White House has stated that warnings will be posted along NMAH to alert visitors to sections of the museum it has deemed are in violation according to the report.
“The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National Park Service (NPS) and in coordination with the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, shall install temporary signage along the NPS-maintained sidewalks and walkways used by the public to access the Museum, informing visitors of the findings of the Report and of the policy set forth in section 1 of this order,” the Executive Order states.
The warnings were raised in a 162-page report issued by the Domestic Policy Council. The report detailed ways in which the National Museum of American History (NMAH) has “poorly” portrayed American history and insufficiently highlighted the founding story during America 250th celebrations.
The report outlined key findings of the NMAH. One of these findings was the Center for Restorative History within the museum, which has stated its purpose is to “encourage systemic change” by highlighting diverse groups. However, the report states that it highlights every group of Americans except for straight and white Americans.
The Domestic Policy Council accused the museum of engaging in “transgender activism.” According to the report, examples include referring to “biological men” as women or girls, displaying what it describes as sexually suggestive content, and incorporating discussions of gender fluidity, gender identity, and gender nonconformity into the museum’s educational curriculum, “Becoming US.”
The report also criticizes the curriculum for using the term “transgender” when discussing gender-nonconforming people and encouraging individuals to ask a person’s pronouns when meeting them. It further objects to exhibits stating that “transgender, nonbinary, and cisgender female athletes” continue to struggle for and demand equality.
It also condemns what it refers to as explicit content in an exhibition, “Girlhood (It’s Complicated)”, such as chest binders, questioning gender testing in women’s sports, and referring to biological females as “people inhabiting female bodies.”
Additionally, the report accuses the museum of no longer participating in flag-celebrating ceremonies because it was “too busy” preparing for June Pride and WorldPride events. It states, “As Director Hartig explained in a June 2024 presentation, all her attention was focused on flying the Smithsonian Pride Alliance’s ‘intersexual pride flag during June’ in 2023 and 2024.”
On July 9, the American Historical Association issued a statement rejecting the report’s findings.
In regard to the report, it states, “Its anonymous authors overlook a central lesson of the nation’s founding: the United States was forged by finding common purpose amid intense divisions, conflicts, and disagreements.” They argue that only “honest history” can tell the true history of the nation.
House Republicans led a subcommittee hearing that questioned Smithsonian Director Hartig extensively. A main focus of the questions was on the exhibits related to gender identity and whether they were appropriate. In the hearing, Rep. Nancy Mace asked: “When was your gender revealed to you, Dr. Hartig?”
In response to questioning, Hartig stated that the institution is nonpartisan and does not push a specific agenda.
Hartig published a two-page statement ahead of her hearing outlining her thoughts on the situation. In the report, she states that the institution is always open to criticism and will continue to look for ways to improve, but she sees the report as misleading.
“I can attest that the report does not fairly characterize the full body of work at this museum. I am familiar with the depth and breadth of our collections, exhibits, and programming. And while I recognize there is always room for improvement, I also know the beauty, inspiration, and expertise that exists in our museum,” Hartig wrote.
Democrats created their own 16-page report as a rebuttal to the Domestic Policy Council’s report. It argued that the attacks by the current Trump administration are another example of its attempt to rewrite history. Additionally, the report states that no policy changes were included in the Executive Order, as that is beyond the President’s role. “The Report recommends nothing. That is no accident. To recommend an action, the Report would need to identify who is legally empowered to take it, and its own opening chapter concedes the President’s only power is to ‘urge’,” House Democrats wrote.
It is still unclear when the temporary warnings will be installed or what form they will take beyond the requirements outlined in the executive order.
An exhibit at the Smithsonian. (Washington Blade photo by Landon Shackelford)
National
Trump ends direct HIV prevention funding to community groups
Advocates say transfer of funds to states may disrupt local programs
A decision by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the request of the Trump administration to discontinue direct federal funding of community-based organizations and clinics that provide HIV prevention services has raised concern among community health advocates, including LGBTQ advocates.
News surfaced earlier this month that the OMB informed the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that it would not renew $46 million in funding for 96 community-based organizations that provide HIV testing, referrals to medical care, and arrangements for obtaining pre-exposure HIV prevention medication known as PrEP that has been shown to be 99 percent effective in preventing HIV infection.
Under the new policy arranged by OMB, the funds will be redirected to the states to be allocated to state and local health departments. The policy calls for states to encourage but not require their respective state and local health departments to allocate some of those funds for community-based organizations. Under the new policy, the funding is scheduled to last until May of 2027, before a renewal decision is made.
Some political observers have speculated that the decision to end direct federal funding to community-based organizations could be motivated by the Trump administration’s hostility to diversity, equity, and inclusion or DEI programs and organizations that promote those programs, with the belief that some of the groups receiving the federal HIV prevention funds are promoting DEI.
Carl Schmid, executive director of the D.C.-based HIV+ Hepatitis Policy Institute, is among the leaders of many AIDS advocacy organizations expressing strong opposition to the OMB action. Schmid said that in places like D.C. and some states, local officials will be willing to redirect the federal funds to local community-based organizations.
A list of the 96 community-based organizations across the country that are currently receiving the federal AIDS funds includes the D.C.-based Whitman-Walker Health, which has a long history of healthcare support for the LGBTQ community, and La Clinica del Pueblo, which reaches out to the Latino community.
Schmid said Whitman-Walker and La Clinica del Pueblo have longstanding good relationships with the local D.C. government.
“But other states and jurisdictions don’t have that relationship with the community-based organizations,” Schmid said. “It depends on the state,” he said, adding, “Not all states send their money to the communities that really need it most. And not all states are fast in getting money to the community-based organizations.”
Spokespersons for Whitman-Walker and La Clinica del Pueblo couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on whether they think the Trump administration’s latest action related to funding will adversely impact their respective organizations.
Schmid said under the current federal grant program slated to be discontinued, which has been in effect for at least five years, HIV-related health organizations receiving the federal grant funds were eligible for an existing federal policy enabling them to purchase HIV-related medication, including the PrEP prevention medication, at a significant discount from pharmaceutical companies. With the ending of the direct federal HIV funds to community-based organizations, Schmid said it was unclear whether problems may surface in obtaining drug discounts.
“They could still qualify as a sub-grantee from a state,” Schmid said. “But what if they don’t get that grant again? They would not be able to qualify to obtain the drugs” at the discounted price, he said.
Among the organizations expressing strong concern over the decision to discontinue the direct HIV prevention funding to community-based organizations has been the Federal AIDS Policy Institute and its subgroup called the HIV Prevention Action Coalition.
In a July 22 letter bearing the names of 71 community-based organizations from throughout the country sent to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Acting Director Jay Bhattacharya, the group called for the Trump administration to “reconsider” ending the current funding policy.
“Ending this program without a clear plan for what comes next would dismantle prevention infrastructure that has taken more than three decades of federal investment to build and do so just as that long record of measurable returns is accelerating,” the letter states.
It says the initiative by President Trump in his first term as president to end the HIV epidemic and reduce new HIV infections by 90 percent by 2030 was moving ahead by the funding program for community-based organizations that the administration now wants to end.
“Discontinuing this program would also cost far more than it saves,” the letter says. “Every HIV transmission prevented avoids an estimated lifetime treatment cost of roughly half a million dollars per person to the healthcare system – costs that fall heavily on taxpayer-funded programs, including Medicaid, Medicare, and the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program,” the letter continues.
“The choice before the administration is straightforward: a modest, targeted investment in prevention now, or far greater public expense for treatment later,” the letter concludes.
Spokespersons for the OMB and the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC, have not immediately responded to news media requests for comment on the opposition to the funding change policy.
Perez Hilton’s live breakdown reveals social media mental health crisis
Mr. Henry’s to host 60th anniversary party
Calendar: August 7-13
Greg Araki still wants your sex
Insured on paper, excluded in practice
Madonna headlines World Pride Music Festival in Amsterdam
PHOTOS: Petal Release Party
My evening with Madonna
Remembering Elliot Leonard, generous visionary who helped LGBTQ communities thrive
