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.
Former U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) died on Tuesday. He was 86.
The Massachusetts Democrat served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1981-2013. Frank in 1987 became the first member of Congress to voluntarily come out as gay.
The Washington Blade earlier this month interviewed Frank after he entered hospice care at his Ogunquit, Maine, home where he lived with his husband, Jim Ready, since 2013. The former congressman, among other things, talked about his new book, “The Hard Path to Unity: Why We Must Reform the Left to Rescue Democracy.”
The book is scheduled for release on Sept. 15.
NBC Boston reported Frank’s sister, Ann Lewis, and a close family friend confirmed his death.
The Blade will update this article.
Federal Government
Texas Children’s Hospital reaches $10 million settlement with DOJ over gender-affirming care
Clinic specializing in detransition care will be established
The Justice Department announced May 15 that it has reached a settlement with Texas Children’s Hospital, one of the nation’s top pediatric hospitals.
Under the agreement, the hospital will pay more than $10 million in damages and civil penalties related to its provision of gender-affirming care and will establish a clinic specializing in detransition care.
The DOJ partnered with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office to resolve allegations that the hospital submitted false billings to public and private insurers to secure coverage for pediatric gender-affirming procedures. The department alleges the conduct violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the False Claims Act, and federal fraud and conspiracy laws.
The settlement was reached out of court, meaning neither party formally admitted wrongdoing. Both the DOJ and Texas Children’s Hospital denied liability.
“The Justice Department will use every weapon at its disposal to end the destructive and discredited practice of so-called ‘gender-affirming care’ for children,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a DOJ press release. “Today’s resolution protects vulnerable children, holds providers accountable, and ensures those harmed receive the care they need.”
The DOJ’s hardline stance on gender-affirming care sharply contrasts with the positions of major medical organizations, transgender healthcare advocates, and human rights groups, which broadly support gender-affirming care as an evidence-based treatment for gender dysphoria.
Adrian Shanker, former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health Policy and Senior Advisor on LGBTQI+ Health Equity at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under during the Biden-Harris administration, told the Washington Blade the settlement could have sweeping consequences for trans youth and healthcare providers nationwide.
“The Trump administration’s framing of gender-affirming care is wildly inaccurate, scientifically implausible, and frankly, just mean-spirited,” Shanker told the Blade. “What’s really clear is that the science hasn’t changed, the evidence hasn’t changed — it’s only the politics that have changed. Unfortunately, the people that lose out the most with a settlement like this one are the patients that are denied access to care where they live.”
According to Shanker, the agreement also requires Texas Children’s Hospital to revoke privileges for physicians involved in providing gender-affirming care, potentially limiting their ability to practice elsewhere.
“This is a weaponized Department of Justice doing absurd investigations against providers that are providing care within the established standard of care,” he said. “They’ve come up with an absurd remedy in their settlement to require a so-called ‘detransition clinic’ to open at Texas Children’s. It’s harmful to science, it’s harmful to trans people, and it’s harmful to the medical profession.”
Shanker argued the case reflects a broader politicization of trans healthcare.
“Every American should be concerned about the weaponized Department of Justice and their obsession with trans people and their access to care,” he said. “These hospitals that provide gender-affirming care, the providers of gender-affirming care, have done nothing wrong. They followed the standards of care that are well established and followed the mountain of evidence.”
Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of constitutional law practice at Lambda Legal, echoed those concerns.
“For Texas Children’s to capitulate to this pressure campaign of both Paxton and the Trump administration and end this care, and go after physicians who had been lawfully and faithfully taking care of their patients, it’s hard to see that as anything other than bending the knee in the face of political pressure,” Loewy told the Blade. “That’s not putting your mission above politics. Your mission is to provide health care for kids that need it.”
Loewy said the settlement reflects years of efforts by Paxton and the Trump-Vance administration to target gender-affirming care providers. Paxton has pursued investigations into providers across Texas since 2022 and supported a 2023 law banning gender-transition-related medical care for minors. Meanwhile, the Trump-Vance administration moved quickly in its second term to restrict trans healthcare access, including through Executive Order 14187, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.”
“This is a perfect storm of Ken Paxton’s own mission to stigmatize and target trans young people and their healthcare in Texas with the Trump administration’s targeting of trans people and gender-affirming medical care,” Loewy said. “It is the two of them together. Without that, you wouldn’t have had this settlement.”
Loewy also emphasized that the settlement is part of a broader legal strategy targeting providers nationwide.
“You can’t view this one in isolation from all of the other administrative subpoenas that have been sent to hospitals or other kinds of medical providers that have provided gender-affirming medical care to trans adolescents,” she said. “It is all part and parcel of the same direct line from the executive orders that were issued in the first days of this Trump administration.”
“Every court that has considered those subpoenas has found them illegitimate and issued for an improper purpose, or at least narrowed them really dramatically,” she added. “Courts agree these hospitals didn’t do anything wrong. It’s the DOJ that has the problem here.”
Shanker also criticized the settlement’s requirement that the hospital establish a detransition clinic, arguing the move contradicts existing medical evidence.
“The irony shouldn’t be lost on anyone that the Trump administration is claiming that gender-affirming care lacks a scientific basis, and then is requiring the opening of a so-called detransition clinic, which certainly lacks a scientific basis,” Shanker said. “There’s less than a 1% regret rate when it comes to gender-affirming care. That’s lower than knee surgery, lower than bariatric surgery, lower than childbirth, lower than breast reconstruction, and lower than tattoos.”
Loewy was similarly blunt in her criticism.
“This is the most craven, political, ridiculous elevation of ideology over evidence,” she said. “They are creating a program built on an outcome that almost never happens. It is unprecedented and politically mandated rather than healthcare mandated.”
She said the settlement’s broader effect will be to intimidate providers and further marginalize trans people.
“The real effect here is to further stigmatize trans people and intimidate healthcare providers,” she said. “This is about sending a message nationwide that the DOJ is coming after the doctors. These are committed, faithful, law-abiding physicians and healthcare providers who just want to provide the healthcare their patients actually need.”
Both Loewy and Shanker warned that restricting access to gender-affirming care could deepen health disparities for trans people.
“We know that when transgender Americans lack the care that they need, we end up with higher rates of depression, higher rates of anxiety, higher rates of self-harm and suicidal ideation,” Shanker said. “We know that gender-affirming care is a medically appropriate, scientifically grounded form of care that resolves these challenges and leads us toward health equity. It’s unfortunate that the Trump administration has politicized not only transgender medicine, but the very basis of public health.”
Shanker said the restrictions are already prompting some trans people to relocate in search of care.
“We’re already seeing medical refugees leave states that have restricted access to care to move to states where it’s still available,” he said. “Frankly, we’ve already seen some trans people go to other countries to receive care or maintain access to care.”
Loewy said the DOJ’s recent subpoenas targeting hospitals, including those issued to NYU Langone Health in New York, suggest the administration is escalating its legal strategy.
“We’ve seen the DOJ escalate this by convening a grand jury and issuing grand jury subpoenas to hospitals,” she said. “That is going to be the next front in this fight.”
In addition to , there has been as large increase in anti-trans legislation in the past few years — with 126 federal pieces of legislation introduced this year and 26 state level policies passed across the country.
Still, Loewy pointed to recent court victories as evidence that challenges to these policies can succeed.
“Just yesterday, a state court in Kansas struck down that state’s ban on gender-affirming medical care in one of the most meticulous recognitions of the medical consensus and the harm of denying care to trans young people,” she said. “When courts actually look at the science and the impacts on trans people, they still can rule the right way.”
Asked whether there is any optimism to be found amid the ongoing legal battles, Loewy said she continues to draw hope from advocates, families, and community organizers fighting back.
“The solidarity of the community is really what brings hope,” she said. “There are incredible lawyers, advocates, families, and organizations fighting every day to protect these kids and their privacy and safety. It is that community strength and collaborative effort that continues to give me hope.”
Commentary
‘Live Your Pride’ is much more than a slogan
Waves Ahead forced to cancel May 17 event in Puerto Rico
On May 5, I spoke by phone with Wilfred Labiosa, executive director of Waves Ahead, a Puerto Rico-based LGBTQ community organization that for years has provided mental health services, support programs, and safe spaces for vulnerable communities across the island. During our conversation, Labiosa confirmed every concern described in the organization’s public statement announcing the cancellation of “Live Your Pride,” an event scheduled for Sunday in the northwestern municipality of Isabela. But beyond the financial struggles and organizational challenges, what stayed with me most was the emotional weight behind his words. There was pain in his voice while describing what it means to watch spaces like these slowly disappear.
This was not simply the cancellation of a community event.
“Live Your Pride” had been envisioned as a celebration and affirming gathering for LGBTQ older adults and their allies in Puerto Rico. In a society where many LGBTQ elders spent decades hiding parts of themselves in order to survive, spaces like this carry enormous emotional and social significance. They become places where people can finally exist openly, without fear, apology, or shame.
That is why this cancellation matters far beyond Isabela.
What is happening in Puerto Rico cannot be separated from the broader political climate unfolding across the U.S. and its territories, where programs connected to diversity, inclusion, education, mental health, and LGBTQ visibility increasingly find themselves under political attack. These changes do not always arrive through dramatic announcements. More often, they happen quietly. Funding disappears. Community organizations weaken. Safe spaces become harder to sustain. Eventually, the absence itself begins to feel normal.
That normalization is dangerous.
For years, organizations like Waves Ahead have stepped into gaps left behind by institutions and governments, particularly in communities where LGBTQ people continue facing discrimination, social isolation, economic instability, and mental health struggles. Their work has never been limited to organizing events. It has involved accompanying people through loneliness, trauma, rejection, depression, aging, and survival itself.
“Live Your Pride” represented much more than entertainment. It represented visibility for LGBTQ older adults, many of whom survived decades of family rejection, religious exclusion, workplace discrimination, violence, and silence. These are individuals who came of age during years when living openly could cost someone employment, housing, relationships, or personal safety. Many learned to survive by making themselves invisible.
When spaces like this disappear, something deeply human is lost.
A gathering is canceled, yes, but so is an opportunity for healing, connection, recognition, and dignity. For many LGBTQ older adults, especially in smaller municipalities across Puerto Rico, these events are not secondary luxuries. They are reminders that their lives still matter in a society that too often treats aging and queer existence as disposable.
There are still political and religious sectors that portray the rainbow as some kind of ideological threat. But the rainbow does not erase anyone. It illuminates people and stories that society has often tried to ignore. It reflects the lives of young people forced out of their homes, transgender individuals targeted by violence, older adults aging in silence, and families that spent years defending their right to exist openly.
Perhaps that is precisely why the rainbow unsettles some people so deeply.
Its colors expose abandonment, hypocrisy, inequality, and fear. They force societies to confront realities that are easier to ignore than to address honestly. They reveal how fragile human dignity becomes when political agendas decide that certain communities are no longer worthy of protection, funding, or visibility.
The greatest concern here is not solely the cancellation of one event in one Puerto Rican town. The deeper concern is the message quietly taking shape behind decisions like these — the idea that some communities can wait, that some lives deserve fewer resources, and that safe spaces for vulnerable people are expendable during moments of political tension.
History has shown repeatedly how social regression begins. Rarely with one dramatic act. More often through exhaustion, silence, budget cuts, and the slow dismantling of organizations doing essential community work.
Even so, Waves Ahead made one thing clear in its statement. Although “Live Your Pride” has been canceled, the organization will continue providing mental health and community support services through its centers across Puerto Rico. That commitment matters because people do not survive on slogans alone. They survive because somewhere there are still open doors, trained professionals, supportive communities, and people willing to remain present when the world becomes colder and more hostile.
Puerto Rico should pay close attention to what this moment represents. No healthy society is built by weakening the organizations that care for vulnerable people. No government should feel comfortable watching community groups struggle to survive while attempting to provide services and compassion that public institutions themselves often fail to offer.
The rainbow has never been the problem.
The real problem is the discomfort created when its colors force society to confront the wounds, inequalities, and human realities that too many people would rather keep hidden.
