National
Choi, others begin to re-enlist
Court denies stay of injunction; Pentagon halts enforcement of ‘Don’t Ask’
The struggle to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” received renewed national attention this week as the Pentagon announced it would halt enforcement of the policy and a California federal court rejected the Obama administration’s request for a stay of the injunction against the law.
The Pentagon announced that it would discontinue enforcement of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” after U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips last week issued an injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the law that confirmed her September ruling striking down the statute.
On Wednesday, the U.S. Justice Department sought an emergency stay with the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A decision from the court wasn’t handed down by Blade deadline. Check the Blade’s website for updates on the injunction.
Cynthia Smith, a Defense Department spokesperson, said the Pentagon would adhere to the court injunction and stop discharges of gay, lesbian and bisexual service members.
“The Department of Defense will of course obey the law,” she said. “The Department will abide by the terms of the court’s order, effective as of the time and date of the injunction, unless and until the injunction is stayed or vacated.”
Smith said on Oct. 15, the Pentagon issued guidance to military recruiters saying they could no longer dismiss openly gay people who are interested in joining the U.S. armed forces.
“Recruiters are reminded to set the applicants’ expectations by informing them that a reversal in the court’s decision of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law/policy may occur,” she said.
News that the Pentagon is no longer enforcing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” prompted Dan Choi, a discharged former Army officer who gained notoriety by chaining himself to the White House gates in protest over the policy, to seek re-enlistment in the U.S. armed forces.
On Tuesday, Choi reportedly re-enlisted in the Army at a recruiting station in Times Square in New York City. He reportedly said Tuesday recruiters were processing his request and that he initially sought to re-enlist as a Marine, but was told he was too old to enter the service.
Other out gays had sought to re-enlist this week in other places throughout the country. Will Rodriguez-Kennedy, president of the San Diego chapter of Log Cabin Republicans, reportedly tried to re-enlist with the Marines, but was told that prior-service quotas were full right now.
Even with the injunction in place, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network is warning gay, lesbian and bisexual troops to maintain keeping their sexual orientation a secret if they serve in the U.S. armed forces.
In a statement, Aubrey Sarvis, SLDN’s executive director, urged caution among service members because he said the injunction could be reversed “very soon.”
“During this interim period of uncertainty, service members must not come out and recruits should use caution if choosing to sign up,” Sarvis said. “A higher court is likely to issue a hold on the injunction by Judge Phillips very soon. The bottom line: if you come out now, it can be used against you in the future by the Pentagon.”
As the Pentagon has discontinued enforcement of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” the Obama administration has sought to reverse the injunction. The Justice Department last week sought a stay in Phillips’ decision to bar enforcement of the law while appealing her ruling to the Ninth Circuit.
But Phillips denied the request in a notice issued Tuesday. The judge explains that she denied a stay of the injunction because the U.S. government has provided inadequate reasons for her to take such action.
“Having considered the papers filed in support of, and in opposition to, the Application, as well as the arguments advanced by counsel at the hearing, the Court DENIES the Application for the following reasons as well as those set forth on the record at the hearing,” she writes.
Many legal experts had expected that Phillips would deny the stay. On Monday, she tentatively denied the stay as she heard arguments from attorneys.
In the Tuesday notice, Phillips said she denied the stay because, among other reasons, the injunction wouldn’t impede the U.S. military’s stated goals of having to amend policies and develop education and training programs to adjust to an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Clifford Stanley issued a memo last week outlining this concern.
“Though the Stanley Declaration identifies some general categories of regulations – housing, benefits, re-accession, military equal opportunity, anti-harassment, standards of conduct, and rights and obligations of the chaplain corps – it fails to identify the specific policies and regulations or why they must be changed in light of the Court’s injunction,” Phillips writes.
Phillips also denies that a stay on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” injunction would serve the public interest because she says evidence at trial demonstrated the law “harms military readiness and unit cohesion, and irreparably injures service members by violating their fundamental rights.”
R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, which filed the lawsuit in 2004, said Phillips is “right to stand with service members by rejecting President Obama’s request to continue this discriminatory policy.”
“It is vital that as a nation we uphold the fundamental constitutional rights of all soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen,” Cooper said. ”With recruiters accepting gay and lesbian applicants and a week having passed without incident, it is clear that our military is well-equipped to adapt to open service, and eager to get on with the work of defending our freedom.”
Cooper criticized Obama for previously saying at a town hall that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would end on his watch while defending the statute in court.
“As commander in chief, the president should drop his defense of a policy which he knows undermines military readiness and threatens national security,” Cooper said.
During a news conference on Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs emphasized the president’s commitment to repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” through legislative means while saying the Justice Department is monitoring what’s happening in the courts.
“The president believes that the policy will end under his watch precisely because in the defense authorization bill pending in the Senate is a provision that would repeal what the president believes is unjust, what the president believes is discriminatory,” Gibbs said. ”It’s passed the House. The president will push for defense authorization to be passed containing that provision when the Senate comes back for the lame duck.”
But whether the Senate would be able to push through “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” after Election Day is questionable at best — especially considering Democrats are poised take huge losses and will likely lose control of the U.S. House.
Jim Manley, a spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said in a statement that Republican support would be needed to move forward with major defense budget legislation to which “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal language is attached.
“In light of the recent court decision, Republicans will hopefully drop their opposition to [‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell] and allow us to pass the [defense] authorization in the lame duck,” Manley said.
The Republican who successfully led a filibuster that derailed the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal legislation in the Senate last month pledged on Sunday to continue his opposition after Election Day.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said during a TV interview with the NBC affiliate in Phoenix, Ariz., that he would attempt to block the legislation if a motion to bring the measure to the Senate floor came up during the lame duck.
“I will filibuster or stop it from being brought up until we have a thorough and complete study on the effect of morale and battle effectiveness,” he said.
A Pentagon working group is set to deliver a report to Defense Secretary Robert Gates on the way forward with implementing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal by Dec. 1, although McCain has previously suggested the scope of the study is too limited.
California
Calif. governor signs 6 pro-LGBTQ bills, vetoes 1
Gavin Newsom rejected measure he claimed is legislative overreach
Last week, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed and vetoed a slew of bills into state law. Among them were seven pertaining to California’s LGBTQ community. Newsom signed six while vetoing one. His actions drew applause and scorn from advocacy groups in the state.
The six signed bills:
Assembly Bill 1775 allows transgender veterans, who were banned from service last year by the Trump-Vance administration, to access housing assistance, use California’s discharge upgrade assistance program, and get support for gaining employment.
Assembly Bill 1930 strengthens privacy protections for healthcare patients and providers by creating clear guidelines for California agencies, individuals, and corporations to respond to out-of-state subpoena requests relating to abortion or gender-affirming care. This includes a requirement to contact the California Attorney General at least seven days prior to responding to the subpoena or providing legal documents. This should add additional protection to those residing in California from investigations in states where abortion or gender-affirming care has more restrictions.
Senate Bill 934 targets conversion therapy in California and increases the amount of time a patient has to bring a medical malpractice lawsuit against a provider for attempting to change the patient’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The bill takes aim at the widely debunked practice that treats queerness as a mental disorder that could be cured through psychotherapeutic methods. Conversion therapy has been illegal in California since 2012; however, a recent Supreme Court decision threw the ban into question, prompting lawmakers to write this new bill that legally defines it as medical malpractice.
Senate Bill 1023 expands access to PrEP, a medication that protects people from contracting HIV. The bill requires insurers to cover the drug through the medical benefit and the pharmacy benefit pathways, allowing for more providers to give patients PrEP.
Senate Bill 1114 strengthens privacy protections for voluntary self-identification data about sexual orientation and gender identity. The bill limits when California government agencies can share this data and bars it from being disclosed outside of the state government, with few exceptions.
Senate Bill 1328 expands support for LGBTQ students and staff in California colleges. The bill requires any institution of higher education to designate an employee at any campus, satellite campus, branch campus, or outreach center to support the needs of LGBTQ individuals.
Equality California, the largest statewide LGBTQ civil rights group in the country, commended the governor for his support of legislation that protects and supports the queer community amid escalating threats, attacks, and rollbacks from the federal government.
Executive Director Tony Hoang said in a written statement, “California is once again demonstrating that when LGBTQ+ people are targeted, our state will respond with action,” adding, “We are grateful to Gov. Newsom for signing these measures.”
The vetoed bill:
Assembly Bill 2164 would have banned California from extraditing anyone residing in California for providing abortions or gender-affirming care in another state. Newsom vetoed this bill despite agreeing with its principles, claiming in a written statement that “extradition is an exclusively executive function” and that he did not want to limit the “executive authority of an incoming governor.”
This bill was created in response to Louisiana’s attempt to extradite a California physician for allegedly sending abortion pills in the mail to a Louisiana woman. Newsom responded forcefully to the extradition request, publicly denying it and stating, “We will not allow extremist politicians from other states to reach into California and try to punish doctors based on allegations that they provided reproductive health care services.”
In a written statement responding to the veto, Lizzy Hinkley, the legal director of the bill’s lead sponsor, Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine, criticized Newsom, stating, “[the] outgoing governor’s principled stance is cold comfort to Californians living and working in the real world post-Dobbs. A high-brow, academic justification for refusing to codify legal protections only reveals an ignorance for the lived reality of patients and providers — and does nothing to help them.”
National
HRC report: LGBTQ students face ‘far greater challenges’ in non-supportive states
Survey finds anti-LGBTQ school harassment, bullying highest in 17 states
The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the educational arm of the national LGBTQ advocacy organization Human Rights Campaign, has released a report showing LGBTQ public school students are more likely to face bullying, harassment, and “other barriers” in states that have less overall supportive LGBTQ laws and policies.
The report is based on the HRC Foundation’s National Educator Survey of School Climate and Bullying, which was released on Sept. 17.
“The report finds that harassment, bullying, and other barriers to LGBTQ+ inclusion are more prevalent in states with limiting policies, where educators report widespread restrictions on LGBTQ+ resources, visible expressions of support, and assistance for transgender students,” a statement released by HRC says.
“As just one example,” the statement adds, “while 59 percent of educators in states with limiting policies report restrictions on supporting their transgender students, just 6 percent to 8 percent of educators in states with supportive policies report the same, underscoring the impact of these policies on school climate, student well-being, and the stakes of the upcoming midterm elections for LGBTQ+ youth and inclusive classrooms.”
The report says the survey consisted of responses by 826 educators in 42 states who worked as teachers, principals, counselors, administrators, and others who worked in support services. All worked at schools with students from pre-kindergarten to 12th grade, most being public schools and a smaller number being charter schools, the report says.
It says the survey was conducted between April 15 and May 21, 2026, and included a survey questionnaire with about 55 questions covering a wide range of LGBTQ related school issues.
According to the report, its classification of LGBTQ supportive and non-LGBTQ supportive states is based on a detailed analysis of the LGBTQ related laws and policies of all 50 states, D.C., and U.S. territories conducted by the Movement Advancement Project, or MAP, which describes itself as an “independent, nonprofit thinktank.”
The report includes a chart consisting of 51 boxes representing the 50 states and D.C., with 32 plus D.C. colored as blue and said to have overall LGBTQ supportive policies. The 17 boxes colored in red are said to have overall non-LGBTQ supportive policies and laws, Each of the boxes has the initial of a state or D.C. printed inside it.
In addition to D.C., the chart shows Maryland, Virginia, New York, California, and Massachusetts as among the supportive states. Florida, Texas, West Virginia, and Ohio are among the states shown to be non-LGBTQ supportive.
The HRC statement includes these “key” findings from the survey:
- In states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 59 percent of educators report restrictions on supporting transgender students, compared to just 6-8 percent of educators in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with restrictive policies, nearly 50 percent of educators reported restrictions on LGBTQ+ books or resources, compared to just 7 percent of educators in states with supportive policies.
- Roughly 32 percent of educators in states with restrictive policies reported anti-LGBTQ+ harassment was a moderate or serious problem, compared with 11 percent of educators in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 29 percent of educators were very worried about anti-LGBTQ+ harassment, compared to 15 percent in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 36 percent of educators witnessed anti-LGBTQ+ student bullying, compared to 27 percent in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 75 percent of educators reported no restrictions on LGBTQ+-supportive displays, highlighting a substantially more supportive school environment than in states with restrictive policies.
- Educators in states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies also reported significant harassment of students based on appearance (57 percent), race or ethnicity (43 percent), sexual orientation (42 percent), and gender identity or expression (39 percent). (No direct comparison figure from supportive-policy states is provided in the data above.)
“Every young person deserves to feel safe and supportive at school, but this report makes clear that for too many LGBTQ+ students, especially transgender youth, are being failed by policies designed to exclude them,” said HRC President Kelley Robinson in the HRC statement.
“We know that when students feel seen, supported, and affirmed, they are more likely to thrive, but when schools become places of exclusion or hostility, young people pay the price through lower engagement, missed opportunities to learn, and poorer mental and physical health,” Robinson said.
The HRC statement notes that the survey findings come at a time when a growing number of states have passed laws targeting LGBTQ students and the school officials and teachers who support them. It says that for the first time, the survey found that “educators themselves are also experiencing anti-LGBTQ+ harassment, highlighting the growing impact of these policies on school staff as well as students.”
The full survey findings and report can be accessed here:
U.S. Supreme Court
Trump asks Supreme Court to allow restrictions on gender-affirming care in prisons
SCOTUS could further restrict rights of trans inmates
The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow its policy limiting gender-affirming treatment for federal inmates to take effect while a legal challenge plays out in court.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the government to continue providing gender-affirming care, such as hormone therapy, which had become policy nearly a decade ago for inmates who were transitioning.
The Trump administration argues in its application that its policy restricting transgender rights was properly adopted and that the judge overstepped, posing nationwide “security and prison-administrative concerns.”
If allowed, the policy would halt surgeries, hormones and social accommodations such as wigs while allowing mental health therapy to continue as the legality of the policy reversal is litigated.
The government also argues in the application that the Bureau of Prisons had “determined that sex-trait-modification surgeries, hormone interventions in general, and social accommodations could no longer be justified as treatment for gender dysphoria.”
American Civil Liberties Union attorneys for the inmates said the policy is “a direct threat to the well-being of transgender people in federal custody and an open violation of their fundamental rights,” and said withholding necessary gender-affirming healthcare constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
The Blade has covered the ongoing developments surrounding changes to Federal Bureau of Prisons transgender inmate policy that went into effect earlier in Trump’s term. The changes primarily focus on rolling back Biden-era protections for trans inmates.
Earlier this year, the Blade published a joint letter from multiple senators in response to the rollback of the policy. Multiple senators — including Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Jeffrey A. Merkley (D-Ore.) and Mazie K. Hirono (D-Hawaii) — sent a letter to Attorney General Todd Blanche and Federal Bureau of Prisons Director William Marshall III calling for them to reverse the policy change, saying it endangers inmates’ health and safety.
The senators described how the policy shift, along with President Trump’s Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” is forcing policy changes they argued are rooted more in political rhetoric than in medical research or evidence-based correctional practices.
Federal Bureau of Prisons responded to the Blade’s request for comment in May, declining to reconsider its transgender inmate policy.
The Blade reached out to the Federal Bureau of Prisons once again over the application to the Supreme Court, but did not hear back before publication.
To school to homeschool to school again
Ryan Murphy’s ‘Monster’ vilifies the lesbian
The right to be an ordinary transgender man
LGBTQ community must vote in big numbers
Victory Fund board investigates former staffers’ allegations against CEO Evan Low
PHOTOS: HRC National Dinner
What’s frightening is also funny in ‘Venus’
I’m 66, he’s 27. Is it love or am I being played?
The LGBTQ real estate map is being redrawn
