National
‘Don’t Ask’ repeal a tough act to follow
ENDA, marriage up next — but how long will they take?
Rep. Barney Frank was at the enrollment ceremony for the 'Don't Ask' repeal (Blade photo by Michael Key).
A precursor of more LGBT rights advances to come? Or the last victory that the LGBT community will see for some time as Republicans retake the House in January?
Either way, LGBT rights advocates agree the legislative repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was a major victory that will send to the dustbin of history a 17-year-old statute barring open gay and lesbian Americans from the armed forces.
On Tuesday, a number of lawmakers said repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” represents a seismic change in how the United States has come to view LGBT people over the course of the past 17 years. The remarks were made during the enrollment ceremony in which U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) signed the legislation to send it to President Obama’s desk. Obama signed the bill into law on Wednesday.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) recalled that in 1993, as a freshman member of the U.S. Senate, she offered an amendment to major defense budget legislation containing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to strip the bill of the then-proposed gay ban before it was implemented.
“I offered an amendment to take it out 17 years ago, and I got 33 votes,” Boxer said. “Here’s the amazing irony — wonderful irony — is that on the procedural vote … in the Senate this time, only 33 people said, “Let’s keep it in,” and the rest said, ‘Get rid of it.’”
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the longest-serving openly gay lawmaker in Congress, said the repeal of the military’s gay ban checks off an important outstanding goal that LGBT advocates had been seeking for some time.
Frank recalled that in 2006, then-Rep. John Hostettler of Indiana urged people in his district not to vote for his Democratic opponent Brad Ellsworth because his election would lead to the advancement of what Hostettler called the “radical homosexual agenda.”
“So let me own up to that agenda: it’s to be protected against violent crimes driven by bigotry, it’s to be able to get married, it’s to be able to get a job and it’s to be able to fight for our country,” Frank said. “Let me put them on notice! Two down, two to go!”
A number of LGBT advocates are hoping that the win with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will generate momentum for other victories such as relationship recognition for same-sex couples and passage of an employment non-discrimination law.
Winnie Stachelberg, vice president for external affairs at the Center for American Progress, said the conversations about gays in the military will lead to further discussions about other LGBT rights.
“The repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is not just going to be about the military,” Stachelberg said. “It enables conversation about workplace discrimination that we haven’t been able to have. It will have implications for state legislative battles and other issues.”
A Senate Democratic aide, who spoke to the Washington Blade on condition of anonymity, said “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal will have a huge “psychological” impact on the Senate in terms of passing pro-LGBT legislation in the future because opponents of ending the gay ban — like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) — failed in their efforts to stop repeal despite their best efforts.
“John McCain was absolutely neutered on this,” the aide said. “You saw how angry and vociferous he was on this, and he saw the foundation crack away under him. Republicans are no longer going to be as beholden to the arguments of yesterday that get put forward by people like McCain or [Sen. James] Inhofe.”
Patrick Egan, a gay political science professor at New York University, said repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” demonstrates the “maturing” of the LGBT community as a core constituency of the Democratic Party.
“This was no ‘flight by night’ effort by Obama,” Egan said. “It was a carefully considered, determined and well-planned, orchestrated effort by a Democratic administration to follow through on a campaign promise.”
Still, with a smaller Democratic majority in the Senate and Republican control of the House next year, most Capitol Hill observers see LGBT advances in the 112th Congress – such as passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act or relationship recognition laws — as difficult if not outright impossible.
The Democratic aide said the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” helps build momentum in the Senate for LGBT issues, but the Republican-controlled House will likely be “a big stumbling block.”
“In the next Congress, we’ll probably see a reversed situation from what we saw in this Congress,” the aide said. “In this Congress, the House was more amenable to the pro-gay rights legislation, and the Senate was less amenable.
With the Republican House next Congress, we’ll see that it’s the Senate that becomes more amenable to pro-gay legislation.”
Egan also expressed pessimism about the passage of pro-LGBT bills in the next Congress because of the ascent of Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) as House speaker.
“When Republicans control even just one chamber of the legislature — as they’re going to do with the House in 2011 and 2012 — gay people just never win anything,” Egan said. “You really need Democratic control of legislatures — and typically the executive branch — in order for any significant movement on gay rights to occur.”
Still, Egan said affirmative votes on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal from senators like Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.) could be a sign that LGBT bills will be seen as less partisan votes in the future.
“It indicates that legislators are becoming less afraid of voting in favor of gay rights — even on something as sensitive as military policy,” Egan said.
Stachelberg acknowledged that moving pro-gay legislation in the next Congress will be a “daunting task,” but said repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will at least enable conversations to take place on issues such as job discrimination.
“I don’t want to suggest things will be easy because of it,” Stachelberg said. “But it’s a useful debate to have had and as implementation moves through the Pentagon, we’ll continue to be talking about workplace discrimination in a helpful way.”
Stachelberg said those working on the passage of ENDA “ought to learn” from the strategy of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal campaign, which made those aggrieved by the status quo the public faces of the repeal effort.
She noted that gay service members outed under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” were visible in the campaign and said it was “terribly important” in the effort.
“From Mike Almy, to [Victor] Fehrenbach, to [Anthony] Woods, to Stacey [Vasquez] to all the members of the military who suffered this discrimination coming forward telling their stories — it’s essential that our community tell the story of LGBT workplace discrimination in an equally powerful way,” she said.
Discussion has already emerged about whether the legislative repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would have an impact on the issue of same-sex marriage or lead to greater support for gay nuptials among the public.
Stachelberg said open service in the U.S. military and same-sex marriage are “completely different issues,” but maintained discussion of the military’s gay ban could facilitate greater visibility for marriage.
“We should acknowledge that the path to LGBT equality, first of all, is not linear,” she said. “This ‘Don’t Ask. Don’t Tell’ debate helps because it provides a really great, clear discussion point about what just happened, and I think it will open up about marriage equality.”
Egan said repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has already led social conservatives to make a distinction in their rhetoric between an end to the military’s gay ban and same-sex marriage.
“They need to concede that defeat and acknowledge that this is more or less a permanent change that reflects changing attitudes in society about gay people, but at the same time make the case that their argument about marriage is different,” Egan said.
Egan said he’s seen statements from social conservatives saying LGBT advocates through the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” weren’t seeking to change the institution of the military, but are seeking to change the institution of marriage by advancing gay nuptials.
“It’s required a bit of a re-calibration of the arguments put forward by the anti-marriage advocates to portray themselves as not believing in discrimination, not believing in inequality, but instead trying to defend a cherished social institution,” he said.
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.
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.
Court orders Pride flag to return to Stonewall
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’
Trump’s war threats trigger rare 25th Amendment discussion
New book celebrates 1970s dance music icons
ROSENSTEIN: Vote McDuffie for mayor of D.C.
A Sondheim masterpiece ‘Merrily’ rolls onto Netflix
