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.
Federal Government
Republicans attach five anti-LGBTQ riders to State Department funding bill
Spending package would restrict Pride flags on federal buildings, trans healthcare, LGBTQ envoys
As Congress finalizes its funding for fiscal year 2027, Republicans are attempting to include five anti-LGBTQ riders in the National Security and Department of State Appropriations Act.
A rider is an unrelated provision tacked onto a bill that must pass — in this instance, the bill provides funding for national security policy and for the State Department.
The riders range from restricting Pride flags in federal buildings to banning transgender healthcare, but all aim to limit the visibility and rights of LGBTQ Americans.
The five riders are:
Section 7067(a) prohibits Pride flags from being flown over federal buildings.
Section 7067(c) restricts the United States’ ability to appoint special envoys, representatives, or coordinators unless expressly authorized by Congress. These roles have historically been used to promote U.S. interests in international forums — including advancing human and LGBTQ and intersex rights and other policy priorities. The change would halt what the Congressional Equality Caucus describes as providing “critical expertise to U.S. foreign policy and leadership abroad.”
Section 7067(d) reinforces multiple anti-equality executive orders signed by President Donald Trump, effectively requiring that foreign assistance funded by the United States comply with those orders. This includes rescinding federal contractor nondiscrimination protections, including for LGBTQ people.
Section 7067(e) prohibits funding for any organization that provides or promotes medically necessary healthcare for trans people or “promotes transgenderism” — effectively banning funds for organizations that recognize trans people exist. This is despite the practice of gender-affirming care being supported by nearly every major medical association.
Section 7067(g) reinforces two global gag rules put forward by the Trump-Vance administration. One is the Trans Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign assistance funding for organizations that acknowledge the existence of trans people or advocate for nondiscrimination protections for them, among other activities. The second is the DEI Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign assistance funding for organizations that engage in efforts to address the ongoing effects of racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry outside the United States.
The global gag rule has its roots in anti-abortion policy introduced by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, when the 40th president barred foreign organizations receiving U.S. global health assistance from providing information, referrals, or services for legal abortion, or from advocating for access to abortion services in their own countries. Planned Parenthood notes that the policy also affects programs beyond abortion, including efforts to expand access to contraception, prevent and treat HIV/AIDS, combat malaria, and improve maternal and child health.
If organizations funded by the State Department engage in these activities, they could lose funding.
This anti-LGBTQ push aligns with broader actions from the Trump-Vance administration since the start of Trump’s second term, which have focused on restricting human rights — particularly those of trans Americans.
The House Appropriations Committee is responsible for drafting the appropriations legislation. U.S. Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) serves as chair, with U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) as ranking member. The committee includes 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.
For FY27 appropriations, Congress is supposed to pass and have the president sign the funding bills by Sept. 30, 2026.
Noticias en Español
The university that refuses to let go
Joanna Cifredo is a trans woman participating in University of Puerto Rico strike
Over the past days, I have been walking with a question that refuses to leave me. Not the kind of question you answer from a desk or from a distance, but one that grows out of what you witness in real time, at the gates, in the faces of those who remain there without knowing how any of this will end. What is truly happening inside the University of Puerto Rico, and why have so many students decided to risk everything at a moment when they can least afford to lose anything.
I write as someone who lives just steps away from the Río Piedras campus. These days, the silence has replaced the constant movement that once defined this space. The absence is felt in every corner where students used to pass at all hours. Since arriving in Puerto Rico three years ago, I have come to know firsthand stories that rarely make it into reports or official statements. One of the reasons I chose to stay was precisely this, to serve the university community, to help create a space where students could find something as basic as a safe meal at night and, in some way, ease burdens that are often carried in silence.
I have listened, asked questions, and tried to understand without imposing answers. What I have found is not a collective outburst or a generational whim. What exists is a fracture, a deep break between those making decisions and those living with their consequences every single day.
There has been an effort to reduce this strike to an issue of order, scheduling, or academic disruption. Conversations revolve around missed classes, delayed semesters, and students supposedly unaware of the consequences of their actions. What is rarely addressed are the conditions that lead an entire student body to pause its own future to sustain a protest that offers no guarantees.
Because that is the reality. These are students who fully understand what they are risking, and yet they remain. When someone reaches that point, the least they deserve is not judgment, but to be heard.
From the outside, there have also been attempts to discredit what is happening. Familiar narratives are repeated, legitimacy is questioned, and doubt is cast over intentions. It is easier to do that than to acknowledge that this did not begin at the gates, but long before, in decisions made without building trust.
And something must be said clearly. This is not limited to the gates of Río Piedras. What we are witnessing extends across every unit of the University of Puerto Rico system. Mayagüez, Ponce, Arecibo, Bayamón, Cayey, Humacao, Carolina, Aguadilla, Utuado, and the Medical Sciences Campus. This is not an isolated reaction. It is a movement that runs through the entire institution. Río Piedras may be more visible, but it is not alone. What is happening there reflects a broader unrest felt across the system.
Within that context, one demand has grown increasingly present, the call for the resignation of University of Puerto Rico President Zayira Jordán Conde. This is not the voice of a small group. It reflects a deeper level of mistrust that has spread across multiple campuses.
The Puerto Rican Association of University Professors has also made it clear that this is not solely a student issue. There is real concern among faculty, and a shared recognition of the conditions currently shaping the university. When students and professors arrive at the same conclusion, the problem can no longer be minimized.
Meanwhile, the administration continues to speak in the language of dialogue. But dialogue is not a word, it is a practice. And when trust has been broken, it cannot be restored through statements alone, but through decisions that prove a willingness to truly listen.
In the midst of all of this, there are voices that cannot be ignored. Voices grounded not in theory, but in lived experience. One of them is Joanna Cifredo, a student at the Mayagüez campus, a young Puerto Rican trans woman, and someone widely recognized for her advocacy.
I spoke with her in recent days. What follows is her voice, exactly as it is.
How would you describe what is happening inside the University of Puerto Rico right now, beyond what people see from the outside?
Estamos viviendo momentos muy difíciles, en el sentido de que hay mucha incertidumbre y una presión constante por parte de la administración para reabrir el recinto, pero, entre todo el caos e inestabilidad provocado por las decisiones de esta administración, también hemos vivido momentos muy poderosos. Esta lucha ha sacado lo mejor de nuestra comunidad.
Lo vimos en las asambleas y plenos, donde 1,500, 1,700, hasta 1,800 estudiantes llegaron —bajo lluvia, bajo advertencias de inundaciones— y aun así se quedaron, participaron y votaron a favor de una manifestación indefinida hasta que se atiendan nuestros reclamos.
He conocido a tantas personas en los diferentes portones, estudiantes graduados, aletas, estudiantes de intercambio, estudiantes de todo tipo de concentraciones y se unieron para apoyar el movimiento estudiantil. Estudiantes que vienen a los portones después del trabajo o antes de trabajar. Estudiantes que vienen a dejar agua y suministros entre turnos de trabajo. Viejitos que vienen a los portones con desayuno, almuerzo o cena.
Más allá de lo que se ve desde afuera, lo que estamos viviendo es una mezcla de tensión y resistencia, pero también de comunidad, solidaridad y compromiso colectivo.
Much of what is discussed remains at the level of headlines or social media. From your direct experience, what specific decisions or actions from the administration have led to this level of mobilization?
Desde el inicio, la designación de la Dra. Zayira Jordán Conde careció de respaldo dentro de la comunidad universitaria. No contaba con experiencia administrativa en la UPR ni con un conocimiento básico de nuestros procesos, cultura y reglamentos. Por eso, en asamblea, el estudiantado votó para solicitarle a la Junta de Gobierno que no considerara su candidatura, y múltiples organizaciones docentes hicieron lo mismo. Existía un consenso amplio de que no tenía la experiencia necesaria para liderar una institución como la nuestra.
A pesar de ese rechazo claro, la Junta de Gobierno decidió ignorar los reclamos de la comunidad universitaria e imponer su nombramiento.
Una vez en el cargo, su estilo de gobernanza ha sido poco transparente y poco colaborativo. Sin embargo, el detonante principal de la movilización en el Recinto Universitario de Mayagüez fue su decisión de destituir, de manera unilateral y en medio del semestre, a cinco rectores, incluyendo al nuestro, el Dr. Agustín Rullán Toro, para reemplazarlo por un rector interino, el Dr. Miguel Muñoz Muñoz.
Esta acción, tomada de forma abrupta, provocó de inmediato un clima de caos e inestabilidad dentro de la institución. Y deja una pregunta inevitable: ¿no anticipó el impacto de esa decisión, lo que evidenciaría una falta de experiencia? ¿O lo anticipó y aun así decidió proceder? No está claro cuál de las dos es más preocupante.
Además, esta decisión tuvo consecuencias concretas para el estudiantado, incluyendo el retiro de becas educativas para nuevos integrantes del RUM por parte de la Fundación Ceiba, que calificó la movida como “sorprendente” y “preocupante”. Decisiones impulsivas como la que tomó la presidenta ponen en peligro la estabilidad de nuestra institución y la acreditación de la universidad.
As a trans woman within this movement, how does your identity intersect with what is happening, and why does this also shape the future of people like you?
Soy una de varias chicas trans que formamos parte activa de este movimiento estudiantil.
For those outside the UPR who believe this does not affect them, what are the real consequences of this crisis?
La Universidad de Puerto Rico se fundó para servir al pueblo.
It is impossible to overstate the role the University of Puerto Rico and its students have played in shaping the social, cultural, and economic life of this country. Its impact extends into science, medicine, and every profession that has sustained Puerto Rico over time. No other educational institution has contributed more.
After listening to her, one thing becomes undeniable. This is not just another protest, but a generation refusing to let go of what little remains within its reach. And when a generation reaches that point, the issue is no longer the strike, the issue becomes the country itself.
National
Advocacy groups issue US travel advisory ahead of World Cup
Renee Good’s death in Minneapolis among incidents cited
More than 100 organizations have issued a travel advisory for the U.S. ahead of the 2026 World Cup.
The World Cup will take place in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico from June 11-July 19.
“In light of the deteriorating human rights situation in the United States and in the absence of meaningful action and concrete guarantees from FIFA, host cities, or the U.S. government, the undersigned organizations are issuing this travel advisory for fans, players, journalists, and other visitors traveling to and within the United States for the June 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup. World Cup games will be played in 11 different cities across the United States, which, like many localities, have already been the target of the Trump administration’s violent and abusive immigration crackdown,” reads the advisory that the Council for Global Equality and other groups that include the American Civil Liberties Union issued on April 23. “The impacts of these policies vary by locality.”
“While the Trump administration’s rising authoritarianism and increasing violence pose serious risks to all, those from immigrant communities, racial and ethnic minority groups, and LGBTQ+ individuals have been and continue to be disproportionately targeted and affected by the administration’s policies and, as such, are most vulnerable to serious harm when traveling to and/or within the United States,” it adds. “This travel advisory calls on fans, players, journalists, and other visitors to exercise caution.”
The advisory specifically mentions Renee Good.
A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent on Jan. 7 shot and killed her in Minneapolis. Good, 37, left behind her wife and three children.
The full advisory can be read here.
Republicans attach five anti-LGBTQ riders to State Department funding bill
Calendar: May 1-7
The university that refuses to let go
Judge issues revised order in Capital Pride stalking case
New Zealand blood donation rules shift
House Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
From red carpet to chaos: A first-person narrative of the WHCD shooting
European Parliament backs EU-wide conversion therapy ban
LGBTQ people are leaving Orthodox Judaism behind
Democracy Forward files FOIA request for State Department bathroom policy records
-
Federal Government4 days agoHouse Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
-
The White House5 days ago
From red carpet to chaos: A first-person narrative of the WHCD shooting
-
European Union2 days ago
European Parliament backs EU-wide conversion therapy ban
-
News4 days ago
LGBTQ people are leaving Orthodox Judaism behind
