National
White House denounces ‘Don’t Ask’ provision in defense bill
Administration stops short of veto threat over legislation
An official White House Statement of Administration Policy on major Pentagon budget legislation before the U.S. House reiterates concerns the administration has over a provision that could derail “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal — without explicitly making a veto threat over this issue.
The statement, made public on Tuesday, provides an overview the administration’s position and concerns about the fiscal year 2012 defense authorization bill, which is likely to come to a floor vote this week. The White House expresses reservations about anti-gay provisions that the House Armed Services Committee inserted upon its consideration of the legislation.
The most high-profile anti-gay provision — offered as an amendment by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) — is language that would expand the certification requirement needed for repeal to the four military service chiefs. The White House had previously objected to language expanding the certification in a statement to media outlets.
Such a provision would complicate the repeal process established by the law signed in December, which would implement open service after 60 days pass following certification from the president, the defense secretary and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
But the White House for the first time in the Statement of Administration Policy voices opposition to other anti-gay language in the defense bill.
One provision — offered as an amendment by Rep. W. Todd Akin (R-Mo) — prohibits military facilities for being used for same-sex marriage ceremonies, even in states where same-sex marriage is legal, and prevents military chaplains from presiding over same-sex marriages in their official capacities. Yet another provision, offered as an amendment by Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), reaffirms that the Defense Department and its regulations are subject to the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
The Statement of Administration Policy expresses concerns over the provisions related to both “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and marriage in the defense bill.
Attempts to Prevent, Delay, or Undermine the Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”: On December 22, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010, in order to strengthen our national security, enhance military readiness, and uphold the fundamental American principles of fairness and equality that warfighters defend around the world. As required by that statute, DoD is diligently working to prepare the necessary policies and regulations and conducting educational briefings to implement the repeal. Should it be determined, as required by the statute, that the implementation is consistent with the standards of military readiness and effectiveness, unit cohesion, and military recruiting and retention, then the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will send forward the required certification. The Administration strongly objects to any legislative attempts (such as section 533) to directly or indirectly undermine, prevent, or delay the implementation of the repeal, as such efforts create uncertainty for servicemembers and their families.
Military Regulations Regarding Marriage: The Administration strongly objects to sections 534 and 535, believes that section 3 of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is discriminatory, and supports DOMA’s repeal.
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, commended the White House for speaking out against these anti-gay provisions while voicing particular concern over the Akin amendment, which SLDN contends would go beyond the existing reach under DOMA to impose new restrictions on same-sex couples.
“We are heartened to see the White House standing firm against attempts to use the defense spending bill as a vehicle for delaying or derailing repeal and expanding DOMA,” Sarvis said. “The most troubling is the Akin language which infringes upon the religious liberties of chaplains, service members, and Department of Defense civilian employees. This would set a dangerous precedent.”
Although the administration objects to the anti-gay provisions in the defense authorization bill, the Statement of Administration Policy stops short of threatening to veto the bill over this language.
On other matters, such as the inclusion of funds for an alternate engine program for the next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, the statement says the president’s senior advisers would recommend a veto if a bill came to the president’s desk with such language. Additionally, the statement says on the whole the administration “supports House passage” of the defense authorization bill.
In response to the lack of a veto threat over the anti-gay language, Sarvis told the Washington Blade he’s “hopeful” that any differences between the House and Senate bills “can be resolved in conference and avoid the necessity for a veto.”
“At SLDN, we are focused on the Senate, where we should be better positioned to fight back these attacks,” Sarvis said.
Even without the veto threat, the chances of the a defense bill making its way to the president’s desk with anti-gay language are small. The Democratic-controlled Senate would have to agree to the provisions in conference committee, which is unlikely. Further, Pentagon officials have said “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal certification could happen mid-summer, rending the certification expansion provision in the House defense bill moot.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge blocks Trump passport executive order
State Department can no longer issue travel documents with ‘X’ gender markers
A federal judge on Friday ruled in favor of a group of transgender and nonbinary people who have filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s executive order that bans the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers.
The Associated Press notes U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick in Boston issued a preliminary injunction against the directive. The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the plaintiffs, in a press release notes Kobick concluded Trump’s executive order “is likely unconstitutional and in violation of the law.”
“The preliminary injunction requires the State Department to allow six transgender and nonbinary people to obtain passports with sex designations consistent with their gender identity while the lawsuit proceeds,” notes the ACLU. “Though today’s court order applies only to six of the plaintiffs in the case, the plaintiffs plan to quickly file a motion asking the court to certify a class of people affected by the State Department policy and to extend the preliminary injunction to that entire class.”
Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken in June 2021 announced the State Department would begin to issue gender-neutral passports and documents for American citizens who were born overseas.
Dana Zzyym, an intersex U.S. Navy veteran who identifies as nonbinary, in 2015 filed a federal lawsuit against the State Department after it denied their application for a passport with an “X” gender marker. Zzyym in October 2021 received the first gender-neutral American passport.
The State Department policy took effect on April 11, 2022. Trump signed his executive order shortly after he took office in January.
Germany, Denmark, Finland, and the Netherlands are among the countries that have issued travel advisories for trans and nonbinary people who plan to visit the U.S.
“This ruling affirms the inherent dignity of our clients, acknowledging the immediate and profound negative impact that the Trump administration’s passport policy would have on their ability to travel for work, school, and family,” said ACLU of Massachusetts Legal Director Jessie Rossman after Kobick issued her ruling.
“By forcing people to carry documents that directly contradict their identities, the Trump administration is attacking the very foundations of our right to privacy and the freedom to be ourselves,” added Rossman. “We will continue to fight to rescind this unlawful policy for everyone so that no one is placed in this untenable and unsafe position.”
State Department
HIV/AIDS activists protest at State Department, demand full PEPFAR funding restoration
Black coffins placed in front of Harry S. Truman Building
Dozens of HIV/AIDS activists on Thursday gathered in front of the State Department and demanded the Trump-Vance administration fully restore President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief funding.
Housing Works CEO Charles King, Health GAP Executive Director Asia Russell, Human Rights Campaign Senior Public Policy Advocate Matthew Rose, and others placed 206 black Styrofoam coffins in front of the State Department before the protest began.
King said more than an estimated 100,000 people with HIV/AIDS will die this year if PEPFAR funding is not fully restored.
“If we continue to not provide the PEPFAR funding to people living in low-income countries who are living with HIV or at risk, we are going to see millions and millions of deaths as well as millions of new infections,” added King.
Then-President George W. Bush in 2003 signed legislation that created PEPFAR.
The Trump-Vance administration in January froze nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending for at least 90 days. Secretary of State Marco Rubio later issued a waiver that allows the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS relief and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during the freeze.
The Washington Blade has previously reported PEPFAR-funded programs in Kenya and other African countries have been forced to suspend services and even shut down because of a lack of U.S. funding. Two South African organizations — OUT LGBT Well-being and Access Chapter 2 — that received PEPFAR funding through the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in recent weeks closed down HIV-prevention programs and other services to men who have sex with men.
Rubio last month said 83 percent of USAID contracts have been cancelled. He noted the State Department will administer those that remain in place “more effectively.”
“PEPFAR represents the best of us, the dignity of our country, of our people, of our shared humanity,” said Rose.
Russell described Rubio as “ignorant and incompetent” and said “he should be fired.”
“What secretary of state in 90 days could dismantle what the brilliance of AIDS activism created side-by-side with George W. Bush? What kind of fool could do that? I’ll tell you who, the boss who sits in the Harry S. Truman Building, Marco Rubio,” said Russell.
U.S. Military/Pentagon
Pentagon urged to reverse Naval Academy book ban
Hundreds of titles discussing race, gender, and sexuality pulled from library shelves
Lambda Legal and the Legal Defense Fund issued a letter on Tuesday urging U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to reverse course on a policy that led to the removal of 381 books from the Nimitz Library of the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.
Pursuant to President Donald Trump’s executive order 14190, “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling,” the institution screened 900 titles to identify works promoting “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” removing those that concerned or touched upon “topics pertaining to the experiences of people of color, especially Black people, and/or LGBTQ people,” according to a press release from the civil rights organizations.
These included “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings” by Maya Angelou, “Stone Fruit” by Lee Lai, “The Hate U Give” by Angie Thomas, “Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong” by James W. Loewen, “Gender Queer: A Memoir” by Maia Kobabe, and “Democracy in Black: How Race Still Enslaves the American Soul” by Eddie S. Glaude, Jr.
The groups further noted that “the collection retained other books with messages and themes that privilege certain races and religions over others, including ‘The Clansman: A Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan’ by Thomas Dixon, Jr., ‘Mein Kampf’ by Adolf Hitler, and ‘Heart of Darkness’ by Joseph Conrad.
In their letter, Lambda Legal and LDF argued the books must be returned to circulation to preserve the “constitutional rights” of cadets at the institution, warning of the “danger” that comes with “censoring materials based on viewpoints disfavored by the current administration.”
“Such censorship is especially dangerous in an educational setting, where critical inquiry, intellectual diversity, and exposure to a wide array of perspectives are necessary to educate future citizen-leaders,” Lambda Legal Chief Legal Officer Jennifer C. Pizer and LDF Director of Strategic Initiatives Jin Hee Lee said in the press release.
‘Pronoun Trouble’ reminds us that punctuation matters
Federal judge blocks Trump passport executive order
Gay Men’s Chorus of Washington to celebrate Spring Affair honorees
Goodlander endorses Pappas’s Senate bid
Local attorney, LGBTQ rights advocate Dale Sanders dies at 75
Gay Venezuelan makeup artist remains in El Salvador mega prison
HIV/AIDS activists protest at State Department, demand full PEPFAR funding restoration
Science must not be a weapon against trans people
Md. schools plan to comply with federal DEI demands
US lists transgender Brazilian congresswoman’s gender as ‘male’ on visa
-
El Salvador4 days agoGay Venezuelan makeup artist remains in El Salvador mega prison
-
State Department3 days agoHIV/AIDS activists protest at State Department, demand full PEPFAR funding restoration
-
Opinions5 days agoScience must not be a weapon against trans people
-
Maryland5 days agoMd. schools plan to comply with federal DEI demands