National
Despite apology, LGBT concerns persist over Hagel
Advocates seek plan on partner benefits for gay troops, openly trans service
New LGBT concerns are emerging over the potential nomination of Chuck Hagel as defense secretary (public domain photo by Lance Cpl. Casey Jones)
Concerns are emerging in some circles of the LGBT community — now most notably from gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) — over the potential nomination of former Sen. Chuck Hagel as defense secretary, despite the apology he issued days ago regarding anti-gay remarks made in 1998.
A handful of advocates who spoke to the Washington Blade are seeking more details over how Hagel would address remaining issues for LGBT service members — such as additional partner benefits for gay troops and the implementation of openly transgender service — beyond what was offered in the statement in which Hagel apologized and said he would be “committed to LGBT military families.”
Richard Socarides, a gay New York-based Democratic advocate, is among those saying Hagel should lay out more specific plan for addressing outstanding LGBT issues at the Pentagon.
“I think that if he is nominated as Defense Secretary, before we as a community agreed to support him, as some groups have already done, it would be important to hear from him what his plan is on implementing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal and on issues like transgender service,” Socarides said. “These kinds of questions would be appropriate for any defense secretary nominee, but they would be particularly appropriate were the nominee Sen. Hagel, who because of his comments would have some convincing to do.”
Hagel is having his name floated for the role at a time when LGBT rights supporters are pushing the Pentagon to grant additional partner benefits to gay service members — such as joint duty assignments, issuance of military IDs, use of the commissary and family housing — through administrative changes as well as the implementation of open service by transgender people. Since the time “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was lifted in September 2011, the Pentagon has said that it was looking into the benefits issue, but no action so far has been taken.
Jim Burroway, editor of Tucson, Ariz., based blog Box Turtle Bulletin, also said on Sunday the LGBT community should know more about Hagel’s evolution on these issues “before rushing to embrace him.”
“I do think there has been an unseemly rush to accept his apology, considering he apologized for being ‘insensitive’ but not quite for being wrong,” Burroway said. “A lot of other Republicans who changed their minds have found opportunities to articulate their new positions. I’m still waiting for Hagel to do the same.”
Prior to his apology, the concern over Hagel among LGBT advocates was largely over a 1998 quote attributed to him in the Omaha World-Herald where he called then-nominee for U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg, Jim Hormel, “openly aggressively gay.”
On Dec. 14, Hagel issued an apology to media outlets saying the remarks were insensitive and he’s “fully supportive of ‘open service’ and committed to LGBT military families.” At the time, LGBT groups such as the Human Rights Campaign and OutServe-SLDN accepted Hagel’s apology.
But Hagel also has an anti-gay record while serving in Congress. From 2001 to 2006, Hagel consistently scored a “0″ on the Human Rights Campaign’s scorecards. Hagel voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004, but didn’t cast a vote on the measure in 2006.
On Monday, gay Rep. Barney Frank announced he was outright opposed to the Hagel nomination on the grounds that the former senator’s 1998 anti-gay remarks and his congressional record on LGBT issues demonstrated “aggressively bigoted opposition” and that Hagel “voted consistently against fairness for LGBT people.”
Speaking to the Blade, Frank said he waited to put out the statement on Monday because he had been on vacation during the previous week, but had been meaning to make known his opposition to the nomination for some time.
“It is important that gay liberals and Democrats not appear to be giving our side a pass,” Frank said. “There’s no doubt Obama’s been very good on LGBT issues. It’s also the case that I don’t think he knew of this statement. A lot of people didn’t; it came out later. But now that it’s out there, I think we have to hold firm. That really was an awful statement.”
Frank said he though the Hormel apology was “very unpersuasive” and he was “surprised” groups like HRC would have accepted the apology on the day it was issued.
“The fact that he would call Jim Hormel ‘aggressively gay’ seems to me an indication of the depth of his dislike of us,” Frank said. “If he said I was ‘aggressively gay,’ I would have said, “‘Well maybe.’ But HRC, I was surprised. I don’t know why they would do that.”
Socarides, an adviser to former President Clinton on LGBT issues at the time Hormel was seeking confirmation, also took issue with the apology and is skeptical of the regret Hagel intended to convey in his statement.
“He did not call Ambassador Hormel or even try to communicate directly with him by email or letter,” Socarides said. “The apology did not address in any specific way why he made the original comments. As I recall, it was fairly clear to us at the time that the Hagel statement was as a result of pressure on him by right-wing groups who were demanding that Republican Senators oppose the nomination. Had he provided some context in the apology it might have been more persuasive.”
Socarides added the apology was “clearly written by someone else, probably by a White House staffer” and “seemed contrived and lacked the kind of context it would need to connote genuine regret.”
The White House didn’t respond to a request to comment on whether it had a role in crafting the Hagel apology or to provide any assurances that the next secretary will address the outstanding issues for LGBT service members in the wake of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
Over the weekend, President Obama addressed the potential nomination of Hagel during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” saying that nothing in Hagel’s record — including his anti-gay remarks — disqualify from the role of defense secretary and that his apology reflects “positive change” in the way the country sees LGBT issues.
“And I think it’s a testimony to what has been a positive change over the last decade in terms of people’s attitudes about gays and lesbians serving our country,” the President said. “That’s something that I’m very proud to have led, and I think the anybody who’s serves in my administration understands my attitude and position on those issues.”
The LGBT community itself is divided on Hagel as defense secretary. Opposition is largely coming from commentators — or in Frank’s case, a lawmaker who soon to leaves Congress — as most LGBT groups have accepted the apology from Hagel.
Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, is among those saying that the LGBT community shouldn’t view Hagel so harshly considering his apology.
“It was two years after Bill Clinton signed DOMA,” Keisling said. “We’ve forgiven Bill Clinton for something worse than name-calling. The point, largely, of the social justice movement is educating people, and then embracing them when they come over to your side.”
Asked whether LGBT groups should demand a commitment to openly transgender service in exchange for supporting the Hagel nomination, Keisling said those demands are underway and talks have already started at the Pentagon.
“I think we’d like that issue to get raised in confirmation hearings for whomever it is — whether it’s Chuck Hagel or somebody else,” Keisling said. “But the conversations are already starting over at the Pentagon and the next secretary of defense is going to have to be answering to that, regardless of who it is.”
John Aravosis, the gay editor of AMERICAblog often critical of HRC and the Obama administration, was also unprepared to criticize either entity over the Hagel apology or his potential nomination as defense secretary.
Aravosis was critical of the 1998 anti-gay remarks — saying they are along the lines of something the late anti-gay Sen. Jesse Helms would say — but added criticizing LGBT groups like HRC for accepting the apology is tough because what kind of commitments they’ve received offline is unknown.
“Maybe they got massive promises from Hagel directly, saying, ‘I promise I’m going to bend over backwards to work with you on the policy,'” Aravosis said. “Who knows? But that’s also part of the downside of having private conservation, is the rest of us look at it and say, ‘We have no idea why you changed your mind. We’re still uncomfortable.’ That’s the sort of the dynamic we’re in.”
The Human Rights Campaign didn’t respond to a request to comment on whether it had received any private promises in exchange for accepting the Hagel nomination or if they had a role in crafting the apology.
Frank said he thinks the opposition to Hagel is so strong now from both progressive and conservatives that the chances of Obama naming him to the post are nil.
But in the unlikely event Hagel was confirmed as Pentagon chief, Frank said he has no doubt Hagel would implement pro-LGBT policy change if ordered to do so by the White House.
“I believe that he will do whatever the president tells him,” Frank said. “I’m pretty sure if he were appointed, which I don’t think he’s going to be, he would be directed to do the right thing.”
Other high-profile opposition to Hagel has come from Hormel himself, who initially questioned the sincerity of the apology in interviews with the Washington Post and the Blade. However, the former ambassador appeared to reverse himself in a Facebook posting hours later.
Also noteworthy was a full-page ad in the New York Times taken out by the gay Republican group Log Cabin Republicans in opposition to Hagel on the basis of his anti-gay remarks and his earlier stated views on Israel and Iran. Outgoing Log Cabin executive director, R. Clarke Cooper has said they were paid for by Log Cabin members, but has declined to state how much the ad cost or identify these donors.
Socarides was careful to distance his concern about the Hagel nomination from the outright opposition that Log Cabin expressed in its full-page advertisement.
“I would not automatically oppose him, like the Log Cabin Group seems to have done, and certainly would not endorse using someone else’s money to run an advertisement against him based on his foreign policy view,” Socarides said.
Frank said he was unaware Log Cabin put out an advertisement and utterly rejected the notion his opposition against Hagel was along the same lines as the gay GOP group.
“I was hoping I could to talk to you about substance and not stupid things,” Frank responded to the Blade. “I mean, you sound like Joe McCarthy, saying ‘You’re siding with the Communists.’ I didn’t know that Log Cabin had taken that ad until I wrote my statement. … Do you ever write about substance and never about a lot of political bullshit? Why did I do it? Because I don’t think the man should be secretary of defense. I was on vacation, came back and wrote my statement.”
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
LGBTQ people are leaving Orthodox Judaism behind
European Parliament backs EU-wide conversion therapy ban
Democracy Forward files FOIA request for State Department bathroom policy records
-
Federal Government3 days agoHouse Republicans push nationwide ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill
-
The White House4 days ago
From red carpet to chaos: A first-person narrative of the WHCD shooting
-
News3 days ago
LGBTQ people are leaving Orthodox Judaism behind
-
European Union1 day ago
European Parliament backs EU-wide conversion therapy ban
