Connect with us

Opinions

Urgent concerns arise when congressional staff face ethics investigations

We need safeguards to mitigate risk of unfair outcomes

Published

on

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Congressional staff tend to avoid engaging in conduct that could reflect poorly on the members they represent or that which would otherwise bring them out from behind the scenes and into the spotlight.

Last week, however, was the second time in which I broke a story about a chief of staff on Capitol Hill who found himself the subject of a complaint to the U.S. House Ethics Committee, the body whose primary responsibility is investigating reports of unethical and unlawful conduct by Americaā€™s elected representatives.

In the first, Marjorie Taylor Greene filed a report against Democratic Rep. Jake Auchinclossā€™s top aide because he had placed stickers over a transphobic sign that the far-right Georgia congresswoman had displayed outside her office.Ā 

The second complaint came from an official with the Biden-Harris administration over an especially combative and anti-trans email that was sent by the highest-ranking deputy in a West Virginia Republicanā€™s Congressional office.

The two cases are not otherwise analogous. As the emissaries of lawmakers who are responsible to their constituents, staff should be held accountable for out-of-bounds behavior like sending offensive emails to harass colleagues on Capitol Hill or in the federal government. 

By contrast, decorating a poster in the Longworth House Office Building without permission is hardly a crime that should be escalated to the Ethics Committee, particularly not when the poster is offensive to members of a marginalized community and was hung in the first place to provoke a colleague across the hall who has a trans daughter.

If a monthslong probe exploring whether a career Hill staffer had brought discredit upon the House of Representatives with his stickers was not absurd enough, it was kicked off by none other than Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has been guilty of that charge virtually every day since she was elected. (Recall, for instance, that she has called for violence against her political opponents, including by publishing a video on social media in which she said then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi deserves the death penalty.)

A member of Congress wields a tremendous amount of power relative to even the seniormost Capitol Hill staff, a fact that was brought into sharp relief for Auchinclossā€™s chief of staff as he sought to defend himself against not just the committee’s investigation but also an affidavit by the Capitol Police in support of an arrest warrant along with threats and harassment so severe that his home was monitored by law enforcement.

The House Ethics Committee declined to comment when I reached out last week to confirm receipt of the complaint filed against the GOP staffer, just as they had refused to provide information about the status of the case initiated by Greeneā€™s report.

The committeeā€™s Senate counterpart is even more of a black box.

An article by the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan government accountability group, notes that in the recent indictment of New Jersey Democratic Senator Bob Menendez, ā€œthe shocking details revealed by the allegations seemingly had no end.ā€

The evidence against him was sufficiently flagrant and longstanding, the article argues, to ā€œbeg the question: Is the Senate incapable of finding and rooting out potential corruption before it becomes a crime?ā€

Part of the problem, according to CLC, is that the Upper Chamberā€™s ethics committee provides no means by which a complaint can be seen through to its investigation and resolution. The public knows very little about what the committee does, perhaps because the committee does very little: a study in 2023 found that none of the 1,523 reports that were filed over a period of 15 years resulted in any formal disciplinary sanctions.

Obviously, full transparency is impossible when sensitive information must be kept confidential to protect the integrity of an investigation. However, and especially if we are going to continue seeing complaints against Congressional staff rather than the lawmakers they serve, the committees should provide more insight into their processes and decision making.

Measures could include safeguards designed to mitigate the risk of unfair outcomes when investigations are brought by members of Congress and target those who have far less power. A mechanism requiring the investigators to share more information about cases under their review, to the extent possible, would also be wise ā€” because even when the alleged conduct by a staffer may warrant a complaint, time and resources might be better spent rooting out misconduct by members of Congress, which is almost always far more consequential. 

We should also contend with the question of whether ethics committees are ever the appropriate place to explore and adjudicate allegations against staffers, since members are fully capable of enforcing the rules in their offices. 

As demonstrated by the long and tortured process through which George Santos was finally booted from Congress, getting rid of an elected lawmaker is far more difficult than, say, firing a chief of staff. 

Ultimately, perhaps the right question is: how can we hold elected representatives to a higher standard such that they model good behavior for their employ as well as for their constituents and Congressional colleagues?

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Opinions

Science must not be a weapon against trans people

HHS directive would fund studies on ā€˜detransitionā€™ among children

Published

on

(Image by jpgon/Bigstock)

A concerning research directive is quietly circulating through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The directive, issued in response to presidential Executive Order 14187, calls for the National Institutes of Health to fund studies focused on ā€œregretā€ and ā€œdetransitionā€ among children who have accessed gender-affirming care. It explicitly demands that researchers avoid ā€œsubsidizing or incentivizingā€ such care ā€“ language that is both vague and deeply ideological.

President Trumpā€™s executive order, titled ā€œProtecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,ā€ was signed in January 2025 and frames all gender-affirming care for minors as inherently dangerous. It calls for an investigation into the ā€œlong-term side effectsā€ of such care and restricts federal funding to any institution providing it. In effect, it lays the groundwork for a federally sanctioned research agenda that aims not to understand transgender health but to discredit it.

Behind the recent HHS memo lies a dangerous truth: The federal government is attempting to repurpose science as a tool for political ideology. If this directive proceeds, it will not only erode the credibility of public health research, but it will also put transgender lives at risk.

This warning is not hyperbole. The memo uses inflammatory language like ā€œchemical and surgical mutilationā€ to describe standard gender-affirming treatments such as hormone therapy and surgery. These terms are not neutral. They are the rhetorical weapons of anti-trans movements, now embedded in federal policy language. Their use signals a chilling shift: science is no longer being asked to explore, understand, or improve lives. It is being asked to justify harm.

Letā€™s be clear: Regret following gender-affirming care is exceedingly rare. Evidence suggests that the regret rate among individuals who have had gender-affirming surgery is less than 1%, compared to a surgical regret prevalence of about 14% among the general population. Moreover, studies have found that when transgender people report regret following gender-affirming surgery, it is often related to external factors like lack of support from family and peers.Ā 

The evidence is consistent and overwhelming: gender-affirming care, including gender-affirming surgery, improves mental health, reduces suicidality, decreases substance use, and affirms a personā€™s identity and autonomy. Thatā€™s why the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, and every major medical organization in the United States recognize the safety, efficacy, and medical necessity of gender-affirming care when provided in accordance with established guidelines.

And yet, this new directive demands the opposite. It explicitly instructs researchers to avoid using methods that ā€œsubsidizeā€ or ā€œincentivizeā€ transition ā€“ a vague prohibition that could limit recruitment, constrain study design, and exclude institutions that provide care. It also bars federal funding to any site offering gender-affirming care to minors, ensuring that the very institutions with the clinical expertise and trust of transgender communities are excluded from the research altogether.

This is not how science works. It is how propaganda works.

There is no scientific integrity in a process that defines its conclusions in advance. There is no public benefit in research that singles out one of the most vulnerable populations ā€“ transgender youth ā€“ as the sole subject of scrutiny while erasing their overwhelmingly positive outcomes. There is no ethical justification for using federal funds to stigmatize identities and restrict medical freedom.

All aspects of transgender health ā€“ positive, negative, and complex ā€“ deserve rigorous scientific study. That is what good research does. It seeks truth through comprehensive, community-engaged inquiry. But this directive does not aim for understanding; it fixates exclusively on harm. By selectively funding studies on regret and detransition and explicitly discouraging research that might affirm or support transition, it transforms science from a tool of discovery into an instrument of ideological control. 

The consequences of this directive are real. It will erode trust in health research, particularly among transgender people who already face systemic discrimination in medicine. It will chill academic inquiry, pushing researchers away from transgender health for fear of political reprisal. And it will feed a wave of state-level legislation banning gender-affirming care ā€“ legislation that increasingly cites distorted or misrepresented science as justification.

This directive is not just an attack on trans rights. It is an attack on science itself.

We must respond with urgency.

First, institutions that receive NIH funding must speak out. Silence enables political interference to become normalized. Deans, department chairs, and ethics boards must draw a clear line: public health research cannot be allowed to serve discriminatory ends.

Second, scientific societies and journals must reaffirm their commitment to ethical, community-engaged, and evidence-based research on transgender health. This means actively promoting rigorous work that reflects the full complexity of transgender peopleā€™s lives. Not just those experiences that fit a political narrative.

Third, Congress must exercise its oversight powers. Lawmakers should demand transparency around how and why this directive was issued and ensure that federally funded research respects both scientific standards and human rights.

And finally, the research community must organize. Transgender health researchers, bioethicists, and community partners need to work together to defend the autonomy of science and the dignity of research participants. This is not a moment for neutrality. It is a moment for moral clarity.

We are living through a time when transgender people are being targeted by laws, banned from public life, and erased from textbooks. Now, the very tools of science are being turned against them. If we donā€™t stop this weaponization now, the damage wonā€™t just fall on transgender communities; it will fall on all of us who believe in evidence, equity, and truth.


Harry Barbee, Ph.D., is an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Their work focuses on LGBTQ+ health equity and public policy.

Continue Reading

Opinions

D.C. leaders must show up for LGBTQ+ communities

Silence is not an option amid relentless attacks

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

At a time when D.C. and the LGBTQ+ community are under relentless attack, we cannot afford silence ā€” or inaction. The DC LGBTQ+ Budget Coalition, a grassroots alliance of more than 20 LGBTQ-led and LGBTQ-serving organizations and individuals, is calling on Mayor Bowser, the D.C. Council, and every level of D.C. government to act with urgency and purpose in this yearā€™s budget process to invest in our community. Our lives, our futures, and our rights are on the line ā€” not just nationally, but here at home in the District. How D.C. as a city responds in the face of hate sends a powerful message to the rest of the country. 

We formed this coalition because LGBTQ+ people in the District ā€” especially Black, Brown, trans, disabled, and low-income residents ā€” deserve more than token inclusion. We deserve policies, investments, and leadership that center our lived realities and deliver on equity. While Congress tries to strip D.C. of home rule and holds our budget hostage, our local government has the power ā€” and responsibility ā€” to lead.

We are not a performative alliance. We are a community-driven movement. From housing to healthcare to workforce development, we believe budgets are moral documents ā€” and D.C.ā€™s budget must reflect the values of equity, justice, and liberation.

National Context Demands Local Action

Just this year, members of Congress introduced damaging legislation to reverse D.C.ā€™s home rule, stripping District residents of the fundamental rights of self-governance enjoyed by their own constituents. Additionally, the White House seeks to rule over us by executive order, issuing edicts to overturn our laws. Adding further insult to injury, extremists in the House of Representatives are holding $1.1 billion of D.C.ā€™s own tax revenue hostage to their radical anti-democratic agenda.

Moreover, this administration continues its assault on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, undermining civil rights protections across the country. We are not simply witnessing bureaucratic shifts; we are standing at the edge of a cliff, staring down a coordinated rollback of the very protections our communities have bled to secure.

Veterans of past queer liberation fights remind us that weā€™ve been here before. From the Lavender Scare to Stonewall to ACT UP, from the fight for marriage equality to the ongoing battle for trans rights, queer warriors have long known what it means to survive government neglect, societal backlash, and moral panic. Their testimonies warn us: This moment is severe. This moment is familiar. And this moment requires us to act.

These are not theoretical attacks. They are strategic, structural, and escalating. In this context, D.C. must serve as a model for sanctuary, resilience, and resistance. That means investing in communities ā€” not abandoning them.

We know that our local leadership has, at times, moved preemptively to comply with federal executive orders ā€” even when those directives run counter to our values. And while the mayor has publicly affirmed equity, housing, and inclusivity as core priorities, this moment demands more than words. We call on the mayor and District leaders to stand firm in those stated commitments and meet this moment with the clarity in the Districtā€™s budget. D.C. must not be a conduit for federal overreach, but a bulwark against it.

Our FY26 Priorities

In this yearā€™s budget, weā€™re calling for the D.C. government to protect targeted investments in:

ā€¢ Public Health: Restore and expand local funding to fill the dangerous gaps left by federal cuts to HIV prevention and mental health services. Ensure culturally competent care for LGBTQ+ residents, especially those with disabilities and chronic health conditions.

ā€¢ Employment and Economic Equity: Sustain and grow workforce development programs for trans and gender-diverse (TGD) residents. Expand partnerships with employers and support entrepreneurial training by and for the TGD community.

ā€¢ Housing: Invest in long-term housing solutions, including for LGBTQ+ youth and seniors, and protect programs like Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA) that keep people residents housed.

ā€¢ Safety and Community Support: Fund LGBTQ+ survivor shelters and IPV/SA services, ensure disability and language access, and streamline government grant processes for community-based organizations.

Weā€™ve outlined these and other priorities in our full FY26 Budget and Policy Platform, recently delivered to the Mayor and D.C. Council. But we know that a letter alone isnā€™t enoughā€”we must take action.

Weā€™re Organizing ā€” and Weā€™re Not Alone

In this past week, we launched a letter-writing campaign to mobilize D.C. residents to urge their Council members to prioritize LGBTQ+ budget needs. We are also releasing a citywide sign-on letter for partner coalitions and ally organizations to demand the same.

Our members are showing up at budget hearings, meeting with agencies, and organizing communities across all eight wards. And while weā€™re proud of the momentum, we need our community to join us. We need every resident, organization, and elected leader to get in this fight.

How You Can Get Involved

Hereā€™s how you can join the movement:

ā€¢ Individuals: Sign our Action Network letter to Council members and the Mayor.

ā€¢ Testify or submit written testimony at budget hearings to uplift our priorities.

ā€¢ Call and email your Council members ā€” demand full inclusion of LGBTQ+ needs in the FY26 budget.

Together, we can ensure that D.C.ā€™s budget reflects the lived realities and urgent needs of LGBTQ+ communities across all eight wards.

The question before D.C.ā€™s leaders is clear: Will you choose to look the other way or will you join us in taking action?


Heidi Ellis is coordinator of the DC LGBTQ+ Budget Coalition. Erin Whelan is executive director of SMYAL (coalition member).Ā 

Continue Reading

Opinions

LGBTQ elder voices matter now more than ever

Global Story Archive highlights often ignored perspectives

Published

on

Kasha Nabagesera (Screen capture via SAGE/YouTube)

Kasha Nabagesera is widely regarded as the Mother of the Ugandan LGBTQ+ human rights movement. As one of the most prominent human rights activists of our time, she is no stranger to speaking publicly about her life. However, when I had the privilege of sitting down with her this February, she opened up about a part of her story that is often overlookedā€”or, even worse, ridiculed. Aging.

When Kasha turned 40, she began to notice a shift in how people viewed and spoke about her lived experience. In the years since, she has received hurtful and dismissive messages from younger LGBTQ+ people who believe her age renders her opinions and perspective irrelevant. These individuals fail to recognize that the sacrifices made by Kasha and other elders have paved the way for todayā€™s young queer people to live their lives openly and proudly.

Disregard for LGBTQ+ elders is not just disrespectfulā€”itā€™s a missed opportunity for connection at a time when solidarity among LGBTQ+ people is desperately needed. The number of anti-LGBTQ+ bills continues to rise in state legislatures across the U.S., and about one-third of the world’s countries, including 60 UN member states, still criminalize consensual same-sex sexual acts.

The reality is that our elders are true pioneers of the LGBTQ+ movement worldwide. They have survived decades of discrimination and state-sanctioned violence, leading them to face many unique challenges.

Many report having to ā€œgo back into the closetā€ to access care in later years, lack family support networks, and discrimination in housing and healthcare. LGBTQ+ older adults are also less likely to have retirement savings due to decades of employment discrimination.

Through these struggles, LGBTQ+ elders have developed remarkable wisdom, and their lived experiences can provide a roadmap for resilience in the face of new obstacles. But too often, we fail to listen to them, and their contributors are forgotten.

Over the last three and a half years as director of International Programs at SAGE, I have spoken with hundreds of elders worldwide about their lives and legacies. Most have shared similar experiences of ageism and a desire to pass on their knowledge to younger generations.

One of those elders is Reingard Wagnar, a 74-year-old lesbian and activist from Germany. She said that not only are older women in society rendered invisible anyway, but it is especially true for older lesbians. She wants people to know that elder LGBTQ+ folks are here, and they have much to share.

Another elder I had the honor of meeting, Kevin Mchawiro, is a Kenyan journalist and believes stories can also serve as a source of inspiration and that love does indeed win.

To collect, preserve, share and amplify the stories of elders like Kasha, Reingard, and Kevin, I created The Global Story Archive. Supported by SAGE and in collaboration with a global network of not-for-profit organizations and independent activists, this first-of-its-kind collection features the voices of dozens of LGBTQ+ elders who are eager to share their perspectives across generations and borders.

However, in the wake of Trumpā€™s Executive Orders on Foreign Aid, the uncertainty of where funding and support lies, and what the future looks like, SAGE must close its global operations. This suspension is happening in tandem with the dismantling of foreign aid programs that advance the well-being of other underserved populations, including immigrants, women, and those burdened by disease.

The loss extends beyond funding cuts or policy shifts; it represents the erosion of programs that have fostered solidarity and advanced the well-being of us all.

If you find yourself asking how to find resilience in this turmoil, the answer is simple: look to our elders. Our international community of LGBTQ+ elders has lived through and witnessed moments of upheaval, tragedy, and triumph, and they hold priceless knowledge to counsel younger generations through hardship.

The state of the world is uncertain, but as elders will tell you, it can get better.

To hear and learn from the voices of our global community of LGBTQ+ elders, please visit The Global Story Archive.


Hannah Yore is an international health and human rights advocate with expertise in aging, care work, and LGBTIQ human rights. She is the former director of International Programs at SAGE and is a dedicated palliative care and end-of-life doula.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular