News
Barr hints at continuing anti-LGBT policies at Trump Justice Department
Nominee calls for two-way


William Barr hinted during his confirmation hearing he’d continue anti-LGBT policies at the Justice Department. (Blade photo by Michael Key)
William Barr, President Trump’s pick to become the next attorney general, held his cards close to the vest on LGBT issues Tuesday during his confirmation hearing, but hinted upon confirmation he’d pursue the anti-LGBT policies of his predecessor Jeff Sessions.
The answers from Barr suggest he’d continue to uphold the Justice Department’s view that LGBT people aren’t protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964, which bars sex discrimination in the workforce. Additionally, Barr suggested he’d uphold religious freedom even at the expense of anti-LGBT discrimination.
In his opening statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Barr recognized the increasing number of hate crimes in the United States, including LGBT people, and pledged to address them under the Matthew Shepard & James Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.
“We can only survive and thrive as a nation if we are mutually tolerant of each other’s differences, whether they be differences based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or political thinking,” Barr said. “And yet, we see some people violently attacking others simply because of their differences. We must have zero tolerance for such crimes, and I will make this a priority as attorney general if confirmed.”
But under questioning on LGBT issues from Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Barr indicated enforcement of the hate crimes law would likely be the extent of his pro-LGBT advocacy at the Justice Department.
Booker initiated the questioning on LGBT issues by referencing a 1995 article Barr wrote for a conservative Catholic publication that laments growing acceptance of the LGBT movement compared to religious communities.
Asserting the 1995 article demonstrated a view being LGBT was immoral, Booker asked Barr whether he still holds those views, Barr replied “no,” but disputed the article conveyed anti-LGBT views.
After Booker insisted he was quoting the actual language, Barr said he’d inform the committee about his views. Barr reflected on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling for same-sex marriage.
“If I had been voting on it at the time — my view is that under the law, under the Constitution, as I originally conceived it before it was decided by the Supreme Court, marriage was to be regulated by the states, and if it was brought to me, I would have favored martial unions, single-sex,” Barr said.
When Booker interjected he was questioning Barr about his views in the 1995 article and whether the LGBT movement is immoral, Barr expressed a need for tolerance.
“In a pluralistic society like ours, there has be to a live-and-let-live attitude, and mutual tolerance, which has to be a two-way street,” Barr said. “My concern, and the rest of the article addresses this, is I am perfectly fine with the law as it is, for example, with gay marriage, perfectly fine, but I want accommodation for religion.”
When the New Jersey Democrat interjected LGBT youth are disproportionately bullied at schools, Barr interrupted to recognize anti-LGBT hate crimes. Booker acknowledged that before adding many LGBT youth report they are missing school because of fear of being bullied and are disproportionately homeless.
Booker asked Barr whether he thinks laws “designed to protect LGBT individuals from discrimination contribute to what you describe as a breakdown for traditional morality.”
Barr replied “no,” but added, “I also believe there has to be accommodation to religious communities.”
Booker acknowledged, “You and I believe in freedom of religion,” but shifted the focus to anti-gay workplace discrimination. Barr replied, “I think’s that wrong.”
When Booker asked whether that means the Justice Department should protect LGBT kids from harassment and hate crimes and pursue efforts to protect the civil rights of LGBT Americans, Barr replied. “I support that.”
Referencing his opening statement, Barr said, “As I said in the beginning, I’m very concerned about the increase in hate crimes.”
But when Booker asked Barr if he sees a role for the Justice Department in banning anti-LGBT discrimination, the nominee had a different take. Barr replied, “If Congress passes such a law.”
Barr then referenced the petitions currently before the U.S. Supreme Court seeking clarification on whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination on the basis of sex in the workplace, applies to cases of anti-LGBT discrimination.
“I think the litigation going on now on Title VII is what the the 1964 act actually contemplated, but personally, I think —,” Barr said.
Before Barr could finish and venture an opinion on Title VII, Booker interrupted and asked to verify whether lawmakers contemplated including LGBT people in Title VII. Barr rejected that idea, saying “no.”
“I think it was male-female that they were talking about when they said sex in the ’64 act,” Barr added.
Booker then interjected again by conflating anti-LGBT discrimination with sexual harassment: “So protecting someone’s basic rights to be free from discrimination because of sexual harassment is not something the Department of Justice should be protecting?”
Playing with one of the many U.S. Senate coasters before him on the witness stand, Barr insisted the onus is on Congress to make the law.
“I’m saying Congress passes the law, the Justice Department enforces the law,” Barr said. “I think the ’64 act on its face — and this is what is being litigated, what does it cover? I think for like three or four decades, the LGBT community has been trying to amend the law.”
Booker interrupted again before Barr could finish, saying the Obama administration’s Justice Department “was working to protect LGBT kids from discrimination.” (The Justice Department in the Obama years asserted anti-trans discrimination was illegal under Title VII, but took no position with respect to the law on anti-gay discrimination despite pleas from LGBT rights supporters.)
When Booker asked if Barr would pursue the Obama administration practices, Barr replied, “I don’t know what you’re referring to.”
“I’m against discrimination against anyone because of some status, their gender or their sexual orientation or whatever,” Barr continued.
Hirono picked up where Booker left off, asking Barr directly about the Justice Department’s friend-of-the-court brief before the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals arguing anti-gay discrimination isn’t covered under Title VII. As Hirono noted, both the Second Circuit and the Seventh Circuit have “rejected the department’s argument” about the law.
The Hawaii Democrat asked Barr if he’d appeal those decisions to the U.S. Supreme Court. In response, Barr seemingly referenced the petitions before justices, noting, “I think it is going up to the Supreme Court.”
When Hirono asked if DOJ will continue to argue Title VII doesn’t bar anti-gay discrimination, Barr initially declined to answer directly.
“It’s pending litigation and I haven’t gotten in to review the department’s litigation position, but the matter will be decided by the Supreme Court,” Barr said.
Hirono responded: “That sounds like a ‘yes’ to me. The department will continue to push the argument that has been rejected.”
At this point, Barr tipped his hand on his view Title VII doesn’t cover anti-gay discrimination.
“It’s not just the department’s argument,” Barr said. “It’s been sort of common understanding for almost 40 years.”
Asked by Hirono if discrimination is OK, Barr replied, “That’s not at all what I’m saying. I’m saying the question is the interpretation of the statute passed in 1964.”
“As I’ve already said, I personally, as a matter of my own personal feelings think there should be laws that prohibit discrimination against gay people,” Hirono said.
When Hirono asked Barr if he’d review the Justice Department’s position, Barr replied, “No. Because there’s a difference between law and policy.”
“I will enforce the laws as passed by Congress,” Barr said. “I’m not going to amend them. I’m not going to undercut them. I’m not going to try to work my way around them and evade them.
Hirono responded: “The DOJ doesn’t have to file an amicus brief either.”
The Hawaii Democrat wasn’t done on LGBT issues, asking Barr about an explosive report in the New York Times asserting the Department of Health & Human Services was preparing a rule to define transgender people out of existence under Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972.
Asked by Hirono if he believes transgender people are protected from discrimination under Title IX, Barr dodged.
“I think that matter’s being litigated in the Supreme Court, too,” Barr said.
When Barr added he doesn’t know the Justice Department’s position on the issue, Hirono said she’d ask him to review the issue.
LGBT groups have raised concerns about Barr’s confirmation as attorney general, asserting he lacks a commitment to protecting civil rights. (One longtime gay friend of Barr’s, however, former Time Warner general counsel Paul Cappuccio, has defended the nominee, telling the Blade, “He’s not going to ever let people be discriminated against, OK?”)
Jon Davidson, chief counsel of Freedom for All Americans, said Barr’s testimony “did little to assuage those concerns” of LGBT rights groups.
“While he testified he is “fine” with “gay marriage,” his comments that there “has to be accommodation to religion” — something not required or even permitted for other people’s marriages — is very disturbing,” Davidson said.
Davidson also raised concerns about Barr’s response on whether Title VII should cover anti-gay discrimination.
“In addition, although he said he thinks firing someone based on their sexual orientation is ‘wrong,’ he refused to disagree with the anti-LGBTQ positions the Justice Department has been taking when it comes to Title VII and he erroneously asserted that Title VII should be limited to what Congress believed it was accomplishing in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” Davidson said. “That position has already been rejected several times by the Supreme Court, which has said that what Congress had in mind at the time is not controlling.
Ultimately, Davidson had a dismal forecast for Barr’s stewardship of the Justice Department.
“It appears that he intends to carry forward the positions of former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, which have consistently opposed equal rights for LGBTQ people,” Davidson said.
Sharon McGowan, chief strategy officer for Lambda Legal, also said Barr’s testimony didn’t allay her concerns.
“I think he said absolutely nothing to alleviate any of the concerns that we have based on his record, and if anything, his comments only demonstrate that he is exactly what his record suggests that he is, which is someone who will not be a champion for civil rights generally or LGBT equality specifically,” McGowan said.
Barr’s confirmation hearing took place as the Justice Department is defending President Trump’s transgender military ban in court and has called on the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. Barr didn’t address the policy, nor did any member of the Senate Judiciary Committee inquire about Barr’s view on the issue.
Obituary
Nanette Kazaoka, an unlikely AIDS activist, dies at 83
Member of ACT-UP, longtime social justice advocate

Nanette Kazaoka, a well-known figure in the fight for HIV/AIDS awareness and the rights of marginalized communities, passed away on Oct. 2 at her home in New York City. She was 83. The cause of death was complications from vascular dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, according to a statement from her daughter Kelly Kochendorfer.
Kazaoka was an advocate for justice, particularly in the early days of the AIDS crisis, when she became a member of the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power, or ACT-Up. She is perhaps best remembered for her participation in a 2004 protest in front of Madison Square Garden during the Republican National Convention, when she and 11 fellow activists staged a dramatic naked demonstration, demanding debt cancellation for impoverished countries, according to a statement from the family.
“Bush, Stop AIDS. Drop the Debt Now!” they chanted, with slogans stenciled in black paint on their bodies. The bold protest drew national attention and underscored the urgency of global debt relief as a key element in the fight against AIDS.
She was born Nanette Natalina Bottinelli on June 12, 1941, in New York City. Her father, Angelo, worked as a waiter at the St. Regis Hotel, while her mother, Betty McComb, was a part-time burlesque dancer.
She married her first husband, Fred Kochendorfer, in 1963, and they had two children together, Kim Skrobe and Kelly, both of whom survive her.
Kazaoka’s journey to Fire Island marked a transformative period in her life. Kochendorfer wanted to live there, and so they began renting in 1967. Kazaoka then made a bold decision that would shape her future: She left her husband for another man and began living on Fire Island in 1968-1969, with the children attending school in Ocean Beach, according to the family’s statement.
This period coincided with the early days of the gay rights movement, as Fire Island was emerging as a hub for LGBTQ culture. Her experiences during these years contributed to the strong sense of activism and solidarity that would later define her role in ACT-UP and the broader fight for LGBTQ rights.
Kazaoka’s second husband, Katsushiga “Kats” Kazaoka, a Japanese-American psychologist who had been interred during World War II, died of cancer in 1984, pushing her to enter the workforce as a receptionist while studying occupational therapy at Downstate Medical Center. By 1990, she had earned her degree and sought work with AIDS patients.
In 1988, a close friend introduced her to ACT-UP, sparking the start of her full-time dedication to AIDS activism, the family said. Kazaoka became known for her passionate, unrelenting activism, whether protesting at City Hall or challenging anti-LGBTQ policies at St. Luke’s Hospital.
Kazaoka’s activism spanned 35 years, making her a beloved and respected figure within ACT-UP and beyond, the family noted. She was featured in Sarah Schulman’s “Let the Record Show: A Political History of ACT-Up New York, 1987-1993” as well as “Act-Up Oral History, No. 162,” a digital history. She was the cover photo of “Fag Hags, Divas and Moms: The Legacy of Straight Women in the AIDS Community,” and was included in The New York Times T Living Magazine story, “LEGENDS PIONEERS AND SURVIVORS.
Her dedication to science continued even after her passing: She donated her brain to the Mount Sinai NIH Brain and Tissue Repository for research to advance the understanding of the human brain health and disease to help end dementia, the family said.
Along with her daughters, Kazaoka is survived by her son-in-law John Skrobe, granddaughter Stella Skrobe and daughter-in-law Christine Arax, all of New York. She and her third husband, Paul Haskell, divorced in 2000.

News
Here are 3 events to celebrate Trans Day of Visibility
Today marks the first day in the 2025 Trans Week of Visibility

Finding the right event to celebrate in community or just gather in a safe space can be challenging, so we put together a list of SoCal events happening during Trans Week of Visibility. The week-long list of events will lead up to Trans Day of Visibility, a day meant to bring trans issues, perspectives and experiences at the forefront, celebrate progress and unite against the erasure of trans lives.
This year, TDOV is particularly important to the LGBTQ+ community because of the ongoing attacks against rights, freedoms and protections. Major news outlets like The New York Times have continued to platform cisgender people speaking on trans rights and have left trans people out of the conversation.
A report by Media Matters and GLAAD finds that The NY Times “excluded the perspectives of trans people from two-thirds of its stories about anti-trans legislation in the year following public criticism for its handling of the topic.”
Dawn Ennis, Washington Blade reporter and professor at Hartford University, wrote an article in 2019 regarding the ongoing epidemic declared by the American Medical Association, which disproportionately affects Black, trans women.
Since then, each year has been a record-breaking year for the amount of proposed and passed legislation targeting trans rights. The Trans Legislation Tracker is currently tracking 725 active bills across 49 states. That marks yet another record-breaking year in the ongoing political attacks toward the trans community.
(more…)India
LGBTQ+ poets included in India’s premier literary festival
Sahitya Akademi seen as mirror of government’s cultural agenda

India’s premier literary institution on March 7 announced it would allow LGBTQ+ poets to participate in its marquee Festival of Letters in New Delhi.
The Sahitya Akademi, often seen as a mirror of the government’s cultural agenda, for the first time allowed these poets into a high-profile poetry reading at the Rabindra Bhavan. They shared the stage with more than 700 writers across 50 languages.
Culture and Tourism Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat kicked off the Festival of Letters with Mahesh Dattani, the acclaimed English-language playwright famed for his provocative works, as the main guest. Dubbed Asia’s grandest literary gathering, the Sahitya Akademi took place over six days under the “Indian Literary Traditions” theme.
The 2025 Festival of Letters showcased a sweeping range of voices — young writers, women writers, Dalit authors from marginalized castes, Northeast Indian scribes, tribal poets, and LGBTQ+ poets — cementing its reputation as a literary kaleidoscope.
Kalki Subramaniam, a leading transgender rights activist and author, on March 9 chaired a literary session titled “Discussion on Literary Works of LGBTQ Writers in the 21st Century,” which spotlighted contemporary queer voices.
“It was enriching to listen to the profound thoughts of LGBT writers from various parts of the country in their speeches,” said Subramaniam. “The session was particularly memorable with the participation of A. Revathi Amma from Tamil Nadu, Reshma Prasad from Bihar, Sanjana Simon from New Delhi, and Devika Devendra Manglamukhi and Shivin from Uttar Pradesh and Aksaya K Rath from Orissa.”
Subramaniam discussed how global politics shape gender rights and the persistent erasure of trans identity, urging a unified push for solidarity within the LGBTQ+ community. She stressed the vital need to elevate queer works and writers, casting their voices as essential to the literary vanguard.
“It was a pleasure to meet great writers from around the country in the festival as well as meet my writer activist friends Sajana Simon and Revathi Amma after a long time,” said Subramaniam.

The government on March 12, 1954, formally established the Sahitya Akademi. A government resolution outlined its mission as a national entity tasked with advancing Indian literature and upholding rigorous literary standards; a mandate it has pursued for seven decades.
The Sahitya Akademi in 2018 broke ground in Kolkata, hosting the country’s first exclusive gathering of trans writers, a landmark nod to queer voices in Indian literature.
Hoshang Dinshaw Merchant, India’s pioneering openly gay poet and a leading voice in the nation’s gay liberation movement, on March 9 recited a poem at the Festival of Letters, his verses carrying the weight of his decades-long quest for queer recognition. He later thanked the session’s chair for welcoming the community, a gesture that underscored the event’s third day embrace of diverse voices.
The Sahitya Akademi in 2024 honored K. Vaishali with the Yuva Puraskar for her memoir “Homeless: Growing Up Lesbian and Dyslexic in India,” a raw account of navigating queerness and neurodivergence. Vaishali in a post-win interview reflected on India’s deep-seated conservatism around sexuality, noting she wrote from a place of relative safety — an upper-caste privilege that shielded her as she bared her truth. The award, she said, was the Akademi’s indelible seal on her lived experience, a validation no one could challenge.
The Sahitya Akademi’s inclusion of LGBTQ+ writers in its main program this year jars with the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government’s conservative stance, which, in 2023, opposed same-sex marriage in the Supreme Court, arguing it erodes Indian family values. Yet, under Shekhawat, the Sahitya Akademi’s spotlight on queer voices at the Rabindra Bhavan suggests it could be a tentative crack in a regime typically rooted in tradition.
The Festival of Letters hosted a translators’ meeting on March 10, spotlighting P. Vimala’s 2024 award-winning Tamil translation of Nalini Jameela’s “Autobiography of a Sex Worker,” a work steeped in marginalized voices that include queer perspectives.
This platform gained significant support from the BJP-led government, with Shekhawat securing a 15 percent budget increase to ₹47 crore ($5.63 million) in 2024. In Tamil Nadu state, however, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam’s Chief Minister Muthuvel Karunanidhi Stalin, has long opposed such cross-linguistic efforts, fearing dilution of Tamil identity amid decades of anti-Hindi sentiment — a tension the Sahitya Akademi’s inclusive showcase sought to bypass.
‘The Akademi is very inclusive and has a friendly festival ambience,” Subramaniam told the Los Angeles Blade.
California
Equality California to release 2024 Legislative Scorecard and rally at State Capitol
The rally will unite LGBTQ+ community members and political leaders

Equality California will hold a rally at the State Capitol’s West Steps in response to rising anti-LGBTQ+ political attacks on Wednesday, March 26 at 11:00 AM PT.
This rally will also serve as an opportunity to discuss the release of the 2024 Legislative Scorecard, which is a report of politicians and sponsored legislation that further and cement the protections of LGBTQ+ rights. The scorecard also analyzes voting methods and results, gathering an overall score that reflects legislators’ votes on EQCA-sponsored legislation.
Equality California is the nation’s largest statewide civil rights organization working towards bringing justice to LGBTQ+ issues by rallying against legislative issues that attack LGBTQ+ rights.
This call to action will serve as part of the organization’s annual LGBTQ+ Advocacy Day, held each year to bring together constituents with lawmakers in support of pro-LGBTQ+ legislation.
EQCA has a line-up of featured political speakers to include Assembly Democratic Caucus Chair Rick Chavez Zbur, Legislative LGBTQ Caucus Chair and Assemblymember Chris Ward, Legislative LGBTQ Caucus Vice Chair and Senator Caroline Menjivar, among others.
This event is meant to bring attention to the rise in political attacks, unite in community and mobilize efforts toward preserving LGBTQ+ rights for the state of California and beyond.
Japan
Japan’s marriage equality movement gains steam
Nagoya High Court this month ruled lack of legal recognition is unconstitutional

Japan’s Nagoya High Court on March 7 ruled the lack of legal recognition of same-sex marriages violates the country’s constitution.
The plaintiffs argued Japan’s Civil Code and Family Registration Act, which does not recognize same-sex marriages, violates the country’s constitution. They cited Article 14, Paragraph 1, which guarantees equality under the law and prohibits discrimination based on factors that include race, creed, sex, or social status. The plaintiff also invoked Article 24, Paragraph 2, which emphasizes that laws governing marriage and family matters must uphold individual dignity and the fundamental equality of the sexes.
The plaintiffs sought damages of 1 million yen ($6,721.80) under Article 1, Paragraph 1, of the State Redress Act, which provides for compensation when a public official, through intentional or negligent acts in the course of their duties, causes harm to another individual. The claim centered on the government’s failure to enact necessary legislation, which prevented the plaintiff from marrying.
The court noted same-sex relationships have existed naturally long before the establishment of legal marriage. It emphasized that recognizing such relationships as legitimate is a fundamental legal interest connected to personal dignity, transcending the confines of traditional legal frameworks governing marriage and family.
The court further observed same-sex couples encounter significant disadvantages in various aspects of social life that cannot be addressed through civil partnership systems. These include housing challenges, such as restrictions on renting properties, and financial institutions refusing to recognize same-sex couples as family members for mortgages. Same-sex couples also face hurdles in accessing products and services tailored to family relationships. While the court deemed the relevant provisions unconstitutional, it clarified that the government’s failure to enact legislative changes does not constitute a violation under the State Redress Act.
The lawsuit, titled “Freedom of Marriage for All,” brought together a large coalition of professionals, including more than 30 plaintiffs and 80 lawyers. They filed six lawsuits in five courts throughout Japan.
“We filed these lawsuits on Valentine’s Day, Feb. 14, 2019, in Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, and Sapporo, and in September of that year in Fukuoka,” noted Takeharu Kato, director of Marriage for All Japan. “Then, in March 2021, the Sapporo District Court handed down the first ruling declaring the current laws unconstitutional, which received extensive worldwide media coverage. Subsequently, the Osaka District Court unfortunately ruled that the current law is constitutional, but among the 10 rulings handed down so far, nine have ruled that not recognizing marriage equality is unconstitutional.”
Kato is a lawyer who is part of the legal team in the Sapporo case. He is also a board member of Marriage for All Japan, a marriage equality campaign.
“The MFAJ (Marriage for All Japan) is fully supporting the lawsuits by publicizing the current status of the trials and the rulings in our websites and social networks, setting up press conferences at the time of the rulings,” Kato told the Los Angeles Blade. “We also make the best of the impact of the lawsuits in our campaign by holding events with the plaintiffs of the lawsuits and inviting them to the rally at Diet (the Japanese parliament) members’ building.”
Kato said the campaign has significantly shifted public opinion, with recent polls indicating more than 70 percent of Japanese people now support marriage equality — up from approximately 40 percent before Marriage for All Japan launched. He also noted 49 percent of Diet members now back marriage equality.
Japan is the only G7 country that does not legally recognize same-sex couples. Taiwan, Nepal, and Thailand have extended full marriage rights to gays and lesbians.
Expressing disappointment, Kato said many Japanese politicians continue to resist marriage equality, despite overwhelming public support. Kato added Marriage for All Japan expects the Supreme Court to rule on their lawsuits in 2016.
“We believe that the Supreme Court will also rule that the current laws are unconstitutional,” he said. “However, the Supreme Court’s ruling alone is not enough to achieve marriage equality under the Japanese legal system. We should put more and more strong pressure on the Diet to legalize marriage equality in Japan as soon as possible.”
Several municipalities and prefectures issue certificates that provide limited benefits to same-sex couples, but they fall short of equal legal recognition.
Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s government has faced mounting pressure on the issue as public support for marriage equality has surged in recent years. Kishida has yet to push reforms within his own party; encountering fierce opposition from its traditional leadership.
His government in June 2023 passed Japan’s first law addressing sexual orientation and gender identity, aiming to “promote understanding” and prevent “unfair discrimination.” Activists, however, widely criticized the legislation on grounds it fails to provide comprehensive protections or extend marriage rights to same-sex couples.
National
LGBTQ+ asylum seeker ‘forcibly removed’ from US, sent to El Salvador
Immigrant Defenders Law Center represents Venezuelan national

An immigrant rights group that represents an LGBTQ+ asylum seeker from Venezuela says the Trump-Vance administration on March 15 “forcibly removed” him from the U.S. and sent him to El Salvador.
Immigrant Defenders Law Center Litigation and Advocacy Director Alvaro M. Huerta during a telephone interview with the Los Angeles Blade on Tuesday said officials with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection alleged his organization’s client was a member of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuela-based gang, because of his tattoos and no other information.
“It’s very flimsy,” said Huerta. “These are the types of tattoos that any artist in New York City or Los Angeles would have. It’s nothing that makes him a gang member.”
The White House on Feb. 20 designated Tren de Aragua an “international terrorist organization.”
President Donald Trump on March 15 invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which the Associated Press notes allows the U.S. to deport “noncitizens without any legal recourse.”
“I proclaim that all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA (Tren de Aragua), are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies,” said Trump in a proclamation that announced his invocation of the 18th century law.
The asylum seeker — who the Immigrant Defenders Law Center has not identified by name because he is “in danger” — is among the hundreds of Venezuelans who the U.S. sent to El Salvador on March 15.
Chief Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia temporarily blocked the deportations. The AP notes the flights were already in the air when Boasberg issued his ruling.
Huerta said U.S. officials on Monday confirmed the asylum seeker is “indeed in El Salvador.” He told the Blade it remains unclear whether the asylum seeker is in the country’s Terrorism Confinement Center, a maximum-security prison known by the Spanish acronym CECOT.
‘We couldn’t find him’
Huerta said the Immigrant Defenders Law Center client fled Venezuela and asked for asylum in the U.S.
The asylum seeker, according to Huerta, passed a “credible fear interview” that determines whether an asylum claim is valid. Huerta said U.S. officials detained the asylum seeker last year when he returned to the country from the Mexican border city of Tijuana.
Huerta told the Blade the asylum seeker was supposed to appear before an immigration judge on March 13.
“We couldn’t find him,” said Huerta.
He noted speculation over whether Trump was about to invoke the Alien Enemies Act, and the Immigrant Defenders Law Center “started getting concerned that maybe he was caught up in this situation.”
“He’s an LGBT individual who is an artist in Venezuela,” said Huerta.
Neither ICE nor CBP have responded to the Blade’s request for comment.
Huerta said it is “hard to say” whether the asylum seeker has any legal recourse.
“He still has an ongoing case in immigration court here,” said Huerta, noting the asylum seeker’s attorney was in court on Monday, and has another hearing in two weeks. “Presumably they should have to allow him to appear, at least virtually, for court because he still has these cases.”
Huerta noted the U.S. since Trump took office has deported hundreds of migrants to Panama; officials in the Central American country have released dozens of them from detention. Migrants sent to the Guantánamo Bay naval base in Cuba have returned to detention facilities in the U.S.
“Something where the government, kind of unliterally, can just say that someone is a gang member based on tattoos, without any offer of proof, without having to go to court to say that and then take them externally to what effectively a prison state (El Salvador), it certainly is completely just different than what we’ve seen,” Huerta told the Blade.
Huerta also spoke about the Trump-Vance administration’s overall immigration policy.
“The Trump administration knows exactly what they’re doing when it comes to scapegoating immigrants, scapegoating asylees,” he said. “They have a population that, in many ways, is politically powerless, but in many other ways, is politically powerful because they have other folks standing behind them as well, but they’re an easy punching bag.”
“They can use this specter of we’re just deporting criminals, even though they’re the ones who are saying that they’re criminal, they’re not necessarily proving that,” added Huerta. “They feel like they can really take that fight and run with it, and they’re testing the bounds of what they can get away with inside and outside of the courtroom.”
National
Trump administration considering closing HIV prevention agency: reports
Sources say funding cuts possible for CDC

The Department of Health and Human Services is considering closing the HIV Prevention Division of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and transferring some of its programs to a different agency, according to a report by the New York Times.
The Times and Politico cited government sources who spoke on condition of not being identified as saying plans under consideration from the administration also call for possible funding cuts in the domestic HIV prevention program following funding cuts already put in place for foreign U.S. HIV programs.
“It’s not 100 percent going to happen, but 100 percent being discussed,” the Times quoted one of the sources as saying.
News of the possible shutdown of the HIV Prevention Division and possible cuts in HIV prevention funds prompted 13 of the nation’s leading LGBTQ, HIV, and health organizations to release a joint statement on March19 condemning what they said could result in a “devastating effect” on the nation’s progress in fighting AIDS.
Among the organizations signing on to the joint statement were D.C.’s Whitman-Walker Health and the Los Angeles LGBT Center.
Carl Schmid, executive director of the HIV + Hepatitis Policy Institute, which opposes funding cuts or curtailment in domestic AIDS programs, points out in a separate statement that it was President Trump during his first term in office who put in place the HIV Epidemic Initiative, which calls for ending the HIV epidemic in the U.S. by 2030.
That initiative, which Trump announced in his 2019 State of the Union address, is credited with having reduced new HIV infections nationwide by 30 percent in adolescents and young adults, and by about 10 percent in most other groups, according to the Times report on possible plans to scale back the program.
In a statement released to Politico, HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said, “HHS is following the Administration’s guidance and taking a careful look at all divisions to see where there is overlap that could be streamlined to support the President’s broader efforts to restructure the federal government.”
“No final decision on streamlining CDC’s HIV Prevention Division has been made,” Nixon said in his statement.
“An effort to defund HIV prevention by this administration would set us back decades, cost innocent people their lives and cost taxpayers millions,” said Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBTQ advocacy organization, in a March 19 statement.
“The LGBTQ+ community still carries the scars of the government negligence and mass death of the HIV/AIDS epidemic,” Robinson said. “We should be doubling down on our investment to end the HIV epidemic once and for all, not regressing to the days of funeral services and a virus running rampant,” she said.
“We are outraged and deeply alarmed by the Trump administration’s reckless moves to defund and de-prioritize HIV prevention,” the statement released by the 13 organizations says. “These abrupt and incomprehensible possible cuts threaten to reverse decades of progress, exposing our nation to a resurgence of a preventable disease with devastating and avoidable human and financial costs,” the statement says.
Breaking News
Family of Linda Becerra Moran, trans woman killed by LAPD after calling 911, files lawsuit
Moran was pronounced dead after three weeks on life-support

On Feb. 7, Linda Becerra Moran contacted the Los Angeles Police Department in a phone call where she reported that she was being held against her will in a San Fernando Motel.
At around 9:40AM, Moran called the Foothill Division of the LAPD, and was recorded stating that she was not only being held at the motel against her will, but that she was being forced to bring men into her motel room. In the audio call recording, she is heard crying as she answers the questions regarding her safety.
When the officers found her in the hotel room they stated that she didn’t remember how she got there, while speaking in Spanish to the officers.
The statement released regarding the officer-involved shooting says that ‘when officers arrived, they entered the motel room and met with Moran. During their investigation, Moran became agitated, armed herself with a knife and held it to her neck.’
The officers responded by drawing their guns, further agitating her. The attorney representing the family of Moran says the released video proves that the shooting was unlawful and unjust.
Now, the TransLatin@ Coalition is looking for justice for Moran and her family, especially considering that she was someone who received services directly from them. They hosted the first vigil for her on Friday, March 14, in front of the LAPD headquarters.
“Linda Becerra Moran, a trans immigrant who received services from our organization, was brutally shot and murdered by the Los Angeles Police Department. We held a vigil and we invited the community to join us in solidarity as we demand justice and honor Linda’s life,” said the TransLatin@ Coalition in a statement.
The police officer who shot and killed Moran was Jacob Sanchez, 24, who was hired in 2021.
Moran was pronounced dead after three weeks on life support in late February.
Somos Familia Valle, is hosting a poster-making event today from 2PM to 8PM where they will be preparing for a call to action. The call to action is scheduled for Saturday, March 22 at the Foothill Division Police Department, at 1PM. The organization posted a list of demands, along with their statement on Moran’s death.
“At a time where our trans siblings are being attacked politically and socially, now more than ever is the time for us to be loud and seek accountability,” reads the statement. “The murder of Linda Becerra Moran by the Los Angeles Foothill Division Police Department was unwarranted and speaks to the disregard for trans lives, but also the lack of de-escalation tactics.”
Chile
2024 was ‘year of regression’ for LGBTQ+ rights in Chile
Advocacy group blamed rise in ultra-right, government inaction

A report that a Chilean advocacy group released on Tuesday says 2024 was a “year of regression” for LGBTQ+ rights.
The Movement for Homosexual Integration and Liberation (Movilh)’s 23rd Sexual and Gender Diversity Human Rights report notes LGBTQ+ rights for the first time since democracy returned to Chile in 1990 not only stopped advancing, but saw significant rollbacks in the three branches of government.
The Movilh report describes 2024 as “the year of regression,” noting 23.5 percent of human rights violations against LGBTQ+ people over the last two decades occurred last year. A total of 2,847 discrimination complaints were reported in 2024, representing a 78.7 percent increase over the previous year.
The report documents two murders, 44 physical or verbal assaults, two incidents of violence in police stations, 89 reports of abuse in the workplace, and 65 incidents in educational institutions in 2024. The transgender community was particularly affected, with a 462.6 percent increase in discrimination cases compared to 2023.
The Movilh report notes the growing influence of the ultra-right, whose narratives have fostered hate speech, is one of the main factors behind the deterioration of LGBTQ+ rights in Chile. The advocacy group also criticizes authorities who have remained silent in the face of these attacks, even though they say they support the LGBTQ+ community.
The report specifically singles out the Executive Branch.
Movilh specifically highlights the prohibition of public funds for hormone treatments for trans minors and the postponement of these procedures in public hospitals. The government reversed course after intense pressure and judicial appeals.
The report also criticizes the judiciary.
The Oral Criminal Trial Court of San Antonio refused to classify the murder of a trans woman as a femicide, arguing her identity card still reflected the gender assigned to her at birth. The Court of Appeals of Santiago also ordered the removal of a homophobia complaint on social media, setting what NGOs have described as a dangerous freedom of speech precedent.

The report notes Valparaíso, Metropolitana, and Biobío are the three regions with the highest number of discrimination complaints, with 51.3 percent, 25.1 percent, and 5.8 percent respectively. Reported cases increased in 11 of Chile’s 16 regions, with Ñuble leading the way with a 300 percent increase.
Faced with this bleak panorama, advocacy groups have intensified their efforts to denounce the violence and demand LGBTQ+ rights are once again guaranteed. Movilh, along with other organizations, have approached the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the U.N. about the situation in Chile.
“We are seeing a reversal of rights that cost decades of struggle,” warns the report. “If the State does not act urgently, we run the risk of discrimination and violence becoming institutionalized.”
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge blocks Trump’s trans military ban
Cites ‘cruel irony’ of fighting for rights they don’t enjoy

A federal judge in D.C. on Tuesday blocked President Donald Trump’s ban on transgender service members, which was scheduled to take effect on Friday.
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes issued the preliminary injunction, saying the policy violates the Constitution.
“Indeed, the cruel irony is that thousands of transgender service members have sacrificed — some risking their lives — to ensure for others the very equal protection rights the military ban seeks to deny them,” Reyes wrote.
The legal challenge to Trump’s trans military ban executive, Talbott v. Trump, was brought by LGBTQ groups GLAD Law and National Center for Lesbian Rights.
Reyes found that the ban violates equal protection because it discriminates based on trans status and sex and because “it is soaked in animus,” noting that its language is “unabashedly demeaning, its policy stigmatizes transgender persons as inherently unfit, and its conclusions bear no relation to fact.”
The lead attorneys in the case are GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi and NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter.
“Today’s decisive ruling speaks volumes,” said Levi. “The court’s unambiguous factual findings lay bare how this ban specifically targets and undermines our courageous service members who have committed themselves to defending our nation. Given the court’s clear-eyed assessment, we are confident this ruling will stand strong on appeal.”
Nicolas Talbott, a second lieutenant in the Army Reserves, and Erica Vandal, a major in the U.S. Army, are two of the 14 plaintiffs in the case. They spoke during a virtual press conference with Levi and Minter on Wednesday.
“Yesterday’s ruling is just such a tremendous step forward for transgender service members,” said Talbott.
Vandal added the ruling “clearly recognizes that transgender soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines have been serving openly as our authentic selves for nearly a decade in every capacity, at every echelon, in every theater and combat zone across the world, all while meeting and exceeding the same standards as every one else without causing any degradation or unit cohesion.”
Levi said Reyes’s ruling requires “the military to return to business as usual.”
The decision is stayed until 10 a.m. on Thursday. It is not immediately clear whether the Trump-Vance administration will challenge it.
“What the order does is stave off, put off any effect of the ban actually being implemented against any individuals,” said Levi.