History-making LGBTQ legislators to be sworn in to 119th Congress
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Three newly elected lawmakers representing the LGBTQ community will make history Friday when they are sworn in to the 119th Congress, marking several firsts in the House of Representatives.
Sarah McBride will be the first openly transgender member of Congress. She will represent Delaware’s sole congressional district in the House of Representatives after more than three years in the state Senate, which marked a historic first for trans representation at the state senate level.
Julie Johnson, set to be the first LGBTQ+ member of Congress from the South, had served in the Texas state legislature since 2018. In her campaign for the congressional seat, she touted her record in fighting anti-LGBTQ bills on the state level among her passions as a legislator.
Emily Randall will be the first LGBTQ Latina in Congress after serving as a Washington state senator since 2018.
The 118th Congress set the record for having the most LGBTQ representation in U.S. history, with 13 legislators openly identifying as gay, lesbian or bisexual. This year’s slate of members being sworn in are doing so as the country experiences growing anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and violence.
In the 2024 state legislative session, the ACLU tracked more than 500 bills they say are “anti-LGBTQ.” Transgender people — who make up less than 1% of Americans over the age of 13, according to UCLA’s research organization, the Williams Institute — have particularly been the subjects of such legislation, including restrictions on bathroom use for transgender residents, bans on gender-affirming care, and more.
In recent years, federal and local authorities have warned about the increase in violence against the LGBTQ community.
McBride has received backlash from some colleagues ahead of her swearing in. Republican Rep. Nancy Mace introduced a bill in November to restrict transgender women from using women’s restrooms at the U.S. Capitol, saying the bill was “absolutely” in response to McBride’s entering Congress. She cited concerns about her safety in restrooms, to which McBride responded by calling the bill a distraction. The bill is now dead.
House Speaker Mike Johnson said transgender women cannot use women’s restrooms, changing rooms or locker rooms in the Capitol and House office buildings. In terms of how Johnson plans to enforce this policy is not entirely clear if he’s elected Speaker again, but the speaker has “general control” of facilities, according to House rules.
McBride responded to the order by saying, “I’m not here to fight about bathrooms. I’m here to fight for Delawareans and to bring down costs facing families. Like all members, I will follow the rules as outlined by Speaker Johnson, even if I disagree with them.
LGBTQ groups have applauded the incoming legislators “when the fight for equality and justice faces unprecedented opposition,” said Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson in a statement to ABC News.
“The American people deserve a bold vision for our country, one led by champions who bring experiences to the table that have often gone unheard,” Robinson said in the statement. “They have proven themselves to be leaders through their lived examples and their careers in advancing equality and civil rights. It’s why we were proud to mobilize our grassroots forces last year to support them in their races so that every LGBTQ+ American knows that they have a voice in Washington.”
(WASHINGTON) — Texas death row inmate Robert Roberson, whose “shaken baby syndrome” murder conviction in the death of his 2-year-old daughter has come under scrutiny, has been ordered to appear before the Texas House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee on Friday over the state’s so-called “junk science” law.
The legislation, passed in 2013, creates a pathway for people to challenge their convictions if new scientific evidence or developments would have impacted the outcome of their case. However, some legislators say they are concerned that the state law may not adequately address these issues and it is now being investigated by the House committee.
“Robert is eager to testify and grateful for the chance to be heard,” said Gretchen Sween, Roberson’s attorney. “We will do all we can to cooperate, and I profoundly hope that his ability to appear is not obstructed by those who, for whatever reason, do not want the lawmakers and the public to hear from him directly about his experience trying to communicate his innocence.”
Roberson was set to become the first person in the U.S. executed for a shaken baby syndrome diagnosis murder conviction on Oct. 17 before the court intervened and a state House committee issued a subpoena for Roberson to testify on the law on Oct. 21, halting the execution. However, Roberson did not testify that day.
A new execution date has not yet been scheduled, according to Roberson’s legal representatives. In November, the Supreme Court of Texas noted that a subpoena could not block a scheduled execution.
Roberson was found guilty of the 2002 murder of his 2-year-old daughter, Nikki, in part based on the testimony of a pediatrician who described swelling and hemorrhages in her brain to support a shaken baby syndrome diagnosis. He was tried and convicted of capital murder in 2003 and sentenced to death.
Roberson’s legal team argued that evidence not presented at the trial found that Nikki had pneumonia and had been prescribed respiratory-suppressing drugs by doctors in the days leading up to her death, leading to a case of severe viral and bacterial pneumonia that progressed to sepsis and then septic shock.
Additionally, Roberson’s team says his autism affects how he expresses emotion; investigators noted Roberson’s lack of emotion during his arrest.
Roberson’s fight for clemency has been backed by a bipartisan group of more than 80 state lawmakers, as well as medical, scientific and criminal justice advocates who have questioned the legitimacy of the use of the shaken baby syndrome diagnosis in his case based on newer scientific evidence. The lead detective on Roberson’s case at the time, Brian Wharton, also now argues that missing evidence hindered the case.
However, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and other state officials have argued that “Roberson was lawfully sentenced to death” and that he has “exhausted every legally available appellate avenue” — noting that the case was heard once more by a trial court in 2021 in a dayslong evidentiary hearing after his execution was first halted, and earlier this year, Roberson’s team requested that a district court reopen his case.
Paxton also argued that the jury did not convict Roberson solely based on the controversial shaken baby syndrome diagnosis, though Roberson’s attorneys said that “shaken baby” was referred to by prosecutors and witnesses throughout the jury trial.
(WASHINGTON) — Lambda Legal and Human Rights Campaign, two leading LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, filed a federal lawsuit on Thursday challenging the Trump administration over the president’s executive order banning transgender people from serving in the military.
The lawsuit, which was obtained by ABC News, was filed in the U.S. District Court-Western District of Washington on behalf of six active duty transgender service members, a transgender person seeking to enlist in the military, as well as Seattle human rights organization Gender Justice League.
“By categorically excluding transgender people, the 2025 Military Ban and related federal policy and directives violate the equal protection and due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment and the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment,” the lawsuit said. “They lack any legitimate or rational justification, let alone the compelling and exceedingly persuasive ones required. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek declaratory, and preliminary and permanent injunctive, relief.”
U.S. Navy Commander Emily “Hawking” Shilling, who according to the lawsuit has been serving in the military for 19 years, criticized the ban in a statement, saying that the measure is “not about readiness or cohesion, and it is certainly not about merit.”
“It is about exclusion and betrayal, purposely targeting those of us who volunteered to serve, simply for having the courage and integrity to live our truth,” Shilling said.
The lawsuit comes after President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 28, rescinding Biden administration policies that permitted transgender service members to serve openly in the military based on their gender identity.
The order directed the Department of Defense to revise the Pentagon’s policy on transgender service members and stated that “expressing a false “gender identity” divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service.”
The order further argued that receiving gender-affirming medical care is one of the conditions that is physically and mentally “incompatible with active duty.”
“Consistent with the military mission and longstanding DoD policy, expressing a false ‘gender identity’ divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service,” the order continued.
“The assertion that transgender service members like myself are inherently untrustworthy or lack honor is an insult to all who have dedicated their lives to defending this country,” Shilling said in the statement.
Trump issued a similar order during his first term in office that was challenged in the courts and now HRC and Lambda Legal have joined other leading advocacy groups in challenging the order in the courts.
GLAD Law and The National Center for Lesbian Rights also filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on behalf of six transgender service members on Jan. 28.
ABC News has reached out to the Trump administration but a request for comment was not immediately returned.
(WASHINGTON) — After meeting with Senate Republicans on Capitol Hill Wednesday, President-elect Donald Trump appeared ambivalent about the debate over whether to craft two legislative attempts to reshape fiscal policy for his agenda or settle on one sweeping package in an “all-in” approach.
Trump told reporters that he had “a great meeting” with the senators, although it appeared that the closed-door meeting that lasted more than 90 minutes did not lock down an agreement on how to proceed.
“There’s great unity,” Trump said. “I think there’s a lot of talk about two [bills], and there’s a lot of talk about one, but it doesn’t matter. The end result is the same. We’re going to get something done that’s going to be reducing taxes and creating a lot of jobs and all of the other things that you know about.”
Despite Trump’s comments, senators in the room heard Trump loud and clear: His preference, though he’s open to alternative ideas, is one “big, beautiful bill” to deal with many of his legislative priorities in a single swoop.
But just because senators heard him doesn’t mean they agree with him.
There was hope going into tonight’s meeting with Trump, the Senate’s first since he won the presidential race in November, that it could bring the Senate, which has largely favored a two-bill approach, and the House, where Speaker Mike Johnson prefers a one-bill approach, into one line of thinking on the matter.
Senators leaving the room Wednesday night seemed unmoved.
“It’s no mystery we’re advocating for two,” Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, said as he departed.
There were a number of senators, including Trump allies like Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who forcefully made the case for a two-bill solution while in the room with Trump. Cruz and his allies want one bill to address border security, military spending and energy. A second bill addressing tax policy could come later, they said.
With little to no support expected from Democrats, Republicans plan to push forward through “reconciliation” — a fast-track process limited to spending and revenue legislation that needs only a majority rather than the 60-vote threshold in the Senate needed to pass legislation.
While the debate might seem in the weeds, it could have serious implications for Trump’s agenda. Bills passed through reconciliation give Republicans more wiggle room to pass certain measures that Democrats oppose. But these bills are cumbersome, bound by a number of rules about what may and may not be included, and will require the near-unanimous support of Republicans.
Senate Republicans continue to break with Trump and Johnson on the issue because they believe they can notch a win early in Trump’s presidency by breaking the package into two chunks.
“I expressed vigorously, as did numerous other people that the best path to success is winning two major victories rather than putting all the eggs in one basket and risking — a very real risk — of it not getting the votes to pass,” Cruz said. “I strongly believe the path that makes sense is to take up two bills. Why? Because that unifies Republicans. We can get that passed. We could have a major victory early on, and then to move to extending the tax cuts.”
Cruz said there was “complete consensus” among the senators on a two-part solution. “Not a single senator disagreed.”
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W. Va., who told reporters she served as the moderator for the meeting, said Trump was listening intently to their suggestions but she believes two bills provide the most viable path to victory.
“The two-bill approach that [Senate Majority Leader John] Thune had liked, I think is generally the direction the Senate has been wanting to go to get that quick victory,” Capito said. “I think there’s a lot of discussion that’s going to go on. What can the House pass? What does the Speaker think? So he [Trump] heard from us and from our leader that a two-bill strategy is very much alive over here and something we’re still very interested in. So no decisions were made.”.
Capito seemed uncertain if there would be cohesion with Trump moving forward.
“I don’t know — we’ll see,” she said, adding, “I think, you know, the leaders will get together with the president and they’ll make those decisions.”
Republican Whip John Barrasso will be a key part of rounding up votes for whatever package is ultimately advanced and he also sees two bills as the right direction to go.
“We think there’s a lot of advantages to get an early win and to focus immediately on the border, on energy and on the strong military,” Barrasso said.
Barrasso said he was there when the Senate used this same fast-track budget tool to implement the Trump tax cuts in 2017. That took time, he said.
“There’s a lot of detail to be done with that, and so that’s going to take awhile” he said. “I think we can much more quickly deal with the border, energy, and military funding.”
Still, Trump continues to prefer the one-bill approach backed by Johnson, senators said.
“I think he’s still open to whatever can work. I think there seems to be movement from the House to do one, and so I think that’s the way he leans,” Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said.
Another option that was floated was holding a “horse race” which would see the House originating a sweeping proposal that includes tax policy as its base while the Senate originates a more narrowly tailored bill that just includes border and energy reform then see which package gains more momentum.
“I said, ‘Well, Mister President, you love a horse race, why don’t you set it up as a horse race? And then whatever works best is great,'” said Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D. “HIs preference is one bill, but I think he’s open to it.”
Trump reiterated his preference for one bill when he spoke to reporters on Tuesday, but said he could live with two.
“Well, I like one big, beautiful bill, and I always have, I always will, he said. But if two is more certain [to pass], it does go a little bit quicker because you can do the immigration stuff early,” he said.
Johnson said he hopes to have a bill ready by the first week in April, but it remains to be seen if he can get fiscal conservatives in his conference, who have long opposed all-in-one bills like the one Johnson is proposing, on board.
The speaker pushed back on Wednesday about the one-bill approach being a kitchen sink approach.
“This is not an omnibus spending bill, but appropriation,” Johnson said. “This is reducing spending, which is an objective we talked about. I’ll keep reiterating this: that just because the debt limit is raised, to give stability the bond markets and to send a message around the world that we will pay the nation’s debt. We are doggedly determined to decrease the size of scope of government and to limit spending, cut spending so you can you’ll see both of those things happen simultaneously.”
Johnson also intends to handle the debt limit in the reconciliation bill — without Democratic support.
“That way, as the Republican Party, the party in charge of both chambers, we again get to determine the details of that. If it runs through the regular order, regular process… then you have to have both parties negotiating. And we feel like we are in better stead to do it ourselves,” he said Tuesday.
But it remains to be seen whether Johnson can sell the fiscal conservatives in his conference on that idea. They nearly derailed the short-term government funding bill to avert a shutdown last month after Trump demanded that it dealt with the debt ceiling.
Trump will meet with groups of House Republicans at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida this weekend.
“He’s bringing in big groups of House Republicans to Mar-a-Lago over the weekend three days in a row to meet with and talk with all of our team members about what’s ahead of us and the challenges and how we can accomplish all this together,” Johnson said, though the speaker is not expected to attend.
