Connect with us

Politics

Pentagon Reaches Settlement With Veterans Dismissed Over Sexuality

Published

on

Pentagon Reaches Settlement With Veterans Dismissed Over Sexuality

The Defense Department has reached a sweeping settlement with tens of thousands of people who were dismissed from military service because of their sexual identity, potentially paving the way for veterans to upgrade their discharge status and receive a range of benefits they had been denied.

The settlement, which the Pentagon agreed to late last week and was filed on Monday in Federal District Court in Northern California, must still be approved by a judge. It applies to a group of more than 30,000 veterans who received less-than-honorable discharges or whose discharge status lists their sexuality. Advocacy groups had filed a class-action civil rights lawsuit in 2023 alleging that the Pentagon had failed to remedy “ongoing discrimination” after the repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy more than a decade earlier.

Those who leave the military with less-than-honorable discharges usually do not receive all of the benefits they would have been eligible for through the Veterans Affairs Department, including health care from the V.A.’s hospitals and clinics, educational benefits and access to job networks.

While the Defense Department has taken steps under the Biden administration to upgrade discharges and restore benefits for L.G.B.T.Q. veterans, the settlement is expected to make the process much easier. It would also help former service members remove references to their sexuality from their discharge paperwork. If a federal judge approves the settlement, it will be binding by law.

When reached for comment, the Pentagon referred to the Justice Department, which declined to comment. The settlement was reported earlier on Monday by CBS News.

Advertisement

Sherrill Farrell, 63, a Navy veteran who is the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in an interview that news of the settlement was “overwhelming.” Ms. Farrell, who is lesbian, enlisted in the Navy in 1985. She was outed by a bunkmate and kicked out of training after only 10 months as a fireman apprentice. Her dreams of following the footsteps of her father and grandfather by serving in the military were crushed, and she never applied for benefits.

“It wasn’t about the money,” Ms. Farrell said. “It was about human decency and treating people fairly, and the people that are willing to defend our country regardless of what their sexual orientation is or who they love.”

L.G.B.T.Q. service members who were open about their sexual orientation were barred from the military until 2011, when President Barack Obama repealed “don’t ask, don’t tell.” But the end of the policy did nothing to address the effects of it that tens of thousands of service members who were discharged because of their sexuality experienced.

Those whose discharges remain less than honorable are still denied full benefits. Their only option for upgrading their discharge is to petition individually, a process that can take over a year, according to the nonprofit legal services organization Legal Aid at Work, one of the groups that filed the lawsuit.

In other cases, even when a discharge is honorable, paperwork can out veterans because it refers to them or their actions as “homosexual.” It might say that they “attempted to engage in homosexual marriage,” Elizabeth Kristen, a lawyer with Legal Aid at Work, said in an interview.

Advertisement

After the class-action lawsuit was initially filed in August 2023, the Defense Department began what it called a proactive review of service members who were discharged during the era of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” That review concluded in October, and more than 800 service members who were kicked out had their discharges upgraded to honorable. It was the first time that the department had systematically reviewed discharges related to sexual identity.

But the settlement that the Pentagon agreed to on Friday would go even further, creating a streamlined process that would apply to more people in a larger time frame.

“What it says,” Ms. Kristen said of the settlement, “is that the word ‘homosexual’ being taken off your records, that should be essentially as easy as getting your name changed.”

Many veterans had no idea that there was a pathway to getting their paperwork fixed. Some, like Ms. Farrell, had felt shame and did not ask for benefits that they would have been entitled to, if not for a less-than-honorable discharge.

Ms. Farrell was openly lesbian when she enlisted, and she said she felt guilty for answering “no” to the application question “Are you homosexual?” It is the only time she recalls lying about her sexual identity, she said, because she knew her application would not have been considered if she had told the truth.

Advertisement

“I wanted to serve my country that bad,” Ms. Farrell said, choking up with emotion. “But because of my integrity and the way that I look at serving in the military, I kind of felt that they had a right to do what they did because I had lied.”

The settlement is one of several steps that the Biden administration has taken to remedy the effects of policies felt by L.G.B.T.Q. service members for decades. In June, President Biden offered clemency to some 2,000 veterans who were convicted of engaging in gay sex, which was outlawed by the military for more than 60 years, in order to address what he called a “historic wrong.”

Politics

Inside Trump’s Swift Construction of a White House Helipad

Published

on

Inside Trump’s Swift Construction of a White House Helipad

President Trump, a former real estate mogul who knows a few things about construction projects, says there is “no harder zoning thing to get” than a helipad. But he is building one at the White House, and building it fast.

Such projects usually require a developer to navigate a complex web of zoning laws, airspace regulations and environmental impact studies, while negotiating with town councils and fighting off community pushback. Construction at the White House can often face additional hurdles.

Advertisement

But Mr. Trump has encountered no such difficulties as he quickly proceeds with construction of a black granite helipad on the South Lawn. He has not asked Congress or any review panel, such as the Commission of Fine Arts, to approve the project.

Past presidents have involved Congress and review panels in changes to the White House grounds, though Mr. Trump has asserted that he has the right to undertake major construction projects, such as a new 90,000-square-foot ballroom, without congressional approval. That project is currently the subject of litigation.

A White House spokesman said in an email that “operational upgrades to the White House grounds, such as the helipad installation, do not require commission reviews.”

Advertisement

Workers at the construction site of the new helipad on July 15. Salwan Georges for The New York Times

Advertisement

Work on the helipad — which will be 100 feet in diameter and feature a presidential seal — started last month, shortly after a makeshift stadium built to host an Ultimate Fighting Championship fight significantly damaged the South Lawn.

Dana White, the U.F.C. president, said that his organization had set aside $700,000 to repair the lawn after the June 14 event. But Mr. Trump instead decided to forge ahead immediately with a helipad he had long wanted.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Before any construction started. Doug Mills/The New York Times

Advertisement

The U.F.C. stage being set up. Mark Schiefelbein/Associated Press

Advertisement

The U.F.C. stage, fully assembled. Pool photo by Win McNamee

The helipad as work was underway. Annabelle Gordon/Reuters

Advertisement

Why Trump is building a helipad

The helipad would allow Mr. Trump to use the latest generation of Sikorsky helicopters as Marine One on White House grounds — a move multiple administrations had avoided because the new, more powerful helicopters were likely to damage the South Lawn during landing.

Advertisement

The Navy began the search in 2010 for helicopters to replace the two models that have been used to transport the president and vice president for more than four decades — the VH-3D and the VH-60N. It purchased 23 VH-92A helicopters, including two test aircraft, at about $215 million apiece, with a total cost estimated at $5 billion, according to the Government Accountability Office.

Sources: U.S. Navy, Lockheed Martin and the Naval Helicopter Association Historical Society. The New York Times

Advertisement

The new helicopters are produced by Sikorsky, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin, which is building the helipad as a donation. They joined the fleet between 2014 and 2021 and underwent a period of testing. The new generation of helicopters has occasionally been known to scorch the grass with engine exhaust while landing — an issue found during a training session in September 2018.

President Joseph R. Biden Jr. was the first president to fly on a VH-92A, on his way to the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in August 2024. But no new helicopter has yet transported a president to and from the South Lawn.

Advertisement

Marine One landed on the South Lawn grass for decades, and portable aluminum pads were rolled out to catch the wheels.

Advertisement
Advertisement

A worker placing a landing pad on the South Lawn. Nicholas Kamm/Agence France-Presse

Pilots maneuver to land the wheels on the pads. PHC C.M. Fitzpatrick, via National Archives

Advertisement

Mr. Trump said the new helicopters were “more powerful than the old ones. And when you land on the grass, it’s not that the grass gets discolored, it gets ripped out.”

The VH-92A has two engines with more than three times the capacity of those of the VH-3D, the current Marine One model, pushing more heat to the ground.

Advertisement

Sources: U. S. Army Aeroflightdynamics Directorate and Lockheed Martin. The New York Times

Lockheed Martin, a major defense contractor, is paying for the helipad project, which Mr. Trump estimated would cost between $5 million and $6 million.

Advertisement

“They didn’t tell us how powerful these helicopters were, and they felt a little bit guilty,” Mr. Trump said.

According to a spokesperson for Lockheed Martin, the company has a “long history of supporting projects in both the Washington, D.C., area and across the country. This specific contribution was made to the National Park Service. Our engagement with the federal government is guided by rigorous ethics and compliance standards and conducted in full accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.”

Advertisement

More red tape for a Mar-a-Lago helipad

Mr. Trump is also trying to build a helipad at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla. But that project is moving much more slowly than the one at the White House.

The Mar-a-Lago project has been the subject of local historic preservation commission review, multiple public hearings, negotiations with town lawyers and votes by the Town Council.

Advertisement

Because Mar-a-Lago is a historic property, any changes there must be approved by the Palm Beach Landmarks Preservation Commission, said Joanne O’Connor, the town attorney for Palm Beach.

Mr. Trump had installed a helipad at the resort during his first administration, but it was dismantled after he left office.

Advertisement

Marine One landing at Mar-a-Lago in 2019. Alamy

The town is allowing Mr. Trump to build a new helipad at Mar-a-Lago but has placed limits on its use after his presidency. Any helicopter trips to or from Mar-a-Lago after he leaves office can be carried out only if approved by the Secret Service and in the event of an emergency, Ms. O’Connor said. The helipad cannot be used, for instance, to facilitate a golf outing.

Advertisement

“The concern was balancing the health, safety and welfare of the president with the interests of the town residents and the quiet enjoyment of their residential property,” Ms. O’Connor said.

No such review is taking place for the changes Mr. Trump is making at the White House.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump spoke recently about the difficulty most people encounter when trying to have helipads approved at their properties.

“I always was lucky, I always got helipads,” he said in remarks from the Oval Office. “Other people don’t. Very hard to get. The hardest thing to get is a helipad, OK?”

The South Lawn’s future

Advertisement

The helipad would significantly reshape the South Lawn, which has historically hosted events and ceremonies, including the annual White House Easter Egg Roll.

Advertisement
Advertisement

An orchestra playing on the South Lawn. Robert Knudsen/The White House, via John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum

Advertisement

President Gerald Ford welcoming Queen Elizabeth II. Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library, via National Archives

A ceremony during the Obama administration commemorating the Sept. 11 attacks. Stephen Crowley/The New York Times.

Advertisement

Children participating in a White House Easter Egg Roll hosted by President Trump. Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times

Advertisement

A White House official said events on the South Lawn would not be affected by the new helipad and would continue as usual.

“It can be used for other things when helicopters aren’t landing,” Mr. Trump said this month. “You can have other things out there like events. You could have news conferences literally on it because it’s the right size. So by doing this, we solved the problem, and we’ll be able to finally retire 45-year-old helicopters.”

Previous administrations have prioritized preservation of the White House property over permanent changes to the South Lawn. During the Biden administration, building a helipad was not high on the president’s priority list, said Andrew Bates, who served as a White House spokesman.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Todd Blanche roasts Adam Schiff in heated hearing: ‘You’re a lawyer, you know the rules’

Published

on

Todd Blanche roasts Adam Schiff in heated hearing: ‘You’re a lawyer, you know the rules’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche came out swinging against Sen. Adam Schiff on Wednesday, denying allegations of self-dealing and intentional refusal-to-recuse in President Donald Trump’s cases, while accusing the California Democrat of lying.

Schiff sparred with Blanche over several legal matters he said prove the nominee is unfit for the job of America’s top law enforcement officer, citing what he described as serious conflicts of interest. Blanche denied the allegations while telling Schiff he was misstating ethics rules and botching key timelines.

Schiff pressed Blanche on whether he met with Justice Department ethics lawyers about his prior representation of Trump in the Stormy Daniels, Mar-a-Lago classified documents, and Jan. 6 cases.

TRUMP’S AG NOMINEE RACKS UP MASSIVE SUPPORT AHEAD OF CONFIRMATION HEARING: ‘REAL RESULTS’

Advertisement

Sen. Adam Schiff, left, and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. (Al Drago/Getty Images; Eric Lee/Getty Images)

Blanche affirmed and said he has recused himself from future litigation or Justice Department business involving any of those suits. But Schiff countered that Blanche reportedly told a crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) that there was no conflict of interest in the Justice Department firing prosecutors linked to Jan. 6 or other cases.

Blanche soon fired back when Schiff criticized him for moving to vacate Jan. 6-related convictions for 12 members of far-right groups.

“I was the acting attorney general – so yes, my department moved to dismiss,” he said, adding that there was no reason for him to recuse himself when Schiff pressed him further.

BIDEN SPECIAL COUNSEL’S ‘RUNAWAY TRAIN’ SCOOPED UP SENSITIVE LAWMAKER INFO: ‘ABUSE OF POWER’

Advertisement

“From the Proud Boys matter?” Blanche responded with a puzzled look.

“You’re a lawyer, you know the rules,” Blanche told the Massachusetts-born graduate of Harvard Law.

OBAMA JUDGE HANDS PROGRESSIVES A WIN OVER ANTI-TRUMP ’86 47′ MESSAGE AMID RISING THREATS

“There are rules that say when I have to recuse and that’s not one of them,” Blanche said.

“There are rules,” Schiff agreed. “And when you’re told to recuse yourself from investigations that you handle for the president…” – “I always do,” Blanche cut in – “you’re supposed to recuse yourself,” Schiff finished.

Advertisement

Schiff noted that the second volume of special counsel Jack Smith’s report on Trump has not been released and said the Justice Department has opposed making it available.

Blanche denied having anything to do with the decision and pointed out it is not the Justice Department, but a federal judge in Miami, that has prohibited its release.

“If you went into court asking them to release it, it would be released by now,” Schiff argued.

Blanche shot back: “What you’re saying happens not to be true – I did not do that.”

“You can’t accuse me of violating my ethical rules and then lie about what I did,” he continued,

Advertisement

Schiff asked Blanche at length what allegedly evolved in his professional life that led him to be under such criticisms.

“What I don’t understand, Todd Blanche, is what happened to the Todd Blanche who was a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York? What happened to the prosecutor people had respect for,” he said.

“What happened to the prosecutor who said that there wouldn’t be a whiff of political partisanship and then prosecutes the president’s enemies over seashells cases, over making a video stating the plain law in the Constitution?” Schiff said – appearing to reference investigations into former FBI Director Jim Comey’s “8647” post that critics said amounted to a threat on Trump’s life.

“I think Robert Caro had it right when he said that power doesn’t corrupt as much as it reveals. I suspect it has just revealed who you are and who you are as someone willing to sacrifice everything you once believed in for that title, for that position of attorney general,” Schiff claimed.

“I am still here. I am the same exact person I was when I was a federal prosecutor in the SDNY,” Blanche replied.

Advertisement

The exchange led to further criticism of Schiff, including from the Trump-appointed prosecutor in his home region:

SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER

“Facts are not Senator Schiff’s strong suit,” claimed First Assistant U.S. Attorney for Central California Bill Essayli.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Former Alabama federal prosecutor Jay Town called the exchange “excellent.”

Advertisement

“What [Blanche] is essentially saying is that the Justice Department has gone back to the fundamentals of increasing prosecutions and lowering crime nationwide, unlike the Garland DOJ targeting parents, Catholics, etc.”

Fox News Digital reached out to Schiff for comment.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Trump seeks prime-time spotlight for election claims, sparking concerns he’ll intervene

Published

on

Trump seeks prime-time spotlight for election claims, sparking concerns he’ll intervene

President Trump appeared poised to question the security of U.S. elections with a planned prime-time speech Thursday night, eliciting fears from Democrats and voting rights advocates that he is planning yet another play for federal control over voting in November’s midterms.

The exact reason for the speech has not been disclosed by the White House, with Trump only characterizing it to reporters this week as “really, really big news.” He confirmed it would have to do with “free and fair elections.”

The Washington Post reported, citing sources, that Trump planned to argue that there are vulnerabilities in the nation’s election infrastructure and claim that China had accessed U.S. voter data. The White House declined to confirm any such details Wednesday.

The announcement of the speech set off concerns among the president’s political opponents, as well as elections experts and voting rights advocates, that Trump could again escalate claims that the nation’s voting system is vulnerable to domestic fraud and foreign attacks.

He has previously said that Republicans should “nationalize” election administration, a job that falls to the states under the Constitution, and has pressured his party to tighten federal voting rules.

Advertisement

“We don’t know anything about what he might say … or what he might try to do with his very limited powers, as the president, over elections,” said David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation and Research. “I expect we’re going to hear a lot of rehashed and debunked claims.”

The president could potentially use new claims to argue that the nation is facing an emergency in upcoming elections that necessitates further federal intervention into voting, Rep. Joseph Morelle of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Administration Committee, which has oversight of elections, said in an interview with The Times.

“This is going to be the rationale for declaring a national emergency,” Morelle said. “It’s transparent that he is creating the emergency and he’s creating the evidence out of whole cloth to suggest there is an emergency.”

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the Senate Rules Committee, which oversees federal elections, told The Times on Wednesday that Trump was using a known playbook to “[sow] doubt about the outcome before a single vote has been cast.”

“All signs show that tomorrow’s speech will be more of the same: debunked conspiracy theories offered up not because they’re true, but because chaos and doubt are the only cards he has left to play,” Padilla said.

Advertisement

The speech, which Trump announced on social media Monday, comes four months ahead of midterm elections that will determine whether his party retains legislative control in Washington.

White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt dismissed news reports about what Trump might say in the 6 p.m. PDT speech as speculation, and said “nobody knows yet what President Trump will ultimately say.”

The address also comes as Trump’s ceasefire with Iran has fallen apart, renewing expectations for increased gas prices, and his approval rating on the economy has steadily dropped. On Tuesday, it also became public that Trump had paid $5.6 million to the writer E. Jean Carroll, as ordered by a jury that in 2023 found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming her.

“What we’re going to be talking about Thursday is, it doesn’t get bigger,” Trump told reporters who asked Tuesday about the speech. “Because without free and fair elections you don’t have a country.”

Trump has spread baseless claims of widespread election fraud for years. But his prioritization of his claims about the voting system — even as much of the nation’s attention is on cost-of-living issues — has been on particularly clear display in recent days.

Advertisement

He has aggressively lobbied reluctant Republican senators to pass his voter ID legislation, refusing to sign a bipartisan housing bill over it; he fired all remaining members of the bipartisan U.S. Elections Assistance Commission; and his Justice Department said it would send election monitors to six states.

Since the midterm primaries began, Trump has also sown doubt about election security — chiefly in California, where he suggested Democrats had cheated or attempted to in the gubernatorial and Los Angeles mayoral primaries.

Georgia Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff, whose state was often at the center of Trump’s 2020 fraud claims, said the president’s speech posed a threat to voting rights.

“I expect him to use whatever he puts out there on Thursday as a pretext, either for some attempted unconstitutional use of federal power to interfere in the election,” Ossoff said Tuesday on MS Now, “or to give his proxies and loyalists in state and local jurisdictions some cover for whatever they might attempt, or to lay the groundwork for challenging the result.”

Any effort to federalize or take over elections would face serious legal obstacles, said Nahal Kazemi, a Chapman University law professor. Although Congress can pass laws regarding election administration, as it did with the Voting Rights Act, the executive branch doesn’t play a role in running elections.

Advertisement

“You run into essentially a brick wall that is the Constitution, which makes very plain that states run elections,” Kazemi said.

When it comes to concerns about foreign interference, experts say there is little evidence of other countries attempting to hack systems or change votes. Instead, foreign actors have largely operated via disinformation campaigns, as the U.S. determined had occurred in the 2016 and 2020 elections.

“Of the information that is available to us now, there’s no reason to be alarmed about the possibility that a foreign adversary is going to take over election systems,” said Kazemi, who has studied foreign election interference.

One of the things that helps make American elections generally secure, she said, is that they are not centralized but are run by thousands of counties. Hacking into so many voting systems would be extraordinarily difficult for a foreign adversary, she said.

Jenny Farrell, executive director of the League of Women Voters of California, said California “takes elections security extremely seriously” and has one of the most secure systems in the country, subject to strict voter verification measures and intense chain of custody and auditing procedures.

Advertisement

Democrats have worked with elections experts in recent months on attempts to assure the public that U.S. elections are safe and secure. They have also tried to counter claims by Trump that mail ballots and voting machines are unreliable.

A slew of 2020 election reviews, including by Trump’s first administration, concluded that Trump lost and Biden won. Election experts say there is no evidence that widespread fraud determined the outcome of the election.

A judge also found that claims pushed by Trump and his attorneys that the company Dominion Voting Systems manipulated votes cast through its machines in favor of Biden were untrue.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending