This blog originally appeared at NBC NEWS.

In recent years, uniformed park rangers have marched in some of the country’s largest Pride parades, including those in New York City and San Francisco.

A park ranger at the Stonewall National Monument in New York City in 2019. (Angela Weiss / AFP – Getty Images file)

Pride revelers will likely see fewer, if any, National Park rangers marching in uniform at LGBTQ Pride events across the country this year.

The National Park Service is effectively prohibiting uniformed employees from participating in public events that “could be construed as agency support for a particular issue, position, or political party,” according to internal memos and documents shared with NBC News. This restriction would extend to Pride marches, according to those documents.

The memo, which an NPS spokesperson described as a “reminder” of existing guidelines, marks a departure from the agency’s traditional enforcement of the policy and has caused confusion among staff. The NPS, which oversees the country’s national parks and monuments, has long permitted uniformed rangers to participate in LGBTQ Pride marches, including some of the largest events in New York City and San Francisco. In these cities, uniformed police officers, firefighters, military service members, and other government employees are also commonly seen in attendance. Notably, a ranger from the Stonewall National Monument — commemorating the historic 1969 uprising pivotal to the gay rights movement — has participated in many Pride events in uniform.

The NPS spokesperson confirmed the authenticity of three internal documents shared with NBC News: the initial memo clarifying the agency’s existing policy, a follow-up Q&A document, and an email sent to staff on Monday. However, the spokesperson did not confirm that the policy amounted to an outright ban.

“Official NPS participation in community events directly related to a park’s mission can be approved by the park superintendent, as long as it complies with applicable laws, rules, regulations, and NPS policies,” the spokesperson said in an email to NBC News on Tuesday.

Another NPS staffer, involved in this year’s employee Pride march planning and who has previously participated in uniform in a Pride parade and multiple Pride events nationwide, told NBC News they were “appalled” by the agency’s “lack of professionalism” and mishandling of the policy clarification. The employee, who requested anonymity due to fear of job loss for speaking to the media, emphasized the importance of the agency’s participation in Pride events. This participation honors the thousands of LGBTQ employees fired or forced to resign from the federal government during the Lavender Scare of the late 1940s to ’60s and serves as crucial outreach to a historically underrepresented community in the nation’s parks.

“I see Pride as a key service to the public, and stepping away from that as a political statement,” the employee said. “Denying this decades-long tradition is cowardly and validates the far-right provocateurs who are trying to question the existence of queer people in political discourse.”

The debate surrounding the uniform policy and its potential impact on Pride involvement started on May 9, when Frank Lands, NPS’ deputy director of operations, stated in a memo to all staff that the service had received numerous requests from employees seeking to participate in various non-NPS events in uniform. Additionally, there were requests to wear ornaments such as pins, ribbons, and buttons on their uniforms.

The surge in requests led NPS to reevaluate its policy, with plans to update it later this year, as outlined in the memo initially reported by Politico’s Environment & Energy News. In the interim, Lands advised employees to adhere to the existing uniform policy, abstaining from “participating in or attending any demonstration or public event wherein the wearing of the uniform could be construed as agency support for a particular issue, position, or political party.” He also reiterated the current policy’s restriction on ornaments, permitting only the NPS-issued badge, name bar, American flag pin, and, for dress uniforms, a collar insignia.

While Lands did not explicitly reference Pride events, an internal follow-up Q&A document, provided to NBC News by the anonymous employee and corroborated by another involved with NPS’ LGBTQ employee resource group, clarified that out-of-park Pride events are encompassed within the prohibition.

The Q&A document also addresses the question: “Isn’t a Pride event more related to identity than a political issue or cause?” The response in the document states, “When considering First Amendment implications, the courts do not differentiate between events that celebrate or endorse an ‘identity’ and events that advocate for a ‘cause.’ Parades and similar events are regarded as a means of communication, both for the organizers and participants, so the participation of uniformed employees would be perceived as communication on behalf of the NPS.”

According to Lands’ email, the majority of the internal inquiries from employees regarding the clarification have centered on questions such as “What has prompted this change?” and “Why is this happening now?”

In his message, Lands clarified, “To put it plainly, there has been no alteration in policy. We issued this reminder because an increasing number of employees have sought to participate in non-NPS events while in uniform, advocating for various causes and topics. Past interpretations of our uniform policy lacked consistency and were not subjected to the thorough review we are currently undertaking.”

When NBC News inquired about whether prior involvement of uniformed employees in public Pride parades aligned with policy, the NPS spokesperson echoed Lands’ email nearly verbatim in response.

The NPS employee involved in organizing the Pride march participation expressed disappointment with Lands’ email, noting its lack of apology or resignation.

LGBTQ staff, employee resource groups, and employees involved in community outreach “deserve an apology for the grief, turmoil, and distraction caused by this situation, especially considering their commitment to the work and mission of the Park Service.”

The NPS staffer involved in Pride planning expressed uncertainty about the waiver process for uniformed employees marching in Pride parades, stating that there has been no clarity on the matter. Internal emails shared by the employee indicate that park superintendents are seeking approval from their managers for such waivers, suggesting that superintendents cannot approve waivers independently as the spokesperson implied. Additionally, the employee noted that they had never previously encountered such an approval process for participating in Pride events in uniform.

Amid a backdrop of heightened political hostility towards LGBTQ individuals, the NPS policy clarification comes at a crucial time. Conservative lawmakers nationwide have introduced over 500 bills targeting the LGBTQ community this year alone, as reported by the American Civil Liberties Union. Furthermore, in the past month, various government agencies including the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and State Department have issued warnings about potential terrorist threats against events during Pride Month, traditionally celebrated in June. Additionally, Pride events have increasingly faced threats from various groups, including white nationalist organizations, highlighting the ongoing challenges to LGBTQ rights and safety.

The NPS employee engaged with the LGBTQ employee resource group is fielding inquiries about the policy from colleagues across the country.

“People are asking, ‘Can we still join Pride parades? What’s the future of our participation?’ With Pride Month just nine days away, and many having planned for months, the main concern is, ‘How is being queer linked to a specific issue, position, or political party?’ We’re not getting a clear answer. It’s about identity, not ideology, and there’s a significant confusion between the two.”

This blog originally appeared at LGBTQ NATION.

Cruz repeatedly interrupted Judge Sarah Netburn, accusing her of being a “political activist” as she attempted to explain her application of the law.

Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and John Kennedy (R-LA) angrily questioned U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn, a Biden judicial nominee, over her recognition of a trans inmate as a woman.

“I think you’re radical, and you have no business being a judge,” Cruz stated.

The inmate, July Justine Shelby, stirred controversy in the hearing because she was a sex offender transferred to a women’s prison.

“The facts of the case were that the petitioner had last engaged in a contact offense 30 years ago and had not engaged in any contact offense since. Additionally, the medical evidence indicated that for the last five years, the petitioner was sober and hormonally entirely female,” Netburn explained at the confirmation hearing.

She was transferred to a women’s prison instead of a men’s prison because she is a woman. Judge Netburn cited Estelle v. Gamble, explaining that her rights under the Eighth Amendment were being violated.

The two senators repeatedly interrupted Netburn’s statements, disregarding the facts of the case and focusing on the inmate’s offense history, while accusing Netburn of being a “political activist.”

Three wardens and a district judge supported Netburn’s recommendation to house Shelby in a women’s prison, considering the violence Shelby faced in previous incarcerations and her medical needs as a transgender individual.

Transgender individuals who are registered sex offenders are at higher risk of experiencing heightened police violence and becoming victims of sexual and physical assault by other inmates while in prison.

Shelby is currently housed alongside other female violent offenders, including cisgender women who have been convicted of similar offenses, in women’s prisons.

Shelby has a criminal history that includes giving child pornography to other sex offenders and raping and molesting two youngsters, a 17-year-old female and a 9-year-old boy.

Kennedy and Cruz repeatedly emphasized Shelby’s height, potentially insinuating that her tall stature may suggest she is not female.

Cruz stated, “You’ve taken a 6’2″ serial rapist, a serial child rapist with male genitalia, and he said, ‘You know, I’d like to be in a women’s prison.’ And your response was, ‘That sounds great to me.'” He continued, “Let me inquire, do the other women in that prison have any rights?”

Netburn asserted, “Every individual who is incarcerated has the right to feel safe in their environment.”

Senator Laphonza Butler (D-CA) permitted Netburn to complete her response to Cruz’s inquiries as he repeatedly interrupted her.

“The petitioner had not committed any acts of violence, whether physical or sexual, while in custody,” Netburn stated. “All three wardens overseeing the petitioner’s case requested her transfer to a women’s facility due to her severe medical requirements. Moreover, the Bureau of Prisons’ longstanding medical provider testified during a two-day hearing in my courtroom and advocated for the petitioner’s transfer based on her significant medical needs.”

“The Transgender Executive Council, responsible for determining transgender transfer requests, never indicated that the petitioner couldn’t be transferred due to any risk of violence,” stated Netburn. “Their denial of her request was based on the requirement for her to maintain her hormone levels.”

“The petitioner had achieved full female hormone levels prior to incarceration. When the district judge in Indiana requested her placement in a women’s facility, her hormone levels were entirely female. The decision by the Transgender Executive Council to deny her transfer request was consistently based on the requirement for hormone consistency and stability, aligning with the standards for cisgender women,” Netburn clarified.

Cruz and Kennedy verbally admonished Butler for granting them additional time to question Netburn.

Conservative media outlets have disseminated the story but often omitted the full transcript of both lines of questioning. Instead, they selectively quote sections where Netburn is compelled to provide incomplete answers.

Cruz also falsely asserted that Netburn contradicted her initial report, which highlighted Shelby’s vulnerability to sexual violence. In her testimony, she referenced Shelby’s potential for perpetrating sexual violence herself.

This blog originally appeared at LGBTQ NATION.

The bills undermine trans rights to equal education and health care.

The New Hampshire state legislature passed three bills targeting transgender equality last Thursday. These bills are now headed to Republican Gov. Chris Sununu’s desk.

The bills include H.B. 1205 and H.B. 1312, both of which passed the New Hampshire Senate along party lines. H.B. 1205 bans girls from participating on school sports teams that match their gender identity starting in fifth grade. It requires all girls to submit a birth certificate or “other evidence” of their sex assigned at birth, which the LGBTQ+ organization GLAD says could include a genital inspection. The bill also permits parents to sue their school, the opposing school, the state board that governs school sports, and the state if they believe a transgender student was allowed to play sports.

Sarah Huckman, representing her transgender daughter, testified against the bill as a parent.

“She’s incredibly social and outgoing, and sports have been vital for her mental health,” Huckman emphasized. She noted that her daughter actively engages in cross-country, Nordic skiing, and track, and has received acceptance from her teammates.

Now, she fears that her daughter’s well-being could be jeopardized by H.B. 1205.

H.B. 1312 mandates that schools must notify parents at least two weeks in advance before discussing topics related to sexual orientation and gender identity, categorizing such discussions as “objectionable material.” Democrats argued that the bill’s language is so sweeping that it could potentially lead to the prohibition of books depicting heterosexual couples, as reported by the LA Blade.

State Senator Lou D’Allesandro (D), a former educator, expressed, “This bill is one of the reasons why nobody wants to go into teaching,” as reported by the New Hampshire Bulletin.

“Today, the Senate turned its back on New Hampshire values and conveyed an exceedingly harmful message to all New Hampshire youth. LGBTQ students deserve to learn without facing discrimination at school,” stated Chris Erchull, an attorney at GLAD.

“Transgender students require the chance to participate in sports for the same reasons as other children: to acquire vital life skills as members of a team where they feel included,” Erchull emphasized. “That’s what we desire for all young individuals – the ability to learn, flourish, and feel accepted. That’s why our state and federal laws clearly state – and courts have confirmed – that targeting transgender students for exclusion is unjust.”

Governor Chris Sununu (R) has yet to announce whether he will sign the bills, although he has previously made statements opposing transgender rights.

“I fundamentally don’t believe that biological boys should be competing in girls’ sports. I think it’s dangerous,” he said this past March.

This blog originally appeared at NBC NEWS.

A proposed bill sought to limit transgender individuals’ access to bathrooms and locker rooms in public facilities, including university dormitories.

Mississippi’s Republican-led Legislature has decided not to proceed with final votes on two bills aimed at restricting the legal recognition of transgender individuals.

The bills quietly died after House and Senate leaders couldn’t reach an agreement on compromise versions before the Monday night deadline. Lawmakers were preoccupied with addressing several other complex issues at the time.

One bill aimed to limit transgender individuals’ access to bathrooms and locker rooms in public buildings, such as university dormitories. The other sought to define sex as determined at birth, asserting that “there are only two sexes, and every individual is either male or female.”

The House and Senate had previously approved distinct versions of both bills. To proceed, the Republican-majority chambers would have to reconcile and settle on a unified version of each bill before they could be presented to Republican Governor Tate Reeves.

In 2021, Reeves enacted a law prohibiting transgender athletes from participating on girls’ or women’s sports teams. Last year, he also signed a measure prohibiting gender-affirming hormones or surgeries for individuals under 18 years old.

The Mississippi proposals were part of a broader trend seen in state legislatures nationwide, where Republicans are pushing for restrictions on transgender individuals’ access to gender-affirming care, restroom facilities, and participation in sports, among other issues.