Equality Caucus Condemns Passage of Anti-LGBTQI+ Riders in MilCon-VA FY25 Funding Bill

­­­WASHINGTON, DC — Today, the Congressional Equality Caucus released the following statement after House Republicans passed H.R. 8580, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2025, which is full of anti-LGBTQI+ riders:

“Once again, Republicans are attacking the transgender and broader LGBTQI+ community with riders that both harm our LGBTQI+ veterans and undermine our military readiness by discouraging LGBTQI+ people from enlisting,” said Rep. Mark Pocan (WI-02), Chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus. “We strongly condemn this bill and its cruel attacks that target those who have served our nation in uniform. Our members remain committed to defending the LGBTQI+ community throughout the Fiscal Year 2025 appropriations process and beyond.”

BACKGROUND
H.R. 8580, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2025 includes four explicitly anti-LGBTQI+ riders:

Sec. 256: Ban on medically necessary, evidence-based care for transgender people
This rider prohibits funds made available by the bill from being used for “surgical procedures or hormone therapies for the purposes of gender affirming care,” thereby blocking medically necessary healthcare for transgender veterans who, like their cisgender siblings, have bravely served our nation.

Access to gender-affirming care is critical, medically necessary, and often lifesaving. Gender-affirming care takes many forms and is tailored to the age and unique needs of the individual in consultation with medical doctors and mental health professionals. While not all transgender people access this care, many do over the course of their lifetimes.

Every major medical and mental health association in the U.S., representing more than 1.3 million U.S. doctors, supports age-appropriate gender-affirming care for transgender people. This includes the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the Endocrine Society, among other organizations.

Sec. 257: Ban on flying Pride flags
Under this section, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs may not fly or display a Pride flag over a Department of Veterans Affairs facility or national cemetery.

Displaying pride flags is a way for agencies to show that they are committed to creating an affirming and inclusive environment for LGBTQI+ employees. At a time when the LGBTQI+ community is under attack, displaying a pride flag is an important signal to LGBTQI+ people that they belong.

Sec. 414: Blocking LGBTQI+-inclusive DEI Executive Orders
Under this section, funds appropriated by the bill cannot be used to implement, administer, apply, enforce, or carry out:

• Executive Order No. 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government”
• Executive Order No. 14035, “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce;” and
• Executive Order No. 14091, “Further Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through The Federal Government”

All of these Executive Orders are LGBTQI-inclusive.

Sec. 416: Creating a license to discriminate against the LGBTQI+ community
This rider creates a license for people and organizations—including those receiving taxpayer funds—to discriminate against LGBTQI+ people under the guise of religious liberty, and it prevents the federal government from adequately responding.

For example, it prohibits the federal government from reducing or terminating a federal contract or grant with an organization that discriminates against LGBTQI+ people if the organization justifies their discrimination based on the belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. It similarly prohibits the federal government from reducing or terminating the employment of an employee who discriminates against LGBTQI+ people if the employee justifies their discrimination based on the belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. For example:

• If an organization that has a contract to provide counseling services for veterans refuses to work with servicemembers who are in same-sex relationships, the government could not take action, even though the contractor was not performing the duties specified in the contract.
• If a benefits counselor refused to process benefits-related applications and changes for the same-sex spouse of a veteran, the counselor could not be penalized for this conduct.