Acknowledging and apologizing for the mistreatment of, and discrimination against, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals who served the United States in the uniformed services, the Foreign Service, and the Federal civil service and committing to the pursuit of equal rights, protections, and respect for all LGBT servicemembers and Federal civil servants.
Introduced June 11, 2026 · Last action June 11, 2026
Plain English Summary
This is a House resolution that apologizes for the federal government's past discrimination against LGBT individuals who served in the military, Foreign Service, and federal civil service. The resolution acknowledges the harm caused by policies like the 1949 military ban on homosexuals and the 1993 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy, and condemns recent executive orders that removed LGBT protections. It does not create new legal rights, authorize claims against the government, or provide financial compensation.
Who benefits
LGBT military veterans and current servicemembers; LGBT Foreign Service officers, specialists, and civil servants; families of those individuals; advocates for LGBT equality and civil rights organizations
Who pays / loses
This resolution imposes no direct financial or regulatory costs on any specific group. However, those opposed to LGBT equality or supportive of the recent executive orders rescinding LGBT workplace protections (signed January-May 2025) view the apology as rhetorically contrary to their policy preferences. No industries, companies, or economic sectors pay direct costs.
Funding & Lobbying Interests
House Resolution 1357 is a non-binding apology resolution with no fiscal impact and no direct financial incentives driving its passage. However, the resolution is sponsored by Representatives McClellan, Takano, Krishnamoorthi, Norton, and Cisneros—all Democrats who represent districts with substantial LGBT populations and strong civil rights advocacy networks. Organizations benefiting from and likely supporting this resolution include the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Trevor Project, and other national LGBT advocacy groups that lobby Congress on anti-discrimination issues. Tech companies (Google, Microsoft, Apple) with strong corporate LGBT equality commitments and diversity initiatives may indirectly align with this resolution's values, though they do not directly benefit financially from its passage.
Political Impact
Affected Groups
An estimated 100,000+ military service members were discharged between World War II and 2011 for being LGBT; thousands more LGBT Foreign Service employees were terminated (over 1,000 at the State Department alone documented in the resolution); tens of thousands of LGBT federal civil servants were investigated, harassed, and terminated under various executive orders and agency policies from the 1940s through the 1990s. The resolution specifically addresses those who remain living, as well as the families of deceased service members and employees. Current transgender military personnel are directly affected by the 2025 military ban referenced in the resolution (thousands separated starting May 2025). This resolution provides moral recognition but not legal remedies or compensation.
Political Subtext
Proponents argue this resolution is a necessary historical acknowledgment of systematic discrimination and a reaffirmation of civil rights principles after recent executive orders (14173, 14148, 14183) rescinded federal LGBT workplace protections. They cite the 2016 Department of Defense policy permitting open transgender service and the successful 2010 repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' as evidence that LGBT military service strengthens the armed forces—a position shared by active military leaders quoted in the resolution. Critics opposed to the apology argue that the resolution contradicts the current administration's policy direction (reflected in the January 2025 executive orders) and that it prioritizes ideology over operational military readiness; some argue the resolution's reference to other countries' apologies is an attempt to embarrass the U.S. government into reversing recent policy. Non-partisan evidence shows that the pre-1995 policies were indeed discriminatory under constitutional law (Norton v. Macy, 1969, and Society for Individual Rights v. Hampton, 1973, both court cases cited in the resolution, established that sexual orientation-based dismissal violated due process). The 2016 transgender inclusion policy underwent no documented military readiness degradation before its 2025 reversal, according to Department of Defense records available at the time.
Real-World Stakes
If passed, this resolution creates no binding legal obligations, funding, or compensation mechanisms—it is a formal statement of institutional recognition. However, such resolutions carry symbolic weight and may inform future legislative action on LGBT service member discharge review, benefits restoration, or apology-plus-remedy bills. Precedent: the Secretary of State issued a formal apology to LGBT Foreign Service members on January 9, 2017, which did not reverse employment discrimination but signaled institutional accountability. The 2023 Department of Defense review initiative (mentioned in the resolution's preamble) to assess discharge upgrades proceeded independently of any formal apology and resulted in some honorable discharge upgrades, but affected only a fraction of the estimated 100,000+ discharged. If Congress later pairs this apology with substantive legislation (discharge record review, benefits restoration, or compensation funds), the real-world stakes would include: restored VA benefits for surviving veterans and their families, cleared discharge records improving employment prospects, and potential lump-sum or ongoing compensation payments. The immediate stakes of this resolution alone are purely symbolic recognition and reputational—it does not affect current law, ongoing military policies, federal employment rules, or security clearance procedures.
Sponsor
Co-sponsors (5)
DRep. Cisneros, Gilbert Ray, Jr. [D-CA-31]DRep. Takano, Mark [D-CA-39]DRep. Kamlager-Dove, Sydney [D-CA-37]DRep. Krishnamoorthi, Raja [D-IL-8]DDel. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]
Vote Record
No recorded votes.
Campaign Finance — Primary Sponsor
Top contributing industries
Other$152,012.29
Finance$3,000
Healthcare$2,969.15
Law$1,250
Energy$1,000
501(c)(4) disclosure: Contributions from 501(c)(4) "dark money" organizations are not required to be publicly disclosed and are not reflected in the figures above. Data sourced from FEC public disclosure filings.
Community Discussion
Share this bill
Sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first.