After more than an hour of impassioned public testimonies, the Arlington City Council voted to uphold a suspension on discrimination protections for people in the city who identify as LGBTQ+ over fears that keeping them might make the North Texas city a target of the Republican-controlled White House.
The razor-thin 5-4 vote bars language in the city’s ordinance passed in 2021 that prevents employers and lodging businesses from discriminating against people for their sexual orientation or gender identity. The council suspended the ordinance in September amid worry that more than $60 million in federal dollars the city planned to use on city services, including public safety, parks, and roads, could be lost if they kept it.
Recommended Videos
“I assure you all that in spite of the vote tonight, the City of Arlington remains committed to fostering an inclusive and equitable community for all residents, and ensuring that no one individual faces discrimination,” said Arlington Mayor Jim Ross after the vote. “I pledge to each and every one of y’all that we will continue to collaborate with community leaders, council members and city staff to reach a solution that is palatable to all.”
The city of nearly 400,000 is the first known municipality to act under the threat of President Donald Trump’s scrutiny. The administration has, in its first year, used executive orders to compel governments across the U.S. to remove language that includes transgender people, gender identity, and diversity, equity and inclusion.
Federal policy experts have been skeptical of the tactic, warning that acting on executive orders — which are not written or passed by either chamber of the U.S. Congress — is premature. Conservative leaders argue Trump’s orders recalibrate the effects of previous ones by former Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama.
Arlington officials have said that keeping the ordinance could expose them to consequences. The city already lost a $50,000 grant that contained the word “inclusive” earlier this year. Experts on LGBTQ+ history and policy told The Texas Tribune that undoing discrimination protections further erodes a decades-long effort to expand LGBTQ+ rights.
Some of Arlington’s City Council members during Tuesday night’s meeting expressed doubts about whether the discrimination protections were legally enforceable. Rebecca Boxall, who represents downtown Arlington on the council, called the ordinance “bad policy.”
“From the very beginning, it was unenforceable at the city level. We can’t enforce federal law at the city level,” she said. “The way I looked at it, and a lot of you mentioned protections, it does not offer protection. So in that respect, it’s just misleading. It’s just plain misleading.”
Ash Hall, policy and advocacy strategist for LGBTQIA+ rights at the American Civil Liberty Union’s Texas chapter, said during public commentary that the ordinance offers the city the authority to investigate and mediate discrimination claims.
Such ordinances, Hall added, “make it clear that those who engage in discrimination should not expect cities to side with them. Nondiscrimination ordinances both serve to give residents an indication of a city’s values and to make it clear what kind of behavior is expected in areas like housing and public accommodations.”
The vote came after residents, community and business leaders — 34 in support of reinstating the ordinance and 11 opposed to the removal — shared how scrapping the ordinance could make families think twice about living in Arlington — and how keeping it could endanger the city’s coffers.
“These kinds of policies go beyond legal implications,” Dallas Schwab, a resident, told councilmembers during his testimony Tuesday. “You are telling people who is worthy of protection, and when you tell someone they are unworthy, they just might believe you.”
Cathy Rocha, another resident who testified before the City Council, said that keeping the ordinance would risk losing money.
“Establishing the city ordinance that cannot override state and federal laws extends beyond federal guidelines, and could unintentionally place at risk … federal funding,” Rocha said. “And that funding supports essential programs, such as housing assistance for roughly 400,000 residents, and some for LGBTQ+ people themselves.”