An activist from Puerto Rico who spoke at a Congressional Hispanic Caucus briefing last week in D.C. said anti-LGBTQ+ laws and policies have left the LGBTQ+ community in the U.S. commonwealth even more vulnerable.

“A human rights crisis is unfolding in Puerto Rico — one that disproportionately affects LGBT+ people, particularly transgender and nonbinary Puerto Ricans,” said True Self Foundation Executive Director Miguel Vázquez-Rivera.

The True Self Foundation and LatinoJustice PRLDEF participated in the briefing that took place on July 15.

Vázquez-Rivera during the briefing highlighted several anti-LGBTQ+ laws and policies that have been implemented since Gov. Jenniffer González took office in January 2025. These include Law 63-2025, which prohibits gender-affirming healthcare for anyone under 21, and Law 26-2026, which prohibits the University of Puerto Rico and other “government facilities” from installing “mixed or gender-neutral multi-occupancy restrooms.”

“The legislation aims to strengthen public safety standards while ensuring that no individual is subjected to unlawful discrimination,” noted the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration on Feb. 25 in a press release after González signed it.

González, a Republican who is a member of the pro-statehood New Progressive Party, was Puerto Rico’s resident commissioner in the U.S. House of Representatives before she became governor. González supports President Donald Trump.

Vázquez-Rivera during the briefing highlighted anti-LGBTQ+ measures that have been introduced in the Puerto Rico Legislative Assembly. These include House Bill 164, which would prohibit transgender athletes from school sports teams that correspond with their gender identity, and House Bill 131, which would allow faith-based adoption agencies to deny services to same-sex couples.

“The overwhelming scientific evidence is clear: children raised by same-sex parents do just as well as those raised by different-sex parents,” said Vázquez-Rivera. “What matters is not the gender or the sexual orientation of the parents; but the presence of love, stability, and support.”

Trump upon taking office for a second time on Jan. 20, 2025, signed his “Defending Women from Gender Identity Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” executive order. Among its provisions is the federal government’s recognition of two genders: male and female.

Vázquez-Rivera noted “other proposals” in Puerto Rico “would recognize only ‘biological sex’ in government documents, prohibit inclusive language throughout public institutions, continue challenging recognition of nonbinary identities, and reverse protections for LGBT+ students previously adopted by the University of Puerto Rico.”

“The challenges facing LGBT+ Puerto Ricans cannot be viewed as isolated debates about healthcare, sports, bathrooms, or language,” said Vázquez-Rivera. “They are part of a much larger picture.”

“Puerto Rico is already confronting poverty, disaster recovery, healthcare shortages, and economic instability,” he added. “When discrimination is added to these realities, existing inequities become even deeper. Mental health worsens. Families are displaced. Communities become more vulnerable.”

Vázquez-Rivera further stressed “these issues are interconnected, and our response must be as well.” He also urged the LGBTQ+ rights movement to do more to support — and fund — advocacy efforts in Puerto Rico.

“Ultimately, this is not about granting special rights,” said Vázquez-Rivera. “It is about ensuring that more than three million American citizens living in Puerto Rico have the same opportunity to live healthy, safe, and dignified lives as every other American.”

The Puerto Rican government has not responded to the Los Angeles Blade’s request for comment.

Polish President Karol Nawrocki on July 17 vetoed bills that would have extended rights to same-sex couples.

Reuters reported Nawrocki rejected two measures that would have allowed same-sex couples who live together to enter into “cohabitation contracts.” Reuters noted the bills would have allowed same-sex couples to make decisions on issues that include access to medical information, property rights, and burial.

The country’s coalition government backed the bills that MPs approved. Nawrocki, a socially conservative Catholic, in a statement said they “create a new, formalized institution of family law, ​equipped with a broad catalogue of rights similar to those of marriage.”

“As the guardian of the Constitution, I cannot accept a solution that would lead to the loss of the ‌special ⁠status of marriage, defined in Article 18 of the Constitution as a union of a man and a woman under the protection and care of the Republic of Poland,” said Nawrocki, as Reuters noted.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk sharply criticized Nawrocki.

Miko Czerwiński of the Campaign Against Homophobia, a Polish LGBTQ+ advocacy group, in a statement noted nearly 80 percent of Poles “believe that the status of same-sex couples should be protected.”

“Once again, the voice of society has proven irrelevant to those in power,” said Czerwiński. “We are not willing to accept this. We will continue working towards full marriage equality.”

The EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg last November ruled in favor of a same-sex couple who challenged Poland’s refusal to recognize their German marriage. Poland’s Supreme Administrative Court in March reaffirmed the decision.

The couple, who lives in Poland, brought their case to Polish courts in 2019. The Supreme Administrative Court referred it to the EU Court of Justice.

The Polish government in May announced it will recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other EU countries. Tusk, for his part, apologized to same-sex couples for the “years of rejection and humiliation” they suffered because Poland did not recognize their relationships.

“We will continue working towards full marriage equality,” said Czerwiński in response to Nawrocki’s vetoes. “We will not allow years of work by non-governmental organizations, activists, and our entire community to be wasted.”

Uncloseted Media published this article on July 18.

By SAM DONNDELINGER | On a June night in rural North Carolina, dozens of campers sat around the fire as a counselor asked them to close their eyes.

“Picture a place where you feel completely safe,” they were told. “Think about what it looks like and how it feels, what you can hear, smell, and taste.”

When they were invited to share what they had imagined, one camper described sitting in a circle with other trans people. It was dark. Trees surrounded them. Mosquitoes buzzed.

“‘That place is here, and this is the place where I feel safe,’” Jacob Hofheimer, one of the camp’s founders, recalled the camper saying. “It got all of us.”

For many of the 8- to 17-year-olds who attend Transcending Adolescence, the weeklong summer camp offers a reprieve from the calculations they have to make in their day-to-day lives: Who knows they are trans? Who can be trusted? Which bathroom can they legally use?

At a time when 40 percent of transgender and nonbinary youth seriously considered attempting suicide in the past year, and 90 percent of LGBTQ+ youth reported that recent anti-LGBTQ+ laws, policies, and debates cause them stress or anxiety, those questions never disappear. But at this camp, young people are given space to ask them openly and to a community that understands why they need to.

“It really made me smile knowing that there’s a lot of people out there like me,” Ruby, a 12-year-old camper, told Uncloseted Media. “I’m putting myself out there, I’m being myself and no one judges me.”

Origins

Transcending Adolescence was founded in 2019 by Jacob and his wife Chrissy Hofheimer. The trans married couple wanted to create a camp for queer kids in America’s South, where affirming resources can be difficult to find.

Surrounded by thick woods and the backdrop of the Appalachian Mountains, campers swim, tie-dye shirts, complete ropes courses, roast marshmallows and perform in shows. They also gather for conversations about healthy relationships, medical care, legal rights, bathroom anxiety, coming out, misgendering, depression, substance use, and self-esteem.

“A huge part of it is that every single person there is trans or gender diverse, including the staff,” says Rory Sowers, a 19-year-old junior counselor from Florida. “That’s just something that you don’t get to experience a lot, especially as a young trans person.”

Sowers first attended Transcending Adolescence as a camper during its inaugural year in 2021. He returned three times before becoming a junior counselor.

“There’s so much that trans folks have to worry about just going about their day-to-day lives, especially living in the South,” Sowers says. “I was able to come into myself a lot more when I didn’t have all of those anxieties on my back.”

A place to be ‘just Ruby’

For 12-year-old Ruby, pre-camp anxiety was intense.

When she attended camp in June of last year, it was the first time traveling to another state without her parents.

“I was nervous about having someone there not really understanding me … and not really accepting me,” says Ruby, whose name has been changed to protect her privacy.

Outside camp, Ruby worries about how other people perceive her, according to her mom, Kate, whose name has also been changed. She says her daughter has to consider a litany of questions cis kids don’t have to worry about: “‘What if someone finds out? Are they looking at me? Do I look the part?’ … All these thoughts go through her head every single day.”

Before camp, Ruby had been struggling so intensely that her family had questioned whether it might feel easier for her “not to be who she was,” Kate says. Ruby had faced bullying in school, prompting her family to withdraw her and homeschool her for the remainder of fifth grade.

“I couldn’t really go anywhere without picking [at] myself because I was anxious,” Ruby says.

But when she arrived at camp, a lot of Ruby’s anxiety subsided. She didn’t have to introduce herself through the lens of being trans. She could just be herself: a funny, theatrical, outgoing 12-year-old who likes Beyoncé, improvises rap battles, and wants to be in the center of dance shows.

“She can just go there and just be [Ruby],” Kate says. “[Being trans] is only a little piece of her. There’s so much more to her, and she’s able to do that for the whole week. … It was completely life-changing for her.”

Research suggests that spaces like Transcending Adolescence can have powerful mental health effects.

Young people tend to fare better when they feel they belong and have access to peers and adults who understand them. In one small study from 2021, participants of a six-day LGBTQ+ summer camp reported increased resilience, self-esteem and quality of life. Focus groups indicated that transgender and nonbinary campers found an affirming environment that offered social opportunities they had been unable to find elsewhere.

Though this environment can be transformative, it’s intimidating at first for some. Jacob remembers asking one camper from Texas his pronouns during medical check-in, and the boy responding that he used “guy pronouns” because he “was a guy.”

Jacob recalled him being closed off and leery of the “hippie-dippy nonsense.”

But on the second-to-last night, Jacob overheard him speaking with a fellow camper.

“‘When I first came here, I thought that I was a disgusting, mutilated pig and an alien, and nobody would ever love me because I’m trans,’” Jacob recalls the camper saying. “‘And now I know that being trans doesn’t make me disgusting. It’s actually a beautiful thing.’”

He later texted Jacob to say the camp had given him confidence during the school year.

“‘Half the time, I forget that I’m trans,’” Jacob remembers him writing. “‘I’m just a guy. I’m just me.’”

“Finding places where you literally see yourself and can be seen by others for who you are is important during adolescence. It’s a human need,” Stephen Russell, professor of social and family dynamics at Arizona State University, told Uncloseted Media. “For trans youth, especially those who may not feel fully accepted at school, at home or in their faith communities, a camp where their identity isn’t something they have to navigate or defend, but is simply centered as part of who they are, can be transformative.”

Filling the gaps

The Hofheimers know that these spaces can transform the mental health of trans youth because they experienced it firsthand when they met while working as lifeguards at a summer camp for young queer people in New Hampshire.

The camp was doing important work, Jacob says, but many of its attendees came from privileged families in New England and other parts of the country where affirming programs were more accessible. Far fewer came from places such as Florida, Georgia, and Texas.

That’s why, for the location of the camp, they intentionally chose North Carolina, a state that has laws on the books that exclude trans girls from participating in sports, restrict the instruction of LGBTQ+ topics in schools and ban gender-affirming care for trans youth.

“Access is really, really important,” Chrissy says, adding that while the camp costs $1,975 for the week, they offer robust financial aid, including a $1,500 “no questions asked” subsidized rate for families who can’t afford it.

At the camp, the staff educates campers about anti-trans laws, coming out, and how to have conversations with their doctors about gender-affirming care.

“The kids want to talk about this stuff,” Jacob says. “That was the gap that we identified.”

For Chrissy, baking education into the camp’s programming is personal: When she was transitioning as a young adult, accessing informed medical care was difficult. During consultations, doctors either quoted prices she could not afford or refused to treat her. One told her that they did not “put boobs on men.”

Desperate to change her chest, Chrissy turned to a friend who had undergone illegal silicone injections without an apparent complication. She received what she believed were similar injections in Florida.

But the substance wasn’t silicone, she says, and it hardened and became intertwined with her breast tissue. Seventeen years later, Chrissy underwent a double mastectomy to fix the damage.

This experience became one of the driving forces behind the camp’s educational work.

“Accurate information might have changed the course of my life,” Chrissy says.

To provide information that breaks out of the TikTok and Reddit misinformation bubble many campers exist in at home, Chrissy and Jacob bring in experts and host nightly fireside chats.

Each night, campers gather around for structured conversations about the nuances of being trans. They talk about coping with misgendering, managing bathroom anxiety, identifying red and green flags in relationships, asking for help, and caring for their mental health.

Jacob, who is a certified nurse practitioner, helps answer questions about gender-affirming care. A trans attorney explains policies affecting campers in different states and separates the practical effects of those laws from incomplete information and political fearmongering.

“It made me think about the people who I tell I am trans to and what I have to do to make sure I feel comfortable telling them,” Ruby says. “It let me think about all these questions I had but didn’t really know how to ask.”

Building what comes next

Chrissy hopes the results from the camp’s program will eventually be replicated across the country.

For now, roughly 30 campers come together for one week each summer. Some arrive unhappy about being sent to camp. But by the final day, Sowers says, those same campers are often crying because they do not want to leave.

They return home to the same schools, states, and political climates where they have to decide when it is safe to disclose their identities and how to respond when someone does not understand them.

But at camp, Ruby, among the other campers, found a weeklong respite and saw trans adults who were not merely surviving but building careers, relationships, and communities.

“After the camp, I really haven’t been talking about how I feel insecure that I’m trans,” Ruby says. “I can’t wait to go back and see the people I met and [meet] new friends.”

Attorneys for gay former FBI employee David Maltinsky, who was fired from his job as a non-agent employee at the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office in October 2025 after more than 16 years of service for displaying an LGBTQ Pride flag at his workstation, filed court papers on July 15 opposing a motion by government attorneys to dismiss some but not all of the provisions in his unlawful discrimination lawsuit seeking to overturn the firing.

Maltinsky’s lawsuit, filed in federal court in D.C. on Nov. 19, 2025, states that FBI Director Kash Patel acted illegally by violating Maltinsky’s First Amendment constitutional rights and the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 by ordering his firing on grounds that he “exercised poor judgement with an inappropriate display of political signage” by displaying the Pride flag.

The firing came at a time when Maltinsky successfully completed 16 weeks of the FBI’s 19-week training program at the FBI training academy in Quantico, Va. to become an FBI Special Agent, according to the lawsuit.

In addition to Patel, who took office as FBI director in February 2025 under the Trump administration, the lawsuit names as defendants the FBI itself, Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, and the U.S. Department of Justice, which oversees the FBI.

“Defendants discriminated against Maltinsky for engaging in protected speech, for his sexual orientation, and for opposing discrimination – a clear and brazen violation of federal law and the Constitution,” the lawsuit states in an amended complaint filed May 5, 2026.

The Department of Justice, which is representing the FBI in its response to the lawsuit, did not immediately respond to a request from the Washington Blade for comment on the lawsuit and why it is seeking dismissal of some but not all of the lawsuit’s multiple allegations, including its claim that the firing violated Maltinsky’s First Amendment rights.

In its “Partial” motion filed on June 15, 2026, to dismiss some provisions in the lawsuit, the Justice Department through Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate and Associate Branch Director Christopher Hall, stated that the lawsuit fails to provide sufficient evidence that Maltinsky was fired because he is gay.    

“The Amended Complaint contains no factual allegations that Director Patel or any other decisionmaker expressed hostility toward gay employees, relied on Plaintiff’s sexual orientation in making employment decisions, even knew Plaintiff’s sexual orientation or otherwise indicated that Plaintiff’s status as a gay man played any role in the challenged actions,” the motion states.

Based on that, among other things, the motion says the lawsuit’s claim that the firing violated the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be dismissed. A 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision ruled that the 1964 law bans employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity along with its other categories including race, religion, and gender.  

In its arguments that the decision to fire Maltinsky was illegal, unconstitutional, and unjust, the lawsuit’s amended complaint points out that FBI officials at the Los Angeles Field Office where Maltinsky worked presented the Pride flag to him and gave him full permission to display it at his workstation.  

“The FBI encouraged and honored Maltinsky’s work by awarding him the 2020 Director’s Award For Excellence-Outstanding Service in Diversity and Inclusion,” the lawsuit says. “In 2022, the Attorney General for the Department of Justice awarded Maltinsky the Attorney General’s Award for Equal Employment Opportunity, DOJ’s highest award for performance in support of the Equal Employment Program,” it says.

“In special recognition of Maltinsky’s efforts to improve the FBI, in June 2021 LAFO [Los Angeles Field Office] leadership entrusted to Maltinsky two Pride flags that had been flown from the flagpole located in front of the LAFO,” the lawsuit complaint continues. “Maltinsky displayed one of those flags at his workstation.”

Although the lawsuit doesn’t say so directly, all of that happened during the administration of President Joe Biden and previous FBI Director Christopher Wray, who held the director’s position from August 2017 to January 2025, when Donald Trump took office as president.

Nathaniel Zelinsky, one of the attorneys representing Maltinsky regarding the lawsuit, told the Blade that because the Justice Department did not contest the lawsuit’s First Amendment provisions, the case will move forward to the discovery stage, in which he and fellow attorneys can seek and obtain government documents, and most likely go to trial. He said that regardless of whether the judge approves the dismissal of the lawsuit provisions the government has asked for, the other provisions and the case as a whole  will continue.

“And those First Amendment claims are extremely serious,” he said. “The government, by its admission, fired David Maltinsky because they did not like the speech he displayed when he put up the Pride flag that was gifted to him by the FBI,” Zelinsky said. “The federal government cannot discriminate against its workers based on their speech.”      

An officer-involved shooting outside of a gay dive bar, Shakey’s, in downtown Asheville, N.C., left one man dead Wednesday.

The bar released a statement the following morning regarding the incident, stating that bar staff had asked a patron to leave earlier in the night citing concerning behavior. The bar said that later the man was spotted with a gun in the parking lot.

The bar proceeded to call 911, locked the doors to the establishment, and followed dispatcher instructions on how to keep patrons of the bar safe while officers arrived. These protocols included getting patrons away from the windows and staying low to the ground.

According to Shakey’s, shots were fired outside of the business. When the Asheville Police Department officers arrived, they fired back. The individual died from their injuries, according to the police.

“Because of everyone’s quick actions, cooperation, and concern for one another, every customer and every employee inside Shakey’s made it home safely. We are incredibly thankful,” Shakey’s said on their Instagram page. They thanked Asheville police, emergency dispatchers, EMS, and all first responders who were on scene.

On Thursday, a spokesperson for the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation, Chad Flowers, stated that the suspect involved in the shooting was Arturo Castillo Palomar.

The Los Angeles Blade reached out to the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation for a comment regarding the possibility of the event being considered a hate crime. They said the issue is currently under investigation and that the findings would be turned over to the district attorney for review.

When you think of ruckus on the Sunset Strip at 5 am, maybe it’s some unruly band having a late night after playing at the Viper Room or the Whisky a Go Go. Instead, local residents were met with a cacophony of helicopters around 5 and 6 am this morning. The reason: a water main burst at the crowded intersection of Sunset Blvd and Holloway Drive. 

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), after addressing the flood damage, has located the rupture of a 36-inch LADWP steel main. There are traffic closures on Sunset Blvd. between Larabee Street and LaCienega Blvd, as well as nearby streets for public safety because the pavement is literally shattered under the water pressure. 

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by ABC7 Eyewitness News (@abc7la)

LADWP has confirmed that no water service interruptions are anticipated for residents or businesses, and water in the City of West Hollywood is clean and safe to drink. It’s likely traffic may be a recurring issue as the city works to repair a major intersection in the heart of the West Hollywood/Sunset Strip area. 

West Hollywood Mayor John Heilman says, “We are grateful that no injuries have been reported as a result of this significant water main break. We are working closely with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, and our regional partners to respond to this incident as quickly and safely as possible.” 

West Hollywood is making quick work of it and offering periodic updates at: 

https://www.weho.org/Home/Components/News/News/12208/23

Heilman continues, “I want to thank our Public Works, Community Safety, and Parking teams, along with all first responders, for their swift and coordinated efforts. We know these road closures and traffic impacts are disruptive, and we appreciate everyone’s patience as crews work to stabilize the area, assess the damage, and begin repairs.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by ABC7 Eyewitness News (@abc7la)

Traffic remains heavy; be sure to plan accordingly if navigating through West Hollywood. 

Residents, property owners, tenants, and business owners who have experienced property damage or other losses related to the water main break may submit a claim directly to LADWP. Details: www.LADWP.com/claims

Uncloseted Media published this article on July 16.

By SPENCER MACNAUGHTON | On Sunday, the office of Lindsey Graham reported that the Republican senator and Trump ally from South Carolina died “from a brief and sudden illness.” The office said that the preliminary cause of death was a rupture of his aorta due to a hardening of his arteries.

Since then, many folks in the LGBTQ+ community, including a large number of Uncloseted followers, have — for better or worse — celebrated the senator’s death. When we posted the news on our Instagram page on Sunday, our followers commented:

• “Maybe he rest in hell”—this one got 194 likes.
• “She made sure to wait until Pride was over.”
• “And just like that the world is a better place.”

These responses are fueled by allegations that the senator lived as a closeted gay man while supporting policies that would roll back LGBTQ+ rights. In 2006, he voted in support of a constitutional amendment that would have restricted marriage to only being between one man and one woman. After gay marriage became legal across the U.S. in 2015, he said “I am a proud defender of traditional marriage.” And in 2022, he told CNN he would oppose the Respect for Marriage Act and later reiterated that states should decide the issue of marriage.

Outside the Washington rumor mill, there wasn’t much evidence that Graham could be gay until 2020, when adult video performer Sean Harding wrote on Twitter that “There is a homophobic republican senator who is no better than Trump who keeps passing legislation that is damaging to the lgbt and minority communities. Every sex worker I know has been hired by this man. Wondering if enough of us spoke out if that could get him out of office?”

Harding followed up with another post, writing “If you’d be willing to stand with me against LG please let me know,” and, “So far I have two individuals who would be willing to go public and support my claims. Anyone else?”

A few days later, another anonymous sex worker came forward and made similar allegations.

But after that, there was silence, with some believing these sex workers were slapped with non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). And while at least one lawyer took to Twitter saying that he’d “be more than happy to read the NDAs and look for loopholes. For free!” nobody else came forward.

That is until earlier this week, when author Jesse James Rose posted to her Instagram that Graham had paid her for sex work prior to her gender transition. Rose wrote that “Most of you know him as the homophobic senator from South Carolina but to me he will always be the man who paid a twinky pre-transition college student a fat stack of cash to do unspeakable things to him in a hotel room while he wore red lingerie.”

This dynamic has created a complicated question for LGBTQ+ people: Is it appropriate to posthumously celebrate the death of a man who railed against our community and used his position of power to make our lives less equitable and less safe? Is it even more fair to criticize him if he was living a secret queer life?

Or should we go high and give his track record on LGBTQ+ issues a positive spin now that he’s no longer with us?

In a time where social media feels like a breeding ground for angertainment, I’ll admit that the immediacy of the response to his death at first felt intense.

At the same time, I knew I didn’t want to send thoughts or prayers to a man who tried to rip my rights away.

If the alleged NDAs that Graham handed his sex workers were legitimate, they likely evaporated after his death. So now really may be the first time people can speak their truth and offer an accurate window into the absurd hypocrisy between Graham’s public and private life.

For that, I think it’s fair game to speak candidly about the story he may have worked hard to muzzle while he was here.

The U.S. military will begin testing and treating service members with hormone therapy despite banning similar medical care for transgender service members.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that troops ages 30 and older will be subject to annual testosterone screenings, while younger service members will have the option to voluntarily opt in. Some troops may then be recommended for hormone therapy, he explained in a video posted to social media.

“Under the supervision of our world-class medical professionals, warfighters age 30 and older are going to be tested annually as part of their periodic health assessment,” Hegseth said in a video posted to X, captioned “The High-T Department of War.”

This push to test testosterone levels, as the hormone is commonly referred to as “T,” runs counter to current medical guidelines. Physicians are generally advised to discuss testosterone therapy only with men who have symptoms consistent with low testosterone and documented low hormone levels on two separate blood tests.

Testosterone is a vital sex hormone that all humans naturally produce. It helps regulate muscle mass, bone density, and sex drive. In men, it is primarily produced in the testicles, while in women it is produced in the ovaries and adrenal glands.

Natural testosterone levels in men decline with age and have long been associated with issues such as erectile dysfunction, low libido, mood changes, and weight gain. However, experts continue to debate whether these conditions should routinely be treated with testosterone therapy.

Hegseth’s announcement aligns with other actions taken by the Trump-Vance administration — including efforts by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — to make testosterone therapy more accessible for men, particularly those assigned male at birth.

Last month, the Food and Drug Administration proposed easing prescribing restrictions on testosterone gels, pills, patches, and injections following a December advisory panel that recommended reducing regulatory hurdles to expand access to testosterone therapy.

Currently, FDA labeling specifies that these medications are approved only for men with hypogonadism, a medical condition that causes abnormally low testosterone levels.

The announcement came as a shock to many LGBTQ+ advocates because Hegseth and the Defense Department have cited the use of hormone therapy by trans service members as justification for their dismissal under President Donald Trump’s 2025 executive order, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness.“

The Pentagon continues to pursue implementation of the trans military ban as litigation proceeds. As a result, many trans service members have had their gender-affirming medical care halted, even as similar hormone therapy is now being expanded for cisgender service members. Under the executive order, the military currently disqualifies individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria and has begun formal administrative separation proceedings for trans personnel.

SPARTA Pride, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization made up of trans service members, veterans, and their allies, issued a statement to the Los Angeles Blade following Hegseth’s announcement.

“If hormone therapy helps warfighters perform at their best, then it cannot simultaneously be used as evidence that transgender service members are unfit to serve,” said Kara Corcoran, executive director of SPARTA Pride. “The same class of evidence-based medical treatment cannot be characterized as readiness-enhancing for one group and readiness-destroying for another.”

The legal fight over trans military service remains ongoing.

On June 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that trans service members already serving in the military could continue to do so, while allowing the armed services to continue refusing to enlist new trans recruits.

The Blade reached out to the Pentagon to ask why cisgender service members could receive hormone therapy while trans service members could not, but did not receive a response by the time of publication.

India’s Supreme Court is expected to issue a closely watched constitutional ruling that could shape the future of LGBTQ+ rights litigation. 

The decision will determine whether courts can continue to rely on the doctrine of constitutional morality, a principle that has underpinned several landmark rights decisions. During hearings in April, the Indian government urged the Supreme Court to reject the doctrine, arguing that it has no basis in the Constitution and should not guide judicial decision-making.

For years, the Supreme Court has relied on the constitutional morality doctrine to treat the Constitution as a living document: one whose enduring promises of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity must be applied to the realities of a changing society rather than remain frozen in the era in which it was written.

The Indian government in April asked the Supreme Court to revisit the constitutional reasoning behind two landmark judgments: one that struck down the country’s adultery law and another that decriminalized consensual same-sex relations, arguing that both relied on a subjective invocation of constitutional morality and should no longer be treated as good law.

Arguing before a 9-judge bench considering constitutional questions referred from the Supreme Court’s 2018 Sabarimala temple case, which allowed women of menstruating age to enter one of Hinduism’s holiest shrines after a centuries-old ban, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, India’s second-highest law officer, argued that “constitutional morality” has no textual basis in the Constitution and is instead a judicially evolved concept that is vague and indeterminate.

Mehta said the government did not oppose the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Section 497 of the Indian penal code, which criminalized adultery, if it was based on Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. Instead, he argued that the court should not have relied on what he described as the “vague and subjective” doctrine of constitutional morality to reach its conclusion.

Mehta told the Supreme Court that its 2018 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India ruling that decriminalized consensual same-sex relations wrongly equated “morality” with majoritarian or mob morality while relying on constitutional morality as the basis for its reasoning.

To support his argument against relying on constitutional morality, Mehta quoted extensively from then-Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas. 

Scalia argued that courts should not import foreign legal trends or allow evolving social values to drive constitutional interpretation, contending that judges must remain neutral arbiters rather than participants in broader cultural debates.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in Navtej Singh Johar and Joseph Shine, Mehta questioned whether the judgments reflected the constitutional vision of India’s founding generation. 

“If these judgments, Navtej Johar, Joseph Shine, etc., were to be read by Dr. Ambedkar or Kanhaiyalal Munshi or Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer, I do not know whether they would be surprised, shocked or they would say that this is what we wanted. I believe, they did not want this to happen,” he told the bench.

“A new trend starts, which is Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi,” Mehta said. “This is the judgment of Delhi High Court which was ultimately affirmed in Navtej Johar, sodomy … ‘In our scheme of things, constitutional morality must outweigh the argument of public morality, even if it be the majoritarian view.’ In case of a country governed by democratic principles, the view which is always majoritarian will prevail. When it is question of testing a law, it is always the majority which passes the law. How can you define morality based on this?”

The Naz Foundation case marked the beginning of a landmark constitutional challenge to Section 377 of the Indian penal code, a colonial-era provision that criminalized consensual same-sex relations between adults as “against the order of nature.” The public interest litigation, filed in 2001 by the Naz Foundation, an NGO working on HIV/AIDS and sexual health, argued that the law violated fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. 

In 2009, the Delhi High Court ruled in the organization’s favor, holding that Section 377 violated the rights to equality under Article 14, protection against discrimination under Article 15, and life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Delhi High Court’s ruling was short-lived. 

In 2013, the Supreme Court, in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation overturned the decision, recriminalizing homosexuality under Section 377. 

The court held that the law affected only a “minuscule fraction” of the population and said it was for Parliament — not the judiciary — to decide whether the provision should remain on the statute books. Five years later, the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench in Navtej Singh Johar, unanimously overruled its 2013 judgment, holding that Section 377 was unconstitutional. The decision marked the culmination of the Naz Foundation’s long legal challenge to the colonial-era provision.

Anish Gawande, the first openly gay person to serve as a national spokesperson for a major political party in India, the Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar), told the Los Angeles Blade that the doctrine of constitutional morality, which he said underpinned not only Navtej Singh Johar but also forms one of the foundational principles of India’s constitutional jurisprudence, is “an incredibly important concept.”

“It provides a moral backbone to the document in a way that prevents any amendments to the Constitution from being out into place that would violate the very ethos upon which the Constitution was framed,” Gawande said. “Constitutional morality is an incredibly important antidote to societal morality. It’s been what has allowed us to clamp down on things like dowry. It’s been something that has allowed us to bar even regressive religious practices that might go against human dignity. It’s also been an incredibly important framework that has allowed for the advancement of LGBTQ rights in opposition to arguments made by practitioners and leaders of various religious denominations about the societal immorality of queerness.” 

“The most critical part of constitutional morality, which is a doctrine that has been put in place by the courts, is that it is a very effective bulwark against majoritarianism and the unilateral diktat of the executive over the judiciary and, in some ways, also the legislature,” he added.

Gawande said those factors make constitutional morality “an incredibly important concept” in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. 

If the Supreme Court were ultimately to narrow or reject the doctrine, he said, judgments that have relied on constitutional morality, including the landmark Navtej Singh Johar ruling could come under renewed scrutiny. He added, however, that he did not believe the Supreme Court would take that step because it would run contrary to its own institutional interests.

Gawande said the government has advanced several reasons for challenging the doctrine of constitutional morality. One of them, he said, is that the solicitor general has opposed the doctrine in cases involving religious issues, arguing that courts should not rely on it in constitutional adjudication. 

“The downward repercussions of this, however, could extend to LGBTQ rights and to the rights of all sorts of persecuted minorities in the future,” he said.

“The second thing is that, in principle, the section 377 judgment, of course, rests upon constitutional morality, but it is also resting upon so many other fundamental rights, including the right to privacy that Puttuswamy upheld before the Navtej Singh Johar verdict,” Gawande added. “In Navtej, the right to privacy was also cited as an incredibly important condition upon which the decriminalization of ‘carnal intercourse against the order of nature’ could be permitted. In many ways, the fact that Section 377 does not exist on the statute books at all in the present updated penal codes, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, provides some respite. The entry of Section 377, at least immediately after a reading down of constitutional morality, is not imminent yet. However, it opens the door for a new Section 377 to be introduced and the judicial mechanism available to counter that new section 377, if it were to be introduced, to be reduced significantly.”

Ankit Bhupatani, an LGBTQ+ activist, said he does not believe the Supreme Court’s reconsideration of constitutional morality would lead to the recriminalization of consensual same-sex sexual relations. 

He argued the 2018 Navtej Singh Johar decision rests on multiple constitutional principles beyond constitutional morality, but warned that weakening the doctrine could make it more difficult to secure future LGBTQ+ rights through the courts.

“If we have to take an informed guess on why the government does not like the concept of constitutional morality, it is because it wants a narrower field of judicial review and an elected legislature restored as the primary author of social policy,” Bhupatani said. “But we have already seen parliament’s ability to make laws related to LGBT rights, and it does not give optimism.” 

“The only practical way forward for LGBT rights in India is the judiciary,” he added. “But if the government’s argument is accepted by the Supreme Court, it means the next gay Indian who walks into a court for marriage, for adoption, for inheritance, or for a job they were fired from, finds it more difficult to secure these rights from the only institution from which we could hope for a positive outcome.”

Bhupatani said the decriminalization of consensual same-sex sexual relations would probably survive because the Navtej Singh Johar judgment also rests on the constitutional principles of privacy and equality. However, he warned that weakening the doctrine of constitutional morality could stall broader progress for LGBTQ+ rights. 

“The community keeps the floor and loses the staircase,” he said. “Nobody is criminalized, but nobody moves up.”

“The clever thing about this is that it lets the government have it both ways. To its so-called base, who think that making the law, especially on social issues, is the work of elected parliamentarians and not judges,” said Bhupatani. “It signals that the 2018 verdict was a judicial overreach that ought never to have happened. To everyone else, truthfully, that it never asked to recriminalize anyone. Both messages, one filing.”

Bhupatani said the implications of the government’s position extend beyond LGBTQ+ rights, arguing that asking the Supreme Court to treat the reasoning in Navtej Singh Johar as “not good law” raises broader questions about India’s commitment to constitutional rights. He said such a move could also affect how India’s constitutional democracy is perceived internationally.

Advocacy groups have joined the relief efforts in Venezuela after two back-to-back earthquakes devastated large swaths of the country on June 24.

The magnitude 7.2 and 7.5 earthquakes caused widespread damage in Caracas, the Venezuelan capital, and elsewhere in the country.

Officials in the South American country say the earthquakes killed more than 4,500 people and left more than 16,000 others injured. La Guaira state on Venezuela’s Caribbean coast in which the country’s main international airport is located is one of the hardest hit areas.

Yonatan Matheus, a Venezuelan LGBTQ+ rights activist who currently lives in the U.S., was born and raised in La Guaira.

He wrote on his website that relatives and close friends who still live in the state have lost their homes. Matheus in his post that the Los Angeles Blade published on Monday also said the earthquakes killed two gay men he knew.

“Their names reminded me that behind every statistic lie stories, personal bonds, and life plans,” he wrote. “They also made me think of all those people whose lives and deaths are unlikely to make headlines — especially those who lived on the margins for years, with little visibility and without full recognition of their dignity.”

“They reminded me that emergencies never affect everyone equally,” added Matheus. “Those already facing greater vulnerability often bear an even heavier burden during the recovery process.”

The earthquakes struck less than six months after American forces seized then-Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, at their home in Caracas during an overnight operation.

Maduro and Flores on Jan. 5 pleaded not guilty to federal drug charges in New York. The Venezuelan National Assembly the day before swore in Delcy Rodríguez, who was Maduro’s vice president, as the country’s acting president.

Hugo Chávez died in 2013, and Maduro succeeded him as Venezuela’s president. Subsequent economic and political crises prompted millions of Venezuelans to leave the country.

Rodríguez has faced criticism over the Venezuelan government’s response to the earthquakes.

AIDS Healthcare Foundation Latin America Bureau Chief Patricia Campos in a message she sent to Michael Weinstein, the group’s president, on June 29 described the government’s response as “uncoordinated, poor, and delayed, influenced by political interests.”

“The number of fatalities continues to rise, and many shelters have been set up in public spaces to help those in need,” said Campos. “Hospitals and morgues are working tirelessly beyond their capacity, demonstrating the community’s resilience. Fortunately, international rescue teams have arrived, offering much-needed assistance to recover those still trapped in the debris.”

AHF has clinics in Cúcuta, a Colombian city that is a few miles from the country’s border with Venezuela, and elsewhere in Colombia.

Campos told Weinstein that AHF Colombia “has been communicating with” more than half of the 1,080 “of our patients in care who live in Venezuela.” Campos also noted AHF relief supplies arrived in Venezuela with the 11/13 Foundation, another NGO, and they had been distributed.

New York-based AID FOR AIDS International, an HIV/AIDS service organization that works in Venezuela, has launched an earthquake relief fund.

The Venezuela Earthquake Emergency Relief Fund has thus far raised $55,893.39. It hopes to raise $250,000.

“All donations will go directly to our network of local partners on the ground in Venezuela, who are working to assess the most urgent needs and provide emergency support to affected communities — including but not limited to medicines, food, water, and shelter,” says AID FOR AIDS International.

The group adds “the scale of destruction is the greatest challenge.”

“La Guaira has been catastrophically damaged, and Caracas continues to deteriorate — with looting, businesses closing due to insecurity, widespread power outages, and hospitals overwhelmed with injured patients but critically lacking supplies,” it says. “Reaching affected communities quickly and safely is not easy under these conditions.”

“Our challenge is immediacy,” added AID FOR AIDS International, which is working with its colleagues in Venezuela and students at the country’s Universidad Central de Venezuela who are part of the relief efforts. “Through the strategic partnerships we have already established with trusted organizations on the ground in Venezuela, we are positioned to mobilize resources directly and efficiently, ensuring that every dollar reaches the families in the affected areas.”

Other groups, such as Venezolanos en Barranquilla, which is based in the Colombian city of Barranquilla, have also joined the relief effort.

Barranquilla Vice President Juan Carlos Viloria in an interview with the Washington Post accused the Venezuelan government of “systematic negligence” by restricting “access to the most affected zones.” Venezolanos en Barranquilla nevertheless continues to work with the Catholic Church and other NGOs to mobilize rescue workers and to facilitate the distribution of food, water, generators, and other items in La Guaira and Caracas.

“Despite this situation, we are continuing to do everything for our people,” Viloria told the Blade last week.