News
Knives out for Buttigieg in debate as LGBTQ issues finally come up
Five takeaways on the Democratic candidates last 2019 foray


Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D-South Bend, Ind.) speaks at a Democratic primary presidential debate on Dec. 19. (Photo courtesy of PBS News Hour/POLITICO)
Climate change, health care — and for the first time this year in a substantive way, LGBTQ issues — were major topics during the Democratic debate Thursday night, when seven candidates squared off on stage for the last time in 2019 and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg found himself the target of criticism.
In no particular order, here’s five takeaways from the PBS/Politico debate, which took place in Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University’s Gersten Pavilion.
The seven candidates on stage along with Buttigieg were entrepreneur Andrew Yang, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), former Vice President Joseph Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and businessperson Tom Steyer.
1. Lower-tier candidates had their moment
With the number of candidates on the debate stage winnowed down to seven, each of the contenders on stage had a greater opportunity for speaking time, giving those considered lower tier — like Yang, Klobuchar and Steyer — their time in the sun.
Klobuchar was both energetic, forceful and engaging as she made her case for the nomination. Keeping her reputation as queen of puns in the Democratic primary, Klobuchar in response to the first question quipped, “As a wise judge said, the president is not king in America, the law is king.”
The Minnesota Democrat’s use of imagery was particularly powerful when the issue of climate change came up and she talked about the way her home state has first-hand experience with the issue.
“What we are seeing there is unprecedented flooding, we’re seeing an increase of 50 percent in homeowners’ insurance over the last few years,” Klobuchar said. “And when we make these changes, we have to make clear to people that when we put a price on carbon, that that money is going to come to back to those areas where are going to be hurt, where jobs are going to change and to make them whole with their energy bills.”
Klobuchar was able to tie that in with electability, saying when you make that case “you bring in the Midwestern votes, you win big.”
“I think the best way to do it is by putting someone at the top of the ticket who’s from the Midwest,” Klobuchar concluded.
Steyer, who has been struggling to make his case for relevancy in the Democratic primary, certainly made up for that in his debate performance when he made his case for being the best candidate to take on Trump, who’s likely to run a strong economy.
“I built a business over 30 years from scratch,” Steyer said. “We’re going to have to take him on on the economy in terms of growth as well as economic justice. We’re going to have to be able to talk about growth, prosperity across the board for everyone in America. My experience, building a business, understanding how to make that happen, means I can go toe-to-toe with Mr. Trump and take him down on the economy and expose him as a fraud and a failure.”
Yang also had some good moments, especially in response to the first question on the topic of impeachment, when he seamlessly transitioned to a changing economy.
“If your turn on cable network news today, you would think he’s our president because of some combination of Russia, racism, Facebook, Hillary Clinton and emails all mixed together,” Yang said. “But Americans around the country know different. We blasted away 4 million manufacturing jobs that were primarily based in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri. I just left Iowa — we blasted 40,000 manufacturing jobs there.
“The more we act like Donald Trump is the cause of all our problems, the more Americans lose trust that we can actually see what’s going on in our communities and solve those problems,” Yang concluded.
But the extra time wasn’t always good for these candidates, especially Yang. Among other things, he made a bizarre comment his plan for a $1,000 universal monthly income would somehow have led to more candidates of color on the debate stage. Later on, he said American youth are addicted to both smartphones and drugs, drawing an odd comparison between the two.
Yang’s response to the final question, what he would give as a gift to the candidates, was a copy of his book. That ended up coming off as self-serving when other candidates offered more aspirational answers like beating President Trump in 2020 election.
2. The knives were out for Buttigieg
Buttigieg didn’t have his best night, and that’s putting it gently. He had a lot of canned answers and talking points that made him seem robotic. The only breakout moment for him was when the issue of China came up and he had a great line about the country using technology for “the perfection of dictatorship.”
On top of that, the knives were out across the stage for Buttigieg, whom many polls shows is the front-runner in the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire. In each instance, Buttigieg fought back aggressively, but his opponents — who are reportedly grumbling about his success given his lack of experience — knew how to draw out his weaknesses.
The first exchange took place between Buttigieg and Warren, when the Massachusetts Democrat took an oblique knock at him by saying she doesn’t raise money from wealthy donors who pay $5,000 for a selfie.
Buttigieg — who unlike Warren, is willing is hold fundraisers with major donors — picked up on that, rejecting the criticism.
“Donald Trump and his allies have it abundantly clear that they will stop at nothing, not even foreign interference to hold on to power,” Buttigieg said. “They’ve already put together more than $300 million. This is our chance. This is our only chance to defeat Donald Trump, and we shouldn’t try to do it with one-hand tied behind our back.”
But Warren twisted the knife in further, pointing out Buttigieg held a fundraiser in California in a “wine cave” full of crystals where alcohol was served for $900 a bottle.
“Think about who comes to that,” Warren said. “He had promised that every fundraiser that he would do would be open door, but this one was closed door. We made the decision many years ago that rich people in smoked-filled rooms would not pick the president of the United States. Billionaires in wine caves should not pick the next president of the United States.”
Buttigieg shoot back by saying he’s the only candidate on the stage who isn’t a millionaire or a billionaire, decrying such complaints as “purity tests” and saying if he swore off those donations he couldn’t be on the stage. Buttigieg also made it personal: “Senator, your net worth is 100 times mine.”
The exchange went on with Warren saying she doesn’t sell access to her time. Buttigieg went on to say her presidential campaign was funded in part by money she transferred after having raised money at big ticket events.
“Did it corrupt you, Senator?” Buttigieg said. “Of course not.”
Taking a different approach, Klobuchar said she was hurt by earlier comments Buttigieg made about his lack of experience being a lack of experience in Washington. To the contrary, Klobuchar said, many candidates on the debate stage accomplished a lot as representatives in the federal government.
“I have not denigrated your experience as a local official,” Klobuchar said. “I have been one. I just think you should respect our experience.”
Buttigieg responded Klobuchar had, in fact, denigrated his experience before a break in the debate by implying his relationship to the First Amendment was talking point, but he “was going to let it go because we have bigger fish to fry here.”
Klobuchar shot back, “I don’t think we have bigger fish to fry than picking a president of the United States.”
The Afghanistan war veteran wouldn’t stand for that.
“Let me tell you about my relationship to the First Amendment,” Buttigieg said. “It is part of the Constitution that I raised my right hand and swore to defend with my life. That is my experience, and it may not be the same as yours, but it counts, Senator. It counts.”
Klobuchar said she certainly respects Buttigieg’s military experience, but the election is about choosing a president.
“We should have someone heading up this ticket that has actually won and has been able to show that they can gather the support that you talk about from moderate Republicans and independents as well as a fired up Democratic base,” Klobuchar said. “And I have not just done it once, I have done it three.”
If there’s a such a thing as a gay card, Buttigieg played it.
“Do you want about the capacity to win?” Buttigieg said. “Try putting together a coalition to bring you back to office with 80 percent of the vote as a gay dude in Mike Pence’s Indiana.”
But Klobuchar pointed out Buttigieg tried before to win statewide in Indiana and couldn’t make it happen. South Bend, she said, was another matter.
“If had won in Indiana, that would be one thing,” Buttigieg said. “You tried and you lost by 20 points.”
Those weren’t the only times the debate was heated. On the issue of health care, Biden, who wants to build on Obamacare, and Sanders, who wants Medicare for All, got into a quarrel about affordability that got testy. Klobuchar came in to rescue to resolve it, saying her plan for a non-profit public option was both progressive and practical.
3. Biden showed off his foreign policy chops
In contrast to Buttigieg, Biden had inarguably his best debate performance over the course of the year. He was filled with a new energy he hadn’t exhibited before on stage and offered concrete plans for policy.
When the issue of age came up, Biden had the response he should have given in the first debate when Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) all but told him it was time to give up the torch: With experience comes wisdom.
“I’m running, because I’ve been around, on my experience,” Biden said. “With experience hopefully comes judgment and a little bit of wisdom.”
Amid media reports Biden has indicated he’d only serve one term as president, he somewhat blunted this response by refusing to commit one way or the way on stage about a second term, but it’s debatable whether that was much of a drawback.
But Biden shined the most during the debate when foreign policy came up, giving the former vice president a chance to show off his chops on his credentials on the issue.
Take for instance, the issue of China, when Biden condemns the nation for human rights abuses and offered a specific plan his audience could easily envision.
“We have to make clear is that we, in fact, are not going to abide by what they’ve done,” Biden said. “A million Uighurs, as you pointed out, are in concentration camps. That’s where they are right now. They’re being abused. They’re in concentration.”
Biden pledged to move 60 percent of U.S. seapower to the Pacific Ocean to “let, in fact, the Chinese understand that they’re not going to go any further, we are going to be other to protect other folks.”
The former vice president went on call for rebuilding alliances with South Korea, Australia and Indonesia and going to the United Nations to issue sanctions against China.
4. LGBTQ issues finally came up
After one question on LGBTQ issues had come up heretofore in only the Democratic debates this year (and one that didn’t really require candidates to give thoughtful answers on policy), a debate moderator finally posed a question on LGBTQ issues to the candidates.
PBS NewsHour White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor asked the candidates about their support Equality Act, comprehensive legislation that would prohibit anti-LGBTQ discrimination, and what they would do to address anti-trans violence. In this year 2019 alone, 27 transgender people were counted as killed.
Sanders, who was the first candidate asked to respond, drew a contrast with the current anti-LGBTQ Trump administration and himself by saying leadership on LGBTQ issues is important.
“We need moral leadership in the White House,” Sanders said. “We need a president who will do everything humanly possible to end all forms of discrimination against the transgender community, against the African-American community, against the Latino community and against all minorities in this country.”
With transgender people calling for greater access health care, including transition-related care, Sanders said his Medicare for All plan would ensure all Americans would have access to health care “regardless of their sexual orientation or their needs…including certainly the transgender community.”
Warren took a slightly different route, committing herself to each year as president reading the names of the transgender people killed in the Rose Garden of the White House.
“I will make sure that we read their names so that as a nation, we are forced to address a particular vulnerability on homelessness,” Warren said.
Additionally, Warren pledged to reverse the Trump administration policy at the Bureau of Prisons that refuses to respect the gender identity of transgender inmates when placing them into federal detention.
Before the question was asked, Warren also name-checked the transgender community in reference to comments former President Obama made about needing new women leaders, saying she believes he was “talking about women and people of color and trans people and people whose voices just so often get shoved out.”
5. Impeachment was avoided like the plague
Impeachment only came up during the debate in the context of the first question, when moderator Jody Woodruff pointed out the U.S. House impeached Trump this week despite polls showing a majority of American public are opposed to impeachment.
That might have something to do with why the candidates wouldn’t touch it with a ten-foot-pole afterward.
Klobuchar used the opportunity to call for White House officials to serve as witnesses in the Senate trial, a sentiment echoed on stage. All the candidates responded by criticizing Trump, but clearly were eager to move to other subjects.
Just as Yang moved to the topic of the changing economy, Buttigieg shifted to corporate greed and being able to change things in the 2020 election.
“it’s up to us,” Buttigieg said. “No matter what happens in the Senate, it is up to us in 2020. This is our chance to refuse to be taken in by the helplessness, to refuse and reject the cynicism.”
Not one candidate brought it up afterwards. It was clear they wanted to have the job of ousting Trump from the White House themselves.
National
After targeting youth, state lawmakers now going after the rights of LGBTQ adults
Legislators are also teeing up challenges to same-sex marriage

The proliferation of anti-LGBTQ bills proposed by state legislatures across the country, which ticked up dramatically in 2021 and has since increased year-over-year, looks different in 2025.
Efforts that once focused on school sports and pediatric gender care have now broadened, as many advocates warned they would, to target adult life and the legal scaffolding of hard-won freedoms like same-sex marriage.
LGBTQ issues remain fraught political battlegrounds, but the fight has shifted to driver’s licenses, hospital policies, state-worker speech rules, and even marriage licenses — exposing these communities to greater risk of civil-rights violations.
This shift comes at a moment when legal avenues for challenging discrimination by state governments or the Trump-Vance administration have narrowed significantly, even as rhetorical and political attacks intensify.
The new types of bills
By the numbers, this year is shaping up to be the worst in recent memory. The ACLU tracked 520 anti-LGBTQ bills in 2023, 533 in 2024, and by February the organization had already logged 339, an accelerated pace for 2025.
Predictably, these legislative efforts are clustered in conservative places like Texas, where state lawmakers teed up 32 anti-trans bills on the first day of pre-filing for 2025, as GLAAD noted.
At the same time, however, the group reports that the year kicked off with similar activity in far bluer statehouses located in places like Massachusetts, Colorado, and New York.
The new crop of bills share some distinguishing features. For instance, Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, and Illinois are considering (or have enacted, in Alabama’s case) proposals to adopt restrictive definitions of sex and gender.
Not only does the establishment of a legal definition for gender based on a fixed binary that must be determined by one’s sex at birth exclude the recognition of people who are trans or have other gender diverse identities, but it also carries significant downstream impacts.
President Donald Trump has already demonstrated how this can work. Issued on the first day of his second term, his Executive Order 14168 recast “sex” across all federal policy as a fixed category that is limited to “male” or “female,” defined at “conception,” and unchangeable.
Pursuant to the order, the administration mandated that agencies replace all mention of “gender” with “sex,” strip gender self-identification options from passports, and halt funding for anything deemed “gender ideology,” including gender‑affirming care.
With respect to restrictions on gender markers on passports and official documents, the consequences for Americans who are not cisgender are far-reaching, touching areas of their lives from housing to employment and travel.
Georgia, meanwhile, previewed how conservative lawmakers can restrict guideline-directed best practices medical interventions for not just transgender youth, but adults as well, with a bill introduced this year that would bar coverage by state employees’ health benefits plans.
Georgia has also enacted a law prohibiting all gender-affirming care (hormones, surgeries, and even personal funding of such care) for incarcerated individuals in state prisons, which came after Trump’s executive order requiring the Bureau of Prisons to halt funding for these treatments and move trans women inmates into men’s facilities.
Broadened healthcare restrictions did not necessarily start this year, however. Florida passed a law in 2023, for example, that requires trans adults to receive in-person, state-approved informed consent for gender-affirming care, while banning nurse practitioners and telehealth delivery of such treatments, thereby limiting access for patients.
Following years of conservative activism focused on censoring pro-LGBTQ speech from schools — banning books and other materials with gay or trans characters or themes; restricting classroom instruction on matters of sexual orientation and gender identity — some states have taken a new tack in 2025: protecting anti-LGBTQ speech.
Once again, the scope of these efforts now extends beyond educational institutions and their focus is broadened from youth to youth and adults.
Montana’s Free to Speak Act, enacted in May, protects students and public employees from being disciplined for refusing to use a person’s preferred name or pronouns, establishing a private right of action allowing affected individuals to sue for injunctive relief, monetary damages, and attorney fees.
Lawmakers in Florida are going even further with a proposal that would bar public employers from requiring the use of trans individuals’ preferred pronouns, remove “nonbinary” as an option on state job applications, and make LGBTQ+ cultural competence training optional rather than mandatory.
Marriage equality under fire
On Monday, news outlets around the world reported on the return of Kim Davis. The thrice divorced former Kentucky county clerk has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear her case, which seeks to overturn the High Court’s precedent setting ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that established marriage equality as the law of the land in 2015.
Some legal experts believe the gambit is a long shot. Others are less confident, pointing to the establishment of a 6-3 conservative supermajority in October 2020 and Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring statement in the 2022 decision overturning abortion rights, where he expressed interest in revisiting the marriage decision.
In what may be a harbinger of another battle over same-sex marriage, or a sign that the matter was never settled in the first place, five states this year have considered non-binding resolutions asking the justices to overturn Obergefell: South Dakota, North Dakota, Idaho, Michigan, and Montana.
Other measures have been more concrete. In Tennessee and several other states, lawmakers introduced “covenant marriage” bills defining marriage as a union between “one male and one female” with heightened divorce restrictions — a move that would effectively exclude same-sex couples from that marital track. While none have yet been passed or enacted, they illustrate how legislatures can reshape marriage law without directly challenging Obergefell.
Such bills raise a potential clash with the Respect for Marriage Act, legislation passed during the Biden-Harris administration that requires states to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere but does not require them to issue licenses.
State Department
LGBTQ people ‘erased’ from State Department’s 2024 human rights report
Document released Tuesday after months of delay

Advocacy groups on Tuesday sharply criticized the removal LGBTQ-specific references from the State Department’s 2024 human rights report.
The report, which the State Department released on Tuesday, does not reference Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Law and the impact it has had on the country’s LGBTQ community since President Yoweri Museveni signed it in 2023. The report, however, does note Ugandan government officials “reportedly committed acts of sexual violence.”
“NGOs reported police medical staff subjected at least 15 persons to forced anal examinations following their arrests,” it reads. “Opposition protesters stated security forces used or threatened to use forced anal examinations during interrogations.”
Uganda is among the dozens of countries in which consensual same-sex sexual relations remain criminalized. Authorities in the African country often use so-called anal tests to determine whether someone has engaged in homosexuality.
The report does not mention that Brazil has the highest number of reported murders of transgender people in the world. It does, however, note the President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in 2024 “undermined democratic debate by restricting access to online content deemed to ‘undermine democracy,’ disproportionately suppressing the speech of supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro as well as journalists and elected politicians, often in secret proceedings that lacked due process guarantees.”
The report says there “were no credible reports of significant human rights abuses” in Hungary in 2024, even though Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government continued its anti-LGBTQ rights crackdown. The report does note Russian authorities last year “invoked a law prohibiting the distribution of ‘propaganda on nontraditional sexual relations’ to children.”
The State Department’s 2023 human rights report specifically notes a Russian law “prohibited gender transition procedures and gender-affirming care … and authorities used laws prohibiting the promotion of ‘non-traditional sexual relations’ to justify the arbitrary arrest of LGBTQI+ persons.” The 2023 report also cites reports that “state actors committed violence against LGBTQI+ individuals based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, particularly in Chechnya” and “government agents attacked, harassed, and threatened LGBTQI+ activists.”
“There were instances of non-state actor violence targeting LGBTQI+ persons and of police often failing to respond adequately to such incidents,” it adds.
The 2024 report does not mention Thai lawmakers last year approved a bill that extended marriage rights to same-sex couples. Gays and lesbians began to legally marry in the country in January.
Jessica Stern, the former special U.S. envoy for the promotion of LGBTQ and intersex rights under the Biden-Harris administration who co-founded the Alliance for Diplomacy and Justice, during a conference call with reporters on Tuesday said she and her colleagues “expected (the report) to be bad.”
“When we saw what the administration released, the truth is we were shocked and horrified,” said Stern.
Stern added the Trump-Vance administration “has erased or watered-down entire categories of abuse against people of African descent, indigenous people, Roma people, members of other marginalized racial and ethnic communities, workers, women and girls, and LGBTQI+ people.”
“It is deliberate erasure,” said Stern.

The Council for Global Equality in a statement condemned “the drastic restructuring and glaring omission of violence and abuse targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI+) persons in the U.S.”
“We denounce the Trump administration’s efforts to politicize the State Department’s annual human rights reports by stripping longstanding references to human rights abuses targeting LGBTQI+ and other marginalized groups,” said Mark Bromley, the group’s co-chair.
Gay U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), who chairs the Congressional Equality Caucus, echoed Bromley and Stern.
“Omitting the persecution of LGBTQI+ people from the human rights reports doesn’t erase the abuse, violence, and criminalization our community is facing around the world — it condones it,” said Takano in a statement.
“Erasing our community from these reports makes it that much harder for human rights advocates, the press, and the American people to be aware of the abuses LGBTQI+ people are facing worldwide,” he added.
Congress requires the State Department to release a human rights report each year. Foggy Bottom usually releases it in the spring.
Politico in March reported the Trump-Vance administration planned to cut “sections about the rights of women, the disabled, the LGBTQ+ community, and more” from the human rights report. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce, who President Donald Trump has nominated to become deputy representative at the U.N., on Tuesday during her last press briefing defended the report and the delay in releasing it.
“We weren’t going to release something compiled and written by the previous administration,” said Bruce. “It needed to change based on the point of view and the vision of the Trump administration, and so those changes were made.”
“It certainly promotes, as does our work, a respect for human rights around the globe,” added the former Fox News contributor who has described herself as a “gay woman.”
The Council for Global Equality and Democracy Forward has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. A press release notes it is “seeking the release of additional information … including any instructions provided by political appointees to strip references to abuses against LGBTQI+ persons from the reports.”
“The reports make LGBTQI+ persons and other minorities invisible and, in so doing, they undermine the human rights landscape that protects all of us,” said Bromley.
“Erasing our community from these reports makes it that much harder for human rights advocates, the press, and the American people to be aware of the abuses LGBTQI+ people are facing worldwide,” added Takano. “Failing to rectify this censorship will have real — and potentially deadly — consequences for LGBTQI+ people, including both for those who travel abroad from the U.S. and for LGBTQI+ people in countries whose leadership no longer need to worry about consequences for their human rights abuses. The State Department must reverse course and restore the LGBTQI+ section to these reports.”
A State Department spokesperson told the Washington Blade the “information included in the 2024 reports has been restructured and streamlined for better utility and accessibility, and to be more responsive to the legislative mandate for the (human rights report.)”
“The result directly addresses the reporting requirements as laid out in statute as well as being more streamlined, objective, universal, and accessible to the American public,” said the spokesperson.
The spokesperson did not comment on the FOIA lawsuit the Council for Global Equality and Democracy Forward has filed.
District of Columbia
Trump’s federal takeover of D.C. police sparks outrage among LGBTQ leaders
Move threatens marginalized communities and undermines city’s autonomy

As President Donald Trump pushes forward with his takeover of the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department using federal agents, local LGBTQ leaders are sounding the alarm.
Trump on Monday invoked Section 740 of the D.C. Home Rule Act to “declare a crime emergency” in the District and began sending 800 National Guard troops to patrol the nation’s capital.
Multiple leaders in the District have criticized Trump for using misleading statistics to justify this power grab, one that will disproportionately impact Black, brown, and LGBTQ residents.
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser initially tried to reframe Trump’s takeover as something that could benefit the District, saying to “make the most of the additional officer support that we have” during a Tuesday meeting with Attorney General Pam Bondi. She later began to backtrack on that statement.
“This is a time where community needs to jump in and we all need to, to do what we can in our space, in our lane, to protect our city and to protect our autonomy, to protect our Home Rule, and get to the other side of this guy, and make sure we elect a Democratic House so that we have a backstop to this authoritarian push,” Bowser said in a virtual meeting with local leaders later that day.
One of those local leaders, Ward 5 Council member Zachary Parker, called the Trump administration’s claims of “bloodthirsty criminals” and “roving mobs of wild youth” unsubstantiated and a distraction from “the bigger game in motion.”
In two separate Instagram posts, Parker — the District’s only openly LGBTQ Council member — called the move more about Trump “flexing” his power over a Democratic stronghold than fixing any issues of crime.
“The suggestion that crime is out of control is not supported by data,” Parker wrote Tuesday on his personal account, citing Department of Justice data from earlier this year showing the president’s claims are unsubstantiated. “Violent crime hit a 30-year low in 2024,” he continued, citing Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) data showing a 26% decrease in violent crime in the past year alone.
In another post, Parker called the tactic by the Trump administration a stark move that echoes the dictatorial takeovers of history.
“The raids today from those in power are derivatives of the instruments of power that have policed neighborhoods since the ’70s,” his second post said. “The ploy to seize capitals and collapse power traces back to colonial times and, more recently, Hungary and Turkey.”
The D.C. LGBTQ Budget Coalition, comprised of multiple organizations and advocates that fight for resources supporting LGBTQ residents — including trans people of color, low-income individuals, those with disabilities, and migrants — called this an “attack on D.C. autonomy.”
“This is a blatant violation of D.C.’s right to self-govern and a dangerous escalation rooted in political theater, not public safety,” the coalition’s official statement read. “We stand with local community leaders and other advocates fighting for D.C. to be free (including our evergreen fight for statehood), and all who reject this federal overreach… This move is not about safety, but about control and fear.”
The statement also echoed Council member Parker’s point that both federal and local data show a decline in violent crime despite massive budget cuts to the city prompted by Trump.
“Crime is down — the data is clear. And any attempts to combat the District’s issues were directly thwarted during the federal budget battles that forced our government to cut $1 billion from the local budget.”
The letter, sent to coalition members and supporters, explicitly called these actions anti-LGBTQ and anti-people of color.
“This kind of horrific federal overreach will inevitably cause the most irrevocable harm to our Black, brown, immigrant, and LGBTQ+ siblings — communities who already bear the brunt of systemic violence, over-policing, and underinvestment,” the email said.
“As LGBTQ+ advocates working to ensure equitable investment in our communities, we know that safety comes from housing, healthcare, and justice — and we will not demonize those most vulnerable in this city.”
Obituary
Honoring the whole woman: Remembering Wallis Huberta Annenberg
Wallis Annenberg lived her truth in a world that often preferred silence, using quiet resilience to create space for queer lives within powerful institutions.

Wallis Annenberg, who passed away shortly after her 86th birthday on July 28th, left behind a legacy that few philanthropists of any era could hope to match. A passionate leader, cultural patron, and unapologetically generous force in Los Angeles, she spent her life championing creativity, compassion, and community. But what often went unsaid, sometimes politely ignored, was that Wallis was also a queer pioneer. In a world that didn’t always make room for women like her, she quietly yet courageously carved out space not just for herself, but for others on the margins, channeling her power and privilege into building a more inclusive world.
Born into one of America’s most influential media families, Wallis Annenberg was raised in Philadelphia with ink practically in her veins. Her father, Walter Annenberg, founded TV Guide and Seventeen, and built a philanthropic legacy as prominent as his publishing empire. After graduating from Pine Manor College in 1959, Wallis dipped a toe into the family business at TV Guide before eventually diving headfirst into the deeper waters of philanthropy. It wasn’t until her father’s death in 2002 that she properly took the reins, steering the Annenberg Foundation into its most impactful era as President and CEO from 2009 until her passing.
Under her leadership, the Foundation funneled a staggering $1.5 billion into a wildly diverse portfolio of causes, from arts and culture to environmental conservation, journalism to gerontology, and yes, even animal overpasses. Her imprint on Los Angeles is practically architectural – the Wallis Annenberg Center for the Performing Arts, GenSpace in Koreatown, PetSpace for animal lovers, the ambitious Wildlife Crossing set to open in 2026, and the science-sparking Annenberg Building at the California Science Center. Her boardroom resume reads like a cultural tour of LA and then some – USC, LACMA, MOCA, the Philharmonic, the Music Center, and Harlem Children’s Zone, to name just a few. In 2022, President Joe Biden awarded her the National Humanities Medal, sealing her place in history as part of the only three-generation family to earn such a distinction, further proof that giving back wasn’t just in the Annenberg bloodline but a full-fledged dynasty.
Most obituaries have captured her vast philanthropic footprint, her roles in the public sphere, and her institutional endowments quite accurately yet have almost entirely glossed over or minimized a central truth: Wallis Annenberg lived as a lesbian woman, and openly supported LGBTQ+ and HIV/AIDS causes with strategically courageous generosity.
To fully and properly honor Wallis is to acknowledge not only her generational wealth and philanthropic vision but also her very much so queer identity: a lesbian woman whose visibility was moderately limited by her time and place yet meaningful when and where it counted. Her sexuality and identity shaped her empathy toward marginalized people.
Ignoring that part of her story perpetuates the ever-constant sanitization of queer public figures, simplifying them into neutered benefactors while erasing the very identity that informed the bulk of their charitable giving. Wallis’s lived experience as a lesbian deserves proper and public acknowledgment not merely as a footnote but as integral to her philanthropy, her community care, and her story – a story layered with courage, complexity, and an undertone of quiet and careful defiance.
Wallis faced addiction head-on, and the recovery journey didn’t just save her – it connected her to journalist Karen Ocamb, who became to Wallis a close companion and confidante. Wallis didn’t shy away from vulnerability and fueled that same vulnerable energy into generosity, building a philanthropic approach shaped by her experience rather than detachment.
Among the many tributes after her passing, it was only Ocamb who celebrated and honored Wallis’ sexuality with clarity and care. In her heartfelt Substack tribute, Ocamb wrote, “Wallis never came out – but she lived out loud, fiercely loving women and channeling her passion into transformative giving.”
Back in 1985, when AIDS was still drenched in stigma and so many people, including health professionals, kept their distance, Wallis stepped forward to co-chair the Commitment to Life dinner. That decision was in no way a headline grab but most certainly was a risk on her part for the time. In a day and age when silence was safest when protecting one’s reputation, Wallis chose to speak out through action. Her courage didn’t need a spotlight. It simply showed up where it mattered most.
Navigating public life came with its own choreography. Wallis maintained what some might call “strategic privacy,” presenting a heteronormative front in certain circles while sharing her life, deeply and authentically, with women in more trusted spaces. It wasn’t about hiding but surviving the era she lived in, and, like so many others, choosing when and how to live freely.
Wallis brought that same intentional care to her philanthropy. While major media celebrated her support for the arts, education, and conservation, far less attention was paid to her contributions to LGBTQ+ elder communities. Initiatives like Gay and Lesbian Elder Housing made a genuine, tangible difference in people’s lives, even if her name wasn’t always highlighted in the coverage.
And through it all, there was Kris Levine—Wallis’s steadfast partner, legally acknowledged near the end of Wallis’s life but largely absent from obituaries. Their relationship, though rarely publicized, was integral. It stood as one more example of how much of Wallis’s real story lived just beneath the surface.
Wallis reshaped what philanthropy could look like. Her leadership turned the Annenberg Foundation toward place-based investments, inclusive community programs, aging and wellness initiatives, and bold infrastructure like GenSpace and the Wallis Center. Her vision made space not just for ideas, but for people too often overlooked. Her presence sent a message, whether spoken or not, that queer women, especially those of her generation, have always helped shape the culture, even when they weren’t given a slot up at the mic.
Wallis Annenberg leaves behind more than just her sprawling physical legacy. She also leaves us with a moral legacy grounded in generosity extended to communities she truly and deeply cared for, in particular the queer community that she was very much so part of. Let us all remember Wallis not only as a philanthropist, but as a queer woman whose identity was at the epicenter of her compassion. Let this tribute stand as an acknowledgment that she was more than her institutions. She was human, nuanced, hidden, and honest. And let it serve as an invitation to future remembrances. I more than dare you to include the truth of sexuality, the courage of love, and the quiet acts of resistance that defined her.
Wallis Annenberg, may your spirit continue to guide all communities – arts, aging, wildlife, and LGBTQ+ – toward a world that you helped shape for the better. Your gifts were vast. Your love was real. And your full story deserves telling.
Texas
Democrats block anti-trans legislation by breaking quorum in Texas
Lawmakers flee state to halt GOP-backed redistricting and anti-trans policies

As Texas House Democrats fled the state to prevent Republicans from gerrymandering Democratic-held districts to flip seats, they also blocked anti-transgender legislation from being considered simply by not showing up.
More than 50 House Democrats left Texas on Sunday in an attempt to pause — if not kill — recent Republican-proposed and Trump-encouraged measures making their way through the state House.
This move by Democrats is called “breaking quorum,” and means the Texas House has fewer than the required minimum number of representatives present to conduct business. In total, the Texas House has 150 seats. Republicans hold only 88 seats — less than the 100 required to meet quorum — pausing the legislative session.
The Democratic legislators traveled to Illinois and New York, two Democratic strongholds with outspoken governors vowing to protect them and prevent Republicans from gaining an unfair advantage in the middle of the legislative calendar — at Trump’s behest.
The major issue Texas Democrats are drawing attention to is the recent redistricting plan, which would flip five Democratic U.S. House of Representatives seats to Republican ones through the use of gerrymandering, or strategic manipulation of district boundaries. This gerrymandering would likely result in Republicans retaining control of the U.S. House in the 2026 midterms.
In addition to redistricting, Republicans have proposed Senate Bill 7, also known as “The Trans Bathroom Ban.” This bill mandates that people use the bathroom in government buildings, schools, and women’s violence shelters that corresponds with their sex at birth, rather than their gender identity. The bill would also require incarcerated individuals to be placed in facilities that match their sex at birth.
Proponents of the bill, like Fran Rhodes, the president of True Texas Project — a hardline conservative group that opposes LGBTQ rights and immigration — argue that without SB 7, “we put women and girls at risk.”
This proposed legislation has been denounced by Equality Texas, which says it would not only put trans women at risk, but also cis women, who would be subject to “invasive gender inspections.” They argue this would undermine the Republicans’ stated intent of the bill by subjecting women to unnecessary scrutiny rather than protecting them.
Multiple cis women have come out in opposition to the bill, including Wendy Davis, a lawyer and former member of the Texas State Senate, who called the bill “a solution without a problem.”
Davis continued, saying that “Our trans sisters deserve to be safe in the restroom, just like we deserve to be safe in the restroom.”
Additionally, some Black Texans have sounded the alarm on this bill, likening it to Jim Crow-era segregation legislation — but instead of skin color, it uses gender identity to discriminate.
As the clock runs out on this 30-day special session ending Aug. 19, there is a chance Republican Gov. Greg Abbott could extend the session, as it is within his power as governor.
Texas Democrats hope this will pressure Republicans to work with them to reach a compromise on both redistricting and killing the anti-trans bill.
Honduras
EPU: Honduras en deuda en violencia, niñez y diversidad sexual
Más de 70 organizaciones presentaron informes

Por NAZARETH GÓMEZ | TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras — En el marco del Examen Periódico Universal (EPU), mecanismo del Consejo de Derechos Humanos de la ONU, organizaciones de sociedad civil en Honduras presentaron informes alternativos para evidenciar el incumplimiento de compromisos en materia de derechos humanos. Las recomendaciones al Estado serán revisadas en noviembre de 2025, cuando Honduras enfrente su evaluación internacional.
Durante el evento se compartieron siete informes temáticos sobre mujeres, niñez, diversidad sexual, personas defensoras, tierra, discapacidad y radios comunitarias. Las organizaciones exigen que las recomendaciones se traduzcan en acciones reales.
Violencia contra las mujeres y retrocesos legales
La Plataforma EPU Mujeres denunció que entre 2020 y 2024 se registraron más de 1,500 muertes violentas de mujeres y más de 8,600 evaluaciones médicas por violencia sexual. Solo hay tres juzgados especializados y 72 fiscales para más de 100 mil denuncias anuales.
También alertaron que no se ha aprobado la Ley Integral contra la Violencia hacia las Mujeres ni la Ley de Violencia Política. Ciudad Mujer opera solo en seis ciudades, dejando sin cobertura al 42.8 por ciento de las mujeres. “Seguimos exigiendo voluntad política para avanzar”, afirmaron.
Niñez: pobreza, violencia y abandono estatal
Organizaciones como Coiproden expusieron que el 66.8 por ciento de la niñez vive en pobreza y que siete de cada diez están en situación de pobreza multidimensional. Aunque se ha creado la Secretaría de Niñez y se aprobó una política nacional, aún no hay presupuesto suficiente ni liderazgo institucional claro.
Entre 2020 y 2024, más de 270 niñas, niños y adolescentes murieron por violencia. También se reportaron más de 800,000 alertas de desaparición, de las cuales el 30 por ciento corresponde a niñez. Las organizaciones exigen actualizar la política de prevención de violencia y fortalecer el sistema de protección.
Diversidad sexual: impunidad y exclusión
Desde 2009, más de 400 personas LGBTQ+ han sido asesinadas en Honduras, con un 93 por ciento de impunidad. Las organizaciones denunciaron la falta de avance en la aprobación de la Ley de Identidad de Género, el reconocimiento legal del matrimonio igualitario y la adopción de políticas inclusivas.
“El Estado mantiene patrones de discriminación institucional. No basta con crear políticas si no hay voluntad para implementarlas”, señalaron.
Solo existen seis fiscales a nivel nacional para investigar estos crímenes.
Territorio, pueblos indígenas y represión
El Centro de Estudios para la Democracia denunció que más de 1.8 millones de personas enfrentan inseguridad alimentaria grave. No se han hecho reformas para resolver la deuda agraria ni se han implementado sentencias a favor de comunidades garífunas.
También señalaron que, a pesar de existir un mecanismo de protección, Honduras sigue siendo uno de los países más peligrosos para las personas defensoras. “Se asesina, se criminaliza y no hay respuestas del Ministerio Público”, denunciaron.
Llamado urgente
Las organizaciones exigieron al Estado hondureño tomar con seriedad las recomendaciones del EPU.
Además, exigieron asumir compromisos reales con los sectores históricamente excluidos y garantizar el cumplimiento de los derechos humanos desde una visión integral y con enfoque de justicia.
Los informes completos están disponibles para consulta pública.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services on Monday announced it will ensure “male aliens seeking immigration benefits aren’t coming to the U.S. to participate in women’s sports.”
The announcement notes USCIS “has clarified eligibility for certain visa categories: O-1A aliens of extraordinary ability, E11 aliens of extraordinary ability, E21 aliens of exceptional ability, and for national interest waivers (NIWs), to guarantee an even playing field for all women’s athletics in the United States.” The new policy comes roughly six months after President Donald Trump issued an executive order that bans transgender women and girls from female sports teams in the U.S.
“Men do not belong in women’s sports. USCIS is closing the loophole for foreign male athletes whose only chance at winning elite sports is to change their gender identity and leverage their biological advantages against women,” said USCIS spokesperson Matthew Tragesser. “It’s a matter of safety, fairness, respect, and truth that only female athletes receive a visa to come to the U.S. to participate in women’s sports.”
“The Trump administration is standing up for the silent majority who’ve long been victims of leftist policies that defy common sense,” added Tragesser.
USCIS in April announced it will only recognize “two biological sexes, male and female.” Trump shortly after he took office for a second time on Jan. 20 signed the “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” executive order.
The 2028 Summer Olympics will take place in Los Angeles.
The U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee last month banned trans women from competing in women’s sporting events.
The Guardian earlier this year reported the State Department ordered consular officials “to deny visas to transgender athletes attempting to come to the U.S. for sports competitions, and to issue permanent visa bans against those who are deemed to misrepresent their birth sex on visa applications.”
Germany and Denmark are among the countries that have issued travel advisory for trans and nonbinary people who are planning to visit the U.S. The warnings specifically note the Trump-Vance administration has banned the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers.
“This policy update clarifies that USCIS considers the fact that a male athlete has been competing against women as a negative factor in determining whether the alien is among the small percentage at the very top of the field,” reads the USCIS announcement. “USCIS does not consider a male athlete who has gained acclaim in men’s sports and seeks to compete in women’s sports in the United States to be seeking to continue work in his area of extraordinary ability; male athletes seeking to enter the country to compete in women’s sports do not substantially benefit the United States; and it is not in the national interest to the United States to waive the job offer and, thus, the labor certification requirement for male athletes whose proposed endeavor is to compete in women’s sports.”
The new USCIS guidance takes effect immediately.
Bangladesh
LGBTQ+ Bangladeshis increasingly vulnerable a year after government toppled
Protests forced then-Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to resign in August 2024

Tuesday marks one year since former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina resigned and fled Bangladesh, triggering a political crisis that unleashed widespread unrest. The country since her ouster has faced a surge in mob violence and lynchings, with the LGBTQ+ community at the epicenter.
The Los Angeles Blade reported in August 2024 the collapse of public order forced many in this marginalized group into hiding, seeking refuge in safe houses as vigilante attacks intensified. A year later, as the country grapples with ongoing instability and a weakened law enforcement system — marked by a 30 percent vacancy rate in police positions — the experiences of the LGBTQ+ community offer a stark measure of Bangladesh’s social and political recovery.
Tushar Kanti Baidya, program director of Inclusive Bangladesh, an LGBTQ+ advocacy organization, told the Blade the landscape for LGBTQ+ rights in Bangladesh has shifted since the 2024 political crisis. Unfortunately, Baidya said, this change has taken a deeply concerning direction.
“Over the past decade, we have worked hard to build positive visibility for LGBTQ individuals, particularly transgender persons. However, that progress is now under threat due to the increasing influence of right-wing political groups and their allies,” said Baidya. “These groups continue to deny the legitimacy of transgender identities and are actively engaged in coordinated campaigns against the broader LGBTQ community.”
“The hostile environment has resulted in widespread discrimination, harassment, and violence. Transgender individuals, in particular, are being targeted, facing physical assault, bullying, and restrictions in continuing their traditional professions,” noted Baidya. “Even those who have contributed significantly to human rights efforts are not spared.”
Baidya said Sanjiboni Sudha, the group’s executive director, was “consistently harassed and pressured to resign from her position” at BRAC bank, a financial institution affiliated with BRAC, a prominent NGO.
“Despite reaching out to the bank’s general manager and BRAC’s executive director, Mr. Asif Saleh, we received no substantive response,” Baidya told the Blade. “The matter was ultimately dismissed as an ‘internal issue’ of the bank.”
Baidya said Sanjiboni lost her scholarship at the University of Dhaka after the sudden abolition of the trans quota, with no follow-up guidance to address the decision’s impact. Baidya added another colleague, Saraban Tahura, was denied a contract renewal at Walton Group, a private company, while her cisgender colleagues in similar roles were retained.
“Members of our community who openly supported a new political party were expelled from its committees once their sexual or gender identity became public,” Baidya told the Blade. “Incidents of blackmail, hate crimes, and even killings have escalated significantly.”
“As a result of this widespread and systemic backlash, many members of the LGBTQ community in Bangladesh have been forced into silence, living in fear, and waiting for a safer and more inclusive future,” added Baidya.
Mohammad Rafiqul Islam, a gay man, was brutally murdered in Gazipur, a city just north of Dhaka, Bangladesh’s capital, on July 19.
The killing, described by JusticeMakers Bangladesh in France, a Paris-based human rights organization, as premeditated, has intensified fears among marginalized groups.
JusticeMakers Bangladesh in France’s 2024 report documents a sharp rise in violence against Bangladesh’s LGBTQ+ community.
The report noted that following the fall of Hasina’s government and the formation of an interim administration led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, Islamist fundamentalist groups gained significant influence. Exploiting the ensuing political instability, these groups unleashed a wave of attacks on LGBTQ+ people, exacerbating the community’s vulnerability amid a deteriorating security landscape.
Baidya told the Blade that under Hasina’s administration, minority communities — religious, sexual, gender, and ethnic groups — benefited from inclusive policies and targeted social safety programs. Hasina’s government, he said, showed a clear commitment to supporting marginalized groups through institutional measures and public acknowledgment, fostering a more protective environment before the 2024 political upheaval.
“In contrast, the current interim government has yet to demonstrate any meaningful action to uphold or continue these protections.,” said Baidya. “There has been no clear initiative or policy commitment aimed at safeguarding the rights of minority groups, leaving these communities in a state of uncertainty and heightened vulnerability. This lack of proactive engagement from the present leadership is particularly concerning, as it signals a potential regression in the hard-won progress made toward equality and inclusion in Bangladesh.”
Hasina’s government from 2013-2021 enacted several trans-inclusive policies, notably granting legal recognition to the trans community as a third gender in 2013 for official documents, including passports and voter ID cards. These measures enabled trans people to apply for government jobs and vote under their recognized gender identity.
Bangladesh also became one of the few South Asian countries to offer tax rebates to companies employing trans people, bolstering economic inclusion before Hasina’s government fell.
The Yunus-led interim government has not introduced any policies to advance LGBTQ+ inclusion, aligning instead with conservative and Islamist political groups, some known for actively opposing LGBTQ+ rights. The administration lifted a ban on Jamaat-e-Islami, a conservative Islamist party with a history of resisting LGBTQ+ protections.
“There have been widespread allegations suggesting that the recent anti-government protests were indirectly supported by foreign actors, particularly the United States,” noted Baidya. “Claims have emerged that USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development)-funded certain individuals and NGOs with the intention of promoting an agenda aimed at unseating the previous government.”
“It is well-documented that Professor Muhammad Yunus, a central figure in the current political transition, has maintained strong ties with previous U.S.-aligned democratic administrations,” he added. “Given this context, it is unlikely that the current Republican-led U.S. government will significantly alter its position, especially if the current political arrangement serves broader strategic or geopolitical interests.”
Baidya told the Blade that Yunus’s government has persued policies that undermine LGBTQ+ peoples’ fundamental rights. Rather than fostering inclusion or dialogue, he said the current government has intensified measures that marginalize and dehumanize sexual and gender minorities, deepening their exclusion amid Bangladesh’s volatile political landscape.
“This inconsistency highlights a troubling double standard, where political rhetoric is used to gain power, but once in control, the same government disregards human rights and fails to protect the very communities it previously criticised others for engaging with,” said Baidya, who added women and trans activists in particular have become targets.
“Many have been forced to relocate within the country after receiving credible threats of abduction, sexual violence, and even death,” he said. “These threats have created a climate of fear and forced many into silence or isolation.”
Baidya told the Blade that trans Bangladeshis are under increased pressure to conceal their gender identity.
Prominent community members, once visible in public and advocacy spaces, have sharply curtailed their activities due to safety concerns. Those with resources or international connections, Baidya noted, are increasingly seeking to leave the country in pursuit of safety and dignity.
He said Inclusive Bangladesh receives up to 10 requests for support and relocation assistance each week. Baidya told the Blade that restrictive visa policies in the U.S. and European countries have left many LGBTQ+ Bangladeshis in limbo.
Neither Hasina nor her political party, the Bangladesh Awami League, have returned the Blade’s request for comment.
“Currently, no major political party has openly expressed support for LGBTIQ+ rights,” said Baidya. “In the absence of political backing, our only path forward is to persist through strategic advocacy, community engagement, and policy lobbying. We must continue working tirelessly to ensure that the rights of LGBTIQ+ people are eventually recognized, respected, and institutionalized.”
National
Washington Blade among targets of hostile online scammers
Gay Parent Magazine’s Facebook page deleted in attack

Gay Parent Magazine and the Washington Blade have taken steps to alert LGBTQ media publications about what appears to be an organized scam operation that deleted Gay Parent Magazine’s Facebook page and attempted unsuccessfully to infiltrate the Blade’s Facebook page.
The action by the unidentified scammers targeting Gay Parent Magazine and the Blade appeared to be aimed at LGBTQ media outlets with the intent of harming or disabling LGBTQ supportive publications, according to Gay Parent Magazine editor and publisher Angeline Acain and Blade editor Kevin Naff.
“We have strong reason to believe our Facebook page hacking was politically motivated,” Acain said in a July 7 statement. “We were targeted by people who don’t support LGBTQ parents,” she said.
Both Acain and Naff said they were contacted via email by someone claiming to be podcaster Jennifer Welch, a pro-LGBTQ commentator, inviting them to appear as a guest on her podcast.
“When I accepted, she emailed to set up a Zoom call to review technical requirements because she conducts her interviews via Facebook Live,” Naff said. “When I connected to Zoom, she wasn’t on camera and a man’s voice then said he handles her technical support. He instructed me to log into the administrative page of the Blade’s Facebook account and to share my screen,” Naff said. “That’s when I became suspicious and declined the request and ended the call.”
Naff said he had not heard anything from them since that time.
Acain told the Blade she now regrets that she agreed to provide access information to her publication’s Facebook page when she too was invited to appear as a guest on a Jennifer Welch podcast.
“I did somehow give them access,” Acain said. “I don’t know exactly how they did it, but whatever I did, they knew what to do to gain access.”
In her July 7 statement, Acain said, “In this attack, bad actors posed as liberal podcast hosts and invited me to be a guest saying the podcast would be live streamed on their Facebook page. They then hacked into Gay Parent Magazine’s Facebook page and removed all of our followers. The next thing I knew our Facebook page was gone.”
She said the Facebook page had 30,000 followers before it was hacked. Since that time, she said, she and her team at Gay Parent Magazine have rebuilt the Facebook page and continue to take steps to rebuild its audience and followers.
Acain also says in her statement that her publication’s Facebook hacking took place about five months after the Facebook page was “attacked by trolls posting hateful comments at LGBTQ parents.” She said the barrage of hateful postings began shortly after Donald Trump took office as president.
“After weeks of reporting the hateful comments, blocking trolls, and limiting who could comment, the hateful rhetoric eventually stopped,” she said.
“In the 26 years since I’ve been publishing, this has never happened before,” she told the Blade. “Since Trump has been president all of this has been happening.”
“This is clearly an organized right-wing effort targeting queer media outlets,” Naff said in his own statement. “I immediately reached out to contacts in LGBTQ media warning them of this scam,” he said, adding that his personal Facebook account was also targeted by someone who posted anti-gay slurs.
The anti-LGBTQ postings that Acain reports began to target Gay Parent Magazine’s Facebook page took place after two prominent LGBTQ advocacy organizations, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and GLAAD, issued strongly worded statements criticizing Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta, the company that owns and operates Facebook and other social media outlets, for ending longstanding anti-LGBTQ hate speech polices.
In a Jan. 7 statement, GLAAD said the policy changes put in place by Meta “removed and adopted several sections of its Hateful Conduct Policy, rolling back safety guardrails for LGBTQ people, people of color, women, immigrants, and other protected groups.”
In its own statement released Jan. 15, HRC states, “When Mark Zuckerberg announced sweeping changes to Meta’s content moderation policies, he framed the move as a bold defense of free speech. But many, especially members of the LGBTQ+ community and allies, worry about what this means for safety on Meta’s platforms and fear this marks an open invitation for Meta users to engage in anti-LGBTQ+ abuse that will disempower and marginalize the community.”
Meta has said the policy change was aimed at increasing free speech and curtailing censorship on its social media platforms like Facebook.
The Blade couldn’t immediately confirm whether any other LGBTQ media outlets have been targeted by anti-LGBTQ scammers.
California
Kamala Harris opts out of Governor’s race: What does that mean for 2028 and trans rights?
From her time in the courtroom to the Senate floor and the White House, Harris has built a career within the political system. But her latest message hints at a shift in strategy.

Vice President Kamala Harris announced today that she will not run for Governor of California in 2026, putting to rest long-standing speculation about her political future. In a public statement, Harris said she spent the past six months reflecting on “the best way for [her] to continue fighting for the American people and advancing the values and ideals [she holds] dear.”
From her time in the courtroom to the Senate floor and the White House, Harris has built a career within the political system. But her latest message hints at a shift in strategy.
“We must be willing to pursue change through new methods and fresh thinking,” she wrote, “committed to our same values and principles, but not bound by the same playbook.”
While stepping back from the governor’s race, Harris made it clear she’s not stepping away from politics. She plans to campaign for Democrats nationwide and suggested more details about her next chapter are on the horizon.
Her announcement comes at a time when the Democratic Party is facing urgent questions about whether it will fully defend trans lives amid rising attacks. California Governor Gavin Newsom recently called it “deeply unfair” for transgender athletes to participate in girls’ sports. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg echoed the same framing, saying, “most reasonable people agree that it’s a serious fairness issue.” These are not harmless statements; they are capitulations to anti-trans narratives that frame our right to exist and participate as something debatable.
These statements from two of the party’s most visible figures aren’t outliers either; they reflect a broader trend of Democratic leaders hedging their language or pandering to the center instead of standing firmly for trans people’s dignity and rights. While Harris didn’t mention trans issues in her statement, her record is also mixed. She has caused harm in the past but has shown signs of growth, becoming more publicly supportive of trans rights in recent years. Still, symbolic gestures are no longer enough. The real question now is: what comes next?
As Harris, Newsom, and Buttigieg emerge as likely contenders for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, transgender Americans and our allies are paying close attention. We are tired of being treated as a liability, a distraction, or a political bargaining chip. We are not a wedge issue.
We are voters. We are organizers. We are human beings. And we deserve to know which of these potential leaders will truly fight for us, not just when it’s politically safe, but when it matters most.
-
National2 days ago
After targeting youth, state lawmakers now going after the rights of LGBTQ adults
-
a&e features4 days ago
Nick Drake, the non-binary trailblazer, comes to Los Angeles in ‘& Juliet’
-
Arts & Entertainment2 days ago
Los Angeles Blade to serve as media partner for debut of CinePride Film Festival
-
District of Columbia2 days ago
Trump’s federal takeover of D.C. police sparks outrage among LGBTQ leaders
-
State Department2 days ago
LGBTQ people ‘erased’ from State Department’s 2024 human rights report
-
a&e features4 days ago
Choreographing culture: A peek inside the magnificent mind of Draico Johnson
-
Commentary2 days ago
Grindr’s glow‑up: What it means for queer pleasure and platform
-
Autos1 day ago
Eco-friendly oldies but goodies: Prius, Leaf
-
Books1 day ago
New book says good manners needed now more than ever