Following nearly half a year in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention, Allan Marrero has been released and is back home with his husband in New York.

Marrero spent 150 days in ICE custody, held in multiple detention centers across the U.S. after missing an immigration court hearing while in a rehabilitation program for alcohol addiction — a circumstance widely considered “good cause” for failing to appear.

The Washington Blade first reported on Marrero’s case in March after the Cayman Islands native was detained by ICE officers during what was supposed to be a routine marriage-based green card interview at 26 Federal Plaza in New York City.

Marrero had been married to his husband, Matthew Marrero, for two years at the time of the interview. But almost immediately, the experience turned hostile.

The Rev. Amanda Hambrick Ashcraft, a minister at Middle Church in Manhattan who accompanied the couple to provide spiritual support, later described the process as “dehumanizing” and “barbaric.”

During the interview, it became clear the couple was facing an uphill battle. At one point, when asked how they met, Matthew Marrero instinctively looked over at his husband and was “snapped at” and told not to look at him. As the interview continued, the outlook only grew more grim.

Unaware that he had a prior removal order tied to the missed court date while he was in rehab, Allan Marrero was detained on the spot.

Over the following months, Allan Marrero was transferred through multiple detention facilities, including centers in Arizona and Texas, the Everglades Detention Facility — also known as “Alligator Alcatraz,” which has been described as having “unsanitary inadequate conditions” — and ultimately a detention center in Mississippi.

While in custody, Allan Marrero was denied access to prescription medication and, according to advocates, was psychologically pressured by ICE agents to self-deport rather than remain detained while his legal case proceeded.

Although a judge later reopened his case and granted bond after Allan Marrero provided proof that he had been in rehab — a valid medical reason for missing his court date — ICE used procedural mechanisms to keep him detained. A separate judge later issued a ruling denying relief, leaving Allan Marrero in custody.

On the outside, Matthew Marrero said his life felt as though it had been put on pause so ICE could meet enforcement quotas.

“[It feels like] somebody came in and kidnapped someone close to you and took away all of your control and power,” Matthew Marrero told the Blade on March 7. “You shouldn’t be able to have this much control over somebody’s life, especially if they are trying to do the right thing … You’re not going after criminals, you’re not going after the worst of the worst. You’re trying to fill a quota.”

Alexandra Rizio, Allan Marrero’s attorney with Make the Road New York, a progressive grassroots immigrant-led organization, told the Blade that “there seems to be an underlying element of cruelty baked into not only this administration, but everything.”

“It didn’t have to go down that way,” Rizio continued. “If someone goes in for a green card interview and their marriage interview, and they learn that they have a removal order, what the USCIS officer could have done is say, ‘Look, you have a removal order in your name. You need to go hire an attorney right away to get this taken care of. I can’t adjudicate your green card…’ And if you hire a lawyer, you know, you might be able to get it straightened out. Of course, that’s not what happened. And so ICE, which was in the building, were called and they did arrest Allan.”

The Marreros are scheduled to hold a press conference on Tuesday at Middle Church, where Allan Marrero will speak publicly for the first time about his detention.

For additional information on the press conference please visit middlechurch.org. 

There is something deeply unsettling about a society that turns a child’s future into a public referendum. In Eswatini, there were reports that students were expelled from school over alleged same-sex relationships, and that parents were invited to vote on whether those children should remain, forcing us to confront a difficult question on when did education stop being a right and become a favor granted by collective approval? Because this is a non-neutral vote.

A vote reflects power, prejudice and personal beliefs, which are often linked to tradition, culture, politics and religion. It is shaped by fear, by stigma, by long-standing narratives about morality and belonging. To ask parents, many of whom may already hold hostile views about LGBTIQ+ people, to decide the fate of children is not consultation. It is deferring the responsibility and repercussion. It is placing the lives of young people in the hands of those most likely to deny them protection.

And where is the law in all of this?

The Kingdom of Eswatini is not operating in a vacuum. It has a constitution that guarantees the promotion and protection of fundamental rights, including equality before the law, equal protection of the laws, and the right to dignity. The constitution further goes on to protect the rights of the child, including that a child shall not be subjected to abuse, torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.  

The Children’s Protection and Welfare Act of 2012 extends the constitution and international human rights instruments, standards and protocols on the protection, welfare, care and maintenance of children in Eswatini. The Children’s Protection and Welfare Act of 2012 promotes nondiscrimination of any child in Eswatini and says that every child must have psychosocial and mental well-being and be protected from any form of harm. The acts of this very instance place the six students prone to harm and violence. The expulsion goes against one of the mandates of this act, which stipulates that access to education is fundamental to development, therefore, taking students out of school and denying them education contradicts the law.  

Eswatini is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. These are not just commitments made to make our governments look good and appeasing. They are obligations. The Convention on the Rights of the Child is clear regarding all actions concerning children. The best interests of the child MUST be a primary consideration and NOT secondary one. According to the CRC, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.” It is not something to be weighed against public discomfort and popularity.

The African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child reinforces this, grounding rights in non-discrimination (Article 3), privacy (Article 10) and protection from all forms of torture (Article 16). Access to education (Article 11) within these frameworks is not conditional but is a foundational right. It is not something that can be taken away because a child is perceived as falling outside social norms and threatening the moral fabric of society. It is a foundational right and determines one’s ability to participate in civic actions with dignity.

So again, where is the law when children are being expelled?

It is tempting to say the law is silent but that would be too generous. The law is not silent rather, it is being ignored and bypassed in favor of systems of decision-making that make those in power comfortable. When schools and their leadership defer to parental votes rather than legal standards, they are not acting neutrally. Expelling a child from school because of allegations is not a decision to be taken lightly. It disrupts education and limits future opportunities and for children already navigating identity and social pressure, this kind of exclusion can have profound psychological effects. It isolates them. It marks them for potential harm. Imagine being a child whose future is discussed in a room where people debate your worth. That is exposure. That is harm. There is a tendency to justify these actions in the language of culture, tradition, religion and protecting social cohesion. But culture is not static and the practice of Ubuntu values is not an excuse to violate rights. If anything, the principle of Ubuntu demands the opposite of what is happening here.

Ubuntu is not about conformity. It is about recognition and is the understanding that our humanity is bound up in one another. That we are diminished when others are excluded. That care, dignity, respect and compassion are not optional extras but central to how we exist together. Where, then, is Ubuntu in a school where some children are deemed unworthy of access to education?

Why are those entrusted with protecting children are failing to do so?

There is a very loud contradiction at play. On one hand, there is a claim to shared values and to the importance of community. On the other hand, there is a willingness to isolate and exclude those who do not fit within the narrow definition of what is acceptable. You cannot have both. A community that thrives on exclusion is neither cohesive nor safe.

It is worth asking why these decisions are being made in this way. Why not follow the established legal processes? Why not ensure that any disciplinary action within schools aligns with national and international obligations? Why introduce a vote at all? The answer is uncomfortable and lies in legitimacy and accountability. A vote creates the appearance of a collective agreement. But again, I reiterate, it distributes responsibility across many hands, making it hard to hold anyone accountable. It allows the school leadership to say “lesi sincumo sebantfu”(“This is what the community decided, not me”) rather than confronting their own role in human rights violations. If the law is clear and rights, responsibilities and obligations are established, then the question is not what the community feels. The question is why those entrusted with protecting children are failing to do so.

There is also a deeper issue here about whose rights are seen as negotiable. When we talk about children, we often speak of care, of understanding, of protection and safeguarding them because they are the future. But that language becomes selective when it intersects with sexuality, particularly when it involves LGBTIQ+ identities. Suddenly, care, understanding, protection, and safeguarding give way to punishment.

Easy decisions are not always just ones.

If the kingdom is serious about its commitments under its constitution, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, then those commitments must be visible in practice, not just in policy documents. Rather, they must guide decision-making in schools and in communities. That means recognizing that a child’s right to education cannot be overridden by a show of hands. It means ensuring that schools remain spaces of inclusion rather than sites of moral policing. It means holding leaders and institutions accountable when they fail to protect those in their care.

Bradley Fortuin is a consultant at the Southern Africa Litigation Center and a human rights activist.

Uncloseted Media published this article on May 2.

By HOPE PISONI | Natalia Soloviova always knew she was putting herself at risk. As the chair of the Russian LGBT Network, the largest queer advocacy group in the country, she had spent years preparing detailed security protocols for what she would do if the government came after her.

But it was still a nasty shock when she had to use them. In November 2023, almost two weeks before Russia’s supreme court would designate the “international LGBT movement” as an extremist organization, Soloviova’s heart sank when she watched Channel One, a state-funded TV network, air a report about her organization. They flashed her and her colleagues’ names on screen while accusing the organization of “extremist” activities, including spreading propaganda to minors and trying to destroy “traditional family values.”

“It was so disturbing, and it made me physically sick,” Soloviova told Uncloseted Media.

She knew she had to get out. The following days blurred together as she checked off the steps in her security protocol: she called her lawyers, told her mom and wife she was leaving, and boarded a plane to another country. Over the next few years, she would move between several countries before settling in New York City.

It all happened so fast that she didn’t process her emotions until a month later, when she was scrolling Instagram and saw a video of her hometown, Novosibirsk.

“I start just crying … because my previous life was lost,” she says. “I started to feel anger for the government, for the situation itself, because it was absolutely horrific and absolutely unfair.”

While U.S. intelligence agencies under the Trump administration have indicated an interest in targeting trans people, Russia’s extremism designation has allowed for a whole other level of persecution. Because the designation targets the entire LGBTQ+ movement, the court’s ruling allows the government to impose broad crackdowns on the community.

As of June 2025, Human Rights Watch had identified 101 people convicted on LGBTQ+ extremism charges, with punishments ranging from fines to 12-year prison sentences. Since late last year, the government has also taken eight Russian LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations to court, aiming to label them as extremist groups.

These cases are ongoing — Soloviova’s organization was just declared as extremist on April 27.

“I woke up at home with my wife, and the first thing I saw were messages from our lawyers,” Soloviova says about the news. “Honestly, I was furious. But as usual, there was no time to be angry. My first thought was my colleagues still in Russia. I spent the entire morning in bed, messaging back and forth about emergency evacuations, security measures and our next steps.”

People have been jailed for posting photos of pride flags in an 11-person Telegram chat and for wearing rainbow-colored earrings. In response, LGBTQ+ advocates have gone underground, finding new ways to support a terrified community. Despite everything, Soloviova says that “most organizations” have continued to do their work.

“They can ban us on paper, but they cannot erase us,” Soloviova says. “We will not abandon our values, because human life, safety and dignity matter more than any repressive labels.”

How did Russia get here?

The Russian government began targeting the LGBTQ+ community in 2013, when they passed a law banning the spread of “propaganda” of “non-traditional sexual orientation” to minors. The next year, Russia’s military occupied Crimea, leading to condemnation from the U.S. and other world powers.

Sasha Kazantseva, queer sex educator and author of “The Conservative Web: Russia’s Worldwide War on LGBTQ+ Rights,” says that in order to combat the backlash, Russian President Vladimir Putin leaned into “traditional values ideology” to build support among more conservative countries.

“[Putin says] ‘Western ideology is about making your kids trans and gay, and we can save your kids and your traditional families,’” Kazantseva told Uncloseted Media. “LGBTQ people are very important for this traditional values conservative ideology as an image of some internal enemy.”

After invading Ukraine in 2022, Putin’s government escalated their attacks on Russia’s LGBTQ+ community. They expanded their anti-propaganda law to include adults, and in 2023 they banned trans people of all ages from medically transitioning or changing their legal gender. On Nov. 30, 2023, they issued the extremism ruling.

“[In] 2022, they see again that people are not happy with the war, and they start to play the same game as 10 years ago,” Kazantseva says. “Nobody cared [about trans people], and out of nowhere, Putin starts to mention trans people in every speech.”

Since then, things have escalated. Last November, the Justice Ministry began a court case to declare Irida, a small LGBTQ+ advocacy group, as an extremist organization. Eight advocacy groups, including ComingOut and the Russian LGBT Network, both of which provide services including psychological support and legal consultation to LGBTQ+ Russians, have had similar cases against them.

Crackdowns under the extremism ruling

Maks Olenichev, a European Union-based lawyer who supports Russian LGBTQ+ defendants in court, says there are two types of charges for violating extremism laws.

First, displaying the symbols of an extremist group — often the rainbow pride flag in this case — is considered an administrative offense. Of the 101 individuals HRW identified, 81 were convicted for displaying symbols. First-time offenders face fines or short jail sentences, while repeat offenders can receive up to four years in prison.

Second, participation in the international LGBTQ+ movement is a criminal offense punishable by up to 12 years in prison. HRW identified at least 20 people facing these charges.

Participation in the movement can seemingly include any public activities related to the LGBTQ+ community. Authorities arrested several employees at Eksmo, Russia’s largest publishing house, for extremism because some of their books contained LGBTQ+ themes. And last year, a Moscow court posthumously found Andrey Kotov, the leader of a Russian gay travel agency, guilty of extremism after he died in a pretrial detention center.

“If [Kotov] had asked me whether he could do it, I would say, ‘Yes you could do it, it’s legal.’ And then he goes to jail and dies there,” says Ksenia, who works outside of Russia as legal assistance program coordinator for ComingOut. “I have 20 years’ experience in law. What can we expect from people who are not experienced lawyers?”

Olenichev agrees: “There’s no 100 percent foolproof way to not being charged with anything.”

Alise Sever learned this the hard way in 2024, when her Halloween weekend celebrations were interrupted by masked police officers banging down the doors. Sever was partying at Black Clover, an LGBTQ+-friendly club she had opened just over a year earlier in Kirov, Russia.

At 2 a.m., militarized special forces burst in to raid the club and immediately hauled Sever off to the precinct while they pinned several patrons against the wall, arrested them and confiscated what came out to be roughly 1 million rubles, or $10,000, worth of music equipment, alcohol, and other club property a price so steep that the business would need to shut down.

“I knew that something [like this] could happen,” Sever, 28, told Uncloseted Media. “But I was sad. I was grieving a loss of money, a loss of the time and work that I have put into this.”

Sever and five other people who were arrested that night — including the club’s co-founder and multiple queer artists — were charged with extremism. As part of the court proceedings, Russian police revealed that they had been monitoring Sever and her girlfriend for almost a year and had amassed thousands of pages of documents containing information about her and her business as well as transcripts of intercepted messages and phone calls.

“They apply these laws very randomly, and they do it not to show that this person is the most brutal criminal you can imagine, they do it to show that anyone can be targeted by this law,” Kazantseva says. “So you live in permanent tension, in permanent self-censorship. And that’s how they control people.”

Kazantseva, who has published zines, blogs, and books about LGBTQ+ issues, has also experienced this firsthand. Despite having fled the country for Lithuania in 2023 due to crackdowns on anti-war advocacy, Russia’s financial monitoring system added her to their list of “terrorists and extremists” last October. This bans her from accessing Russian bank accounts, essentially locking her out of any financial activities in the country. The federal government has also placed her on their “wanted” list, and a court has ordered “arrest in absentia” of Kazantseva, meaning that she will be detained if she enters Russia or one of its allied countries.

Russian authorities have also threatened charges to pressure LGBTQ+ people into enlisting to fight in the war. In 2024, the government issued a new policy allowing defendants to be exempted from criminal liability if they join the army.

Ksenia, who requested that Uncloseted Media omit her surname for fear of not being allowed to return to the country, says she knew a boy who was part of a group chat for LGBTQ+ teenagers. When federal authorities discovered the chat, they threatened him with criminal convictions, and after significant pressure, he abandoned his plans to go to university and signed up to fight in Ukraine shortly after his 18th birthday.

“I know I should feel outrage at how defenseless he is facing the state machine,” Ksenia says. “But at this point, [I’m] just numb.”

These legal crackdowns have caused many LGBTQ+ people to withdraw from public life. In a 2025 study of 1,683 queer women by Olenichev and other Russian scholars, more than half of the respondents said extremism laws had made them afraid to contact law enforcement, 36.5 percent had gone back into the closet, and many have “severely restricted their circle of friends.”

Sometimes, taking these precautions isn’t enough. Sever’s club, which hosted drag performances, only allowed people who had not publicly come out as queer online to perform, and had to issue rules that performers could not touch or interact with the audience or mention the terms “LGBTQ” or “Ukraine.” They also had to remove wall paintings of humanoid cats wearing shibari rope and lingerie after getting fined by police in early 2024 under the propaganda law. None of that, though, was enough to save them from being raided.

How are advocates responding?

Zhenya, a Russian trans emigrant to Canada who asked to use a pseudonym because they still visit their home country, got hands-on experience with the new normal for queer activism when they signed up to volunteer for ComingOut.

Ksenia says the organization now relies almost entirely on workers outside of Russia like Zhenya. In order to start volunteering for the group, Zhenya had to go through a round of interviews designed to weed out infiltrators. And once they joined, they learned that all their coworkers’ identities would be hidden.

“Partially why they do interviews is because it’s known sometimes that police agents will try to insert themselves in the group to get names,” Zhenya told Uncloseted Media. “They never ask you for your passport info, they don’t ask you for your real name.”

Ksenia says ComingOut now has its security measures down to a science and “almost nothing” needed to change when they were declared an extremist organization. Because of that, they now offer security consultation to other organizations.

Another initiative that has needed to adapt to this new reality is Centre T, a trans and nonbinary support organization that will likely be declared an extremist group at a trial set for May 4. Sasha, the group’s media coordinator, says volunteers must use a VPN and communicate through encrypted messaging apps. Initially, this would often be Telegram, but with the Russian legislature weighing a ban on the app, they’re considering moving to other platforms like Matrix.

Even with these precautions, Centre T had to cut some programs: They no longer host online chats or dating programs, and they’ve mostly had to stop sharing personal stories in order to protect people’s identities. Still, their most crucial programs, which include assisting trans people in leaving the country and connecting them to medical specialists that aid them with transition under the table, are still operating.

Fleeing the country

Like with ComingOut, most of Centre T’s workers and volunteers have left Russia. Olenichev says this is generally the safest option. In many extremism cases, he says lawyers focus less on actually winning and more on fighting for lighter sentences and using stall tactics, like requesting extra documentation, to buy time for defendants to flee.

“It’s impossible to win those cases since [they] usually are political and not legal,” Olenichev says.

Sever is a success story for this strategy. After her arrest, she spent two months alone in a jail cell, isolated from her friends and family as they were scared that sending her letters would lead the government to target them. After she was released, she spent 11 months on house arrest, trapped at home with her “very religious” mother who tried to convince her to accept the charges and abandon her pansexuality.

“There were moments when my friends were visiting me while I was on house arrest, and they were later on [interrogated], so that led for them to stop. … It took a toll on me.”

As Olenichev and other advocates fought to prolong her case, she concocted a scheme to flee the country despite being under house arrest. When she came down with a disease, she was allowed to call an ambulance to the hospital, where her friends were waiting to help smuggle her over the border.

“I ended up in a safe place where I’m awaiting a visa to go to Europe, now,” says Sever, who did not reveal her location due to concerns about violence from local anti-LGBTQ+ groups.

Centre T is currently operating a temporary shelter in Armenia for trans people leaving Russia, providing food, housing and psychological and medical support. While they say they’ve recently lost U.S. grants and the ability to fundraise in Russia, the shelter remains open because of crowdfunding through Patreon and Buy Me a Coffee.

“We are funded by our community,” Sasha says. “It’s been really amazing, honestly … because it’s very difficult to find funding for direct service projects like a shelter.”

How do queer people continue to live in Russia?

Zhenya visited St. Petersburg for the first time since the extremism designation in the summer of 2024. Surprisingly, they still managed to find communities of queer people.

“I don’t think there’s anything official, it’s all where gay people just go, and you just know,” they say. “I went to one [such] place and that went just fine. I know a couple trans people who still live in St. Petersburg, and there’s still events and things happening, but it’s just way more lowkey.”

Zhenya says it’s easier to do this in bigger cities where they say people are relatively accepting and less likely to report LGBTQ+ people to the police.

Sasha believes that the community’s future lies in whisper networks like those Zhenya describes.

“It’s time for some decentralized, horizontal activities and initiatives,” she says. “Because it’s more safe right now to make a group only for friends, for people that you know.”

Sasha says it’s critical that queer Russians take precautions and strongly recommends ensuring no LGBTQ+ content is saved on your phone in case it gets hacked or confiscated.

In such dangerous conditions, Natalia Soloviova says every step is important. Seemingly simple actions, like opening up about your queer identity to trusted loved ones, covertly spreading information among other queer people, or simply allowing yourself to rest and recover are necessary to make it through.

“You’re keeping community alive,” she says. “If you’re supporting your friends, even with drinking mimosas on a Sunday after a really hard week, it’s keeping community safe, it’s spreading the words of community. Better to do something than not to do something.”

For herself, life goes on in New York. While she still misses Novosibirsk, she says she will continue to fight from abroad and is grateful that there are still so many queer Russians fighting to live safely.

“This urge of people who want to improve the life of our community can be unstoppable.”

As Congress finalizes its funding for fiscal year 2027, Republicans are attempting to include five anti-LGBTQ+ riders in the National Security and Department of State Appropriations Act.

A rider is an unrelated provision tacked onto a bill that must pass — in this instance, the bill provides funding for national security policy and for the State Department.

The riders range from restricting Pride flags in federal buildings to banning transgender healthcare, but all aim to limit the visibility and rights of LGBTQ+ Americans.

The five riders are:

Section 7067(a) prohibits Pride flags from being flown over federal buildings.

Section 7067(c) restricts the United States’ ability to appoint special envoys, representatives, or coordinators unless expressly authorized by Congress. These roles have historically been used to promote U.S. interests in international forums — including advancing human and LGBTQ+ and intersex rights and other policy priorities. The change would halt what the Congressional Equality Caucus describes as providing “critical expertise to U.S. foreign policy and leadership abroad.”

Section 7067(d) reinforces multiple anti-equality executive orders signed by President Donald Trump, effectively requiring that foreign assistance funded by the United States comply with those orders. This includes rescinding federal contractor nondiscrimination protections, including for LGBTQ+ people.

Section 7067(e) prohibits funding for any organization that provides or promotes medically necessary healthcare for trans people or “promotes transgenderism” — effectively banning funds for organizations that recognize trans people exist. This is despite the practice of gender-affirming care being supported by nearly every major medical association.

Section 7067(g) reinforces two global gag rules put forward by the Trump-Vance administration. One is the Trans Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign assistance funding for organizations that acknowledge the existence of trans people or advocate for nondiscrimination protections for them, among other activities. The second is the DEI Global Gag Rule, which prohibits foreign assistance funding for organizations that engage in efforts to address the ongoing effects of racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry outside the United States.

The global gag rule has its roots in anti-abortion policy introduced by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, when the 40th president barred foreign organizations receiving U.S. global health assistance from providing information, referrals, or services for legal abortion, or from advocating for access to abortion services in their own countries. Planned Parenthood notes that the policy also affects programs beyond abortion, including efforts to expand access to contraception, prevent and treat HIV/AIDS, combat malaria, and improve maternal and child health.

If organizations funded by the State Department engage in these activities, they could lose funding.

This anti-LGBTQ+ push aligns with broader actions from the Trump-Vance administration since the start of Trump’s second term, which have focused on restricting human rights — particularly those of trans Americans.

The House Appropriations Committee is responsible for drafting the appropriations legislation. U.S. Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) serves as chair, with U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) as ranking member. The committee includes 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.

For FY27 appropriations, Congress is supposed to pass and have the president sign the funding bills by Sept. 30, 2026.

Over the past days, I have been walking with a question that refuses to leave me. Not the kind of question you answer from a desk or from a distance, but one that grows out of what you witness in real time, at the gates, in the faces of those who remain there without knowing how any of this will end. What is truly happening inside the University of Puerto Rico, and why have so many students decided to risk everything at a moment when they can least afford to lose anything.

I write as someone who lives just steps away from the Río Piedras campus. These days, the silence has replaced the constant movement that once defined this space. The absence is felt in every corner where students used to pass at all hours. Since arriving in Puerto Rico three years ago, I have come to know firsthand stories that rarely make it into reports or official statements. One of the reasons I chose to stay was precisely this, to serve the university community, to help create a space where students could find something as basic as a safe meal at night and, in some way, ease burdens that are often carried in silence.

I have listened, asked questions, and tried to understand without imposing answers. What I have found is not a collective outburst or a generational whim. What exists is a fracture, a deep break between those making decisions and those living with their consequences every single day.

There has been an effort to reduce this strike to an issue of order, scheduling, or academic disruption. Conversations revolve around missed classes, delayed semesters, and students supposedly unaware of the consequences of their actions. What is rarely addressed are the conditions that lead an entire student body to pause its own future to sustain a protest that offers no guarantees.

Because that is the reality. These are students who fully understand what they are risking, and yet they remain. When someone reaches that point, the least they deserve is not judgment, but to be heard.

From the outside, there have also been attempts to discredit what is happening. Familiar narratives are repeated, legitimacy is questioned, and doubt is cast over intentions. It is easier to do that than to acknowledge that this did not begin at the gates, but long before, in decisions made without building trust.

And something must be said clearly. This is not limited to the gates of Río Piedras. What we are witnessing extends across every unit of the University of Puerto Rico system. Mayagüez, Ponce, Arecibo, Bayamón, Cayey, Humacao, Carolina, Aguadilla, Utuado, and the Medical Sciences Campus. This is not an isolated reaction. It is a movement that runs through the entire institution. Río Piedras may be more visible, but it is not alone. What is happening there reflects a broader unrest felt across the system.

Within that context, one demand has grown increasingly present, the call for the resignation of University of Puerto Rico President Zayira Jordán Conde. This is not the voice of a small group. It reflects a deeper level of mistrust that has spread across multiple campuses.

The Puerto Rican Association of University Professors has also made it clear that this is not solely a student issue. There is real concern among faculty, and a shared recognition of the conditions currently shaping the university. When students and professors arrive at the same conclusion, the problem can no longer be minimized.

Meanwhile, the administration continues to speak in the language of dialogue. But dialogue is not a word, it is a practice. And when trust has been broken, it cannot be restored through statements alone, but through decisions that prove a willingness to truly listen.

In the midst of all of this, there are voices that cannot be ignored. Voices grounded not in theory, but in lived experience. One of them is Joanna Cifredo, a student at the Mayagüez campus, a young Puerto Rican trans woman, and someone widely recognized for her advocacy.

I spoke with her in recent days. What follows is her voice, exactly as it is.

How would you describe what is happening inside the University of Puerto Rico right now, beyond what people see from the outside?

Estamos viviendo momentos muy difíciles, en el sentido de que hay mucha incertidumbre y una presión constante por parte de la administración para reabrir el recinto, pero, entre todo el caos e inestabilidad provocado por las decisiones de esta administración, también hemos vivido momentos muy poderosos. Esta lucha ha sacado lo mejor de nuestra comunidad.

Lo vimos en las asambleas y plenos, donde 1,500, 1,700, hasta 1,800 estudiantes llegaron —bajo lluvia, bajo advertencias de inundaciones— y aun así se quedaron, participaron y votaron a favor de una manifestación indefinida hasta que se atiendan nuestros reclamos.

He conocido a tantas personas en los diferentes portones, estudiantes graduados, aletas, estudiantes de intercambio, estudiantes de todo tipo de concentraciones y se unieron para apoyar el movimiento estudiantil. Estudiantes que vienen a los portones después del trabajo o antes de trabajar. Estudiantes que vienen a dejar agua y suministros entre turnos de trabajo. Viejitos que vienen a los portones con desayuno, almuerzo o cena.

Más allá de lo que se ve desde afuera, lo que estamos viviendo es una mezcla de tensión y resistencia, pero también de comunidad, solidaridad y compromiso colectivo.

Much of what is discussed remains at the level of headlines or social media. From your direct experience, what specific decisions or actions from the administration have led to this level of mobilization?

Desde el inicio, la designación de la Dra. Zayira Jordán Conde careció de respaldo dentro de la comunidad universitaria. No contaba con experiencia administrativa en la UPR ni con un conocimiento básico de nuestros procesos, cultura y reglamentos. Por eso, en asamblea, el estudiantado votó para solicitarle a la Junta de Gobierno que no considerara su candidatura, y múltiples organizaciones docentes hicieron lo mismo. Existía un consenso amplio de que no tenía la experiencia necesaria para liderar una institución como la nuestra.

A pesar de ese rechazo claro, la Junta de Gobierno decidió ignorar los reclamos de la comunidad universitaria e imponer su nombramiento.

Una vez en el cargo, su estilo de gobernanza ha sido poco transparente y poco colaborativo. Sin embargo, el detonante principal de la movilización en el Recinto Universitario de Mayagüez fue su decisión de destituir, de manera unilateral y en medio del semestre, a cinco rectores, incluyendo al nuestro, el Dr. Agustín Rullán Toro, para reemplazarlo por un rector interino, el Dr. Miguel Muñoz Muñoz.

Esta acción, tomada de forma abrupta, provocó de inmediato un clima de caos e inestabilidad dentro de la institución. Y deja una pregunta inevitable: ¿no anticipó el impacto de esa decisión, lo que evidenciaría una falta de experiencia? ¿O lo anticipó y aun así decidió proceder? No está claro cuál de las dos es más preocupante.

Además, esta decisión tuvo consecuencias concretas para el estudiantado, incluyendo el retiro de becas educativas para nuevos integrantes del RUM por parte de la Fundación Ceiba, que calificó la movida como “sorprendente” y “preocupante”. Decisiones impulsivas como la que tomó la presidenta ponen en peligro la estabilidad de nuestra institución y la acreditación de la universidad.

As a trans woman within this movement, how does your identity intersect with what is happening, and why does this also shape the future of people like you?

Soy una de varias chicas trans que formamos parte activa de este movimiento estudiantil.

For those outside the UPR who believe this does not affect them, what are the real consequences of this crisis?

La Universidad de Puerto Rico se fundó para servir al pueblo.

It is impossible to overstate the role the University of Puerto Rico and its students have played in shaping the social, cultural, and economic life of this country. Its impact extends into science, medicine, and every profession that has sustained Puerto Rico over time. No other educational institution has contributed more.

After listening to her, one thing becomes undeniable. This is not just another protest, but a generation refusing to let go of what little remains within its reach. And when a generation reaches that point, the issue is no longer the strike, the issue becomes the country itself.

YOUR EX, an LGBTQ+ newspaper in New Zealand, published this article on April 28. The Los Angeles Blade is publishing it with permission.

More gay, bi, and takatāpui men in Aotearoa may soon be able to donate blood, with New Zealand Blood Service changing its sexual activity screening rules in a move that shifts the focus away from sexuality and on to specific recent behavior.

For many queer people, the change represents a move away from treating all men who have sex with men as a single risk category. Instead, all donors will be asked the same questions about new or multiple sexual partners in the past three months, and whether they have had anal sex with those partners.

Under the new approach, donors who have had anal sex with a new or multiple partners in the past three months will still face a three-month deferral. But those who have not — and who meet all other eligibility criteria — will be able to donate. Donors will also be asked whether they have had gonorrhea or any other sexually transmitted infection in the past three months, with a three-month wait applying after treatment and recovery.

That change could open the door for some gay, bisexual, takatāpui and other men who have sex with men who were previously excluded from giving blood. In particular, men who have had anal sex with only one partner in the past three months, where that sexual contact has been ongoing for longer than three months, may now be eligible to donate, including those in long-term single-partner relationships.

For years, blood donation rules have been experienced not just as a public health measure, but as a blunt and often stigmatizing signal that queer men were viewed differently from everyone else. This change suggests a more nuanced approach, one that looks at what people do, rather than who they are, based on findings from the Sex and Prevention of Transmission Study (SPOTS) and international evidence supporting behavior-based screening.

New Zealand Blood Service says the new model will maintain the safety of the blood supply while making donation more inclusive.

Still, the new rules are not a complete removal of the restrictions, and some will see them as progress rather than full equity. The three-month deferral remains in place for donors who have had anal sex with a new or multiple partners, even if they are taking PrEP or using condoms. New Zealand Blood Service says that while PrEP is highly effective for HIV prevention, it can mask low levels of HIV during testing, and condoms are not considered completely fail-safe.

Lawmakers on Wednesday introduced a bill that would block the expansion of the global gag rule.

President Ronald Reagan in 1985 implemented the global gag rule, also known as the “Mexico City” policy, which bans U.S. foreign aid for groups that support abortion and/or offer abortion-related services.

Trump reinstated the rule during his first administration. The Biden-Harris administration shortly after it took office in 2021 rescinded it.

The Trump-Vance administration earlier this year expanded the global gag rule to ban U.S. foreign aid for groups that promote “gender ideology.” The expansion took effect on Feb. 26.

U.S. Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) introduced the Protecting Human Rights and Public Health in Foreign Assistance Act in the U.S. Senate. U.S. Reps. Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), Lois Frankel (D-Fla.), Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), and Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) introduced it in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“Using taxpayer money to export the Trump administration’s anti-trans, anti-science, and anti-abortion ideological agenda isn’t just immoral — it’s antithetical to efficient, effective, and rights-based foreign assistance,” said Council for Global Equality Senior Policy Fellow Beirne Roose-Snyder on Wednesday in a press release.

Meng in a Congressional Equality Caucus press release added the Trump-Vance administration’s “crusade against healthcare and global aid is putting millions of lives at risk worldwide.” 

“No one will flourish under the new expanded global gag rule,” said the New York Democrat. “These policies weaponize foreign aid and will result in greater harm, particularly for women and girls, marginalized communities, and LGBTQI+ individuals.”

“They should never have been implemented at all, let alone without even a basic public comment process,” she added. “This legislation will reverse these dangerous policies.”

More than 100 organizations have issued a travel advisory for the U.S. ahead of the 2026 World Cup.

The World Cup will take place in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico from June 11-July 19.

“In light of the deteriorating human rights situation in the United States and in the absence of meaningful action and concrete guarantees from FIFA, host cities, or the U.S. government, the undersigned organizations are issuing this travel advisory for fans, players, journalists, and other visitors traveling to and within the United States for the June 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup. World Cup games will be played in 11 different cities across the United States, which, like many localities, have already been the target of the Trump administration’s violent and abusive immigration crackdown,” reads the advisory that the Council for Global Equality and other groups that include the American Civil Liberties Union issued on April 23.  “The impacts of these policies vary by locality.”

“While the Trump administration’s rising authoritarianism and increasing violence pose serious risks to all, those from immigrant communities, racial and ethnic minority groups, and LGBTQ+ individuals have been and continue to be disproportionately targeted and affected by the administration’s policies and, as such, are most vulnerable to serious harm when traveling to and/or within the United States,” it adds. “This travel advisory calls on fans, players, journalists, and other visitors to exercise caution.”

The advisory specifically mentions Renee Good.

A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent on Jan. 7 shot and killed her in Minneapolis. Good, 37, left behind her wife and three children.

The full advisory can be read here.

A new health agreement between the U.S. and the Philippines has raised questions among HIV/AIDS service providers.

A joint declaration signed by the U.S. and the Philippines on April 7 sets out a plan for closer health cooperation, aimed at transitioning the Philippines toward greater autonomy and “self-reliance” in its health systems, according to a State Department statement released.

In practice, “self-reliance” in health systems refers to a country’s ability to fund, manage, and deliver care without heavy dependence on external donors. In the Philippines, programs serving LGBTQ+ people — particularly those focused on HIV prevention, testing and treatment — have relied in part on international funding and technical support, including from the U.S., according to UNAIDS. 

The Philippine Department of Health has led the national response to the pandemic.

The joint declaration of intent was signed under the Trump-Vance administration’s “America First Global Health Strategy.” The State Department said the agreement would involve co-funding of mutually agreed global health objectives under bilateral health cooperation between the U.S. and the Philippines in the near future.

The declaration also outlines areas of cooperation beyond financing: workforce development, health information systems, and emergency preparedness. The State Department said the framework is intended to strengthen coordination between U.S. and Philippine institutions while supporting the Philippines’ capacity to manage public health challenges independently over time. The statement does not specifically address LGBTQ+ health.

Similar agreements in other regions have drawn scrutiny from LGBTQ+ advocacy groups. 

In Africa, community organizations have warned that a shift from donor-funded, community-led health programs to government-to-government frameworks could affect access for marginalized populations, including LGBTQ+ people. The Washington Blade found that such changes may reduce reliance on specialized clinics that have historically provided stigma-free care, raising concerns about discrimination, privacy, and continuity of services.

Desi Andrew Ching, president of HIV & AIDS Support House in the Philippines, said the partnership presents a significant opportunity, but added that, like any large-scale international agreement, its success for the LGBTQ+ community will depend on how it is implemented on the ground.

“On one hand, it’s a positive move. Increased cooperation on health systems can lead to better technical support and potentially more resources for HIV/AIDS prevention and mental health — areas that deeply impact our community,” Ching told the Blade. “If the government and civil society work closely together, we could see some real progress.”

Ching said community concerns often center on where those resources ultimately go. Ching added there is a risk funds could remain within “usual” government-aligned channels or traditional implementers that may not have the trust or reach of grassroots LGBTQ+ organizations.

The Philippines is facing one of the fastest-growing HIV epidemics in the Asia-Pacific region, with UNAIDS statistics indicating new infections increased by about 543 percent between 2010 and 2023.

The epidemic is concentrated among key populations, particularly men who have sex with men and transgender women who account for a vast majority of new infections. A 2023 analysis found that key populations represented about 92 percent of new HIV cases in the country, underscoring the disproportionate impact on LGBTQ+ communities. At the same time, stigma, limited access to testing and gaps in healthcare delivery continue to shape outcomes for these groups.

Ching said that for the partnership to be effective, support would need to be closely targeted to reach those most at risk, including individuals who often avoid government facilities because of stigma and fear of judgment. 

“If the partnership prioritizes ‘community-led’ monitoring and direct support to local organizations, it will be a game-changer. If it stays at the top tier of administration, we might just see the same results as before,” Ching said.

Community-led organizations have been central to the Philippines’ HIV response, particularly in reaching LGBTQ+ populations often underserved by formal healthcare systems. UNAIDS notes groups such as LoveYourself have expanded testing and treatment access through community-based clinics and online outreach, including during the COVID-19 pandemic, when movement restrictions limited access to government facilities.

“To be honest, in these high-level agreements, ‘guarantees’ are hard to come by on paper. The real safeguards lie in the mechanics of implementation,” said Ching. “From the community’s perspective, we believe the best way to prevent services from being diluted is through direct involvement in the planning phase. We would like to see the funding groups and government stakeholders sitting at the same table as the community to game out the specific work plans. It should not be a top-down approach; it needs to be co-designed.”

Ching said oversight would be a critical layer of protection, adding that a dedicated point of contact, such as a U.S Agency for International Development technical lead or a similar monitor, would be needed to track how funds are used.

USAID officially shut down on July 1, 2025, after the Trump-Vance administration dismantled it.

Ching added community-led monitoring would also be necessary in addition to government oversight. He said safety and trust cannot be guaranteed by policy alone but must be built through experience, noting that community-led organizations have consistently reached the most marginalized populations. 

“Safety and trust aren’t things you can just write into a policy; they have to be built through experience,” Ching said, adding that community-based sites are often seen as more accessible and safer because they are “for us, by us.” 

He said the partnership should direct substantial support to grassroots organizations that have demonstrated an ability to overcome stigma, while strengthening coordination with government clinics. The most effective approach, he added, would combine government infrastructure with community-led delivery, allowing trusted local groups to serve as the primary point of access.

’We want a seat at the table’

According to a report by the World Health Organization on the Philippines, prevention efforts account for only about 6 percent of total HIV spending, despite a sharp rise in cases. The report said the gap has been compounded by a recent pause in U.S. funding, which has delayed the development and implementation of prevention programs and community-led responses.

Asked whether community-led LGBTQ+ organizations would be funded and included in implementation or sidelined under a government-led approach, Ching said that remained the central question for the community, adding that no detailed plan has yet been made public.

“But we have to be realistic about the politics — both within the government and even within civil society — that can sometimes slow things down,” said Ching. “A good baseline to look at is the UNAIDS 30-80-60 targets. These milestones are specifically designed to put community-led responses at the center of the HIV fight. If we’re being honest, as a country, we are still finding our footing in meeting those specific targets. There is a very real risk of being sidelined if the execution defaults to a standard ‘government-only’ approach.”

The UNAIDS set global targets to guide the HIV response, most notably the “95-95-95” goals for 2025. 

The framework calls for 95 percent of people living with HIV to know their status, 95 percent of those diagnosed to receive sustained treatment and 95 percent of those on treatment to achieve viral suppression. The targets were designed to reduce transmission and improve health outcomes, while also highlighting gaps in access to testing, treatment, and prevention services.

“We view this new partnership with the U.S. as a chance to course-correct. If the intention is to end AIDS as a public health threat, the data shows it simply cannot be done without the community in the driver’s seat for service delivery,” said Ching. “Our hope is that the implementation isn’t just government-led, but government-enabled. We want a seat at the table not just for the sake of being there, but to ensure the resources are actually hitting the ground where they matter most. We’re looking for a partnership that honors those 2025 milestones by making community-led organizations formal, funded partners in this roadmap.”

Delaware is widely known for its firsts. It’s the first state to ratify the U.S. Constitution, the first to join the Union, and the first to decide that no sales tax would be levied on its citizens.  

Another historic first to come from Delaware is Sarah McBride. McBride is the first and only transgender member of Congress. The Blade sat down for an exclusive interview with the congresswoman to discuss a wide array of topics — from the Trump administration’s attacks on transgender service members to her current obsession with the reality TV show “The Traitors” — as well as her legislative work, which has already made her one of the busier members of her freshman class.

Her office in the Longworth House Office Building reflects the nuances of her political identity: deeply serious policymaking paired with an unmistakable sense of personality. Photographs of McBride with friends, family, and political heroes line the walls. A windowsill is filled with crystals. A “Bridgerton” pillow sits on her office couch — small artifacts that soften the institutional weight of Capitol Hill without diminishing it.

When asked how she was feeling more than a year into her first term, McBride acknowledged the climate she was elected into — marked by what she described as toxicity and division under Trump-era politics — but explained that she remains energized by the work ahead.

“I am more energized and motivated now than I was a year and a half ago,” said McBride from her Longworth office. “I’m also more hopeful than I was when I first started here. It was a couple of weeks before Donald Trump was sworn in – the chaos, the cruelty, and the fear was pretty pronounced.”

That sense of hope, she made clear, is not necessarily shaped by the noise inside Congress—including attacks from colleagues like Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) and Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas)— but instead by what she sees from the constituents she represents back home.

“I have seen the goodness of my neighbors, the goodness of people across Delaware who remind me, day in and day out, that the division and the toxicity we see online are not actually representative of real life. That social media can impact real life, but it’s not representative of it, and that is, for me, incredibly comforting, and I think, a profound reminder that we can still have conversations across disagreement, we can still persuade people, and we can still grow our ranks.”

That belief — that persuasion is still possible — serves as the through line for how McBride views both her role in Congress and the broader political moment. It also frames her sharp criticism of the Trump-Vance administration, which she argues is rooted less in governance than in destruction.

“Donald Trump is not a conservative, he is not a traditional Republican. Trump wants to destroy. His billionaire donors want to destroy. They thrive in a culture of cynicism. They want to destroy our attention span and mine what little remains for parts. They want to destroy jobs and health care so they can consolidate power for themselves, and in this moment, they want to destroy the international moral order so that the strong can plunder the weak.”

Still, she argues, that approach may be backfiring politically, something she says has only strengthened her sense of optimism.

“We have seen public opinion turn against the cruelty and incompetence of this administration, we’ve seen outrage and rightful opposition. One of the things that I feared early on was that this administration’s momentum would only grow, but instead what we’ve seen is that the cult of personality has begun to break. A growing and very large majority of Americans oppose what they’re seeing from this administration, and that is hope inducing for me. But beyond all of that, I am more motivated because of the change that I’ve been able to witness here in this office and on behalf of my constituents.”

That motivation is not abstract. It is measured in casework, legislative negotiations, and tangible dollars flowing back to Delaware. Alongside broader efforts, McBride co-sponsored the bipartisan “Equal Opportunity for All Investors Act” (H.R. 3339), which passed the House unanimously in 2025 while referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. The legislation broadened access to investment opportunities by allowing individuals to qualify as accredited investors based on expertise rather than wealth alone.

“Our office has returned roughly $5 million to individual Delawareans and secured roughly $150 million in critical investments for Delaware. I’ve been able to introduce more bipartisan bills here in Congress than any other freshman, and we’ve been able to prevent every single anti-trans bill or major provision from becoming law. That is something that I don’t know that I would have believed was possible, but it’s been a byproduct of the strategy that we have undertaken. In short, what I’ve seen is that we can still win hearts and minds and that you can still deliver for people here in Congress.”

That emphasis on strategy over spectacle defines much of McBride’s approach to politics. It also informs how she navigates her identity as the first openly transgender member of Congress. While her presence carries symbolic weight, she resists the idea that symbolism alone is sufficient.

“No single person can be the voice of any one community, certainly not a community as diverse as the entirety of the LGBT community. I believe that part of my responsibility as a trans person who has the privilege of serving here is to guarantee that while I may be a first, I’m not the last. One of the reasons why anti-trans politics has been so successful is because the right wing has characterized trans people, and one of the greatest things that I can contribute is helping to diversify the public’s understanding of who trans people are. That does far more to change the public’s perception and political dynamics than anything else that I could do.”

Much of that work, she emphasized, happens away from cameras and headlines. It’s an approach that has at times drawn criticism from some LGBTQ advocates who favor more confrontational tactics, but one she frames as essential to long-term change.

“In a social media age, we perceive advocacy to look like one very loud thing, but a lot of my work is also behind the scenes. Speaking out and posting a clip is not the only way to advocate for people; in fact, it’s often the avenue of last resort if you actually want to deliver results. Despite a campaign that spent $200 million in anti-trans ads and an administration obsessed with trans people, not a single anti-trans bill or provision has become law. That’s not by coincidence, it’s by hard work and a strategic approach to defending the LGBTQ community.”

That same discipline carries into how she handles political attacks and public scrutiny.

“When you are a first, people will be out in force to try to bait you into fights to prove that people like you don’t belong. If you respond to provocations, they will turn you into a caricature and say you’re the aggressor. My job is to be a proud Delawarean and a damn good legislator, and the rest will follow from that. When you don’t take the bait, you protect your ability to deliver results.”

That approach has helped her build unlikely alliances across the aisle.

“I made it clear that I was willing to work with anyone if we could find common ground to help my constituents. As a byproduct, a number of my Republican colleagues came up to me and said welcome to Congress and let’s find opportunities to work together. That has resulted in me being able to introduce more bipartisan bills than any other freshman. We’ve been able to secure investments and pass legislation that opens up more capital to entrepreneurs from underrepresented backgrounds.”

Looking ahead to the midterms, McBride is both cautious and pragmatic.

“I feel cautiously optimistic that if the election were held today, that Democrats would win a majority in the House, but the problem is that the election is not held today. Republicans will be out in force with a boatload of money and will continue to try to use people like me as a political wedge issue. We have to meet all voters where they are and keep our eyes focused on the universal needs that our constituents have. It’s going to require us to have a big tent from our left to our right so that we can meet this moment.”

“We should not put anything by the Republicans; they will seek to suppress the vote and undermine the will of the people. That reinforces the need for us to win by such a margin that our win is too big to contest. It’s going to require us to reach voters who didn’t vote for us and compete in places we have written off. If the stakes are as high as we say they are, then we need all of the help that we can get.”

Her focus on long-term party-building is equally central to her vision — one that would be willing to take a leadership position on if given the chance.

“I’m really grateful that our leadership has offered me opportunities to have my voice heard and to represent the caucus. I am eager to find any opportunity to elevate the voices of my constituents and contribute. My background was in communications, and I believe our party can find new ways to communicate with voters. Our caucus is going to be the tip of the spear in helping to rebrand our party and build a governing majority.”

“We need to deliver universal child care, a higher minimum wage, Medicare for all who want it, and millions of new homes. Winning the next election is not the end; we have to continue building toward a durable majority. I’m eager to contribute to that vision in any way that my caucus sees fit. That includes potentially serving in leadership if that’s where I can be most helpful.”

On foreign policy, she is equally direct. The ongoing war with Iran was something she, as a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is not only familiar with but completely opposed to.

“The war is illegal, but it’s also stupid, and it is a catastrophe for the United States. [The Trump administration] has not achieved any of their stated goals, and everything that has been destroyed can be rebuilt. Iran now has more leverage globally, including control of the Strait of Hormuz. This war raised costs, lost lives, and achieved what was already achieved a decade ago without any of that.”

That frustration echoes in what she hears from voters at home.

“Delawareans are pissed, and they’re pissed because this president promised he would end wars and lower costs. He has broken both of those promises, costs are higher and there are more wars. They are facing higher costs when they were already struggling, and they see that his policies have made that crisis worse. People across this country are angry that those promises were broken.”

Concerns about political violence and digital radicalization also weigh heavily on her. Last week’s attack at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner is one instance of politically motivated violence continuing to fester and instill fear in the American political sphere.

“I was horrified when I heard that there were shots fired, and the rising tide of political violence is a cancer for our democracy. Social media is radicalizing people and fostering misinformation and conspiracy theories. When people see a world where everyone is either 100% with them or against them, they begin to believe persuasion is impossible. That is fertile ground for violent extremists and it is unsustainable for democracy.”

“Democracy requires faith in other people’s capacity to change, and when that belief is lost, peaceful politics breaks down. People are not as divided as the algorithms make it seem, and most people are good and decent. We can tap people’s better angels, but we have to be willing to be in conversation with them. You cannot tell me that change is impossible, I have seen it and lived it.”

That belief underpins her support for regulating social media platforms, though she is careful to stress that policy alone is insufficient. The congresswoman constantly faces threats, repulsive comments, and detestable words from people on her social media channels for her identity alone.

“There’s no question that we need regulation of social media platforms, social media is the 21st century big tobacco. Whether it’s liability, age limits, or transparency of algorithms, there are a host of solutions we need to pursue. But policy solutions alone will not solve this problem. We have to get offline and have conversations in person.”

“When we have conversations in person, we realize we have much more in common than we think. We are currently having political conversations in the most toxic place possible, online. That has to change if we want to sustain democracy. You will come away more hopeful when you engage with people face to face.”

Her LGBTQ priorities remain anchored in policy and humanism— something she references repeatedly.

“I helped draft the Equality Act and I would love to see it become law. In the nearer term, we should prioritize reversing the ban on transgender troops. These are decorated service members who have been fired for no other reason than their gender identity. They deserve to be treated with dignity and fairness and judged on their merits.”

She continued at length about the transgender service members removed under Executive Order 14183, emphasizing both their service and their erasure.

“These are individuals who are not just qualified, but more than qualified, who have been decorated service members, who have received promotions with unanimous and unqualified endorsement by their superior officers who have been fired from service to this country for no other reason than their gender identity. And I believe in this moment… there is no more effective representation of our community than the transgender service members who have put their lives on the line to serve this country and who have been treated with nothing but disrespect from this administration. They deserve to be treated with dignity and fairness and judged on their merits.”

Even in partisan fights, she returns to her guiding principle of discipline and restraint.

“Sometimes in politics you have to throw a punch with grace. Republicans initiated a mid-decade redistricting effort to gerrymander and pad their majority. They expected Democrats to fold, but those days are over. We fought back and we’re not going to let them steal elections in advance.”

When the conversation turns to how she maintains balance amid the chaos of national politics, McBride returns to unexpected sources of grounding — television, pop culture, and humor.

“I’ve watched every season of ‘The Traitors,’” she said.

When asked if she would ever take a trip to the Scottish Highlands to visit Alan Cumming’s castle, she said it would have to be after her work is done in Congress.

“If I was ever on ‘The Traitors,’ I would never be able to be a traitor. I would get too nervous and overwhelmed. I would have to be a faithful. But I think if there is a future where I am on that show, it will be after I’m in elected office.”

And through it all, she draws parallels between reality television and political life itself.

“If you want to understand how many in Congress work, the best tutorial is ‘The Real Housewives’ … There are people whose sole purpose is to get attention… If you throw wine back, they will just keep coming back for more … I’m not going to allow someone to get attention at my expense … I think all you need to understand is [Capitol Hill] is like an episode of ‘Real Housewives.’”

Still, for McBride, even amid the spectacle of Washington, the focus ultimately returns home.

“I am excited for beach season and I love Rehoboth and Baltimore Avenue,” she says. “It is the professional privilege of my lifetime to represent Delaware. I represent a district that is urban, suburban, and rural, and I get to see the full diversity of this country every day. Delaware shows that a different kind of politics is possible.”