Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg on Friday recounted being separated from his children following an anonymous false police report.

The openly gay former mayor of South Bend, Ind., and current 2028 presidential contender was accused of posing a danger to his children and was not allowed to be with his four-year-old twins until after interviews were conducted.

Buttigieg went public with this account on his Substack, sharing how a woman anonymously — and falsely — accused him of posing a danger to his children.

“The caller said that he had spoken to a woman who claimed to have met me at a conference several years ago in Alabama, where she said I told her that I had committed unspeakable violent crimes, and the caller believed my children were still at risk,” Buttigieg wrote in a post he titled “A Terrible Thing Happened to My Family.” “I am a reasonable man. I try to keep as calm and low-key as possible. But I cannot describe the mix of rage and sadness that I feel at the idea that someone brought our children into this.”

Michigan State Police spoke to the BBC following Buttigieg sharing his story.

“The Michigan State Police and Child Protective Services responded and determined the report was false.”

The statement also went on to explain that these types of false reports were “dangerous” and divert “workers from responding to legitimate emergencies and protecting vulnerable children and families.”

In that post recounting the ordeal, Buttigieg continued, saying that it was “among the darkest hours of my life,” and pointed out that his children should not be subjected to this type of harassment as a circumstance of his own place in the national political spotlight.

“They are four years old. Four. They do not know or care what a Democrat or a Republican is.”

He finished his post:

“We cannot let American politics keep going in this direction. And we must not all go on as if it’s acceptable for this kind of thing to be part of the cost of entering public service.”

“Most importantly, Chasten and I will continue to pour ourselves into the joyful and demanding work of raising and educating our two children. Being their parents is the best thing in our lives. They are just children, kids who deserve the best upbringing that their parents can provide, who mean more to us than anything, whom we love beyond words and will do anything to protect, and whose right to a safe and happy childhood deserves absolute and unconditional respect.”

In response to the story Buttigieg shared on his Substack, Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, released the following statement:

“I know how I would feel if someone tried to come between me and my kids. This is truly bottom-of-the-barrel stuff. It takes an awful, hateful person to question someone’s fitness as a parent just because of who they are, who they love, or in Sec. Buttigieg’s case, perhaps even who he speaks out against politically. We’re thinking of Pete, Chasten, and their whole family in this moment — and we aren’t resting until all LGBTQ+ families have the kind of safety and justice every one of us deserves.”

Buttigieg was transportation secretary during the Biden-Harris administration.

The Los Angeles Blade reached out to Michigan State Police to ask if any disciplinary actions would be imposed on the woman who made the false report, but did not hear back by the time of publication.

Friday marks 11 years since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Constitution protects same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges. Despite that major win for LGBTQ+ people nationwide, the case may be on shakier ground than originally thought.

Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that determined the Constitution extends its protection of rights to same-sex couples and that states must recognize marriage licenses for same-sex couples from other states, was decided using a combination of cases from several states.

The central arguments in the case rested on the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, Due Process Clause, as well as collateral spousal and parental rights.

Cases in play

The first case came from Michigan with DeBoer v. Snyder, where a lesbian couple, who were not legally allowed to marry in the Mitten State, attempted to adopt their third child but could not both obtain legal parental rights. April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse initially received a favorable ruling in district court, with the judge finding that the Michigan Marriage Amendment — which barred same-sex marriage in the Midwestern state — violated the Equal Protection Clause. The same day, the case was appealed to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, eventually making its way, along with the other five cases, to the highest court in the land.

Ohio had multiple cases that ultimately contributed to the judicial acknowledgment of same-sex marriage rights in the U.S.

The Supreme Court case most commonly associated with the fight for same-sex marriage — Obergefell — originated in Ohio. Beginning as Obergefell v. Kasich in the state, James Obergefell knew his longtime boyfriend, John Arthur, was suffering from ALS. Knowing Arthur’s life would end shortly — and understanding the couple could not legally marry in Ohio — they boarded a medically equipped plane, accompanied by a nurse and Arthur’s aunt, Paulette, and flew to BWI Airport in Maryland. There, they were legally married. Over the next several months, Arthur’s health continued to decline until he eventually passed away in October.

The legal battle began after Arthur died, as Ohio law refused to acknowledge that Obergefell was his husband and would not list him as Arthur’s surviving spouse on his death certificate. Obergefell challenged the decision, arguing it was unconstitutional and pursuing legal action. The local Ohio registrar agreed that refusing to recognize their out-of-state marriage license — which Ohio had recognized for different-sex couples in the past — discriminated against the couple. Despite that, the state attorney general continued to defend Ohio’s same-sex marriage ban.

The judge ultimately ruled that “a marriage solemnized outside of Ohio is valid in Ohio if it is valid where solemnized,” marking another step toward marriage equality. Ohio appealed the ruling, and the case ultimately contributed to the establishment of same-sex marriage protections under the federal Constitution.

The second Ohio case, Henry v. Wymyslo, much like DeBoer v. Snyder, involved parental rights for adopted children. The case included four couples — three lesbian couples who lived in Ohio and adopted children while residing there, and one gay couple from New York with an adopted son born in Ohio. The four couples filed a lawsuit against Ohio, seeking to require the state to list both parents on their children’s birth certificates.

Eventually, the judge — the same one who presided over Obergefell v. Kasich — ruled that the state must list both parents on their children’s birth certificates. Like many cases that make their way to the Supreme Court, it went through multiple appeals before ultimately reaching the nation’s highest court.

Kentucky also had two cases that contributed to the legal battle for same-sex marriage.

The first, Bourke v. Beshear, revolved around Gregory Bourke and Michael DeLeon, a same-sex couple married in Canada in 2004, and Randell Johnson and Paul Campion, who were married in California in 2008. Like DeBoer v. Snyder and Henry v. Wymyslo in their respective states, the plaintiffs challenged Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriage and its refusal to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions so that both parents could be acknowledged on their children’s birth certificates.

The judge ultimately ruled, much like in Obergefell v. Kasich, that states constitutionally must recognize legally performed out-of-state marriages.

Love v. Beshear is the second case from the Bluegrass State.

Maurice Blanchard and Dominique James were denied a marriage license by Kentucky county clerks. The couple’s legal team filed to join Bourke v. Beshear, another case actively challenging the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, and the motion was approved, with the case restyled as Love v. Beshear. The judge ultimately ruled that Kentucky’s bans on same-sex marriage explicitly “violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and they are void and unenforceable.”

The final case, Tanco v. Haslam, involved four same-sex couples who filed suit in Tennessee. Each couple had married outside Tennessee before moving to the state, with nearly all relocating for employment. One worked for the military, whose marriage was already recognized by the Department of Defense; one worked for the state; and two were professors. Seeking to have their out-of-state marriages recognized in Tennessee, the four couples filed Tanco v. Haslam in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The court eventually granted a preliminary injunction requiring the state to recognize the marriages of the three plaintiff couples but denied the request to overturn Tennessee’s same-sex marriage ban.

To SCOTUS

All of these cases contributed to the legal challenge against same-sex marriage bans across the country and ultimately led to a 5-4 ruling that allowed same-sex couples to have their marriages recognized in all 50 states, Guam, Puerto Rico, and D.C.

The justices voted as follows: Anthony Kennedy, who authored the majority opinion, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan supported Obergefell while Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito all dissented.

The court held that the 14th Amendment — specifically its Due Process Clause — guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, regardless of the gender of those getting married.

The court also ruled that another provision of the 14th Amendment — the Equal Protection Clause — extends the right to marry enjoyed by different-sex couples to same-sex couples, finding that denying same-sex couples that right violates their right to equal protection under the law.

Some of the Supreme Court justices who dissented argued that this was a state issue, not a federal one, because the Constitution makes no mention of same-sex couples. They said it was beyond the purview of the court to decide whether states must recognize or license such unions. The dissenters argued that the majority was engaging in judicial policymaking, which they contended is not permitted under U.S. law.

Another argument made by the dissenting conservative justices was that the majority opinion infringed on religious freedom by engaging in this “judicial policymaking” rather than allowing state legislatures to determine the laws governing marriage.

Since the ruling

According to data from the Williams Institute, 823,000 same-sex couples are now legally married — more than twice the number in 2015 — as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision.

The ruling also increased the number of same-sex families raising children, largely because it removed legal barriers and paperwork restrictions that had prevented same-sex couples from being listed as parents. The data shows there are nearly 299,000 children under the age of 18 being raised by married same-sex couples as a result of Obergefell.

The states that saw the largest increases — and the most favorable changes to marriage rates — were in the South. The percentage of cohabiting same-sex couples who were married between 2014 and 2023 increased from 38 percent to 59 percent.

Many of the married same-sex couples surveyed said marriage improved their sense of safety and security (83 percent), life satisfaction (75 percent), and relationship stability (67 percent).

“Marriage equality has significantly benefited the lives and well-being of same-sex couples, their families, and the communities where they live,” said Christy Mallory, interim executive director and legal director at the Williams Institute.

Future of Obergefell

While same-sex marriage remains the law of the land, there have been multiple attempts by conservative and religious figures in America to reverse it.

In 2025, Kim Davis, the clerk of Rowan County, Ky., who made headlines 10 years earlier after refusing to issue marriage licenses following the striking down of same-sex marriage bans, approached the Supreme Court with the goal of getting Obergefell overturned.

She argued that the ruling put her religious beliefs at odds with her job and asked the court to strike it down. The consensus was nearly unanimous, holding that when a person serves as an agent of the state, they cannot place their personal religious beliefs above state policy because they are acting on behalf of the government.

Thomas, one of the Supreme Court’s most conservative justices, has also attempted to plant the seeds for overturning Obergefell.

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which ultimately restricted abortion access in the country, he wrote a concurring opinion suggesting that Obergefell, along with several other precedents, should be “reconsider[ed].”

Later, without directly addressing Obergefell, Thomas told an audience at Catholic University’s Columbus School of Law that he didn’t “think that … any of these cases that have been decided are the gospel.”

While President Donald Trump has not implemented any executive restrictions on same-sex marriage during his presidency, his administration has made it clear that it opposes continued efforts to expand protections for same-sex couples, particularly when doing so conflicts with claims of “religious freedom.” The administration has attempted to remove sexual orientation and gender identity from federal health care and housing nondiscrimination protections and has significantly restricted the rights of transgender Americans.

Currently, same-sex marriage remains federally protected by the Respect for Marriage Act, and the Supreme Court has thus far declined to overturn Obergefell.

When the Los Angeles Blade first reported the story of Jonathan David Muir Burgos, the news centered on a 16-year-old Cuban teenager who had been sent to prison after taking part in a public protest in Morón, Ciego de Ávila. At the time, the facts were straightforward. A minor had lost his freedom, and his case was beginning to attract attention beyond Cuba’s borders.

Today there is another fact that deserves to be recorded with the same rigor.

Jonathan is no longer in prison.

His release, confirmed by multiple news organizations, closes one chapter of a story that, for months, was followed by journalists, human rights organizations, religious communities, and countless individuals who refused to let his name disappear from public view. Each of them became part of a much larger effort to ensure that the imprisonment of a Cuban teenager would not fade into silence as the news cycle moved on.

That collective attention does not explain every decision that ultimately led to Jonathan’s release, and it would be irresponsible to suggest otherwise. Judicial processes are rarely shaped by a single factor. What can be said with certainty is that Jonathan’s story never disappeared. It continued to be documented, discussed and followed long after the initial headlines were published.

Behind every widely reported case there is a family living a reality that rarely appears in the news. In Jonathan’s case, there was a father who also serves as a Protestant pastor and who spent months speaking publicly about his son while asking others not to forget him. There was a mother enduring the uncertainty familiar to any parent separated from a child. There were classmates, friends, and neighbors waiting for the day when Jonathan would no longer be known as the teenager behind bars, but simply as the young man returning home.

The image of a prison gate opening often marks the end of a news story. In reality, it marks the beginning of something far more difficult. A teenager must resume an interrupted education, reconnect with friends, rebuild ordinary routines, and recover a sense of normalcy after months in confinement. Those experiences seldom become headlines, yet they are part of the true cost of imprisonment.

Jonathan’s release is therefore more than an update to a story previously reported. It is a reminder that public attention has value. Journalism matters because it documents. Human rights organizations matter because they investigate. Communities matter because they refuse indifference. Families matter because they continue to wait, even when the waiting becomes unbearable. None of these efforts should be viewed in isolation. Together they ensure that a person’s story does not disappear simply because time has passed.

Many people leave prison after being forgotten.

Jonathan David Muir Burgos walked out of prison knowing that, throughout those months, thousands of people had continued to speak his name, follow his case and hope for the day when this story could be told differently.

Today, that day has arrived.

The Trump-Vance administration will end PEPFAR funding for South Africa.

A State Department spokesperson on Wednesday told the Los Angeles Blade the State Department “will begin a phased drawdown of PEPFAR programming in South Africa, with most programs ending by Sept. 30, 2026, and critical personnel support continuing through March 31, 2027.”

Semafor last week reported South Africa has received more than $8 billion in PEPFAR funding since President George W. Bush created the program to combat the global HIV/AIDS pandemic in 2003.

President Donald Trump on Feb. 7, 2025, issued an executive order that addressed what it described as “egregious actions of the Republic of South Africa.” The State Department spokesperson with whom the Blade spoke noted the directive included five specific requests:

• South African government provides exemptions or alternatives for U.S. companies to Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment laws and other race-based mandates. 

• Senior government officials (e.g., president, deputy president, or minister of justice) unequivocally condemn all race-based incitement to violence, including the “Kill the Boer” song, more frequently. 

• The South African government prevents the implementation of measures that would allow expropriation without fair compensation and due process under the Expropriation Act of 2024. 

• South African Police Service designates rural crime a “priority crime” and increases resources dedicated to high-crime rural areas. 

• South Africa refrains from actions that would significantly interfere with the implementation of the refugee program, within the confines of South African law. 

“The United States communicated to the government of the Republic of South Africa multiple times at many levels that PEPFAR funding was likely to be terminated in the absence of progress on the five asks,” said the State Department spokesperson.

The State Department spokesperson further noted South Africa is “one of the largest economies in sub-Saharan Africa” and “has funded the vast majority of its own HIV response, estimated at 76 percent of the total, including procurement of all treatment commodities.”

“South Africa will continue to be supported by the Global Fund, including for the introduction and scale up of lenacapavir through Global Fund Resources,” the spokesperson told the Blade.

Lenacapavir is groundbreaking HIV prevention drug that users inject twice a year. Eswatini, which borders South Africa, is among the African countries that have received doses of the drug through PEPFAR.

HIV/AIDS service organizations in the U.S. and around the world have sharply criticized the Trump-Vance administration over plans to not fully fund PEPFAR and to cut domestic HIV/AIDS funding.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio shortly after the current White House took office issued a waiver that allowed PEPFAR and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during a freeze on nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending. HIV/AIDS service providers around the world with whom the Blade has spoken say PEPFAR cuts and the loss of funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, which officially closed on July 1, 2025, has severely impacted their work.

A judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has granted a request from multiple transgender people for a temporary restraining order, blocking the disclosure of plaintiffs’ and class members’ medical information to the Justice Department.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla approved the Temporary Restraining Order and Provisional Class Certification, preventing any further information from being provided to the Trump-led DOJ.

The medical data was requested through subpoenas issued by the Trump-Vance administration’s DOJ to multiple hospitals in New York City — most notably NYU Langone — which halted its Transgender Youth Health Program in May following a federal push to stop providing trans minors with gender-affirming care.

In May 2026, NYU Langone Hospitals received a subpoena from a federal grand jury in Fort Worth, Texas, demanding that the hospitals turn over the identities and sensitive health information of any patient who had received medical treatment for gender dysphoria while under the age of 18 at NYU Langone between January 2020 and May 2026.

Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the New York Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit, “Coe, et al. v. Blanche, et al.,” against the Trump-Vance administration on behalf of three families with trans youth and two trans young adults who were minors when they began care, in June 2026.

The lawsuit requests a temporary restraining order blocking the DOJ from violating the patients’ constitutional privacy rights by obtaining identifying and sensitive health information as part of its investigation into unspecified health offenses. The DOJ issued subpoenas to NYU Langone and other similar healthcare institutions in New York City, including Mount Sinai, that provide or have provided gender-affirming medical care to trans minors. All plaintiffs have filed under pseudonyms to maintain their privacy and anonymity.

Multiple leaders of organizations that helped push for the restraining order provided quotes about the ongoing situation and what it means for the fight for trans children’s access to healthcare in the U.S.

“Today’s order from the court is a victory for the basic privacy of our clients and all families like theirs across New York City. It is no secret that this administration will use every lever in its power to attack transgender people and fulfill its misguided goal to ‘end’ gender-affirming medical care — care that is legal and protected in New York State. Using subpoenas to attain the identities and sensitive health information of transgender young people to effectuate such goals should send chills down the spine of every American. Our laws and our Constitution recognize that we all have a right to confidentiality about the most intimate and private information about ourselves,” said Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, senior counsel and health care strategist at Lambda Legal. “Whether a young person receives any type of medical care is a decision for that patient, their family, and their doctor, not for political appointees to decide, interfere with, or know. The government cannot abuse its powers to violate the constitutional rights of transgender young people and their families. It is an enormous relief for these families that the court has stopped them from doing so as this case proceeds.”

“We’re thankful the court has granted our emergency request to protect the privacy interests of transgender New Yorkers and their families,” said Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project. “Patients and families trust their doctors with their most intimate, private information and should trust in turn that this information will be protected from impermissible and harassing demands for disclosure from the federal government or anyone else. For the past year, the Trump administration has not only decided that it knows better than these families and their doctors what their medical needs are, but has also sought to obtain troves of sensitive information about patients in New York. We will continue to fight on behalf of these families and the fundamental liberty of all transgender New Yorkers and those who come here to seek needed medical care.”

“New York’s laws recognize that transgender youth deserve fundamental privacy protections for their sensitive medical records and unobstructed access to the care they need,” said Bobby Hodgson, deputy legal director at the New York Civil Liberties Union. “As the Trump administration tries to bully transgender youth, scare families, and intimidate healthcare providers into dropping their patients, we’re thankful the court found these tactics are likely unconstitutional and put a stop to them here in New York.”

President Donald Trump is refusing to sign a new bipartisan housing bill unless his SAVE Act is approved by the legislative branch.

The bill being prevented from being enacted into law is the “21st Century ROAD to Housing Act.” The legislation is an attempt by Congress to make buying a home in the U.S. Senate more affordable in response to various factors — including housing shortages and regulatory constraints — that have made homeownership increasingly difficult. The total number of homeowners has nearly stopped growing, with high interest rates and surging home prices pushing more Americans toward renting.

The housing bill was considered highly bipartisan, something that is rare in this Congress. The House voted to pass the bill 358-32 on Tuesday after the Senate approved the measure 85-5 a day earlier. The legislation was led by U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.) in the Senate and U.S. Reps. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and French Hill (R-Ark.) in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Some of the highlights of the legislation are aimed at increasing the supply of affordable housing while making homeownership more accessible. The bill would streamline environmental reviews and direct the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide guidance to communities on reforming zoning and land-use policies that can create barriers to housing development.

The legislation would also expand the definition of “manufactured housing,” making it cheaper and easier to mass-produce homes built in factories before being transported to their sites. To encourage additional development, the bill would provide grants and loans for the construction of new housing, the rehabilitation of aging properties, and the conversion of vacant buildings into residential units. It would also increase certain banks’ Public Welfare Investment cap, allowing them to direct more capital toward low-income and affordable housing projects.

In an effort to help more Americans purchase homes, the legislation would create a program to expand access to small-dollar mortgages, which are often used to finance lower-cost homes, while also seeking to improve housing opportunities for veterans. The bill would further promote homeownership by limiting the number of single-family homes that large institutional investors can own and requiring them to disclose how many such properties they control, a measure intended to prioritize American families over corporate buyers.

The bill the president wants enacted — the SAVE Act — is a restrictive and anti-transgender piece of proposed legislation.

The bill would impose a number of new limitations on voter registration across the country by amending the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require in-person proof of citizenship for anyone seeking to vote in U.S. elections. The bill would also limit acceptable forms of identification to documents such as a birth certificate or passport — records that the Brennan Center for Justice estimates more than 21 million Americans do not possess — effectively restricting access to the ballot. It would also ban online voter registration, DMV voter registration efforts, and mail-in voter registration.

Trump pushed for the SAVE Act to include a provision that would ban gender-affirming medical care for trans minors, even with parental consent, and prohibit trans people from participating in school or professional sports consistent with their gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth.

Trump also pressed Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) to eliminate the filibuster so the Republican-controlled Congress could pass the SAVE Act, saying Republicans will never win another election without it.

It is expected that Congress will override the president’s veto and pass the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, as it requires a two-thirds supermajority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate — a threshold the legislation currently exceeds.

It is not expected that the SAVE Act will pass the Senate in its current form. It passed the House, but every Democrat and four Republicans voted against it in the Senate.

At the moment, some religious and political leaders in Africa are pushing for a charter on family values, lobbying lawmakers, African state institutions, and the African Union to formally adopt it. In the past number of years, they have been holding conferences across Africa with the support and funding of Western religious donors who, in their own countries, are definitely perceived as racist, hateful, and against women. Most recently, they convened the African Regional Interparliamentary Conference on Family Values and Sovereignty in Accra, Ghana. All this raises critical questions about foreign influence and agendas. At this critical time, when Africa faces so many problems, why do people insist on pushing an agenda that is neither ours nor relevant to our prosperity?

The African leaders who claim to protect African family values and sovereignty, unsurprisingly, exhibit traits similar to those of the historical enslavers and similar collaborators. Contrary to what they claim as “pushing back against foreign influence on the African family” and the infamous sovereignty claims, it has been proven that these leaders are directly linked and backed by the conservative “foreign” groups, including the U.S.-based hate organization, Family Watch International, which is closely linked to the anti-rights authors of Trump’s Project 2025, Heritage Foundation; and the Netherlands-based Christian nationalist organization, Christian Council International, another group closely linked to organizations supporting the Trump administration and its continued hate-based policies and atrocities. One might even argue that they serve these groups, their mandates, and their Western agenda, instead of what they want African people to believe: that they are doing this for the good and prosperity of Africa and its sovereignty. The truth, however, is that their so-called African values, culture, traditions, etcetera, could not be further removed from true African cultural values but instead mimic those outlined in America’s Project 2025. Meanwhile, the very same people who are pushing for these family values under Project 2025 are the very same people pushing for the exploitation of Africa’s natural resources, without any care for the impact their actions have on African people and their livelihoods. Adopting their policies verbatim in Africa and claiming them as our own could easily be seen as counterintuitive and self-betrayal.

Africa’s rich history of family, diversity, womanhood, and matriarchy is too beautiful to erase. Africans, especially women and girls, deserve to know about the likes of Queen Modjadji of the Balobedu people, a fierce leader who is traditionally believed to have rainmaking abilities and notably a distinctively matriarchal dynasty where the reign is passed down from woman to woman, from mother to daughter; or Queen Nzinga of modern-day Angola, who led an army that resisted and fought against the Portuguese colonizers. Queer folks and African spiritualists alike deserve to know how women and gender diverse persons held some of the highest spiritual positions in society, like Mbuya Nehanda of Zimbabwe, who was a deeply respected spirit medium and a leader of the resistance against early colonial rule in Zimbabwe, and the transgender priests, the respected agule and okule, female-to-male and male-to-female shamans of the Lugbara, now the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda, who led spiritual ceremonies. Even though the mudoko dako of the Langi people in Uganda were known to have been assigned male at birth, they were recognized as a distinct gender that was allowed to marry men. Africans must also know about woman-to-woman marriages that existed in pre-colonial Africa, which, according to research and oral histories, were recognised and served various purposes, from economic and social functions to lineage preservation. Similar practices include those from the Bapedi and Balobedu cultures, ngwetsi ya lapa, which still exists today, where a woman is married into a family or household to raise an heir for the family or to continue the family name, not necessarily the lineage. 

As well-intentioned as it may appear, evidence suggests that the African leaders’ draft charter, because of its existing ties to Western ultraconservative partnerships, is neither original nor in good faith. The pace at which they have been moving and their true subsequent agenda should indisputably be questioned and criticised. Regardless of the inclusion of desirable language and terms such as minerals sovereignty and the Ubuntu philosophy, beneath the surface, the charter does not truly reflect these concepts. The charter, instead, does a disservice to African people by misrepresenting Africa’s diversity and disregarding its history as it relates to the diversity of families. The West has no business drafting or helping draft African legislation, especially if the whole of Africa is at risk of their negative impact. One would think the common goal would be to address bread-and-butter issues, such as poverty, unemployment, diseases, and health, to name but a few, instead of pushing the distractive agenda of those responsible for robbing Africa in the first place. No single group is the sole custodian of African knowledge. Africa belongs to all of us, with our diverse families and values, which cannot be defined through a single, narrow lens and are instead very individual issues that will differ from family to family. 

Daniel Digashu is a consultant at the Southern Africa Litigation Center (SALC). SALC promotes and advances human rights and the rule of law in Southern Africa, primarily through strategic litigation and capacity-strengthening support to lawyers and grassroots organizations.

A new study reveals that LGBTQ+ candidates running for public office are seeing an unprecedented amount of harassment and threats as President Donald Trump and his far-right MAGA supporters continue to strip protections for minority groups at all levels of government.

The LGBTQ+ Victory Institute, the nation’s largest LGBTQ+ candidate training and leadership organization, recently partnered with Loyola Marymount University to collect data on the rising political violence experienced by LGBTQ+ candidates. The organization is closely affiliated with the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, its sister political action arm dedicated to helping LGBTQ+ candidates get elected.

The Los Angeles Blade sat down with Evan Low, president and CEO of the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute and LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, to discuss what the data reveals about the climate LGBTQ+ candidates have found themselves in.

Low argued that the findings cannot be separated from the broader political environment facing LGBTQ+ Americans in 2026. Anti-transgender legislation continues to surge across the country while federal recognition of LGBTQ+ communities has diminished. This is the second consecutive year Trump has declined to recognize June as Pride month. He also made no public statement commemorating Juneteenth, the anniversary marking the emancipation of enslaved people in the United States.

The survey included 215 LGBTQ+ candidates who ran for office between 2023 and 2025 from 42 states, Puerto Rico, and D.C., and asked about their experiences while running for office.

The data, while not particularly surprising given the highly divisive political era we have been living through under Trump 2.0, contains stark findings showing that LGBTQ+ candidates are not only finding it more difficult to run for office — something protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments — but that it has also become increasingly dangerous for openly LGBTQ+ candidates to do so.

One of the report’s most significant findings focuses on what happens before an LGBTQ+ person’s name ever appears on a ballot or yard sign: widespread fear among prospective candidates. Nearly 9 in 10 candidates worried that running as an openly LGBTQ+ person would increase their risk of harassment or attack, while 4 in 5 feared physical violence.

Key Takeaways From the Data

Harassment Is the Norm — Not the Exception: Nearly two-thirds of LGBTQ+ candidates experienced in-person harassment, while nearly 8 in 10 faced online abuse, with many encountering it regularly.

The escalation from rhetoric to serious threats mirrors the current political climate. One in three candidates received death threats online, and one in seven experienced them in person, highlighting the severity of the current threat environment.

Campaigns Altered by Safety Concerns: More than half of candidates changed how or where they campaigned due to safety fears, and nearly 1 in 5 described the impact as significant — limiting public engagement and visibility.

Security Out of Reach: Fewer than 1 in 10 candidates could afford private security, even as threats escalated, underscoring a growing inequity in who can safely run for office.

Severe Mental Health Impact: Nearly two-thirds of candidates said attacks negatively impacted their mental health, with some reporting long-term trauma and lasting psychological effects.

“What we’re seeing is not just harassment, it’s a systemic challenge to participation,” said Elliot Imse, the now former executive director of LGBTQ+ Victory Institute. “When candidates are forced to change their behavior, limit public engagement, or reconsider running altogether because of safety concerns, that’s not just a personal issue — it’s a breakdown in the conditions required for a healthy democracy.”

“This isn’t theoretical — I, like so many LGBTQ+ candidates and elected leaders, have lived it,” said Daniel Hernandez, vice president of political programs at LGBTQ+ Victory Fund. “From surviving gun violence to having my own campaign office targeted, I know how real these threats are and how deeply they affect candidates, their teams, and their families. The LGBTQ+ Victory Institute has been doing this work for years — preparing candidates, supporting them through these challenges, and making sure they’re not facing it alone. This report makes clear the stakes are higher than ever. If we want people to step up and serve, we have to meet this moment with the resources, support, and commitment to their safety demands.”

Low, who before leading the Victory organizations was an openly gay elected official representing California’s 26th Assembly District, which includes portions of Silicon Valley and San Jose, views the findings as both a political violence issue and a threat to democracy itself.

“We’re living in a moment in a time in which the pendulum is swinging backwards,” Low told the Blade. “We’ve seen a historic amount of anti-LGBTQ+ legislative proposals across this country. So naturally, when members of our community are targeted, it gives that license then to be harassed and discriminated against accordingly. It absolutely is a challenge to democracy.”

The data also shows that LGBTQ+ candidates face unique barriers to entry — many of them financial. Low argued that reducing those barriers would help diversify candidate pools and create a more representative democracy.

“Does [the current system] disproportionately then impact and limit the segment within our populations to serve? The answer is absolutely yes. When you think about the increased challenges of a barrier to entry– that’s why we’re focused on doing the report in the first place. It also then goes to show the importance of how we utilize taxpayer dollars and budgets accordingly to help encourage and support members of the community to run for office.”

He used that point to emphasize the importance of the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute, not only in collecting data on these trends but also in helping LGBTQ+ candidates navigate them.

“That’s the fundamental reason why there’s the need for the Victory Fund of the Victory Institute,” he said. “It’s to say that the members of our community will not face this or run alone. They should know that there is a national network, a national organization that will be the wind in their sails to help guide them.”

So far in 2026, the Victory Fund has endorsed at least 249 candidates.

In addition to providing financial support, the Victory Institute helps LGBTQ+ candidates prepare for the realities of the campaign trail, including coping with harassment, threats, and personal security concerns.

Low expanded on what that reality looks like in 2026 as anti-transgender legislation continues to surge and federal recognition of LGBTQ+ communities has diminished.

“Part of that discussion is we don’t try to sugarcoat it,” he said when emphasizing the realities facing LGBTQ+ candidates. “We will speak truth about ‘Here’s how to put a campaign budget together’ and ‘Here’s best practices on public speaking.’ But also we have to deal with showing the unfortunate reality on ‘Here’s how to keep your family safe.’ ‘Here’s how to retain and keep in mind your mental health’…especially when you see members of our community being doxxed constantly by bots and such hate speech.”

He also highlighted the unique challenges facing transgender candidates running for office, particularly as hundreds of bills across the country continue to target transgender people.

“We hear that many times there may be individuals from the community, specifically the trans community, who may want to run for office, but their existence is criminalized, which is to say that they may live in a state or jurisdiction in which it’s criminal to exist; laws prohibiting them from being who they are,” Low said.

“When many of our candidates run for office, they are not running because they are trans, they’re not running because they’re gay or a member of their community, they’re running to advance the quality of life on the key issues on housing affordability, health care, education, you name it, and so these are the campaign issues, but the challenge exists as well.”

Those pressures often lead candidates to question whether running for office is worth the personal toll.

“Many times the candidate and/or elected official will speak candidly with members of our organization to say, ‘Is it worth it anymore? What should I do? Is this something that I should continue? This is taking a personal toll on my family, but I care about the call to service and making a difference in my community.'”

Low also spoke about what he sees as more than simple anti-LGBTQ+ bias in politics, pointing instead to the growing number of laws targeting LGBTQ+ people.

“I don’t think it’s simply bias — it’s fact. Again, we can cite laws on the books and proposals across the country, so no wonder why the conversation is so toxic and hostile to members of our community.”

Despite those threats, Low said LGBTQ+ candidates continue to run for office in record numbers.

“While this political violence report does reflect the hard truth about the challenges to our community, we have seen more candidates apply for an endorsement and sign up for our programs than we’ve ever seen before. We have seen more candidates run for federal office than we ever have had in the history of our 35 years as an organization. What does that tell us? It tells us that yes, it is a challenging and harmful time, yet members of our community are willing to run toward the front lines and answer the call for service.”

The data shows that queer women and transgender candidates are among those most heavily impacted by political violence and heightened political polarization.

“We’ve seen specifically LGBTQ+ women and members of our trans community being disproportionately impacted by [political violence]. When you disaggregate the data, it is also really important to address within our community. We do know anecdotally, as well as from the report, that it may be more challenging for LGBTQ+ women and our trans individuals given some of the other cited conclusions.”

Two of the issues that disproportionately affect transgender candidates and LGBTQ+ women are mental health challenges and increased security needs.

“What we’ve seen is some of the top demands for services. In many jurisdictions, governmental entities do not have budgets for it– either access to mental health services, as well as public safety services,” he explained. “Security — whether it be surveillance cameras around their homes — those are the key areas. Oftentimes candidates are left to their own devices and may not have access to those key areas to support them.”

Low noted that when LGBTQ+ candidates are elected, they can advance policies aimed at reducing discrimination, pointing to legislation he championed while serving in California.

“I passed a bill to require Peace Officers Standards and Training curriculum on diversity training for members of the LGBT community. Police officers would have to go through diversity and sensitivity training with respect to members of the LGBT community. That’s something that I very much would like to see amplified, not just state by state, but at the federal level — federal funding to support standards and trainings in dealing with members of the LGBT community.”

“The key data points reflect an increase in not only violence but also intimidation and increased barriers to entry over the years. You can make the direct nexus between that of the increase in anti-LGBTQ+ legislation and the current rhetoric that exists in this political environment. It’s not just here in the United States — you see it globally as well. So it is something that most certainly we’re seeing increase.”

When asked about the long-term consequences, Low warned that political violence could make American democracy less representative and discourage future generations of LGBTQ+ leaders from seeking office.

“I think we will likely see a decrease in the diversification of candidates and their lived experiences. It can be insurmountable for those from a younger generation who have to put food on the table and support their families. When it takes political violence to a different level and doxxing and being harassed online, it’s taken on a whole new meaning. We may see that deterioration of the quality and caliber of candidates, or not as much participation from the wide segment of our LGBTQ+ community.”

The Blade also asked how he feels about the future given the current political climate.

“One can always be optimistic and hopeful for the future, but I won’t hold my breath.”

When asked what success would look like for the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund and LGBTQ+ Victory Institute, Low said he hopes to see a decrease in threats against candidates, more LGBTQ+ people elected to office, and fewer legislative efforts targeting the community.

“I think certainly a decrease when we do this report again and have seen a decrease [in threats] is oftentimes telling. But similarly, seeing less of the legislative proposals in various state houses that are hostile, that criminalize our existence, is another key factor. Those are the two data points that we would cite and highlight as it relates to the political climate with respect to LGBTQ+ leaders.”

The Nepalese Supreme Court on June 18 ruled the country must extend full marriage rights to same-sex couples.

The Supreme Court in 2023 ordered the country’s government to allow same-sex couples to temporarily register their marriages, but this recognition did not guarantee full marriage rights to gays and lesbians.

“Since the Supreme Court’s landmark 2023 decision, dozens of same-sex couples have legally married in Nepal under a temporary registration system,” said the Blue Diamond Society, a Nepalese LGBTQ+ advocacy group, in a June 19 press release. “However, the lack of national legislation has created uncertainty and fear for couples who want to register their marriage.”

“Many couples have been denied marriage licenses by local clerks who claim there is no national law instructing them to register marriages of same-sex couples,” further noted the Blue Diamond Society. “Other couples have been forced to file legal cases and endure costly legal battles simply to register their marriage. And even among couples who have registered their marriages, there is concern that their marriages may not be respected when it comes to adoption, inheritance, and other important protections they need to care for their families.”

Thailand and Taiwan are among the countries that have extended full marriage rights to same-sex couples.

The Japanese Supreme Court in March said it will consider six marriage equality lawsuits. The South Korean marriage equality movement in recent years has gained momentum with several court rulings that recognized same-sex relationships.

The Blue Diamond Society in its press release notes the June 18 decision is the fourth time the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of marriage equality.

“Today is a day of celebration for LGBTQIA+ people and families across Nepal,” said Blue Diamond Society Executive Director Manisha Dhakal. “The Supreme Court has once again affirmed that same-sex couples deserve the same dignity, respect, and legal protections as any other couple.”

“We are grateful for the court’s continued leadership,” added Dhakal. “With a newly elected government more committed than ever to equality, now is the time to complete this important work by updating Nepal’s civil code and ensuring marriage equality is fully and clearly protected in law.”

Dhakal in the press release said the Blue Diamond Society “looks forward to working constructively with the government of Nepal, lawmakers, and civil society partners to ensure the court’s vision of equality is fully realized.”

“The Supreme Court has spoken clearly,” Dhakal said. “The government has expressed its support for equality. We are encouraged by that commitment and urge Parliament to act swiftly so that every LGBTQIA+ couple in Nepal can access marriage with certainty, dignity, and respect. Nepal has already taken a historic step. Now it is time to finish the job.”

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Monday announced he will step down once his party chooses his successor.

Starmer succeeded Rishi Sunak of the Conservative Party in No. 10 Downing St. in 2024.

The Labour Party included a ban on so-called conversion therapy in England and Wales in its elections manifesto. King Charles III in last month’s King Speech that he delivered in the British House of Lords said a transgender-inclusive ban is among the British government’s legislative priorities.

Charles delivered his King’s Speech days after the Labour lost more than 1,000 council seats in local and regional elections. The May 7 vote took place against the backdrop of widespread criticism over Starmer’s decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the U.S., despite his ties to Jeffrey Epstein.

Former Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham is seen as the frontrunner to become Labour’s new leader — and the UK’s next prime minister. Burnham was sworn in as an MP in the House of Commons hours after Starmer announced his resignation.

Starmer in his resignation announcement said he expects his successor will be in place before MPs return from their summer recess on Sept. 1.