President Trump signed EO 14183, titled “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” on Jan. 27, directing the Department of Defense (DoD) to adopt policies that would prohibit transgender, nonbinary, and gender-nonconforming people from serving in the military.

The Trump-Vance administration’s policy shift redefines the qualifications for military service, asserting that transgender people are inherently incapable of meeting the military’s “high standards of readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity,” citing a history or signs of gender dysphoria. According to the DoD, this creates “medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on [an] individual.” Regardless of their physical or intellectual capabilities, transgender applicants are now considered less qualified than their cisgender peers.

On Jan. 28, 2025, GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) Law and the National Center for LGBTQ Rights (NCLR) filed Talbott v. Trump, a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the executive order. Originally filed on equal protection grounds on behalf of six active service members and two individuals seeking enlistment, the case has since grown to include 12 additional plaintiffs.

The Blade spoke exclusively with Second Lt. Nicolas (Nic) Talbott, U.S. Army, a plaintiff in the case, and with Jennifer Levi, Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights at GLAD Law, who is leading the litigation.

For Talbott, serving in the military has been a lifelong aspiration, one he pursued despite the barriers posed by discriminatory policies.

“Being transgender posed quite the obstacle to me achieving that dream,” Talbott told the Blade. “Not because it [being trans] had any bearing on my ability to become a soldier and meet the requirements of a United States soldier, but simply because of the policy changes that we’ve been facing as transgender service members throughout the course of the past decade… My being transgender had nothing to do with anything that I was doing as a soldier.”

This drive was fueled by early life experiences, including the impact of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, which shaped his desire to protect his country.

“Even for an eight-year-old kid, [9/11] has a tremendous amount of impact… I remember thinking, you know, this is a terrible thing. Me, and when I grow up, I want to make sure nothing like this ever happens again,” he said. “I’ve still tried to gear my life in a way that I can be preparing myself to eventually help accomplish that mission of keeping America safe from anything like that ever happening again.”

The attacks inspired countless Americans to enlist; according to the New York City government, 181,510 joined active duty and 72,908 enlisted in the reserves in the year following 9/11. Although Talbott was too young to serve at the time, the events deeply influenced his educational and career path.

“For me, [9/11] just kind of helped shape my future and set me on the path that I’m currently on today,” he added. “It ignited my passion for the field, and it’s something that you know, I’ve carried with me into my adult life, into my professional life, and that I hope to have a career in the future.”

Talbott holds a master’s degree in criminology with a focus on counterterrorism and global security, and while completing his degree, he gained practical experience working with the Transportation Security Administration.

Despite the public scrutiny surrounding the lawsuit and the ongoing uncertainty of his military future, Talbott remains grounded in the values that define military service.

“Being so public about my involvement with this lawsuit grants me the very unique opportunity to continue to exemplify those values,” Talbott said. “I’m in a very privileged spot where I can speak relatively openly about this experience and what I’m doing. It’s very empowering to be able to stand up, not only for myself, but for the other transgender service members out there who have done nothing but serve with honor and dignity and bravery.”

The ban has created significant uncertainty for transgender service members, who now face the possibility of separation solely because of their gender identity.

“With this ban… we are all [trans military members] on track to be separated from the military. So it’s such a great deal of uncertainty… I’m stuck waiting, not knowing what tomorrow might bring. I could receive a phone call any day stating that the separation process has been initiated.”

While the Department of Defense specifies that most service members will receive an honorable discharge, the policy allows for a lower characterization if a review deems it warranted. Compensation and benefits differ depending on whether service members opt for voluntary or involuntary separation. Voluntary separation comes with full separation pay and no obligation to repay bonuses, while involuntary separation carries lower pay, potential repayment of bonuses, and uncertain success in discharge review processes.

Healthcare coverage through TRICARE continues for 180 days post-discharge, but reduced benefits, including VA eligibility, remain a concern. Those with 18–20 years of service may qualify for early retirement, though even this is not guaranteed under the policy.

Talbott emphasized the personal and professional toll of the ban, reflecting on the fairness and capability of transgender service members.

“Quite frankly, the evidence that we have at hand points in the complete opposite direction… there are no documented cases that I’m aware of of a transgender person having a negative impact on unit cohesion simply by being transgender… Being transgender is just another one of those walks of life.”

“When we’re losing thousands of those qualified, experienced individuals… those are seats that are not just going to be able to be filled by anybody … military training that’s not going to be able to be replaced for years and years to come.”

Talbott also highlighted the unique discipline, dedication, and value of diversity that transgender service members bring—especially in identifying problems and finding solutions, regardless of what others think or say. That, he explained, was part of his journey of self-discovery and a key reason he wants to continue serving despite harsh words of disapproval from the men leading the executive branch.

“Being transgender is not some sad thing that people go through… This is something that has taken years and years and years of dedication and discipline and research and ups and downs to get to the point where I am today… my ability to transition was essential to getting me to that point where I am today.”

He sees that as an asset rather than a liability. By having a more diverse, well-rounded group of people, the military can view challenges from perspectives that would otherwise be overlooked. That ability to look at things in a fresh way, he explained, can transform a good service member into a great one.

“I think the more diverse our military is, the stronger our military is… We need people from all different experiences and all different perspectives, because somebody is going to see that challenge or that problem in a way that I would never even think of… and that is what we need more of in the U.S. military.”

Beyond operational effectiveness, Talbott emphasized the social impact of visibility and leadership within the ranks. Fellow soldiers often approached him for guidance, seeing him as a trusted resource because of his transgender status.

“I can think of several instances in which I have been approached by fellow soldiers… I feel like you are a person I can come to if I have a problem with X, Y or Z… some people take my transgender status and designate me as a safe person, so to speak.”

With the arrival of Veterans Day, the Blade asked what he wishes the public knew about the sacrifices of transgender service members. His answer was modest.

“Every person who puts on the uniform is expected to make a tremendous amount of sacrifice,” Talbott said. “Who I am under this uniform should have no bearing on that… We shouldn’t be picking and choosing which veterans are worthy of our thanks on that day.”

Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights, also spoke with the Blade and outlined the legal and human consequences of the ban. This is not Levi’s first time challenging the executive branch on transgender rights; she led the legal fight against the first Trump administration’s military ban in both Doe v. Trump and Stockman v. Trump.

Levi characterized the policy as overtly cruel and legally indefensible.

“This policy and its rollout is even more cruel than the first in a number of ways,” Levi explained. “For one, the policy itself says that transgender people are dishonest, untrustworthy and undisciplined, which is deeply offensive and degrading and demeaning.”

She highlighted procedural abuses and punitive measures embedded in the policy compared to the 2017 ban.

“In the first round the military allowed transgender people to continue to serve… In this round the military policy purge seeks to purge every transgender person from military service, and it also proposes to do it in a very cruel and brutal way, which is to put people through a process… traditionally reserved for kicking people out of the military who engaged in misconduct.”

Levi cited multiple examples of discrimination, including the revocation of authorized retirements and administrative barriers to hearings.

She also explained that the administration’s cost argument is flawed, as removing and replacing transgender service members is more expensive than retaining them.

“There’s no legitimate justification relating to cost… it is far more expensive to both purge the military of people who are serving and also to replace people… than to provide the minuscule amount of costs for medications other service members routinely get.”

On legal grounds, Levi noted the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause.

“The Equal Protection Clause prevents laws that are intended to harm a group of people… The doctrine is rooted in animus, which means a bare desire to harm a group is not even a legitimate governmental justification.”

When asked what she wishes people knew about Talbott and other targeted transgender military members, Levi emphasized their extraordinary service.

“The plaintiffs that I represent are extraordinary… They have 260 years of committed service to this country… I have confidence that ultimately, this baseless ban should not be able to legally survive.”

Other organizations have weighed in on Talbott v. Trump and similar lawsuits targeting transgender service members.

Human Rights Campaign Foundation President Kelley Robinson criticized the ban’s impact on military readiness and highlighted the counterintuitive nature of removing some of the country’s most qualified service members.

“Transgender servicemembers serve their country valiantly, with the same commitment, the same adherence to military standards and the same love of country as any of their counterparts,” Robinson said. “This ban by the Trump administration, which has already stripped transgender servicemembers of their jobs, is cruel, unpatriotic, and compromises the unity and quality of our armed forces.”

Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Sasha Buchert echoed the legal and moral imperative to reverse the policy.

“Every day this discriminatory ban remains in effect, qualified patriots face the threat of being kicked out of the military,” she said. “The evidence is overwhelming that this policy is driven by animus rather than military necessity… We are confident the court will see through this discriminatory ban and restore the injunction that should never have been lifted.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal from Kim Davis, the former Rowan County, Ky., clerk best known for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the landmark 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

Following the Obergefell ruling, Davis stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether and has since filed multiple appeals seeking to challenge same-sex marriage protections. The court once again rejected her efforts on Monday.

In this latest appeal, Davis sought to overturn a $100,000 monetary award she was ordered to pay to David Moore and David Ermold, a same-sex couple to whom she denied a marriage license. Her petition also urged the court to use the case as a vehicle to revisit the constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

The petition, along with the couple’s brief in opposition, was submitted to the Supreme Court on Oct. 22 and considered during the justices’ private conference on Nov. 7. Davis needed at least four votes for the court to take up her case, but Monday’s order shows she fell short.

Cathy Renna, the director of communications for the National LGBTQ Task Force, a non-profit organization that works towards supporting the LGBQ community through grassroots organizing told the Los Angeles Blade:
“Today’s decision is not surprising given the longshot status of Davis’s claim, but it’s a relief that the Supreme Court will not hear it, given the current make up of the court itself. We hope that this settles the matter and marriage equality remains the law of the land for same-sex couples.”

Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson released the following statement:

“Today, love won again. When public officials take an oath to serve their communities, that promise extends to everyone — including LGBTQ+ people. The Supreme Court made clear today that refusing to respect the constitutional rights of others does not come without consequences.

Thanks to the hard work of HRC and so many, marriage equality remains the law of the land through Obergefell v. Hodges and the Respect for Marriage Act. Even so, we must remain vigilant.

It’s no secret that there are many in power right now working to undermine our freedoms — including marriage equality — and attack the dignity of our community any chance they get. Last week, voters rejected the politics of fear, division, and hate, and chose leaders who believe in fairness, freedom, and the future. In race after race, the American people rejected anti-transgender attacks and made history electing pro-equality candidates up and down the ballot.

And from California to Virginia to New Jersey to New York City, LGBTQ+ voters and Equality Voters made the winning difference. We will never relent and will not stop fighting until all of us are free.”

This story is developing and will be updated as more information becomes available.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the nation’s first and only female speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and a lifelong LGBTQ+ ally, announced Thursday that she will not seek re-election next year, after 38 years in Congress, many of them as House party leader.

“I have truly loved serving as your voice in Congress, and I have always honored the song of St. Francis, ‘Lord make an instrument of thy peace,’ the anthem of our city. That is why I want you, my fellow San Franciscans, to be the first to know. I will not be seeking reelection to Congress,” Pelosi, 85, announced in a video.

Thank you, San Francisco. pic.twitter.com/OP8ubeFzR6

— Nancy Pelosi (@TeamPelosi) November 6, 2025

Pelosi has represented San Francisco in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1987.

Her time in Congress began with the AIDS crisis, and she has kept up the fight ever since, as the Washington Blade reported in an exclusive and wide-ranging 2023 interview conducted just after she left House leadership. 

Some excerpts from that interview:

“After committing herself and Congress to the fight against HIV/AIDS during her first speech from the floor of the House in 1987, Pelosi said some of her colleagues asked whether she thought it wise for her feelings on the subject to be “the first thing that people know about you” as a newly elected member.

“They questioned her decision not because they harbored any stigma, but rather for concern over how “others might view my service here,” Pelosi said. The battle against HIV/AIDS, she told them, “is why I came here.”

“It was every single day,” she said. 

“Alongside the “big money for research, treatment, and prevention” were other significant legislative accomplishments, such as “when we] were able to get Medicaid to treat HIV [patients] as Medicaid-eligible” rather than requiring them to wait until their disease had progressed to full-blown AIDS to qualify for coverage, said Pelosi, who authored the legislation.

“That was a very big deal for two reasons,” she said. First, because it saved lives by allowing low-income Americans living with HIV to begin treatment before the condition becomes life-threatening, and second, because “it was the recognition that we had this responsibility to intervene early.”

“Other milestones in which Pelosi had a hand include the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS program, President Bush’s PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief) initiative, the Affordable Care Act (which contains significant benefits for Americans living with HIV/AIDS), and funding for the Ending the Epidemic initiative. 

“Outside the U.S. Capitol building, Pelosi has also been celebrated by the LGBTQ community for signaling her support through, for example, her participation in some of the earliest meetings of the NAMES Project AIDS Memorial Quilt, her meeting with the survivors of the 2016 Pulse nightclub massacre, and her appearance at a host of LGBTQ events over the years.  

“Of course, at the same time, Pelosi has been a constant target of attacks from the right, which in the past few years have become increasingly violent. During the siege of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, her office was ransacked by insurrectionists who shouted violent threats against her. A couple of weeks later, unearthed social media posts by far-right Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.) revealed she had signaled support for executing Pelosi along with other prominent House Democrats. And last October, the speaker’s husband Paul Pelosi suffered critical injuries after he was attacked by a man wielding a hammer who had broken into the couple’s San Francisco home. 

“Pelosi told CNN last week that her husband is “doing OK,” but expects it will “take a little while for him to be back to normal.”

“Among her fans in progressive circles, Pelosi – who has been a towering figure in American politics since the Bush administration – has become something of a cultural icon, as well. For instance, the image of her clapping after Trump’s State of the Union speech in 2019 has been emblazoned on coffee mugs.

“What is so funny about it,” Pelosi said, is rather than “that work [over] all these years as a legislator,” on matters including the “Affordable Care Act, millions of people getting health care, what we did over the years with HIV/AIDS in terms of legislation, this or that,” people instead have made much ado over her manner of clapping after Trump’s speech. And while the move was widely seen as antagonistic, Pelosi insisted, “it was not intended to be a negative thing.” 

“Regardless, she said, “it’s nice to have some fun about it, because you’re putting up with the criticism all the time – on issues, whether it’s about LGBTQ, or being a woman, or being from San Francisco, or whatever it is.” 

Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson in a statement said there “will never be another Nancy Pelosi.”

“Throughout her career, Speaker Emerita Pelosi has remained a tireless champion for LGBTQ+ equality and worked alongside LGBTQ+ advocates to pass historic legislation that expanded access to health care, protected marriage equality, honored Matthew Shepard with federal hate crimes protections and ended ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” said Robinson. “Her steel spine, allyship and keen insight have served as powerful tools in our shared fight for progress and we are grateful for her unwavering commitment to our community.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) described Pelosi as an “iconic, heroic, trailblazing, legendary, and transformational leader” who is “the greatest speaker of all time.” President Donald Trump, for his part, told Peter Doocy that Pelosi’s retirement “is a great thing for America.”

“She was evil, corrupt, and only focused on bad things for our country. She was rapidly losing control of her party, and it was never coming back,” said Trump. “I’m very honored that she impeached me twice and failed miserably twice. Nancy Pelosi is a highly overrated politician.”

Gay California Congressman Mark Takano in a statement said he will “miss” Pelosi “immensely.”

“At a time of extraordinary challenge and change, her leadership has been a constant,” said Takano. “She has guided our caucus and our country through some of our hardest moments. But her legacy reaches far beyond the landmark legislation she passed. It lives in the people she mentored, the values she imparted, and the example she set for every person who believes that politics can still be a force for good.”

Texas judges will now be permitted to refuse to officiate same-sex weddings based on their “sincerely held religious beliefs,” following a ruling issued Oct. 24 by the Texas Supreme Court.

The state’s highest court — composed entirely of Republican justices — determined that justices of the peace who decline to marry LGBTQ couples are not violating judicial impartiality rules and therefore cannot be sanctioned for doing so.

In its decision, the court approved an official comment to the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct clarifying that judges may opt out of performing weddings that conflict with their personal religious convictions. This clarification appears to directly conflict with existing provisions that prohibit judges from showing bias or prejudice toward individuals based on characteristics such as race, religion, or sexual orientation.

“It is not a violation of these canons for a judge to publicly refrain from performing a wedding ceremony based upon a sincerely held religious belief,” the court’s comment states.

The original code explicitly bars judges from showing favoritism or discrimination, declaring that they must not “manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.”

The case traces back to McLennan County Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley, who was publicly reprimanded in 2019 after refusing to marry same-sex couples while continuing to perform ceremonies for heterosexual ones, the Texan reported.

The State Commission on Judicial Conduct found that her actions cast doubt on her ability to act impartially, but Hensley has spent the past six years challenging that reprimand in court, arguing that she was punished for adhering to her Christian beliefs.

In a statement responding to the Oct. 24 ruling, Texas House LGBTQ Caucus Chair Jessica González expressed disappointment with the decision.

“The Texas House LGBTQ Caucus is disappointed, but not surprised, to learn that the Texas Supreme Court is not willing to stand up for the rights of LGBTQIA+ Texans,” she said. “Our right to marriage should never depend on someone else’s religious beliefs. This change in the Judicial Conduct Code will only further erode civil rights in Texas.”

The Texas Supreme Court is also currently reviewing a related matter referred by the 5th U.S. Court of Appeals. That case involves another judge, Keith Umphress, who similarly refused to perform same-sex weddings for religious reasons. The 5th Circuit has asked the Texas justices to clarify whether the state’s judicial conduct code actually forbids judges from publicly declining to officiate same-sex weddings while continuing to perform ceremonies for straight couples — a question that could further define the boundaries between religious liberty and judicial impartiality in Texas.

The Trump-Vance administration is pushing to end all gender-affirming care for transgender youth, according to a new proposal from the Department of Health and Human Services.

Texts obtained by NPR show the proposed healthcare policy changes would prohibit federal Medicaid reimbursement for medical care provided to trans patients under 18, and would also prohibit reimbursement through the Children’s Health Insurance Program for patients under 19.

Another proposal found by NPR shows the administration is considering blocking all Medicaid and Medicare funding for any services at hospitals that provide pediatric gender-affirming care.

The proposals are set to be released in early November, according to NPR’s source from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation.

Nearly all medical associations in the U.S. support gender-affirming care for trans youth and have emphasized its importance for the mental health of trans young people.

These actions are consistent with the goals of the Trump-Vance administration. Days after being sworn into office, Trump signed an executive order stating that the U.S. “will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called ‘transition’ of a child from one sex to another.” The administration also ended a federal suicide prevention lifeline specifically for transgender youth and canceled hundreds of millions of dollars in scientific research funding related to LGBTQ people.

The anti-trans rhetoric the administration is pushing has become a major focus of its operations.

Officials have even blamed part of the government shutdown on Democrats’ support for gender-affirming care — or, as the Department of Agriculture’s website refers to it, “gender mutilation procedures.”

There are currently 27 states that ban gender-affirming care for trans youth, according to data collected by the Human Rights Campaign. This widespread push to police trans healthcare comes despite the relatively small number of trans-identifying youth, only about 724,000 individuals, or 3.3 percent of the U.S. population, according to the Willams Institute.

Many hospitals receive a large portion of their funding from Medicare, which would ultimately force them to stop providing this care in order to continue receiving federal dollars. That, Katie Keith, director of the Center for Health Policy and Law at Georgetown University, explained to NPR, would make it nearly impossible to access gender-affirming care — even at private hospitals and clinics.

“These rules would be a significant escalation in the Trump administration’s attack on access to transgender health care,” Keith said.

Ellen Kahn, senior vice president of equality programs at HRC, spoke out against the proposed policy changes, saying the decision to implement them would only hurt American families.

“This latest attempt to strip best-practice health care from trans young people would place parents and doctors in an impossible position in service of the far-right’s culture war on transgender people,” Kahn said in a statement. “Any proposed rule that would strip federal dollars from providers who dare to defy the administration’s political agenda by caring for trans youth would help no one, hurt countless families, and send a dangerous message that only the president himself — not doctors, not parents, not even you — can decide what health care you can access.”

A federal judge has ruled that federal anti-discrimination protections for transgender people in health care are unconstitutional, allowing legal discrimination in health care against trans individuals in the U.S.

Judge Louis Guirola, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi sided with a coalition of 15 GOP-led states that sued over the rule, which broadened sex discrimination to include sexual orientation and gender identity in health care, the Hill reported.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services “exceeded its authority by implementing regulations redefining sex discrimination and prohibiting gender identity discrimination,” Guirola wrote.

The expanded definition of sex discrimination to include sexual orientation and gender identity was part of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act. The Biden-Harris administration implemented it to strengthen protections against health care discrimination for LGBTQ people. It previously prevented discrimination in health care services, insurance coverage, and program participation.

This is not the first time such protections have faced legal challenges. In 2016, the Obama-Biden administration advanced similar rules to prevent health care providers from denying services — particularly gender-affirming care — that they would otherwise offer to other patients.

During President Donald Trump’s first term, those protections were reversed when his administration redefined Title IX protections to apply only to race, color, national origin, “biological sex,” age, or disability — explicitly excluding trans people.

In 2024, the Biden-Harris administration reinstated these protections, only for them to be struck down by Republican-appointed Guirola.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti celebrated the ruling, saying in a statement, “This decision restores not just common sense but also constitutional limits on federal overreach, and I am proud of the team of excellent attorneys who fought this through to the finish.”

The decision comes as the U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments on banning so-called conversion therapy, and may soon take up a case involving the right to same-sex marriage.

A new ad paints Democratic Virginia gubernatorial candidate Abigail Spanberger “as extreme as it gets” because of her stance on transgender rights.

Restoration of America PAC, a collection of conservative groups, funded the 30-second spot. It claims that Spanberger supports allowing “boys to play girls sports and shower in girls locker rooms … naked,” “horrifying gender mutilation reversal,” and “irreversible sterilization of children.”

The ad then argues Spanberger “refuses to answer questions about this because she knows how evil it is.”

When asked if she would support a bill that would allow trans women to use bathrooms and to play on sports teams consistent with their gender identity, Spanberger told WSET in Roanoke last month that she would “support a bill that would put clear provisions in place that provide a lot of local ability for input.”

Spanberger is running against Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears, a Republican “morally opposed” to marriage equality, to succeed Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin.

Equality Virginia Advocates, an organization that works alongside Equality Virginia, aims to advance equality for LGBTQ+ Virginians through advocacy and public policy. Executive Director Narissa Rahaman described the ad as “poorly recycled scapegoating” pulled from the “Trump 2024 playbook.”

“We need leaders focused on combating the everyday challenges facing Virginians across the commonwealth, not manufacturing culture war issues to encourage discrimination against our friends, families, and neighbors who happen to be transgender,” Rahaman said.

Rahaman added Equality Virginia PAC’s recent data shows 71 percent of the Earle-Sears campaign’s digital ad spending has been dedicated to ads against trans youth.

Earle-Sears has previously aired ads that claim Spanberger is for “they/them, not us,” echoing messaging the Trump-Vance campaign used to target former Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential race.

“The Virginia GOP is wasting millions villainizing a small part of the population while ignoring the real issues facing Virginians: unaffordable housing, rampant inflation, and federal job cuts,” Rahaman said.

Laurel Powell, communications director at the Human Rights Campaign, noted conservative groups have spent more than $230,000 on anti-trans ads in Virginia. She described the anti-trans advertisements as “dangerous, blatant lies created to exploit misinformation about the trans community.”

“Republicans are desperately trying to distract from their ongoing failure on issues facing Virginians — like the Republican-led government shutdown, the fallout from the disastrous tariff wars, and thousands of people being booted from their jobs to feed Donald Trump’s lust for political vengeance,” Powell said. “While they make life harder and more dangerous for transgender people, all Virginians are being robbed of the leadership they need and deserve.”

A Christian Newport University poll notes Virginia’s likely voters are focused on threats to democracy, inflation or cost of living, healthcare, and immigration as key issues for the upcoming election. The poll found likely voters said Spanberger would do a better job than Earle-Sears in handling trans-specific policy by 13 points.

Spanberger cosponsored and voted for the Equality Act three times, which would ban discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, sexual orientation in federal law. Earle-Sears, for her part, has previously misgendered state Sen. Danica Roem (D-Manassas) — the first openly trans statewide lawmaker in Virginia — during a floor debate and has made inaccurate claims about trans people at school board meetings.

Spanberger currently leads Earle-Sears by a 47.5-45.1 percent margin, according to a poll from Trafalgar Group, although the lead is within the poll’s 2.9 percent margin of error. Election Day is on Nov. 4.

Miss Major Griffin-Gracy, a nationally acclaimed organizer and activist for transgender people, the LGBTQ community, sex workers, and incarcerated people, died Oct. 13 at her home in Little Rock, Ark.

Her passing was announced by the Little Rock-based Griffin-Gracy Educational Retreat and Historical Center, also known as House of gg, a transgender support and services center she founded in 2019.

“Miss Major – known as ‘Mama’ to many – was a Black, trans activist who fought for more than 50 years for trans, gender nonconforming, and the LGB community, especially for Black trans women, trans women of color and those who have survived incarceration and police brutality,” the statement announcing her passing says.

“Major’s fierce commitment and intersectional approach to justice brought her to care directly for people with HIV/AIDS in New York in the early 1980s and later to drive San Francisco’s first mobile needle exchange,” the statement says.

It adds, “House of gg was born out of her dream to build a center that would empower, heal and be a safe haven for Black trans people and movement leaders in the Southern U.S. – a space for our community to take a break, swim, enjoy good food, laugh, listen to music, watch movies, and recharge for the ongoing fight for our lives.”

A Wikipedia write up on Griffin-Gracy says she was born and raised in Chicago and came out as trans in the late 1950s. It says her parents were not accepting of her gender identity, prompting her to leave home at a young age and work for a while as a showgirl at the Jewel Box Revue theater in Chicago before moving to New York.

In a 2014 interview with the Bay Area Reporter, she said that after moving to New York in the 1960s she became a regular patron of the Stonewall Inn gay bar, at which trans women were known to gather. She said she was there at the time of the 1969 police raid that triggered the Stonewall rebellion when patrons fought police in the historic action credited with starting the modern-day LGBTQ rights movement.

Griffin-Gracy began work in community services, including services for trans women, after moving to San Diego in 1978, according to the Wikipedia write-up, and later performed home health care work during the early years of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s. 

It says she moved to San Francisco in the 1990s and worked with multiple HIV/AIDS organizations, including the Tenderloin AIDS Resource Center. In 2004, she began work at the San Francisco-based Transgender Gender Variant Intersex Justice Project (TGIJP) and later became executive director of the organization. The organization provides support services for trans, gender variant, and intersex people in prisons.

Shortly before traveling to Chicago in 2024 to attend the Democratic National Convention as an honored guest of the National LGBTQ+ Task Force Action Fund, Griffin-Gracy participated in an interview with the Washington Blade via Zoom from her home In Little Rock. Among other things, she told of her support for Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris against Donald Trump  in the 2024 presidential election.

“I plan on going to every place Trump goes and speak to the tender loving people in those places and tell them what a liar he is and how insane he is and that they just shouldn’t vote for him,” she told the Blade.

Among those praising Griffin-Gracy’s work and lamenting her passing was David Johns, CEO and executive director of the D.C.-based LGBTQ advocacy group National Black Justice Collective.

“Her pioneering work to center and uplift Black trans women, particularly those who have been incarcerated and faced police brutality, made space for the most powerful and most marginalized members of our community and set the foundation for the freedom work so many of us continue today,” Johns said in a statement.

“At a time when the rights and dignity of trans people are again under relentless attack, Miss Major’s life reminds us of what it means to persevere in the fight for equality that all LGBTQ+/same gender loving (SGL) people can live freely an authentically,” Johns said in his statement.” Her spirit  will continue to guide us as we fight for a world where every Black trans person can thrive and live a joy-filled life.”

An excerpt from the Blade’s August 2024 interview and profile of Griffin-Gracy follows:

Those who are familiar with Miss Major’s brand of activism might be surprised by her work with the Task Force Action Fund, her appearance at the DNC, and perhaps especially her commitment to criss-crossing the country to talk voters out of supporting Donald Trump and into supporting Vice President Kamala Harris’s historic bid for the White House.

As shown in “Major!” the 2015 documentary about her life, and a 2023 memoir comprised of interviews with journalist Toshio Meronek called “Miss Major Speaks: Conversations with a Black Trans Revolutionary,” the activist’s foremost concerns have always been centered around providing for her trans brothers and sisters.

Her work on this front is never ending: [Griffin-Gracy’s assistant Muriel] Tarver gave the Blade a virtual tour of Miss Major’s property, which she has used as a refuge for trans folks who are free to stay and relax on the well-kept grounds, which are complete with a guest house and a pool.

Where she may have sidestepped electoral politics in the past, however, there is “so much happening to whereby you had to get involved in it now,” Miss Major said. “But before it was just — my community has suffered so bad for so long, so often, that you’ve got to do something to help them navigate the bullshit that goes on in the world.”

This usually means ensuring that basic needs are met. “And I don’t feel as if politics helps that,” she said, because “it’s got to be people and the relationships you build and what you build together with another person that makes it better.”

Miss Major added, “I want things to be better for all of us. You know, transgender and non transgender people.” And as society has begun to make space for those with non-cisgender identities, the backlash has been vicious. “They’re so afraid of opening up to us,” she said.

When it comes to political candidates, she said, “As an ordinary person, you know, I’m concerned about food and gas and clothing and shit like that. And, you know, who else cares about this? I need to know the person who’s in charge cares and is going to do something to alleviate the stress on me to get it.”

By the time President Joe Biden announced his decision to step aside on July 21 — well before that pivotal moment, Tarver stressed — Miss Major and the Task Force Action Fund were ready to spring into action.

“It was quite a service act that he did for the country,” Miss Major said. “Because I really believe that he could have gone further, but he just didn’t have what it took. And so when he stepped out and made her the nominee, he invigorated, and he poured such joy to this country, and hope, and belief that it can be done, that [Trump] can be stopped.”

“As we all heard about the potential for Biden stepping down and putting aside his personal and political interests for the sake of democracy, which is a pretty historical and brave thing, we all wanted to be ready to respond to what would happen,” Task Force Action Fund Communications Director Cathy Renna told the Blade by phone.

Issuing a joint endorsement of Harris was historic for both Miss Major and the Task Force Action Fund, Renna said. “We have not endorsed anyone since Jimmy Carter, which was shortly after our founding, right? So, we’re talking about almost 50 years ago.”

“We wanted a bold choice,” she said, “and we also understand what’s at stake in this election.”

Miss Major sees the contrast between the two candidates as clear and compelling; the difference between sanity and insanity, competence and chaos. “Do you want someone who lies to you? Or do you what someone who tells the truth?”

Trump spreads filth and disorder like the character from Charles M. Schulz’s “Peanuts” comic strip who is perpetually surrounded by a cloud of dust and detritus, she said.

Harris, on the other hand, represents the future. “She’s breaking the ceiling. There’s a glass ceiling. And when she breaks through, she’s gonna go on,” Miss Major said. “And after this, something like 10s of 1000s of people are gonna go through that, too. It’s just going to be phenomenal.”

(Christopher Kane contributed to this report.)

The Supreme Court’s new term begins this week, with multiple cases on the docket that could have serious consequences for the civil rights of the LGBTQ community.

Many issues are being debated this term, including the scope of civil rights protections under the Equal Protection Clause, Title IX, and the Voting Rights Act—all of which could leave LGBTQ Americans less protected.

This Supreme Court is different from years past. Its right-wing supermajority is utilizing a more activist approach to legal interpretation—siding more often with President Trump’s preferred interpretation of laws rather than a more constitutional evaluation. One Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, even went so far as to publicly state he has a problem with the way judges are restricted by past decisions, saying he is against the concept of stare decisis (or sticking to prior judges’ decisions) and that they are “not the gospel.”

There are three major cases that in some way impact—or have the possibility of impacting—the rights of LGBTQ Americans: West Virginia v. B.P.J., Little v. Hecox, and Chiles v. Salazar. The first two deal with the rights of transgender girls participating in sports. The last one, Chiles v. Salazar, centers around the legality of banning conversion therapy.

West Virginia v. B.P.J.

In West Virginia v. B.P.J., a transgender girl, known as B.P.J., takes gender-affirming medication and has since the onset of puberty. She wants to compete on her school’s cross-country and track teams. In 2021, West Virginia passed the “Save Women’s Sports Act,” which requires public school and collegiate sports teams to designate their players’ genders by “biological sex” rather than gender identity.

In this case, the Court will determine whether this act violates Title IX—a federal law prohibiting discrimination based on sex in education or any institution that receives federal funding—or the Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits unfair and unequal discrimination, by requiring B.P.J. to be on a team based on her biological sex.

As Joshua Block, senior counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) LGBT & HIV Project, explained, “In terms of the legal issues before the court, the West Virginia case presents both the Title IX issue and the equal protection issue.” He also highlighted the broader impact: “Some of the lower courts are actually holding their cases pending BPJ, the Seventh Circuit recently did that in one of their restroom cases.”

Little v. Hecox

In Little v. Hecox, the Court will similarly evaluate the legality of Idaho’s transgender sports law—the “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act,” which, since its passage in 2020, has barred any transgender girls from participating on public school-affiliated sports teams. There is specific wording in the law that says the hormones present in transgender women, regardless of their stage of transition, make them predisposed to winning and create an unfair playing field—even if transgender people take Gender-Affirming Hormone Therapy (GAHT).

Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman and student at Boise State University, attempted to join the school’s cross-country team but was denied, with the school citing that her participation violates the law. Hecox, along with a cisgender high school athlete identified in court documents as Jane Doe, filed a suit arguing that the “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act” violated both of their constitutional rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Block noted during the briefing, “Lindsay, unlike BPJ, is a young woman in college, and she has not had blockers. She suppressed testosterone after puberty at the same time, as I mentioned, she was not, frankly, good enough to make the team, and has just been playing club sports.” Regarding procedural concerns, he added, “Unlike other cases where a party has sought to insulate a favorable judgment from review, we obviously think the decision below needs to be vacated because it’s moot.”

Block went on to spotlight that both West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox are clearly supported by Title IX, using the Court’s decision in 2020 in Bostock v. Clayton County as the basis. In that case, the Court found that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects not only on the basis of sex and race, but also on sexual orientation and gender identity.

“There’s obviously an overlap on the question of whether, as a general matter, the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Bostock applies to Title IX,” Block said. “Bostock says you can’t fire someone for being transgender. I think it should go without saying that a school principal can’t expel someone for being transgender either. Despite that, the states are trying to argue that Bostock doesn’t apply to Title IX at all.”

Chiles v. Salazar

While West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox examine Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, Chiles v. Salazar evaluates the legality of a Colorado House Act banning conversion therapy under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The Free Speech Clause has five parts, but this case focuses on the right to practice the religion of one’s choosing and the provision that the state may not establish a religion. Conversion therapy is defined in this case as any practice that “changes behaviors or gender expressions or seeks to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”

In Chiles v. Salazar, Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor who identifies as a Christian, has argued that HB19-1129, also known as the “Prohibit Conversion Therapy for a Minor Act,” violates her First Amendment rights. Chiles practices “faith-informed” counseling that seeks to “reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors, or grow in the experience of harmony with [their] physical body.” She brought forward a pre-enforcement lawsuit against the state, arguing that the law has made her refrain from discussing possible gender- and sexuality-related topics with her clients and has dampened her ability to provide counseling services in line with her and her clients’ religious preferences.

Josh Rovenger, the legal director at GLAD Law, an LGBTQ+ legal services and civil rights organization, explained what Chiles v. Salazar could mean for the future of LGBTQ rights in America.

“Fundamentally, what’s at stake… is whether a state like Colorado and the 23 other states, plus the District of Columbia that have similar laws have the ability to protect LGBTQ plus youth from disproven conversion therapy practices that cause lasting trauma to the individuals, their families, and entire communities.”

He went on, explaining that the scope of the law is so specific that the plaintiff’s concerns may not apply.

“The law here is really quite narrow, aimed at a very specific, specific prohibition, and a lot of the activities that the plaintiff says that she wants to engage in, as Colorado points out in its brief, just aren’t covered by the law,” Rovenger said. In addition, he added there are multiple states that have banned the practice of conversion therapy with little issue. “Multiple states which have bipartisan laws that were passed with widespread support, including support from religious communities, would potentially be invalidated as a result of that type of decision, and that would be overruling an overwhelming medical consensus about the evidence of conversion therapy practice harms.”

As GLAAD noted in a press release, “Every major medical and mental health association in the country condemns the practice and supports efforts to prevent practitioners from violating their oath to do no harm.”

The Bigger Picture

These cases, Rovenger explained, don’t collectively signal that the Supreme Court will side in one particular way, but rather that some of the justices are interested in the cases.

“The first is the fact that they took these cases only means that four justices were interested in hearing them,” Rovenger said. “It does not tell us anything about where they’re going to come out on the cases ultimately. And there was no reason for the court to take either of or any of these cases.”

Rovenger, who served as Associate Counsel to President Biden in the White House for Racial Justice & Equity, went on, emphasizing the importance of the broader political context in this legal targeting of trans kids.

“Before 2020, decisions about sports were being left to school districts and sports organizations, the people who know these issues best… And then in 2020 we saw trans issues more generally, but sports in particular, being used as a wedge issue and a weapon to further a political agenda,” he said. “Since the beginning of 2025 that has been on steroids from the federal administration, which has really targeted transgender individuals, generally, and transgender kids who just want the opportunity to play school sports for the same reason other kids do — to be part of a team where they feel like they belong.”

He continued, saying that these cases would mostly impact some of the most vulnerable LGBTQ population—LGBTQ youth.

“These cases are going to have significant implications for LGBTQ youth, for LGBTQ individuals more generally, for school environments, for the ability of states to protect LGBTQ youth from discredited medical practices. And so when we think about the day-to-day experience of LGBTQ folks in this country, particularly youth, these cases will have a direct impact on those lived experiences.”

A fourth case concerns marriage equality and a decade-old effort by former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis to overturn the Obergefell ruling. Legal experts have called the effort a long shot. Justices will likely decide whether to hear the case later this fall.

Three military families sued the Department of Defense on Monday after President Trump’s anti-transgender policies barred their transgender adolescent and adult children from accessing essential gender-affirming medical care.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, challenges the legality of the Trump administration’s decision to ban coverage of any transgender-related medical care under Department of Defense health insurance plans.

Under the new directive, military clinics and hospitals are prohibited from providing continuing care to transgender adolescent and adult children. It also prevents TRICARE, the military’s health insurance program, from covering the costs of gender-affirming care for both transgender youth and young adults, regardless of where that care is received.

A press release from the families’ attorney explained that the plaintiffs are proceeding under pseudonyms to protect their safety and privacy. They are represented by GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law), the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP, and Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP.

“This is a sweeping reversal of military health policy and a betrayal of military families who have sacrificed for our country,” said Sarah Austin, Staff Attorney at GLAD Law. “When a servicemember is deployed and focused on the mission they deserve to know their family is taken care of. This Administration has backtracked on that core promise and put servicemembers at risk of losing access to health care their children desperately need.”

“President Trump has illegally overstepped his authority by abruptly cutting off necessary medical care for military families,” said Shannon Minter, Legal Director at NCLR. “This lawless directive is part of a dangerous pattern of this administration ignoring legal requirements and abandoning our servicemembers.”

“President Trump’s Executive Order blocks military hospitals from giving transgender youth the care their doctors deem necessary and their parents have approved,” said Sharif Jacob, partner at Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP. “Today we filed a lawsuit to put an end to his order, and the agency guidance implementing it.”

“This administration is unlawfully targeting military families by denying essential care to their transgender children,” said Liam Brown, an associate with Keker, Van Nest & Peters. “We will not stand by while those who serve are stripped of the ability to care for their families.”