Multiple organizations — including Equality California, the nation’s largest statewide LGBTQ+ civil rights organization — condemned a recent string of political ads targeting West Hollywood councilmember John Erickson.

The political ad was mailed out to voters, with AI-generated photos of Erickson. One ad portrays a photo of Erickson, depicted leisurely in Paris with the phrase “John Erickson: Where public service meets room service.”

On the flyer, claims were made saying that Erickson “used taxpayer dollars to fund a trip to Paris,” implying he was there on vacation and or mismanaging funds.

In a joint statement with the Los Angeles County LGBTQ+ Elected Officials, the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, and the nonpartisan political organization HONOR PAC, Equality California said these ads “have raised serious concerns within the LGBTQ+ community for relying on imagery and stereotypes that evoke harmful anti-LGBTQ+ tropes.”

“Whether intentional or inadvertent, these tactics cause real harm and contribute to a broader climate in which LGBTQ+ people are increasingly being targeted and attacked across the country for who they are,” the statement continued.

Senate District 24, which Erickson is running for, is “among the most LGBTQ+ voters in California,” according to the statement.

“These tactics feel especially harmful and out of touch with a deeply inclusive district,” a portion of the statement said. “We demand that all candidates and committees in this and other races throughout California carefully review these materials and take meaningful steps to ensure future communications reflect the values of dignity, inclusion, and respect.”

The flyer was paid for by Keep California Golden, a coalition of “industry associations, labor unions, and businesses,” according to its website.

Beyond a paragraph as a description and a list of top donors being the California Association of Realtors, California Correctional Peace Officers Association, and California Building Industry Association, the website for Keep California Golden is blank.

On both the physical ads and website, a note says that the ads were “not authorized by a candidate or a committee controlled by a candidate.”

Additional AI political ad / Distributed by Keep California Golden

Keep California Golden has been around since 2017, but didn’t start receiving significant contributions until quarter 2 of 2018, according to Transparency USA, which tracks data on money in state politics.

Its second and third highest expenditures are to the U.S. Postal Service and Red Printing and Mail, at $411,431 and $218,600, respectively, according to Transparency USA.

Erickson’s trips referenced in the flyer were approved by the city council in a public council meeting, were unanimously approved, and went through proper channels, he told the Los Angeles Blade. 

Erickson was elected to the West Hollywood City Council in 2020 and was reelected in 2024. This is his first run for the California Senate, where he’s running for the District 24 seat.

“They’re distorting the facts to make it seem like I’m one person, but in reality, they’re doing it because they’re afraid of what I actually am going to offer,” Erickson said.

His trips were official business, he said, one of which was a trip to meet the late Pope Francis as a West Hollywood representative, for a program that Los Angeles County and the city co-sponsored to foster youth civic engagement through sports.

The ads referenced another approved trip to the most recent Paris Olympics. West Hollywood is hosting Pride House, a housing village for LGBTQ+ Olympians during the upcoming 2028 Olympics.

“We have people here in California that are not only trying to further harm the LGBTQ+ community, but then spending millions of dollars to push it out to voters to mislead them,” Erickson added. “Even here in West Hollywood, we still face homophobia.”

He called the ads “disgusting and reprehensible,” but said he was honored that the community is standing behind him and pushing back.

“Billionaires are spending money against a candidate whom they are deeply afraid of,” Erickson said. “I’m out there calling to tax the billionaires and the corporations to pay their fair share to fund education, health care, social services… and they’re afraid of me, because I’m also supported and endorsed by the California Federation of Labor.”

He feels the ads are aiming to weaken him as a candidate due to his strong labor ties, as a former labor union president, and endorsements by multiple labor unions.

This is also part of a trend of attacking LGBTQ+ rights and existence, he said.

“This is how we’re engaging in politics at a time where LGBTQ+ people are so attacked in every way, shape, and form,” Erickson said. “In states like Kansas and other places, transgender individuals aren’t even able to get a driver’s license. Internationally, Senegal just increased the penalties for LGBTQ+ people to 10 years in prison.”

Whatever the reason, Erickson worries for future openly LGBTQ+ political leaders aiming to make a larger change in higher offices.

“More people need to be aware of how this impacts other LGBTQ+ elected officials or who might want to consider running for office,” Erickson said. “Those are the things that I’m most concerned about, because an attack on me as an out LGBTQ+ elected official is an attack on everyone.”

“Why would someone else want to put themselves up for the scrutiny of running, if all they’re going to do is get lied and distorted about? I think it does more harm to LGBTQ people than we actually know,” he added.

For a while, it seemed that Scott Wiener, a gay California state senator, would be a shoo-in to succeed Nancy Pelosi in the state’s 11^th Congressional District. But Monday, 15 days before the June 2 primary election, Pelosi threw a wrench into the race by endorsing one of his rivals, San Francisco Supervisor Connie Chan.

Wiener remains ahead in the polls; he, Chan, and former software engineer and congressional staffer Saikat Chakrabarti are the leading candidates in the race. They are among eight Democrats running, along with one Republican and one candidate declaring no party preference. In California’s primary system, the two top vote recipients in the primary advance to the general election, regardless of party. The district is heavily Democratic.

Pelosi is retiring after representing the district, which covers all of San Francisco, since 1987. In endorsing Chan, Pelosi said in a video, “She’s a mom who knows her power and knows her why. She has fought tirelessly to rebuild our middle class, strengthen our safety net, and protect our rights.” She also called Chan “the leader best prepared to carry forward the fight for San Francisco in the Congress of the United States.”

Wiener released a statement on the endorsement, saying, “I have tremendous respect for Speaker Emerita Pelosi and deep gratitude for everything she has done for our city and our country. Whoever wins in November will have giant stilettos to fill.” To the San Francisco Chronicle, he added, “I think it’s been crystal clear that I would be honored to have her endorsement, and I respect that she has made a choice, and that is entirely her choice to make, and that she’s made a choice.”

“There’s no longstanding disagreement nor any personal animus behind Pelosi’s decision,” political columnist Joe Garofoli wrote in the Chronicle. But Pelosi “bristled” when Wiener announced his candidacy for the seat last year, before she confirmed that she wouldn’t run again, Garofoli noted. She and Chan are also close allies of organized labor, although Wiener has significant labor support as well. And Pelosi, the first woman to be speaker of the U.S. House, often supports women for public office and urges them to “know their why”—why they’re running.

In a poll this month by the Chronicle, 40 percent of likely voters supported or were leaning toward Wiener, while 18 percent chose Chan and 17 percent preferred Chakrabarti. So Pelosi’s endorsement may not push Chan ahead of Wiener, but it may push her ahead of Chakrabarti, setting up Chan and Wiener to face off in the general election, according to Garofoli.

“This endorsement is more than an adrenaline shot in the arm for Chan’s campaign,” David McCuan, a professor of political science at Sonoma State University, told the columnist.

But Pelosi has not always backed winners. Last year, she called California Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis a particularly great candidate for governor, but Kounalakis soon dropped out of the crowded race. Some of the San Francisco supervisors she’s supported have won their elections, and some have not. She did endorse then-Congressman Adam Schiff for U.S. senator from California in 2024, and he won. Pelosi remains popular in San Francisco, though some constituents wish she had stepped aside earlier in favor of younger pols.

Schiff has endorsed Chan in the 11^th District race, along with many high-profile politicians and activists, such as Congresswoman Judy Chu, former San Francisco Mayors Willie Brown and Art Agnos, former California Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (a gay man), and veteran gay activist Cleve Jones. She has also been endorsed by the Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club, which praises her as a champion of the working class.

Wiener has the endorsement of the California Democratic Party and many LGBTQ+ groups, including the Human Rights Campaign PAC, the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, Equality California, Equality PAC, and the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus. He has been endorsed by The Bay Area Reporter, San Francisco’s largest LGBTQ+ publication, as well.

Both Chan and Chakrabarti have positioned themselves to the left of Wiener, who “would be identified as pretty far to the left in most places; in San Francisco, he’s deemed a moderate,” Mother Jones noted. The three share many positions—support for LGBTQ+ rights, opposition to Donald Trump’s brutal treatment of immigrants, and condemnation of his cuts to many federal programs. They differ on new state taxes on the wealthiest residents, with Wiener opposed and Chan and Chakrabarti in support. Wiener does want to reverse Trump’s federal tax cuts for the rich.

However, the biggest problem facing San Francisco is a shortage of housing, at least housing that middle- and working-class people can afford. The three leading candidates have ideas to address that, but they differ on details. Wiener has pushed for more housing for residents of all income levels and for loosening regulations as an incentive to build. Chan opposes deregulation and says the focus should be on “housing that working people can afford,” she recently told local publication The Frisc. Chakrabarti is friendlier to deregulation and has proposed a public national bank to finance housing.

As a state senator, Wiener has put forth several bills calling for the construction of high-density housing near public transit, including in areas where such buildings were not previously allowed; he finally got one passed and signed into law in 2025, and it goes into effect July 1. Previous bills had drawn opposition from those who wanted to keep their neighborhoods exclusive to single-family homes, as well as from groups worried that the new construction would push out low-income residents. The law’s effective date could be delayed because of confusion over how to implement it; Wiener told Politico he’s open to that if it’s based on “good-faith feedback.”

Wiener was involved in another controversy recently, this one over the war in Gaza. At a candidates’ forum in January, he stayed silent when asked if Israel’s actions in the region constituted genocide, while Chan and Chakrabarti had said yes. Less than a week later, he shifted positions, saying the term was appropriate. Criticism from his fellow Jews then led him to resign as co-chair of the California Legislative Jewish Caucus. He went on to call Israel’s government an “abomination” that “is making Israelis less safe,” as quoted by The American Prospect.

A bit more about each candidate: Wiener was first elected to the California Senate in 2016. He previously represented Harvey Milk’s district on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, S.F.’s city council, and before that, practiced law. In the Senate, his persistence has annoyed some colleagues, but he has said it means he gets things done. Chan is a first-generation immigrant, having been born in Hong Kong and coming to the U.S. at age 13. She was an employee in several city departments, including a stint as an aide to then-District Attorney Kamala Harris, before her election as a supervisor. Chakrabarti amassed a fortune with Stripe, a payment processing company, and has put millions into his campaign. He was briefly chief of staff to U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York but offended many in Washington with his criticism that mainstream Democrats weren’t doing enough to fight Trump.

The hard-fought primary campaign will come to a head June 2—but expect another hard-fought campaign leading up to November.

Written by Trudy King, this is a cross-post from Karen Ocamb’s LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters Substack.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a federal “Don’t Say Trans” bill on Wednesday, attempting to force teachers to out transgender students nationwide.

The bill, House Resolution 2616, also called the “Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act,” would require schools to get parental consent before allowing students to use their preferred, rather than originally assigned, gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form, and to use any sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms.

The bill amends Section 8526 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, legislation that allows for federal aid to help elementary and secondary education programs — particularly those under its lowest-income Title I-A program — to stop allocating funds to any education that teaches concepts “related to gender ideology.”

This is directly related to Executive Order 14168, also known as the “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” order, one of President Donald Trump’s first executive orders of his second term. It requires the federal government to recognize only sex assigned at birth and dismiss gender identity rather than sex.

The bill was sponsored by U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) and passed by a 217-198 margin. The vote fell mostly along party lines; however, eight Democrats voted for its passage. They were U.S. Reps. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), Donald Davis (D-N.C.), Cleo Fields (D-La.), Laura Gillen (D-N.Y.), Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas), Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.), and Eugene Vindman (D-Va.).

Proponents of the bill argue a child’s gender identity should be directed by parents at home rather than in public schools.

Critics say this is dangerous and will force students to be outed by their teachers to parents — some of whom may not be supportive of their gender identity — which could lead to violence or possibly conversion therapy.

California Congressman Mark Takano, chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, spoke on the House floor while the bill was being debated.

“Republicans claim to be the party of small government, but they have no problem bringing the full force of the federal government down against children. The GOP thinks they can legislate transgender people out of existence with this inhumane Don’t Say Trans bill, but all they’re doing is making life worse for a small minority of already-vulnerable children,” Takano said. “I spent 24 years as an educator where I worked with hundreds of high school students and their parents. Most children go to their parents when they need help or are struggling — including transgender children — but not all parents are accepting. The forced outing provision of this bill puts teachers in an impossible situation by requiring them to out trans kids to their parents in certain situations — even if the teacher knows the student will likely face physical abuse. Students like these are who Republicans want to put in immediate physical danger with this bill.”

The Los Angeles Blade talked to Tyler Heck, founder and executive director of the trans advocacy organization and Christopher Street Project PAC, following the bill’s passage.

“Most queer kids go to their families when they are figuring out who they are, and then not all queer kids have that option,” Heck told the Blade. “If this became law, it would harm those already vulnerable kids who rely on school as a safe place and might not have a safe place at home.”

They explained this is not about protecting parents’ rights to know what is going on with their children, but rather the weaponization of trans identity that has become a mainstream Republican ideal pushed by the Trump-Vance administration.

“Young people deserve the space to figure out who they are without the federal government interfering in their lives,” they said. “It is beyond the pale, or rather it should be beyond the pale, and has become a norm for Republicans in Congress to villainize kids, because I mean, this bill targets kids, it’s in the name of the bill, and it’s in the implications.”

Heck continued, saying that amid the rising cost of everyday necessities — from gas to groceries — and while the Trump-Vance administration continues to defund programs intended to help the most vulnerable Americans while creating slush funds for political allies, this is not what Congress should be focusing on.

“At a time when people are really struggling, and politicians need to be focused on lowering costs, they’re using queer and trans kids as political pawns,” Heck said. “They want to divide and conquer this country, and we need to stand up against them and unite behind values of inclusion and of trust in our teachers.”

David Stacy, the Human Rights Campaign’s vice president of government affairs, provided a statement to the Blade.

“Trans kids are not a political agenda — they are students who deserve safety and affirmation at school like anyone else,” Stacy said. “Despite the many pressing issues facing our nation, House Republicans continue their bizarre obsession with trans people. HR 2616 does not protect children. It targets them. This bill is cruel, and we’ll continue to fight to ensure it never becomes law.”

The bill will move to the U.S. Senate in the coming days and weeks, but it must first be reviewed by a Senate committee before leadership schedules it for a floor vote, where it will need 60 votes to pass.

The Justice Department announced May 15 that it has reached a settlement with Texas Children’s Hospital, one of the nation’s top pediatric hospitals.

Under the agreement, the hospital will pay more than $10 million in damages and civil penalties related to its provision of gender-affirming care and will establish a clinic specializing in detransition care.

The DOJ partnered with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office to resolve allegations that the hospital submitted false billings to public and private insurers to secure coverage for pediatric gender-affirming procedures. The department alleges the conduct violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the False Claims Act, and federal fraud and conspiracy laws.

The settlement was reached out of court, meaning neither party formally admitted wrongdoing. Both the DOJ and Texas Children’s Hospital denied liability.

“The Justice Department will use every weapon at its disposal to end the destructive and discredited practice of so-called ‘gender-affirming care’ for children,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a DOJ press release. “Today’s resolution protects vulnerable children, holds providers accountable, and ensures those harmed receive the care they need.”

The DOJ’s hardline stance on gender-affirming care sharply contrasts with the positions of major medical organizations, transgender healthcare advocates, and human rights groups, which broadly support gender-affirming care as an evidence-based treatment for gender dysphoria.

Adrian Shanker, former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health Policy and Senior Advisor on LGBTQI+ Health Equity at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under during the Biden-Harris administration, told the Los Angeles Blade the settlement could have sweeping consequences for trans youth and healthcare providers nationwide.

“The Trump administration’s framing of gender-affirming care is wildly inaccurate, scientifically implausible, and frankly, just mean-spirited,” Shanker told the Blade. “What’s really clear is that the science hasn’t changed, the evidence hasn’t changed — it’s only the politics that have changed. Unfortunately, the people that lose out the most with a settlement like this one are the patients that are denied access to care where they live.”

According to Shanker, the agreement also requires Texas Children’s Hospital to revoke privileges for physicians involved in providing gender-affirming care, potentially limiting their ability to practice elsewhere.

“This is a weaponized Department of Justice doing absurd investigations against providers that are providing care within the established standard of care,” he said. “They’ve come up with an absurd remedy in their settlement to require a so-called ‘detransition clinic’ to open at Texas Children’s. It’s harmful to science, it’s harmful to trans people, and it’s harmful to the medical profession.”

Shanker argued the case reflects a broader politicization of trans healthcare.

“Every American should be concerned about the weaponized Department of Justice and their obsession with trans people and their access to care,” he said. “These hospitals that provide gender-affirming care, the providers of gender-affirming care, have done nothing wrong. They followed the standards of care that are well established and followed the mountain of evidence.”

Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of constitutional law practice at Lambda Legal, echoed those concerns.

“For Texas Children’s to capitulate to this pressure campaign of both Paxton and the Trump administration and end this care, and go after physicians who had been lawfully and faithfully taking care of their patients, it’s hard to see that as anything other than bending the knee in the face of political pressure,” Loewy told the Blade. “That’s not putting your mission above politics. Your mission is to provide health care for kids that need it.”

Loewy said the settlement reflects years of efforts by Paxton and the Trump-Vance administration to target gender-affirming care providers. Paxton has pursued investigations into providers across Texas since 2022 and supported a 2023 law banning gender-transition-related medical care for minors. Meanwhile, the Trump-Vance administration moved quickly in its second term to restrict trans healthcare access, including through Executive Order 14187, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.”

“This is a perfect storm of Ken Paxton’s own mission to stigmatize and target trans young people and their healthcare in Texas with the Trump administration’s targeting of trans people and gender-affirming medical care,” Loewy said. “It is the two of them together. Without that, you wouldn’t have had this settlement.”

Loewy also emphasized that the settlement is part of a broader legal strategy targeting providers nationwide.

“You can’t view this one in isolation from all of the other administrative subpoenas that have been sent to hospitals or other kinds of medical providers that have provided gender-affirming medical care to trans adolescents,” she said. “It is all part and parcel of the same direct line from the executive orders that were issued in the first days of this Trump administration.”

“Every court that has considered those subpoenas has found them illegitimate and issued for an improper purpose, or at least narrowed them really dramatically,” she added. “Courts agree these hospitals didn’t do anything wrong. It’s the DOJ that has the problem here.”

Shanker also criticized the settlement’s requirement that the hospital establish a detransition clinic, arguing the move contradicts existing medical evidence.

“The irony shouldn’t be lost on anyone that the Trump administration is claiming that gender-affirming care lacks a scientific basis, and then is requiring the opening of a so-called detransition clinic, which certainly lacks a scientific basis,” Shanker said. “There’s less than a 1% regret rate when it comes to gender-affirming care. That’s lower than knee surgery, lower than bariatric surgery, lower than childbirth, lower than breast reconstruction, and lower than tattoos.”

Loewy was similarly blunt in her criticism.

“This is the most craven, political, ridiculous elevation of ideology over evidence,” she said. “They are creating a program built on an outcome that almost never happens. It is unprecedented and politically mandated rather than healthcare mandated.”

She said the settlement’s broader effect will be to intimidate providers and further marginalize trans people.

“The real effect here is to further stigmatize trans people and intimidate healthcare providers,” she said. “This is about sending a message nationwide that the DOJ is coming after the doctors. These are committed, faithful, law-abiding physicians and healthcare providers who just want to provide the healthcare their patients actually need.”

Both Loewy and Shanker warned that restricting access to gender-affirming care could deepen health disparities for trans people.

“We know that when transgender Americans lack the care that they need, we end up with higher rates of depression, higher rates of anxiety, higher rates of self-harm and suicidal ideation,” Shanker said. “We know that gender-affirming care is a medically appropriate, scientifically grounded form of care that resolves these challenges and leads us toward health equity. It’s unfortunate that the Trump administration has politicized not only transgender medicine, but the very basis of public health.”

Shanker said the restrictions are already prompting some trans people to relocate in search of care.

“We’re already seeing medical refugees leave states that have restricted access to care to move to states where it’s still available,” he said. “Frankly, we’ve already seen some trans people go to other countries to receive care or maintain access to care.”

Loewy said the DOJ’s recent subpoenas targeting hospitals, including those issued to NYU Langone Health in New York, suggest the administration is escalating its legal strategy.

“We’ve seen the DOJ escalate this by convening a grand jury and issuing grand jury subpoenas to hospitals,” she said. “That is going to be the next front in this fight.”

In addition to , there has been as large increase in anti-trans legislation in the past few years — with 126 federal pieces of legislation introduced this year and 26 state level policies passed across the country.

Still, Loewy pointed to recent court victories as evidence that challenges to these policies can succeed.

“Just yesterday, a state court in Kansas struck down that state’s ban on gender-affirming medical care in one of the most meticulous recognitions of the medical consensus and the harm of denying care to trans young people,” she said. “When courts actually look at the science and the impacts on trans people, they still can rule the right way.”

Asked whether there is any optimism to be found amid the ongoing legal battles, Loewy said she continues to draw hope from advocates, families, and community organizers fighting back.

“The solidarity of the community is really what brings hope,” she said. “There are incredible lawyers, advocates, families, and organizations fighting every day to protect these kids and their privacy and safety. It is that community strength and collaborative effort that continues to give me hope.”

The man behind some of the strongest push against the Southern Poverty Law Center, who has an extensive anti-LGBTQ+ history, is being asked to speak before the House Judiciary Committee as part of its ongoing investigations into the nonprofit legal organization.

Last month, the Justice Department indicted the SPLC on 11 counts of wire fraud, false statements made to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit money laundering related to payments to informants.

The DOJ alleges the civil rights group defrauded donors by using their money to fund the extremist groups it claims to be fighting. It also alleges the SPLC used more than $3 million paid to informants through a now-defunct program designed to infiltrate white supremacist and other extremist organizations.

Since then, the House Judiciary Committee, which says its main goals are to “protect constitutional freedoms and civil liberties, provide oversight of the U.S. Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, and manage legal and regulatory matters” has launched its own investigation into the ongoing litigation against the civil rights organization and tapped far-right journalist Tyler O’Neil to speak on the matter on Wednesday.

O’Neil has worked for several outlets that advance far-right perspectives, including the Washington Free Beacon and Fox News, and is currently the senior editor at the Daily Signal.

The Daily Signal began as a newsletter for the conservative Heritage Foundation, which authored Project 2025, a policy blueprint for a second Trump administration that outlines expanded executive power, increased conservative control of federal agencies, reduced civil and human rights protections, and a vision of the U.S. as a Christian nationalist nation.

O’Neil has written extensively about progressive organizations — most notably the SPLC. He authored the book “Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center,” in which he argues that the organization’s “hate map,” which identifies extremist groups — including neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klan groups, and openly antisemitic organizations — is “an organ of disinformation” for also including mainstream conservative groups. He also did an interview with the Heritage foundation in 2022 about his work on the civil rights group, where it was called a “left-wing smear factory.”

In addition to his work on the SPLC, O’Neil has a long history of anti-LGBTQ+ — and specifically anti-transgender — commentary. At one point, he spotlighted the Reintegrative Therapy Association, a practice likened to conversion therapy by the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism. The American Medical Association has condemned the practice, stating: “Professional consensus rejects pathologizing homosexuality and gender nonconformity and evidence does not support the efficacy of changing sexual orientation.”

He has also attacked Christian groups that actively support LGBTQ+ people, particularly the Episcopal Church. He called the church “one of the most flaccid and spineless of the dying mainline Protestant denominations” and criticized its theology as a “watered-down bastardization of Christianity.”

O’Neil has also defended the anti-LGBTQ+ “pro-family” policies of former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who had been in office from 2010 until earlier this month. Orbán and his government faced widespread criticism for policies including banning Pride celebrations and restricting legal gender recognition for trans and intersex people.

The European Commission in 2022 sued Hungary, a member of the EU, over the country’s 2021 anti-LGBTQ+ propaganda law.

Vice President JD Vance spoke at an April rally for Orbán, supporting the hardline anti-transgender approach the former prime minister has taken in Hungary.

Overall, O’Neil’s work reflects a clear pattern of endorsing anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric, defending groups organizations have labeled as hate groups, and consistently writing through a Christian conservative nationalist lens.

Kyle Herrig of the Congressional Integrity Project, an organization “committed to exposing the reality behind Republicans’ politically motivated oversight and investigations,” gave a statement about the Judiciary Committee’s decision to have O’Neil testify, saying it further endangers those most vulnerable.

“House Republicans can’t find credible witnesses for their anti-civil rights crusade next week because they have no credible case. They’re giving a microphone to one of the far-right’s most discredited, anti-LGBTQ+ extremists and dressing it up as congressional oversight. It’s all in service of the Trump administration’s backwards prosecution of the Southern Poverty Law Center, the premiere organization tracking the very extremism people like Tyler O’Neill support. Attacking the SPLC doesn’t do anything to make Americans safer. It just makes it easier for racist, anti-LGBTQ+ organizations to operate in the dark.”

A Judiciary Democrats spokesperson provided a statement to the Los Angeles Blade on O’Neil’s relationship and anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric:

“Mr. O’Neil is no stranger to the committee — he has already testified twice in this Congress and has become something of a default witness for people who want to support and platform far-right extremist rhetoric. Judiciary Republicans’ decision to rely on him again here suggests a shortage of both new evidence and credible claims against the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Committee Democrats remain focused on protecting civil rights and resisting political efforts to discredit organizations that track and combat extremism, hate, and discrimination. As in prior hearings, Democrats are prepared to carefully scrutinize Mr. O’Neil’s hateful and out-of-touch ideas and debunk his false allegations about organizations dedicated to defending all of our civil rights.”

The Blade reached out to O’Neil, the Daily Signal, Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) about O’Neil’s slated testimony for the committee.

Following a letter sent Monday by several Democratic senators raising concerns about the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ updated transgender inmate policy, the BOP responded to a request for comment from the Los Angeles Blade, saying it does not plan to reverse the changes implemented earlier this year.

The policy was revised in 2025 to comply with President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”

In a statement to the Blade, BOP spokesperson Donald Murphy said the updated policy is rooted in medical guidance and data-driven decision making.

“The BOP implemented the February 2025 policy to ensure that inmates with gender dysphoria are properly diagnosed and treated consistent with best medical practices,” he said. “Unlike the prior administration’s one-size-fits-all approach, the BOP’s new policy ensures individualized assessments and treatments. And while the previous administration’s policies on treating inmates with gender dysphoria was driven by radical ideology, the BOP’s current policy is based on medical studies, medical expert opinions, state correctional policies, caselaw, and penological concerns. Absent court order, there are no plans to reconsider or revisit the policy.”

U.S. Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) signed the letter, arguing that the policy change fails to adequately prioritize the safety of trans inmates — protections they say are guaranteed under the Constitution.

This inquiry comes days after a federal lawsuit was filed against the Justice Department specifically on the concern that trans inmates are not receiving adequate care.

Earlier this month, the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, a legal organization focused on LGBTQ rights since 1977, filed a lawsuit in District Court of the District of Columbia against the Trump-Vance administration in collaboration with GLAD Law, Lowenstein Sandler LLP, and Wardenski P.C.

The suit, filed on May 6, alleges the administration is “ignoring federal protections” designed to prevent sexual abuse of incarcerated trans people.

“Transgender people in prison are sexually abused or assaulted at nearly 10x the rate of the general prison population,” the press release announcing the lawsuit states, adding that federal legislation was enacted to address those risks.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit, Paulina Poe, is a trans woman currently incarcerated in a men’s facility. According to the complaint, she has been “propositioned, groped, sexually harassed, and assaulted” by male inmates and subjected to strip searches by male officers — circumstances the Prison Rape Elimination Act regulations were intended to prevent.

The lawsuit also argues that the policy changes violate constitutional protections and deny trans inmates medically necessary care.

“The Eighth Amendment requires prisons and jails to provide ‘adequate medical care’ to incarcerated people which includes adequate treatment for people diagnosed with gender dysphoria,” says the Transgender Law Center. “‘Adequate medical care’ should be delivered according to accepted medical standards, such as WPATH’s Standards of Care. Some courts have said that in some circumstances ‘adequate medical care’ for gender dysphoria includes providing gender-appropriate clothing and grooming supplies, and the ability to present yourself consistent with your gender identity.”

GLAD Law Staff Attorney Sarah Austin also issued a statement when the lawsuit was announced, saying those responsible for the policy changes — and the rollback of protections under the Prison Rape Elimination Act — will be “held accountable for this egregious and lawless action.”

“The federal government’s unlawful attempt to roll back binding Prison Rape Elimination Act regulations is an especially dangerous step in its ongoing campaign to strip transgender people of legal protections,” Austin said. “The targeting of transgender incarcerated people is a deliberate choice to put vulnerable people in harm’s way simply because of who they are.”

The Justice Department has not responded to the Blade’s request for comment.

The White House released the “United States Counterterrorism Strategy” last week, introducing enforcement priorities that include references to people with “extreme transgender ideologies.”

The document is the first executive branch counterterrorism strategy released since former President Joe Biden’s 2021 “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism,” which largely focused on threats tied to domestic extremism and the Jan. 6 Capitol attack. The Trump-Vance administration’s new strategy instead centers heavily on cartels, Islamist organizations, and what it describes as “violent left-wing extremists.”

The report identifies three primary categories of terror threats facing the U.S.: “Narcoterrorists and Transnational Gangs,” “Legacy Islamist Terrorists,” and “Violent Left-Wing Extremists, including Anarchists and Anti-Fascists.” The strategy repeatedly frames those groups as existential threats to the U.S. and outlines a more aggressive, militarized counterterrorism posture.

The introduction to the report closes with a warning from President Donald Trump referencing counterterrorism operations carried out during his second administration: “We will find you and we will kill you.”

In the section outlining the administration’s counterterrorism priorities, the document argues that federal intelligence, and law enforcement agencies under prior administrations focused on the wrong threats while overlooking violence committed by left-wing extremists. The strategy specifically references transgender ideology while discussing political violence.

“As real threats were ignored or underplayed, Americans have witnessed the politically motivated killings of Christians and conservatives committed by violent left-wing extremists, including the assassination of Charlie Kirk by a radical who espoused extreme transgender ideologies.”

Claims tying a trans person to Kirk’s killing have been disputed, however, and multiple news outlets later retracted or corrected early reports that identified the shooter as trans.

The report later expands on that argument, saying the administration will prioritize targeting “violent secular political groups” it describes as anti-American and “radically pro-transgender.”

“In addition to cartels and Islamist terror groups, our national CT activities will also prioritize the rapid identification and neutralization of violent secular political groups whose ideology is anti-American, radically pro-transgender, and anarchist.”

The rhetoric mirrors claims frequently made by Trump allies and conservative commentators linking trans people and left-wing activism to political violence. However, data compiled by researchers and organizations tracking mass shootings does not support the idea that trans people are responsible for a significant share of such attacks.

Factcheck.org says rhetoric from Trump and several far-right political pundits contradicts available data, noting that the percentage of mass shootings committed by trans people is “exceedingly small.”

Despite the lack of evidence supporting generalized claims about trans people, the president’s son Donald Trump, Jr., told Fox News in September 2025 that he could not “name a mass shooting in the last year or two in America that wasn’t committed by, you know, a transgender lunatic.”

Factcheck.org also found that even if cases involving shooters with unclear gender identities were included in statistics about trans mass shooters, the number would still account for only a fraction of a percent.

Mark Bryant, founding executive director of the Gun Violence Archive, said the number of trans mass shooters could be as high as eight, but would still account for less than 0.1 percent of mass shootings over the last 12 years, according to GVA data. He added that the figure would remain below 0.2 percent even when examining incidents from 2018 to the present.

Beyond domestic extremism, the strategy frames the administration’s broader counterterrorism agenda through the lens of “America First” foreign policy and renewed U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere. The report repeatedly references the Monroe Doctrine, the nearly 200-year-old policy warning European powers against interference in the Americas.

“After years of neglect, the United States will reassert and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere, and to protect our homeland” Trump said in the report.

The document also breaks down counterterrorism priorities by region, including the Middle East, where it argues the U.S. is “no longer as dependent” on the region because of increased domestic energy production.

“Our growing domestic energy production means the Middle East is no longer as central to America’s stability, yet threats from this region remain, and our counterterrorism goals continue to be specific and rooted in realistic threat analysis.”

The statement comes amid rising gas prices tied in part to instability surrounding the war involving Iran, with fuel costs reaching some of their highest levels since 2022. According to AAA, the national average price for gasoline climbed to $4.52 per gallon as the national average rose “$.25 for a second straight week.“

U.S. Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) is urging acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and William Marshall III, director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, to reverse a policy affecting transgender inmates that lawmakers say is “endangering” their “health and safety.”

Markey, along with U.S. Sens. Jeffrey A. Merkley (D-Ore.) and Mazie K. Hirono (D-Hawaii), sent the letter that the Los Angeles Blade verified on Monday.

The letter is a direct response to a change in prison policy that went into effect in February 2025, rolling back Biden-era protections for trans inmates. The senators described how President Trump’s Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” forced a policy shift they argue is rooted more in political rhetoric than in medical research or evidence-based correctional practices.

In the letter, the lawmakers wrote “On Feb. 21, 2025, the BOP issued a memo to implement President Trump’s EO, requiring BOP staff to ‘refer to individuals by their legal name or pronouns corresponding to their biological sex,’ banning the use of funds for any ‘items that align with transgender ideology,’ and suspending clothing accommodations, pat search accommodations, and support programs offered to transgender individuals.”

“In a second memo, issued one week later, the BOP banned the use of federal funds for ‘any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate’s appearance to that of the opposite sex.’ These changes have resulted in the denial — or threatened denial — of hormone treatment and gender-affirming accommodations for transgender individuals in BOP custody.”

“On Feb. 19, 2026, the BOP escalated its attacks, issuing a program statement titled, ‘Management of Inmates with Gender Dysphoria.’ It prohibits incarcerated people from receiving gender-affirming care, even if paid for with private funds. This practice forces incarcerated people to discontinue care, regardless of medical recommendations.”

The senators continued, “The agency has repeatedly enacted policies that strip transgender individuals of their gender identity and dignity. This includes requiring staff to refer to transgender individuals by pronouns that ‘align with their biological sex’ rather than gender identity and to confiscate gender-affirming items, such as undergarments, clothing, cosmetics, and wigs.”

“These policies risk triggering mental health crises, including increased suicidality, among incarcerated people with gender dysphoria. The BOP’s repeated guidance to roll back gender-affirming protections — despite a federal court order finding that the BOP’s actions to discontinue gender-affirming care are likely unlawful — generate confusion about the current state of regulations and convey the BOP’s indifference to court orders and the rule of law.”

“By stripping away appropriate medical and psychiatric care, safety protections, and measures to provide dignity, the BOP is exposing transgender individuals to significant harm.”

The Marshall Project, a nonprofit newsroom focused on the U.S. criminal justice system and immigration enforcement through data-driven reporting, also reported on the policy change. The outlet spoke with Shana Knizhnik, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, about the impact of the changes.

“It’s clear that this new policy is a ban on gender affirming healthcare,” Knizhnik, who works for the nationwide chapter of the ACLU said. “This is a policy that disregards the medical needs of our plaintiffs.”

The letter also asked the BOP and the DOJ specific questions regarding why the policy went into effect, as lawmakers suggested the changes appear politically motivated rather than based on new medical evidence regarding treatment for trans inmates.

The senators requested answers to these trans policy-specific questions by May 21, including:

“Does the BOP plan to monitor and assess the impacts of recent policies that eliminate gender-affirming medical and psychiatric care?”

“Since January 20, 2025, how many transgender, nonbinary, intersex, and gender-diverse individuals have been transferred to a different facility to meet the EO’s goal of housing individuals ‘according to their biological sex?’”

“Given that the BOP has stopped enforcing Prison Rape Elimination Act regulations related to gender identity and collecting data on gender identity, how will the BOP protect the physical and emotional health and safety of incarcerated transgender individuals?”

“How does the BOP plan to monitor and assess the impact of eliminating protections against sexual violence for this population?”

“Does the BOP plan to institute a specific process by which transgender individuals may seek assistance or lodge complaints regarding harms they experience from the recent BOP policies and actions implementing President Trump’s EO?”

“Describe the specific criteria the BOP intends to use to determine whether it will allow a ‘social accommodation’ for gender dysphoria.”

Markey also included a personal statement to the Blade explaining why he is using his position on Capitol Hill to push for more information and advocate for reversing the policy.

“This administration continuously shows their contempt for trans people and a total disregard for their rights and humanity. As part of this cruel campaign, the Bureau of Prisons has systematically stripped health care access and basic protections from trans people, abandoning its duty to the people in its custody. I won’t stop fighting until this administration’s hateful anti-trans policies are reversed and trans people’s rights are secured.”

The Blade reached out to the DOJ and the BOP for comment but had not received a response at press time.

As the June 2 primary election looms in California, one of the most crowded races is in State Senate District 24, where 10 candidates, including two out LGBTQ+ candidates, are vying to succeed term-limited Democratic incumbent Ben Allen. The state’s nonpartisan, free-for-all “jungle primaries” mean that the top two candidates will square off in the midterm elections on November 3rd, regardless of party.

Eight of the candidates are Democrats, and two are Republicans, but given the district’s makeup, the seat is likely to stay in Democratic hands. District 24 has a large LGBTQ+ population, as it includes West Hollywood, Santa Monica, the Los Angeles neighborhoods of Bel Air, Brentwood, Hollywood, and more, along with many surrounding communities.

The out candidates seeking the seat are community activist Ellen Evans, a lesbian we interviewed last week, and West Hollywood City Council member John Erickson, a gay man, profiled here.

“I’m running to fix the way we build housing, fund health care, defend democracy and LGBTQ+ rights, fight ICE, and protect reproductive rights,” Erickson said.

Erickson grew up in Ripon, Wis., where he was introduced to activism by his grandmother Gladys. While still in elementary school, he went with her to volunteer at the local food bank and to the state capitol to lobby for veterans’ and women’s rights. After getting a B.A. in English and women’s studies at the University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh, he moved to California to be a teacher and attend graduate school. He received a Ph.D. in American religious history and public policy from the Claremont Colleges, specializing in the disconnect between the faith and LGBTQ+ communities. He’s now an adjunct faculty member at Claremont.

He became an intern for the West Hollywood City Council in 2010 and later a council deputy to then-Mayor Abbe Land (the WeHo mayor is chosen by their fellow City Council members and the position rotates among the members yearly). After that, he was a city staffer focusing on policies and programs involving women’s rights, LGBTQ+ rights, the environment, and civic engagement.

After leaving the city staff, he worked as a legislative representative for the Los Angeles International Airport, vice president of Planned Parenthood Los Angeles, and chief of staff for the Alliance for a Better Community, which advocates for L.A. County Latinos, including efforts to protect immigrants from Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The latter is his current “day job,” as serving on the City Council is a part-time position—not that it doesn’t take a lot of work. He was first elected to the council in 2020, becoming its youngest member at age 35, and was reelected in 2024, the year he had his first rotation as mayor.

Erickson points to many accomplishments on the WeHo City Council. “I’m the only candidate with a proven track record of courageous legislation,” he said. These include raising the minimum wage, establishing the WeHo Cares program offering behavioral health care to the homeless, protections for senior renters and those with disabilities, and an ordinance for gender-neutral, multi-stall public restrooms with strong privacy protections in newly constructed buildings and those undergoing major renovation.

WeHo’s efforts led the state to pass a similar law on rentals for seniors and people with disabilities, plus a change to the state building code to make the gender-neutral, multi-stall restrooms possible in cities that wanted them. A bill for the latter passed the state legislature unanimously, which was “quite remarkable,” Erickson said.

He also notes his efforts to expand access to HIV prevention drugs and address the Mpox outbreak, plus his work with Planned Parenthood to protect reproductive rights after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision, which allowed states to ban abortion. He supported California’s moves to strengthen access and protections for those seeking the procedure, including out-of-staters.

In the California State Senate, Erickson said, he would continue to advocate for LGBTQ+ and women’s rights, along with addressing climate change; promoting public transit; reversing a policy freezing enrollment in Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program, for undocumented immigrants; making billionaires pay their fair share to fund needed services; rebuilding after the recent wildfires; and generally standing up to the Trump administration. It’s shameful, he said, that Children’s Hospital Los Angeles ended gender-affirming care for trans youth because of the administration’s threats.

Then there’s the affordability crisis. California needs to prioritize solutions, Erickson stressed. “Everyone is struggling in one way or another,” he said. He’d like to ask elected officials to work a minimum wage job, live without a car, and live without health insurance—and then see how they manage.

Erickson would keep advocating for renters, too. He’s the only renter in the race in the majority-renter District 24, and he’d be one of only two renters in the legislature, he said.

Erickson, who is single, recently got some heat from WEHOonline, a digital publication that often criticizes him, because his campaign website doesn’t say he’s gay. He laughed it off, saying, “It’s pretty obvious that I’m a proud and out gay man.” He called WEHOonline “a gossip blog.”

Erickson has also been the subject of attack ads denouncing his city-funded travel to Paris and the Vatican, which he said was for the legitimate purposes of protecting youth programs and LGBTQ+ athletes ahead of the 2028 Summer Olympics and Paralympics to be held in Los Angeles. The trips were approved in open meetings where the public had a chance to comment, he noted.

West Hollywood will host Pride House, a gathering place for LGBTQ+ athletes, in 2028, and the Paris trip allowed him to see how it worked in that host city in 2024. At the Vatican in 2023, he was able to meet with Pope Francis and advocate for LGBTQ+ rights. He said the ads are funded by crypto-billionaires because of his support for regulating cryptocurrency—and they are “false and malicious.”

Erickson and Evans have both been endorsed by Equality California, the statewide LGBTQ+ organization. Neither of them won the endorsement of the Stonewall Democratic Club; Evans received 57 percent of the membership vote, Erickson 42 percent, but it takes 60 percent to get the endorsement. Erickson did get the endorsement of a separate but similarly named LGBTQ+ group, the Stonewall Young Democrats.

The California Democratic Party endorsed Dr. Sion Roy, a physician at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center and vice chair of the Santa Monica College Board. Roy, a straight man, doesn’t mention LGBTQ+ rights on his campaign website, but he recently spoke in support of gender-affirming care for trans youth in an interview with The Orange County Register.

In addition to being an out and proud gay man, Erickson is an out and proud Catholic. In his visit with Pope Francis, he was part of a delegation from an international educational group founded by the pope. He praises Pope Francis as well as his successor, Pope Leo XIV.

“What Pope Francis did for the LGBTQ community and trans community was pretty amazing for a church that moves in decades rather than years,” Erickson said. “I’m not saying I agree with all the policies of the church, but I’m very impressed with two progressive popes.”

For more information on John Erickson’s race for California State Senate District 24, please visit his campaign website.

By Trudy Ring. This is a cross-post from Karen’s LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters Substack.

The U.S. Department of Education announced on Monday that it opened an investigation into Smith College for admitting transgender women.

Smith College, a private and famously all-women’s college in Northampton, Mass., established in 1871 and opened in 1875, has a long list of women who make up its historic alumni — including first ladies, influential political figures, and cultural leaders.

The DOE released a statement about the investigation into the institution through the Department’s Office for Civil Rights, saying it was looking into the possibility that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 was violated by allowing trans women, referred to in the statement as “biological males,” into women’s intimate spaces protected by IX.

The statement explicitly highlighted that this stems from trans women being granted “access to women-only spaces, including dormitories, bathrooms, locker rooms, and athletic teams” while also allowing their audience into the school itself.

This is the first time the Trump-Vance administration has taken a step into admissions processes, a stark jump past investigating policies that allowed trans women to participate in women’s sports and use women’s bathrooms, and allows for the administration to go more after trans acceptance policy as a whole.

Smith’s admission policy allows for “any applicants who self-identify as women,” including “cis, trans, and nonbinary women,” according to the college’s website, and has since 2015, when it updated its policy.

“The college is fully committed to its institutional values, including compliance with civil rights laws,” Smith’s statement in response to the DOE’s investigation said. “The college does not comment on pending government investigations.”

“An all-women’s college loses all meaning if it is admitting biological males,” said Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey. “Allowing biological males into spaces designed for women raises serious concerns about privacy, fairness, and compliance under federal law. The Trump administration will continue to uphold the law and fight to restore common sense.”

This move continues to align with actions the Trump-Vance administration has taken to curtail LGBTQ+ — and specifically trans — rights in America, as members of the administration attempt to break down safeguards and protections that have long been used to protect marginalized communities.

Since Trump took office in his second term, there have been significant legal challenges. According to the National LGBTQ+ Bar Association, there are over 35 court cases that have emerged since his second swearing-in that directly relate to the administration’s attempts to minimize the rights and protections of trans Americans — from medical care and educational protections to military policy.

Much of this anti-trans policy direction was outlined beginning in 2022 with the Project 2025 playbook, which Trump officials have used as a guide to scale back protections for LGBTQ+ people, Black Americans, poor and Indigenous communities, while also increasing costs for lower-income Americans and providing tax cuts to the wealthy and ultra-wealthy. The plans also “erode” Americans’ freedoms and remove crucial checks and balances that have allowed the executive branch to remain in line with the Constitution without becoming too powerful over either the courts or the legislative branch.