Politics
LA County native Leondra Kruger may be nominee for U.S. Supreme Court
If nominated and confirmed, Kruger would be not only the first Black woman on the court, but also the youngest justice
By Amy Howe | WASHINGTON – During a 2020 Democratic presidential primary debate, then-candidate Joe Biden pledged that, if elected, he would nominate a Black woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. With Justice Stephen Breyer expected to retire at the end of this term, California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger is one of the frontrunners to succeed him.
If nominated and confirmed, Kruger – who is just 45 years old – would be not only the first Black woman on the court, but also the youngest justice by over four years and the youngest justice confirmed since Clarence Thomas joined the court in 1991 at age 43. Despite her relative youth, Kruger would bring substantial experience at the high court, with 12 Supreme Court arguments under her belt, as well as a seven-year record on the California Supreme Court that resembles the record of the justice she would replace.
Early life and career
A native of southern California, Kruger is the daughter of two physicians. Her mother hails from Jamaica, while her late father was the son of Jewish immigrants from eastern Europe. Kruger attended the prestigious Polytechnic School, a private prep school in Pasadena, California, whose other alumni include Julia Child and James Ho, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit who was on former President Donald Trump’s short list to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.
After graduating from Polytechnic, Kruger compiled the kind of sterling resume the public has come to expect from Supreme Court nominees. She graduated with honors from Harvard University, where she was a reporter for the Harvard Crimson. Kruger covered a wide range of stories, including a hearing on Cambridge’s affirmative-action policy, the 1994 Senate race between the late Sen. Edward Kennedy and Mitt Romney, and a travel guide to her hometown of Pasadena that humorously dismissed East Coast stereotypes about catastrophes in California (“Earthquakes! Fires! Mudslides! Riots!”) as “only jealousy.”
After Harvard, Kruger went to Yale Law School, where she was the editor in chief of the Yale Law Journal – the first Black woman to hold that job. During law school, Kruger spent one summer as an intern for the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles and a second summer as a summer associate at Munger, Tolles & Olson. After graduating from Yale in 2001, she spent a year working as an associate at Jenner & Block in Washington, D.C., before going to clerk for Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 2002 to 2003. Kruger went from the D.C. Circuit to the Supreme Court, where she clerked for Justice John Paul Stevens during the 2003-04 term.
When Kruger finished her clerkships, she went into private practice at a third firm, now known as WilmerHale. During her two years there, her clients included Shell Oil, which Kruger represented in an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit involving a half-billion-dollar judgment in a Nicaraguan court against Shell and others, as well as Verizon Communications, which Kruger represented in federal district court in California in litigation challenging the participation by telecommunications companies in the government’s domestic-terrorist surveillance program. Kruger left WilmerHale for the University of Chicago Law School, where she taught a class in transnational litigation as a visiting assistant professor.
A stint in the Obama administration, including arguments at the Supreme Court
Kruger returned to Washington in 2007 to take a job as an assistant to the U.S. solicitor general. She served in that role for several years, until she was named the acting principal deputy solicitor general. The lawyer who holds that job, which is sometimes known as the “political deputy,” is normally the only deputy in the solicitor general’s office who is not a career civil servant (and the only other political appointee, beyond the solicitor general, in the office).
During her six years in the solicitor general’s office, Kruger argued 12 cases at the Supreme Court on behalf of the federal government. One of those cases was a high-profile dispute involving whether the “ministerial exception” to employment-discrimination laws – the idea that religious institutions normally have the sole right to determine who can act as their ministers – barred a lawsuit by a teacher and ordained minister who had been fired by the Lutheran school where she worked. Kruger argued that the teacher should be able to pursue her lawsuit against the school for alleged discrimination on the basis of disability. The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, unanimously rejected that position and held that the ministerial exception applied.
The other cases Kruger argued touched on a wide range of issues, from the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause and right to counsel to federal “career criminal” laws and federal benefits laws. At the lectern, Kruger’s tone with the justices was conversational from the start, with a quiet confidence. She was poised even when she was being peppered with questions from all sides of the bench, as she was in defending an ultimately unsuccessful position in her first argument, in Begay v. United States.
Kruger left the solicitor general’s office in 2013 to serve as a deputy assistant attorney general in another section of the Department of Justice: the Office of Legal Counsel, which (among other things) provides legal advice to the president and other agencies within the executive branch. As Rory Little observed, that office has “yielded an unusual share of prominent federal judges and Justices over the past half century,” including the late Justice Antonin Scalia and the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
During her time in the Department of Justice, Kruger twice received the attorney general’s award for exceptional service, the department’s “highest award for employee performance.” Both awards give a glimpse into her work at DOJ beyond the courtroom. In 2013, she was part of a team that won the award for its work in defending the Affordable Care Act, while in 2014 she was a member of a group that won the award for its work implementing the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor, striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
An “out of the box” pick for the California Supreme Court
In 2014, California Governor Jerry Brown nominated Kruger, then just 38 years old, to serve on the California Supreme Court when Associate Justice Joyce Kennard retired. Kruger’s former bosses in the solicitor general’s office praised her selection, with then-Solicitor General Don Verrilli describing her as “brilliant, deeply principled and eloquent” and former Solicitor General Paul Clement calling her an “outstanding lawyer” who “combines an understated and easygoing manner with a keen legal mind and unquestioned integrity.” Former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal echoed those thoughts, saying that “California, and the nation, could do no better than Leondra Kruger.”
But despite those accolades from Washington, Kruger’s nomination was not greeted with unbridled enthusiasm within California because Kruger was not a practicing lawyer in the state, was not a judge, and lacked trial experience. However, Kruger was rated “exceptionally well qualified” by the California state bar group responsible for evaluating judicial nominees, and in December 2014 she was confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments, a three-member body that holds a hearing to consider and decide whether to confirm nominees to the state’s highest courts. The commission’s members included Kamala Harris, then the state’s attorney general and now the vice president of the United States. Kruger was sworn into office in January 2015, becoming only the second Black woman to serve on the California Supreme Court.
Lawyers who practice regularly before that court describe Kruger in terms that are not unlike those used to characterize Breyer. In a November 2020 story for The Recorder, appellate lawyer Ben Feuer indicated that Kruger was “not looking to create radical change in the law emanating from the judicial branch.” “Rather,” Feuer continued, she understands the limited yet critical role the judicial branch plays in the complex ballet of our representative democracy.”
In a 2018 interview with the Los Angeles Times, Kruger herself said that she tries to do her job “in a way that enhances the predictability and stability of the law and public confidence and trust in the work of the courts.” Many of the published decisions that Kruger has written or joined while on the California Supreme Court have been unanimous rulings, with largely (although not uniformly) liberal-leaning results.
Upholding rights of the accused, from juvenile court to death-penalty cases
Kruger wrote for a unanimous court in April 2018 in a decision holding that videotaped statements by a three-year-old who claimed that she had been sexually molested by her father should not have been used as the basis to find that the child had been abused, which in turn led to an order for the father’s removal from the family’s home. Kruger acknowledged that juvenile courts have a “sensitive and difficult task” in such cases. However, she continued, the evidence in this case of the child’s reliability was “weaker than the juvenile court acknowledged.” The juvenile court failed to take into account that the child had also recently been molested by an older child, and that “[h]er repeated statements about abuse were strikingly similar to descriptions of that” incident. Moreover, Kruger added, “the child’s account contained both inconsistencies and inaccuracies that were woven through her core allegations.”
Photo: State of California
With automatic appeals to the California Supreme Court, death penalty cases are a staple of the court’s docket. However, California has not executed anyone since 2006, and in 2019 the state’s governor, Gavin Newsom, imposed an official moratorium on executions. In 2019, Kruger wrote for a unanimous court in overturning the death sentence of Jeffrey Scott Young, who was convicted of killing two people during a 2002 robbery and carjacking at an offsite parking lot near San Diego International Airport. The court agreed with Young that the jury should not have been allowed to consider evidence regarding his white supremacist beliefs and tattoos, which prosecutors had introduced during the sentencing phase of his trial to rebut evidence about his good character.
The specific evidence to which prosecutors had been responding, Kruger explained, was testimony from Young’s grandmother about, for example, “his commitment to his family and children.” Although the court did not rule out the possibility that, in a different case, evidence of a defendant’s racist beliefs could be admitted, it cannot be used, Kruger concluded, simply to demonstrate the offensiveness of those beliefs.
Kruger wrote again for a unanimous court in 2020 to throw out another death sentence, this time in the high-profile case of Scott Peterson, who was convicted and sentenced to death for the 2002 murders of his pregnant wife, Laci, and the couple’s unborn child, Conner. Kruger agreed with Peterson that the trial court had made “a series of clear and significant errors in jury selection that, under long-standing U.S. Supreme Court precedent, undermined Peterson’s right to an impartial jury at the penalty phase.” Most notably, Kruger explained, the trial court should not have dismissed potential jurors simply because they expressed general opposition to the death penalty, without also determining whether that opposition would have meant that they would be unable to follow the law and impose the death penalty if warranted. In December 2021, Peterson was resentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Bodycam footage and sexual-abuse lawsuits
Two years ago, Kruger wrote for the court in its decision holding that a California city could not charge a public-interest group seeking public records for the approximately 40 hours that city employees spent editing footage from police body cameras. A local chapter of the National Lawyers Guild sought records relating to the Hayward Police Department’s actions in the 2014 demonstrations that followed grand jury decisions not to indict the police officers involved in the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown. The city of Hayward billed the group $3,000, citing a state-law provision that requires the person or group requesting electronic records to pay the costs associated with producing copies of those records when producing those copies would require the extraction of data.
The extraction of data, Kruger explained, does not cover redacting exempt material from electronic records that the city would otherwise need to disclose. That interpretation, Kruger reasoned, is more consistent with both the text of the statute and the California legislature’s intent in enacting the law. Moreover, she added, interpreting the term “extraction” to include the costs of redaction “would make it more difficult for the public to access information kept in electronic format” – contrary to the state’s constitution, which “favors an interpretation that avoids erecting such substantial financial barriers to access.”
Kruger acknowledged the city’s argument that “requests for body camera footage present unique concerns for government agencies with limited resources” because of the privacy interests involved, among other things. But this provision does not only cover body-camera footage, Kruger stressed. Instead, she noted, “it covers every type of electronic record, from garden-variety emails to large government databases.” Only the legislature, Kruger indicated, can decide whether to create special rules for body-camera footage.
Last year, Kruger wrote for the court in a unanimous decision holding that three athletes who allege that they were sexually abused by a coach as teenagers can sue USA Taekwondo but not the U.S. Olympic Committee. In her opinion, Kruger rebuffed the plaintiffs’ suggestion that the court should adopt a “more flexible and holistic approach” to determine whether a defendant can be held responsible for failing to protect a victim from harm caused by another person. “Without denying the gravity of the injuries these plaintiffs suffered,” Kruger stressed, “nor the broader problem of sexual abuse of minors in organized youth sports and other activities,” a defendant cannot be held responsible for injuries that it did not cause “unless there are special circumstances” that create a special duty for the defendant to provide protection or help to the plaintiffs.
Other notable decisions Kruger joined
In 2018, Kruger joined a unanimous decision that upheld a state law requiring new handgun models to imprint “micro stamps” inside the guns and on shell casings to make it easier for police to identify them. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for gun manufacturers, argued that the requirement should be invalidated because it was impossible to implement the technology. The decision by Justice Goodwin Liu emphasized that the ruling did not involve the constitutionality of the requirement, but instead was simply a question of statutory interpretation. The California Supreme Court’s cases, Liu explained, have acknowledged that statutes may contain an exception when it is impossible to comply with the law when that is what the legislature intended. But in this case, Liu wrote, neither the text nor the purpose of the law indicates that, once the law went into effect, gun manufacturers may be excused from the requirement because it is impossible to comply with it.
Kruger concurred in a 2019 opinion by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye that unanimously upheld the death sentence of a man convicted of a brutal double murder and robbery. Cantil-Sakauye’s opinion also rejected the challenge by the inmate, Thomas Potts, to the constitutionality of the state’s death-penalty scheme, as well as his contention that his more than two decades on death row constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
Kruger did not join a concurring opinion by Liu that, while expressing “tremendous compassion for the victims and their families,” characterized the state’s death-penalty system as “an expensive and dysfunctional system that does not deliver justice or closure in a timely manner, if at all.” It is time, Liu suggested, for a discussion of the death penalty’s “effectiveness and costs.”
Kruger joined a unanimous opinion by Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, another Brown appointee, abolishing the state’s cash bail system. The question came to the court in the case of Kenneth Humphrey, a 66-year-old man charged with robbery. Humphrey’s bail was initially set at $600,000 and then was reduced to $350,000 – an amount that Humphrey still could not pay. Cuellar concluded that the “common practice of conditioning freedom solely on whether an arrestee can afford bail is unconstitutional.” “Other conditions of release,” he continued, including “electronic monitoring, regular check-ins with a pretrial case manager, community housing or shelter, and drug and alcohol treatment,” can often “protect public and victim safety as well as assure the arrestee’s appearance at trial.”
A varied record in divided cases
But not all of the California Supreme Court’s opinions are unanimous. And when the court has divided, Kruger has been difficult to pigeonhole. She has sometimes joined Democratic appointees to reach an arguably “liberal” result, but at other times she has joined Republican appointees to arrive at an arguably “conservative” result.
In the 2016 case Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Kruger declined to join Cuellar’s majority opinion holding that an employer violated state labor laws by requiring its employees – security guards – to keep their radios and pagers on during their rest periods in case they were needed. Cuellar, whose ruling was joined by four other justices, reasoned that the employer’s policies “conflict with an employer’s obligation to provide breaks relieving employees of all work-related duties and employer control.”
In an opinion joined by Justice Carol Corrigan, who was named to the court by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, Kruger agreed with the majority that employers “must provide off-duty rest periods” for their employees. But, she continued, simply requiring those employees to carry a radio or a pager during their rest periods isn’t, standing alone, work – particularly when there is no evidence that the security guards’ rest periods were actually interrupted. Kruger would have sent the case back to the lower courts for them to determine whether the company’s “on-call policy actually interfered with its employees’ ability to use their rest periods as periods of rest.”
Kruger provided the key vote in 2018 in Hassell v. Bird, in which the court declined to uphold an order that would have required Yelp to remove negative reviews of a law firm from its site. A three-justice plurality, in an opinion by Cantil-Sakauye, another Schwarzenegger appointee, agreed with Yelp that requiring it to take down the reviews would violate Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996, which generally gives websites immunity for content created by their users. (Corrigan and Justice Ming Chin, who was appointed by Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican, provided the other two votes for Cantil-Sakauye’s opinion.)
In a separate concurring opinion, Kruger explained that in her view it was “unnecessary to reach” the Section 230 issue. Instead, she would resolve the case on the “more basic” ground that Yelp – which had not been named as a defendant in the case – could not be required to take the review down without “its own day in court.” Kruger agreed that the majority had reached the correct result, but she emphasized that she would not weigh in on how Section 230 might apply more broadly in future cases. She reasoned that although Section 230 “has brought an end to a number of lawsuits seeking remedies for a wide range of civil wrongs accomplished through Internet postings,” “the broad sweep of section 230 remedies also has ‘troubling consequences.’” “Whether to maintain the status quo,” Kruger concluded, “is a question only Congress can decide.”
Joined by Cuellar and two other Brown appointees — Liu and Justice Joshua Groban — Kruger wrote for a 4-3 court in 2019 in throwing out a lower-court ruling that upheld a search of a car without a warrant to look for the driver’s identification. Kruger described the “central issue” before the court as “not whether the search of” the driver’s car was “consistent with the guidance given in” an earlier case, but instead whether to “continue to adhere to” that earlier decision in light of U.S. Supreme Court cases since then.
Noting that the California decision had become an outlier, Kruger observed that although the California Supreme Court’s ruling had “attempted to cordon off” the power it gave to police officers, experience had shown that in practice, the searches have come “perilously close” to full searches of the cars. There are other ways for officers to obtain the information that they need, she suggested, such as asking a driver for her name and date of birth and cross-checking that information against the Department of Motor Vehicles database.
Addressing the dissent’s argument that, without carving out an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s general warrant requirement for cases like this one, “officers may not be able to achieve absolute certainty about the identity of some subset of traffic violators before issuing traffic tickets,” Kruger countered that “the test for whether an exception should be recognized is not whether, in its absence, there might be some cost in effective enforcement of the traffic laws.” Instead, she wrote, it is “whether the tradeoff to lower that risk is worth the coin in diminished privacy.” “It is not,” she concluded, “a price we should lightly require California drivers to pay.”
In 2018, Kruger wrote for a divided court – in an opinion joined by Cantil-Sakauye, Chin, and Corrigan – in rejecting a challenge to a state law that requires law enforcement officials to collect DNA samples and fingerprints from anyone arrested for a felony. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Maryland v. King, the majority concluded that the defendant in the case, Mark Buza, had been arrested for a serious offense – arson – and, at least as applied to him, the requirement therefore did not violate either the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment or the California constitution.
The majority did not weigh in on whether the law was valid for other defendants, and it rejected a suggestion – made by Liu and Cuellar, in dissenting opinions – that it determine whether the state can require a DNA sample before a judge determines that a defendant’s arrest was valid. Kruger stressed that the court’s holding was “limited,” and she explained that “the law teaches that we should ordinarily focus on the circumstances before us in determining whether the work of a coequal branch of government may stand or must fall.”
Kruger joined an opinion by Liu in 2019 that reinstated a challenge by psychotherapists to a state law that would require them to report to authorities patients who admit to viewing child pornography, even when the therapists don’t believe that the patients pose any harm to children. Writing for a four-justice majority, Liu acknowledged that the “proliferation of child pornography on the Internet is an urgent problem of national and international dimension,” but the court – over a dissent by Cantil-Sakauye, Chin, and Corrigan – concluded that the reporting requirement implicated an interest in privacy. Stressing that the court was not ruling that the reporting requirement was unconstitutional, Liu sent the case back to the lower courts for them to determine whether the reporting requirement actually advances the law’s purpose of protecting children, or whether it instead deters patients from seeking treatment for sexual disorders.
Kruger sided with the court’s conservative justices in a 4-3 ruling in 2017 that made it more difficult for inmates sentenced under the state’s “Three Strikes” law to obtain resentencing. In a separate concurring opinion joined by two of her colleagues, Kruger explained that the other provisions in the ballot initiative on which the inmates seeking resentencing relied reflected a “clear and exclusive focus on affording relief to individuals who have committed specified drug- and theft-related offenses, and neither the stated purposes of the proposition nor the ballot materials alerted voters to any possibility that a favorable vote might also result in a significant change to the separate statutory scheme governing the resentencing of life prisoners under the ‘Three Strikes’ law.” “Although this is certainly a choice the voters could make,” Kruger acknowledged, “I do not think we can say it is a choice the voters have already made.”
Under the California system, although Kruger was nominated by Brown and confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments, she was still required to face the voters in a “retention election,” without an opponent, in 2018. Kruger won retention easily, with nearly 73% of voters – 6.6 million in total – voting “yes.”
Personal life
Kruger is married to Brian Hauck, a partner at the law firm of Jenner & Block and a former senior official in the Department of Justice during the Obama administration. The couple has two children: a son and a daughter.
When she had their daughter in 2016, Kruger became the first California Supreme Court justice to give birth while in office. A 2018 story in the Los Angeles Times recounted how Kruger traveled from the San Francisco Bay area, where she lives, to Los Angeles with her newborn to hear oral arguments; Kruger’s mother-in-law cared for the baby, then four weeks old, while Kruger was working.
If Biden nominates Kruger, it will not be his administration’s first effort to get Kruger to return to the east coast. In January, Marcia Coyle and Ryan Barber of the National Law Journal reported that Kruger had twice turned down offers to serve as the administration’s solicitor general. Like a position as a Supreme Court justice, that job requires Senate confirmation – but a job as a Supreme Court justice comes with life tenure.
*********************
Amy Howe is the former editor and a reporter for SCOTUSblog and still is a contributor. She primarily writes for her eponymous blog, Howe on the Court.
Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there.
Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
*********************
The preceding article was previously published by SCOTUSBlog and is republished by permission.
State Department
State Department implements anti-trans bathroom policy
Memo notes directive corresponds with White House executive order
The State Department on April 20 announced employees cannot use bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity.
The Daily Signal, a conservative news website, reported the State Department announced the new policy in a memo titled “Updates Regarding Biological Sex and Intimate Spaces, Including Restrooms.”
The State Department has not responded to the Los Angeles Blade’s request for comment on the directive.
“The administration affirms that there are two sexes — male and female — and that federal facilities should operate on this objective and longstanding basis to ensure consistency, privacy, and safety in shared spaces,” State Department spokesperson Tommy Piggot told the Daily Signal. “In line with President Trump’s executive order this provides clear, uniform guidance to the department by grounding policy in biological sex as determined at birth.”
President Donald Trump shortly after he took office in January 2025 issued an executive order that directed the federal government to only recognize two genders: male and female. The sweeping directive also ordered federal government agencies to “effectuate this policy by taking appropriate action to ensure that intimate spaces designated for women, girls, or females (or for men, boys, or males) are designated by sex and not identity.”
The Daily Signal notes the new State Department policy “does not prohibit single-occupancy restrooms.”
Cuba
Trans parent charged with kidnapping, allegedly fled to Cuba with child
Cuban authorities helped locate Rose Inessa-Ethington
Federal authorities have charged a transgender woman with kidnapping after she allegedly fled to Cuba with her 10-year-old child.
An affidavit that Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Jennifer Waterfield filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on April 16 notes the child is a “biological male who identifies as a female” and “splits time living with divorced parents who share custody” in Cache County, Utah.
Waterfield notes the child on March 28 “was supposed to be traveling by car to” Calgary, Alberta, “for a planned camping trip with his transgender mother, Rose Inessa-Ethington, Rose’s partner, Blue Inessa-Ethington, and Blue’s 3-year-old child.”
The affidavit notes the group instead flew from Vancouver, British Columbia, to Mexico City on March 29. Waterfield writes the Inessa-Ethingtons and the two children then flew from Mérida, Mexico, to Havana on April 1.
The 10-year-old child called her biological mother on March 28 after they arrived in Canada. The custody agreement, according to the affidavit, required Rose Inessa-Ethington to return the child to her former spouse on April 3.
“Interviews of MV [Minor Victim] 1’s family members provided significant concerns for MV 1’s well-being, as MV 1 was born a male, however, identifies as a female child, which is largely believed to be due to manipulation by Rose Inessa-Ethington,” reads the affidavit. “Concerns exist that MV 1 was transported to Cuba for gender reassignment surgery prior to puberty.”
The affidavit indicates authorities found a note in the Inessa-Ethingtons’ home with “instruction from a mental health therapist located in Washington, D.C., including instruction to send the therapist the $10,000.00 and instructions on gender-affirming medical care for children.”
The affidavit does not identify the specific “mental health therapist” in D.C.
A Utah judge on April 13 ordered Rose Inessa-Ethington to “immediately” return the child to her former spouse. The former spouse also received sole custody.
“Your affiant believes that due to the extensive planning and preparation exhibited by both Rose Inessa-Ethington and Blue Inessa-Ethington to isolate MV 1 and take MV 1 to Havana, Cuba, without notifying or requesting permission from MV 1’s mother indicates they are likely not planning to return to the United States,” wrote Waterfield.
The affidavit notes Cuban authorities found the Inessa-Ethingtons and the child.
A press release the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Utah issued notes the Inessa-Ethingtons “were deported from Cuba” on Monday “with the assistance of the FBI.”
The couple has been charged with International Parental Kidnapping. The Inessa-Ethingtons were arraigned in Richmond, Va., on Monday. The press release notes a federal court in Salt Lake City will soon handle the case.
The New York Times reported the child is now back with their biological mother.
“We are grateful to law enforcement for working swiftly to return the child to the biological mother,” said First Assistant U.S. Attorney Melissa Holyoak of the District of Utah in the press release.
The case is unfolding against the backdrop of increased tensions between Washington and Havana after U.S. forces on Jan. 3 seized now former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.
President Donald Trump shortly after he took office in January 2025 issued an executive order that directed the federal government to only recognize two genders: male and female. A second White House directive banned federally-funded gender-affirming care for anyone under 19.
The U.S. Supreme Court last year in the Skrmetti decision upheld a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming care for minors.
Cuba’s national health care system has offered free sex-reassignment surgeries since 2008.
Activists who are critical of Mariela Castro, the daughter of former President Raúl Castro who spearheads LGBTQ+ issues as director of Cuba’s National Center for Sexual Education, have previously told the Washington Blade that access to these procedures is limited. The Blade on Wednesday asked a contact in Havana to clarify whether Cuban law currently allows minors to undergo sex-reassignment surgery.
White House
Grindr to host first-ever White House Correspondents’ Dinner party
App’s head of global government affairs a long-time GOP-aligned lobbyist
Gay dating and hookup app Grindr will host its first-ever White House Correspondents’ Weekend party on April 24.
The event is scheduled for the night before the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, an annual gathering meant to celebrate the First Amendment, honor journalism, and raise money for scholarships.
The White House Correspondents’ Dinner is organized by the White House Correspondents’ Association, a group of journalists who regularly cover the president and the administration.
An invitation obtained by the Washington Blade’s Joe Reberkenny and Michael K. Lavers reads:
“We’d be thrilled to have you join us at Grindr’s inaugural White House Correspondents’ Dinner Weekend Party, a Friday evening gathering to bring together policymakers, journalists, and LGBTQ community leaders as we toast the First Amendment.”
The Blade requested an interview with Joe Hack, Grindr’s head of global government affairs, but was unable to reach him via phone or Zoom. He did, however, provide a statement shared with other outlets, offering limited explanation for why the company decided 2026 was the year for the app to host this event.
“Grindr represents a global community with real stakes in Washington. The issues being debated here — HIV funding, digital privacy, LGBTQ+ human rights — are daily life for our community. Nobody does connections like Grindr, and WHCD weekend is the most iconic place in the country to make them. We figured it was time to host.”
Hack said the company has been “well received” by lawmakers in both parties and has found “common ground” on issues such as HIV funding and keeping minors off the app. He credited longstanding relationships in Washington and what he described as Grindr’s “respectful” approach to lobbying.
Hack, a longtime Republican-aligned lobbyist, previously worked for several GOP lawmakers, including U.S. Sens. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), George Voinovich (R-Ohio), Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), and U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.).
According to congressional disclosure forms compiled by OpenSecrets, Grindr spent $1.3 million on lobbying in 2025— more than Tinder and Hinge’s parent company Match Group.
“This is going to be elevated Grindr,” Hack told TheWrap when describing the invite-only party that has already generated buzz on social media. “This isn’t going to be a bunch of shirtless men walking around. This is going to be very elevated, elegant, but still us.”
He also pointed to the company’s work on HIV-related initiatives, including efforts to maintain federal funding for healthcare partners that distribute HIV self-testing kits through the app.
The event comes at a particularly notable moment for an LGBTQ-focused connection platform to enter the Washington social circuit at a high-profile political weekend, as LGBTQ rights remain under constant attack from conservative lawmakers, particularly around transgender healthcare, sports participation, and public accommodations.
Federal Government
Inside the LGBTQ+ records of Todd Blanche and Markwayne Mullin
Two men are acting attorney general, DHS secretary
President Donald Trump became famous for his use of the phrase “You’re fired!” while hosting the reality TV show “The Apprentice” in the early 2000s. However, during his time in the Oval Office, he has attempted to distance himself from that image.
Despite those efforts, the phrase once again comes to mind as Trump has fired two high-level female Cabinet members within the past month: Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem.
Their replacements — Todd Blanche at the Justice Department and Markwayne Mullin at the Department of Homeland Security — bring records that, while different in depth, both reflect limited support for LGBTQ+ protections and, in some cases, direct opposition.
Todd Blanche
Acting attorney general
Little has been found regarding Todd Blanche’s LGBTQ+ history prior to his role as acting head of the Department of Justice. Unlike those who have worked within the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division or served as state attorneys general, he has not developed a public-facing legal ideology on LGBTQ+ issues.
Blanche attended American University for his undergraduate studies — like fellow Trump attorney Michael Cohen — where he met his future wife, Kristin, who was studying at nearby Catholic University in D.C.
He began his legal career as an intern at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, which eventually became a full-time position. He later worked as a paralegal in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York while attending Brooklyn Law School at night. Blanche graduated cum laude in 2003. He and his wife later married and had two children.
Blanche left the U.S. attorney’s office in 2014, taking a job in the Manhattan office of the law firm WilmerHale. In September 2017, he moved to Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, where he was a partner in the White Collar Defense and Investigations practice.
In his personal capacity, he represented several figures associated with Donald Trump and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, including Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort, businessman Igor Fruman, and attorney Boris Epshteyn.
In 2024, Blanche switched from Democrat to Republican, aligning himself with Trump’s political orbit. He later served as Trump’s personal defense attorney in the New York State case that led to Trump’s 2024 conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up hush-money payments to bisexual adult film star Stormy Daniels.
Now the highest-ranking official at the Justice Department, Blanche has played a central role in overseeing the department and has been involved in leadership decisions tied to several controversial actions affecting LGBTQ+ people.
In a letter to New York Attorney General Letitia James, Blanche declared that the Justice Department “will not sit idly by while you attempt to use your office to force harmful procedures on our most vulnerable population,” if legal action were taken against NYU Langone. The hospital had “permanently” ended a program earlier that month after the Trump-Vance administration threatened to pull all federal funding if it continued prescribing puberty blockers and hormones to minors.
Blanche wrote that “the Justice Department believes the law is clear, and anti-discrimination laws cannot be used to force NYU Langone to perform sex-rejecting procedures on children.”
“As just one example, your office’s position would require a hospital to prescribe certain medications for certain diagnoses, regardless of the hospital’s or its doctors’ independent medical determination about the propriety of such treatment,” he said.
Blanche also echoed his predecessor’s public stance on limiting LGBTQ+-related protections at the federal level, aligning with Bondi’s sentiments in June 2025 regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision that restricted LGBTQ+ history lessions in schools and limits lower federal courts from issuing nationwide injunctions — rulings that have often blocked Trump administration policies.
Calling it “another great decision that came down today,” Blanche argued that the ruling “restores parents’ rights to decide their child’s education,” adding: “It seems like a basic idea, but it took the Supreme Court to set the record straight, and we thank them for that. And now that ruling allows parents to opt out of dangerous trans ideology and make the decisions for their children that they believe is correct.”
In December 2025, a Justice Department memo stated that, “effective immediately,” prisons and jails would no longer be held responsible for violations of standards meant to protect LGBTQ+ people from harassment, abuse, and rape under the Prison Rape Elimination Act. The law, passed unanimously by Congress in 2003, requires that incarcerated people be screened for their risk of sexual assault, including consideration of LGBTQ+ status, and applies to all correctional facilities.
Additionally, when the Justice Department, under Blanche’s deputy leadership and at Trump’s behest, attempted to force Children’s National Hospital in D.C. to turn over medical records related to gender-affirming care, U.S. District Judge Julie R. Rubin ruled that the effort “appears to have no purpose other than to intimidate and harass.”
Blanche is also described as having a “strong belief in executive authority.”
Markwayne Mullin
Secretary of Homeland Security
While Blanche’s record is defined more by recent actions than a long paper trail, Markwayne Mullin brings a more established history on LGBTQ+ issues from his time in Congress.
The head of the Department of Homeland Security has served in Congress since 2013, in both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. He has been actively engaged in shaping restrictions and aligns with broader cultural rhetoric that frames anti-LGBTQ+ speech as protected expression.
In May 2016, Mullin criticized the Department of Education and the Justice Department’s “Dear Colleague” letter on transgender students, arguing that trans girls should not use girls’ restrooms in public schools.
By January 2021, Mullin and then-Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard had introduced a bill to prevent trans women from participating in women’s sports.
Mullin was not recorded as voting on the final passage of the Respect for Marriage Act, which codified federal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriage.
In 2023, Mullin received a rating of just 6 percent from the Human Rights Campaign.
While serving in the Senate and as a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, Mullin has been a vocal critic of policies aimed at expanding LGBTQ+ inclusion in federal programs. He has participated in broader Republican efforts questioning equity-based implementation of the Older Americans Act, including guidance related to sexual orientation and gender identity in aging services, arguing such policies could have unintended consequences.
Mullin also makes history as the first Native American — and a citizen of the Cherokee Nation — to lead the Department of Homeland Security.
He was among the 147 Republicans who voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election results despite no evidence of widespread fraud, and was present in the House on Jan. 6.
Politics
Advocacy meets action: Weho City Council candidate Jonathan Wilson intends to lead with purpose
Jonathan Wilson shares on his decision to run for West Hollywood City Council, highlighting advocacy, representation, and a vision for meaningful change
At a critical moment for West Hollywood and cities across the United States, Jonathan Wilson comes forward with a candidacy for West Hollywood City Council that is grounded in advocacy and a crystal-clear call for change. In our conversation, Wilson reflects on the decision to enter public office as a necessary response to widening divides, shifting political realities, and the urgent necessity for leadership that is both responsive and representative. His perspective is founded on years of navigating spaces where identity and opportunity aren’t always aligned, fueling a commitment to ensure that more voices are not just included, but actually heard and addressed.
Drawing from his experiences as a Black and queer Angeleno, as well as his work across corporate, civic, and community spheres, Wilson speaks to the power of identity as both a lens and a responsibility. He approaches leadership with an emphasis on accountability, innovation, and equity, from addressing public safety to the always-evolving priorities of LGBTQ+ communities. The result is a clear portrait of a candidate focused on practical solutions, intentional inclusion, and structural change that moves beyond rhetoric to deliver real, much-needed impact.
You’ve described your decision to run as a moment where you realized meaningful change requires stepping up. What in particular made this the right time for you to throw your hat in the race?
At this time, when our country is so divided, and there are increasing barriers to support our California residents at a state level, I believe that now is the time for me to help my community and residents in the City of West Hollywood. I can best accomplish that by stepping up and becoming involved as an elected official in my local West Hollywood City Council.
This November election will be pivotal for the future of our residents. While I applaud our City Council on various levels, I believe that there are key perspectives that will be lost when two prominent City Council members term out.
That provides me with an opportunity to help place more focus on the needs of our residents, attract more businesses and workers to our great city, and increase safety. It pains me to see businesses close and drive by an increasing number of empty storefronts. It hurts to hear residents say they feel like they can’t afford to live in the city any longer and to read the headlines about people being attacked on the street.
If elected, you’d become the first Black City Council member and the first Black LGBTQ+ councilmember in Los Angeles County. Can you describe from your perspective the sheer significance of this?
West Hollywood has never had a Black City Council member.
The significance is about the diversity of voices. Having a seat at the table. But this isn’t about race; it’s about the representation of the diverse residents in my community and helping all people within my community. I just happen to be Black.
While I’m not hanging my hat on being the black voice, it does add a bit more flavor to what I can offer as a City Council member. I’m also the only candidate operating a for-profit company, and I’m in the process of building a family through surrogacy. My family journey creates a unique perspective because I’m not just thinking about myself, I’m thinking about what’s right for families with kids who live in this great city.
Studies show that leading organizations perform better when they have diverse perspectives at the top. For the City of West Hollywood, the top of our government is the City Council – and that’s where I believe I can make the most impact.
While it’s unfortunate that a Black City Council member has never existed in a city that is known for its progressive politics, I believe I am the right person at this moment in our history, who happens to be Black.
How have your identities as a Black & queer Los Angelino shaped your understanding of leadership and representation?
This is a tough one because throughout my life, I have been one of a few. This goes all the way back to being one of two or three people in my AP and Honors classes at Palisades High School — Pali High. Even though the school was diverse at the time, I was still the odd man out.
I have also worked with a variety of Fortune 100 and 500 companies on projects as a management consultant for Accenture and Deloitte Consulting. There were very few executives of color at some of these organizations, and rarely any Black LGBTQ executives.
There is a unique experience that many LGBTQ people of color share within mainstream LGBTQ spaces that also seems to parallel that of non-LGBTQ spaces. That is – their voices are muted. Do I think that Los Angeles and WEHO are significantly more accepting of people of color and LGBTQ people than many other parts of our country? Yes! However, there is still work to be done.
What experiences in your personal journey would you say most prepared you to run for public office?
Great question. I’ve always been involved in leadership positions — in high school and college, in business organizations where I worked, and for non-profits where I’ve volunteered. Specific to West Hollywood, I have been part of the Social Justice Advisory Board (originally the Social Justice Task Force) for over five years. I am a current member and past board member of the West Hollywood Chamber of Commerce. And, I have helped influence/lead key initiatives for the City as it relates to small business initiatives and advocating for residents.
I see a gap in the leadership of our great city, and I really want to serve. I want to help make things better. I also really believe and live by President Obama’s quotes, “We are the change that we seek” and “We are the change that we have been waiting for.” I was waiting to see someone who understood what businesses needed while also addressing the needs of residents. And now I believe that person must be me.
You’ve highlighted public safety as one of your key issues. What does “public safety that works” look like for folks in West Hollywood?
I have developed a lot of respect for our Sheriff’s department, security ambassadors, and our city staff who collectively work to provide our public safety.
For me, “public safety that works” involves a couple of things — one that focuses on continuous process improvement, and another that focuses on technology enablement. We must improve efficiency in our processes and update them with modern technology to support those processes.
How does that pertain the public safety? I’ve seen people walk out of the sheriff’s department without making a report because of the long wait. In addition, the City Council approved a drone system several years ago, and it has not yet been implemented. Why can’t our city launch a simple drone initiative? That boils down to proper planning, processes, and execution.
There are many processes and technology solutions that can be implemented without requiring a significant amount of funds. I’m happy to get more granular, but the bottom line is that we can do better in protecting our city.
We also need more eyes, watching and reporting.
How will you go about fostering stronger trust between the community and law enforcement?
This is an excellent question because it boils down to trust. Transparency and simplified reports for the public can really assist with trust. I review reports regularly that are presented at the Public Safety meetings, and they don’t really inform the public on what they need to know to stay safe. We’re not focused on metrics that matter. As a data person, I think we need a live dashboard with metrics the public can view – and in plain language they can understand. We can also consider developing a Community Task Force that is focused on solutions that help to build trust.
I recognize that law enforcement may feel underappreciated. At the same time, they don’t do themselves any favors by providing inaccurate accounts of the true state of public safety in West Hollywood. My answer is to fix the problem – not mask it.
What creativity will you be taking to revitalize empty storefronts and support local businesses?
West Hollywood primarily focuses on providing reports on the many restaurants, bars, retail shops, and hotels in our City. However, there are so many other industries that can also add value to our City. I believe we need to focus on creating incentives for a variety of industries to come to West Hollywood.
As a native Angeleno, I love our media and entertainment industries. Many of my friends are in the industry as creatives, production support, and/or investors. I would like to find incentives that can work for property owners and their realtors that would permit entertainment companies to film in some of the empty storefronts, to bring in revenue to West Hollywood. I would also like to take a deeper dive on what positive incentives can be made towards encouraging more businesses to migrate to our City, which will ultimately help all businesses.
As of late 2024, according to our City staff, we have never implemented industry-specific incentives for businesses to come to West Hollywood. Most businesses I know would appreciate a good deal.
Bottom line is that I believe incentives will help the local economy thrive by attracting new businesses and increasing tourism. Los Angeles is hosting the 2028 Olympics, so we’ve got to get busy.
Housing remains an ever-present issue across Los Angeles. What new or practical solutions would you advocate to maintain affordability in West Hollywood?
I have been a strong advocate of the West Hollywood Community Housing Corporation (WHCHC), and I like the idea of affordable housing. In addition, I believe that with more money coming from taxes based on our potential business growth, our City will eventually produce more money to give back to the residents, which will allow them to stay in their homes in West Hollywood. I look for win-win solutions and am a strong believer that if we do this right, everyone can win in our City.
In a city with a long history of LGBTQ advocacy, what new or evolving priorities do you believe need attention at this moment in time?
While I am concerned about some of our recent advancements with marriage and reproductive rights, my biggest concern lies with our transgender community. I’m saddened every day by the level of vulnerability that exists with our trans family members. Anything we can do to help advance their level of safety, provide adequate health support, and assist with ensuring their human rights are not being violated remains among my top priorities.
How do queer politics today differ from decades past, and how does/will that impact your campaign?
Representation matters. I think it’s time to hear ideas from BIPOC LGBTQ representatives. I would love to be in a position where I could help lift others. Today is similar to and different from past decades regarding queer politics. Today, the federal government is working to dismantle rights that have existed for years now. Whereas, in the past, the LGBTQ community was fighting for those rights. And many organizations, including the private sector, are uncertain on how to provide support without fear of retaliation.
What does inclusive leadership mean to you beyond representation?
Inclusive leadership means that we have diversity of thought – pluralism of ideas — helping to lead our great City. I voted for some of our City Council members — not always because I agreed with all of their policies — but because they had a unique perspective that I believed would benefit our City. It would be an unfathomable scenario if everyone thought alike and agendas were simply rubber-stamped without meaningful questions being raised or serious dialogue being had. Passion for the community, lived experiences, commitment to doing what’s right for the City, ethics and integrity– in addition to educational background and career skills- should all be considered when electing a City Council member. Any City Council bearing those traits will focus on delivering the best solutions for the people of West Hollywood.
What challenges do you foresee as a fresh candidate entering local politics, and how are you preparing yourself and your team to meet them?
As a new candidate, I am learning as I go. I bring a passionate commitment to my community and an ethical approach to politics. I hope my competitors will join me. I am running to support the people in my community. To help make West Hollywood a better place to live and work. I am talking to residents, businesses, law enforcement, industries, trade unions, and most importantly – the people who live here. I am listening to what the people want. I plan to host listening sessions because I want to digest the diverse voices so I can represent ALL OF THE PEOPLE. My team is focused on scheduling me to talk with a variety of groups, and I plan to canvas my local community, door by door, and ask the people for their vote.
Looking into the near future, what would success look like at the end of your first term if (or when) you are elected?
My first term would start in January of 2027 and last through January 2031. At the end of those four years, I would like to see the following:
1) Residents feel like they can afford to live in the City of West Hollywood and that the city adequately supports their basic needs regardless of stage of life, whether it’s starting their career, growing a family, or aging in place as a retired individual.
2) A thriving economy where new industries are emerging in the city and legacy footholds (like media and entertainment) are demonstrating a renewed presence in the City. 3) Simplified government processes, enabled by policy and technology, with people who are working together for the safety and good of the residents in the City of West Hollywood.
For more information about Wilson’s candidate campaign, head to Wilson4Weho.com
Iran
LGBTQ+ groups condemn Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian civilization
Ceasefire announced less than two hours before Tuesday deadline
The Council for Global Equality is among the groups that condemned President Donald Trump on Tuesday over his latest threats against Iran.
Trump in a Truth Social post said “a whole civilization will die tonight” if Tehran did not reach an agreement with the U.S. by 8 p.m. ET (5 p.m. PT) on Tuesday.
Iran is among the handful of countries in which consensual same-sex sexual relations remain punishable by death.
Israel and the U.S. on Feb. 28 launched airstrikes against Iran.
One of them killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Iran in response launched missiles and drones against Israel and other countries that include Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, and Cyprus.
Gas prices in the U.S. and around the world continue to increase because the war has essentially closed the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway that connects the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman through which roughly 20 percent of the world’s crude oil passes.
Trump less than 90 minutes before his deadline announced a two-week ceasefire with Iran that Pakistan helped broker.
“We the undersigned human rights, humanitarian, civil liberties, faith-based and environmental organizations, think tanks and experts are deeply alarmed by President Trump’s threat regarding Iran that ‘a whole civilization will die tonight’ if his demands are not met. Such language describes a grave atrocity if carried out,” reads the statement that the Council for Global Equality more than 200 other organizations and human rights experts signed. “A threat to wipe out ‘a whole civilization’ may amount to a threat of genocide. Genocide is a crime defined by the Genocide Convention and by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as committing one or more of several acts ‘with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, racial or religious groups as such.'”
The statement states “the law is clear that civilians must not be targeted, and they must also be protected from indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks.”
“Strikes on civilian infrastructure — such as the recent attack on a bridge and the attacks President Trump is repeatedly threatening to carry out to destroy power plants — have devastating consequences for the civilian population and environment,” it reads.
“We urge all parties to respect international law,” adds the statement. “Those responsible for atrocities, including crimes against humanity and war crimes, can and must be held accountable.”
The Alliance for Diplomacy and Justice, Amnesty International USA, Human Rights Watch, the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP, MADRE, and the Robert and Ethel Kennedy Human Rights Center are among the other groups that signed the letter.
President Donald Trump removed Attorney General Pam Bondi from her post Thursday, following growing criticism over how she and the Department of Justice handled a range of issues, including matters related to sex offender and Trump ally Jeffrey Epstein.
Trump announced Bondi’s removal on Truth Social, where he also said Todd Blanche will serve as acting head of the Justice Department.
“Pam Bondi is a great American patriot and a loyal friend, who faithfully served as my attorney general over the past year,” Trump wrote on the platform. “Pam did a tremendous job overseeing a massive crackdown on crime across our country, with murders plummeting to their lowest level since 1900.”
Trump was seen as recently as Wednesday with the now-former attorney general at a Supreme Court hearing on citizenship.
The decision contrasts with Trump’s previous public praise of Bondi, the 87th U.S. attorney general and former 37th attorney general of Florida, who served in that role from 2011-2019 before joining the Trump-Vance administration. He has frequently lauded her loyalty and said he speaks with her often. Bondi was also one of president’s defense lawyers during his first impeachment trial.
Privately, however, Trump had grown frustrated that Bondi was not “moving quickly enough” to prosecute critics and political adversaries he wanted to face criminal charges, according to multiple sources. The New York Times reported that her inability to charge former FBI Director James B. Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James with any crimes is a large factor in the president’s choice to fire her from the government’s primary law enforcement agency.
The move comes as Trump has sought to minimize public turmoil within his administration, avoiding the perception of a revolving-door Cabinet that defined his first term.
Lee Zeldin, a former Republican congressman from New York who unsuccessfully ran for governor, has emerged as a leading contender to lead the Justice Department. He has been one of Trump’s most reliable allies.
“He’s our secret weapon,” Trump said of Zeldin in February during a White House event promoting the coal industry, adding, “He’s getting those approvals done in record-setting time.”
Bondi has also growing faced scrutiny from Congress.
The House Oversight Committee recently subpoenaed her to testify about the department’s handling of certain files, where she declined to answer key questions during a contentious House Judiciary Committee hearing in February.
The Tampa native has a long history of opposing LGBTQ+ rights through her roles in government. As Florida attorney general, she fought against the legalization of same-sex marriage, arguing it would cause “serious public harm,” pushing forward a legal battle that cost taxpayers nearly half a million dollars. She also asked the Florida Supreme Court to overturn a lower court ruling that found the state’s same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional.
More recently, Bondi established a “Title IX Special Investigations Team” within the Justice Department focused on restricting transgender women and girls from participating in women’s and girls’ sports teams and accessing facilities aligned with their gender identity. She also told Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia to turn over the medical records of anyone under 19 who received gender-affirming care.
Her removal follows Trump’s decision last month to oust another controversial female Cabinet figure, Kristi Noem.
California Politics
“I’ve always been an ally.” Seven gubernatorial candidates discuss LGBTQ+ rights at recent forum
Read what seven Democratic candidates running for governor said about how they would support queer Californians.
On Monday evening, seven Democratic candidates running for California governor walked into a packed auditorium in front of the county’s most prominent LGBTQ+ communities. In a forum co-presented by civil rights organization Equality California and the local queer nonprofit Los Angeles LGBT Center, each candidate tried to convince the crowd why they are the best choice for LGBTQ+ Californians.
The candidates present were: former California Attorney General and U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra, former Congresswoman Katie Porter, Congressman Eric Swalwell, billionaire entrepreneur and environmentalist Tom Steyer, California State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, former L.A. mayor and Speaker of the California State Assembly Antonio Villaraigosa, and former California State Controller Betty Yee.
Swalwell, Steyer, and Porter are top contenders, according to a recent statewide survey conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California. 30% of the survey’s voters are split between other candidates, including Villaraigosa, Yee, Thurmond, and Becerra.
Political analysts and reporters are stumped; it’s difficult to parse out a clear frontrunner at this moment. As we head towards a primary election in June, community offerings like Monday’s forum allow constituents, including those who are LGBTQ+, decide which candidate is most likely to fulfill their promise of defending queer rights.
The Blade gathered notable quotes from each candidate in regards to LGBTQ+ issues. Passages have been edited for clarity.
How has each candidate stood with LGBTQ+ communities?
Each candidate was individually called up to the stage and given about 13 minutes to answer the same set of questions. A forum rather than a debate, the evening allowed each person to discuss their past work with LGBTQ+ communities as well as their perspectives on transgender health care, LGBTQ+ youth, homelessness, and the war in Iran.
The first question of the evening was definitive. NBC4 anchor Colleen Williams, the forum’s co-moderator, asked candidates to give themselves a letter grade to define their past work with LGBTQ+ communities.
Xavier Becerra
“I have been an ally. Equality California has recognized that twice. But I go further back than that. There was a time in the 1990’s where two individuals who loved each other couldn’t get married if they were the same sex. There was a law that passed in Congress, called the ‘Defense of Marriage Act.’ 67 members out of 435 voted ‘no’ against that discriminatory law. I was one of them.
I will never put a vote down or take an action that would discriminate against someone else. That’s why I’ve taken action year over year, whether it was as Attorney General when I defended the ability of our LGBTQ community to have access to affordable care under the ACA [or] as Secretary of HHS. When it [came] to gender affirming care, it’s not what the politicians in Congress say: it’s what the medical and scientific experts say is the best health for every American.
I have a history that runs longer than anyone who’s running for governor in talking about how I’ve been a true and enduring ally of the LGBTQ+ community.”
Katie Porter
“I’m a professor, and I’m a pretty notoriously tough grader. I don’t really believe in A-pluses, because I think there is always work to be done. But I would give myself an A, and I feel proud of the way that I’ve fought alongside the LGBTQ+ community, the way that I have represented those that I was fortunate enough to represent in Orange County, and to do that in an area that has historically been very, very hostile to the gay community.
I’m so very proud to have flipped the seat and to have been bold in voting for the Equality Act, in calling out Republicans for trying to attack LGBTQ families and limit their ability to adopt, for example. What would I do differently as governor? I think that starts with recognizing that we are not at a place of full equality. It is a journey, and we are not at our destination, and that is particularly true for transgender people. They are still facing discrimination in health care, housing, and employment in so many other areas. So I think that’s something I would really want to focus on, is recognizing that within the coalition, within the LGBTQ+ community, we have real work to do, particularly for those who are facing the most challenges.”
Eric Swalwell
“I’ve been in Congress for 14 years. So, you get as a future governor someone who’s been in the arena and someone who has been on record, and my record with the Human Rights Campaign has been 100%, and I’m proud of that. I’ve always been an ally. I always will be an ally, but there’s a lot more for me to learn. [There’s] always room for improvement, but [I have] a 14-year record of working on these issues and 100% of the time being with the community.”
Tom Steyer
“I don’t think my grade for myself is the way to think about it. I think the LGBTQ community’s grade is the one that counts. And I have worked actually very closely over the years with Equality California. And in fact, the former executive director of Equality California, Rick Zbur has endorsed me. I mean, we’re friends, but we’ve done so much work together through this organization. So for me, my question is going to always be: What are the people in the community think about what I’m trying to do? Does it have real impact in terms of doing a better job as governor? You have an ability to have immense impact on this community and in general.
To me, the question is going to be to make sure that this is a priority that is incredibly high because of what’s at risk. What’s the cost of not coming through for this community? Very, very, very high.”
Tony Thurmond
“As the State Superintendent of Schools, I sponsored the legislation to establish gender neutral bathrooms in our schools in California. I sponsored the legislation to ban any banning of curricula that would block the contributions of LGBTQ Californians to our great state, and I sponsored the legislation that made the law the Safety Act that says we don’t do forced outings in the state of California.
And as governor, I will continue to support our LGBTQ+ community: to support the right for health care, including gender affirming care, to make sure that there are health care resources, [and] that we address discrimination in housing. As we speak right now, I’m sponsoring legislation that would provide subsidized housing to minors who are homeless. In our state, there are 10,000 homeless youth in our state who are on their own under the age of 18. And as many of you know, our young people [who are homeless] are oftentimes disproportionately LGBTQ+.
As [for] a grade, I’ll say I’m a work in progress, because I’m hungry to do more. I think that more needs to be done. I’m not here to rest on laurels. As a governor, I’m going to fight back on the Trump administration in the same way that I’ve done to pass legislation that says ICE has no place in our schools [and] in our hospitals. We are under attack, but we’re going to fight back, and as your governor, I’m going to help lead that attack against Trump in this reckless administration.”
Antonio Villaraigosa
“A+. I started in the beginning. I was doing this. When I was Speaker of the California State Assembly, I was chair of this budget subcommittee that dealt with the AIDS formulary. I took on Pete Wilson, [who] had pushed back constantly on that formulary, and we won. [And the] first anti-discrimination bill in housing and employment. We’d been working on it for 30 years. I authored it. I joined [what was then the] Gay and Lesbian Caucus at the time. I authored, with Carole Migden, the first domestic partnership bill.
Then, when I was mayor, I led Mayors for Equality. When I was chairman of the convention, the first thing they asked me in 2012 was my position on gay marriage. I said: ‘You know it. I’ve been strongly for it since 1994.’ Obama’s people got upset with me because I was the chair of the convention, and I said it should be on the platform. I was the first person in the country to take out transgender females [and] separate them in the men’s jail.
So, what would I do to continue the A+? Continue to be at the forefront of fighting for LGBTQ rights.”
Betty Yee
“I would give myself an A. I’ve been a lifelong ally to this community. Being from San Francisco, I have really seen the emergence of this community to where we are today. I think in terms of any room for improvement, it’s because we are under attack, and so we’re going to have to double down in terms of the advocacy, the ways that we stand up for our communities and the way we protect each other. I know that as the next governor — that is going to be the first order of business. California does not take lightly that our rights and protections are being taken away from all of our communities, so we have to continue to be the beacon of hope for so many.”
Transgender health: how would the candidates protect gender-affirming care as the federal administration tries to shut down these essential services?
Candidates were asked about the current state of gender-affirming care for transgender people and youth, which continues to be threatened and shuttered by the administration. Last year, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles closed its Center for Transyouth Health and Development as well as its Gender Affirming Care surgical program. Amidst rampant protest, federal efforts targeting these programs continue to grow.
The forum’s next question was: How would candidates handle this gap in gender-affirming care? Would they enforce state law that states that gender-affirming care should be offered, on the grounds of anti-discriminatory practices? How would they enforce this if federal funds are withheld?
Xavier Becerra
“First, we would not take a knee to Donald Trump. Secondly, we would enforce and you’re hearing that from the voice of a former enforcer: the former Attorney General for the state of California. Third, I will tell you, as the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, that the medical experts [and] societies that have done the research and have done the work and the studies, are the ones that should guide the care that we provide to all Americans, including our children.
They have said that gender affirming care, including for our children, is not only supportive of good health, it also provides for a good life. As Governor, I will enforce the laws. I will not discriminate, and I will be an ally for those who need access to the kind of care that lets you live a thorough life. Remember, today we have 10 year olds who are contemplating suicide, and too often you find so many of those youth in our LGBTQ community. That’s because they don’t feel like they are heard, and we need to make sure we are there.”
Katie Porter
“I’ve had conversations with some of our largest health care providers in the state about this. It is a really big concern. I’ve heard about it directly from parents and from affected youth. I think we need to be very clear about what’s at stake here. This is a health care issue, and we are fighting for health care.
We have seen women’s health care under attack not very many years ago, and by the way, coming again under the Trump administration. I think the answer to what I would do is: we need to provide state funding for this. I believe that what the legislature is fighting for, which is $26 million in order to provide a state-only medical pathway [to] make sure that we are not putting our institutions in a choice between losing their funding, which provides health care for lots of Californians, and having to provide appropriate medical care for every single kid in California, including gender affirming care.
That $26 million, I want to be very, very clear: it sounds like a big number. It’s less than [what] one of my opponents spent on TV ads in the last couple months. It is a number that we can fund. We are the world’s fourth largest economy. We should be able to provide health care for every single California kid, including gender affirming care.”
Eric Swalwell
“This President has declared war on the health care of our kids, with gender affirming care. Troops are in our streets. Women are being dragged by their hair and thrown into unmarked vans. Advocates of the most vulnerable in our community are publicly being executed. We need a fighter protector in Sacramento, and that’s the experience I offer as the son of a cop, as a prosecutor for seven years in Oakland, who led the hate crimes unit in Alameda County, but also someone for the last 10 years as the worst, cruelest, most incompetent person ever has been President of the United States, I was with Adam Schiff in the Russia investigation. I was a part of both impeachments. I have the only lawsuit that has survived this new presidency. I know you have to go on offense, otherwise the most vulnerable are on defense.
But it’s my job also to find as much revenue as possible to backfill what you just described. There’s a real opportunity not to get it all back, but to leverage being in the majority, being the fourth largest economy in the world and the might that we have in the congressional delegation, adding five more seats with the work we’re going to do for Prop 50 to get back as much as possible on day one.”
Tom Steyer
“I would, and I’ll tell you why. It goes back to my relationship and experience with Rick Zbur, because he made sure that I knew transgender people, that I got a chance to talk to them, and I got information on that community a long time ago. What I learned was how much risk they’re at, especially transgender youth. I think when I first learned about it, the percentage of transgender youth who tried to kill themselves was 50 percent. The last statistic I’ve seen more recently is 39 percent. When I said priorities: what is the risk if you don’t do it? And the answer is, the risk is really, really, really high. To me, that’s a risk that is unbearable as a state. And therefore I would insist on enforcing those laws, and I would insist on that care.”
Tony Thurmond
“I would enforce that law, and as governor, I intend to implement a single payer health care system, and build into that an understanding that we provide gender affirming care and to continue to lift up the principles of gender affirming care in our state. I’ve spoken out already as a UC Regent, because there are some hospitals in the regent system that try not to provide care, and as governor, I’ll continue to make that a priority.”
Antonio Villaraigosa
“Yes, I would enforce state law because it is discrimination, number one. And it’s not just LA Children’s Hospital. I think San Diego just did the same thing. We’ll backfill. The state will backfill that money that the feds have taken out. It is discrimination, pure and simple.”
Betty Yee
“Absolutely. I think that’s what we have to stand on, and we have to strengthen those laws to be sure that they are being enforced. And also look at our regulatory agencies to be sure that our providers are exactly following state law. Look, we are really the leader in all of this. And I am very, very saddened to know that here in California we have providers that feel like they can step away from this requirement. And I certainly want to bring that back full focus to be sure that no one [who needs it] is going without gender affirming care.”
To hear the other topics discussed, exclusive livestream partners NBCLA and Telemundo 52 have uploaded the full forum on their respective channels. Click the hyperlinks to view.
Kristie Song is a California Local News Fellow placed with the Los Angeles Blade. The California Local News Fellowship is a state-funded initiative to support and strengthen local news reporting. Learn more about it at fellowships.journalism.berkeley.edu/cafellows.
Congress
Padilla speaks at ‘ICE Out for Good’ protest in D.C.
ICE agent killed Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis on Jan. 7
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Md.) is among those who spoke at an “ICE Out for Good” protest that took place outside U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s headquarters in D.C. on Tuesday.
The protest took place six days after a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old woman in Minneapolis.
Good left behind her wife and three children.
(Video by Michael K. Lavers)
Politics
LGBTQ Democrats say they’re ready to fight to win in 2026
Queer leaders warn Democrats not to abandon trans people
The Democratic National Committee held its annual winter meetings in Downtown Los Angeles over the weekend, and queer Democrats showed up with a clear message for the national organization: Don’t abandon queer and trans people.
Following last year’s disastrous presidential and congressional elections, many influential pundits and some powerful lawmakers called on Democrats to distance the party from unpopular positions on trans rights, in order to win swing districts by wooing more conservative voters.
But members of the DNC’s LGBTQ Caucus say that’s actually a losing strategy.
“There are still parts of our party saying we need to abandon trans people in order to win elections, which is just not provable, actually. It’s just some feelings from some old consultants in DC,” LGBTQ Caucus Chair Sean Meloy says.
Some national Democrats are already backtracking from suggestions that they walk back on trans rights.
California Governor Gavin Newsom grabbed national attention in March when he suggested that it was “deeply unfair” for trans girls to play in women’s sports. But last week, he doubled down on support for trans rights, claiming to have signed more trans-rights legislation than any governor in the country, and entering into feuds on X with Elon Musk and Nicki Minaj over his support for trans kids.
Democrats are also clearly feeling the wind in their sails recently after major election victories in Virginia and New Jersey last month, as well as victories in dozens of local and state legislative elections across the country in 2025.
“[Abigail] Spanberger in Virginia didn’t win by dodging the trans question. She won by attacking it, confronting it, and that’s how she got ahead,” says Vivian Smotherman, trans activist and at-large member of the DNC’s LGBTQ Caucus.
“Trans people are not a problem. We are a resource,” Smotherman says. “For my community, surviving into adulthood is not a guarantee, it’s an accomplishment. You don’t walk through a survival gauntlet without learning things… I’m not begging the DNC to protect my community. I’m here to remind you that we are the warriors tempered by fire, and we are fully capable of helping this party win.”
At its own meeting on Friday, the LGBTQ Caucus announced several new initiatives to ensure that queer and trans issues stay top of mind for the DNC as it gears up for the midterm elections next year.
One plan is to formalize the DNC’s Trans Advisory Board as distinct from the LGBTQ Caucus, to help introduce candidates across the country to trans people and trans issues.
“One in three people in this country know a trans person. Two-thirds of Americans don’t think they do,” Smotherman says. “So the real problem is not being trans, it’s that you don’t know us. You cannot authentically support a trans person if you’ve never met one.
“That’s why my first goal with this Trans Advisory Board is to host a monthly Meet a Trans Person webinar. Not as a spectacle, as a debate, but as a human connection, and I will be charging every state chair with asking every one of their candidates up and down the board if they know a trans person. And if that person doesn’t know a trans person, I’m gonna have that state chair put them on that webinar.”
The LGBTQ caucus is also opening up associate membership to allies who do not identify as LGBTQ, in order to broaden support and connections over queer issues.
It’s also preparing for the inevitable attacks Republicans will throw at queer candidates and supporters of LGBTQ issues.
“These attacks are going to come. You have to budget money proactively. You have to be ready to fight,” Meloy says. “There are some local party chairs who don’t want to recruit LGBTQ candidates to run because these issues might come up, right? That’s an absolutely ludicrous statement, but there are still people who need support in how to be ready and how to respond to these things that inevitably come.”
“The oldest joke is that Democrats don’t have a spine. And when they come after us, and we do not reply, we play right into that.”
Meloy also alluded to anti-LGBTQ tropes that queer people are out to harm children, and said that Democrats should be prepared to make the case that it’s actually Republicans who are protecting child abusers – for example, by suppressing the Epstein files.
“They are weak on this issue. Take the fight, empower your parties to say, ‘These people have nothing to stand on,’” Meloy says.
Lesbian cinema, from the archives and beyond, lead this short film festival
State Department implements anti-trans bathroom policy
I’m telling the scared little girl I once was it’s okay to feel free
I don’t see the point in a relationship
Trans parent charged with kidnapping, allegedly fled to Cuba with child
Intentional hospitality: How Ivo Cooper is redefining the dining experience at M Grill
Crowned with a purpose: Advocate & Miss International Queen USA 2026 Lo Colby shares on empowerment, identity, and her legacy to come
Grindr to host first-ever White House Correspondents’ Dinner party
‘Big Mistakes’ an uneven – but worthy – comedic showcase
Running loud & proud: Stephen Post brings energy, advocacy, and experience to the West Hollywood City Council race
-
Dining5 days agoIntentional hospitality: How Ivo Cooper is redefining the dining experience at M Grill
-
Features4 days agoCrowned with a purpose: Advocate & Miss International Queen USA 2026 Lo Colby shares on empowerment, identity, and her legacy to come
-
White House2 days agoGrindr to host first-ever White House Correspondents’ Dinner party
-
Television4 days ago‘Big Mistakes’ an uneven – but worthy – comedic showcase
-
Commentary4 days agoRunning loud & proud: Stephen Post brings energy, advocacy, and experience to the West Hollywood City Council race
-
Events3 days ago“Conscious baddies” are creating empowering queer portals across L.A.
-
Events3 days agoBeloved gay romcom “The Broken Hearts Club” screens this Saturday at WeHo Park
-
West Hollywood12 hours agoLesbian cinema, from the archives and beyond, lead this short film festival
-
National2 days agoInside the lonely world of MAGA gay men
-
Giving2 days ago$20K in 20 Days for the LA Blade