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.
Politics
Log Cabin Republicans remove transgender rights from mission
Decision made after ‘significant discussion’ with members, board
Log Cabin Republicans, an organization that formerly represented LGBTQ+ conservatives, has removed advocating for transgender and queer rights from its “renewed” national advocacy focus.
In an opinion piece written by Log Cabin Republicans President Ross Hemminger for the conservative media outlet Town Hall, he announced that trans rights would no longer be part of what the organization advocates for through conservative leadership and candidates.
In his piece, Hemminger wrote that after “significant discussion” with members and Log Cabin Republicans’ board of directors, the organization’s leadership voted to “refine Log Cabin Republicans’ national advocacy focus to concentrate specifically on issues of sexual orientation and conservative values,” a focus that does not include trans people.
“We have fought for the right to legally marry who we love, serve our country and our communities openly and proudly, and to enjoy the same inalienable rights afforded to all law-abiding Americans — and we succeeded,” Hemminger wrote. “However, the new era of gender identity politics is not the movement we supported and fought for. Gay men and women are losing public support across the country, and support for gay marriage and other once-widely accepted rights is eroding. Why? Because many voters today weren’t alive or cognizant of the politics of gay marriage winding its way through the courts and gaining ground in public opinion. Their view of the gay community is based on today’s radical transgender activists with their unnecessary and discomfiting focus on America’s youth.”
Hemminger then went on to argue that trans advocacy has shifted to focusing primarily on minors — a characterization that does not reflect the breadth of issues trans advocates address.
“They push schools to teach radical gender ideology; they want biological men in women’s sports regardless of the consequences; perhaps most offensively, they support gender reassignment treatments for minors, often without the knowledge or consent of the parents, knowing full well these treatments are mostly irreversible,” he wrote.
Hemminger and many right-wing political leaders have continued to assert this false reality as fact.
A Harvard-affiliated study found approximately 2.1 gender-affirming surgeries occur per 100,000 trans and gender-diverse minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria, underscoring how uncommon these procedures are among minors. In addition to the option of surgery for those who think it’s right for them, there is an array of other medically sound options to treat gender dysphoria, which according to KFF, an independent source for health policy research and polling, includes “medical, surgical, mental health, and non-medical services for transgender and nonbinary people.”
Additionally trans advocacy is not as narrow as Hemminger makes it seem in his opinion piece.
There are a slew of issues the trans community faces — and fights for — on a daily basis that have nothing to do with healthcare. Those include obtaining government documents that accurately reflect one’s gender identity, multiple elements of family law that include the right to marry and adopt children as straight couples can, protections from violence, hate crime protections, the right to serve in the military, access to bathrooms corresponding with their gender, and the right to education.
Despite the overwhelming number of issues trans people — regardless of political affiliation — have to struggle with as a result of systemic gaps in protections that are supposed to be afforded to everyone under the law, they remain vulnerable to unequal treatment.
Despite this shift, Log Cabin Republicans has committed to standing with the Republican Party rather than LGBTQ+ people as a whole. The organization was initially founded as a loosely connected network of local California social clubs made up of LGBTQ+ conservatives in the late 1970s before eventually emerging as a national political organization in the early 1990s under its founding executive director, Rich Tafel.
As the organization continued to gain momentum, it endorsed a handful of Republicans who voted against the Respect for Marriage Act, the 2022 law that federally recognized marriage equality for same-sex couples.
The Los Angeles Blade reached out to Log Cabin Republicans for comment but did not hear back by the time of publication.
White House
Trump-Vance administration’s LGBTQ+ brain drain: what you need to know
Several high profile figures have left government since January 2025
Uncloseted Media published this article on Aug. 21.
By SPENCER MACNAUGHTON and HOPE PISONI | Since President Donald Trump regained office in January 2025, he and his administration have waged an all-out war against the LGBTQ+ community.
This has led queer Americans to move to other countries at unprecedented rates — Rainbow Railroad, a Canadian nonprofit that supports LGBTQ+ asylum seekers, reported receiving a huge increase in inquiries from the U.S. last year.
The same pattern is playing out within the government. And it’s leading to a brain drain of competent queer employees and allies who are either resigning or being fired, often because of their LGBTQ+ identity or their belief that queer people deserve basic human rights.
Here are six examples of federal workers who had a messy exit from Trump 2.0:
Demetre Daskalakis
- WHAT HE DID: Dr. Daskalakis is one of the foremost LGBTQ+ health professionals in the U.S. Under Trump’s first term, he was appointed director of the Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Under Biden, he also served as the deputy response coordinator for mpox at the White House.
- WHAT HAPPENED: While he continued a lot of this work under Trump 2.0, he didn’t last long. In August 2025, he resigned from the CDC, writing in his resignation letter that he was “unable to serve in an environment that treats CDC as a tool to generate policies and materials that do not reflect scientific reality and are designed to hurt rather than to improve the public’s health.”
- BOTTOM LINE: I recently interviewed Daskalakis, where he told me that leadership from RFK Jr.’s Health and Human Services Department justified HIV cuts by saying the virus is “just too woke.”
Julia Curlee
- WHAT SHE DID: Julia Curlee worked in intelligence for nearly two decades between the CIA and the National Security Council. Earlier this week, she wrote an article in The Atlantic explaining how she had served as Mike Pence’s daily briefer and the NSC’s director for intelligence programs. During Trump 1.0, she briefed the president on Air Force One.
- WHAT HAPPENED: Curlee told CNN this week that in Trump’s second term, her treatment by the federal government transformed. She was no longer allowed to use the women’s bathroom on federal property and had to leave her workplace to relieve herself. Her passport was also reissued to read “male,” which led to complications when traveling abroad. In March 2025, less than 70 days into Trump’s second term, Curlee says she received a call while at a rib joint in Virginia with her family informing her that her White House tour was over and that they couldn’t tell her why. She continued to work for the CIA for some months, but she later resigned.
- BOTTOM LINE: Curlee wrote that moments after she learned she was fired from the White House, she saw a post from right-wing political activist Laura Loomer that read “A transgender, Biden holdover who hates President Trump is still working in the NSC intel office. I’m told there are several NSC staffers who have complained that this trans Biden holdover hasn’t been fired yet, but nothing is being done about it.”
Marc Seawright
- WHAT HE DID: Marc Seawright worked for more than eight years at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Most recently, he served as the EEOC’s director of information governance and strategy, where he oversaw tech policy to help combat workplace harassment and discrimination.
- WHAT HAPPENED: During Trump 2.0, Seawright was ordered to develop technology that would erase any mention of LGBTQ identities from EEOC outreach materials. “[My expertise] was being leveraged to perpetuate discrimination against people like me,” he told the Associated Press. In that article, Seawright and other transgender and gender nonconforming federal employees described their “fear, grief, frustration, and distress working for the federal government at a time when it rejects them — often with no clear path for recourse or support.”
- BOTTOM LINE: Seawright quit in June, citing a hostile work environment. “It became overwhelming. It felt insurmountable,” he told the AP. He has now hired lawyers at Katz Banks Kumin and has filed a discrimination complaint.
David Maltinsky
- WHAT HE DID: Until 2025, Maltinsky worked for more than 16 years at the FBI as an intelligence specialist. In 2025, he was training to become a special agent, but three weeks ahead of graduation, he was fired.
- WHAT HAPPENED: On Oct. 1, he was delivered a letter from FBI Director Kash Patel informing him that he was being fired for an “inappropriate display of political signage.” The signage in question, according to Maltinsky, was a Pride flag displayed in his work station at a previous post in Los Angeles. The flag had been given to him by the FBI’s LA Field Office, and Maltinsky says he had been told by multiple supervisors that displaying it would not be a violation.
- BOTTOM LINE: Maltinsky is currently suing the FBI and the Department of Justice, arguing that his firing constituted unlawful discrimination.
Mary Brinkmeyer
- WHAT SHE DID: Brinkmeyer had been working as a psychologist for the Department of Veterans Affairs since 2008. She held multiple leadership roles, including the LGBTQ+ veteran care coordinator at the Hampton VA Medical Center. She established the first military support group for trans servicemembers and was awarded Navy Psychology Civilian Psychologist of the Year in 2016.
- WHAT HAPPENED: Following an early Trump executive order directing the federal government to purge any practices promoting “gender ideology,” Brinkmeyer says staff at her workplace were told to remove all LGBTQ+-affirming materials from both public and private areas, as well as to identify “anything in medical records, training materials, or patient resources that could be considered ‘gender ideology.’” When she refused to comply and confronted her supervisor, she says her concerns were dismissed.
- BOTTOM LINE: Brinkmeyer resigned in February 2025, stating that she “didn’t want to be complicit in something that I knew was wrong.”
Amy Paris
- WHAT SHE DID: Paris was the second-highest ranking trans woman in the federal government, serving as a deputy digital services lead in the HHS Department, where she oversaw the safety of organ donations. Prior to that, she worked in a number of tech-related roles across the federal government since the Bush administration. She helped create cross-agency spending trackers, streamlined unemployment insurance during the pandemic and implemented trans-inclusive policies like gender-neutral passports.
- WHAT HAPPENED: Paris was fired as part of a string of mass layoffs across the federal government in February 2025. While the HHS did not publicly comment on why she was fired, Paris says she was told it was because of her performance, despite the fact that she got a 4.75 out of five on her last performance review and was praised for her work by multiple Biden administration officials.
- BOTTOM LINE: Paris told the 19th she suspected her firing was politically motivated, saying the Trump administration is “trying to sow discord and disrupt confidence in the workings of the federal government.”
Politics
Summer Democratic Primaries keep popping up surprises
“Floridians are worried about the cost of housing, healthcare, food, and gas — not the color of their sidewalks or the governor’s opinion on their personal life.” – Democratic candidate David Jolly
Tuesday’s primary races in Florida, Alaska, California, and Wyoming saw a mix of establishment versus insurgent on the Democratic side and right versus far right among Republicans, suggesting that the power of lame duck Donald Trump’s endorsement is apparently waning.
In Republican primaries in Wyoming and two congressional districts in Florida, only 28% of the nearly 300,000 voters followed Trump’s orders, “marking a particularly brutal night for Trump-endorsed candidates,” CNN reported.
That brings to 10 the number of Trump-backed candidate losses for statewide office or Congress this primary season, “equal to the number who lost in 2018, 2020 and 2024 primaries combined, according to a CNN analysis using Trump endorsements compiled by Ballotpedia.”
Ironically, Tuesday night also saw development in a primary of deep interest: Trump-appointed Sen. Darline Graham, sister of the late rumored-to-be-closeted Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, face-planted in a debate against primary runoff opponent, Rep. Ralph Northam, before next Tuesday, Aug. 25’s special runoff election in South Carolina.
Conservative debate moderator Greta Van Susteren asked the candidates about Taiwan, a democratic island of 23 million people that the Chinese Communist Party intends to “unify” with China. “Are Taiwan and the South China Sea national security issues for the United States? If so, why?”
“I’m not … that informed on national security, so — but I do support the military,” Graham said. “National security is not my thing, not my area of expertise, but I do support the military.”
Northam said that “Taiwan’s a definite ally,” but, CNN reported, he applauded Trump for “enabling Taiwan to defend itself against China.”
Trump’s response to Tuesday night’s primaries was to take the press corps on an impromptu tour of the new White House driveway, paved with California-mined white granite described as a “very special stone” that leads effortlessly to the now almost $900 million ballroom – which he describes as “the military complex” – where construction continues despite a court order to stop. The tour also included the newly flat helipad on the South Lawn.
Meanwhile, pundits are filling up cable and internet airtime asking, “Who, exactly, is Natalie Harp to Donald Trump?” The New York Times featured an extensive consideration of Trump’s 35-year-old blonde constant companion dubbed his “human printer.”
But for those focused on gas prices, affordability, the war in Iran, and polls showing Trump’s historic disapproval ratings and the disaffection of MAGA voters, dissecting political trends in the face of fast-approaching midterms is like analyzing code showing a growing tsunami on a funky old laptop.
LGBTQ+ Floridians hoped voters would send a Black gay man to the U.S. House. Three were on the ballot – Shevrin Jones, Kendrick Meek Jr., and Elijah Manley – but the congressional hopefuls were each defeated.
Jones, a Florida state senator, lost narrowly to Oliver Gilbert III, a Miami-Dade County commissioner, in the race for the Democratic nomination in the 24th Congressional District. Rep. Frederica Wilson, retiring after eight terms, endorsed Gilbert as her successor. Jones secured 32 percent of the vote to Gilbert’s 34 percent in a field of seven candidates that included Meek, son and grandson of former U.S. representatives, who finished with 17 percent.
Te Mayonna Brown, who touts “traditional values” on her campaign website, was unopposed for the Republican nomination. But since the South Florida district is one of the few still safely Democratic after Republican-led redistricting, Gilbert is expected to win in November.
Jones congratulated Gilbert and pledged support. “Looking ahead to November, I’m committed to doing everything I can to help elect Democrats up and down the ticket. The stakes are too high to sit on the sidelines, and I’ll be out there campaigning and organizing for our candidates because our shared values are worth fighting for, in this race and every one that follows,” he said in a statement.
Jones was hit with a homophobic attack during the campaign. A text message, falsely claiming to be from the LGBTQ+ rights group Equality Florida, falsely claimed that Jones is HIV-positive and was turned away from donating blood, despite the lifting of the national ban on blood donations by gay and bisexual men three years ago.
In the Democratic primary for Florida’s 20th Congressional District, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a longtime congresswoman and LGBTQ+ ally, defeated Manley and three others. Wasserman Schultz currently lives in and represents the 25th District. But Republican redistricting put her in the 22nd District, which is Republican-leaning. So Wasserman Schultz, who is white, decided to run in the heavily Democratic, majority-Black 20th District in South Florida, which has been represented by a Black Democrat for more than three decades.
Though Wasserman Schultz had allies, Politico reported that “the Congressional Black Caucus warned that as many as 19 of its members could be out of a job come November given efforts across the South to weaken Black voting power through redistricting, in part after the Supreme Court dismantled key provisions of the Voting Rights Act.” Wasserman Schultz will face Brent Andersen, a conservative businessman, who won Tuesday’s Republican primary in the district.
After his loss, the inspirational Manley posted on X, “We came up short in our race for Congress, but I’ve never been more fired up for the future. This campaign and this district have been through so much change and turmoil.” He congratulated Wasserman Schultz on her win, adding, “She has the important task of trying to unite a community that is divided.”
In another key Florida race, intensely Trumpian anti-LGBTQ+ U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds won the Republican nomination for governor to succeed the term-out, notoriously anti-LGBTQ+ Gov. Ron DeSantis. Donalds will be up against David Jolly, a former conservative Florida Republican congressman who became an independent, then a Democrat. His campaign website praises diversity, calling for “a Florida for everyone,” which “means ensuring that every person, regardless of where they were born, the color of their skin, who they love, or who they worship, has the chance to live with dignity and feel like they are part of the future of this state.”
Instead of addressing affordability issues in the expensive state, Donalds seems to be centering his campaign on attacking Jolly over his support for trans youth, including an ad that The Poynter Institute’s PolitiFact calls “deceptively edited.”
Instead of avoiding the attack while speaking in The Villages, a renowned Trump-supporting retirement community, Jolly addressed the anti-trans ad directly. He noted that Donalds’ $25 million ad “doesn’t once mention Trump’s economy, doesn’t once mention the cost of housing or healthcare, or the cost of food or gas.”
“You know what he spends it on? To attack the LGBTQ+ community,” Jolly said. “It is shameful. What kind of leader divides people?”
Donalds calls Jolly “a Trojan Horse for the Democrat Socialists of America.” Jolly retorts that he’s “running for governor because life is too expensive. Floridians are worried about the cost of housing, healthcare, food, and gas — not the color of their sidewalks or the governor’s opinion on their personal life.”
In a special primary for the U.S. Senate from Florida, Ashley Moody, who was appointed by DeSantis when Marco Rubio became Secretary of State, easily won the Republican nomination. She’s another Trump ally.
On the Democratic side, democratic socialist Angie Nixon, a Florida state lawmaker, scored a shocking win over Alex Vindman, a military veteran and national security expert who was a key witness in Trump’s first impeachment trial.
“It’s hard to overstate how shocking Nixon’s victory was,” Punchbowl News AM reported Aug. 19. “Vindman garnered national attention — and an army of small-dollar donors — after testifying in the Trump impeachment proceedings. He spent $9 million total by the end of July. Nixon spent less than $900,000.”
In Wyoming, State Sen. Eric Barlow, described by The New York Times as “a mainstream conservative,” won the Republican nomination for governor over two farther-right opponents, Megan Degenfelder (endorsed by Trump) and Brent Bien. Barlow had voted for some anti-transgender bills, but an attack ad accused him of not being anti-trans enough. Kenneth Casner was unopposed for the Democratic nomination. This is his third try, but Wyoming is solidly Republican and conservative, even more so than when it was the site of the hate-motivated murder of gay man Matthew Shepard, beaten and hung on a prairie fence in 1998 , and despite the surprising pro-LGBTQ+ conversion of conservative Rep. Liz Cheney in 2021. There are Republican supermajorities in both houses of the legislature, and the number of Democratic lawmakers has been diminishing since the 1990s.
Trump-endorsed Harriet Hageman easily won the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate to succeed fellow GOPer Cynthia Lummis, who’s retiring. James Byrd II, a former state representative, won the Democratic nomination, but he’s a long shot for the general. He’s the son of Wyoming’s first Black woman legislator, Liz Byrd, and Cheyenne’s first Black police chief, James Byrd. (The family is not related to Texas murder victim James Byrd Jr., for whom the federal hate-crimes law is named, along with Matthew Shepard.)
For the state’s one U.S. House seat, Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray won the Republican primary and will face Democrat Lisa Kinney, a former state senator, in November. Another Republican victory is expected.
But things may be changing in another deep-red state, Alaska. It has a unique primary system in which the top four vote recipients advance to the general election, regardless of party, and the general election is decided by ranked-choice voting—voters rank candidates in order of preference.
For U.S. senator from Alaska, Republican incumbent Dan S. Sullivan and Democrat Mary Peltola, a former congresswoman, have clinched top spots in the November election. With 80% of the vote counted as of Aug. 19, Sullivan has 56,717 votes (42.7%) to Peltola’s 63,810 votes (48.1%).
Sullivan has a poor record on LGBTQ+ rights, while Peltola is an ally. The other two spots remain to be decided. One of the candidates, Republican Dan J. Sullivan, has been accused of being a decoy to draw votes away from the incumbent. For the state’s sole U.S. House seat, incumbent Republican Nick Begich and independent Bill Hill have clinched slots in the general election, with the others, again, not yet decided. Democrat Matt Schultz suspended his campaign for the seat and endorsed Hill, but Schultz was still on the ballot.
For governor, two Democrats, former state legislators Tom Begich and Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, clinched spots in the top four Tuesday; the other slots were yet to be called late in the evening. The current governor, Republican Mike Dunleavy, couldn’t run again due to term limits.
Finally, in California, there was a surprisingly close runoff to decide who will serve the remainder of disgraced Democrat Eric Swalwell’s term in the 14th Congressional District. Swalwell resigned the Bay Area seat in April after he was accused of sexual assault. With all precincts partially reporting late Wednesday, the race remained too close to call between two Democrats – Aisha Wahab, California’s progressive first Muslim woman state senator, who has 33,399 votes (51.0%), and moderate BART board president Melissa Hernandez, who has 32,043 votes (49.0%).
As with other close progressive versus moderate Democratic primary races, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) super PAC caused controversy. In this race, Hernandez has said neither AIPAC nor any other donor drives her agenda.
Politico’s California Playbook PM reported Aug. 19, however, that Wahab believes that the race tightened after AIPAC and other groups targeted her due to “prejudice and racism” after she refused requests from veteran lawmakers “to go along with a plan from leaders of California’s Democratic House delegation to elect a temporary caretaker” to quickly fill the seat in the divided Congress. Wahab refused requests from veteran lawmakers, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Caucus Chair Peter Aguilar.
That pissed off Rep. Zoe Lofgren, the longtime chair of California’s delegation, who on Monday “made her animus explicit, releasing a video accusing Wahab of saying, ‘What’s in it for me?’ in response to the caretaker plan,” Politico reported.
“Wahab, in a statement attributed the race’s thin margins to that onslaught, saying, ‘Nearly $10 million in outside money and relentless smears made this race close,’” Politico reported. “While Wahab rarely talks about Israel or the war in Gaza, AIPAC’s involvement has turned the race into yet another national proxy fight between AIPAC and progressive forces supporting Wahab, including Our Revolution and the Working Families Party.”
No matter which Democrat wins the runoff, they will face each other again in November to compete for a full term, as both advanced from the top-two California primary.
By Trudy Ring and Karen Ocamb
This is a cross-post from Karen’s LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters Substack.
Pentagon
Hegseth uses transphobic slur while campaigning for Iowa congressman
Defense Secretary was speaking in support of Republican Zach Nunn
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Monday used an anti-transgender slur while campaigning for U.S. Rep. Zach Nunn (R-Iowa), drawing attention to the Trump-Vance administration’s ongoing efforts to restrict trans people from serving in the military.
“At the Department of War, we do training, not t***nies,” Hegseth said, according to the Iowa Capital Dispatch, which first reported the remarks.
Hegseth made the comment at JR’s SouthPork Ranch at the Iowa State Fair, where he joined Nunn for a rally. The remark came as Hegseth discussed his priorities for the military and argued that the department’s focus should be on military readiness rather than issues of race or gender.
In the same speech, Hegseth claimed that the military operates without regard to race or gender.
“Training, lethality, accountability, discipline, readiness — the bedrock of what it means to be an American warrior — is the only focus of our department,” Hegseth said. “Colorblind, gender-neutral, merit-based. That’s it.”
Hegseth’s remarks come as the Trump-Vance administration continues its efforts to restrict trans people from serving in the military.
Since President Donald Trump returned to the White House, his administration has moved to remove trans service members from the military while also taking steps to prevent trans people from joining.
Trump signed “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness” in January 2025, which attempts to bars trans individuals from serving or enlisting in the U.S. military, citing “military readiness” as the reason, despite there being no factual basis for the ban. The policy has been challenged by LGBTQ+ advocates and military service members, who argue there is no evidence that trans service members undermine military readiness.
Earlier this year, Hegseth made headlines again over the administration’s contradictory approach to hormone therapy, as the military moved to restrict gender-affirming hormone treatment for trans service members while encouraging cisgender military members to receive hormone therapy for “low T,” or testosterone.
The administration’s policy has faced a series of legal challenges from trans service members and advocacy groups.
In June, a federal appeals court panel ruled the administration could not discharge the trans service members who brought one of the lawsuits challenging the ban while their case continues, providing a moment of relief amid the administration’s ongoing efforts to restrict trans military service. The Trump-Vance administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review that ruling and, in the meantime, keep it from taking effect.
The Los Angeles Blade reached out to the Pentagon for comment on Hegseth’s use of the slur, but it did not push back on his choice of words.
“We have nothing further to add beyond the secretary’s remarks,” the statement read.
White House
White House targets gender-affirming care funding, states fight back
Attorneys general from Calif., and elsewhere are fighting directives
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced last week that federal funding could no longer be used to pay for gender-affirming care through Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
The rule prohibits federal Medicaid dollars from covering puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and rare instances of surgery for enrollees under the age of 18 in the Medicaid program and under the age of 19 in CHIP. It does not prohibit coverage of counseling or psychotherapy as part of gender-affirming care.
The decision to restrict what healthcare is covered by federal dollars is part of a longer, more aggressive stance the Trump-Vance administration is taking toward LGBTQ+ healthcare.
Since taking the White House back for his second term, Trump has signed three executive orders that directly target transgender Americans. They include Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” that requires the federal government to recognize only a person’s sex at birth, not their gender identity; Executive Order 14183, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” which attempts to remove transgender service members from the military and prevent them from enrolling; and an executive order that helped spur this change by restricting gender-affirming care.
The administration’s choice to villainize gender-affirming care, despite it being considered a best medical practice recommended by nearly every major medical group for gender dysphoria or gender incongruence, including the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and American Psychological Association, comes as KFF, a source for health policy research and polling data, estimates about 130,000 young trans people with Medicaid or CHIP coverage could be impacted by the policy.
“Today, we are ending federal taxpayer funding for sex-rejecting procedures on children,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., said last week when announcing the change. “These interventions carry serious risks and can cause irreversible harm. The federal government will no longer use Medicaid and CHIP dollars to fund procedures that fail to meet the evidentiary standard our children deserve.”
“Children deserve our protection, not experimental interventions that pose serious risks and convey no proven benefits,” said CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz. “By cutting off federal funds for these sex-rejecting procedures, we’re following the science, saving taxpayer dollars, and, most importantly, protecting children from potentially irreversible harm so they can truly flourish.”
The administration’s push is having a chilling effect on state healthcare legislation — more states now prohibit gender-affirming care than ever before. States with gender-affirming care restrictions jumped from four in 2023 to 27 states today.
The funding change has been met with fierce pushback from LGBTQ+ advocates, health experts, and government officials across the country before the rule goes into effect.
Some of the first actions against this policy began in July 2025.
Twenty-one states have attempted to restrict this effort in some fashion from going through as the White House intends. They include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro on behalf of his state.
The coalition of attorneys general filed lawsuits challenging nine separate provisions of the final rule, arguing that they would make it harder for consumers to get coverage through the ACA, increase costs for states, and weaken key ACA protections.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Aug. 15 struck down a key provision of a Trump-Vance administration final rule that would have excluded coverage of certain types of gender-affirming care as essential health benefits under the Affordable Care Act. Essential health benefits are subject to the ACA’s financial protections, including limits on out-of-pocket costs.
“Everyone deserves access to health coverage,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta. “The Trump administration tried to exclude gender-affirming care from qualifying as an essential health benefit. We fought back, and the court’s ruling means this care can — and in many states must — qualify for the ACA’s financial protections, ensuring transgender people have an equal opportunity to benefit from the ACA.”
“The Trump administration tried to make essential care unaffordable for transgender Marylanders by stripping it out of the ACA’s cost protections,” said Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown. “We fought to keep that care covered, and we won. My Office will always defend Marylanders’ right to the care they need.”
The final rule at issue — the “Marketplace Integrity and Affordability” rule — was proposed by the Trump-Vance administration in March 2025, purportedly to “curb ACA enrollment fraud” and reduce federal spending on subsidies that help consumers afford ACA coverage. Among other changes, the rule would have removed certain types of gender-affirming care from the ACA’s 10 essential health benefit categories.
“This president would rather target young people than lower costs or expand access to health care. It is reprehensible that our federal government is intent on hurting and isolating the adolescents it is supposed to protect. I will use every tool at my disposal to fight this proposal and protect transgender Americans and their families,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James in December after the policy was announced.
In addition to state government resistance to the change, multiple LGBTQ+ advocates have committed to protecting the right to healthcare for LGBTQ+ children.
Rocky Mountain Equality CEO Mardi Moore affirmed those in Colorado would continue to help people most at risk if the change goes through.
“First, to the families impacted by this news: you will not be cut off immediately. The rule takes effect Oct. 13, 2026, and providers can continue to bill Medicaid and CHIP for youth already receiving gender-affirming care for up to six months after that. Rocky Mountain Equality is here, and we can help you understand your options to continue your child’s care.
“This is discrimination dressed up as rule-making. Government healthcare policy should expand what people can access, not strip away care that families and doctors have already determined is medically necessary,” Moore added. “We’ve seen this pattern before with other kinds of essential care, and it rarely stops with just one restriction. Any effort to ban or limit care opens the door for more restrictions on more kinds of care.”
The Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ+ lobbying group in the U.S., issued multiple statements following the announcement, and has filed a similar lawsuit against the federal government for prohibiting gender-affirming care to federal employees using federal health plans.
HRC President Kelley Robinson said taking a hard stance against what the administration is presenting as a win for the American people that will ultimately restrict healthcare options for thousands of Americans.
“Every young person is entitled to the health care that they, their parents, and their medical providers agree that they need, without politicians interfering with these important and highly personal decisions. And yet, rather than working to make healthcare more affordable and accessible, the Trump administration continues to obsess over the healthcare needs of trans youth, this time by cutting off health insurance coverage for those who rely on Medicaid and CHIP to access that care,” Robinson said. “The Trump administration is terrorizing trans youth and their families with these kinds of actions, and it has to stop.”
Politics
Will von Wilpert flip a San Diego congressional seat over the USS Lincoln?
Democrat Marni von Wilpert is ‘horrified’ by reports of mental health crisis while her GOP opponent backs Trump
Out San Diego City Council member Marni von Wilpert is “horrified” to hear multiple reports about suffering from exhaustion, poor living conditions, and a mental health crisis aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. San Diego is the home port for service members and families of the USS Lincoln, whose 5,000 sailors and Marines have been in combat with Iran for five of their almost nine months at sea.
Von Wilpert, a bisexual Democrat, is running for the 48th Congressional district seat being vacated by retiring MAGA Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and supports Donald Trump’s war of choice with Iran.
“Trump’s war in Iran continues to have disastrous consequences for our country and our community here in San Diego,” von Wilpert told LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters in her first public comment on the Lincoln situation. “As the daughter of a veteran, I am horrified by reports of the conditions our San Diego–based service members are facing on the USS Lincoln and call on Trump’s Department of Defense to answer why our troops are in this position.”
The Lincoln has been at sea since November and in the Middle East since January. That means, Military.com reported on Aug. 13, that the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier – flagship of Carrier Strike Group 3 and host to Carrier Air Wing Nine – “has spent 250 days in a row without making land—leaving those on board without the opportunity to see their families and friends.”
There have been reports of rotten food and supply shortages. Several sailors have tried to jump overboard; one 19-year-old sailor told his 19-year-old wife, a new mother: “The boat is finally getting to me.”
Trump has claimed the sailors’ family members are not concerned about conditions on the ship (many have made clear they are) and that the deployment has not gone on “nearly long enough.” Sec. of Defense Pete Hegseth has been similarly dismissive. Now, finally, the USS George Washington is on its way to relieve the Lincoln.
Von Wilpert is running in a district that is one of several whose boundaries were redrawn in California last year. The redistricting was intended to favor Democrats, coming in response to Texas’s redistricting that favored Republicans. Issa, a longtime anti-LGBTQ+ politico, decided not to run in the newly drawn district, which includes parts of San Diego and extends to the liberal, heavily LGBTQ+ desert city of Palm Springs.
In the June primary, von Wilpert and Republican Jim Desmond, a San Diego County supervisor, won the most votes in California’s “jungle primary,” where the top two advance to the general election, regardless of party.
Von Wilpert has an impressive backstory and résumé. She grew up in San Diego but went east to attend Fordham University School of Law in New York City; she graduated at the top of her class and was editor of the law review. She was a Peace Corps volunteer in Botswana, caring for children with HIV whose parents had died of AIDS complications.
She went on to fight the epidemic domestically when she received a fellowship to work for the Mississippi Center for Justice. There, she established a legal clinic to assist people with HIV or AIDS. She then clerked for a federal appellate court judge, after which she became an attorney with the National Labor Relations Board, served as counsel on the House Education and Labor Committee, and worked with U.S. Rep. Bobby Scott, a Virginia Democrat.
Returning to San Diego, she became a deputy city attorney before being elected to the City Council in 2020, flipping one of the most conservative districts in the city from Republican to Democrat. She hopes to do another such flip in her run for Congress.
“I want to take our country back from the chaos and corruption of the Donald Trump administration,” von Wilpert said.
“People are struggling; our rights are being taken away,” she added. “I want government to work for the people.”
One of von Wilpert’s priorities would be passing the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, which she helped draft with Scott and Democratic U.S. Sen. Patty Murray of Washington State. It would strengthen workers’ rights to organize unions—they often face retaliation for doing so—and allow the NLRB to fine companies for violations of labor law. Known as the PRO Act, it has been introduced in Congress every year since 2019. It passed the House in 2021 but has never passed the Senate.
Unionizing is “one of the best ways to address income inequality,” she said.
Von Wilpert also wants to pass the Equality Act, which would ban anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination nationwide in employment, housing, public accommodations, and more. The LGBTQ+ community shouldn’t have to depend on the whims of the Supreme Court, she said.
Von Wilpert’s outrage at Trump’s treatment of the military goes beyond the situation with the USS Lincoln.
“It’s abysmal the way that Donald Trump is treating our troops,” she said, noting the ban on transgender service members and the firings of women and people of color. “He’s pushing the best and the brightest out of our military.” Her father, an immigrant from Germany, served in the U.S. Army, and her grandfather fought in World War II.
Von Wilpert’s also a major advocate for expanding access to health care. She had a health crisis in the spring—a diagnosis of breast cancer. She had successful surgery while she balanced medical appointments in between her duties on the City Council and campaign events. She realizes she has access to care that some people don’t have.
“Health care is getting more and more out of reach for everyday Americans,” she said, noting that 32,000 people in her congressional district will lose access to Medicaid because of Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill.” Planned Parenthood, which provides cancer and STD screenings in addition to reproductive care, can no longer bill to Medicaid and has closed at least five clinics in California.
Her other priorities in Congress include holding Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) accountable, getting dark money out of politics, protecting the environment, defending reproductive freedom, and fighting gun violence. She supports a two-state solution to bring peace to Israel and Palestine, stands with Ukraine against Russian aggression, and will work to defend and expand the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), an immensely successful program that provides treatment and prevention services in poor countries and has been gutted by Trump.
Von Wilpert’s accomplishments on the San Diego City Council include: authoring California’s first ban on untraceable “ghost guns,” securing funding for a new program to help the city’s homeless population, coauthoring a reproductive freedom resolution after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, helping to create the nation’s first child care center for police officers, and environmental measures including an updated zero-emissions Climate Action Plan, a citywide Styrofoam ban, and major investments in electric vehicle charging stations.
She also protested the removal of a Pride Month display of LGBTQ-themed books from the public library branch in her neighborhood, Rancho Peñasquitos, in 2023. Residents who opposed the display checked out all the books so they’d be unavailable and said they wouldn’t return them until the library agreed to remove them permanently.
After local media reports, supportive residents bought books to replace those taken out and donated a total of $15,000 to the library, which the city matched, for more LGBTQ+ materials and drag queen story hours.
Von Wilpert officially came out in a front-page New York Times story about the issue. She had always identified as bisexual but hadn’t made it part of her political life until then.
Now her identity is clearly part of her political life; her campaign website describes her as “a proud member of the LGBTQ+ community” and notes that she will fight bans on gender-affirming care, as well as book bans, “defend full Title IX protections,” “protect the freedom to build a family through marriage, adoption, or assisted reproductive care,” and “lead the fight to end conversion therapy.”
She is endorsed by the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, Equality PAC, LPAC, Equality California, many current and former members of Congress and California elected officials (both gay and straight), numerous labor organizations, gun control groups, and more.
Marriage is in von Wilpert’s future; she is engaged to Sarah (she prefers to keep Sarah’s last name private), a lieutenant in the San Diego Police Department. They’re planning to marry in October 2027.
Von Wilpert expects her congressional race to be close – in the primary, she received 20 percent of the vote to Desmond’s 41 percent. But there were only two Republicans in the race—Desmond and the other GOPer combined for 48 percent of the vote—while the nine Democrats, including von Wilpert, combined for 51 percent. The district has more registered Democrats than registered Republicans.
She describes Desmond as MAGA to the core, and he’s been endorsed by Trump and Issa. Polling has her and Desmond neck and neck.
“I know it’s going to be a tight race,” she said, adding, “I’ve beaten Republicans before.”
Karen Ocamb contributed to this report.
This is a cross-post from Karen’s LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters Substack.
Politics
DEI, LGBTQ+, women and workers win big in Tuesday’s Democratic Primaries
“For months now, I’ve been telling you this campaign is about the ‘many versus the money.’ Well, guess what? The ‘many’ just won.” – Minnesota Democratic Senate Nominee Peggy Flanagan
Tuesday, Aug. 11, saw primary elections in five states, some shocking, some featuring out LGBTQ+ candidates, others with progressive versus moderate contests, and one with a closely watched special election. But behind stories on how polls pitting democratic socialists versus the Establishment were shockingly unpredictable are the more nuanced, people-oriented throughlines about turnout, electability, DEI identity, and post-primary unity.
In Minnesota, for instance, the fact that two Democratic women vied for an open U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Democrat Tina Smith startled no one. Nor did the glaringly anti-Project 2025 fact that out moderate married lesbian U.S. Rep. Angie Craig had the backing of out Establishment heavyweights Sen. Tammy Baldwin and former US Transportation Sec. Pete Buttigieg, while Native American progressive Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan had the enthusiastic backing of OG fellow democratic socialists Sen. Bernie Sanders and Bronx working-class heroine Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
With 95% of the vote in on Wednesday morning, Flanagan defeated Craig 59% to 39%. The race was rough, with Craig criticized for voting for the pro-ICE, anti-immigrant Laken Riley Act – which she regretted. Meanwhile, as we reported as part of our story on Craig, Republicans are salivating over challenging Flanagan for her administrative part in the fraud scandal that forced Gov. Tim Walz to forgo a third term
But with post-primary unity, Flanagan could generate a voter-enthusiasm blowout. Flanagan and Craig combined received 685,978 votes, while the Republican primary yielded 308,983 votes.
And then there’s the money. According to MPR News, more than $25 million was spent on this race, with Craig taking corporate PAC money and raising $12.7 million as of July 22, while Flanagan raised $6.5 million.
“For months now, I’ve been telling you this campaign is about the ‘many versus the money.’ Well, guess what? The ‘many’ just won,” Flanagan said at her victory celebration, telling her supporters that Craig called with congratulations and full support.
Craig also called for unity in defeating Trump fan and former TV sportscaster Republican Michele Tafoya – who decisively bested nine other candidates.
“This election was a choice between two women – and it’s a great damn day to see women running – even against each other,” said Craig. “I am confident that both of us will continue to work to improve the lives of our neighbors in Minnesota. To every person that supported me – I ask you tonight to support and elect Peggy Flanagan as the next U.S. Senator from Minnesota. Donald Trump is a threat to our democracy – and Michele Tafoya would be nothing more than a rubber stamp to his dangerous agenda.”
The Minnesota governor’s seat is up for grabs as well, as Democrat Tim Walz isn’t running again. Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota’s other U.S. senator, easily won the Democratic gubernatorial nomination. If she wins in November, she’ll have to resign her Senate seat, and an appointee will fill it until a special election can be called (Klobuchar’s Senate term goes to 2031).
On the Republican side, My Pillow pitchman Mike Lindell, a staunch ally of Donald Trump, lost the gubernatorial primary to Minnesota House Speaker Lisa Demuth. Minnesota hasn’t elected a Republican governor since Tim Pawlenty in 2006, and Klobuchar is popular, so look for the seat to stay in Democratic hands.
Like the Senate squeaker in Michigan, the pundits believed polls in the Wisconsin Democratic gubernatorial primary showed Democratic Socialist Francesca Hong with a grassroots-based victory. But backlash over calling for cancelling Thanksgiving in 2020 made her unelectable, and Establishment candidate Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley pulled out a super-narrow 39.8% vs 39.3% win. New polls now show Wisconsin going from “toss-up” to “lean Democrat” against Trump-backed Republican election denier Tom Tiffany.
Meanwhile, despite persistent punditry from political strategists like James Carville that Democrats stay away from identity politics – especially anything to do with transgender rights – Dina Nina Martinez-Rutherford, a trans woman, won the Democratic primary for Wisconsin State Assembly District 76, besting four other candidates for the seat being vacated by Francesca Hong. The district, centered on Madison, the state capital and a progressive university town, is overwhelmingly Democratic, so her election in November is likely, making her Wisconsin’s first trans state legislator. She plans to confront transphobic Republicans.
“I thought I’d rather they look at me and know me and be able to talk to somebody and have a relationship with somebody who’s trans so that they can hopefully find it in their heart to protect us instead of trying to remove all of our rights,” she recently told LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters. She’ll also fight for workers’ rights, affordable housing, criminal justice reform, and other progressive causes. Republican Nina Chat was unopposed in her primary for the seat, but she’s unlikely to win.
“I am so honored that all of you came here,” Dina Nina said at her victory party. “Tonight, District 76 said we believe in a future where we take care of each other, and we can afford to live in the cities that we love. Tonight, District 76 said that our trans siblings belong here.”
A food service worker who experienced homelessness and is now without health care, Dina Nina told the crowd: “I don’t just see the challenges our neighbors face — I live them.”
And she added, referring to GOP gubernatorial candidate and U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany: “ We have a lot of work to do to beat Tom Tiffany, to beat the fascist agenda of our federal government right now. But I believe together we can. Definitely, together we will.”
In another potentially history-making race, JoCasta Zamarripa, a bisexual Latina, was unopposed in the Democratic primary for secretary of state, so in November she could become Wisconsin’s first out LGBTQ+ statewide official. Jay Schroeder won a four-way Republican primary for the post, and the Green Party’s Pete Karas will also be on the ballot in November. Zamarripa has made history before; she was the first Latina and first out bisexual member of the Wisconsin State Assembly, and the first Latina and first out LGBTQ+ member of the Milwaukee Common Council.
Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, a gay man, easily won the Democratic primary in the Second Congressional District, and with no Republican on the November ballot, he’s expected to coast to his eighth term representing the Madison-area district.
In one of the nation’s most closely watched races, South Carolina held a special primary to choose the Republican nominee for U.S. senator after the death of incumbent Lindsey Graham, who had won the regular primary in June, a month before he died. His sister, Darline Graham, was appointed by Gov. Henry McMaster to serve the remainder of Lindsey’s term, and she ran in the special primary with sights set on a full term.
But while she’s endorsed by Trump, she still has a hurdle to clear for the nomination: No candidate won more than 50 percent of the vote, as required by South Carolina law, so she’ll be up against Ralph Norman, currently a U.S. House member, in a runoff on August 25. With most of the vote counted, she had 33 percent, Norman 24 percent.
Either Darline Graham or Norman will be as anti-LGBTQ+, anti-choice, and generally right-wing as Lindsey Graham; despite the gay rumors, he was publicly straight, homophobic, and transphobic. Darline Graham’s first campaign ad attacked transgender athletes, and Norman has a string of zeroes on the Human Rights Campaign’s Congressional Scorecard.
The Democrats have already chosen their nominee, Annie Andrews. She’s generally an LGBTQ+ ally, but when Lindsey Graham was living, she ran a campaign ad that was criticized as homophobic for implying he was gay. South Carolina is solidly Republican, but with divisions in the party, there’s an outside chance Andrews could flip the seat.
In Vermont, Democratic U.S. Rep. Becca Balint, a lesbian, was unopposed in the Democratic primary. In November, she will face Gerald Malloy, an Army veteran and defense contractor, who won the Republican primary Tuesday. Balint, a staunch progressive, is running for her third term as Vermont’s sole U.S. House member. The state is so heavily Democratic, she’s pretty much assured of reelection. She “has defeated her last two Republican opponents by more than 30 percentage points,” Vermont Public Radio notes.
Vermont Treasurer Mike Pieciak, a gay man, was likewise unopposed in the Democratic primary. In November, he’ll be up against H. Brooke Paige, unopposed for the Republican nomination. Vermont media describe Paige as a “perennial candidate,” known for his bow ties and boater hats. He lost to Pieciak in 2022 and will probably lose again this year.
Another gay and Democratic state treasurer, Erick Russell of Connecticut, was unopposed for reelection, so his primary was canceled. First elected in 2022, he’s Connecticut’s first Black gay statewide official. The Republican primary was also canceled, with state legislator Fred Wilms unopposed. Russell will most likely be reelected in the largely Democratic state.
Alabama chose Democratic and Republican nominees in four congressional districts in a special election called after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the state to use a redrawn map that favored Republicans. The nominees are Republican Jerry Carl and Democrat Clyde Jones, First Congressional District; Republican Rhett Marques and incumbent Democrat Shomari Figures, Second District; incumbent Republican Gary Palmer and Democrat Maurice Mercer, Sixth District; and Republican Ammie Akin and incumbent Democrat Terri Sewell, Seventh District.
Other nominees for federal and state offices were chosen in the regular primaries in May, including Alabama’s only out-of-state legislator, Neil Rafferty, a gay Democrat seeking his fourth term in the Alabama House.
The existential but hopeful November 3 midterms are fast approaching.
Written by Karen Ocamb and Trudy Ring
Check out Karen Ocamb’s LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters Podcast.
This is a cross-post from Karen’s LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters Substack.
Politics
A Michigan Muslim shakes up American politics while WorldPride 2026 makes counter-culture history
“My commitment to Jewish safety is the same as my commitment to the safety of my own kids.” – Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed
The Communists Are Coming! The Communists Are Coming! No, this isn’t an anniversary tribute to the 1966 Cold War comedy The Russians Are Coming the Russians Are Coming. It’s actually the best Red Scare McCarthyism addled 80-year-old Donald Trump could imagine to demonize his enemies.
But even young people celebrating WorldPride 2026 in Amsterdam can spot the fatal flaw in Trump’s latest Big Whine: Trump loves Russian Communist Vladimir Putin!
Nonetheless, the MAGA faithful are parroting Trump’s prattle. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz flaunted his ignorance with Fox News host Jesse Watters, dissecting Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary. Progressive candidate Dr. Abdul El-Sayed consistently led moderate establishment candidate Rep. Haley Stevens in an intensely competitive race to challenge Trump-endorsed Republican former Rep. Mike Rogers for a critical open Senate seat in the Nov. midterm elections.
“Is that where the energy is at? They want to cancel Thanksgiving?” Watters asked Cruz.
Cruz nodded. “They’re crazy enough, yes. They want to cancel Thanksgiving; they want to cancel Christmas. Look, these communists hate America; they hate capitalism,” he said.
“You see the green-red convergence,” Cruz said, “where the communists and the Islamists – they want Sharia Law. They hate Jews, they hate Christians, they hate capitalism, they hate America. All of this is coming together in a way that is really a toxic stew.”
El-Sayed, 41, an epidemiologist and former health director for Detroit who won LGBTQ+ support last Oct., is a Michigan-born son of Egyptian immigrants who identifies as a capitalist, not a socialist, though he holds similar positions as the Democratic Socialists of America, such as Medicare for All, getting money out of politics, having a democracy powered by the people and abolishing an unaccountable ICE.
But the Michigan race – which could also determine control of the Senate and thus confirm Supreme Court nominees – is also brightly illuminating the role money plays in politics.
“Abdul’s victory was, in my opinion, the most extraordinary victory that I can think of in modern American politics,” Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an early El-Sayed supporter, said after El-Sayed’s incredibly narrow victory.
Sanders predicted that the race would “show the nation whether AIPAC and other billionaire-funded Super PACs can buy a U.S. Senate seat or whether the people of Michigan can prevail.”
“Money out of politics/money in your pockets” became a central tenet of El-Sayed’s campaign.
“What we’re doing is building a movement of the many against the money,” El-Sayed said on the campaign trail. He overcame more than $60 million in outside spending for his opponent – much from establishment Democrats plus $32 million from the ardently pro-Israel American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, which has now pledged to fund Rogers, who already holds $45 million in reserves for the midterms.
After the UN-backed International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants in 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former defense minister Yoav Gallant and a former Hamas commander, citing allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the Gaza Strip and Israel after Oct. 7, lawmakers started backing away from AIPAC.
“The victory in Michigan is a political earthquake,” said Beth Miller, Political Director at Jewish Voice for Peace Action. “Voters in one of the most consequential states for the 2028 Presidential race have just sent a clear message: they want candidates who will fight for working families at home while unapologetically speaking out for Palestinian freedom. This cycle, AIPAC is being relegated to the dustbin of history.”
“AIPAC never runs on AIPAC. They never even talk about Israel and Palestine,” former Rep. Andy Levin told AP. AIPAC spent millions opposing Levin, who is Jewish. “If you’re just a voter and you see a million ads, you don’t know who paid for it.”
Some of AIPAC’s money went specifically into disinformation ads and mailers asserting that El-Sayed is disrespectful to women.
Sarah Jukaku, El-Sayed’s wife, suggested that he was being targeted because he is running to be the first Muslim in the Senate.
“There’s such a subtle way of otherizing someone. When you’re like a brown guy or Muslim guy, you know, the easiest thing to tack on to you is sexism, right?” Juaku told the Washington Post. “That’s not how he is…It feels so unfair.”
El-Sayed’s blunt critique of Israel deserves a second look, Jay Michaelson wrote Aug. 5 in the Jewish Independent outlet Forward.
“Yes, like New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, El-Sayed is a young, Muslim progressive. But his views are markedly different — and, to my mind, more sophisticated and more nuanced. In fact, I agree with them,” Michaelson wrote.
The columnist cites El-Sayed’s interview with New Yorker editor-in-chief David Remnick, who asked: “Does Israel have a right to exist?…[W]hat is your hope for a resolution in the Middle East?… What underlies your sense of the situation there?”
Michaelson was taken with El-Sayed’s response, “which, itself, should inspire confidence….After noting that in Michigan, ‘there are communities where the median income is fourteen thousand dollars a year. And those kids go without good schools, and those kids go without functional infrastructure,’ El-Sayed continued:
‘I believe in equal rights to peace, dignity, and self-determination, for Palestinians and Jewish Israelis alike. And I believe that it is not my job as an American policymaker to decide what the ultimate peace should be. But it is my job to make sure that our resources are stewarded correctly for the people I’m responsible for: those kids going to those broken schools.’”
El-Sayed continued, noting the “kind of hypocrisy” of how the “very same people who tell you you have to believe in a two-state solution are constantly aiding, arming, and abetting an Israeli government that has been dead set on foreclosing on the possibility of a Palestinian state since we’ve been funding them.”
So, El-Sayed says, he’s “not going to play the cosplay thing, where I allow the money that should be spent taking care of our kids to be sent to a military that has done a genocide — at baseline, does apartheid, and is now attempting the annexation of southern Lebanon — to foreclose on the possibility of Palestinian self-determination.”
El-Sayed’s job now is to unify Democrats to defeat Rogers, who has already unleashed Islamophobic attack ads using El-Sayed’s whole name as if it was a slur.
“They want to use my whole name against me,” El-Sayed said in response. “Mike, listen, man. If you can’t say the name, it’s Abdulrahman; keep the name out your damn mouth.”
In response to Trump blasting him during a campaign stop in Las Vegas, El-Sayed told MS NOW: “My commitment to Jewish safety is the same as my commitment to the safety of my own kids. We have a responsibility to take on antisemitism in all of its forms, wherever we see it. It’s the same responsibility we have to take on Islamophobia.”
Michigan State Sen. Mallory McMorrow told MS NOW’s Nicole Wallace that El-Sayed called her immediately after she ended her campaign on July 5. They had a good, hard conversation and “found a shared ‘why’ in our daughters.” She endorsed him quickly, as did his opponent, Rep. Haley Stevens, who hugged El-Sayed at Wednesday morning’s Unity Breakfast.
Meanwhile, appearing onstage with Trump, Mike Rogers said the next senator must be “somebody who doesn’t obstruct the President’s agenda.”
“The stakes couldn’t be higher,” McMorrow said. “It’s Michigan vs MAGA. That’s it. That’s the fight we’re fighting.”
She also noted that 1.5 million Democrats turned out to vote in the primary. “The only way we win is together,” said McMorrow, adding that Michigan Democrats are showing that unity “doesn’t have to be hard. We don’t have to tear each other down. We can lock arms, and we can take our country back.”
Meanwhile, almost 4,000 miles east of Detroit, in Amsterdam, Netherlands, International News Editor Michael K. Lavers and Photo Editor Michael Key covered WorldPride 2026 for the Washington Blade and the Los Angeles Blade. (See a compilation of photos here.)
Highlights included Queen Máxima, Amsterdam Mayor Femke Halsema and several drag queens participating in the World Pride opening ceremony on July 25 in Amsterdam’s Vondelpark.
But the ceremony happened on the same day as an “Islamist terrorist attack” on thousands attending the annual Christopher Street Day, a major Pride festival in Berlin, Germany, that is among the biggest in Europe. The attack left 1 dead and 29 injured. A memorial service and rally took place in Berlin on Sunday, Lavers reported, after the Pride festival was cancelled. The primary suspect was later killed in a confrontation with police.
Security measures were bolstered for WorldPride 2026, and dignitaries and activists expressed their anger.
“This is an attack on our society,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz wrote on X early Sunday morning, the New York Times reported.
In an email, Lavers wrote that “the attack in Berlin was definitely on folks’ minds, but to our knowledge there were no security incidents. There were a lot of expressions of solidarity among folks in Amsterdam.”
Lavers also said he felt there was more solidarity towards Americans fighting for democracy.
“There was, IMHO, a definite feeling among folks at Amsterdam Pride that they are aware of what’s happening in the U.S. and are unhappy about it,” he said. “It’s important to note that things in Europe vary in terms of LGBTQ rights, depending upon the country. All that said, there was a real sense of celebration of diversity at Saturday’s parade (with Netherlands’ out gay Prime Minister Rob Jetten on one of the boats)…and joy at the Madonna set that I was fortunate enough to attend. I suppose that can equate to defiance.
Lavers also noted, “I have traveled to Europe several times with Trump in office, and not once did anyone treat me badly because I am an American. Folks definitely make the distinction between Americans and the government.”
West Hollywood showed up for WorldPride, too. The Pink Pony Club sign is a reference to the popular song by Chappell Roan, says Michael Key. Roan says that “Pink Pony Club” was inspired by a “transformative” night at The Abbey in West Hollywood.
Madonna, who headlined World Pride Music Festival, appeared at The Abbey in April. Tristan Schukraft bought the famous spot from founder David Cooley for a reported $27 million in 2023. Since then he also developed MISTR, a telehealth platform that offers free access to PrEP, Doxy PEP, STI testing, and long-term HIV care, according to Lavers. MISTR has organized Madonna’s Club Confessions shows in the U.S. and the U.K.
“’Mother is here, and this is gay heaven,’ said Madonna when she took the stage inside Amsterdam’s AFAS Live concert hall that can hold up to 6,000 people,” Lavers reported. She was later joined by Kylie Minogue.
“Throughout my career, I’ve always supported efforts to fight HIV and AIDS, and that fight begins with education and access,” said Madonna in a MISTR press release. With MISTR is “helping preserve and strengthen LGBTQ+ spaces while investing in the communities and culture that have long sustained us.”
Among several history-making moments was Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten’s Aug. 5 remarks opening the World Pride Human Rights Conference
Jetten, who became the country’s first openly gay prime minister in February, acknowledged that the terrorist attack at Berlin’s Christopher Street Day “filled me with anger and sorrow,” Lavers reported. He noted that 2026 marks the 25th anniversary of marriage equality in the Netherlands, the first country to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. Last year marked Amsterdam Pride’s Canal Parade’s 30th year.
“More and more in recent years, we’ve seen hard-won progress being eroded,” Jetten said. “We’ve seen countries backsliding in equal rights legislation. We’ve seen homophobic hate speech becoming more overt and aggressive, and not only out in the real world, but online as well.”
Additionally, “online hatred is one of the biggest threats facing the LGBTQIA+ people today,” he said. “All around the world … misinformation and disinformation can be spread in the blink of an eye with a single mouse click, reaching much further and much faster than NGOs, youth workers and health organizations can.”
“This is always how hatred takes hold,” Jetten said, “First in the shadows, outside the spotlight of society, underestimated by everyone, until, having grown into a many-headed monster, it crawls out of the darkness.”
He announced a three-year investment of what amounts to US $8.64 million each year “in improving the safety of the queer community in our cities with an alliance of organizations committed to safety, both in the public space and in the workspace for LGBTQI+ people, and with a public information campaign to combat discrimination and disinformation.”
He also looked at LGBTQ+ rights globally. “Under the pretense of resisting so-called Western moral decadence, horrendous laws are enacted and promoted, laws that put the rights of free people under severe pressure,” Jetten said. “But in reality, many communities in these countries have a long history of diversity and freedom, and the laws that impose the restrictions were in fact put in place by the colonial powers.”
“No matter how hard those conservative forces try to pull the wool over people’s eyes, queer communities around the world know that equal rights are not a Western agenda,” added Jetten. “They are first and foremost a human agenda.” (See a complete transcript of Jetten’s remarks here.)
For Lavers, dancing to Madonna made him feel free: “For those few precious hours at AFAS Live, I did not think about the Trump-Vance administration and the myriad ways it is destroying the U.S. I did not think about the National Guard troops deployed to D.C. I did not think about the pointless wars that continue to ravage Ukraine and other countries around the world. I simply lost myself on the dance floor and celebrated an icon who has always stood with my community. Thank you, Madonna.”
Almost 4,000 miles between Amsterdam and Detroit – and yet the pain, loss, hope, joy, and promise of freedom feel like the dawning of a new counter-cultural movement.
Check out Karen Ocamb’s LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters Podcast.
This is a cross-post from Karen’s LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters Substack.
Politics
Buttigieg indicates he may run for president in 2028
Former Transportation Secretary was in Biden-Harris administration’s Cabinet
Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg told a podcaster he is considering throwing his hat in the ring for president once again.
“I don’t know,” Buttigieg told Steven Bartlett, the British host of The Diary of a CEO, the most popular top business and tech podcast on Spotify, which aired Monday. “I think I’m more inclined than not, but there’s so much we don’t know.”
“There’s so much I don’t even know about what’s going to happen this year, let alone … what we need to know later,” he added.
Buttigieg is no stranger to running for the Oval Office.
In 2019, the former South Bend, Ind., mayor was a serious contender in the Democratic primary for the 2020 presidential election but ultimately ended his campaign and endorsed Joe Biden.
In May, an Emerson College Polling survey found Buttigieg at the top of the list of potential presidential contenders, leading California Gov. Gavin Newsom, New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, former Vice President Kamala Harris, and others.
In addition to discussing his future in federal politics, Buttigieg also discussed President Donald Trump’s handling of the Iran war — which reached its 5-month mark two weeks ago — the changing landscape of U.S. jobs due to the rise of artificial intelligence, and the growing national debt, all issues he could face if he ultimately returns to the White House.
Following his 2020 presidential campaign, Buttigieg gained prominence within the Democratic Party, eventually leading to his confirmation as Transportation Secretary. In February 2021, he became the first openly gay Cabinet member to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
In addition to his experience as an elected official, the 44-year-old served as a Navy intelligence officer in the reserves from 2009-2017, including a seven-month deployment to Afghanistan in 2014. Buttigieg came out as gay in 2015 and later married his husband, Chasten Glezman, in 2018. The couple now has two children: twins.
Buttigieg also has an extensive educational background.
He graduated from Harvard University with a bachelor’s degree in history and literature and later became a Rhodes Scholar, attending the University of Oxford, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in philosophy, politics, and economics.
This is not the first time Buttigieg has made headlines this year.
In June, he went public about being falsely accused of posing a threat to his children’s safety. An anonymous police report claimed he was a danger to his 4-year-old twins and was not allowed to be with them until after police interviews were conducted.
The police report was later determined to be false. The Los Angeles Blade reached out to the Michigan State Police to ask what course of action, if any, would be taken against the woman who filed the false report, but the agency did not answer the question.
The Blade reached out to Buttigieg’s team for comment on his potential 2028 presidential bid, but did not hear back before publication.
Politics
From the desk of Equality California: the top political news for California’s LGBTQ
Equality California is bringing together LGBTQ+ elected and appointed officials from across California to discuss the challenges facing our communities, develop strategies for the future, and hear from distinguished leaders.
Pride season may be largely in the rearview mirror, but Equality California is gearing up for a busy fall. On August 3–4, we’ll convene our annual LGBTQ+ Leadership Summit in Sacramento, bringing together LGBTQ+ elected and appointed officials from across California to discuss the challenges facing our communities, develop strategies for the future, and hear from distinguished leaders, including former U.S. Senator Laphonza Butler.
Just one week later, we’ll return to the state Capitol for our final Leadership Academy of the year. This special Gender Equity Edition will help prepare lesbian, bisexual and queer women, as well as transgender and nonbinary people, to run for office and serve their communities.If you’re interested in applying or know someone who’d be a great fit, learn more!
To read more stories, join our mailing list, and sign up for the weekly Equality Brief, visit eqca.org/equalitybrief.
- Governor Newsom Signs Budget That Includes Funding for Trans Healthcare, Uncompensated Care, LGBTQ+ Centers:
On Monday, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a pro-equality budget that specifically seeks to preserve access to healthcare for transgender Californians in addition to monies for Uncompensated Care and LGBTQ+ community center support. With the federal government threatening to withhold Medicare and Medicaid funding for hospitals and providers that offer transition-related care, Equality California and a coalition of civil rights, LGBTQ+ and healthcare organizations had lobbied for $26 million to set up a state pathway for such care. Read our statement alongside reactions from our coalition partners, as well as our list of thank-yous to the legislators who championed our ask. - 6-3 Supreme Court Ruling Lets Transgender Athlete Bans Stand:
The conservative majority court ruled on Tuesday that state bans on transgender girls participating in school sports do not violate the Constitution, and may be enforced. However, as disappointing as the ruling is, the decision was limited to the specific questions before the Court and does not resolve broader questions about protections for transgender people. Schools and states can continue to adopt inclusive policies that ensure every student is treated with dignity and respect. Read our statement here. - California AG Releases Hate Crimes Report; LGBTQ+ Numbers a Mixed Bag:
On Monday, July 6, California AG Rob Bonta’s office released the 2025 Hate Crimes in California report, tracking hate incidents throughout the state. While overall reported hate crimes decreased by 3.4%, and those with a sexual orientation bias fell by more than 35%, anti-transgender incidents saw a 23.4% increase. There is absolutely no place for hate in California. Transparent and accessible data is a critical part of understanding where we are and how we can end hate crimes in our communities,” said Attorney General Bonta. - Merck Enlists Seven Drugmakers for Generic Version of New PrEP Drug:
Pharmaceutical company Merck has announced that it will license seven generic drugmakers to produce a low-cost alternative to a new PrEP medication, alimatravir. The move is meant to make stockpiles of the drug available pending the anticipated positive outcome of two late-stage clinical trials occurring next year. UNAIDS reported 1.2 million new HIV infections in 2025; efforts to decrease transmissions have taken a hit in the wake of Trump administration decisions to pull American funding from global HIV/AIDS initiatives. - Trump HHS Department Ends Rule Protecting LGBTQ+ Foster Children:
The Department of Health and Human Services, led by Secretary RFK, Jr., has formally rescinded a hard-won Biden era rule that protected LGBTQ+ foster youth throughout the placement and reunification processes. The rule ensured that LGBTQ+ foster children would be placed in affirming homes, help them report mistreatment, request alternate placements, and prohibit so-called conversion therapy. LGBTQ+ foster youth are overrepresented in the system due in part to family rejection and fears for their safety. LGBTQ+ minors are also less likely to be reunified with their families of origin, adopted, or placed permanently with relatives. - Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Parental Rights Case Next Term:
The conservative majority Supreme Court will take up a case in its next term involving parental rights and the ability of youth to access certain services independent of parental consent. The lawsuit, International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson, brought by a Chicago-based Christian nonprofit, challenges Washington state laws that allow minors to access shelter services, mental health and gender-affirming care without parental consent. The Ninth Circuit Court had refused to hear the case, stating the parents lacked standing because none of their teenagers had actually run away and sought state shelter. - Pete Buttigieg Targeted by False CPS Report, Resulting in Temporary Parental Separation:
After a false anonymous complaint was filed against Buttigieg accusing him of putting his children at risk, the former Secretary of Transportation and Presidential candidate was separated from his children temporarily while law enforcement and CPS completed an investigation. After the report was determined to be false, Buttigieg and husband Chasten were reunited with their 4-year-old twins Gus and Penelope. On his Substack, Buttigieg wrote about what he called “every parent’s nightmare,” noting he believed it was no coincidence that the events transpired during Pride Month. - Federal Judge Questions Pentagon on Blatant Double Standard Around Testosterone:
Judge Ana Reyes, currently overseeing a legal challenge to the Trump administration’s transgender military ban, ordered the government to address Secretary Pete Hegseth’s recently-announced “testosterone screening and treatment” policy and explain how it is any different from hormone therapy prescribed to transgender servicemembers. At the heart of Reyes’ order is the fundamental question: Why can testosterone be treated as a “tool of health and readiness” for cisgender troops, but serve as “evidence of unfitness” when prescribed to transgender men?
STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Equality California’s priority sponsored legislation continues to move through the legislative process. As we come out of summer recess in August, we will update you on the status of these critical LGBTQ+ bills. To view our entire 2026 state legislative package, visit eqca.org/legislation
UPCOMING EVENTS
Our premier event of the year, the Los Angeles Equality Awards, is happening on Saturday, October 17, 2026 from 6:00-10:00 PM at the gorgeous Fairmont Century Plaza. And this year, we’re making Monét moves — Drag Race All-Stars winner, comedian, actor, and presenter Monét X Change will serve as emcee! We’ll also honor Asm. Rick Chavez Zbur with the Equality Leadership Award. More details will be announced soon, but tickets are on sale now! Don’t miss out!
Singer Tiffany returns to pop life with new cookbook
Here’s Your Palm Springs Weekend: Aug 21 – 23, 2026 by LA Blade x Gay Desert Guide
Log Cabin Republicans remove transgender rights from mission
Not all trans people are the same
Queer team brings girl power to fully baked ‘The Wrong Girls’
‘Maddie’s Secret’ defies campy expectations
Opening doors: Caio Buchalla & Dan Cafiero on building OVE and community
Philadelphia gayborhood preservation battle raises questions about displacement
Bros + romance + fantasy = ‘Bromantasy.’
Will von Wilpert flip a San Diego congressional seat over the USS Lincoln?
-
Movies5 days ago‘Maddie’s Secret’ defies campy expectations
-
Business4 days agoOpening doors: Caio Buchalla & Dan Cafiero on building OVE and community
-
Pennsylvania3 days agoPhiladelphia gayborhood preservation battle raises questions about displacement
-
Books5 days agoBros + romance + fantasy = ‘Bromantasy.’
-
Politics4 days agoWill von Wilpert flip a San Diego congressional seat over the USS Lincoln?
-
National4 days agoRemembering Barbara ‘Boo’ Price, a pioneering force in women’s music
-
a&e features4 days agoThe ‘Red Light Diaries’ album is a soundtrack of liberation
-
Netherlands3 days agoThailand’s first openly gay senator attends World Pride in Amsterdam
-
Music & Concerts3 days agoMadonna wows with 11 MTV VMA nominations
-
Russia4 days agoRussian LGBTQ+ rights group to shut down