Uncloseted Media published this article on Oct. 14.

This story was reported in partnership with The 19th, a nonprofit newsroom reporting on gender, politics, and policy.

By HOPE PISONI | On Sept. 14, far-right influencer Chaya Raichik, known online as Libs of TikTok, attacked a Washington state high school on Facebook for displaying a Pride flag. “Hey Mercer Island High School, why does your profile photo display a mutilation flag??” she wrote, tagging the school’s account in the post and attaching a photo of the entrance.

A few weeks before, on Aug. 27, neo-Nazi webcomic artist StoneToss posted a strip that used Tim Curry’s death to mock transgender suicide rates. And earlier this month, right-wing political commentator Benny Johnson shared claims that Democrats will “transition your kids while you’re at work” and “hand out gas cards to illegal aliens.”

Meta pays these creators for making posts like these. In 2024, the tech giant unveiled a new invite-only program called Facebook Content Monetization, designed to streamline earnings for creators. Many creators celebrated the move, with some reporting a major increase in their earnings through the program.

However, that program has recently come under scrutiny. In August, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported that Meta invited accounts promoting white supremacist and neo-Nazi ideologies.

And after reviewing Meta’s monetization data, Uncloseted Media identified 29 accounts with histories of anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric that have been invited to the program. These include the three aforementioned accounts as well as podcaster Candace Owens, who has blamed gay men for child abuse in the Catholic church, and Turning Point USA, which has been connected to an assault on a queer Arizona State University professor. Meta did not respond to Uncloseted Media and The 19th’s requests for an interview or for comment.

With the midterm elections looming, some of the accounts Meta pays through the program have been spreading political misinformation. In the first week of October, for example, Benny Johnson made 14 separate Facebook posts connecting the Democratic Party to election fraud.

Courtney Radsch, director of the Center for Media and Digital Governance at Open Markets Institute, says that promoting hateful rhetoric and misinformation like this is especially dangerous during an election season where the increasingly authoritarian Trump-Vance administration, which Meta has courted since its inauguration, has openly discussed attempts to interfere.

“Amplifying and enabling harassment campaigns and centering fringe conspiracy theories through algorithmic curation and monetization opportunities has led to a dissolution of democracy in America,” Radsch told Uncloseted Media and The 19th. “This administration is dismantling democratic oversight and increasing authoritarian control. … You can’t look at your platform policies on monetization without looking at the context in which this is occurring in the U.S. with rising technofascism.”

What is the program?

Meta launched their Facebook Content Monetization program to incentivize more creators to post on Facebook, which has faced an aging user base and competition from newer apps. Those incentives can be substantial — within the program’s first year, content creators who accepted Meta’s invitation to join reported huge increases in their payouts, with some calling it their most lucrative platform. One creator told The Hollywood Reporter that she consistently earned $20,000 to $30,000 per month, while another said his monthly earnings often hit six figures.

While most accounts aren’t big enough to rake in that amount of money, Meta also motivates smaller accounts to join. Starting in 2025, they launched a side program called “breakthrough bonus” that advertises up to $5,000 and an automatic onboarding into Content Monetization for creators from other platforms if they start posting regularly on Facebook.

SK Smigiel, a content creator who posts about LGBTQ+ education and activism under the username justsaysk, joined the program through the breakthrough bonus initiative in April. They say Meta would offer them payouts for completing certain “missions.” For example, Smigiel says they earned $500 a month for posting 10 reels. They say other missions included using trending hashtags and audio or cross-posting to relevant groups. These incentives initially convinced them to post on Facebook due to their poor earnings on Instagram, but they didn’t stick around.

“When I post on Facebook, I don’t even open the post that I’ve made because I already know that … probably 99 percent of the engagement is negative towards me,” Smigiel told Uncloseted Media and The 19th.

Uncloseted Media identified accounts enrolled in the program via data compiled by What To Fix (WTF), a Dutch nonprofit focused on tech accountability. The Meta Monetization Archive is a searchable database of information collected from disclosures released by Meta.

Belén Luna Sanz, policy manager at WTF, says the program represents a broader shift in industry practices. While advertisers once paid content creators directly with companies like Meta taking a cut, platforms now collect all ad revenue and pay creators themselves.

“They’re only paying you royalties depending on how much engagement you are creating on your content,” Sanz told Uncloseted Media and The 19th.

Jason Hong, a professor of computer science at Carnegie Mellon University, says that while inflammatory and misleading content may go against Meta’s policies, both the company and the people posting it are financially incentivized to promote it.

“We know that things that get people really angry get a lot of engagement, we know that disinformation and misinformation … also gets lots of engagement,” Hong told Uncloseted Media and The 19th. “[Meta is] at a fork in the road, and one path is about the morals and ethics and well-being of society and democracy, and on the other path is a really big pile of money.”

‘A reckless rollout’

Since Meta launched the program two years ago, WTF has identified over 18 million accounts in the program. But Sanz says the selection process has been opaque and describes the program’s rollout as “reckless.”

“[The program requires] little to no verification of their identity, there are not enough safeguards and their monetization policies are enforced in a very non-transparent way, so it’s hard to tell whether they are enforcing it properly or not,” Sanz says.

Uncloseted Media found numerous posts that seemingly violate Facebook’s content monetization policies, which state that “content may be subject to reduced or disabled monetization if it depicts or discusses [debated social issues] in a polarizing or inflammatory manner.” Those issues include race, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation and more.

Libs of TikTok, for example, has called the organizers of an LGBTQ+ pride event “sick sick freaks,” accused pro-LGBTQ+ teachers of wanting to “indoctrinate your children” and decried the “lgbtq groomer cult.” Other posts may violate content monetization policies forbidding “derogatory words” and “hateful conduct,” including Raichik calling “sex assigned at birth” a “retarded term.”

Meta also states that misinformation, which they define as “content that has been rated false by a third-party fact checker,” is “ineligible to monetize,” even though the company ended their third-party fact-checking last year, leaving no clear mechanism to enforce the prohibition.

Meta states that “repeated violations of [content monetization policies] could lead to a temporary or permanent ban on your Page or profile’s ability to use our monetization tools.” However, as of the Monetization Archive’s most recent update on Sept. 15, all of the accounts discussed above are actively enrolled in the program.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated several individuals in Meta’s program as extremists. These include Tucker Carlson, who has agreed with claims that gender-affirming care allows adults to “basically molest and abuse children”; James Lindsay and Jack Posobiec, who helped popularize “groomer” rhetoric against LGBTQ+ people; and Alex Jones, whose infamous conspiracy show InfoWars received an invitation prior to its acquisition by The Onion. It also includes Libs of TikTok, which is known for stoking anti-LGBTQ+ harassment — 2024 reports by NBC News and The Washington Post cumulatively found over 80 instances of violent threats against institutions like schools and businesses connected to its posts.

“There does need to be discussion and diversity of opinion allowed in the public sphere,” Radsch says. “However, there is a difference between rational debate and harassment.”

Reports from WTF suggest that Meta doesn’t consistently uphold the program’s other rules either. Despite Meta’s policies stating that “political and government entities are ineligible for monetization,” including “current elected and appointed government officials” and “political parties,” WTF found hundreds enrolled. In addition, Uncloseted Media confirmed membership of at least eight official Republican Party pages, including the Republican Party of Georgia.

A danger to democracy

In recent years, Meta has courted the Trump-Vance administration and its far-right allies, including influencers. Last August, the company hired Robby Starbuck, an anti-DEI campaigner who has promoted conspiracy theories claiming that pesticides turn children gay, as an adviser on preventing “political bias” in their AI systems. And in April, Meta sponsored a party celebrating Isabel Brown, a Daily Wire host who has advocated for people to leave their LGBTQ+ “lifestyles.” Brown and Starbuck are both enrolled in the content monetization program.

Radsch says that being able to control who gets monetized grants Meta significant power over political narratives.

“That can be problematic because it means that they can pick winners and losers, they can pick ideologies, they can discriminate at will, and we have very little way to know whether that’s happening,” Radsch says.

The stakes are high given the upcoming midterms. Misinformation that the 2020 presidential election was rigged inspired the Jan. 6 insurrection. Still, Meta monetizes accounts which spread similar claims. Libs of TikTok has said, “Democrats want to cheat in the elections,” and Johnson responded to reports of new plague cases in Russia by implying that Democrats would use them to rig the election.

“There’s a level of commitment with trying to preserve electoral integrity that needs to be present, especially when there are very delicate elections coming up,” Sanz says. “Disinformation should not be rewarded financially — this is something that even they have in their own policies for monetization.”

What can be done?

Sanz has a “wish list” of new accountability policies that could push back against the anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and political disinformation being disseminated through this program. These include labeling monetized accounts and adding mechanisms for users to report monetization policy violations.

Hong adds that platforms should restructure their algorithms and monetization systems to consider factors other than engagement.

“I wish that Facebook would have more kinds of metrics, like societal or individual well-being,” Hong says. “These are kinds of things that would be far better for society, but it is a corporation and this is what they’re trying to do because this is the mandate from the top.”

While Meta is protected from many forms of legal action in the U.S., there may be a path to legal accountability in other jurisdictions. In 2022, the European Union passed the Digital Services Act (DSA), which, among other provisions, requires large online platforms like Facebook to mitigate the potential harms of content disseminated on their platforms. WTF filed a complaint against Meta in European courts last month arguing that by monetizing 11 accounts sanctioned by the E.U. for alleged involvement in pro-Russia propaganda campaigns, the company failed to meet the DSA’s risk mitigation obligations.

Perhaps most importantly, Sanz emphasizes that social media monetization needs more public attention.

“Creator monetization is a very ill-explored area,” she says. “Although there is a good amount of legislation here in the E.U. that gives us a playground to try to incorporate much more responsibility when it comes to monetization, I do think that globally this needs to be the case.”

Jones and Raichik did not respond to requests for comment.

Vice President JD Vance joked that Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico is gay on Tuesday.

While campaigning for Ken Paxton, the Republican Senate candidate and current Texas attorney general, Vance made a joke that seemed to call into question Talarico’s sexuality during a stop in Tyler, Texas.

According to a video uploaded by C-SPAN, Vance responded to a man in the crowd who shouted, “I love you,” at the vice president.

“I love you, too, sir. In a totally platonic way, to be clear. I’m the vice president, not James Talarico,” Vance joked while standing in front of Air Force Two during the rally.

The joke has received negative press coverage and sparked backlash online against the second-in-command at a time when Republicans are struggling to win seats that, months earlier, were widely imagined to be all but entirely theirs.

Talarico, who confirmed he is in a long-term relationship of four years with Brianna Menard, a woman who served as his chief of staff during his time as a Texas state representative, has been an outspoken supporter of LGBTQ+ rights in the Lone Star State, often drawing criticism from right-wing personalities.

Billy Binion, a reporter for Reason, called out the homophobic joke made by the vice president on X, saying, “I remain amazed and mystified that some of the most powerful people in the world think ‘James Talarico seems gay!!’ is a compelling critique. It’s so desperate and small.”

Directly under a repost of the video, another person posted an old, widely circulated image of Vance in drag wearing a long blond wig, with the caption, “For the record James Talarico has never done this.” The post now has more than 62,000 views and more than 3,000 likes.

The comment is also drawing criticism of Vance over his past anti-LGBTQ+ actions while in the U.S. Senate. During his two years as a senator prior to Trump’s selection of him as vice president, Vance opposed the Respect for Marriage Act, which codified marriage rights for same-sex couples in federal law. He also co-authored the Protect Children’s Innocence Act, which would have made providing gender-affirming care to minors a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

Vance has also advocated for banning transgender troops from the military, which has become a defining characteristic of the current administration’s efforts to curb diversity and inclusion in the U.S. armed forces.

Additionally, Vance repeatedly referred to opponents of those actions as “groomers,” including in an April 2022 post on X.

“I’ll stop calling people ‘groomers’ when they stop freaking out about bills that prevent the sexualization of my children,” he wrote at the time.

These actions and the vice president’s homophobic rhetoric contrast with Talarico’s official stance on LGBTQ+ issues. Talarico has been a vocal supporter of LGBTQ+ rights but is facing recent criticism for backtracking on his support for trans girls and women participating in sports.

Under the “Freedom, Family, and Faith” section of his campaign website, Talarico states that one of his goals is to “protect the legality of gay marriage and defend our LGBTQ+ neighbors from government overreach.”

Paxton’s website, on the other hand, directly calls for Texans to vote for him so he can “defeat the radical transgender movement that’s desperate to put men in girls’ sports and woke indoctrination in our classrooms.”

The Los Angeles Blade reached out to the White House, Talarico’s press office, and Paxton’s office for comment on the story but had not heard back by publication time.

Days after President Donald Trump called Annie Andrews, the cisgender Democratic nominee for South Carolina’s U.S. Senate seat, an anti-transgender slur on social media, Andrews came out against transgender girls and women participating in sports.

Trump called Andrews a “trannie” on Truth Social while attempting to garner support for her opponent, U.S. Sen. Darline Graham (R-S.C.), the incumbent seeking reelection in South Carolina.

After the president’s use of the slur was widely reported, the incident provided an opportunity for Andrews to explain her position on the ongoing trans debate that has shaped political discourse in the 2020s, despite trans people making up only 1 percent of the U.S. population, according to the Williams Institute.

She used the opportunity to denounce trans rights and pointed out that, as a physician, she had never performed gender-affirming surgery on minors.

“I want you to hear me loud and clear: I don’t support biological men playing women’s sports, and I don’t support and haven’t ever performed gender surgery for minors,” Andrews said in a political ad.

Despite these recent developments, Andrews has previously voiced support for trans South Carolinians. In 2022, she posted on her X account, criticizing the Save Women’s Sports Act, which was signed into law by Republican Gov. Henry McMaster and restricts trans girls from participating on girls’ sports teams.

“This is shameful legislation that does nothing to protect or support women or children in SC. In fact, it is actively harmful. I will always support trans youth,” Andrews wrote in after the legislation passed.

The Los Angeles Blade reached out to Andrew’s campaign about the comments, and asked if she supports trans rights but did not receive a response.

New York’s Long Island, which is just 50 miles from the Stonewall Inn, is a reliably red enclave where President Donald Trump won easily in 2024.

Chris Gallant, an openly gay Democrat running for New York’s 1st Congressional District, which includes Nassau and Suffolk Counties, is trying to capitalize on what he sees as growing frustration with the Republican Party and its ability to deliver for everyday Americans.

The Los Angeles Blade sat down with Gallant to discuss his move from civil servant to the fight for public office, how he has been personally impacted by the changes from the Trump administration, and the recent release of photos from his past that have brought the national spotlight his way.

Gallant has a long record of public service that, on paper, would make him an unconventional but compelling candidate for a heavily Republican district. His résumé includes New York Army National Guard service that began when he was 17, multiple overseas deployments, including multiple tours in Kuwait, work as an FAA air traffic controller, union leadership and service as a volunteer firefighter.

That record of service is central to how Gallant describes himself — particularly as he navigates the unusual combination of being an openly gay candidate, a military veteran, and a Democrat running in a district where Republicans have historically held the advantage.

“My fiancé and I both serve in the military and we built our relationship through trust, timing, and a lot of miles between us,” his campaign website says, highlighting the idea of family values that has become a central part of winning the area. “I’ve been openly gay in the military since just after ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ ended, and I’ve learned to speak plainly, hold the line, and back up what I say. I’ve also learned how to listen — and how to bring people with very different views to the table and actually make progress.”

Gallant said that record, rather than his sexual orientation, is what should define his candidacy.

“I think who I am as a person is an asset,” he told the Blade when asked if his sexuality has played any role in his decision to run. “I’m not running because I’m gay. I’m running, and,’Oh, I’m gay.’ It’s part of my identity. It’s just a part of who I am. But it’s not necessarily on the table because that shouldn’t make a difference on how I’m going to respond in Congress or how I’m going to run into a burning building. I don’t think those things necessarily matter so much.”

For Gallant, the campaign is ultimately about something broader than identity politics. He said he is running because he wants to restore Americans’ confidence in a government that he says has become less about its people and more about the wealthy leaders in charge.

“I’ve always said that part of the reason why I am running for Congress is because I want to restore faith in our government,” he said. “We’re all drastically exhausted with what’s going on in this world, and particularly with Donald Trump being in office, [his] type of politics, and the way he works, essentially. When Biden got into office after Trump won, it was like the release of a pressure cooker… the pressure cooker is just even worse now this second time around.”

He also explained that his experience working inside the federal government has shaped how he believes Washington should approach its problems. Gallant pointed specifically to the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce the size of government and the role of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), arguing that cutting government spending should not mean indiscriminate cuts.

“I understand that we as a nation need to save money, or at least fix the budget or balance it. We are getting further and further in debt … The budget is always a huge issue and something that we definitely 100% need to fix. But we need to do it with experts and, you know, attack these issues with a scalpel, not a chainsaw.”

The chainsaw Gallant mentioned is a clear reference to controversial Trump supporter Elon Musk, who announced he would be heading the highly politicized DOGE agency, where he, the first-ever trillionaire, brandished a shiny chainsaw symbolic of them cutting government spending with no regard for the impact on everyday Americans.

That philosophy, of scalpel over chainsaw, is also part of Gallant’s argument to voters who may be more accustomed to voting Republican. He does not present himself as a traditional politician, but rather as someone whose career outside politics could be an asset in Congress.

“I’m not a politician. This is my first foray into politics, and I think that’s what our politics need. We need fresh new faces, not career politicians. Someone who has brand new ideas, not tainted by politics. So I would say, give me the opportunity to prove myself, because, you know, until I actually get there and I can actually do a job, we won’t know.”

Gallant also shared signs that the political landscape on Long Island may be shifting. He pointed to gains Democrats made across the district last November and said economic concerns could further erode Republican support.

“Last November, in this district we [Democrats] gained 13 and 14 points across the district..And this district lost by 10 points last year. So even just in one year, you can tell that there’s a difference.”

The swapping of support from the Republican side to Democratic reflects the real concern voters have about the economy — impacted by the war in Iran, tariffs, and growing inflation.

“People are feeling it here in their pockets. The cost of living here on Long Island is already high, and things are just getting worse. There’s a lot of promises that were made with this administration that weren’t kept.”

Gallant said that frustration has directly translated into support from some voters who previously backed Trump.

“I know a lot of people who have voted for Donald Trump that have my lawn sign on their front lawn today. If that’s the change that they’re looking for, I’m going to provide it.”

But Gallant’s campaign has been complicated by a very different kind of political issue: the publication of photos from his past that have become a national story.

The photos, which include pictures of Gallant wearing various fetish gear for Mr. S Leather — including a harness and a collar — were shared with the New York Post.

Gallant has consistently rejected the idea that he should be ashamed of the images or that they undermine his qualifications for public office since their Sept. 13 publication. Instead, he has argued that his record of service should be considered alongside a private chapter of his life from 15 years ago.

“I mean, look, I’m totally not ashamed of who I am as a person. Those pictures were taken in my private life. I can still run into a burning building faster than most people. I can still fly a helicopter. And those are from 15 years ago, right? I built an entire life based around my commitment to the military and the Army National Guard.”

Rather than allowing the controversy to define him, Gallant said he hopes it can become part of a broader conversation about privacy and the consequences of living in a digital age — and indicated that this sort of scenario would become something semi-regular for those who grew up with technology.

“The reality is that we live in a digital age.This is what our generation is going to be stuck with. I laugh all the time because this is the reason why Congress and the Senate are about to die in their chairs. They didn’t have cameras and pictures and photos like that.”

“If I have to be the person to wave the banner now to fight and advocate for not only our community but anybody that could be put in this situation, that realizes now that we’re living in a digital age and this is what the future is going to be. It’s, you know, everything’s left online now.”

That argument extends beyond his own campaign. Gallant said he worries that the prospect of having a digital footprint scrutinized could discourage highly qualified and passionate potential public servants from seeking office.

“I understand that getting into public life means that the rest of your life becomes public. I get it, I do. But I also feel bad because there’s a lot of good people out there wanting to do a job in the public world, and they’re just afraid of what their digital footprint might have on them or might — what might exist because we’ve done things when we’re 12 or 15, or 20, or 30, or whatever.”

“I think living in this digital world, I would love to advocate for people to say, ‘How do we prevent some of these things from coming out into the public view so people can still maintain some kind of a private life?’”

For an openly gay candidate, the issue also carries a particular significance. Gallant said his experience has made him more interested in advocating for other LGBTQ+ people who may hesitate to enter public life because of what could eventually surface online.

His own LGBTQ+ policy priorities are relatively focused. He said adding further protections for same-sex marriage in federal law would be one of the issues he would want to pursue if elected, particularly as questions about the Supreme Court’s future approach to marriage equality continue to loom.

“My partner, who’s my fiancé, is currently deployed. We got engaged before he left in December because if the question came up to the Supreme Court — whether gay marriage was going to be a thing — we had to question whether, when he got back from deployment after Christmas this year, whether we were actually going to be able to legally get married.”

“I mean, these are questions that shouldn’t even be questions anymore. So if we can put something like [codifying same-sex marriage] into law, where it’s just not a Supreme Court decision and it can get overturned, like Roe v. Wade, then let’s do it.”

Gallant’s opponent, Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), is the two-term incumbent and has a mixed record on LGBTQ+ rights. LaLota has been vocal in his opposition to overturning Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that established the constitutional right to same-sex marriage, but he has also been outspoken in his opposition to transgender rights. He co-sponsored and voted for H.R. 28, the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, which would restrict participation in women’s sports based on sex assigned at birth rather than gender identity.

Gallant, on the other hand, has few official positions on LGBTQ+ issues but assured the Blade that, if elected, he would become “an advocate, particularly for the LGBTQ community.”

He also said he believes same-sex marriage should be codified into law and that nondiscrimination protections should be expanded. “I would definitely be pushing no discrimination against anyone for any reason — and that should not have any place in any workplace — especially on the federal government level.”

For Gallant, however, LGBTQ+ rights are only one part of a broader platform centered on public service, affordability and restoring trust in government.

He repeatedly returned to the idea that a member of Congress should be accessible to the people they represent — something he believes his experience holding town halls and working directly with members of his community demonstrates.

“I always find that a record of service and showing up every day at work and in our communities is what’s going to be key and important. And I think that’s what a representative needs to do. As a representative you’re supposed to represent and work with the people that elect you to office. And so that’s what I’m going to make sure I start today.”

Current prediction markets give LaLota a significant advantage over his challenger, with the incumbent holding an 81 percent chance of winning compared with Gallant’s 19 percent.

Two women sit on a bed, a Pride flag hanging behind them. One is nervous; the other tells her to be calm and that she’ll do “all the work.” The music swells. The two hold hands and —  fill out a ballot voting for Steve Hilton? 

This is the new advertisement from the Hilton Gubernatorial campaign that is drawing rebuke from both sides of the aisle, but for very different reasons. 

Jorge Reyes Salinas, the communications director at Equality California, said the ad was an insult to the queer community.  “This ad is a disgusting attempt to exploit lesbian intimacy for political attention,” he said. The advertisement plays on media tropes that Salinas says “reduce lesbian and bisexual women… to sexual entertainment,” rather than showing them as well-rounded characters. “Any group of the LGBTQ+ community deserves the same dignity and respect as everyone else,” he said. 

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Caleb Kaufman (@caleb_kaufman_photography)

The ad is truly hyper-sexualized. It ends with one woman telling the other, “Now lick it.” The two pause and stare before she reveals an envelope to send the ballot, and large text pops up saying, “Just try it!”  

Salinas characterized the ad as a desperate attempt to get attention from a candidate who is trailing far behind in the polls in heavily Democratic California. The Democratic Candidate Xavier Becerra, who is endorsed by Equality California, holds a 25-point lead over Hilton according to recent polling by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies. 

Conservatives have also criticized the ad. Influential evangelical Pastor Jack Hibbs thought the ad was distasteful and said, “lesbianism among college girls and some high school girls that right now is an actual pandemic of social ill.” Republican AG candidate Michael Gates said it undermines “the sanctity of the relationship between parents and their children.” This criticism is rather confusing because although the ad features two relatively young women, they both appear to be adults, not minors. 

“The comments from Pastor Jack Hibbs should be criticized because there is nothing wrong with two women being attracted to each other,” Salinas said. “We’re calling out the ad’s stereotypes, while also rejecting the homophobia in the response to it … by other Republicans.” 

The backlash from Hilton’s own party and supporters shows that an advertisement full of queer innuendo was ill-considered, considering the national GOP’s attacks on LGBTQ people in recent years. Hilton himself has been campaigning against transgender girls and women competing in school sports and using locker rooms that correspond with their gender identity. This context might be why Hilton’s political base responded to the ad just as poorly as the liberal voters he was attempting to court. 

Hilton says the ad is part of a new series rolling out before Election Day, showing stereotypical California liberal archetypes voting for Hilton. He claims these ads are authentically filmed with real actors, as opposed to being A.I. generated, like many of his previous ads. One other advertisement has been released so far by the campaign showing a man at a spiritual retreat also being swayed to vote for Hilton, although it is notably absent of sexual innuendo.

Caleb Kaufman is a California Local News Fellow placed with the Los Angeles Blade. The California Local News Fellowship is a state-funded initiative to support and strengthen local news reporting. Learn more about it at fellowships.journalism.berkeley.edu/cafellows.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent participated in an interview in which he said his sexuality had no impact on the president’s selection of him.

On Sunday, Axios co-founder Mike Allen interviewed Secretary Bessent, the 79th person to lead the Treasury Department, in the “Cash Room” in the Treasury building. The two talked for more than 40 minutes about issues related to the current administration’s efforts for Axios’s YouTube channel.

Bessent has been something of an anomaly during this administration, breaking what many consider the “gay glass ceiling.” He is the first openly gay person to lead the U.S. Treasury Department, the first openly gay Senate-confirmed Cabinet member in a Republican administration, and the highest-ranking LGBTQ+ government official in U.S. history.

The two covered various ground — about the state of the U.S. economy, the various AI approaches by the Trump-Vance administration, and the war in Iran. All things that have made President Donald Trump’s constant appraisal of the U.S. economy difficult to sell to the American people as the affordability crisis has worsened.

Toward the end of the interview, Allen asked Bessent about deciding not to attend the U.S. Naval Academy, knowing his sexuality would be a hindrance, and instead attending Yale University. Allen asked if his choice to attend the Ivy League school held him back in life.

“I don’t think it did at all, and it’s very difficult to talk about the counterfactual … but I don’t think going to Yale held me back,” Bessent said. “Maybe some people at other schools would think it might. But I think it makes you aware, and I’ve openly spoken about it before, too. I think maybe some of my career choices were influenced by it.”

The U.S. Naval Academy only began allowing openly LGBTQ+ students to apply — and be open about their sexuality — following the 2011 repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Prior to the policy’s removal, students could be removed from the school for violating the rules, including rules related to their sexuality.

“You said President Trump chose me because he believes I’m the best candidate, not because of my sexual preference or your green eyes … ,” Allen said.

“Exactly,” Bessent replied. “And I think that’s one of the reasons we have such a great team. The president makes his decisions all the time. You know, he’ll occasionally tell me, ‘You’re breaking my friends’ hearts.’ They see you on TV and they want an intro, and we have to break the news to them.”

Bessent has been married to former New York prosecutor John Freeman since 2011, and they have lived together in South Carolina. There, they had two children through surrogacy.

Despite being a member of the LGBTQ+ community, Bessent has publicly supported Trump’s policies, including some that have drawn criticism from LGBTQ+ advocates and organizations. These include reductions to PEPFAR funding, policies removing transgender service members from the military, recognizing only two sexes, removing LGBTQ+ protections from Title IX, and other policies that LGBTQ+ advocates argue come at the cost of LGBTQ+ safety and protections.

The Los Angeles Blade has reached out to the Treasury Department and Secretary Bessent’s team for comment and responses to these questions, including questions about how he views his identity and sexuality in relation to — and potentially at odds with — the policies and mission of the current administration. The Blade did not receive a response by publication time.

Last week, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed and vetoed a slew of bills into state law. Among them were seven pertaining to California’s LGBTQ community. Newsom signed six while vetoing one. His actions drew applause and scorn from advocacy groups in the state. 

The 6 Signed Bills:

Assembly Bill 1775 allows transgender veterans, who were banned from service last year by the Trump-Vance administration, to access housing assistance, use California’s discharge upgrade assistance program, and get support for gaining employment. 

Assembly Bill 1930 strengthens privacy protections for healthcare patients and providers by creating clear guidelines for California agencies, individuals, and corporations to respond to out-of-state subpoena requests relating to abortion or gender-affirming care. This includes a requirement to contact the California Attorney General at least 7 days prior to responding to the subpoena or providing legal documents. This should add additional protection to those residing in California from investigations in states where abortion or gender-affirming care has more restrictions. 

Senate Bill 934 targets conversion therapy in California and increases the amount of time a patient has to bring a medical malpractice lawsuit against a provider for attempting to change the patient’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The bill takes aim at the widely debunked practice that treats queerness as a mental disorder that could be cured through psychotherapeutic methods. Conversion therapy has been illegal in California since 2012; however, a recent Supreme Court decision threw the ban into question, prompting lawmakers to write this new bill that legally defines it as medical malpractice. 

Senate Bill 1023 expands access to PrEP, Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis, a medication that protects people from contracting HIV. The bill requires insurers to cover the drug through the medical benefit and the pharmacy benefit pathways, allowing for more providers to give patients PrEP. 

Senate Bill 1114 strengthens privacy protections for voluntary self-identification data about sexual orientation and gender identity. The bill limits when California government agencies can share this data and bars it from being disclosed outside of the state government, with few exceptions. 

Senate Bill 1328 expands support for LGBTQ students and staff in California colleges. The bill requires any institution of higher education to designate an employee at any campus, satellite campus, branch campus, or outreach center to support the needs of LGBTQ individuals. 

Equality California, the largest statewide LGBTQ civil rights group in the country, commended the Governor for his support of legislation that protects and supports the queer community amid escalating threats, attacks, and rollbacks from the federal government. 

Executive Director Tony Hoang said in a written statement, “California is once again demonstrating that when LGBTQ+ people are targeted, our state will respond with action,” adding, “We are grateful to Governor Newsom for signing these measures.”

The Vetoed Bill:

Assembly Bill 2164 would have banned California from extraditing anyone residing in California for providing abortions or gender-affirming care in another state. Governor Newsom vetoed this bill despite agreeing with its principles, claiming in a written statement that “extradition is an exclusively executive function” and that he did not want to limit the “executive authority of an incoming Governor.” 

This bill was created in response to Louisiana’s attempt to extradite a California physician for allegedly sending abortion pills in the mail to a Louisiana woman. Governor Newsom responded forcefully to the extradition request, publicly denying it and stating, “We will not allow extremist politicians from other states to reach into California and try to punish doctors based on allegations that they provided reproductive health care services.” 

In a written statement responding to the veto, Lizzy Hinkley, the legal director of the bill’s lead sponsor, Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine, criticized Newsom, stating, “[the] outgoing Governor’s principled stance is cold comfort to Californians living and working in the real world post-Dobbs. A high-brow, academic justification for refusing to codify legal protections only reveals an ignorance for the lived reality of patients and providers – and does nothing to help them.” 

Caleb Kaufman is a California Local News Fellow placed with the Los Angeles Blade. The California Local News Fellowship is a state-funded initiative to support and strengthen local news reporting. Learn more about it at fellowships.journalism.berkeley.edu/cafellows.

With the November midterm elections inching ever closer, Equality California is preparing to release our final round of endorsements for local candidates, as well as prepare for major get-out-the-vote operations. 

We’re also still waiting on Governor Newsom to sign our 2026 legislative package. The governor has until September 30 to sign or veto hundreds of bills from this legislative session. That means we have just a short window to make our voices heard and ensure these vital protections become law. And with the onslaught of attacks from the Trump administration, particularly against transgender youth and their families, the stakes couldn’t be higher. LGBTQ+ people deserve strong laws that affirm our dignity and protect our rights. Send an email to his office and tell him to stand up for LGBTQ+ Californians by signing our bills today!

To read more stories, join our mailing list, and sign up for the weekly Equality Brief, visit eqca.org/equalitybrief.

DOLLY PARTON: ICON. ARTIST. UNAPOLOGETIC LGBTQ+ ALLY.

We are deeply saddened by the loss of musical icon and humanitarian Dolly Parton. As legendary for her exaggerated glamour as her hit songs — “It costs a lot to look this cheap,” she often joked — Dolly was a longtime ally and supporter of the LGBTQ+ community whose message of love without limits crossed generational and political lines. In addition to her iconic musical legacy (and still the only musician to ever have their own theme park, Dollywood), Dolly also founded the Imagination Library, which promotes childhood literacy and provides free books to children from birth to kindergarten. And at the height of the COVID pandemic, she personally donated $1 million to Vanderbilt University to help with development of vaccines. If ever anyone embodied the phrase “angel on earth,” it was Dolly Parton. 

Dolly, we will always love you.

• Equality California Endorses in 8 Ballot Proposition Campaigns:
  Equality California announced its positions on eight statewide ballot propositions appearing on the November midterm election ballot. “Our positions reflect our commitment to advancing equality, protecting civil rights and building a California where every LGBTQ+ person can live with dignity, safety and opportunity,” said Executive Director Tony Hoang. Read the statement announcing the endorsements here.
  
• Federal Judge Upholds Injunction Against Chino Valley Anti-Trans Policy:
  A federal judge in San Bernardino County denied a request from Chino Valley Unified School District to dissolve his previous injunction blocking them from enforcement of a policy that requires school employees to forcibly out students if they identify as transgender or use different names and pronouns at school. Chino, whose board is led by anti-LGBTQ+ extremist Sonja Shaw, brought the challenge following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mirabelli v. Bonta, where a majority of Justices ruled a school cannot purposely withhold information about a student’s identity from a parent. Because there is no such withholding requirement in the Chino case, Judge Michael Sachs allowed the injunction to stand and specifically differentiated it from the Mirabelli case.
  
• New Report From HHS Alarms Civil Rights Groups, Advocates:
  A new HHS “study” — inherently untrustworthy, originating as part of the Trump administration — posits that those who support transgender people may be more likely to justify political violence. Experts are extremely skeptical of the study’s veracity and underlying methodology, noting that it uses disproven pseudoscience as a basis for its findings. This is just the latest in the administration’s messaging war to assign blame for violence, hate crimes, and similar incidents to what they refer to as “ support for transgender ideology.”
  
• Federal Court: IRS Cannot Share Data with ICE
  A federal appeals court unanimously upheld a lower court ruling to block the Internal Revenue Service from turning over confidential taxpayer information of non-citizens who pay taxes to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The challenge, Center for Taxpayer Rights v. IRS, was supported by an amicus brief filed by 115 Members of the Congress including Senator Padilla and Reps Sánchez and Gomez of the California delegation.
  
• Flailing Ahead of Midterms, Republicans Turn to Tried and True Transgender Attacks:
  With their prospects for victory in the midterms growing dimmer by the day, far-right MAGA Republicans are turning to attacks on transgender people as a way to motivate their base to get out the vote. States including Missouri, Colorado, Washington and Arizona will have ballot issues around banning trans youth from sports and/or prohibiting healthcare access for transgender youth (in the case of Colorado, both are up for voter approval). The efforts smack of cynicism, and are reminiscent of anti-marriage equality attacks deployed to increase Republican turnout in 2004.
  
• Federal Judge Strikes Down Texas Drag Ban:
  On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge David Hittner struck down a 2023 Texas state law that sought to restrict drag shows. Judge Hittner ruled that Texas Senate Bill 12 was an overly broad, unconstitutional attack on free speech, offering in his ruling a solution to anyone opposed to drag shows: “Just don’t go.”
  

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 and entrepreneur Tristan Schukraft with the Equality Trailblazer Award. Tickets are on sale now! 

With fall comes swapping out T-shirts for sweaters, raking leaves and, of course, elections. The summer’s primaries have narrowed the playing field in a slew of races, but the big ones — the actual races for seats in federal and local elections — are still to come.

Jeremy Moss is one of those people running for a congressional seat in Michigan. Despite his young age, Moss has quickly learned the ropes of politics in the state, already serving terms in the Great Lakes State’s House of Representatives and Senate.

Moss sat down with the Los Angeles Blade to discuss his history in Michigan politics, his experience as an openly LGBTQ+ legislator and his vision for a better America as he looks toward Congress.

He currently represents Michigan’s 7th Senate District, but now he is setting his sights beyond Lansing toward Capitol Hill to represent Michigan’s 11th Congressional District, which includes Detroit’s northern suburbs.

Moss earned his bachelor’s degree in journalism from Michigan State University, where just a few years later he made history as the first openly gay person elected to the Michigan Senate and the first to serve as its president pro tempore.

His political experience stretches across multiple offices.

Moss worked in the offices of Southfield Mayor Brenda Lawrence, who also served in the U.S. House of Representatives, and State Rep. Paul Condino.

Moss, at age 25, was elected to the Southfield City Council in 2011, becoming the youngest member elected in the body’s history. He then switched over to the state legislature, representing Michigan’s 35th House of Representatives District in the Michigan House of Representatives from 2014-2018, becoming the second openly gay member elected to the Michigan legislature.

He then moved from Michigan’s House to its Senate in 2018, elected to represent the 11th Michigan Senate District and becoming the Assistant Democratic Leader. Moss started his second term in the Michigan Senate in 2023, this time representing District 7.

He currently has a long list of priorities listed on his campaign website, many of which have become standard for Democrats running across the country, with a particular focus on minimizing — and cleaning up — issues that the Republican-controlled federal government has created under President Donald Trump.

Those goals include lowering healthcare costs, tackling the cost of living crisis, holding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement accountable and fixing the broken immigration system, restoring national voting rights, protecting rights — with a particular focus on abortion access and LGBTQ+ rights — combating corruption in politics, preventing gun violence and strengthening gun safety, empowering Michigan workers, and preserving the environment.

Why Moss is running for Congress

When asked why he wants to run for Congress, Moss pointed to his lengthy resume in state leadership, with a clear voice arguing that if he can do it in Lansing, he can get it done in Washington.

“I’ve served 12 years in the legislature and have ascended into leadership as president pro tem of the Senate,” Moss explained to the Blade. “We flipped our state legislative chamber to a Democratic majority for the first time in 40 years in 2022, and we passed some big, generational-changing, consequential Democratic wins that had languished for a generation, but had improved people’s lives in our state.

“We’ve passed the first gun safety laws in a generation that are saving lives. We protected the right to vote amidst attacks from Donald Trump and other conspiracies. We pushed forward and finally put LGBTQ rights in our state civil rights law. We provided free school meals and lunches for all public school children in the state of Michigan.

“The problems from Washington, D.C., aren’t getting less severe over time,” he continued. “They’re getting more severe. So this district unexpectedly opened up due to a series of retirements and it was just a great opportunity for me to continue to advocate for big change that we’ve already achieved here in the state legislature.”

“I’m a product of this district. I grew up here. I’ve represented a bulk of the district already in the state legislature, and I knew that I was going to earn grassroots support to be able to wage this campaign. We sought it out, we earned it, including some premier endorsements from Gov. (Gretchen) Whitmer, among many others, and were highly successful in the primary because we were in tune to the needs of this district.”

Moss has been endorsed by a slew of Democratic leaders and organizations, including, as he pointed out, by Whitmer.

Other endorsements include former Gov. Jim Blanchard, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, Attorney General Dana Nessel, the Equality PAC, the Human Rights Campaign, the Unity Fund, and the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund.

His political identity and the Democratic Party

Moss described himself as being “on the liberal end of the spectrum,” but argued that the Democratic Party’s internal divisions should not be the central focus.

“I’m certainly on the liberal end of the spectrum, but I don’t even think it necessarily has to be this progressive versus establishment fight that we’ve seen play out,” Moss said when asked about various elements of in-party disagreements. “It has to be between action and, and inaction, fighters versus folders.”

He said that distinction between action and inaction is central to how he would approach Washington.

“At this moment, I think we need to demonstrate that we are ready to take on Donald Trump and MAGA chaos with boldness and effectiveness. I’ve been saying all along our campaign trail, we can no longer be the party that shows up to the knife fight carrying a pie chart, and so I think we have to be showing that we have spine and we have punch, and we’re really ready to be tough fighters for, for Michiganders and the American people.”

“We can’t walk on eggshells anymore. We can’t pull our punches,” he added. “We can’t fear that we’re offending someone, you know, one way or another with how we act. People are expecting a bold party to take on MAGA, and I think that’s exactly what the Democratic Party needs.”

Becoming an LGBTQ+ legislator

Moss also reminisced with the Blade about his first run for elected office — at a time when Michigan had no openly LGBTQ+ members serving in the state legislature — and how that experience became deeply connected to his identity and his approach to LGBTQ+ politics.

In 2014, Michigan was in the pre-marriage equality era, and the state had no openly LGBTQ+ members serving in the legislature.

“12 years ago in 2014 — this was pre-marriage, the pre-marriage equality era — we had zero people from our community serving in the legislature, and still they were talking about us.

“The big topic then in Michigan was whether or not to expand our civil rights law to include LGBTQ protections, so that people from our community would no longer face discrimination in housing and employment. And they were talking about us regardless of whether or not we were at the table.”

Moss eventually helped lead the effort to expand Michigan’s civil rights protections to include LGBTQ+ people, a measure that passed with bipartisan support.

He said his experience as an openly gay lawmaker allowed him to make the case for LGBTQ+ protections in terms that extended beyond LGBTQ+ issues.

“One thing I definitely aligned with Gov. Whitmer at the time was making the case that discrimination was not only morally wrong, but it was bad for business,” he said. “By not having these protections for our LGBTQ neighbors and family members and friends and community members, we were actually holding back our economy. We were essentially allowing people to be kicked out of Michigan as consumers and workers, because of who they are and how they identified.”

That led to various efforts — including committee hearings and meetings with advocates, businesses and the public — that helped make Michigan what the Movement Advancement Project deems the 16th most LGBTQ+-friendly state, solidly above other states due to its robust LGBTQ+-related legislation.

“I wanted to meet everybody where they were, including those who may have not been involved with or engaged with the LGBTQ community as legislators, but understood that we couldn’t sustain the economic impact of discriminating against our community,” Moss said. “And as I’ve said all along, discrimination is bad for business. That’s something I think helped broaden the vote and earn some bipartisan support for it.”

Representation and LGBTQ+ youth

For Moss, the importance of LGBTQ+ representation also comes from his own experience growing up.

“I think about when I was younger, when I was 18 years old. It was in 2004, and, you know, there are certain things that really shaped me in that time … Michigan had a ballot proposal that passed to have the strictest language banning marriage equality in our state constitution. We didn’t even allow civil unions in that language in our constitution to exist, and there were scandal-plagued LGBTQ politicians.”

“It was the same year that Jim McGreevey was forced to resign as he came out,” he said. “So it really was a signal to me that, you know, you don’t have a future. Not just you don’t have a future in politics; you might not even have a future. Period, and it was pretty defining for me.”

Despite those fears, Moss continued to pursue public office.

“And you can’t be what you can’t see, and so to be able to break the barriers at the state level and at this congressional level, I think is a signal to anybody who is struggling with wondering where their place is?”

“I think that visibility is incredibly important, and it’s something that I needed when I was much younger, and it’s something that I’ve been honored to be able to provide for the, for the next generation of emerging leaders.”

His LGBTQ+ priorities in Congress

When asked what LGBTQ+ issues he would prioritize in Congress, Moss emphasized the importance of growing the number of LGBTQ+ lawmakers while also expanding federal nondiscrimination protections.

“To have a caucus in the legislature has made all the difference because you can, you know, run these issues across the field. You can have somebody take on marriage. You can have somebody take on trans rights. You can have somebody take on LGBTQ youth. You can have somebody take on discrimination protections.”

He sees much of the work he wants to get done on Capitol Hill as a direct follow-up to his work in Lansing — most importantly, the passage of the Equality Act. The legislation has been debated in some form for more than 50 years at the federal level, with the goal of protecting LGBTQ+ people from discrimination under federal law.

“I think the Equality Act is incredibly important. That’s kind of the, the counterpart to what we’ve done in the state legislature, ensuring discrimination protections for the LGBTQ community,” he said.

“I think housing and, and workplace discrimination is, is everything, you know, to protect our community so that they can have a safe place to call home and earn a living … That’s incredibly important across the board. And I would really want to take a leading role in telling the story of how we were able to do it in Michigan after 50 years since this act was first written — and finally finished the job federally to ensure their federal protections in, in, in, in employment and housing.”

LGBTQ+ political organizations and Congress

Moss said the LGBTQ+ political organizations that have supported his political career from its early stages have helped him along the way.

“Obviously, I’ve been affiliated with Victory Fund since I first ran for office, and they were early endorsers, but Equality PAC, which is the political arm of the LGBTQ caucus in Congress, has been an incredible part of my support system. From day one they helped me out.

“I’ve been getting to know a lot of the members of Congress who are LGBTQ, really over the last year of this campaign. So I’m eager to join them. I’m eager to be one of the players on the field here to be able to advocate and advance our issues.”

Voting rights

Voting rights are another major focus for Moss, an issue he said dates back to his experience during the 2004 campaign over marriage equality.

“Something I’m very passionate about is voting rights, and it really does go back to that 2004 campaign where it was very evident that elections can determine your future.

“Elections can determine what rights you do have and don’t have, and so I’ve been very laser focused on increasing access to the ballot box, making sure our democracy remains whole and accessible.”

He explained how Trump’s recent attacks on voting legitimacy and mail-in voting have only made his desire to help that much stronger.

“We went through a real trial of that in 2020 with, with Michigan’s presidential election, with Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani — as he jetted into Michigan and tried to overturn our valid and accurate election results. We were kind of the spotlight of the nation in that stop this deal movement that led to Jan. 6.”

That, according to Moss, spurred direct action on his end.

“I took the helm as chair of the Senate Elections Committee, and we wrote the law to implement pieces of that ballot proposal, including drafting the law that implemented nine days of early voting here in Michigan, increased access to absentee ballot. We further secured our canvassing and certifications so that nobody could jet in with an alternative slate of electors and send them to Congress on Jan. 6.”

“So I’ve been on the front lines in Michigan on defending our election systems and strengthening protections for both voters to access the ballot box and protections against those who want to overturn our election results.”

Those issues are still present today, he explained.

“He’s pushing for suppressive tactics like the Save Act. The Supreme Court has eroded the federal Voting Rights Act,” Moss said. “I want to really get into Congress as an election expert, we have a Michigan story to tell. I wrote a lot of that story, and, and I think the most urgent thing that we could pass is the John Lewis Voting Rights Act to make sure that there’s no pocket of discrimination anywhere in our country, and that people have the ability to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to vote.”

What he would do differently in Washington

Moss also shared that he believes Democrats should communicate differently in Washington, with an emphasis on getting things done.

“Yeah, again, we’ve, we’ve seen politics evolve in this Trump era, and I think that Democrats need to communicate differently.

“He talks so brazenly, and how proud he is that he’s renamed the Gulf of Mexico or Lake Ontario. I put that in the stupid category.

“He’s also done things in the harmful category that he boasts about, like cutting Medicaid and cutting SNAP. And of course, he’s doing things in the dangerous category, but proud of it, like trying to overturn our elections or suppressing the vote.

“What we’re doing is both popular and good for people, whether it’s growing our economy from the middle class outward, whether it’s lowering costs, whether it’s making healthcare more affordable, whether it’s strengthening the core functions of our democracy, we have to be talking about it with the same gusto and confidence that MAGA talks about their agenda.

“I think this is a party that needs more spine and more punch, and really meet this moment because I think that’s what people are looking for, and that’s really what I think a new generation will bring into this next Congress.”

New Hampshire Congressman Chris Pappas on Tuesday won the Democratic primary in the race to succeed retiring U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) in the U.S. Senate.

Pappas defeated Karishma Manzur, who was his primary challenger, by a 61.8-36.1 percent margin.

The gay congressman will face off against former U.S. Sen. John E. Sununu, who defeated former U.S. Sen. Scott Brown in the Republican primary.

“Tonight’s victory sends a clear message that voters are looking for leaders who will fight for their rights, their freedoms, and to be treated with dignity and respect,” said Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson in a statement. 

She campaigned for Pappas in Manchester, New Hampshire’s largest city, on Aug. 30.

“Chris Pappas has delivered results, stood up for equality, and showed up for the people he serves,” said Robinson in her statement. “HRC was proud to mobilize Equality Voters across New Hampshire to help power this win. We don’t have a second to waste between now and November. We look forward to continuing our work with Rep. Pappas as he drives toward victory in November so he can help return a pro-equality majority to the United States Senate.”

A poll the University of New Hampshire Survey Center released on Aug. 26 showed Sununu ahead of Pappas by a 45-43 percent margin if they were to face off in the general election. The margin of error is +/-2.1 percent.

Pappas would become the first openly gay man elected to the U.S. Senate if he were to win in November.