There is something deeply unsettling about a society that turns a child’s future into a public referendum. In Eswatini, there were reports that students were expelled from school over alleged same-sex relationships, and that parents were invited to vote on whether those children should remain, forcing us to confront a difficult question on when did education stop being a right and become a favor granted by collective approval? Because this is a non-neutral vote.

A vote reflects power, prejudice and personal beliefs, which are often linked to tradition, culture, politics and religion. It is shaped by fear, by stigma, by long-standing narratives about morality and belonging. To ask parents, many of whom may already hold hostile views about LGBTIQ+ people, to decide the fate of children is not consultation. It is deferring the responsibility and repercussion. It is placing the lives of young people in the hands of those most likely to deny them protection.

And where is the law in all of this?

The Kingdom of Eswatini is not operating in a vacuum. It has a constitution that guarantees the promotion and protection of fundamental rights, including equality before the law, equal protection of the laws, and the right to dignity. The constitution further goes on to protect the rights of the child, including that a child shall not be subjected to abuse, torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.  

The Children’s Protection and Welfare Act of 2012 extends the constitution and international human rights instruments, standards and protocols on the protection, welfare, care and maintenance of children in Eswatini. The Children’s Protection and Welfare Act of 2012 promotes nondiscrimination of any child in Eswatini and says that every child must have psychosocial and mental well-being and be protected from any form of harm. The acts of this very instance place the six students prone to harm and violence. The expulsion goes against one of the mandates of this act, which stipulates that access to education is fundamental to development, therefore, taking students out of school and denying them education contradicts the law.  

Eswatini is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. These are not just commitments made to make our governments look good and appeasing. They are obligations. The Convention on the Rights of the Child is clear regarding all actions concerning children. The best interests of the child MUST be a primary consideration and NOT secondary one. According to the CRC, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.” It is not something to be weighed against public discomfort and popularity.

The African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child reinforces this, grounding rights in non-discrimination (Article 3), privacy (Article 10) and protection from all forms of torture (Article 16). Access to education (Article 11) within these frameworks is not conditional but is a foundational right. It is not something that can be taken away because a child is perceived as falling outside social norms and threatening the moral fabric of society. It is a foundational right and determines one’s ability to participate in civic actions with dignity.

So again, where is the law when children are being expelled?

It is tempting to say the law is silent but that would be too generous. The law is not silent rather, it is being ignored and bypassed in favor of systems of decision-making that make those in power comfortable. When schools and their leadership defer to parental votes rather than legal standards, they are not acting neutrally. Expelling a child from school because of allegations is not a decision to be taken lightly. It disrupts education and limits future opportunities and for children already navigating identity and social pressure, this kind of exclusion can have profound psychological effects. It isolates them. It marks them for potential harm. Imagine being a child whose future is discussed in a room where people debate your worth. That is exposure. That is harm. There is a tendency to justify these actions in the language of culture, tradition, religion and protecting social cohesion. But culture is not static and the practice of Ubuntu values is not an excuse to violate rights. If anything, the principle of Ubuntu demands the opposite of what is happening here.

Ubuntu is not about conformity. It is about recognition and is the understanding that our humanity is bound up in one another. That we are diminished when others are excluded. That care, dignity, respect and compassion are not optional extras but central to how we exist together. Where, then, is Ubuntu in a school where some children are deemed unworthy of access to education?

Why are those entrusted with protecting children are failing to do so?

There is a very loud contradiction at play. On one hand, there is a claim to shared values and to the importance of community. On the other hand, there is a willingness to isolate and exclude those who do not fit within the narrow definition of what is acceptable. You cannot have both. A community that thrives on exclusion is neither cohesive nor safe.

It is worth asking why these decisions are being made in this way. Why not follow the established legal processes? Why not ensure that any disciplinary action within schools aligns with national and international obligations? Why introduce a vote at all? The answer is uncomfortable and lies in legitimacy and accountability. A vote creates the appearance of a collective agreement. But again, I reiterate, it distributes responsibility across many hands, making it hard to hold anyone accountable. It allows the school leadership to say “lesi sincumo sebantfu”(“This is what the community decided, not me”) rather than confronting their own role in human rights violations. If the law is clear and rights, responsibilities and obligations are established, then the question is not what the community feels. The question is why those entrusted with protecting children are failing to do so.

There is also a deeper issue here about whose rights are seen as negotiable. When we talk about children, we often speak of care, of understanding, of protection and safeguarding them because they are the future. But that language becomes selective when it intersects with sexuality, particularly when it involves LGBTIQ+ identities. Suddenly, care, understanding, protection, and safeguarding give way to punishment.

Easy decisions are not always just ones.

If the kingdom is serious about its commitments under its constitution, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, then those commitments must be visible in practice, not just in policy documents. Rather, they must guide decision-making in schools and in communities. That means recognizing that a child’s right to education cannot be overridden by a show of hands. It means ensuring that schools remain spaces of inclusion rather than sites of moral policing. It means holding leaders and institutions accountable when they fail to protect those in their care.

Bradley Fortuin is a consultant at the Southern Africa Litigation Center and a human rights activist.

Uncloseted Media published this article on May 2.

By HOPE PISONI | Natalia Soloviova always knew she was putting herself at risk. As the chair of the Russian LGBT Network, the largest queer advocacy group in the country, she had spent years preparing detailed security protocols for what she would do if the government came after her.

But it was still a nasty shock when she had to use them. In November 2023, almost two weeks before Russia’s supreme court would designate the “international LGBT movement” as an extremist organization, Soloviova’s heart sank when she watched Channel One, a state-funded TV network, air a report about her organization. They flashed her and her colleagues’ names on screen while accusing the organization of “extremist” activities, including spreading propaganda to minors and trying to destroy “traditional family values.”

“It was so disturbing, and it made me physically sick,” Soloviova told Uncloseted Media.

She knew she had to get out. The following days blurred together as she checked off the steps in her security protocol: she called her lawyers, told her mom and wife she was leaving, and boarded a plane to another country. Over the next few years, she would move between several countries before settling in New York City.

It all happened so fast that she didn’t process her emotions until a month later, when she was scrolling Instagram and saw a video of her hometown, Novosibirsk.

“I start just crying … because my previous life was lost,” she says. “I started to feel anger for the government, for the situation itself, because it was absolutely horrific and absolutely unfair.”

While U.S. intelligence agencies under the Trump administration have indicated an interest in targeting trans people, Russia’s extremism designation has allowed for a whole other level of persecution. Because the designation targets the entire LGBTQ+ movement, the court’s ruling allows the government to impose broad crackdowns on the community.

As of June 2025, Human Rights Watch had identified 101 people convicted on LGBTQ+ extremism charges, with punishments ranging from fines to 12-year prison sentences. Since late last year, the government has also taken eight Russian LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations to court, aiming to label them as extremist groups.

These cases are ongoing — Soloviova’s organization was just declared as extremist on April 27.

“I woke up at home with my wife, and the first thing I saw were messages from our lawyers,” Soloviova says about the news. “Honestly, I was furious. But as usual, there was no time to be angry. My first thought was my colleagues still in Russia. I spent the entire morning in bed, messaging back and forth about emergency evacuations, security measures and our next steps.”

People have been jailed for posting photos of pride flags in an 11-person Telegram chat and for wearing rainbow-colored earrings. In response, LGBTQ+ advocates have gone underground, finding new ways to support a terrified community. Despite everything, Soloviova says that “most organizations” have continued to do their work.

“They can ban us on paper, but they cannot erase us,” Soloviova says. “We will not abandon our values, because human life, safety and dignity matter more than any repressive labels.”

How did Russia get here?

The Russian government began targeting the LGBTQ+ community in 2013, when they passed a law banning the spread of “propaganda” of “non-traditional sexual orientation” to minors. The next year, Russia’s military occupied Crimea, leading to condemnation from the U.S. and other world powers.

Sasha Kazantseva, queer sex educator and author of “The Conservative Web: Russia’s Worldwide War on LGBTQ+ Rights,” says that in order to combat the backlash, Russian President Vladimir Putin leaned into “traditional values ideology” to build support among more conservative countries.

“[Putin says] ‘Western ideology is about making your kids trans and gay, and we can save your kids and your traditional families,’” Kazantseva told Uncloseted Media. “LGBTQ people are very important for this traditional values conservative ideology as an image of some internal enemy.”

After invading Ukraine in 2022, Putin’s government escalated their attacks on Russia’s LGBTQ+ community. They expanded their anti-propaganda law to include adults, and in 2023 they banned trans people of all ages from medically transitioning or changing their legal gender. On Nov. 30, 2023, they issued the extremism ruling.

“[In] 2022, they see again that people are not happy with the war, and they start to play the same game as 10 years ago,” Kazantseva says. “Nobody cared [about trans people], and out of nowhere, Putin starts to mention trans people in every speech.”

Since then, things have escalated. Last November, the Justice Ministry began a court case to declare Irida, a small LGBTQ+ advocacy group, as an extremist organization. Eight advocacy groups, including ComingOut and the Russian LGBT Network, both of which provide services including psychological support and legal consultation to LGBTQ+ Russians, have had similar cases against them.

Crackdowns under the extremism ruling

Maks Olenichev, a European Union-based lawyer who supports Russian LGBTQ+ defendants in court, says there are two types of charges for violating extremism laws.

First, displaying the symbols of an extremist group — often the rainbow pride flag in this case — is considered an administrative offense. Of the 101 individuals HRW identified, 81 were convicted for displaying symbols. First-time offenders face fines or short jail sentences, while repeat offenders can receive up to four years in prison.

Second, participation in the international LGBTQ+ movement is a criminal offense punishable by up to 12 years in prison. HRW identified at least 20 people facing these charges.

Participation in the movement can seemingly include any public activities related to the LGBTQ+ community. Authorities arrested several employees at Eksmo, Russia’s largest publishing house, for extremism because some of their books contained LGBTQ+ themes. And last year, a Moscow court posthumously found Andrey Kotov, the leader of a Russian gay travel agency, guilty of extremism after he died in a pretrial detention center.

“If [Kotov] had asked me whether he could do it, I would say, ‘Yes you could do it, it’s legal.’ And then he goes to jail and dies there,” says Ksenia, who works outside of Russia as legal assistance program coordinator for ComingOut. “I have 20 years’ experience in law. What can we expect from people who are not experienced lawyers?”

Olenichev agrees: “There’s no 100 percent foolproof way to not being charged with anything.”

Alise Sever learned this the hard way in 2024, when her Halloween weekend celebrations were interrupted by masked police officers banging down the doors. Sever was partying at Black Clover, an LGBTQ+-friendly club she had opened just over a year earlier in Kirov, Russia.

At 2 a.m., militarized special forces burst in to raid the club and immediately hauled Sever off to the precinct while they pinned several patrons against the wall, arrested them and confiscated what came out to be roughly 1 million rubles, or $10,000, worth of music equipment, alcohol, and other club property a price so steep that the business would need to shut down.

“I knew that something [like this] could happen,” Sever, 28, told Uncloseted Media. “But I was sad. I was grieving a loss of money, a loss of the time and work that I have put into this.”

Sever and five other people who were arrested that night — including the club’s co-founder and multiple queer artists — were charged with extremism. As part of the court proceedings, Russian police revealed that they had been monitoring Sever and her girlfriend for almost a year and had amassed thousands of pages of documents containing information about her and her business as well as transcripts of intercepted messages and phone calls.

“They apply these laws very randomly, and they do it not to show that this person is the most brutal criminal you can imagine, they do it to show that anyone can be targeted by this law,” Kazantseva says. “So you live in permanent tension, in permanent self-censorship. And that’s how they control people.”

Kazantseva, who has published zines, blogs, and books about LGBTQ+ issues, has also experienced this firsthand. Despite having fled the country for Lithuania in 2023 due to crackdowns on anti-war advocacy, Russia’s financial monitoring system added her to their list of “terrorists and extremists” last October. This bans her from accessing Russian bank accounts, essentially locking her out of any financial activities in the country. The federal government has also placed her on their “wanted” list, and a court has ordered “arrest in absentia” of Kazantseva, meaning that she will be detained if she enters Russia or one of its allied countries.

Russian authorities have also threatened charges to pressure LGBTQ+ people into enlisting to fight in the war. In 2024, the government issued a new policy allowing defendants to be exempted from criminal liability if they join the army.

Ksenia, who requested that Uncloseted Media omit her surname for fear of not being allowed to return to the country, says she knew a boy who was part of a group chat for LGBTQ+ teenagers. When federal authorities discovered the chat, they threatened him with criminal convictions, and after significant pressure, he abandoned his plans to go to university and signed up to fight in Ukraine shortly after his 18th birthday.

“I know I should feel outrage at how defenseless he is facing the state machine,” Ksenia says. “But at this point, [I’m] just numb.”

These legal crackdowns have caused many LGBTQ+ people to withdraw from public life. In a 2025 study of 1,683 queer women by Olenichev and other Russian scholars, more than half of the respondents said extremism laws had made them afraid to contact law enforcement, 36.5 percent had gone back into the closet, and many have “severely restricted their circle of friends.”

Sometimes, taking these precautions isn’t enough. Sever’s club, which hosted drag performances, only allowed people who had not publicly come out as queer online to perform, and had to issue rules that performers could not touch or interact with the audience or mention the terms “LGBTQ” or “Ukraine.” They also had to remove wall paintings of humanoid cats wearing shibari rope and lingerie after getting fined by police in early 2024 under the propaganda law. None of that, though, was enough to save them from being raided.

How are advocates responding?

Zhenya, a Russian trans emigrant to Canada who asked to use a pseudonym because they still visit their home country, got hands-on experience with the new normal for queer activism when they signed up to volunteer for ComingOut.

Ksenia says the organization now relies almost entirely on workers outside of Russia like Zhenya. In order to start volunteering for the group, Zhenya had to go through a round of interviews designed to weed out infiltrators. And once they joined, they learned that all their coworkers’ identities would be hidden.

“Partially why they do interviews is because it’s known sometimes that police agents will try to insert themselves in the group to get names,” Zhenya told Uncloseted Media. “They never ask you for your passport info, they don’t ask you for your real name.”

Ksenia says ComingOut now has its security measures down to a science and “almost nothing” needed to change when they were declared an extremist organization. Because of that, they now offer security consultation to other organizations.

Another initiative that has needed to adapt to this new reality is Centre T, a trans and nonbinary support organization that will likely be declared an extremist group at a trial set for May 4. Sasha, the group’s media coordinator, says volunteers must use a VPN and communicate through encrypted messaging apps. Initially, this would often be Telegram, but with the Russian legislature weighing a ban on the app, they’re considering moving to other platforms like Matrix.

Even with these precautions, Centre T had to cut some programs: They no longer host online chats or dating programs, and they’ve mostly had to stop sharing personal stories in order to protect people’s identities. Still, their most crucial programs, which include assisting trans people in leaving the country and connecting them to medical specialists that aid them with transition under the table, are still operating.

Fleeing the country

Like with ComingOut, most of Centre T’s workers and volunteers have left Russia. Olenichev says this is generally the safest option. In many extremism cases, he says lawyers focus less on actually winning and more on fighting for lighter sentences and using stall tactics, like requesting extra documentation, to buy time for defendants to flee.

“It’s impossible to win those cases since [they] usually are political and not legal,” Olenichev says.

Sever is a success story for this strategy. After her arrest, she spent two months alone in a jail cell, isolated from her friends and family as they were scared that sending her letters would lead the government to target them. After she was released, she spent 11 months on house arrest, trapped at home with her “very religious” mother who tried to convince her to accept the charges and abandon her pansexuality.

“There were moments when my friends were visiting me while I was on house arrest, and they were later on [interrogated], so that led for them to stop. … It took a toll on me.”

As Olenichev and other advocates fought to prolong her case, she concocted a scheme to flee the country despite being under house arrest. When she came down with a disease, she was allowed to call an ambulance to the hospital, where her friends were waiting to help smuggle her over the border.

“I ended up in a safe place where I’m awaiting a visa to go to Europe, now,” says Sever, who did not reveal her location due to concerns about violence from local anti-LGBTQ+ groups.

Centre T is currently operating a temporary shelter in Armenia for trans people leaving Russia, providing food, housing and psychological and medical support. While they say they’ve recently lost U.S. grants and the ability to fundraise in Russia, the shelter remains open because of crowdfunding through Patreon and Buy Me a Coffee.

“We are funded by our community,” Sasha says. “It’s been really amazing, honestly … because it’s very difficult to find funding for direct service projects like a shelter.”

How do queer people continue to live in Russia?

Zhenya visited St. Petersburg for the first time since the extremism designation in the summer of 2024. Surprisingly, they still managed to find communities of queer people.

“I don’t think there’s anything official, it’s all where gay people just go, and you just know,” they say. “I went to one [such] place and that went just fine. I know a couple trans people who still live in St. Petersburg, and there’s still events and things happening, but it’s just way more lowkey.”

Zhenya says it’s easier to do this in bigger cities where they say people are relatively accepting and less likely to report LGBTQ+ people to the police.

Sasha believes that the community’s future lies in whisper networks like those Zhenya describes.

“It’s time for some decentralized, horizontal activities and initiatives,” she says. “Because it’s more safe right now to make a group only for friends, for people that you know.”

Sasha says it’s critical that queer Russians take precautions and strongly recommends ensuring no LGBTQ+ content is saved on your phone in case it gets hacked or confiscated.

In such dangerous conditions, Natalia Soloviova says every step is important. Seemingly simple actions, like opening up about your queer identity to trusted loved ones, covertly spreading information among other queer people, or simply allowing yourself to rest and recover are necessary to make it through.

“You’re keeping community alive,” she says. “If you’re supporting your friends, even with drinking mimosas on a Sunday after a really hard week, it’s keeping community safe, it’s spreading the words of community. Better to do something than not to do something.”

For herself, life goes on in New York. While she still misses Novosibirsk, she says she will continue to fight from abroad and is grateful that there are still so many queer Russians fighting to live safely.

“This urge of people who want to improve the life of our community can be unstoppable.”

YOUR EX, an LGBTQ+ newspaper in New Zealand, published this article on April 28. The Los Angeles Blade is publishing it with permission.

More gay, bi, and takatāpui men in Aotearoa may soon be able to donate blood, with New Zealand Blood Service changing its sexual activity screening rules in a move that shifts the focus away from sexuality and on to specific recent behavior.

For many queer people, the change represents a move away from treating all men who have sex with men as a single risk category. Instead, all donors will be asked the same questions about new or multiple sexual partners in the past three months, and whether they have had anal sex with those partners.

Under the new approach, donors who have had anal sex with a new or multiple partners in the past three months will still face a three-month deferral. But those who have not — and who meet all other eligibility criteria — will be able to donate. Donors will also be asked whether they have had gonorrhea or any other sexually transmitted infection in the past three months, with a three-month wait applying after treatment and recovery.

That change could open the door for some gay, bisexual, takatāpui and other men who have sex with men who were previously excluded from giving blood. In particular, men who have had anal sex with only one partner in the past three months, where that sexual contact has been ongoing for longer than three months, may now be eligible to donate, including those in long-term single-partner relationships.

For years, blood donation rules have been experienced not just as a public health measure, but as a blunt and often stigmatizing signal that queer men were viewed differently from everyone else. This change suggests a more nuanced approach, one that looks at what people do, rather than who they are, based on findings from the Sex and Prevention of Transmission Study (SPOTS) and international evidence supporting behavior-based screening.

New Zealand Blood Service says the new model will maintain the safety of the blood supply while making donation more inclusive.

Still, the new rules are not a complete removal of the restrictions, and some will see them as progress rather than full equity. The three-month deferral remains in place for donors who have had anal sex with a new or multiple partners, even if they are taking PrEP or using condoms. New Zealand Blood Service says that while PrEP is highly effective for HIV prevention, it can mask low levels of HIV during testing, and condoms are not considered completely fail-safe.

A new health agreement between the U.S. and the Philippines has raised questions among HIV/AIDS service providers.

A joint declaration signed by the U.S. and the Philippines on April 7 sets out a plan for closer health cooperation, aimed at transitioning the Philippines toward greater autonomy and “self-reliance” in its health systems, according to a State Department statement released.

In practice, “self-reliance” in health systems refers to a country’s ability to fund, manage, and deliver care without heavy dependence on external donors. In the Philippines, programs serving LGBTQ+ people — particularly those focused on HIV prevention, testing and treatment — have relied in part on international funding and technical support, including from the U.S., according to UNAIDS. 

The Philippine Department of Health has led the national response to the pandemic.

The joint declaration of intent was signed under the Trump-Vance administration’s “America First Global Health Strategy.” The State Department said the agreement would involve co-funding of mutually agreed global health objectives under bilateral health cooperation between the U.S. and the Philippines in the near future.

The declaration also outlines areas of cooperation beyond financing: workforce development, health information systems, and emergency preparedness. The State Department said the framework is intended to strengthen coordination between U.S. and Philippine institutions while supporting the Philippines’ capacity to manage public health challenges independently over time. The statement does not specifically address LGBTQ+ health.

Similar agreements in other regions have drawn scrutiny from LGBTQ+ advocacy groups. 

In Africa, community organizations have warned that a shift from donor-funded, community-led health programs to government-to-government frameworks could affect access for marginalized populations, including LGBTQ+ people. The Washington Blade found that such changes may reduce reliance on specialized clinics that have historically provided stigma-free care, raising concerns about discrimination, privacy, and continuity of services.

Desi Andrew Ching, president of HIV & AIDS Support House in the Philippines, said the partnership presents a significant opportunity, but added that, like any large-scale international agreement, its success for the LGBTQ+ community will depend on how it is implemented on the ground.

“On one hand, it’s a positive move. Increased cooperation on health systems can lead to better technical support and potentially more resources for HIV/AIDS prevention and mental health — areas that deeply impact our community,” Ching told the Blade. “If the government and civil society work closely together, we could see some real progress.”

Ching said community concerns often center on where those resources ultimately go. Ching added there is a risk funds could remain within “usual” government-aligned channels or traditional implementers that may not have the trust or reach of grassroots LGBTQ+ organizations.

The Philippines is facing one of the fastest-growing HIV epidemics in the Asia-Pacific region, with UNAIDS statistics indicating new infections increased by about 543 percent between 2010 and 2023.

The epidemic is concentrated among key populations, particularly men who have sex with men and transgender women who account for a vast majority of new infections. A 2023 analysis found that key populations represented about 92 percent of new HIV cases in the country, underscoring the disproportionate impact on LGBTQ+ communities. At the same time, stigma, limited access to testing and gaps in healthcare delivery continue to shape outcomes for these groups.

Ching said that for the partnership to be effective, support would need to be closely targeted to reach those most at risk, including individuals who often avoid government facilities because of stigma and fear of judgment. 

“If the partnership prioritizes ‘community-led’ monitoring and direct support to local organizations, it will be a game-changer. If it stays at the top tier of administration, we might just see the same results as before,” Ching said.

Community-led organizations have been central to the Philippines’ HIV response, particularly in reaching LGBTQ+ populations often underserved by formal healthcare systems. UNAIDS notes groups such as LoveYourself have expanded testing and treatment access through community-based clinics and online outreach, including during the COVID-19 pandemic, when movement restrictions limited access to government facilities.

“To be honest, in these high-level agreements, ‘guarantees’ are hard to come by on paper. The real safeguards lie in the mechanics of implementation,” said Ching. “From the community’s perspective, we believe the best way to prevent services from being diluted is through direct involvement in the planning phase. We would like to see the funding groups and government stakeholders sitting at the same table as the community to game out the specific work plans. It should not be a top-down approach; it needs to be co-designed.”

Ching said oversight would be a critical layer of protection, adding that a dedicated point of contact, such as a U.S Agency for International Development technical lead or a similar monitor, would be needed to track how funds are used.

USAID officially shut down on July 1, 2025, after the Trump-Vance administration dismantled it.

Ching added community-led monitoring would also be necessary in addition to government oversight. He said safety and trust cannot be guaranteed by policy alone but must be built through experience, noting that community-led organizations have consistently reached the most marginalized populations. 

“Safety and trust aren’t things you can just write into a policy; they have to be built through experience,” Ching said, adding that community-based sites are often seen as more accessible and safer because they are “for us, by us.” 

He said the partnership should direct substantial support to grassroots organizations that have demonstrated an ability to overcome stigma, while strengthening coordination with government clinics. The most effective approach, he added, would combine government infrastructure with community-led delivery, allowing trusted local groups to serve as the primary point of access.

’We want a seat at the table’

According to a report by the World Health Organization on the Philippines, prevention efforts account for only about 6 percent of total HIV spending, despite a sharp rise in cases. The report said the gap has been compounded by a recent pause in U.S. funding, which has delayed the development and implementation of prevention programs and community-led responses.

Asked whether community-led LGBTQ+ organizations would be funded and included in implementation or sidelined under a government-led approach, Ching said that remained the central question for the community, adding that no detailed plan has yet been made public.

“But we have to be realistic about the politics — both within the government and even within civil society — that can sometimes slow things down,” said Ching. “A good baseline to look at is the UNAIDS 30-80-60 targets. These milestones are specifically designed to put community-led responses at the center of the HIV fight. If we’re being honest, as a country, we are still finding our footing in meeting those specific targets. There is a very real risk of being sidelined if the execution defaults to a standard ‘government-only’ approach.”

The UNAIDS set global targets to guide the HIV response, most notably the “95-95-95” goals for 2025. 

The framework calls for 95 percent of people living with HIV to know their status, 95 percent of those diagnosed to receive sustained treatment and 95 percent of those on treatment to achieve viral suppression. The targets were designed to reduce transmission and improve health outcomes, while also highlighting gaps in access to testing, treatment, and prevention services.

“We view this new partnership with the U.S. as a chance to course-correct. If the intention is to end AIDS as a public health threat, the data shows it simply cannot be done without the community in the driver’s seat for service delivery,” said Ching. “Our hope is that the implementation isn’t just government-led, but government-enabled. We want a seat at the table not just for the sake of being there, but to ensure the resources are actually hitting the ground where they matter most. We’re looking for a partnership that honors those 2025 milestones by making community-led organizations formal, funded partners in this roadmap.”

Federal authorities have charged a transgender woman with kidnapping after she allegedly fled to Cuba with her 10-year-old child.

An affidavit that Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Jennifer Waterfield filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on April 16 notes the child is a “biological male who identifies as a female” and “splits time living with divorced parents who share custody” in Cache County, Utah.

Waterfield notes the child on March 28 “was supposed to be traveling by car to” Calgary, Alberta, “for a planned camping trip with his transgender mother, Rose Inessa-Ethington, Rose’s partner, Blue Inessa-Ethington, and Blue’s 3-year-old child.”

The affidavit notes the group instead flew from Vancouver, British Columbia, to Mexico City on March 29. Waterfield writes the Inessa-Ethingtons and the two children then flew from Mérida, Mexico, to Havana on April 1.

The 10-year-old child called her biological mother on March 28 after they arrived in Canada. The custody agreement, according to the affidavit, required Rose Inessa-Ethington to return the child to her former spouse on April 3.

“Interviews of MV [Minor Victim] 1’s family members provided significant concerns for MV 1’s well-being, as MV 1 was born a male, however, identifies as a female child, which is largely believed to be due to manipulation by Rose Inessa-Ethington,” reads the affidavit. “Concerns exist that MV 1 was transported to Cuba for gender reassignment surgery prior to puberty.”

The affidavit indicates authorities found a note in the Inessa-Ethingtons’ home with “instruction from a mental health therapist located in Washington, D.C., including instruction to send the therapist the $10,000.00 and instructions on gender-affirming medical care for children.”

The affidavit does not identify the specific “mental health therapist” in D.C.

A Utah judge on April 13 ordered Rose Inessa-Ethington to “immediately” return the child to her former spouse. The former spouse also received sole custody.

“Your affiant believes that due to the extensive planning and preparation exhibited by both Rose Inessa-Ethington and Blue Inessa-Ethington to isolate MV 1 and take MV 1 to Havana, Cuba, without notifying or requesting permission from MV 1’s mother indicates they are likely not planning to return to the United States,” wrote Waterfield.

The affidavit notes Cuban authorities found the Inessa-Ethingtons and the child.

A press release the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Utah issued notes the Inessa-Ethingtons “were deported from Cuba” on Monday “with the assistance of the FBI.”

The couple has been charged with International Parental Kidnapping. The Inessa-Ethingtons were arraigned in Richmond, Va., on Monday. The press release notes a federal court in Salt Lake City will soon handle the case.

The New York Times reported the child is now back with their biological mother.

“We are grateful to law enforcement for working swiftly to return the child to the biological mother,” said First Assistant U.S. Attorney Melissa Holyoak of the District of Utah in the press release.

The case is unfolding against the backdrop of increased tensions between Washington and Havana after U.S. forces on Jan. 3 seized now former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.

President Donald Trump shortly after he took office in January 2025 issued an executive order that directed the federal government to only recognize two genders: male and female. A second White House directive banned federally-funded gender-affirming care for anyone under 19.

The U.S. Supreme Court last year in the Skrmetti decision upheld a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming care for minors.

Cuba’s national health care system has offered free sex-reassignment surgeries since 2008.

Activists who are critical of Mariela Castro, the daughter of former President Raúl Castro who spearheads LGBTQ+ issues as director of Cuba’s National Center for Sexual Education, have previously told the Washington Blade that access to these procedures is limited. The Blade on Wednesday asked a contact in Havana to clarify whether Cuban law currently allows minors to undergo sex-reassignment surgery.

The Australian Red Cross Blood Service (Lifeblood) has lifted additional restrictions on LGBTQ+ people who want to donate blood.

The Star-Observer, an Australian LGBTQ+ newspaper, reported new Lifeblood rules that took effect on Monday will allow “gay and bisexual men and transgender people in long-term monogamous relationships to donate blood and platelets for the first time.”

The new policy defines “long-term monogamous relationships” as those that are at least six months.

All potential donors — regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity — will answer the same questions about recent sexual activity.

“Previous donor rules prevented many people from the LGBTQIA+ community from donating blood or platelets if they’d had sex within the past three months,” said Lifeblood CEO Stephen Cornelissen in a press release that announced the new policy. “These latest changes mean many gay and bisexual men and transgender people in long-term, monogamous relationships will become eligible to donate blood or platelets for the first time.”

Lifeblood in 2025 ended its blanket ban on sexually active LGBTQ people from donating blood.

Rodney Croome, an Australian LGBTQ+ activist who is the spokesperson for Let Us Give, a campaign that has championed the changes, donated blood on Monday.

“After three decades of advocacy, and for the first time in my life, I was able to donate blood today,” said Croome in a Facebook post that showed him donating blood. “From today, gay men, and bisexual men and transgender women who have sex with men, are able to give blood without the traditional three month abstinence period. All donors are now asked the same questions about sex regardless of the gender of our sexual partners.”

Croome in the post said “there are still problems with the new donor regime,” but said Let Us Give will continue to work with Lifeblood.

“Those who may have not been monogamous in the recent past should not be subject to a six month wait time,” he wrote. “Three months is considered more than enough in the UK, US and Canada. It should be here too. People on PrEP and trans people also face continued barriers. Let Us Give will continue to work towards greater equity in donation.”

The European Union’s top court on Tuesday struck down Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ+ propaganda law.

Hungarian MPs in 2021 approved Act LXXIX of 2021.

“It shall be forbidden to make accessible to persons who have not attained the age of 18 years advertisement that depicts sexuality in a gratuitous manner or that propagates or portrays divergence from self-identity corresponding to sex at birth, sex change or homosexuality,” it reads.

The European Commission in 2022 challenged the law. Sixteen EU countries — Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden — joined the lawsuit. The European Parliament also supported it. Outgoing Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, for his part, said his government would defend the law.

The EU Court of Justice heard the case in 2024.

A press release that announced the ruling on Tuesday said Hungary “acted in breach of EU law.”

“The court finds, for the first time, a separate infringement of Article 2 TEU (Treaty on European Union), which lists the values on which the (European) Union is founded and which are common to all the Member States,” it reads. “The aspects of the amending law targeting content which portrays or promotes deviation from the self-identity corresponding to the sex assigned at birth, gender reassignment, or homosexuality constitute a coordinated series of discriminatory measures which are in breach, in a way that is both manifest and particularly serious, of the rights of non-cisgender persons — including transgender persons — or non-heterosexual persons, as well as the values of respect for human dignity, equality and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities.”

“Consequently, that law is contrary to the very identity of the (European) Union as a common legal order in a society in which pluralism prevails,” notes the press release.  “Hungary cannot validly rely on its national identity as justification for adopting a law which is in breach of the values referred to above.”

The Háttér Society, a Hungarian LGBTQ+ rights group, said the ruling “is a milestone for the protection of human rights in the European Union, and it is also a historic victory for LGBTQI people in Hungary.”

The court issued its ruling nine days after Péter Magyar ousted Orbán in Hungary’s elections.

Orbán took office in 2010.

He and his government faced widespread criticism over its anti-LGBTQ+ crackdown that included laws that banned Pride events and other public LGBTQ+ events. (Upwards of 100,000 people last June denied the prohibition and marched in Budapest’s annual Pride parade.)

“Those amendments constitute a particularly serious interference with several fundamental rights protected by the (EU) Charter (of Fundamental Rights), namely the prohibition on discrimination based on sex,” notes the court’s press release.

The EU since Orbán took office has withheld upwards of €35 billion ($41.2 billion) in funds to Hungary in response to concerns over corruption, rule of law, and other issues. Magyar has said he will work with Brussels to unfreeze the money.

ILGA-Europe Deputy Director Katrin Hugendubel urged Maygar’s government to repeal the law.

“With this ruling, the CJEU (The EU Court of Justice) is confirming what we have been saying for six years,” said Hugendubel. “There is now no excuse for the Commission not to require Hungary to quickly withdraw the law. Hungary cannot enter a post-Orbán era without repealing this legislation, including the Pride ban.”

“If Péter Magyar truly aims to be pro-EU, he must place this at the top of his agenda for his first 100 days in office, as an essential part of his EU facing reforms,” added Hugendubel.

Erika Hilton, the first Black transgender woman elected to the Brazilian Congress, in April 2025 prepared to speak at the annual Brazil Conference at Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass.

As part of her official diplomatic duties, Hilton required a diplomatic visa to enter the U.S. However, the U.S. Embassy in Brasília issued the document with a glaring discrepancy: the congresswoman’s gender was listed as “male,” directly contradicting her official Brazilian identification, which legally recognizes her gender as “female.”

Hilton in response canceled her participation in the conference and filed a formal report with the United Nations, characterizing the incident as a violation of the Brazilian state’s diplomatic prerogatives and an act of institutional transphobia. The Brazilian Foreign Ministry last month issued a new diplomatic passport to the congresswoman in an act of symbolic reparation, a move intended to reaffirm her official status and legal identity in the wake of the U.S. embassy’s actions.

Despite the restorative gesture from the Brazilian government, Hilton told the Washington Blade that she has no intention of entering the U.S. in the near future — at least not while President Donald Trump remains in the White House. 

“I am afraid of what might happen to someone like me under an administration like Donald Trump’s,” Hilton said. “It is an authoritarian, anti-democratic government that has no respect for international law.”

“We’ve seen, for example, how ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) acted with extreme violence against people who held tourist visas and were simply visiting the country,” she added. “There is a deep-seated fear of how people are treated by immigration authorities and law enforcement. All of this is terrifying, and it has convinced me that I should not set foot in the United States as long as a fascist government is in power.”

While her travel to the U.S. remains on hold, the congresswoman has been exceptionally active in Brazil. 

Hilton last month made history once again by becoming the first trans woman elected to chair the Chamber of Deputies’ Commission on the Defense of Women’s Rights. This appointment marks the first time a trans person has led a standing committee in the Brazilian Congress — the latest milestone in a career defined by its pioneering spirit.

“This is a milestone in my story. It’s a milestone for that dreamy young girl who, at 14, was forced into sex work on a street corner to survive, and who today returns to make peace with her past. But even from where I stand now, I am looking back and pointing toward those who are still out there on those street corners, to remind them: we are capable of so much more. We are capable of building something far greater than the limited spaces that hatred and discrimination have reserved for us,” she told the Blade.

Erika Hilton speaks at a rally for now President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in São Paulo on Oct. 5, 2022. She was elected to the Brazilian Congress two days earlier. (Washington Blade video by Michael K. Lavers)

Unlike the Congressional Caucus for Women’s Issues in the U.S., which functions primarily as a platform for advocacy and lobbying, Brazil’s Commission on the Defense of Women’s Rights wields significant institutional power. Within the Brazilian legislative system, this body holds “conclusive authority,” a specialized power that allows it to bypass the general floor of the Chamber of Deputies. If the commission approves a bill, it can be sent directly to the Senate for a vote, bypassing a full house plenary session.

Beyond this autonomy, the commission possesses what is effectively a pocket veto: if it rejects a proposal on constitutional grounds or deems it detrimental to women’s protections, the bill is shelved immediately. This powerful committee has been the primary vehicle for landmark legislation, including the Equal Pay Act (Law 14,611/23) and critical laws targeting the political harassment of women.

Defining womanhood beyond biology

Hilton emphasizes that her election as chair of the Women’s Rights Commission was no easy feat, but a grueling struggle. The battle began within her own party, as she worked to convince colleagues that she was not only a viable candidate but an essential one.

The hostility intensified significantly following her nomination. 

Far-right conservative sectors orchestrated what the congresswoman denounced as a systematic, sponsored wave of attacks that transcended social media, spilling into the very halls of Congress. The rhetoric her opponents used leaned heavily on biological determinism — a strategy that attempts to reduce womanhood to reproductive functions or genetic characteristics.

Hilton’s election on March 11 laid bare a deeply fractured Congress. 

With 11 votes in her favor and 10 lawmakers casting blank ballots, the result served as an explicit form of protest. In the context of these internal elections, the blank votes did not signal indecision; rather, they represented a calculated attempt by the opposition to strip the incoming chair of her political legitimacy. It was a clear warning that Hilton will face fierce institutional resistance throughout her tenure — a reality that has already manifested during her first weeks at the helm of the commission.

Hilton in her inaugural address promised an inclusive leadership. 

“Here we will address the issues facing poor women, Black women, trans women, cis women, mothers, and breastfeeding women. All of them, without exception,” she said.

However, the most resonant moment of her speech was her historic tribute to Sojourner Truth, the Black abolitionist and human rights activist who, in 1851, delivered the iconic “Ain’t I a Woman?” speech at a women’s rights convention in the U.S. Paraphrasing Truth, Hilton argues that contemporary transphobia is deeply rooted in 19th century racism.

“Truth was a cisgender woman and a mother, but in that context, her biology did not grant her legitimacy or the right to challenge the status quo of womanhood because of her race. If we broaden our perspective, we must recall the eugenicist pseudo-science that deemed Black people inferior based on skull measurements, and the brutal gynecological experiments performed on enslaved women. Those women were not considered ‘women’ by the society of that era either,” Hilton told the Blade, explaining the historical framework behind her address.

“We, as trans women and travestis, are the targets of this historical moment,” she added. “I invoked Truth’s words to remind everyone that we are all victims of the same systemic oppression and the same denial of our right to our own identity — this did not start with us. Yesterday, she was targeted because of the color of her skin; today, I am targeted because of my body’s anatomy.”

Hilton concluded her inaugural address by reaffirming that her chairmanship will bring visibility to the identities that the commission has historically neglected. She emphasized that the trans struggle is a matter of survival in a country that leads the world in rates of violence against this community.

“We no longer accept being rendered invisible; we no longer accept having our identities violated. We refuse to live in a country that leads the world in killing us, by shooting us in the face, ripping out our hearts, and dragging us through the streets,” she declared.

Since Hilton became chair, committee sessions have been marked by an atmosphere of turmoil and legislative gridlock — a dire situation for a country that, over the past year, has set records for femicides. In Brazil, femicide is a specific legal classification for the murder of women motivated by gender, designed to ensure harsher criminal penalties. 

Opposition lawmakers, who rarely attended commission sessions before Hilton’s election, have begun showing up en masse to coordinate attacks against her, prioritizing obstructionism over the urgent need to address gender-based violence.

Tensions reached a fever pitch on April 8 when right-wing Congresswoman Rosana Valle threatened Hilton by invoking one of the country’s most significant legal provisions: the Maria da Penha Law. Recognized by the United Nations as one of the most progressive pieces of legislation in the world, the statute was designed specifically to protect women from domestic and family violence. 

In a move that Hilton described as “a mockery,” Valle stated that she would invoke the law against the committee chair herself if Hilton were ever to confront her, claiming that her colleague possessed “the strength of a man.”

“At the end of the day, their goal is to prevent me from delivering results. They work to stall the agenda so they can later claim, ‘Look, she didn’t do anything for women; she didn’t discuss anything relevant.’ It is not a lack of will on my part; it is a coordinated effort to block progress. But I am already developing strategies to overcome this roadblock. We are going to move forward and get the projects that really matter off the ground,” Hilton told the Blade.

The MAGA playbook in Brazil

Transphobia is nothing new in Brazil. 

For years, the country has consistently ranked as the deadliest in the world for trans people; in 2024, according to the National Association of Travestis and Transsexuals (ANTRA), 122 fatalities were recorded. However, the vitriol appearing on social media following Hilton’s election as chair of the women’s commission is strikingly familiar. The arguments and tactics being deployed in Brazil are mirror images of the far-right playbook currently being used in the U.S.

Brazilian lawmakers have deliberately adopted strategies from the “culture wars” that fuel the MAGA movement. This includes stoking moral panic over bathroom access, pathologizing gender identities, and attempting to bar transgender women from competitive sports.

For Hilton, Trump is the catalyst. 

“When a government with the reach and power of the United States uses state institutions to roll back rights, it creates a ripple effect that fuels violence worldwide. It feels as if our historic achievements are being systematically dismantled,” said Hilton.

“Since the day after the inauguration, the Trump administration has signed executive orders denying basic rights and issued official statements that dehumanize the transgender community, branding us as ‘enemies of society,’” she added. “The U.S. government legitimizes, incites, and encourages the hatred directed at a group that is already marginalized. In doing so, it fuels that hatred further, as it takes such rhetoric out of the shadows of anonymity and places it in the mouth of the president of a global superpower.”

Preserving hard-won rights

Brazilians in October will head to the polls for general elections, a high-stakes cycle that will decide the presidency and the makeup of the legislature. 

Hilton predicts an election season marked by escalating violence and targeted attacks against transgender people. She also notes the current global climate demands an even greater mobilization to defend the hard-won rights secured by the LGBTQ community.

“The situation is too volatile and turbulent for us to find even a glimmer of opportunity to establish new rights,” Hilton told the Blade. “For now, we must focus on safeguarding our existing protections so that, further down the road, we have the chance to secure new victories. History is cyclical. First comes a great wave of violence, repression, and attack. But following that, come the waves of victory.”

Hilton, meanwhile, will remain on the front lines of this battlefield, stepping into a spotlight that she knows brings less glory than it does pain and violence. But that does not seem to weigh on her. 

“In a sense, life’s cruelty has been kind to me,” Hilton reflects. “By forcing me to experience that cruelty when I was still a child, it was kind enough to teach me how to survive it. I am immune now, and therefore, I am prepared to face these obstacles.”

A Lebanese advocacy group is providing support to LGBTQ+ people who have been displaced during the latest war between Israel and Hezbollah.

Helem Executive Director Sandy Mteirik on Monday told the Los Angeles Blade her group, in partnership with another NGO, has “shifted our programs to focus entirely on emergency response.”

Helem has opened what Mteirik described as a “lifesaving, inclusive shelter specifically for transgender individuals who find collective shelters unsafe or inaccessible.”

Mteirik noted Helem’s community center in Beirut, the Lebanese capital, “now serves as a vital crisis hub where” LGBTQ+ people “can find physical safety, psychological support, and relief assistance.” she told the Blade that Helem is also offering “confidential emotional support, assessing immediate needs, and connecting individuals with emergency housing and protection services.”

“We also continue to monitor and document protection risks to prevent further exclusion and harm,” said Mteirik.

‘Displacement crisis has intensified’

The U.S. and Israel on Feb. 28 launched airstrikes against Iran. One of them killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Hezbollah, an Iran-backed Shia militant group the U.S. has designated a terrorist organization, in response launched rockets into Israel. The Jewish State on March 2 began to carry out airstrikes against Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The Lebanese Health Ministry on Tuesday said Israeli airstrikes have killed 2,124 people and wounded 6,921 others. Lebanese officials have also indicated the war has displaced more than 1 million people in the country.

Israeli airstrikes in Beirut and elsewhere in the country on April 8 killed more than 300 people and injured upwards of 1,100.

President Donald Trump the day before said “a whole civilization will die tonight” if Iran did not agree to end the war and end its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway that connects the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman through which roughly 20 percent of the world’s crude oil passes.

Trump less than two hours before the deadline announced a two-week ceasefire with Iran that Pakistan helped broker. Trump said the deal did not include Lebanon, even though Pakistan insisted it did.

Hamas militants on Oct. 7, 2023, killed upwards of 1,200 people when they launched a surprise attack against Israel from the Gaza Strip. Hezbollah the following day began to launch rockets into Israel.

An Israeli airstrike in Beirut on Sept. 27, 2024, killed Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s long-time leader. Iran four days later launched upwards of 200 ballistic missiles at Israel.

The U.S. helped broker a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon that took effect on Nov. 27, 2024. Israel nevertheless continued to carry out airstrikes in Lebanon.

Lebanese Ambassador to the U.S. Nada Hamadeh Moawad met with Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter on Tuesday at the State Department. The meeting is the first time the two countries have held direct diplomatic talks since 1993.

Mteirik told the Blade that Helem’s community center “has not been damaged yet” in the latest war. She said, however, the impact of the April 8 airstrikes “mirrors the ongoing war Lebanon has endured since 2024.”

“The intensity of these recent strikes and the resulting massacres in ‘relatively’ safe areas of Beirut have been devastating,” said Mteirik.

“With over 300 victims, the displacement crisis has intensified,” she added. “When state responses are not inclusive, LGBTQIA+ individuals face amplified risks, including exclusion from collective shelters, homelessness, exposure to violence, loss of income, and barriers to essential healthcare.”

Helem: Lebanese government war response must be LGBTQ+-inclusive

Article 534 of Lebanon’s Penal Code states “any sexual intercourse contrary to the order of nature is punishable” by up to a year in prison. Several judges in recent years have opted not to use the statute to prosecute LGBTQ+ people who have been charged under it.

Helem on March 4 called upon the Lebanese government and international NGOs to develop a response to the Israeli airstrikes that is “comprehensive, fair, and inclusive of all groups, without exception or discrimination.” Helem’s specific requests include:

• Integrating a rights-based, non-discriminatory approach into all stages of emergency planning.

• Training response staff on protection principles regarding gender-based violence and discrimination.

• Reassessing the “traditional family” shelter model that systematically excludes non-traditional families and individuals.

• Involving specialized civil society organizations in the design and monitoring of response plans.

• Establishing clear accountability standards to prevent discriminatory practices.

“Past experiences show that state response plans often fail to include displaced LGBTQ+ individuals,” said Mteirik.

Mteirik conceded the “conclusion of this conflict remains uncertain.” She stressed Helem “remains committed to standing with our community.”

“In these difficult times, we reaffirm our call for humanitarian solidarity that transcends identities,” said Mteirik. “Our work is an extension of our rejection of violence, occupation, and the exploitation of individuals and their lives.”

The Council for Global Equality is among the groups that condemned President Donald Trump on Tuesday over his latest threats against Iran.

Trump in a Truth Social post said “a whole civilization will die tonight” if Tehran did not reach an agreement with the U.S. by 8 p.m. ET (5 p.m. PT) on Tuesday.

Iran is among the handful of countries in which consensual same-sex sexual relations remain punishable by death.

Israel and the U.S. on Feb. 28 launched airstrikes against Iran.

One of them killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Iran in response launched missiles and drones against Israel and other countries that include Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, and Cyprus.

Gas prices in the U.S. and around the world continue to increase because the war has essentially closed the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway that connects the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman through which roughly 20 percent of the world’s crude oil passes.

Trump less than 90 minutes before his deadline announced a two-week ceasefire with Iran that Pakistan helped broker.

“We the undersigned human rights, humanitarian, civil liberties, faith-based and environmental organizations, think tanks and experts are deeply alarmed by President Trump’s threat regarding Iran that ‘a whole civilization will die tonight’ if his demands are not met. Such language describes a grave atrocity if carried out,” reads the statement that the Council for Global Equality more than 200 other organizations and human rights experts signed. “A threat to wipe out ‘a whole civilization’ may amount to a threat of genocide. Genocide is a crime defined by the Genocide Convention and by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as committing one or more of several acts ‘with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, racial or religious groups as such.'”

The statement states “the law is clear that civilians must not be targeted, and they must also be protected from indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks.”

“Strikes on civilian infrastructure — such as the recent attack on a bridge and the attacks President Trump is repeatedly threatening to carry out to destroy power plants — have devastating consequences for the civilian population and environment,” it reads.

“We urge all parties to respect international law,” adds the statement. “Those responsible for atrocities, including crimes against humanity and war crimes, can and must be held accountable.”

The Alliance for Diplomacy and Justice, Amnesty International USA, Human Rights Watch, the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP, MADRE, and the Robert and Ethel Kennedy Human Rights Center are among the other groups that signed the letter.