Amidst the nonstop stream of vitriol that American politics has become, it’s easy for LA residents to forget about the importance of local elections. 

These are the elections that won’t receive national attention but will decide if you’ll be able to make rent in the next few months. Or if you’ll be able to rely on public transit, or find work within the city, or dozens of other essential ways that electing someone who truly understands your needs would impact someone in Los Angeles today. Local elections are key to making cities like ours livable for all, and especially in communities like West Hollywood, it’s important that the queer people who truly know their neighbors are the ones running to represent them. 

 It’s a task that not everyone is up to. But for candidate Helen Krieger, the decision to launch her campaign for West Hollywood City Council was one of the easiest this WeHo local has ever made. 

“I learned that once things fall apart, it’s so much harder to put them back together,” said Krieger, when she spoke with the Blade about her campaign. “It can be so hard to get people’s buy-in because they don’t trust you anymore as city officials…or as leaders.” It’s an unfortunate truth that Helen learned firsthand; she moved to West Hollywood ten years ago after living in New Orleans, where she banded together with other residents in the midst of the Hurricane Katrina crisis. Helen described the terror of this natural disaster and how deeply the city officials failed residents in its aftermath. After months of mishandled projects that left hundreds of people homeless, it was her work with local advocates that eventually created affordable housing for these displaced residents. 

This work saved countless locals and taught Helen a valuable lesson: “I learned [how] to bring everyone in, and [the value of] listening to everyone.”

Krieger’s eventual move to West Hollywood was inspired not only by her career — she’s a professional television writer — but also by the search for a community where she could be comfortable in her bisexual identity. Throughout the interview, she fondly remembered how accepted she’s always felt by other WeHo residents…but also how quickly she learned about the many ways this area fails to support locals. 

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Helen Krieger (@helen4weho)

Whether it’s rundown streets or horrific rent practices, while she has a deep love for West Hollywood, Helen has identified many of the ways that this city can be improved. It’s what drove her to join numerous local organizations like the West Hollywood Bike Coalition and the West Hollywood Dems Club, with her membership with these groups helping her better understand the needs of other WeHo residents. Along with these, Helen would eventually enter the tenuous arena that she would eventually campaign to have her own seat within: the West Hollywood City Council. 

“Whenever I’m at city council [meeting], I’m often not going up to speak,” Krieger explained. “But I keep track of every speaker and what they’re saying, what are the comments that are being made — because not everyone can make it there! It’s a weeknight, it starts at 6 pm…if you have a job to go to in the morning, if you have young kids that you have to put to bed, you just can’t make it to that. So I also try to make space for people to give comments who aren’t there, and try to have conversations with them.”

Helen has made it common practice to not only provide rundowns of city council meetings for those who aren’t in attendance but also deliver comments on their behalf, calling out how just because these meetings have an inopportune schedule doesn’t mean local residents deserve to go unheard. This led to her connecting with even more West Hollywood residents and learning about the many issues they wanted addressed by their local government. This, when compounded with her own ideas for improvement, made it clear to Helen that she needed to join the City Council herself and make sure these problems were being solved. 

“I am really pro-housing,” began Krieger, when detailing her campaign’s priorities. “I am really pro-complete streets — streets that should be built for all kinds of people, whether you’re walking, using a wheelchair, or driving a car, [the streets] need to be able to get you there. I think we need to build more houses and build more [affordable] housing units…[I’m pro] not doing stuff that we don’t need to, like making people and bike lanes unsafe. And let’s do stuff that will [actually help].”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Helen Krieger (@helen4weho)

These are just a few of the priorities that Helen spoke passionately about in her interview, with the City Council hopeful also describing her plans to bring Hollywood jobs back into the city, implement eco-friendly practices around the city, and develop new ways for the City Council to remain transparent with locals about how their taxes are being used. She stressed that these priorities are based not just on her own observations but are informed by what she’s learned from the other residents around her. She spoke passionately about talks with other community leaders, homeless individuals, and hundreds of others, with each conversation shaping the plans she hopes to implement if elected.

“There are some ways that people can slip through the cracks in the city, and so I want to just do what I can to [stop that,]” said Helen, when discussing why it’s time for her to join the West Hollywood City Council. “I want to make sure these gaps are being filled and that we weren’t getting too complacent in how we do things…I want to hear [people’s] concerns, and learn how we can address them moving forward.” 

We’re still a few months away from the election, so it’s unclear if Helen Krieger will be able to win her seat and make these plans a reality. But no matter what happens with her campaign, one thing is for sure: if we had more politicians who were as focused on community building and truly listening to their residents as she is, then LA today would be a much better place for us all.

For more information, head to Helen4Weho.org.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Angela de Silva (@angeladesilva)

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg on Friday recounted being separated from his children following an anonymous false police report.

The openly gay former mayor of South Bend, Ind., and current 2028 presidential contender was accused of posing a danger to his children and was not allowed to be with his four-year-old twins until after interviews were conducted.

Buttigieg went public with this account on his Substack, sharing how a woman anonymously — and falsely — accused him of posing a danger to his children.

“The caller said that he had spoken to a woman who claimed to have met me at a conference several years ago in Alabama, where she said I told her that I had committed unspeakable violent crimes, and the caller believed my children were still at risk,” Buttigieg wrote in a post he titled “A Terrible Thing Happened to My Family.” “I am a reasonable man. I try to keep as calm and low-key as possible. But I cannot describe the mix of rage and sadness that I feel at the idea that someone brought our children into this.”

Michigan State Police spoke to the BBC following Buttigieg sharing his story.

“The Michigan State Police and Child Protective Services responded and determined the report was false.”

The statement also went on to explain that these types of false reports were “dangerous” and divert “workers from responding to legitimate emergencies and protecting vulnerable children and families.”

In that post recounting the ordeal, Buttigieg continued, saying that it was “among the darkest hours of my life,” and pointed out that his children should not be subjected to this type of harassment as a circumstance of his own place in the national political spotlight.

“They are four years old. Four. They do not know or care what a Democrat or a Republican is.”

He finished his post:

“We cannot let American politics keep going in this direction. And we must not all go on as if it’s acceptable for this kind of thing to be part of the cost of entering public service.”

“Most importantly, Chasten and I will continue to pour ourselves into the joyful and demanding work of raising and educating our two children. Being their parents is the best thing in our lives. They are just children, kids who deserve the best upbringing that their parents can provide, who mean more to us than anything, whom we love beyond words and will do anything to protect, and whose right to a safe and happy childhood deserves absolute and unconditional respect.”

In response to the story Buttigieg shared on his Substack, Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, released the following statement:

“I know how I would feel if someone tried to come between me and my kids. This is truly bottom-of-the-barrel stuff. It takes an awful, hateful person to question someone’s fitness as a parent just because of who they are, who they love, or in Sec. Buttigieg’s case, perhaps even who he speaks out against politically. We’re thinking of Pete, Chasten, and their whole family in this moment — and we aren’t resting until all LGBTQ+ families have the kind of safety and justice every one of us deserves.”

Buttigieg was transportation secretary during the Biden-Harris administration.

The Los Angeles Blade reached out to Michigan State Police to ask if any disciplinary actions would be imposed on the woman who made the false report, but did not hear back by the time of publication.

President Donald Trump is refusing to sign a new bipartisan housing bill unless his SAVE Act is approved by the legislative branch.

The bill being prevented from being enacted into law is the “21st Century ROAD to Housing Act.” The legislation is an attempt by Congress to make buying a home in the U.S. Senate more affordable in response to various factors — including housing shortages and regulatory constraints — that have made homeownership increasingly difficult. The total number of homeowners has nearly stopped growing, with high interest rates and surging home prices pushing more Americans toward renting.

The housing bill was considered highly bipartisan, something that is rare in this Congress. The House voted to pass the bill 358-32 on Tuesday after the Senate approved the measure 85-5 a day earlier. The legislation was led by U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.) in the Senate and U.S. Reps. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and French Hill (R-Ark.) in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Some of the highlights of the legislation are aimed at increasing the supply of affordable housing while making homeownership more accessible. The bill would streamline environmental reviews and direct the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide guidance to communities on reforming zoning and land-use policies that can create barriers to housing development.

The legislation would also expand the definition of “manufactured housing,” making it cheaper and easier to mass-produce homes built in factories before being transported to their sites. To encourage additional development, the bill would provide grants and loans for the construction of new housing, the rehabilitation of aging properties, and the conversion of vacant buildings into residential units. It would also increase certain banks’ Public Welfare Investment cap, allowing them to direct more capital toward low-income and affordable housing projects.

In an effort to help more Americans purchase homes, the legislation would create a program to expand access to small-dollar mortgages, which are often used to finance lower-cost homes, while also seeking to improve housing opportunities for veterans. The bill would further promote homeownership by limiting the number of single-family homes that large institutional investors can own and requiring them to disclose how many such properties they control, a measure intended to prioritize American families over corporate buyers.

The bill the president wants enacted — the SAVE Act — is a restrictive and anti-transgender piece of proposed legislation.

The bill would impose a number of new limitations on voter registration across the country by amending the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require in-person proof of citizenship for anyone seeking to vote in U.S. elections. The bill would also limit acceptable forms of identification to documents such as a birth certificate or passport — records that the Brennan Center for Justice estimates more than 21 million Americans do not possess — effectively restricting access to the ballot. It would also ban online voter registration, DMV voter registration efforts, and mail-in voter registration.

Trump pushed for the SAVE Act to include a provision that would ban gender-affirming medical care for trans minors, even with parental consent, and prohibit trans people from participating in school or professional sports consistent with their gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth.

Trump also pressed Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) to eliminate the filibuster so the Republican-controlled Congress could pass the SAVE Act, saying Republicans will never win another election without it.

It is expected that Congress will override the president’s veto and pass the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, as it requires a two-thirds supermajority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate — a threshold the legislation currently exceeds.

It is not expected that the SAVE Act will pass the Senate in its current form. It passed the House, but every Democrat and four Republicans voted against it in the Senate.

A new study reveals that LGBTQ+ candidates running for public office are seeing an unprecedented amount of harassment and threats as President Donald Trump and his far-right MAGA supporters continue to strip protections for minority groups at all levels of government.

The LGBTQ+ Victory Institute, the nation’s largest LGBTQ+ candidate training and leadership organization, recently partnered with Loyola Marymount University to collect data on the rising political violence experienced by LGBTQ+ candidates. The organization is closely affiliated with the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, its sister political action arm dedicated to helping LGBTQ+ candidates get elected.

The Los Angeles Blade sat down with Evan Low, president and CEO of the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute and LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, to discuss what the data reveals about the climate LGBTQ+ candidates have found themselves in.

Low argued that the findings cannot be separated from the broader political environment facing LGBTQ+ Americans in 2026. Anti-transgender legislation continues to surge across the country while federal recognition of LGBTQ+ communities has diminished. This is the second consecutive year Trump has declined to recognize June as Pride month. He also made no public statement commemorating Juneteenth, the anniversary marking the emancipation of enslaved people in the United States.

The survey included 215 LGBTQ+ candidates who ran for office between 2023 and 2025 from 42 states, Puerto Rico, and D.C., and asked about their experiences while running for office.

The data, while not particularly surprising given the highly divisive political era we have been living through under Trump 2.0, contains stark findings showing that LGBTQ+ candidates are not only finding it more difficult to run for office — something protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments — but that it has also become increasingly dangerous for openly LGBTQ+ candidates to do so.

One of the report’s most significant findings focuses on what happens before an LGBTQ+ person’s name ever appears on a ballot or yard sign: widespread fear among prospective candidates. Nearly 9 in 10 candidates worried that running as an openly LGBTQ+ person would increase their risk of harassment or attack, while 4 in 5 feared physical violence.

Key Takeaways From the Data

Harassment Is the Norm — Not the Exception: Nearly two-thirds of LGBTQ+ candidates experienced in-person harassment, while nearly 8 in 10 faced online abuse, with many encountering it regularly.

The escalation from rhetoric to serious threats mirrors the current political climate. One in three candidates received death threats online, and one in seven experienced them in person, highlighting the severity of the current threat environment.

Campaigns Altered by Safety Concerns: More than half of candidates changed how or where they campaigned due to safety fears, and nearly 1 in 5 described the impact as significant — limiting public engagement and visibility.

Security Out of Reach: Fewer than 1 in 10 candidates could afford private security, even as threats escalated, underscoring a growing inequity in who can safely run for office.

Severe Mental Health Impact: Nearly two-thirds of candidates said attacks negatively impacted their mental health, with some reporting long-term trauma and lasting psychological effects.

“What we’re seeing is not just harassment, it’s a systemic challenge to participation,” said Elliot Imse, the now former executive director of LGBTQ+ Victory Institute. “When candidates are forced to change their behavior, limit public engagement, or reconsider running altogether because of safety concerns, that’s not just a personal issue — it’s a breakdown in the conditions required for a healthy democracy.”

“This isn’t theoretical — I, like so many LGBTQ+ candidates and elected leaders, have lived it,” said Daniel Hernandez, vice president of political programs at LGBTQ+ Victory Fund. “From surviving gun violence to having my own campaign office targeted, I know how real these threats are and how deeply they affect candidates, their teams, and their families. The LGBTQ+ Victory Institute has been doing this work for years — preparing candidates, supporting them through these challenges, and making sure they’re not facing it alone. This report makes clear the stakes are higher than ever. If we want people to step up and serve, we have to meet this moment with the resources, support, and commitment to their safety demands.”

Low, who before leading the Victory organizations was an openly gay elected official representing California’s 26th Assembly District, which includes portions of Silicon Valley and San Jose, views the findings as both a political violence issue and a threat to democracy itself.

“We’re living in a moment in a time in which the pendulum is swinging backwards,” Low told the Blade. “We’ve seen a historic amount of anti-LGBTQ+ legislative proposals across this country. So naturally, when members of our community are targeted, it gives that license then to be harassed and discriminated against accordingly. It absolutely is a challenge to democracy.”

The data also shows that LGBTQ+ candidates face unique barriers to entry — many of them financial. Low argued that reducing those barriers would help diversify candidate pools and create a more representative democracy.

“Does [the current system] disproportionately then impact and limit the segment within our populations to serve? The answer is absolutely yes. When you think about the increased challenges of a barrier to entry– that’s why we’re focused on doing the report in the first place. It also then goes to show the importance of how we utilize taxpayer dollars and budgets accordingly to help encourage and support members of the community to run for office.”

He used that point to emphasize the importance of the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute, not only in collecting data on these trends but also in helping LGBTQ+ candidates navigate them.

“That’s the fundamental reason why there’s the need for the Victory Fund of the Victory Institute,” he said. “It’s to say that the members of our community will not face this or run alone. They should know that there is a national network, a national organization that will be the wind in their sails to help guide them.”

So far in 2026, the Victory Fund has endorsed at least 249 candidates.

In addition to providing financial support, the Victory Institute helps LGBTQ+ candidates prepare for the realities of the campaign trail, including coping with harassment, threats, and personal security concerns.

Low expanded on what that reality looks like in 2026 as anti-transgender legislation continues to surge and federal recognition of LGBTQ+ communities has diminished.

“Part of that discussion is we don’t try to sugarcoat it,” he said when emphasizing the realities facing LGBTQ+ candidates. “We will speak truth about ‘Here’s how to put a campaign budget together’ and ‘Here’s best practices on public speaking.’ But also we have to deal with showing the unfortunate reality on ‘Here’s how to keep your family safe.’ ‘Here’s how to retain and keep in mind your mental health’…especially when you see members of our community being doxxed constantly by bots and such hate speech.”

He also highlighted the unique challenges facing transgender candidates running for office, particularly as hundreds of bills across the country continue to target transgender people.

“We hear that many times there may be individuals from the community, specifically the trans community, who may want to run for office, but their existence is criminalized, which is to say that they may live in a state or jurisdiction in which it’s criminal to exist; laws prohibiting them from being who they are,” Low said.

“When many of our candidates run for office, they are not running because they are trans, they’re not running because they’re gay or a member of their community, they’re running to advance the quality of life on the key issues on housing affordability, health care, education, you name it, and so these are the campaign issues, but the challenge exists as well.”

Those pressures often lead candidates to question whether running for office is worth the personal toll.

“Many times the candidate and/or elected official will speak candidly with members of our organization to say, ‘Is it worth it anymore? What should I do? Is this something that I should continue? This is taking a personal toll on my family, but I care about the call to service and making a difference in my community.'”

Low also spoke about what he sees as more than simple anti-LGBTQ+ bias in politics, pointing instead to the growing number of laws targeting LGBTQ+ people.

“I don’t think it’s simply bias — it’s fact. Again, we can cite laws on the books and proposals across the country, so no wonder why the conversation is so toxic and hostile to members of our community.”

Despite those threats, Low said LGBTQ+ candidates continue to run for office in record numbers.

“While this political violence report does reflect the hard truth about the challenges to our community, we have seen more candidates apply for an endorsement and sign up for our programs than we’ve ever seen before. We have seen more candidates run for federal office than we ever have had in the history of our 35 years as an organization. What does that tell us? It tells us that yes, it is a challenging and harmful time, yet members of our community are willing to run toward the front lines and answer the call for service.”

The data shows that queer women and transgender candidates are among those most heavily impacted by political violence and heightened political polarization.

“We’ve seen specifically LGBTQ+ women and members of our trans community being disproportionately impacted by [political violence]. When you disaggregate the data, it is also really important to address within our community. We do know anecdotally, as well as from the report, that it may be more challenging for LGBTQ+ women and our trans individuals given some of the other cited conclusions.”

Two of the issues that disproportionately affect transgender candidates and LGBTQ+ women are mental health challenges and increased security needs.

“What we’ve seen is some of the top demands for services. In many jurisdictions, governmental entities do not have budgets for it– either access to mental health services, as well as public safety services,” he explained. “Security — whether it be surveillance cameras around their homes — those are the key areas. Oftentimes candidates are left to their own devices and may not have access to those key areas to support them.”

Low noted that when LGBTQ+ candidates are elected, they can advance policies aimed at reducing discrimination, pointing to legislation he championed while serving in California.

“I passed a bill to require Peace Officers Standards and Training curriculum on diversity training for members of the LGBT community. Police officers would have to go through diversity and sensitivity training with respect to members of the LGBT community. That’s something that I very much would like to see amplified, not just state by state, but at the federal level — federal funding to support standards and trainings in dealing with members of the LGBT community.”

“The key data points reflect an increase in not only violence but also intimidation and increased barriers to entry over the years. You can make the direct nexus between that of the increase in anti-LGBTQ+ legislation and the current rhetoric that exists in this political environment. It’s not just here in the United States — you see it globally as well. So it is something that most certainly we’re seeing increase.”

When asked about the long-term consequences, Low warned that political violence could make American democracy less representative and discourage future generations of LGBTQ+ leaders from seeking office.

“I think we will likely see a decrease in the diversification of candidates and their lived experiences. It can be insurmountable for those from a younger generation who have to put food on the table and support their families. When it takes political violence to a different level and doxxing and being harassed online, it’s taken on a whole new meaning. We may see that deterioration of the quality and caliber of candidates, or not as much participation from the wide segment of our LGBTQ+ community.”

The Blade also asked how he feels about the future given the current political climate.

“One can always be optimistic and hopeful for the future, but I won’t hold my breath.”

When asked what success would look like for the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund and LGBTQ+ Victory Institute, Low said he hopes to see a decrease in threats against candidates, more LGBTQ+ people elected to office, and fewer legislative efforts targeting the community.

“I think certainly a decrease when we do this report again and have seen a decrease [in threats] is oftentimes telling. But similarly, seeing less of the legislative proposals in various state houses that are hostile, that criminalize our existence, is another key factor. Those are the two data points that we would cite and highlight as it relates to the political climate with respect to LGBTQ+ leaders.”

For nearly four decades, House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has been one of the most influential champions of LGBTQ+ rights in American politics.

The former U.S. House of Representatives speaker helped lead landmark LGBTQ+ legislation through Congress; including the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, and multiple House approvals of the Equality Act. She also played a central role in congressional efforts to combat HIV/AIDS and oppose restrictions targeting transgender Americans.

In an exclusive interview with the Los Angeles Blade; Pelosi reflected on those accomplishments, the role grassroots activists played in achieving them, and the ongoing challenges facing the LGBTQ+ community during President Donald Trump’s second term.

When asked which LGBTQ+-related achievement she is most proud of, Pelosi pointed not to a specific bill, but to the movement that made those victories possible — and the loud, strong-willed grassroots believers in a better America than the one they had found themselves in.

“Anything that we accomplished, whether it was fighting HIV and AIDS, ending discrimination, passing hate crimes legislation, or ending ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ would never have happened without outside mobilization,” Pelosi said, expressing gratitude for those who saw a problem and dared to speak its solution into existence. “Our inside maneuvering was important, but we couldn’t do our best job without the community. Every chance I get, I thank them for their patriotism because they make democracy function.”

Pelosi explained that her initial LGBTQ+ advocacy efforts were directly shaped by the LGBTQ+ community in the San Francisco area and by the HIV/AIDS epidemic that decimated the community during the 1980s.

The former speaker recalled arriving in Congress in 1987 and making HIV/AIDS a centerpiece of her agenda from the start.

“My first words on the House floor were that I had come here to fight HIV and AIDS,” Pelosi told the Blade. “People asked why I would make that my first statement. To me, that reaction showed just how much discrimination still existed and how much work remained to be done.”

She continued, explaining that advocating for San Francisco — with its once-vibrant LGBTQ+ community that was dying more with every passing day — became a joint effort between community-driven activists and government officials trying to manage and mitigate the crisis that claimed more American lives than the Vietnam War.

“When we were trying to bring the Democratic convention to San Francisco, people were saying they couldn’t come because of HIV/AIDS,” she said. “What emerged from that moment was community-based advocacy, community-based care, prevention, and research. Every success we had sprang from the community itself.”

Multiple times during the interview, Pelosi returned to those four pillars of the effort to combat HIV/AIDS: community-based advocacy, community-based care, prevention, and research.

She argued that the epidemic, despite its horrific toll, ultimately helped many Americans better understand and accept LGBTQ+ people in a society that had not been as tolerant.

“When families learned that a son or daughter was HIV-positive and gay, barriers started to break down,” Pelosi said. “Love prevailed in many cases. I actually give HIV/AIDS some credit for the acceptance of marriage equality because people began seeing these issues through the lens of family.”

Pelosi also highlighted the passage of federal hate crimes legislation as one of her — and the LGBTQ+ rights movement’s — most defining victories.

“Matthew Shepard’s mother came and spoke to members. (The late-former Massachusetts Congressman) Barney Frank told his story. We had to convince people that leadership means leading, not following,” Pelosi said. “That legislation was incredibly important because it forced people to confront the real consequences of hate.”

She said she refused pressure to remove transgender protections from the bill, despite promises from others that it would pass more easily if lawmakers only protected what they viewed as the least vulnerable groups.

“People told me, ‘You can pass this in a minute if you take out trans,'” Pelosi recalled. “I said, ‘I won’t pass it in 100 years because I’m not ever taking out trans.’ We passed it with trans protections included.”

The Blade also asked Pelosi about the stalled passage of the Equality Act — which would add federal protections for LGBTQ+ people through amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that would explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity. She expressed confidence that the Equality Act will eventually become law, though she acknowledged the political obstacles that have persisted since its creation in the 1970s.

In her office, among bowls of Ghirardelli chocolates and prints depicting national parks in her district, a large photo hangs on the wall showing Pelosi standing at the House rostrum with LGBTQ+ advocates beneath the words “#EQUALITY ACT” — photographic proof that she had already passed the landmark legislation in the House, if only the U.S. Senate had agreed.

“We passed it in the House again and again,” she said. “The Senate is more difficult because of the procedural hurdles, but we’re not stopping. We’ll stick with it until the job is done.”

The longtime Democratic leader also credited civil rights icon John Lewis with helping build support for the legislation when others argued the growing LGBTQ+ rights movement was, as one California Democratic legislator put it, “too fast, too much, too soon.”

“There were people who worried about opening up the Civil Rights Act to include LGBTQ protections,” Pelosi said. “John Lewis told us, ‘We can’t wait. We must do it now.’ He was instrumental in helping move that effort forward.”

Much of the conversation eventually turned to the Trump-Vance administration’s policies affecting trans Americans.

Pelosi argued that Executive Order 14183, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” which puts restrictions on trans military service weakens national security, and efforts to limit gender-affirming healthcare for trans children with the Executive Order “Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” ignores the needs of families.

“When they diminish the ability of transgender people to serve in the military, they diminish our national security,” she said. “At the same time, families are being told they can’t get the care their children need. That is deeply troubling.”

She recounted hearing testimony from conservative parents whose views changed after their own children came out as trans — a transformation she said changed hearts and minds, even among people she had once seen wearing red MAGA hats.

“One mother told us she was a Trump supporter until her child needed medical care and her state wouldn’t allow it,” Pelosi said. “She said she had to leave Texas to care for her child. Hearing stories like that reminds people that these are families, not political talking points.”

Pelosi described efforts to restrict healthcare access for trans youth as both discriminatory and morally wrong.

“Some of the things they’re doing by refusing to support clinics that meet the needs of trans kids are sinful,” she said. “I’m a religious person, and I believe every child is God’s child. We have a responsibility to meet their needs.”

Asked what she would say to people who oppose LGBTQ+ equality, Pelosi returned to a theme that surfaced throughout the interview: love.

“I’ve seen families completely transform when these issues become personal,” she said. “People who once opposed HIV/AIDS funding became advocates when someone they loved was affected. Love has a way of changing hearts.”

As for how she hopes history remembers her role in the movement, Pelosi again shifted attention away from herself and toward activists.

“People were dying, and the community demanded action,” she said. “I hope people remember that the progress we made came from the very vocal participation of LGBTQ people and their allies. I was honored that they trusted me to carry that fight in Congress.”

Pelosi, who has announced she will not seek reelection and plans to retire from the House in 2027, said the struggle for equality is far from over.

“Every major expansion of rights in this country has been a long struggle,” she said. “We’ve laid a foundation, but there is still more work to do. We still have to pass the Equality Act.”

When asked what she credits for the change in public understanding and the growth of the LGBTQ+ movement, she said respect lies at its foundation.

“This month, Pride Month, people would say to me, ‘It’s easy for you because you’re from San Francisco, and San Francisco is so tolerant,'” Pelosi said. “And I would say to them, ‘Tolerant to me is a condescending word.’ Tolerance is a good word writ large, but in terms of the subject, it’s not about tolerance — it’s about respect. Respect is what made it almost inevitable that I would have nothing but enthusiasm for what I was doing. We don’t just respect — we take pride in our community. But that pride springs from respect that people have to have for everything, including the differences that they see.”

California’s “jungle primary” has caused a lot of interesting political discussion and stress. California’s nonpartisan primary means any of the top two vote-getters can proceed to the general election. This meant ballots that were pages long in the key races for mayor and governor. This also means that there’s the potential for two Democrats running for key positions like mayor and governor. 

The major players are Karen Bass, running for reelection as LA Mayor, who has secured a spot in the general. Former reality personality Spencer Pratt (R) and progressive candidate Nithya Raman (D) are in contention for second place, with Raman securing a lead as of the latest voter count. For Governor, Xavier Becerra (D) has secured his spot. Republican Steve Hilton and Billionaire Tom Steyer are up to run against him. Steyer put up some of his own wealth and has touted himself as a more progressive candidate. On Election Day, he seemed out of the race, but he is currently running in second place. 

The nature of Los Angeles’s primary created some extensive fear over the large number of democrat candidates potentially splitting the vote. Currently, about 80% of the votes have been counted. This has shifted stats with 79.25% of the votes in this election being Vote by Mail. The voter turnout is still a bit low, considering it’s still only 32.21% of 23 million registered voters. 

The post-Covid shift to mail-in ballots has meant that more people can vote. 

Voting officials have 30 days after the election to count all of the remaining ballots. This includes matching the signatures of the envelope to the signature on the ballot, which is the cause of the delay. The final results will be reported to the Secretary of State by July 3, 2026. 

Equality California, the largest statewide LGBTQ+ civil rights organization, was quick to congratulate Democratic candidate Becerra for confirming his place in the general election. Tony Hoang, Executive Director of the organization, says, “These results demonstrate that Californians are looking for experienced, values-driven leadership to guide our state through a challenging moment for our country.”

Hoang adds, “Xavier Becerra has spent his career standing up for civil rights, defending access to healthcare, protecting immigrant families, and fighting for the communities that need it most. We are proud to congratulate him on his primary election victory.” 

As California Attorney General, Becerra defended marriage equality, challenged discriminatory policies targeting LGBTQ+ people, and fought to protect access to healthcare and reproductive freedom. As Secretary of Health and Human Services, he helped defend healthcare access for millions of Americans and strengthened protections for vulnerable communities.

“At a time when LGBTQ+ people are facing coordinated attacks across the country, California needs a governor who has not only spoken out but taken action to defend our community,” Hoang adds. “From standing up to Donald Trump in court to affirming that transgender healthcare is medically necessary at the highest levels of our nation’s health system, Xavier Becerra has used all of his positions of power to defend our community’s rights and dignity.”

Another beneficiary of the wave of mail-in ballots is former West Hollywood mayor John Erickson and his run for California Senate, who jumped from third place to first place, securing 19.58% of the votes.  He told the Blade, “I am grateful to every voter in the 24th State Senate district who chose truth to power over the use of despicable homophobic tropes and malicious attacks on me.  I am humbled by the outcome of the Primary, which, as of today, has me comfortably as the top vote getter, but the road ahead will not be easy.” He adds, “I am sure the same billionaires and powerful special interests who came after me in the Primary will continue through the General—just as I will continue to campaign on my record and experience-based ideas to make California more equitable, affordable, sustainable, and safe for all of us.”

You can stay up-to-date on vote counts by checking the state’s election results. But it is clear that every vote counts, with many of these mail-in votes changing the shape of this election and showing the potential of many different candidates to affect California politics. 

U.S. Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.), who represents Tennessee’s 5th Congressional District, is facing backlash from LGBTQ+ advocates and fellow Republicans after a social media post declared that “homosexuality has no place in America.”

“Homosexuality has no place in America. Happy Nuclear Family Month,” the congressman wrote in a post on X that was later deleted.

According to the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, an estimated 6.3 percent of U.S. adults identify as LGBTQ+.

Following widespread criticism, Ogles removed the post and blamed it on a staff member.

“The post was stupid, hurtful and a complete distraction from my America First focus. The employee has been reprimanded,” Ogles said in a statement.

The Los Angeles Blade reached out to Ogles’s office for comment but did not receive a response by press time.

Among those condemning the message was U.S. Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), who called it “absolutely idiotic” in a social media post.

“Homosexuality exists. In America,” Lawler wrote on X. “In fact, Andy, you have family, friends, neighbors, colleagues, and constituents who are gay and lesbian. It doesn’t make them less than or somehow unworthy of being an American.”

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) also criticized Ogles’s remarks.

“For all of recorded history, homosexuals have been a part of humanity,” Cruz told TMZ DC. “I think the behavior of consenting adults is their business.”

Chris Sanders, the executive director for the Tennessee Equality Project and Tennessee Equality Project Foundation provided a statement to the Blade about Ogles’s comment.

“The Tennessee Nuclear Family Month resolution has really backfired on conservatives by ensnaring Congressman Ogles in scandal. He used the resolution as a pretext to say that our community doesn’t belong in America, resulting in incredible backlash from across the partisan divide,” Sanders said. “It is a good opportunity for him to pause and reflect on whether it’s time for him to resign. Fighting one’s own constituents is not the purpose of serving in Congress.”

Human Rights Campaign Senior Press Secretary Jarred Keller provided a statement to the Blade regarding Ogles’s comments.

“LGBTQ+ people are woven into the fabric of America, and any politician who questions that is severely out of touch with reality. When so many people are worried about whether they can afford gas to get to work or groceries for their families, the last thing we need is right-wing Republicans targeting marginalized communities with hateful attacks,” Keller said. “Representative Ogles should spend less time attacking LGBTQ+ people and start addressing the issues that actually matter, because last I checked, our community isn’t the reason families are struggling to make ends meet.”

The controversy comes as Tennessee continues to advance legislation affecting LGBTQ+ residents. The state already has several laws on the books that LGBTQ+ advocates have criticized, including the Adult Entertainment Act, enacted in 2023, which restricts certain “adult cabaret performances.”

Lawmakers have also introduced additional measures this legislative session, including the “No Pride Flag or Month Act,” which would prohibit state employees, volunteers, and agents from displaying Pride flags or participating in Pride observances while acting in an official capacity.

Another proposal, the “Banning Bostock Act” would seek to limit the application of state anti-discrimination protections based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. Tennessee lawmakers have also passed other measures restricting LGBTQ+ rights and access to gender-affirming health care.

Since Donald Trump became President, each election has become very high-stakes. While to the average voter, primary elections may not seem as important, this year is the first year after California Ballot Measure 50 redistricting map opened up more seats for the House of Representatives. This was to combat the redistricting of Texas to get more conservative Congressional areas. 

Sadly, given our political climate, voting along party lines is not enough. California is unique in that the primary allows two candidates to advance to the general election regardless of party. To people sick of the two-party system or the lack of progressive candidates, primaries are an important moment to vote for different options. Additionally, many races, such as judicial races, government positions, and ballot measures, can be decided by this election alone. 

That being said, the Los Angeles County Registrar shows there was only a 22.38% voter turnout for election day. The 77.62% of registered voters does include some mail-in ballots that are yet to be counted, but also shows that a significant amount of voters did not show up for a pretty important race. Votes will be tallied until June 26th, with any votes postmarked on Tuesday affecting these results.  

Two of the most notable races include the vote for California Governor and Los Angeles City Mayor. The race to replace Gavin Newsom is yet to be called, but of the large list of potential nominees, Democrat Xavier Becerra (28.9% of the vote) and Steve Hilton (23.1%) were in the lead and will move on to the general election. Billionaire and progressive Tom Steyer is in the number three position with 22.29% of the vote. Time will tell if he’ll be included in the next election. But Steyer has famously invested millions of his own money in this election and positioned himself as a “class traitor” willing to push progressive reform.  

Former reality personality Spencer Pratt will join incumbent Karen Bass in the mayoral race. Despite his lack of political experience, Pratt’s use of AI attack ads, extensive media coverage, and celebrity endorsements, including West Hollywood Pride Grand Marshall Kathy Hilton, helped him secure 30.44% of the votes, with incumbent Bass receiving 34.78% of the votes. Nithya Raman received 22.32% of the vote. 

County Measure ER, which would add a .5% increase to sales tax over 5 years to cover any potential federal cuts to medical care, failed, receiving only 46.89% of votes. 

On the State level, Nancy Pelosi’s Senate seat is up for grabs. Two Democrats, Scott Wiener and Connie Chan, will move on to the general election. Chan received Pelosi’s endorsement while Equality California highlights Wiener’s commitment to LGBTQIA rights. “For nearly a decade in the California Legislature, Scott Wiener has been one of the nation’s most effective champions for LGBTQ+ people, leading the fight to expand civil rights, protect vulnerable communities, and defend fundamental freedoms. We are proud to congratulate him on his decisive first-place victory in today’s primary election,” said Tony Hoang, Executive Director of Equality California. 

Non-binary candidate and drag queen Maebe Pudlo received 11.32% of the votes in her race for California State Senate, District 26, with Democrats Sara Hernandez (31.44%) and Sarah Rascón (16.14%) set to face off in the general election. Another State Senate race included former West Hollywood Mayor John M. Erickson, who received 16.38% of the vote. Republican G. Rick Marshall (20.46%) and Democrat Brian Goldsmith (18.48%) are poised to take that race to the general.  

To clarify some of the importance of the primary election, Judge Robert Draper was running for re-election to the Superior Court despite facing multiple ethics violations and potential censure. He received 49.09% of the vote while his challenger, Tal K. Valbuena, received 50.91% of the votes. 

For up-to-date details on votes, check out the LA County Registrar/County Clear tallies. 

A panel of federal appeals court judges ruled that President Donald Trump’s policy banning transgender troops likely violates their constitutional rights.

The three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that Trump’s Executive Order 14183, also known as “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” was created with the intent to exclude people from the military based on their gender identity.

The policy argues that trans people are inherently incapable of meeting the military’s “high standards of readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity,” citing a history of or signs of gender dysphoria as the cause. According to the Defense Department, this creates “medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on [an] individual.”

The policy states that, regardless of the physical or intellectual capabilities of each applicant, it views trans military applicants as a monolith, considering them less qualified than their cisgender peers.

Despite the panel’s majority opinion issued on Monday, the first day of Pride Month, the ban remains in effect. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Pentagon to enforce the policy last year and will continue to allow it to remain in place as litigation proceeds.

The panel’s new ruling will prevent the military from discharging current service members named in the lawsuit, but it does not allow new transrecruits to join.

The policy “appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender,” Judge Robert Wilkins, a Democratic appointee of President Barack Obama wrote for the majority.

Judge Justin Walker, the author of the dissenting opinion and a Republican Trump appointee, argued that the authority to determine military policy does not rest with the courts. Instead, he wrote, the Constitution grants that power to Congress through legislation and to the president as commander in chief of the armed forces.

“We have neither the expertise nor the authority to decide whether the military can exclude the plaintiffs from its ranks. The Constitution assigns that authority to Congress and the commander-in-chief,” Walker wrote.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth indicated that an appeal is in the works, posting, “See you at SCOTUS” on X on Monday in response to the ruling.

Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, which has led the litigation since last November, applauded the decision.

“Today’s decision is a powerful vindication of the plaintiffs’ extraordinary courage and unwavering commitment to their country,” Levi said.

The Los Angeles Blade spoke with Second Lt. Nicolas (Nic) Talbott of the U.S. Army, the lead plaintiff in the case, and Levi from GLAD Law back in November.

While discussing the case and his experiences as a trans service member, Talbott said his identity is an asset rather than a hindrance, particularly when it comes to identifying problems and finding solutions, regardless of what others may think or say.

“Being transgender is not some sad thing that people go through,” Talbott told the Blade. “This is something that has taken years and years and years of dedication and discipline and research and ups and downs to get to the point where I am today … my ability to transition was essential to getting me to that point where I am today.”

He also discussed the impact of removing qualified and dedicated service members from the military, arguing that the consequences will be felt long after Trump leaves office.

“When we’re losing thousands of those qualified, experienced individuals … those are seats that are not just going to be able to be filled by anybody,” he said. “[That’s] military training that’s not going to be able to be replaced for years and years to come.”

“Every person who puts on the uniform is expected to make a tremendous amount of sacrifice,” Talbott said. “Who I am under this uniform should have no bearing on that … We shouldn’t be picking and choosing which veterans are worthy of our thanks on that day.”

Levi characterized the policy as overtly cruel and legally indefensible to the Blade.

“This policy and its rollout is even more cruel than the first in a number of ways,” Levi explained. “For one, the policy itself says that transgender people are dishonest, untrustworthy and undisciplined, which is deeply offensive and degrading and demeaning.”

She also argued that the administration’s cost justification is flawed, saying that removing and replacing trans service members is more expensive than retaining them.

“There’s no legitimate justification relating to cost … it is far more expensive to both purge the military of people who are serving and also to replace people … than to provide the minuscule amount of costs for medications other service members routinely get.”

U.S. Capitol Police on Tuesday arrested 10 HIV/AIDS activists who protested Secretary of State Marco Rubio during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.

The activists from Housing Works, Health GAP, the Treatment Action Group, and ACT UP held signs and chanted “Rubio’s Cuts Kill People with AIDS, PEPFAR Saves Lives!” before officers removed them from Dirksen Senate Office Building room where the hearing took place.

A media advisory the Los Angeles Blade received before the protest noted “mounting evidence of Rubio’s attempts to sabotage PEPFAR (the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, U.S. bilateral AIDS program) and vital global health programs.” The press release specifically highlighted three specific points:

• Eliminating Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) lifesaving PEPFAR programs, which currently support approximately 12 million people on HIV treatment across 51 countries. Instead, Rubio intends to dismantle CDC’s current PEPFAR role and stamp out their global footprint in disease outbreak and surveillance for pandemics beyond HIV. Experts including eight former CDC Directors under Republican and Democratic administrations have spoken out against this effort to dismantle PEPFAR. Recent PEPFAR data showed sharp decreases in the numbers of people newly tested, diagnosed, and treated for HIV, but these data would have been even worse if not for CDC’s PEPFAR programs.

• Withholding $2 billion in Congressionally appropriated FY25 funding, including $330 million to combat HIV, $250 million to fight malaria, $320 million for maternal and child health programs, and nearly $650 million in global health security programs.

• Negotiating secret bilateral deals blackmailing African governments by demanding access to critical mineral wealth as a condition of access to HIV treatment and prevention funding.

The groups have staged several protests against the Trump-Vance administration’s HIV/AIDS policies since it took office.

Rubio on Jan. 28, 2025, issued a waiver that allowed PEPFAR and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during a freeze on nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending. HIV/AIDS service providers around the world with whom the Blade has spoken say PEPFAR cuts and the loss of funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, which officially closed on July 1, 2025, has severely impacted their work.

The State Department last September announced PEPFAR will distribute lenacapavir in countries with high prevalence rates.

The New York Times last summer reported Vought “apportioned” only $2.9 billion of $6 billion that Congress set aside for PEPFAR for fiscal year 2025. (PEPFAR in the coming fiscal year will use funds allocated in fiscal year 2024.)

Bipartisan opposition in the U.S. Senate prompted the Trump-Vance administration last July withdraw a proposal to cut $400 million from PEPFAR’s budget. Vought a few weeks later said he would use a “pocket rescission” to cancel $4.9 billion for HIV/AIDS prevention and global health programs and other foreign aid assistance initiatives that Congress had already approved.

The White House in January expanded the global gag rule to ban U.S. foreign aid for groups that promote “gender ideology.” President Ronald Reagan in 1985 implemented the original regulation, also known as the “Mexico City” policy, which bans U.S. foreign aid for groups that support abortion and/or offer abortion-related services. Advocacy groups insist the expanded rule will adversely impact HIV prevention efforts around the world.

“Congress must stop Secretary Rubio before he dismantles PEPFAR,” said Treatment Action Group’s Kendall Martinez-Wright. “Rubio continues to defy the will of Congress and the American people who want this program restored and repaired. Under his leadership he is diverting funding and trying to eliminate the essential role of technical experts in global HIV and global health, while program performance is flailing.”