CVS Health, one of the nation’s largest pharmacy benefit manager companies that play a lead role in deciding which drugs are covered by health insurance plans, has initially decided not to approve coverage for the new HIV prevention drug Yeztugo

Developed and manufactured by the pharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences, Yeztugo was approved for use in June of this year by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as an HIV prevention or PrEP medication that needs to be taken just twice a year by injection.

HIV prevention advocates hailed the new drug as a major breakthrough in the years long effort to curtail and end the HIV/AIDS epidemic by enabling far more people at risk for HIV infection to adhere to a prevention drug regimen that needed to be taken once every six months rather than daily pills or through bi-monthly injections.

But the same advocates warned that the benefits of Yeztugo, which tests showed is greater than 99 percent effective in preventing HIV infection, could not be realized if the cost of the drug is not covered by health insurance plans or other coverage programs.

At the time the FDA approved its drug, Gilead Sciences announced that the yearly retail price for Yeztugo without insurance coverage would be $26,218.

According to reports by Reuters and Bloomberg news publications, a CVS Health spokesperson disclosed on Aug. 21 that the company “for now” would not add Yeztugo to its commercial coverage plans.

“As is typical with new-to-market products, we undergo a careful review of clinical, financial, and regulatory considerations,” Bloomberg News quoted CVS spokesperson David Whitrap as saying. Bloomberg reports that Whitman added that Yeztugo hasn’t been added to CVS Caremark’s commercial drug plans or U.S. Affordable Care Act plans.

“The entire world is excited by this drug and its potential contribution to preventing and eventually ending HIV,” said Carl Schmid, executive director of the D.C.-based HIV + Hepatitis Policy Institute. “However, a drug will only work if people can access it and right now CVS Health, which owns the largest pharmacy benefit manager in the country, is shamefully blocking people from taking it, unlike other payers,” Schmid said in a statement.

“We urge CVS, which has been committed to ending HIV in the past, to reconsider their decision immediately,” Schmid said. “Additionally, we call on federal and state regulators to ensure that plans are in compliance with the federal government’s PrEP coverage guidance and the many state laws that require coverage of all PrEP drugs.”

Gilead Sciences, meanwhile, has said it is “extremely pleased” with the progress it is making with other health insurance companies and  “payers” to arrange for coverage of Yeztugo, according to Reuters. “[T]he company said it is on track to secure 75 percent of U.S. insurer coverage of Yeztugo by year-end, and 90 percent coverage by June 2026,”  Reuters reports. 

The proliferation of anti-LGBTQ bills proposed by state legislatures across the country, which ticked up dramatically in 2021 and has since increased year-over-year, looks different in 2025.

Efforts that once focused on school sports and pediatric gender care have now broadened, as many advocates warned they would, to target adult life and the legal scaffolding of hard-won freedoms like same-sex marriage.

LGBTQ issues remain fraught political battlegrounds, but the fight has shifted to driver’s licenses, hospital policies, state-worker speech rules, and even marriage licenses — exposing these communities to greater risk of civil-rights violations.

This shift comes at a moment when legal avenues for challenging discrimination by state governments or the Trump-Vance administration have narrowed significantly, even as rhetorical and political attacks intensify.

The new types of bills

By the numbers, this year is shaping up to be the worst in recent memory. The ACLU tracked 520 anti-LGBTQ bills in 2023, 533 in 2024, and by February the organization had already logged 339, an accelerated pace for 2025.

Predictably, these legislative efforts are clustered in conservative places like Texas, where state lawmakers teed up 32 anti-trans bills on the first day of pre-filing for 2025, as GLAAD noted.

At the same time, however, the group reports that the year kicked off with similar activity in far bluer statehouses located in places like Massachusetts, Colorado, and New York.

The new crop of bills share some distinguishing features. For instance, Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, and Illinois are considering (or have enacted, in Alabama’s case) proposals to adopt restrictive definitions of sex and gender.

Not only does the establishment of a legal definition for gender based on a fixed binary that must be determined by one’s sex at birth exclude the recognition of people who are trans or have other gender diverse identities, but it also carries significant downstream impacts.

President Donald Trump has already demonstrated how this can work. Issued on the first day of his second term, his Executive Order 14168 recast “sex” across all federal policy as a fixed category that is limited to “male” or “female,” defined at “conception,” and unchangeable.

Pursuant to the order, the administration mandated that agencies replace all mention of “gender” with “sex,” strip gender self-identification options from passports, and halt funding for anything deemed “gender ideology,” including gender‑affirming care.

With respect to restrictions on gender markers on passports and official documents, the consequences for Americans who are not cisgender are far-reaching, touching areas of their lives from housing to employment and travel.

Georgia, meanwhile, previewed how conservative lawmakers can restrict guideline-directed best practices medical interventions for not just transgender youth, but adults as well, with a bill introduced this year that would bar coverage by state employees’ health benefits plans.

Georgia has also enacted a law prohibiting all gender-affirming care (hormones, surgeries, and even personal funding of such care) for incarcerated individuals in state prisons, which came after Trump’s executive order requiring the Bureau of Prisons to halt funding for these treatments and move trans women inmates into men’s facilities.

Broadened healthcare restrictions did not necessarily start this year, however. Florida passed a law in 2023, for example, that requires trans adults to receive in-person, state-approved informed consent for gender-affirming care, while banning nurse practitioners and telehealth delivery of such treatments, thereby limiting access for patients.

Following years of conservative activism focused on censoring pro-LGBTQ speech from schools — banning books and other materials with gay or trans characters or themes; restricting classroom instruction on matters of sexual orientation and gender identity — some states have taken a new tack in 2025: protecting anti-LGBTQ speech.

Once again, the scope of these efforts now extends beyond educational institutions and their focus is broadened from youth to youth and adults.

Montana’s Free to Speak Act, enacted in May, protects students and public employees from being disciplined for refusing to use a person’s preferred name or pronouns, establishing a private right of action allowing affected individuals to sue for injunctive relief, monetary damages, and attorney fees.

Lawmakers in Florida are going even further with a proposal that would bar public employers from requiring the use of trans individuals’ preferred pronouns, remove “nonbinary” as an option on state job applications, and make LGBTQ+ cultural competence training optional rather than mandatory.

Marriage equality under fire

On Monday, news outlets around the world reported on the return of Kim Davis. The thrice divorced former Kentucky county clerk has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear her case, which seeks to overturn the High Court’s precedent setting ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that established marriage equality as the law of the land in 2015.

Some legal experts believe the gambit is a long shot. Others are less confident, pointing to the establishment of a 6-3 conservative supermajority in October 2020 and Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring statement in the 2022 decision overturning abortion rights, where he expressed interest in revisiting the marriage decision.

In what may be a harbinger of another battle over same-sex marriage, or a sign that the matter was never settled in the first place, five states this year have considered non-binding resolutions asking the justices to overturn Obergefell: South Dakota, North Dakota, Idaho, Michigan, and Montana.

Other measures have been more concrete. In Tennessee and several other states, lawmakers introduced “covenant marriage” bills defining marriage as a union between “one male and one female” with heightened divorce restrictions — a move that would effectively exclude same-sex couples from that marital track. While none have yet been passed or enacted, they illustrate how legislatures can reshape marriage law without directly challenging Obergefell.

Such bills raise a potential clash with the Respect for Marriage Act, legislation passed during the Biden-Harris administration that requires states to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere but does not require them to issue licenses.

As President Donald Trump pushes forward with his takeover of the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department using federal agents, local LGBTQ leaders are sounding the alarm.

Trump on Monday invoked Section 740 of the D.C. Home Rule Act to “declare a crime emergency” in the District and began sending 800 National Guard troops to patrol the nation’s capital.

Multiple leaders in the District have criticized Trump for using misleading statistics to justify this power grab, one that will disproportionately impact Black, brown, and LGBTQ residents.

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser initially tried to reframe Trump’s takeover as something that could benefit the District, saying to “make the most of the additional officer support that we have” during a Tuesday meeting with Attorney General Pam Bondi. She later began to backtrack on that statement.

“This is a time where community needs to jump in and we all need to, to do what we can in our space, in our lane, to protect our city and to protect our autonomy, to protect our Home Rule, and get to the other side of this guy, and make sure we elect a Democratic House so that we have a backstop to this authoritarian push,” Bowser said in a virtual meeting with local leaders later that day.

One of those local leaders, Ward 5 Council member Zachary Parker, called the Trump administration’s claims of “bloodthirsty criminals” and “roving mobs of wild youth” unsubstantiated and a distraction from “the bigger game in motion.”

In two separate Instagram posts, Parker — the District’s only openly LGBTQ Council member — called the move more about Trump “flexing” his power over a Democratic stronghold than fixing any issues of crime.

“The suggestion that crime is out of control is not supported by data,” Parker wrote Tuesday on his personal account, citing Department of Justice data from earlier this year showing the president’s claims are unsubstantiated. “Violent crime hit a 30-year low in 2024,” he continued, citing Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) data showing a 26% decrease in violent crime in the past year alone.

In another post, Parker called the tactic by the Trump administration a stark move that echoes the dictatorial takeovers of history.

“The raids today from those in power are derivatives of the instruments of power that have policed neighborhoods since the ’70s,” his second post said. “The ploy to seize capitals and collapse power traces back to colonial times and, more recently, Hungary and Turkey.”

The D.C. LGBTQ Budget Coalition, comprised of multiple organizations and advocates that fight for resources supporting LGBTQ residents — including trans people of color, low-income individuals, those with disabilities, and migrants — called this an “attack on D.C. autonomy.”

“This is a blatant violation of D.C.’s right to self-govern and a dangerous escalation rooted in political theater, not public safety,” the coalition’s official statement read. “We stand with local community leaders and other advocates fighting for D.C. to be free (including our evergreen fight for statehood), and all who reject this federal overreach… This move is not about safety, but about control and fear.”

The statement also echoed Council member Parker’s point that both federal and local data show a decline in violent crime despite massive budget cuts to the city prompted by Trump.

“Crime is down — the data is clear. And any attempts to combat the District’s issues were directly thwarted during the federal budget battles that forced our government to cut $1 billion from the local budget.”

The letter, sent to coalition members and supporters, explicitly called these actions anti-LGBTQ and anti-people of color.

“This kind of horrific federal overreach will inevitably cause the most irrevocable harm to our Black, brown, immigrant, and LGBTQ+ siblings — communities who already bear the brunt of systemic violence, over-policing, and underinvestment,” the email said.

“As LGBTQ+ advocates working to ensure equitable investment in our communities, we know that safety comes from housing, healthcare, and justice — and we will not demonize those most vulnerable in this city.”

As Texas House Democrats fled the state to prevent Republicans from gerrymandering Democratic-held districts to flip seats, they also blocked anti-transgender legislation from being considered simply by not showing up.

More than 50 House Democrats left Texas on Sunday in an attempt to pause — if not kill — recent Republican-proposed and Trump-encouraged measures making their way through the state House.

This move by Democrats is called “breaking quorum,” and means the Texas House has fewer than the required minimum number of representatives present to conduct business. In total, the Texas House has 150 seats. Republicans hold only 88 seats — less than the 100 required to meet quorum — pausing the legislative session.

The Democratic legislators traveled to Illinois and New York, two Democratic strongholds with outspoken governors vowing to protect them and prevent Republicans from gaining an unfair advantage in the middle of the legislative calendar — at Trump’s behest.

The major issue Texas Democrats are drawing attention to is the recent redistricting plan, which would flip five Democratic U.S. House of Representatives seats to Republican ones through the use of gerrymandering, or strategic manipulation of district boundaries. This gerrymandering would likely result in Republicans retaining control of the U.S. House in the 2026 midterms.

In addition to redistricting, Republicans have proposed Senate Bill 7, also known as “The Trans Bathroom Ban.” This bill mandates that people use the bathroom in government buildings, schools, and women’s violence shelters that corresponds with their sex at birth, rather than their gender identity. The bill would also require incarcerated individuals to be placed in facilities that match their sex at birth.

Proponents of the bill, like Fran Rhodes, the president of True Texas Project — a hardline conservative group that opposes LGBTQ rights and immigration — argue that without SB 7, “we put women and girls at risk.”

This proposed legislation has been denounced by Equality Texas, which says it would not only put trans women at risk, but also cis women, who would be subject to “invasive gender inspections.” They argue this would undermine the Republicans’ stated intent of the bill by subjecting women to unnecessary scrutiny rather than protecting them.

Multiple cis women have come out in opposition to the bill, including Wendy Davis, a lawyer and former member of the Texas State Senate, who called the bill “a solution without a problem.”

Davis continued, saying that “Our trans sisters deserve to be safe in the restroom, just like we deserve to be safe in the restroom.”

Additionally, some Black Texans have sounded the alarm on this bill, likening it to Jim Crow-era segregation legislation — but instead of skin color, it uses gender identity to discriminate.

As the clock runs out on this 30-day special session ending Aug. 19, there is a chance Republican Gov. Greg Abbott could extend the session, as it is within his power as governor.

Texas Democrats hope this will pressure Republicans to work with them to reach a compromise on both redistricting and killing the anti-trans bill.

Gay Parent Magazine and the Washington Blade have taken steps to alert LGBTQ media publications about what appears to be an organized scam operation that deleted Gay Parent Magazine’s Facebook page and attempted unsuccessfully to infiltrate the Blade’s Facebook page.

The action by the unidentified scammers targeting Gay Parent Magazine and the Blade appeared to be aimed at LGBTQ media outlets with the intent of harming or disabling LGBTQ supportive publications, according to Gay Parent Magazine editor and publisher Angeline Acain and Blade editor Kevin Naff.

“We have strong reason to believe our Facebook page hacking was politically motivated,” Acain said in a July 7 statement. “We were targeted by people who don’t support LGBTQ parents,” she said.

Both Acain and Naff said they were contacted via email by someone claiming to be podcaster Jennifer Welch, a pro-LGBTQ commentator, inviting them to appear as a guest on her podcast.

“When I accepted, she emailed to set up a Zoom call to review technical requirements because she conducts her interviews via Facebook Live,” Naff said. “When I connected to Zoom, she wasn’t on camera and a man’s voice then said he handles her technical support. He instructed me to log into the administrative page of the Blade’s Facebook account and to share my screen,” Naff said. “That’s when I became suspicious and declined the request and ended the call.”

Naff said he had not heard anything from them since that time.

Acain told the Blade she now regrets that she agreed to provide access information to her publication’s Facebook page when she too was invited to appear as a guest on a Jennifer Welch podcast.

“I did somehow give them access,” Acain said. “I don’t know exactly how they did it, but whatever I did, they knew what to do to gain access.”

In her July 7 statement, Acain said, “In this attack, bad actors posed as liberal podcast hosts and invited me to be a guest saying the podcast would be live streamed on their Facebook page. They then hacked into Gay Parent Magazine’s Facebook page and removed all of our followers. The next thing I knew our Facebook page was gone.”

She said the Facebook page had 30,000 followers before it was hacked. Since that time, she said, she and her team at Gay Parent Magazine have rebuilt the Facebook page and continue to take steps to rebuild its audience and followers.

Acain also says in her statement that her publication’s Facebook hacking took place about five months after the Facebook page was “attacked by trolls posting hateful comments at LGBTQ parents.” She said the barrage of hateful postings began shortly after Donald Trump took office as president.

“After weeks of reporting the hateful comments, blocking trolls, and limiting who could comment, the hateful rhetoric eventually stopped,” she said.

“In the 26 years since I’ve been publishing, this has never happened before,” she told the Blade. “Since Trump has been president all of this has been happening.” 

“This is clearly an organized right-wing effort targeting queer media outlets,” Naff said in his own statement. “I immediately reached out to contacts in LGBTQ media warning them of this scam,” he said, adding that his personal Facebook account was also targeted by someone who posted anti-gay slurs.

The anti-LGBTQ postings that Acain reports began to target Gay Parent Magazine’s Facebook page took place after two prominent LGBTQ advocacy organizations, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and GLAAD, issued strongly worded statements criticizing Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta, the company that owns and operates Facebook and other social media outlets, for ending longstanding anti-LGBTQ hate speech polices.

In a Jan. 7 statement, GLAAD said the policy changes put in place by Meta “removed and adopted several sections of its Hateful Conduct Policy, rolling back safety guardrails for LGBTQ people, people of color, women, immigrants, and other protected groups.”

In its own statement released Jan. 15, HRC states, “When Mark Zuckerberg announced sweeping changes to Meta’s content moderation policies, he framed the move as a bold defense of free speech. But many, especially members of the LGBTQ+ community and allies, worry about what this means for safety on Meta’s platforms and fear this marks an open invitation for Meta users to engage in anti-LGBTQ+ abuse that will disempower and marginalize the community.”

Meta has said the policy change was aimed at increasing free speech and curtailing censorship on its social media platforms like Facebook.

The Blade couldn’t immediately confirm whether any other LGBTQ media outlets have been targeted by anti-LGBTQ scammers. 

In a move aimed at adhering to Trump administration anti-transgender policy — which at first slipped by unnoticed — the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee confirms it quietly changed eligibility rules this week, to prohibit transgender women from competing in women’s sporting events.  

On page 3 of the committee’s “Athlete Safety Policy,” a new paragraph now appears, stating: “The USOPC is committed to protecting opportunities for athletes participating in sport. The USOPC will continue to collaborate with various stakeholders with oversight responsibilities, e.g., IOC, IPC, NGBs, to ensure that women have a fair and safe competition environment consistent with Executive Order 14201 and the Ted Stevens Olympic & Amateur Sports Act.”

Executive Order 14201, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” was issued by President Donald Trump in February, as the Washington Blade reported. The contents and purpose of the E.O. are not mentioned in the policy addition, nor is there any instance of the word, “transgender.” There’s also no explanation as to how this ban will be enforced or whether it will be expanded to also apply to transgender male athletes or nonbinary athletes. 

The New York Times was first to report the change by the Colorado Springs-based committee, which the newspaper said was made on Monday and confirmed by the committee on Tuesday.  

That same day, the committee’s president, Gene Sykes, and CEO Sarah Hirshland sent a letter to the U.S. Olympic community, explaining that the change followed “a series of respectful and constructive conversations with federal officials,” sparked by Trump’s executive order.

“As a federally chartered organization, we have an obligation to comply with federal expectations. The guidance we’ve received aligns with the Ted Stevens Act, reinforcing our mandated responsibility to promote athlete safety and competitive fairness,” the committee wrote. 

The Ted Stevens Act was signed into law by the late President Jimmy Carter in 1978 and provided the committee with its charter. 

This change in policy comes as Los Angeles prepares to host the Summer Olympic games in 2028.

The NCAA changed its transgender participation policy in February, one day after Trump signed his E.O., which threatened to “rescind all funds” from organizations that allow trans athletes to participate in women’s sports.

Just last month, the USOPC had said decisions on trans athlete participation were to be made based on “fairness,” and “real data and science-based evidence rather than ideology,” and would be decided by each individual sport’s governing body, of which there are 54 member organizations. 

The debate over transgender inclusion has ramped up significantly this year, fed largely by partisan political activity, despite the lack of rigorous scientific evidence showing trans athletes have any competitive advantage, as USA Today sports columnist Nancy Armour wrote last December. 

Even so, International Olympic Committee president Kirsty Coventry announced last month that she was spearheading a task force to look into how to “protect the female category.”

On Friday, USA Fencing issued its new policy for transgender athletes. Starting Aug. 1, out trans women can only compete in the men’s category, and that same policy will also apply to nonbinary and intersex athletes, as well as trans men, according to The Times.

Both World Athletics and World Aquatics have already banned trans women who have gone through male puberty from competing. Bans also exist in swimming and track and field, and USA soccer is reviewing its eligibility rules for women, potentially to set limits on testosterone levels, according to the Los Angeles Times.

More than two-dozen states have laws on the books barring trans women and girls from participating in school sports. Courts across the country are reviewing those laws in lawsuits brought by advocates who call the policies discriminatory and cruel and say they unnecessarily target a statistically tiny number of athletes.

Although trans athletes have been able to compete since 2003, no out trans athletes qualified until the Tokyo 2020 games, held in 2021, according to out trans trailblazer and activist, Chris Mosier, whose website tracks trans and nonbinary athletes’ achievements and policies restricting their participation.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on June 18 approved a newly developed HIV/AIDS prevention drug that only needs to be taken by injection once every six months.

The new drug, lenacapavir, which is being sold under the brand name of Yeztugo by the pharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences that developed it, is being hailed by some AIDS activists as a major advancement in the years-long effort to end the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the U.S. and worldwide.

Although HIV prevention drugs, known as pre-exposure prophylaxis medication or PrEP, have been available since 2012, they initially required taking one or more daily pills. More recently, another injectable PrEP drug was developed that required being administered once every two months.

Experts familiar with the PrEP programs noted that while earlier drugs were highly effective in preventing HIV infection – most were 99 percent effective – they could not be effective if those at risk for HIV who were on the drugs did not adhere to taking their daily pills or injections every two months. Experts also point out that large numbers of people at risk for HIV, especially members of minority communities, are not on PrEP and efforts to reach out to them should be expanded.

 “Today marks a monumental advance in HIV prevention,” said Carl Schmid, executive director of the D.C.-based HIV + Hepatitis Policy Institute, in a statement released on the day the FDA announced its approval of lenacapavir.

“Congratulations to the many researchers who spent 19 years to get to today’s approval, backed up by the long-term investment needed to get the drug to market,” he said.

Schmid added, “Long-acting PrEP is now not only effective for up to six months but also improves adherence and will reduce HIV infections – if people are aware of it and payers, including private insurers, cover it without cost-sharing as a preventive service.”

Schmid and others monitoring the nation’s HIV/AIDS programs have warned that proposed large scale cuts in the budget for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by the administration of President Donald Trump could seriously harm HIV prevention programs, including PrEP-related efforts.

“Dismantling these programs means that there will be a weakened public health infrastructure and much less HIV testing, which is needed before a person can take PrEP,” Schmid said in his statement.

“Private insurers and employers must also immediately cover Yeztugo as a required preventive service, which means that PrEP users should not face any cost-sharing or utilization management barriers,” he said.

In response to a request by the Washington Blade for comment,  a spokesperson for Gilead Sciences released a statement saying the annual list price per person using Yeztugo in the U.S. is $28,218. But the statement says the company is working to ensure that its HIV prevention medication is accessible to all who need it through broad coverage from health insurance companies and some of its own support programs.

 “We’ve seen high insurance coverage for existing prevention options – for example, the vast majority of consumers have a $0 co-pay for Descovy for PrEP in the U.S. – and we are working to ensure broad coverage for lenacapavir [Yeztugo],” the statement says. It was referring to the earlier HIV prevention medication developed by Gilead Sciences, Descovy.

“Eligible insured people will get help with their copay,” the statement continues. “Gilead’s Advancing Access Copay Savings Program may reduce out-of-pocket costs to as little as zero dollars,” it says. “Then for people without insurance, lenacapavir may be available free of charge for those who are eligible, through Gilead’s Advancing Access Patient Assistance Program.”

Gilead Sciences has announced that in the two final trial tests for Yeztugo, which it describes as “the most intentionally inclusive HIV prevention clinical trial programs ever designed,” 99.9 percent of participants who received Yeztugo remained negative. Time magazine reports that among those who remained HIV negative at a rate of 100 percent were men who have sex with men. 

Time also reports that some HIV/AIDS researchers believe the success of the HIV prevention drugs like Gilead’s Yeztugo could complicate the so-far unsuccessful efforts to develop an effective HIV vaccine. 

To be able to test a potential vaccine two groups of test subjects must be used, one that receives the test vaccine and the other that receives a placebo with no drug in it. 

With highly effective HIV prevention drugs now available, it could be ethically difficult to ask a test group to take a placebo and continue to be at risk for HIV, according to some researchers. 

“This might take a bit of the wind out of the sails of vaccine research, because there is something so effective in preventing HIV infection,”  Time quoted Dr. David Ho, a professor of microbiology, immunology, and medicine at New York’s Columbia University as saying.

The Trending Up Conference brought together influential digital voices, lawmakers, advocacy organizations and movement leaders to discuss how creators are redefining the political landscape. Last month, over 200 content creators gathered in the nation’s capital, not to chase likes or algorithmic trends, but to take meaningful action in shaping policy.

Through collaborative sessions on topics ranging from the economy and climate change to LGBTQ rights, immigration, reproductive rights, education and disability justice, the conference showcased the powerful role creators play in shaping public discourse. It also provided dedicated spaces for creators and policymakers to work side by side, building connections and strategizing for impactful change.

“The more we collaborate and work together, the more successful we will be in advocating for human rights for everyone,” said Barrett Pall, a life coach and influencer in the queer community.

Rep. Maxwell Frost (FL) the youngest member of Congress, discussed innovative strategies for civic engagement. He emphasized the importance of meeting young voters where they are — through culture, music, and storytelling — to combat political disengagement. Frost, a former organizer and musician himself, has long championed the use of creative platforms to mobilize underrepresented communities and inspire a new generation to participate in the democratic process.

His remarks aligned with a central goal of the conference: to empower creators to drive political awareness and action, particularly among young voters whose turnout in recent elections has been alarmingly low.

Warren emphasized the importance of creators in driving meaningful change.

“You are the people making America’s national conversation. What we’re trying to do here matters, and you’re part of that fight,” urged Sen. Warren, adding that they should recognize their power and responsibility. “If enough of us tell enough stories, we’ve got a real chance to build a country where every kid has a fighting chance.”

She continued by reinforcing the value of our voices.

“This moment is up to you to make the decision,” she said. Warren then asked the audience, “what are you going to do when your country is in real trouble?” Warren’s message was clear: creators are essential in this moment and our voices must be uplifted and leveraged in the fight to reshape the nation for the better. 

“We need to find ways to talk to each other across this nation and that conversation starts with all of you,” she said. 

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg also emphasized the importance of reaching audiences across all platforms. 

“Whether it’s going on Fox or going on Flagrant, how can I blame somebody for not embracing the message that I believe in if they haven’t heard it? We’ve gotta be cross-cutting these platforms [or else] no one is persuading anybody,” said Buttigieg. 

He believes in meeting people where they are, spreading progressive messaging in language that resonates, and ensuring that those who might not typically hear his message have access to it.

“Democrats used to think that they were the ones who were digitally savvy,” he added. “The algorithm is not neutral.” A recent study revealed that TikTok’s algorithm during the 2024 presidential race disproportionately recommended conservative content — Republican posts received 11.8% more recommendations than Democratic content. This highlights how platforms themselves can skew the political narrative, further underscoring the necessity for creators to actively push back against these digital biases.

“What we build next has to be different from what we inherited,” Buttigieg said. “You are at the very heart of that — that’s why I’m here today.”

While Buttigieg advocates for engaging across platforms, California Governor Gavin Newsom’s approach has raised concerns. Instead of using his platform to meet a broad spectrum of voters, Newsom has recently chosen to amplify far-right voices. His decision to invite extremist figures like Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon onto his podcast under the guise of creating a “middle ground” is deeply troubling. At the same time, Newsom — who once championed California as a sanctuary for transgender youth and a defender of inclusive education—has taken a stance against transgender women and girls competing in female sports, calling it “deeply unfair.”

“I think it’s an issue of fairness. I completely agree with you on that. It is an issue of fairness, it’s deeply unfair. We’ve got to own that. We’ve got to acknowledge it,” he told Kirk. This capitulation to conservative talking points doesn’t just undermine his past work—it emboldens those who are trying to dismantle hard-won rights.

At Trending Up, creators pushed back against this political drift by meeting directly with California representatives to discuss urgent social issues — including threats to Medicaid, the pink tax, disability rights and the disproportionate impact of billionaire tax breaks. Across these conversations, one thing was clear: creators are not just influencers. We are educators, mobilizers and trusted voices in out communities, capable of translating policy into stories people care about.

Tiffany Yu reflected that Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove’s presence alone spoke volumes: “Her showing up to create content with us meant that she understood we as creators are more than just influencers — we’re mobilizers and educators.” Ashley Nicole echoed this sentiment after meeting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

“When people know, they will resist — but they have to know about it,” said Nicole. That quote stuck with me because it highlights how important it is to get information in front of people in a way they can connect with.”

Loren Piretra emphasized the urgency of economic justice: “We talked about the billionaire tax breaks…and how most people don’t realize they’re closer to being unhoused than to being billionaires.” Meanwhile, Nikki Sapiro Vinckier described her conversation with Rep. Ami Bera as a rare moment of digital fluency from an elected official.

“His willingness to engage on camera signals that he sees value in creator-led political communication, which isn’t always the case.”

These interactions underscore the evolving role of content creators as vital conduits between policymakers and the public. By translating political complexity into accessible, engaging content, creators aren’t just informing their audiences — they’re mobilizing them toward meaningful civic engagement.

In a media landscape dominated by far-right outrage and rampant disinformation, creators using their platforms for good are a powerful counterforce—reclaiming truth and championing the issues that matter most. While extremist voices often dominate the conversation, the majority of Americans stand with the progressive causes creators at Trending Up are fighting for: reproductive rights, LGBTQ protections, and climate action. It’s time for elected officials to stop pandering to the far-right and start amplifying the voices of the people driving change.

This moment demands more than political compromise — it calls for bold leadership that empowers creators who are already shaping a better future. Uplifting these voices is not just strategic; it is crucial for protecting democracy and ensuring that progress, not division, is at the heart of our nation’s political discourse.

More than 200 people gathered in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday and demanded the Trump-Vance administration return to the U.S. a gay Venezuelan asylum seeker who it “forcibly disappeared” to El Salvador.

Lindsay Toczylowski, president of the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, a Los Angeles-based organization that represents Andry Hernández Romero, is among those who spoke alongside U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) and Human Rights Campaign Campaigns and Communications Vice President Jonathan Lovitz. Sarah Longwell of the Bulwark, Pod Save America’s Jon Lovett, and Tim Miller are among those who also participated in the rally.

“Andry is a son, a brother. He’s an actor, a makeup artist,” said Toczylowski. “He is a gay man who fled Venezuela because it was not safe for him to live there as his authentic self.”

(Video by Michael K. Lavers)

The White House on Feb. 20 designated Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang, as an “international terrorist organization.”

President Donald Trump on March 15 invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which the Associated Press notes allows the U.S. to deport “noncitizens without any legal recourse.” The Trump-Vance administration subsequently “forcibly removed” Hernández and hundreds of other Venezuelans to El Salvador.

Toczylowski said she believes Hernández remains at El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, a maximum-security prison known by the Spanish acronym CECOT. Toczylowski also disputed claims that Hernández is a Tren de Aragua member.

“Andry fled persecution in Venezuela and came to the U.S. to seek protection. He has no criminal history. He is not a member of the Tren de Aragua gang. Yet because of his crown tattoos, we believe at this moment that he sits in a torture prison, a gulag, in El Salvador,” said Toczylowski. “I say we believe because we have not had any proof of life for him since the day he was put on a U.S. government-funded plane and forcibly disappeared to El Salvador.”

“Andry is not alone,” she added.

Takano noted the federal government sent his parents, grandparents, and other Japanese Americans to internment camps during World War II under the Alien Enemies Act. The gay California Democrat also described Hernández as “a political prisoner, denied basic rights under a law that should have stayed in the past.”

“He is not a case number,” said Takano. “He is a person.”

Hernández had been pursuing his asylum case while at the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego.

A hearing had been scheduled to take place on May 30, but an immigration judge the day before dismissed his case. Immigrant Defenders Law Center has said it will appeal the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which the Justice Department oversees.

“We will not stop fighting for Andry, and I know neither will you,” said Toczylowski.

Friday’s rally took place hours after Attorney General Pam Bondi said Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who the Trump-Vance administration wrongfully deported to El Salvador, had returned to the U.S. Abrego will face federal human trafficking charges in Tennessee.

Unlike most gay men of my generation, I’ve only been to Fire Island twice. Even so, the memory of my first visit has never left me. The scenery was lovely, and the boys were sublime — but what stood out wasn’t the beach or the parties. It was a quiet afternoon spent sipping gin and tonics in a mid-century modern cottage tucked away from the sand and sun.

Despite Fire Island’s reputation for hedonism, our meeting was more accident than escapade. Michael Carroll — a Facebook friend I’d chatted with but never met — mentioned that he and his husband, Ed, would be there that weekend, too. We agreed to meet for a drink. On a whim, I checked his profile and froze. Ed was author Edmund White.

I packed a signed copy of Carroll’s “Little Reef” and a dog-eared hardback of “A Boy’s Own Story,” its spine nearly broken from rereads. I was excited to meet both men and talk about writing, even briefly.

Yesterday, I woke to the news that Ed had passed away. Ironically, my first thought was of Michael.

This week, tributes to Edmund White are everywhere — rightly celebrating his towering legacy as a novelist, essayist, and cultural icon. I’ve read all of his books, and I could never do justice to the scope of a career that defined and chronicled queer life for more than half a century. I’ll leave that to better-prepared journalists.

But in those many memorials, I’ve noticed something missing. When Michael Carroll is mentioned, it’s usually just a passing reference: “White’s partner of thirty years, twenty-five years his junior.” And yet, in the brief time I spent with this couple on Fire Island, it was clear to me that Michael was more than a footnote — he was Ed’s anchor, editor, companion, and champion. He was the one who knew his husband best.

They met in 1995 after Michael wrote Ed a fan letter to tell him he was coming to Paris. “He’d lost the great love of his life a year before,” Michael told me. “In one way, I filled a space. Understand, I worshiped this man and still do.”

When I asked whether there was a version of Ed only he knew, Michael answered without hesitation: “No sunnier human in the world, obvious to us and to people who’ve only just or never met him. No dark side. Psychology had helped erase that, I think, or buffed it smooth.”

Despite the age difference and divergent career arcs, their relationship was intellectually and emotionally symbiotic. “He made me want to be elegant and brainy; I didn’t quite reach that, so it led me to a slightly pastel minimalism,” Michael said. “He made me question my received ideas. He set me free to have sex with whoever I wanted. He vouchsafed my moods when they didn’t wobble off axis. Ultimately, I encouraged him to write more minimalistically, keep up the emotional complexity, and sleep with anyone he wanted to — partly because I wanted to do that too.”

Fully open, it was a committed relationship that defied conventional categories. Ed once described it as “probably like an 18th-century marriage in France.” Michael elaborated: “It means marriage with strong emotion — or at least a tolerance for one another — but no sex; sex with others. I think.”

That freedom, though, was always anchored in deep devotion and care — and a mutual understanding that went far beyond art, philosophy, or sex. “He believed in freedom and desire,” Michael said, “and the two’s relationship.”

When I asked what all the essays and articles hadn’t yet captured, Michael paused. “Maybe that his writing was tightly knotted, but that his true personality was vulnerable, and that he had the defense mechanisms of cheer and optimism to conceal that vulnerability. But it was in his eyes.”

The moment that captured who Ed was to him came at the end. “When he was dying, his second-to-last sentence (garbled then repeated) was, ‘Don’t forget to pay Merci,’ the cleaning lady coming the next day. We had had a rough day, and I was popping off like a coach or dad about getting angry at his weakness and pushing through it. He took it almost like a pack mule.” 

Edmund White’s work shaped generations — it gave us language for desire, shame, wit, and liberation. But what lingers just as powerfully is the extraordinary life Ed lived with a man who saw him not only as a literary giant but as a real person: sunny, complex, vulnerable, generous.

In the end, Ed’s final words to his husband weren’t about his books or his legacy. They were about care, decency, and love. “You’re good,” he told Michael—a benediction, a farewell, maybe even a thank-you.

And now, as the world celebrates the prolific writer and cultural icon Edmund White, it feels just as important to remember the man and the person who knew him best. Not just the story but the characters who stayed to see it through to the end.