Each March, we have the opportunity to examine the contributions of women throughout history and honor those who inspire us. As an advocate working to get more LGBTQ+ people elected to public office, I have the privilege of supporting many incredible leaders in their campaigns and beyond, including many inspiring women.
As we look back on the milestones in our movement for equitable representation, LGBTQ+ women have much to celebrate.
The first successful out LGBTQ+ candidate in American (and possibly world) history was Kathy Kozachenko, who won local office in Ann Arbor, Michigan, as a third-party candidate in 1974. The first out LGBTQ+ state legislator was a woman, Elaine Noble, who won her seat in the Massachusetts House in 1974 as well. All three out LGBTQ+ people who have served in the U.S. Senate have been women. As executives, lesbians and bi women have served as governors of three states and have been elected mayor in cities like Chicago, Houston, Madison, Tampa and Seattle. And in recent years, we’ve made even more progress in Congress, with the first out trans representative, the first Native, Black and Latina women in the House, and many more state-level “firsts”– all LGBTQ+ women.
Running for office as an out queer woman brings many challenges, and we must all do our part to give extra support to the women leaders in our communities. Based on survey research conducted by LGBTQ+ Victory Institute and Loyola Marymount University, LGBTQ+ women are more likely to be discouraged from running for office than their gay and bi men counterparts – even more so for transgender women candidates. The research also found that LGBTQ+ women seeking public office faced attacks on their appearance and clothing at an alarming rate and that women are more likely to be undermined by the media.
LGBTQ+ women making history this year
Many people are unaware that various jurisdictions in the U.S. hold elections every year and that nearly every month there is an election taking place. Working for an organization that endorses candidates for offices large and small and in states, territories and tribal governments across the country, I see firsthand the impact our candidates have when they win their elections and take office. These women are often our community’s fiercest champions, and we need even more of them to win and fight for us. Even though we’re only three months into this election year, there are already dozens of women candidates for state and local office who have been endorsed by LGBTQ+ Victory Fund and deserve our support.
From major cities to small villages, LGBTQ+ women are running for mayor – a role that touches the daily lives of each of their constituents. In San Antonio, Texas, former Air Force official Gina Ortiz Jones is running to bring down the cost of housing and increase opportunities for workers in her hometown. In Downington, Pennsylvania, scientist and businesswoman Erica Deuso – who has broad community support in her race – could make history as the first out trans person elected to executive office in state history.
Elsewhere across the country, women are stepping up to lead in their communities. Environmental justice advocate Charlene Wang is running for Oakland City Council to ensure growth and sustainability go hand-in-hand. Downstate in San Diego County, Imperial Beach Mayor Poloma Aguirre is running to represent the concerns of over 700,000 constituents as a county supervisor for District 1. In Madison, Wisconsin – where lesbian Satya Rhodes-Conway serves as mayor – Carmella Glenn is running to add important LGBTQ+ representation to the city council, where she’ll fight for more opportunities for constituents affected by bias in the criminal justice system.
As culture wars continue to rage over schools and libraries, LGBTQ+ Victory Fund candidates are answering the call to fight disinformation and work to create inclusive school districts and library systems all around the country. Candidates like Vanessa Abundiz, Emily Gilbert, Alena Hansen, Elana Jacobs and Ali Muldrow all are running for key seats on school or library district boards and deserve our support.
Now more than ever, we must double down on our efforts to elect LGBTQ+ candidates – and especially queer and trans women – to offices big and small. It’s often said that if you’re not at the table, then you’re on the menu. With hostility against our community growing in statehouses around the country and now the White House, I urge you to join the fight to ensure our voices are heard in the halls of power.
(Amsterdam) – Candidates for the presidency of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) failed to adequately address human rights and good governance in documents outlining their proposed programs, in advance of March elections, the Sport & Rights Alliance said today.
“The International Olympic Committee affects the lives of millions of athletes, workers, fans, journalists and communities worldwide,” said Minky Worden, director of global initiatives at Human Rights Watch. “It is essential for candidates who want to oversee global sport to make clear that they will uphold the IOC’s human rights framework, commitments and responsibilities, and commit to meeting with stakeholders and operating with transparency and good governance.”
The next eight years will bring a wave of challenges for the IOC, including selecting the host for the 2036 Olympic and Paralympic Games and delivering the 2028 Games in the United States, where international human rights are currently under threat, it is paramount for the next president to not only uphold but champion human rights and good governance throughout their term. IOC members who will vote for the next president should consider candidates’ commitments and track records on human rights and transparency as they cast their vote.
“In times when the principles of the rule of law are under pressure globally, the standard of good governance in sports becomes a key to supporting transparency, accountability and respect for human rights,” said Tor Dølvik, special adviser at Transparency International Norway. “This is critical because the Olympic movement has an enormous impact on the world even beyond sports, especially on young people.”
The election, at the 144th IOC Session on March 19-21 in Greece, is the first since the IOC added amendments recognizing its responsibility to uphold “respect for internationally recognized human rights” to the Olympic Charter. The IOC also adopted its Strategic Framework on Human Rightsin 2022, which sets out four-year objectives and actions to ensure the IOC respects human rights as an organization, as owner of the Olympic Games, and as leader of the Olympic Movement.
“Given that this is the first time a new president will be elected under the new Olympic Charter, it is deeply troubling that so few of the candidates have even mentioned human rights in their election campaigns,” said Steve Cockburn, head of labor rights and sport at Amnesty International. “At a time when rights are under sustained attack, we deserve to know whether the next IOC President will be ready and willing to put freedom, equality, and dignity at the heart of world sport.”
The Sport & Rights Alliance analyzed the formal written proposed programs submitted by the seven candidates, as required by the IOC. The alliance also wrote to each of the candidates, though only received responses from HRH Prince Feisal Al Hussein of Jordan, Lord Sebastian Coe, and Morinari Watanabe. As stakeholder engagement is foundational to the ability of any organization—and any leader—to uphold their human rights responsibilities, it is concerning that only these three candidates took the time to respond, the alliance said.
David Lappartient was the only candidate to address human rights in any depth throughout his program, highlighting the need to “leverage our influence to promote compliance with human and labour rights.” The programs of Johan Eliasch, Hussein, and Coe did mention human rights, but only in relation to ensuring access to play sport. In written responses to the Sprot & Rights Alliance, however:
Hussein said that he plans to strengthen the IOC’s efforts through updating the Strategic Framework as part of Olympic Agenda 2036 and proposed to meet with the Alliance whether he is elected or not.
Coecited the human rights initiatives of World Athletics, saying that these were introduced under his presidency and should generate confidence toward his commitments.
Watanabe responded to each of the Alliance’s questions on human rights issues, presenting ideas to mitigate human rights and governance issues ranging from hosting the Games in multiple separate countries to bringing in third-party monitoring.
“There is no doubt that the right to participate in sport is incredibly important, but it is also just the beginning of advancing human rights in and through sport,” said Ginous Alford, director of sport and human rights at World Players Association. “Human rights should not be seen as constraints on the IOC, but rather as cardinal values to help navigate the organization through the many geopolitical, social and economic challenges ahead.”
The IOC has long neglected to recognize athletes’ rights as workers to organize and collectively bargain, which would allow athletes an equal say on all matters affecting their careers, wellbeing, and livelihoods. While Coe, Hussein, Lappartient, and Eliasch mentioned athletes’ voice and participation in policymaking in their programs, none mentioned union representation or collective bargaining.
“World Players’ recent public polling shows broad support for the IOC to change its business model and governance to include athlete voices and pay them fairly for their work,” said Matthew Graham, head of UNI World Players. “If the IOC is to keep up with the demands and expectations of all stakeholders in the modern professional sport era, the next president must prioritize embedding the fundamental rights of athletes—not forgetting that this includes labor rights—and recognizing athletes’ hard work and dedication.”
Several proposals addressed the need to protect athletes’ wellbeing, but only two provided specific strategies. Watanabe focused on improving the IOC’s Integrity and Compliance Hotline, and Hussein made several proposals including integrating “safe sport” into all International Federations and National Olympic Committees and ensuring safeguarding training is available in multiple languages.
“The next IOC president must realize that true and effective safeguarding is not possible without athlete voices,” said Andrea Florence, director of the Sport & Rights Alliance. “Current ‘safe sport’ approaches continue to lack consultation, support and confidentiality with and for affected people. This needs to change.”
None of the candidates addressed lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) rights, though Lappartient did discuss the participation of transgender athletes in his section on inclusion and diversity, emphasizing the need to balance “respect for human rights” with “fair competition” and to make decisions “grounded on solid scientific evidence.” In contrast, the proposals by Juan Antonio Samaranch, Eliasch, and Coe call for “safeguarding” women’s categories in terms that are at odds with the recommendations of the IOC Framework on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-discrimination.
“At a time when the rights of LGBTI people—and especially athletes—are under attack around the world, these positions from the IOC presidential candidates are extremely concerning,” said Gurchaten Sandhu, director of programs at ILGA World. “The IOC has done incredible work over the last few years to consult with athletes, understand the research, and set clear, rights-based guidelines by adopting the IOC Framework on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-discrimination. Electing any president who plans to discard these important achievements would have a tremendous negative impact on the lives and safety of trans, intersex, and gender-diverse athletes at all levels, including youth.”
Regarding workers’ rights, Lappartient praised the social charter negotiated between businesses and workers at Paris 2024 and expressed the desire to replicate it at future Olympic Games, but none of the other candidates mentioned labor rights or any concerns for workers, including migrant workers, who will help deliver many future Olympic Games.
The candidates also neglected press freedom and safety for journalists though Kirsty Coventry cited a need to improve communication, access and openness to scrutiny. Watanabe proposed splitting Olympics hosts between five continents and to “obtain a commitment [to prevent labor exploitation] from the government” of cities bidding for the Games.
But none of the candidates said that the IOC should assess potential host cities’ commitment to human rights in the selection processes. This longstanding failure to do proper human rights due diligence in advance of awarding events has been a source of serious human rights violations in the past.
To read the Sport & Rights Alliance’s letter to the candidates, please click here.
***
The Sport & Rights Alliance’s mission is to promote the rights and well-being of those most affected by human rights risks associated with the delivery of sport. Its partners include Amnesty International, The Army of SurvivorsCommittee to Protect Journalists, Football Supporters Europe, Human Rights Watch, ILGA World (The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association), the International Trade Union Confederation, Transparency International, and World Players Association, UNI Global Union. As a global coalition of leading nongovernmental organizations and trade unions, the Sport & Rights Alliance works together to ensure sports bodies, governments, and other relevant stakeholders give rise to a world of sport that protects, respects, and fulfills international standards for human rights, labor rights, child wellbeing and safeguarding, and anti-corruption.
As disgusting as the Trump administration’s destruction of democracy is, what makes the pain that much worse is the sheer fecklessness of the response by the so-called opposition. Perhaps it was always too much to expect the elite mainstream media, which has always been as much amused as appalled by Trump, to call out the damage that he is doing (The New York Times has long been particularly disastrous on this account).
But you would think that at least the Democrats would take Trump’s attacks on government, civil rights, and human health as the crises that they are. Instead, the party has been acting as if the main problem is figuring out what the right focus-group message is to win next year’s midterm elections.
Consider Sen. Elissa Slotkin’s (D-MI) response to Trump’s address to Congress – the one where he threatened to annex Canada and Greenland, jail parents of trans children, and sell citizenship to the highest bidders. Slotkin’s speech was positively decorous by comparison. She said that Ronald Reagan would be rolling over in his grave, but only people in their 50s remember the Reagan presidency. She said that democracy is “at risk,” as if it isn’t already under direct assault.
“You want to cut waste? I’ll help you do it,” she said about Elon Musk and his chainsaw attacks on government. “But change doesn’t need to be chaotic or make us less safe.”
The speech underscores the fact that Democrats are stuck in the same mindset as before Trump was elected. The mistake that Democrats keep making is that they adopt Republicans’ framing but not Republicans’ tactics.
Republicans would never acknowledge that the government needs cutting. Instead, they would cry that veterans are on the verge of being made homeless by a heartless billionaire. They would say that it is only a matter of time before RFK’s crackpot beliefs kill us. They would insist that Trump only cares about fat cats and tax cheats. And they would use that language, not the kind of language that is oh-so-respectful of Republicans’ feelings.
And that message would be a lot easier to hear, not just among disheartened Democrats but among the independent Trump voters who have buyer’s remorse.
Perhaps the worst example of this false belief that Democrats can engage politely with the other side was the shameful performance of Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Newsom trashed the trans community while appearing on the Charlie Kirk podcast.
The fact that Newsom even appeared on Kirk’s podcast is itself reprehensible. In doing so, Newsom legitimized a fringe figure who should be, at a minimum, shunned when he’s not being condemned. As a reminder, Kirk regularly engages in hateful anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and has even discussed stoning gay people.
And there’s the governor of the largest Democratic state, a would-be Democratic presidential candidate, nodding in agreement to an attack on a minority group. Clearly, Newsom thinks this is good politics, but it’s not. (It’s also bad morals). He’s just ceding ground to extremism.
The point now is to dig in at every possible moment. Democrats can’t pretend that it’s business as usual. For every inch that they give, Republicans will take a mile. As a case in point, ten Democrats agreed with Republicans to censure Rep. Al Green (D-TX) for his willingness to shout out his support for Medicaid during Trump’s speech. So, while Republicans are burning down the government, some Democrats are upset at Green’s table manners. Meanwhile, having gotten that victory, Republicans now want to strip him of his committee assignments.
This is what happens when you try to appear reasonable with unreasonable people. The Republican party is now a cult, and you can’t bargain with a cult. It will only keep coming at you for more, eroding protections, rights, and democracy itself until there is nothing left to defend.
The idea that Democrats can wait until the 2026 midterms to fix the problem is flat-out wrong. The problem isn’t getting Democrats back in power. The problem is preserving the nation now. By the time the midterms roll around, the damage will already have been done. Democrats need to stop acting as if it’s politics as usual and start acting as if it’s war. We’re in a fight to save democracy, not Congressional seats.
It’s a Thursday night or a Sunday afternoon, and you’re sitting on your couch with your phone in your hand.
What are you going to do?
That’s the question at the heart of a loneliness crisis that’s overwhelmed the LGBTQ+ community.
The rise of social media and “the apps,” a wave of bar closings during the COVID pandemic, and a hostile political environment have conspired to produce a sense of dread for gay Americans that still has a lot of us sheltering in place — alone together.
But the obstacles keeping us apart in real life are giving way to a connection revival.
Three years after the pandemic, more bars are opening. Movie theater attendance is up. Restaurants are bustling, and people are reassessing the value of living their lives online.
And politics are galvanizing the LGBTQ+ community.
“Look, just being gay, or lesbian, or trans, or in drag is in and of itself a political act, because they have made it that way,” says Daniel Narcicio, owner of Red Eye bar in New York and a longtime promoter. “Being yourself is inherently political when people in power are telling you that what you are is wrong. Being out, literally in a club or figuratively out of the closet, is a political act.”
Buffeted by an onslaught of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, Grindr, gentrification, and pandemic lockdowns, the gay bar is reemerging as a center of LGBTQ+ community, reimagined as a more inclusive space and primed for protest.
Mario Diaz at his Sunday party Hot Dog at El Cid in Silver Lake | Mario Diaz Presents
“They are and have always been our homes away from home,” says Mario Diaz, a club king in Los Angeles who hosts Hot Dog Sundays at El Cid in Silver Lake. “And to those of us that have been disowned by our blood families, simply our home. So they are essential. Community is crucial. And spaces for celebration are indispensable. This is what life is all about: connection and love.”
And Diaz adds, “If history has taught us anything, it’s that no one parties like the oppressed.”
Part of hooking up is the eye contact and that excruciating second between when you look down and look away and then look back to see if he’s looking back at you. But if you’re looking at your phone, you miss out on that.Sociology Professor Greggor Mattson
Gay bars took a hit
History can also teach us something about the gay bar business, and the political context they operate in.
“It is certainly the case that in 2017, gay bar owners said they saw a surge of patrons who had become complacent during the Obama years and rediscovered their need to find a place to gather together,” says Greggor Mattson, professor and chair of Sociology at Oberlin College in Ohio, who chronicled the state of gay bars across the United States in his 2023 book, Who Needs Gay Bars?
“I would never say that Trump is good for gay bar business because he’s so bad for members of our community,” Mattson adds, but history looks like it’s repeating itself.
By Mattson’s count, there are just over 800 gay bars operating across the United States (he visited several hundred in his cross-country research), and 2023 was the first year there had been an increase since 1997.
Many closed during the pandemic lockdowns and never recovered. Others fell victim to gentrification and redevelopment — the scrappy dive bars in low-rent neighborhoods that appealed to low-income regulars, slumming tourists, and real estate speculators alike.
Related:
One example of pandemic resilience is Troop 429 in Norwalk, Connecticut, which managed to weather the COVID lockdowns by gaming the system.
“They were quite creative,” Mattson says. “Bars were closed, but retail was an essential business that was allowed to stay open. So they partnered with a record store and turned the bar into a record store where you could buy cocktails. That kept them open and allowed them to survive through COVID.”
Other bars partnered with food trucks, and some jurisdictions loosened rules around outdoor drinking, turning parking lots into open-air beer gardens.
At The Raven in Anchorage, Alaska, staff took it upon themselves to keep a voluntary log of everyone who came to the bar.
“When one of their patrons reported that they had tested positive for COVID, they called everyone to let them know. They were using skills they had honed during the AIDS crisis for community care. And in that way, I think gay bars may have had an advantage over other communities’ bars because this was not our first pandemic.”
The problem with phones
While lockdowns disappeared with the pandemic, Grindr still haunts the gay bar.
“Everything is different in bars because of phones,” says Mattson.
“One of the questions I was always asking owners who had been in the business for a while was, ‘What’s changed?’ And they all said people are worse conversationalists, and they don’t know how to be fun at the bar because we are all so used to when we feel borderline-uncomfortable whipping out our phone and looking down. And as you know, part of hooking up is the eye contact and that excruciating second between when you look down and look away and then look back to see if he’s looking back at you. But if you’re looking at your phone, you miss out on that.”
To be queer in my lifetime has consistently been a life on the fringe in a society full of judgment and shame. This is why our spaces are so important. LA promoter Mario Diaz
Worse than that, phones wielded in community spaces like gay bars are a sign of the addictive quality of the apps that users are glued to.
“To the extent that social media apps are driven by algorithms that are meant to get people to spend more time on them, I don’t think that we can trust they would be good for mental health,” says John Pachankis, the David R Kessler professor of Public Health and Psychiatry at Yale University.
“They keep people, straight or gay, out of the real world and into a world that’s built to be addictive, and addictive in ways that rely on self/other comparisons, self-evaluation, and ultimately feeling inferior,” Pachankis says.
Those symptoms can plague anyone who spends time on social media, but it might be particularly damaging to the mental health of LGBTQ+ people — because they’re set up for it.
“Probably the two biggest drivers of the mental health disparity affecting LGBT people happen at an early age,” Pachankis says.
“LGBTQ people are disproportionately exposed to parental non-acceptance and to peer rejection or bullying, and we know that those two types of stressors are targeted to an important aspect of who one is. They are evaluative and shame-inducing and are about the most stressful events and experiences that people can have. That sets people up for later mental health risk.”
Even in crowded places, our phones can keep us apart | Shutterstock
Ironically enough, there’s a good chance that the guy at the bar who’s looking away during a “borderline-uncomfortable” moment is on Grindr, simultaneously widening his selection of potential dates, shutting down the ones in front of him, and sparking a stressor unique to queer men.
“Research does show that to the extent that gay and bisexual men, for example, experience stressors from within the gay community, their mental health is particularly likely to suffer with outcomes like depressed mood, body image disturbance, and even sexual risk-taking,” Pachankis says.
“All is not lost,” though, says Mattson.
“As a teacher of young people, young people are vaguely aware of what they’re missing. And I think it’s incumbent on queer elders, particularly people older than 32, who now count as queer elders, to keep the art of witty bar side banter alive and to help people put their phones away,” he says.
“Some of the bar owners and some of the bartenders are really skilled at this like they are at the front lines of holding on to our humor,” Mattson explains. “There was one bar owner who said he instructed his bartenders to take people’s phones and that they could only have them back after they had introduced themselves to a stranger, and that sometimes they would get so involved that they would forget to get their phones back.”
Club impresario Nardicio has a different strategy for keeping his customers offline.
“Just last week, I threw my infamous Nardi Gras party and had a 15-person marching band come through at midnight,” he says. “And I can tell you, no one at the club was on Grindr. They were living for it.”
I will say that with everything that has happened since Trump’s come into office, I have seen even more support for what we are doing and more excitement for what we are doing.Rikki’s Women’s Sports Bar co-creator Sara Yergovich
Broadening gay bars’ appeal
Smaller gay bars, though, have had to come up with other strategies to bring customers in, despite the lure of the apps — by broadening their appeal.
“Owners of bear bars or leather bars would ask me, you know, ‘What should we be doing?’” says Mattson. “I directed them to lesbian bars because lesbian bars have been doing this now for almost 30 years. Every lesbian bar that I interviewed was open to everybody.”
Lesbian bars experienced decades of decline before a bounce back following the pandemic. There were over 200 women’s bars in the 1980s, and fewer than 20 by the start of the pandemic. Since then, the Lesbian Bar Project counts 34 lesbian bars up and running across the U.S.
That number will bump up to 35 with the May opening of Rikki’s Women’s Sports Bar in San Francisco’s Castro District.
“Our definition of women’s sports is broad and all-encompassing,” says Danielle Thoe, one of Rikki’s co-owners. “It’s hard to fit that in just a couple sentences when you’re describing the space and what we’re building, but I think that welcoming aspect is really important,” she says.
To live a free and joyful life as a queer person is the ultimate act of resistance.LA promoter Mario Diaz
“Sports have a different connection,” says Sara Yergovich, Thoe’s business partner. “They’re a different way to connect with people. We’re very community-based, and as long as they want to support women’s sports, everyone is welcome.”
The pair say politics have worked their way into Rikki’s even before the bar’s opening.
“I will say that with everything that has happened since Trump’s come into office, I have seen even more support for what we are doing and more excitement for what we are doing,” Yergovich says. “It feels like people have kind of latched onto this as, you know, maybe bad things are happening, but there are some good things that are happening, too, and trying to really hold on to that.”
“Trans athletes belong in sports,” says Thoe. “They are some of our investors, our backers, our community members, and so that’s something that we’ll really look to highlight and make clear as we continue to get up and running.”
The resistance is alive and well at the gay bar
Nardicio’s New York bar is highlighting its resistance, as well, in gestures subtler than a marching band.
“Take for instance, at Red Eye, we recently got an ‘A’ from the health department ’cause we keep it clean behind the bar. We took that ‘A,’ put it in the window and proudly put a ‘G’ and a ‘Y’ next to it, so it says ‘GAY’ boldly in our window. We aren’t backing down. It’s in your face. We’re here, we’re queer, and we keep a spotless bar!”
Daniel Nardicio at his Red Eye nightclub in New York | Daniel Nardicio
“I think many of us learned a few lessons in lockdown,” says LA promoter Diaz. “Lessons about what’s really important in life. About the importance of human connection. Lessons on how short and unpredictable life can be.”
“To be queer in my lifetime has consistently been a life on the fringe in a society full of judgment and shame,” Diaz says. “This is why our spaces are so important. We need these places to survive and hold onto our joy. To live a free and joyful life as a queer person is the ultimate act of resistance. The moment we lose that, we lose the fight.”
“When people tell me, ‘We don’t need gay bars anymore,’ I ask them how they felt when they first went back to a restaurant after the COVID lockdowns, and they rhapsodize about how amazing it was to be out in public and to see people,” says Mattson.
“And I said, for queer people, we still need that. Even if we lived in a perfect world that was perfectly accepting, we are still a minority. We are still often raised by very lovely straight people, but who can’t be there for us in all the ways that we need. So we’re always going to need places where we can gather together. And there’s something deeply human about our need to be around other humans.”
Since the 2024 election, some Democratic commentators have suggested that Democrats need to flip the switch. They call on Democrats to abandon so-called identity politics and ‘move back to the middle.’ I understand the fury. I appreciate the anger at what we all expected, but the idea that we should abandon our principles is the ultimate betrayal. Instead, I argue that the Democratic Party must return to being a party of pragmatic ideas and solutions, actively anti-corruption and anti-bigotry, and pro-inclusion. The party once hailed as the beacon of the underdog has lost its pragmatism and ability to talk to people.
The party that revolutionized health care, saved American automobile manufacturing, promoted inclusion and religious freedom worldwide, and ensured marriage equality across the land has failed to communicate its governing principles or justify its policies to voters. This is not to suggest that the policies are wrong – Ukraine, student loan debt forgiveness, medical debt forgiveness, and more – these policies are shielded from transparent and open dialogue, allowing false narratives and disinformation to thrive.
The Impact of Identity Politics on Election Outcomes
Identity politics won the recent US election. Look at Trump, the architect of Birtherism, who campaigned on what he calls ‘racism against white Americans.’ He has demonized and dehumanized millions of people, suggesting that trans people, immigrants, and African Americans pose a threat to American prosperity and greatness. And the talking heads across the media let him get away with it. Our diversity is our strength, and Democrats need to push back against Republicans’ ongoing dehumanization of our friends and loved ones. The party’s messaging hasn’t taken into account the reality that same-sex parents, trans military personnel, and trans youth are our neighbors and our family members.
Democrats should openly express pride that our party is inclusive, that our party championed the Civil Rights Movement, the Equal Rights Amendment, the Lily Ledbetter Act, the Respect for Marriage Act, and expanded existing legislation to consider new protections for LGBTQIA+ individuals and same-sex families. Democrats fall into the trap of old conservative arguments when, instead, we should be focused on humanizing traditionally marginalized people and bringing their American story into the public narrative.
The Impact of Identity Politics on Election Outcomes
Trump weaponized fear, anger, and resentment – whilst propping up white nationalists, homophobes, transphobes, and misogynists. His running mate said that Trump would earn the votes of the ‘regular gay guy,‘ as clear a homophobic comment as any, and has flirted with the idea of punishing women who flee anti-abortion states for health care elsewhere in the country.
First, conservative anger at academia’s scholarship on Critical Race Theory. Now, it is conservative opposition to a fairer society. Diversity, Equity, Equality, and Inclusion (DE2I) principles are designed to promote fairness and empower people who have been traditionally excluded, underrepresented, and undervalued. It is justice. It is about creating pathways for people who have been traditionally excluded from them. That is the argument the Democratic Party should make in response to the Conservatives’ rejection of DEI.
Addressing Conservative Opposition to Inclusion
Democrats should flip the coin and ask conservatives exactly why they reject diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI). Until conservatives openly express what they are rejecting or why they oppose equality, the Democratic Party will find itself on the defensive and trapped in the abstract, further distancing itself from working-class voters and independents.
What is the Republican argument against making our workplaces, schools, military, health care system, social housing, financial system, or other aspects of American life more inclusive and fair? Besides arguments around ‘reverse racism,’ their only counterpoint is a whitewashing of American history that suggests abolition, desegregation, and integration would have arrived suddenly and eventually with time.
Until Democrats call out Republicans’ hatefulness and force them to explain what, exactly, they oppose, Democrats’ messaging will continue to fail to resonate and connect with more voters. And the issue isn’t just the messaging in Washington, DC—this is a national messaging issue that the party needs to address before the 2026 cycle.
There are countless horrifying videos across social media documenting Black delivery drivers’ experiences traveling for work in sundown towns across the country today. Why are Republicans silent about this ongoing racial injustice? The death of affirmative action in college admissions hasn’t impacted legacy admissions decisions. Why have the Republicans been quiet on that issue? Why are Republicans gleeful about blocking efforts to fix our student loan debt crisis, but they do not take issue with millions in fraud that stemmed from Trump’s PPP program?
The Democrats must move themselves out of the defensive, put these questions directly to Republicans, and ask the public to decide. Trans and gender-nonconforming people are not going anywhere, and Democrats must stand together to resist Trump’s proposed maneuvers to force trans people out of public life and deny them life-affirming health care. The party’s silence and inability to humanize trans people has only strengthened the Republican’s culture of hostility and bigotry directed at transgender and gender non-conforming Americans.
I was concerned when a popular Democratic commentator recently argued that the party should step away from trans rights. The commentator argued that it is foolish to give trans children access to gender-affirming care, and that will cost the Democrats essential votes. I insisted that his comments were similar to what was said to lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth not so long ago. Queer youth were told that it was ‘just a phase’ until we came of age. The idea that LGBTQ+ youth should wait until age 18 before living authentic lives does far more to stigmatize LGBTQ+ people and our relationships than many conservatives might imagine, and I expect greater empathy from Democrats.
A Call for Unified Democratic Messaging
Democrats cannot continue to fall into the trap of discussing toilets and sports as if these are the pivotal issues of our lifetime. We should make it clear that the mistreatment and abuse inflicted on trans people is an attack on us all. Individuals staunchly opposed to gender-affirming care for trans youth and active duty trans military personnel should consider what type of life they expect for them to live while they ‘hurry up and wait’ until either age 18 in the case of the youth or retirement in the case of active duty personnel. Instead of engaging in the abstract, the Democrats can humanize trans and gender non-conforming youth by posing these very real questions.
More Republican members of Congress have been caught toe-tapping in public restrooms seeking to engage in acts of public sex than transgender members of Congress have been caught attempting to attack someone or violate any woman’s privacy in a congressional bathroom. And, yet just a few months ago, the Republican-sponsored ban that was designed to prevent one new member of Congress, the first-ever openly trans member of the US House of Representatives, from using the toilets at her new workplace, was a red-herring and the lack of Democrats’ unwavering solidarity on the issue is devastating.
Democrats Standing on Business
Democratic framing around issues is too complicated, and the party is not connecting with members of the public where they are. the party needs to focus on streamlining the dissemination of talking points and relatable figures that explain why we stand so firmly behind inclusion for all Americans. It is a simple concept – we’re not recreating the wheel here. But, where Republicans actively engage voices and influencers, they can get their hands on stories and relatable narratives that rile people up and drive them to act; Democrats appear too focused on an outdated traditional playbook and speak far too often in the abstract. Obama gave Americans a tangible and attainable vision that today’s party leaders repeatedly fail to do.
We are currently at a standstill perpetuated by dehumanization. And the only party that can save the country from that is the Democratic Party. It is time that party leaders start acting like they want to. Unapologetically and vocally, it is time for the Democratic Party to tell voters that we will not leave any American behind.
How we communicate with voters and prospective voters looking ahead is an economic issue, a national security issue, and a social fabric issue, and it is time that we start acting like it. The Democrats’ next step should not be a reverse in the party’s social and civic-minded positions. It should be towards working to repair a loss of trust with voters by hitting restart on how the party communicates, looking further to find capable and moving messengers, and creating a culture – one that Biden himself said he wanted to foster – of proudly and loudly boasting Democratic wins and policy positions that meant something to people.
Jamie-Lukas Campbell is a PhD candidate in political history and a former public affairs professional specializing in race, identity, and the politics of belonging. They previously worked in government before transitioning to academia. Their research explores race, the military, and LGBTQ+ service members’ experiences, focusing on the impact of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
In a recent article, Mother Jones highlighted a chilling resurgence of fear among LGBTQ+ federal employees, reminiscent of the oppressive Lavender Scare of the 1950s. The Trump administration’s recent policies, including a memorandum from the Office of Personnel Management prohibiting employee resource groups that promote diversity initiatives, have instilled anxiety among LGBTQ+ workers.
Reports of mass terminations and demands for the names of LGBTQ+ employee resource group leaders have only heightened these concerns. This hostile environment has forced many LGBTQ+ resource groups to go underground, as employees fear being targeted or fired based on their gender identity or sexual orientation.
Then, as The Advocate reported, the Trump Administration announced earlier this month the launch of EndDEI.ed.gov, which allows anyone to report “divisive ideologies and indoctrination,” dubbing it “illegal discriminatory practices at institutions of learning.” Thankfully, it’s getting hit with tons of spam.
This won’t be a one-off. More than likely, the Trump Administration is returning to the era of snitching on LGBTQ+ people and other so-called “deviants.”
Reflecting on my own experiences working on Capitol Hill during the late 1980s and 1990s, I am struck by the haunting parallels between then and now. Back then, the federal government was a treacherous landscape for queer individuals. The fear of being outed was pervasive, and the consequences were dire. I was constantly looking over my shoulder.
To navigate this perilous environment, I and other gay Hill staffers developed covert methods to connect. When I had dates, for example, we would arrange clandestine meetings on street corners. And when I dated a Marine, we slipped into movie theaters only after the lights dimmed and the film had begun. This ensured our interactions remained shrouded in darkness. That’s the way he wanted it, and I didn’t mind, because I too, felt like I was doing something wrong.
I remember being in the hallways of the Canon, Longworth, and Rayburn congressional buildings, and I would occasionally pass other gay men I recognized from bars. Our eyes would avoid contact, and we would walk past each other without a hint of acknowledgment, each encounter a silent pact of mutual protection — at least that’s what I assumed.
The specter of HIV/AIDS also loomed large during this era. I recall instances where two colleagues were present in the office one day and then vanished the next, never to return. Whispers would circulate, hinting that they had succumbed to the disease that society stigmatized and feared. These losses were profound, yet mourning was a solitary act, as openly expressing grief could inadvertently reveal your own hidden identity.
The constant pressure to conceal your true self inevitably led to moments of personal turmoil. For example, one night, after consuming more alcohol than I should have, which was a near nightly occurrence, I made an ill-advised advance toward a straight friend. The following day, he confronted me, directly asking if I was gay. Panic surged through me, and I vehemently denied it. I was so ashamed. I remember after I walked away just wanting to go hide somewhere and never come back.
Seeking refuge and a sense of community, I would occasionally escape to places like Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. It was a literal escape, since I was in a beach house in Dewey Beach, which is where all the straight D.C. crowd partied.
I usually got wasted with my friends, snuck away at some point, and jumped on the “Jolley Trolley” which took you back and forth from Dewey to Rehoboth. I would slip off in the dark, and drunkenly hit the gay bars trying to hook up.
It was during one such visit in the late 80s that I met a guy and went home with him after the bars closed. To my horror, the house was filled with individuals who identified as Reagan Republicans, all deeply closeted. I recognized some of them because they were prominent. I was quite surprised. The dissonance between their public personas and their private lives was glaring, underscoring the pervasive fear that drove so many of us to live dual existences.
The Showtime series Fellow Travelers, which aired last year, poignantly depicted the harrowing reality of hiding one’s sexuality within the corridors of power. The show illuminated the devastating consequences of exposure, mirroring the very real dangers that many of us faced.
In conversations with James Kirchick, author of Secret City: The Hidden History of Gay Washington, I found a profound resonance with my own experiences. Kirchick’s meticulous chronicle of the clandestine lives led by gay individuals in D.C. sheds light on the systemic discrimination that was rampant in the federal government.
His work delves into how, for decades, policies explicitly barred homosexuals from federal employment, branding them as security risks and moral deviants. This institutionalized bigotry not only deprived countless talented individuals of careers but also perpetuated a culture of fear and secrecy.
And it shocks and deeply saddens me that we might be returning to this unacceptable misery.
The recent developments reported by Mother Jones are a stark reminder of a past many hoped was long buried, including me. The revival of policies that marginalize and endanger LGBTQ individuals in federal service is not just a regression but a profound injustice. If you’re someone of a certain age like me, it’s enormously difficult to believe that this might be happening again.
And if you are from a younger generation, you need to do everything you can to fight back.
It is imperative that all of us recognize these patterns and advocate fiercely for an environment where no one is compelled to hide their true self in fear of retribution. The lessons of the past demand that we strive for a future where authenticity is met with acceptance, and where diversity is celebrated as the strength it truly is.
Trust me, you don’t want to meet on street corners or dark theaters again. If those days are truly behind us, then we must be more visible than ever.
Senate Democrats voted unanimously to block a Republican-led bill Monday evening that would prohibit federally funded schools from allowing transgender athletes from participating in women’s sports.
In a party-line vote of 51-45, Democrats filibustered the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, introduced by Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala. It fell short of the 60 votes needed to advance as Democrats dismissed it as a distraction and a cynical political move.
Four senators didn’t vote: Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va.; Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo.; Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich.; and Peter Welch, D-Vt.
The outcome means the legislation — which passed the House in January and mirrors an executive order issued by President Donald Trump — won’t go any further. But the failed vote is likely to become a political talking point for Republicans in upcoming elections after they used the issue of transgender rights as a cudgel in the 2024 campaign.
“Sen. Tuberville is trying to churn the social wars about something that really doesn’t exist,” Sen. John Hickenlooper, D-Colo., said after he voted to block the bill. Hickenlooper has announced he will run for re-election in 2026 and, despite his vote, said he does not believe transgender women should be able to compete in women’s sports if the other women object.
“I saw the ads,” Hickenlooper said of the election in 2024, when Trump highlighted the issue. “I think that’s the kind of ad that works once. I don’t think it’ll work again. It’s an infinitesimally small group of people that are really trying to find their ways.”
A New York Times/Ipsos poll conducted in January found broad opposition to transgender athletes in asking respondents whether “transgender female athletes — meaning athletes who were male at birth but who currently identify as female” — should be allowed to compete in women’s sports. In response, 79% of American adults said they “should not” be allowed, while 18% said they “should be allowed.”
Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., who won his race last fall even as Trump carried Arizona at the presidential level, acknowledged that it is “a hard issue for a lot of people.”
But he said Democrats who have an effective overall message shouldn’t worry.
“Look, if you’re running and you don’t have any other identity and you’re not known for fighting for people to have a decent living, to buy a home, to be able to bring the American dream to their families, these outside fringe issues are what is going to bring you down,” Gallego said. “I’m not worried about that, because I communicate with my fellow Arizonans every day that I’m fighting for them to make sure that they get to live the American dream no matter what.”
Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., who has announced he isn’t running for re-election next year, said Democrats need to focus on the economy.
“This is not really an issue like in Michigan,” Peters said, “I think there are hundreds of thousands of athletes, there’s like two individuals that are actually in this situation. People are going to realize that it’s really been an issue that Republicans have trying to exploit.”
Asked whether he’s concerned such a vote could come up in future election cycles, Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., who has broken with Democrats on some issues, replied: “Watch my vote, and then you can extrapolate whether I’m worried about that s— or not.”
Shortly afterward, Fetterman voted no.
Among Republicans, opposing transgender athletes in women’s sports is a cultural issue that unifies all wings of the party.
“I just think this is a matter of fairness, safety and giving girls and young women the opportunity to excel in sports,” said centrist Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who faces re-election next year. “And again, let me emphasize that I think we should treat all people respectfully, but Title IX is the law, it’s not just a suggestion, and it was intended to open these opportunities to girls to excel in sports.”
Tuberville condemned Democrats for blocking the bill.
“This is far from over,” he wrote on X. “I’ll NEVER stop fighting to protect women and girls.”
In the wake of election day, my office phone and email exploded with concerned clients desperate for answers. “Is my name on the birth certificate enough?” “Do I need a parentage order?” “Do I need to adopt my own child?” “Should I move my embryos?” “Should I move my home?”
As a family formation attorney and reproductive rights advocate, most of my clients are LGBTQ+. Regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, my clients all have one shared characteristic: they have all had children through assisted reproduction, whether IVF, egg donation, sperm donation, embryo donation, surrogacy, or adoption. And now, they all share one other commonality: concern about their rights to their own bodies, genetic material, and families.
And their worries are not unfounded.
A record number of anti-LGBTQ bills were signed into law throughout the country in the past few years. LGBTQ individuals were attacked everywhere, from healthcare to education to parentage, by politicians emboldened by the fame ascribed to the loudest members of the far right. With a national undercurrent steeped in this new brand of conservativism, it didn’t matter that we had a Democrat in the White House. In the days that followed November 5th, it became clear that none of this would change anytime soon.
With this backdrop, my clients are now faced with deciding whether or not they continue to live in their home state or move to a blue state. On the one hand, they are forced to weigh their access to health care and their legal rights to their children against their desire to stay in their homes. My clients aren’t asking me for legal advice alone – they are calling me and asking: “Is it safe for me, here?” Here in my state? Here in my country? Here in my home?
As a cis hetero woman in a blue state, I can be an ally for my trans clients in Texas. Still, I do not know with specificity the internal predicament of whether I should remain in my home or whether the political climate has rendered it so unsafe that I need to move zip codes and time zones. Though the fight for LGBTQ rights is intertwined with the struggle for reproductive freedom, as both are battles over our bodily autonomy, I don’t have to wear my abortion on the outside for the world to see. I get to choose how and when I share my story. It isn’t the same for my clients.
Whether we’re talking about LGBTQ+ or abortion rights, the GOP plan is the same: take away the bodily autonomy of everyone who isn’t “us” and remove choice. Define who can and cannot have children, marry, and the right to reproductive liberty.
Police who do and do not have rights.
They use state lines to make these distinctions. Some states declare embryos have the same rights as people, provided those people aren’t queer or women. Embryos are “extrauterine children,” so says the Alabama Supreme Court. But of course, not extrauterine trans children who aren’t people with rights at all. Embryos have the right to life, but a woman who needs an abortion due to a pregnancy complication is going to have to roll the dice and hope her pregnancy doesn’t end her life. States like Idaho and Mississippi and Texas have gone one step further and proposed or enacted legislation criminalizing anyone assisting a minor to access abortion in another state. The far-right knows they get to keep power if they deny us the ability to make decisions about our own bodies.
And we’re left asking if it is safe to keep living in the place we call home.
In my home state of Maine, we’ve enacted confirmatory adoption legislation supportive of LGBTQ+ parents, protected access to abortion legislatively, and passed a statute for gender-affirming care. I promise the state will welcome them and their families with open arms. But I don’t want to tell them that. I don’t want to encourage people to leave their homes. Isn’t my job to protect my clients? I am telling you what I said to my clients: “We are not going to panic; we are going to plan.”
And plan we have been.
At the micro level, we have been protecting our legal parentage to our children born through assisted reproduction and taking advantage of the benefits of marriage if it suits us while we are still able. We are making dispositional decisions for our cryopreserved genetic material, whether that means transportation, discard, or donation. We are planning how we will get the gender-affirming care we need if our state enacts restrictions and how we will access abortion care if we need it.
Because we are a community without borders, our planning does not stop with our individual bodies and families. We cannot stand for another second of allowing this “your body, my choice” rhetoric of denying and restriction to exist any longer. We advocate for legislation supporting our bodily autonomy and our chosen family at the state and federal levels. We are writing letters, organizing initiatives, and not leaving our homes. We are effectuating change right where we are.
So, if this second Trump presidency saddens and scares you, I invite you to let it inspire you into action. Your home state needs your voice, words, and actions: it requires you in all your power. The LGBTQ+ community and your allies throughout the country aren’t going anywhere. Don’t go anywhere.
The Advocate wasn’t inspired by a mass exodus of LGBTQ individuals from places where they felt unsafe. The very inception of this publication was inspired by a police raid on a gay bar in a climate of anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment that culminated in the Stonewall Riots. In this climate of oppression, we have the chance to inspire action. The Advocate will continue to instigate and support what its title declares.
And it, too, isn’t going anywhere.
In Solidarity,
Janene Oleaga
Janene Oleaga, Esq. (she/her) is a family formation attorney and reproductive rights advocate. In her private practice, Oleaga Law LLC, she assists LGBTQ+ individuals and anyone navigating infertility with family building through surrogacy, gamete donation, embryo donation, and adoption, including confirmatory adoption and step-parent adoption. Through her advocacy work, Janene has organized support for state and federal bills, proudly partnering with GLAD to pass a confirmatory adoption bill in Maine. Janene is on the board of the BIVF Foundation and AllPaths Family Building, two organizations committed to providing support and access to care. Janene is also a member of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s Legal Professional Group, and a member of the Academy of Adoption and Assisted Reproduction Attorneys.
Voices is dedicated to featuring a wide range of inspiring personal stories and impactful opinions from the LGBTQ+ and Allied community. Visit advocate.com/submit to learn more about submission guidelines. We welcome your thoughts and feedback on any of our stories. Email us at voices@equalpride.com. Views expressed in Voices stories are those of the guest writers, columnists and editors, and do not directly represent the views of The Advocate or our parent company, equalpride.
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men or women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must — at that moment — become the center of the universe.”-Holocaust survivor, social justice writer, and activist Elie Wiesel in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech on Dec. 10, 1986.
Elie Wiesel’s words are as true today as they were the day he delivered them, as in many ways, our world today mirrors the rising tide of fascism in Europe and the United States from the 1920s through the 1940s.
I write this on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, exactly one week after the second inauguration of Donald Trump as President of the United States. Over the past decade, Trump and his MAGA legions have relocated the extremist right-wing political fringes from the margins to the mainstream.
With “Stand Back and Stand By” as his not-so-coded battle cry, Trump has empowered his white nationalist Christian soldier “brown shirts” as the literal and figurative head of his sword, puncturing and slashing a Constitutional order that he swore to “support and defend.” His “strongman” alpha male tactics of intimidation, threats, and bullying are the means by which he uses to control and beat his detractors and opponents into submission, both domestically and internationally.
Behind closed doors, several Republican senators and representatives have anonymously expressed concern and even scorn for his policies and nominees to fill offices in his administration. Very few of them, however, have shown the backbone to publicly oppose him over his threats to campaign against them in the next election cycle. Trump also employs the power of social media to attack and shame anyone who stands in his way.
Following the Trump-led insurrection upon the Capitol building in Washington, DC, on January 6, 2021, some Republican members of Congress publicly broke with Trump and severely criticized his actions that day.
Unfortunately, people like Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and former Representative and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) retracted their critical statements and traveled to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago seaside resort to bend a knee and figuratively kiss the tacky gold ring on Trump’s finger in penance for their transgressions. Their supposed spines turned out to merely be melting ice in the Florida sun.
On an international level, Trump’s means of intimidation include threats of imposing tariffs and violating existing treaties. On the day of his inauguration, for example, Trump signed an executive order removing the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accords and also rescinded U.S. membership in the United Nations’ World Health Organization.
In his valiant attempt to enforce ethical standards on how other countries should “repatriate” undocumented immigrants back to their native Colombia, President Gustavo Petro barred two U.S. military cargo aircraft from landing in his country. Gustavo expressed his displeasure that the use of these planes treats his citizens as if they were criminals.
Under previous administrations, including that of Biden, deportations were conducted through commercial passenger planes, which Gustavo claimed was more appropriate and humane.
Trump reacted by immediately imposing a 25% tariff, which would rise to 50% after one week. He also instructed a travel ban from Colombia to the United States and canceled visas for Colombian officials. In addition, he called for heightened US Customs and Border Protection inspections on all Colombian nationals and cargo on the grounds of national security, and he imposed US Treasury-enforced banking and financial restrictions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Initially, President Gustavo responded by imposing a 25% tariff on US products coming into Colombia but soon felt that for him to protect the interests of his country, he had to submit to Trump’s terms of allowing military aircraft to transport Colombian nationals.
In recent administrations, the U.S. had relatively good relations with the Colombian government through ongoing open diplomatic channels. But our wannabe autocratic dictator believes he does not need to use diplomacy or compromise with any international leader.
During Trump’s first term in office (and even today), some leaders used the psychological tactic of complimenting and flattering his fragile ego to avoid any consequences stemming from his wrath.
We can all be encouraged by a stirring speech in front of the European Union Parliament in Brussels, Belgium, one day following Trump’s second inaugural address. Here in its entirety are the words of Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, Irish Labour Party politician and member of the European Parliament:
“Yesterday, we witnessed the inauguration of a man whose ideology embodies everything the EU was founded to reject. The EU cannot just stand for our values when it is easy. It matters most when it comes at a cost. And standing up to Trump will come with a cost. But it is much less than letting this poison win.”
“I am done with the niceties from EU leaders to Trump while his techno buddies call for our laws to be undermined. I am done with the Taoiseach of Ireland, with our historic understanding of immigration and oppression, promoting Trump’s golf links in County Clare in response to his inauguration. And I am done with the so-called “strong men” who, if they had to live for one day in the shoes of an immigrant, a woman, or a transgender person, would quiver with fear.”
“Anyone who believes the founding principles of the EU should be appalled with what we witnessed yesterday. I am appalled, so I resist, and Europe must resist because our history demands it.”
Trump’s enablers, both domestic and international, need to take strength from people like Ríordáin and from Episcopal Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde of the U.S. National Cathedral in Washington, DC, who, during her inaugural sermon, implored Trump to “find compassion” and “have mercy” on LGBTQ+ people and immigrants.
While hardly veiled or clandestine and not as dramatic as the covert partisan legions under Nazi occupation, there are literally millions of good, hard-working people throughout the world laboring diligently to turn back the Christian white supremacist neo-Nazi nativist tide we are currently witnessing.
Resistance movements have surfaced throughout the planet in an attempt to depose autocratic leaders in countries like Israel, Turkey, the Philippines, Hong Kong, Mainland China, Russia, Hungary, and Poland.
The Trumpian age must be understood as a national wake-up call, one that has set off a blaring siren, an alert to those who have not previously counted themselves among the throngs of progressive political activists.
Let’s return to the poignant wisdom of Elie Wiesel: “The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it’s indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it’s indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it’s indifference.”
Bullies fall when others act. We, the people, will act, and Trump will fall.
Pride may look different this year than those of recent memory.
With the return of the Trump presidency, companies abandoning DEI, and the onslaught of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, the sociocultural wars in the U.S. are having many LGBTQ+-led nonprofits gasping for air. I see this moment as an opportunity, as hopeful as I am.
It’s time to rethink how our community interacts with the nonprofit industrial complex (NPIC). The relationship between governments and private philanthropy has gradually transformed nonprofit organizations into intermediaries that manage rather than solve social issues. Far too often, this structure has created a dependency on external funding, limiting the scope of radical change and prioritizing funders’ interests over the needs of the communities being served.
For years, we’ve been told that our liberation was best served on a silver platter at the annual fundraising banquet, where high-level donors in designer suits and gowns clinked glasses as slideshows showcasing LGBTQ+ youth smiling or serious faces at organized group meetings. We built an entire infrastructure around the generosity of those who could afford to fund our fight. And yet, in a moment where queer and trans rights are under attack, when book bans and bathroom bills flood state legislatures, and when even our safest spaces feel precarious, we find ourselves facing a harsh reality.
The money is drying up.
This week, two of the nation’s leading LGBTQ+ advocacy groups announced layoffs: Human Rights Campaign, expected to lay off 20% of its staff; and GLSEN, planning to “resize” as it restructures and rebrands the organization—and it’s only February. These changes at a pivotal moment signal a systemic problem. We placed too many of our eggs in the baskets of benevolent benefactors and seasonal corporate allies, some of whom have pledged allegiance to the flag of Trump’s anti-DEI policies, instead of building sustainable models that center our own socioeconomic power. As companies scale back their commitments and nonprofits struggle to keep the lights on, we must ask ourselves a vital question.
Did we invest too much faith in a system never meant to last?
For the last decade, we saw major brands wrap themselves in rainbows every June, eager to prove their LGBTQ+ bona fides with splashy campaigns, donations, and limited-edition merchandise. But behind the scenes, these same companies were donating to the campaign of anti-LGBTQ+ politicians and treating corporate diversity programs like PR stunts—and sometimes, we have to call out a stunt queen. Now that right-wing pressure has made “wokeness” and “DEI” a dirty word in corporate boardrooms, the pendulum is swinging back with a vengeance. The dollars and support that once flowed so freely are being reallocated, redirected, or outright cut as they pull the plug on their initiatives.
Meanwhile, the nonprofits meant to be our safety net have been caught in the cycle of dependence on these fleeting resources. Grants, sponsorships, and major donations & gifts shape the priorities of LGBTQ+ advocacy, sometimes more than the needs of the communities these organizations serve. Some grassroots leaders have long argued these leading queer groups prioritized palatable, fundable issues over the less marketable realities of queer survival: sex work decriminalization, empowering organizing, or direct cash assistance for the most vulnerable in our increasingly vulnerable community. But now, as the purse string tightens, we’re seeing just how fragile this queer nonprofit industrial complex is.
When budgets get cut, it’s the most marginalized members of our community who feel the brunt of it. Programs serving Black and Brown trans individuals, unhoused LGBTQ+ youth, and low-income queer families may be on the chopping block. These organizations hire those historically facing financial uncertainty, and layoffs come with the dire concerns of having to navigate a country that is increasingly looking at them through cross-hairs.
So, where does that leave us? If nonprofits, as they currently stand, continue to downsize and restructure with limited resources, what comes next?
A New Model for LGBTQ+ Advocacy
From Charity to Mutual Aid
First, we must shift our focus from charity to mutual aid and cooperative economic models. The pandemic showed us the power of direct giving, community-driven and community-led support networks, and redistributive models that cut out the middlemen and got resources directly into the hands of those who needed them. We saw trans-led funds distribute relief, mutual aid groups provide food and medical supplies without bureaucratic red tape, and community members offer resources in ways that were faster and more effective than traditional nonprofits.
Instead of waiting for a savior in the form of a Fortune 500 company or a millionaire donor, we should invest in systems that allow us to care for each other.
Some grassroots initiatives include a network of community fridges to provide free food for neighbors in need. Nikki Aye
Economic Empowerment as Activism
Second, we need to reclaim the means of production. Economic empowerment has to be at the forefront of the next wave of LGBTQ+ activism. Queer co-ops, businesses, and community land trusts can create stability where philanthropy falls short. (Yes, economic empowerment also means reminding brands who turn their backs on the power of our purse through boycotts.) We should seek to channel queer labor into structures that don’t depend heavily on generosity from those who show up like an estranged parent with presents. Let’s build institutions that belong to us and serve us without any strings attached.
Redefining Success
This leads me to my final thought: redefining what success looks like regarding LGBTQ+ advocacy work. Is the measurement solely based on a glossy report, or is it showcasing how an organization has changed lives outside the traditional nonprofit framework? Is it by ensuring big-named donors get the shiny press release and top billing at an event, or is it by thanking the many who contributed to the cause without asking for a tax write-off receipt? If the past few years have taught us anything, it’s that the quest for queer liberation has never been rooted in institutions alone.
It has thrived in underground networks, chosen families, and the radical act of caring for one another when no one else would.
The collapse of the queer nonprofit industrial complex is not a tragedy but a wake-up call. It’s time to build a system that cannot be dismantled by shifting political tides or corporate support. Our future must be built on our own terms, with our own resources, and for our own people. Because true liberation has never been granted from above.
It has always been forged from within.
Marie-Adélina de la Ferrière is the Community Editor at equalpride, the publisher of The Advocate, and holds a Master’s degree in History and a Master’s Certificate in Public & Arts Administration from SUNY Brockport. With nearly two decades in the nonprofit sector, she has worked with organizations ranging from childhood development agencies to arts and cultural institutions. This year, she joined the Board of Rainbow Seniors Roc, a local nonprofit that serves as an advocacy and social group for LGBTQ+ individuals aged 50 and over.
Voices is dedicated to featuring a wide range of inspiring personal stories and impactful opinions from the LGBTQ+ and Allied community. Visit advocate.com/submit to learn more about submission guidelines. We welcome your thoughts and feedback on any of our stories. Email us at voices@equalpride.com. Views expressed in Voices stories are those of the guest writers, columnists and editors, and do not directly represent the views of The Advocate or our parent company, equalpride.
