As brands make their decisions to rollback DEI initiatives, and as others maintain or increase diversity efforts, consumers are watching. A new report from Collage – Building Trust in Turbulent Times – examines how Americans are responding. Eighty percent of consumers say trusting a brand is important when making a purchase, and only 40% say brands and companies are trustworthy.
Among other aspects, the report finds that:
Inclusive marketing is a vital tool for brands. In fact, 80% of Americans say inclusive marketing is equally or more important today compared to 2020. Furthermore, 39% of Americans have purchased from a brand because its advertisement represents diverse people authentically.
By 2050, 55% of the American population will be Multicultural. Today, 51% of Gen Z are already Multicultural. And 1 in 3 of Gen Zers identify as LGBTQ+. U.S. buying power by race or ethnicity is in the trillions! If brands can capture the hearts of these groups – the Multicultural, young, LGBTQ – the brands may be able to enjoy these segments as consumers for decades to come.
Target is stuck in a repeated, reactionary cycle of dramatic reversals and now the brand is vulnerable to backlash. Consumers want brands to be authentic. Marketing messaging different from corporate policies can alienate suppliers and consumers. Forty-eight percent of Americans do not trust the brands that are involved in social issues but lack internal diversity.
In January 2025, Target ended several initiatives focused on support for underrepresented groups; in February 2025, the brand launched a Black History Month collection. A number of consumers did not approve of this series of events.
The full study, available upon request, examines a wide array of other consumer trust components. It explains how brands can build trust, and it takes an in-depth look at Target’s DEI decision compared to Walmart’s.
If you have any questions or interest in interviewing an expert, please let me know.
This message (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary, privileged and/or private information. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity designated above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender immediately, and delete the message and any attachments. Any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other use of this message or any attachments by an individual or entity other than the intended recipient is prohibited.
Memos from the administration of President Donald Trump, revealed last Friday by the New York Times (NYT), have flagged over 100 words that government agencies should limit or avoid. The Times compiled a full list of the terms from government memos, official and unofficial agency guidances, and other documents.
The list contains mostly inoffensive phrases and terms, including “black,” “women,” and “political.” The list itself is most likely incomplete, as more agency memos may exist other than the ones already discovered by NYT reporters. It isn’t a complete list, but a common theme among the terms listed is that they all relate to diversity and GOP pain points, such as “clean energy” or “injustice.”
This list highlights words flagged for removal or review in official government documents and public materials, including .gov websites. Not every word in the list has explicitly been banned from government materials, but agency managers have cautiously advised federal agencies to limit or avoid using the words if possible, otherwise they will be slated for contextual review.
The list itself is further proof of the Trump administration’s anti-DEI initiative. The administration argues that diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts have resulted in people who are unqualified being hired for certain positions in government.
In early February, many government websites began removing references to transgender and non-binary people in response to Trump’s directive. The U.S. National Park Service removed references to trans people on their webpage for the Stonewall National Monument in New York City, thus purging information from a monument dedicated to an important moment in queer history
The erasure led to protests at the monument.
While the purges have erased transgender and non-binary people, the recently revealed list of terms indicates that other groups could be targeted in the same manner, including Indigenous Americans, African-Americans, gay people, and even women (regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity).
Despite the suppression, President Trump declares himself a champion of free speech, so much so that Trump signed an executive order on his first day back in office titled, “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,” In which it states “Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society.” The order has largely been understood as providing legal protection to federal employees who exhibit discriminatory behavior.
The Times found a few notable examples of documents being altered to fit the current administration’s agenda. For example, a 2021 Head Start memo — advising the federal program that provides early learning, health, nutrition, and family support services to low-income families with children ages 3 through 5 — initially acknowledged the effects the COVID-19 pandemic had on marginalized communities.
The memo previously read: “The last year has brought significant challenges to the Head Start workforce. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a disparate impact on under-resourced communities including many of those served by Head Start programs. There has also been heightened attention to racial injustice in our country, which has led to calls for major reforms to address long-standing societal inequities. These are particularly important concerns for Office of Head Start and the Head Start workforce. All staff have been impacted by COVID-19. Further, 60% of Head Start teaching staff are Black, Indigenous and people of color, and 30% have a primary language other than English. As such, OHS is committed to a culture of wellness that includes holistic support for the entire Head Start workforce.”
Now, the memo reads: “The last year has brought significant challenges to the Head Start workforce. All staff have been impacted by COVID-19. As such, OHS is committed to a culture of wellness that includes holistic support for the entire Head Start workforce.”
In mid-February, news broke of the horrific murder of transgender man Sam Nordquist, in New York. We here at GLAAD stand in solidarity with Sam’s loved ones as they demand justice. News of Sam’s death and the now seven individuals charged in connection with his death was picked up by media in New York, Sam’s home state of Minnesota, and nationally.
On February 16th, the headline was changed from trans man to man.
Late that same day, the headline was again changed, this time from man to person. Sam and all victims of violence deserve accurate coverage of their lives. At a time when trans people and the word trans are literally being erased from government websites due to hate and anti-trans violence is increasing, Sam’s identity as a man who was trans must not be hidden behind generic language.
Why did the Times change their headline about Sam? Many LGBTQ people and allies wondered the same thing.
All of these headline changes are available to view directly here at the Internet Archive, which archives webpages.
One additional article about Sam was published in the Times, on February 17th. It appears that the online headline of that story included transgender man from publish time to present (as of February 26th), and the descriptor transgender man was a part of the print headline too.
GLAAD and 100+ organizations and leaders have been calling out the Times’ pattern of inaccurate, biased trans coverage since February 2023. The coalition recently placed a mobile billboard in front of Times’ offices requesting a meeting between leaders from the trans community and Times staff. Requests for this meeting date back longer than two years, to which the Times has not yet responded.
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.”
The killing of the ‘world’s first out gay imam’ Muhsin Hendricks has sent shockwaves across the world, particularly among LGBTQ+ Muslims.
Hendricks was killed in an execution-style hit in broad daylight on Saturday morning (15 February) after the car he was travelling in, near the coastal city of Gqeberha in the country’s Eastern Cape province, was ambushed. He was 57.
A hooded figure was captured on CCTV getting out of a pick-up truck that had blocked Hendricks’ vehicle before firing shots through the window.
There have been no arrests but deputy justice minister Andries Nel has said the authorities are “hot on the heels” of the suspects. While the exact motive for the killing remains unclear, the incident has left LGBTQ+ Muslims fearful.
Speaking to PinkNews about the killing of the South African imam, UK-based queer Muslim Al asked if someone like Hendricks, who was known around the world, can be killed out in the open, then “what about the rest of us?”
Al went on to say: “People have framed this as an issue that occurs in other spaces, not in the UK, [but] too often queer Muslims in the UK are suffering death threats, abuse, physical violence [and] torture at the hands of family and the greater community.
“Young queer Muslims grow up with this fear – and even as we grow into old age we still live with this fear – that one day something like this could happen to us. When it’s happened to the first openly queer Imam, it has been a realisation that it can happen to any of us.”
Imam Muhsin Hendricks was shot dead when the car he was travelling in was ambushed. (RODGER BOSCH/AFP via Getty Images)
A trailblazer in religiously conservative circles, Hendricks was dubbed the world’s first openly gay imam, after he came out in the 90s.
He went on to create The Inner Circle, later known as Al-Fitrah Foundation, which worked to support LGBTQ+ Muslims reconciling their faith and identities and sought to educate other imams, helping them develop an inclusive understanding of gender and sexuality in Islam.
“A lot of unlearning needs to be done [but] it is amazing what the imams come up with,” he said in 2020. “They bring research and context and match it with the religious text, and there are these ‘aha!’ moments.”
Al, a member of the team at Imaan, the UK’s leading LGBTQ+ Muslim charity, said Hendricks was a personal friend and his death had come as a “deep shock” to the community, leaving some feeling the “need to go back in the closet”.
He added: “[Members of the community] feel they need to conform. The trauma that comes with that is so problematic because the work of people like Muhsin Hendricks, in particular, [allowed] people to live [as] their authentic selves.
“Nobody should be left outside their family, community or faith group, and divinity should not be exclusive to one group. Everybody should have access to that, all across the UK and globally.”
“We feel silenced, our words are not doing justice to our feelings.”
In the wake of Hendricks’ death, Imaan is directly supporting the LGBTQ+ community by continuing its many services therapy sessions, in-person and online meet-ups and support groups.
Hendricks’ killing bore all the hallmarks of a hit. (Facebook/ Muhsin Hendricks)
Two leading Muslim organisations in South Africa, the Muslim Judicial Council (MJC) and the United Ulama Council of South Africa (UUCSA), condemned the killing but continue to denounce his teachings on gender and sexuality in Islam, reflecting the view held by many that the Quran prohibits same-sex relationships.
It was initially reported that Hendricks was shot after performing a lesbian wedding ceremony, but his Al-Ghurbaah Foundation released a statementrevealing that he was in Gqeberha to officiate two interfaith heterosexual marriages.
As the BBC’s Johannesburg-based reporter Khanyisile Ngcobo noted, traditional imams in South Africa rarely perform marriages between a Muslim and non-Muslim couple. It is another way Hendricks was at odds with more conservative religious leaders.
Al said the responses of the MJC and UUCSA were the “most hopeful” they have seen among a wave of hatred from within, and outside, the Muslim community. He noted that there had been no similar messages from Islamic organisations in the UK.
“I’d love to see the most major mosques and institutions here talking about this and really taking ownership of how queer Muslims are rejected and not accepted in those spaces, and what they’re going to do to make sure they stop alienating us,” Al said.
“[The] less educated [are] still mocking the cause and mocking his death. This is painful to us.”
Members of Imaan at a EuroPride parade. (Gideon Mendel/Corbis via Getty)
At the time, non-binary practising Muslim Ferhan Khan said the event challenged the idea that Islam was “inherently queer-phobic”, adding: “This is an assumption that’s not necessarily based on fact because if you read the parts of the Quran that supposedly condemn homosexuality, it’s not clear cut.
“For a lot of queer Muslims, this is a difficult one because they might want to retain their faith. They might want to simply be in a space where they are validated for being both queer and Muslim, and that’s what Imaan is doing: serving up a space where you can be… validated for that choice.”
Three weeks ago, Nathan Barrera-Bunch was working as a management analyst at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs in Washington, D.C., a job he took in November believing it would provide long-term stability. Now, just short of three months into his tenure, he is among the thousands of federal employees who have been abruptly terminated as part of President Donald Trump’sadministration’s sweeping workforce reductions.
Barrera-Bunch, 36, originally from the Texas border town of El Paso, was inspired to work for the VA after witnessing how his grandfather, a Vietnam War veteran, struggled with post-traumatic stress disorder. After working in the private sector, he was convinced by his fiancé — who also works in the federal government — that public service would offer greater stability. Instead, he was fired without warning or performance review, a move he describes as both devastating and dishonest.
Fired without explanation
“I was hired into an office specifically tasked with improving coordination within the VA, increasing efficiency, and, in many ways, working toward the very goals that President Trump and Elon Musk have publicly advocated for,” Barrera-Bunch told The Advocate.
Despite this, he said, his termination came via email at 7:24 p.m. February 13, a message that lacked any formal documentation or explanation beyond the claim that he had been dismissed for performance reasons — despite not receiving a single formal review.
“My boss had no idea who had been fired; she wasn’t notified. She said, ‘Hey, you need to check your email.’ And there it was — I was terminated,” he said. “I had been at the VA less than 90 days and hadn’t even had a formal review of any type.”
Barrera-Bunch is far from alone. Thousands of federal workers, many still in their probationary period, have been terminated under vague claims of poor performance. Those fired often never had their work flagged as inadequate.
During a February 6 congressional hearing, Tracey Therit, the VA’s chief human capital officer, defended the agency’s actions, saying that “removals are legally defensible” and that once a VA employee is removed for cause, they cannot rejoin the agency. She also testified that firing employees over performance isn’t anything new.
Barrera-Bunch said his frustration isn’t just directed at Trump or Musk but also at the higher-ups who had reassured workers about mass firings. “We were repeatedly asking if layoffs were coming because we were afraid,” he said. “But nearly everyone assured us, ‘Veterans are a bipartisan priority, so cuts here are unlikely.’ They promised it wouldn’t happen. Then it did.”
A supervisor’s confirmation and an email to the HR chief: ‘Why was I fired?’
In an email exchange with his former supervisor, Charlotte Boggess, Barrera-Bunch asked for confirmation that he had never received an evaluation or any meetings regarding “poor performance” before his termination. Boggess replied that his recollection was accurate and even offered to serve as a reference for future job opportunities.
Despite this, his termination paperwork suggests otherwise. His SF-50, a “Notification of Personnel Action” form reviewed by The Advocate, states that the nature of action is termination during the probationary period, and the legal authority is listed as separation for unsatisfactory performance or conduct during the probationary period.
Frustrated and searching for answers, Barrera-Bunch emailed Therit, who signed off on his termination. He had attended the hearing at which she testified.
“I hope this email finds you well. I would say it was nice to meet you on Tuesday, but it was not,” he wrote.
Barrera-Bunch explained to Therit the immediate, real-world consequences of his firing. “I tried to finish this email in the morning but couldn’t get it started because I was rushing between my doctor and the pharmacist to see if I could get them to refill a prescription for my HIV prevention medication or my anti-anxiety medication. ‘It’s too early before your next refill,’ the insurance said… even though they knew I was losing health insurance only three days before I’d be eligible for a refill.”
Barrera-Bunch also criticized the VA’s lack of transparency during a House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing that he says he attended in early February, where Therit evaded direct questions about the firings. “I was hoping for a modicum of understanding about who or what compelled you to lie to me in this email and say I was being terminated for poor performance,” he wrote. “I started at the VA 86 days before I was fired. I hadn’t even had a performance review. So why was I fired?”
He ended the email with a demand: “Please give me my corrected SF-50 so I can enter the next phase of DC’s Unemployment Office trying to deny me my benefits.”
The human toll of mass firings
Barrera-Bunch, who is gay, has lived in D.C. for more than a decade, but his ability to remain in the city is now uncertain. He and his fiancé split $2,000 in monthly rent for a basement apartment in Northwest D.C. While he and his partner presume that the partner’s job is safe, their financial security is threatened.
Nathan Barrera Bunch (left) with his partner at the White House
“This isn’t just some abstract political decision,” Barrera-Bunch said. “These are real jobs, real people. This is happening to your neighbors, your friends, and your family members.”
The consequences, he said, will ripple far beyond Washington. He said that the former VA employees will join the already unemployed and flood the job market, adding that they’ll be competing for positions that they may be overqualified for. In some instances, people will be forced to move, which will affect communities where these people live. It’ll also drain talent from the federal workforce and possibly discourage people from applying.
“It’s intentional. It’s not just about cutting costs — it’s about dismantling institutions that help people,” he added. “If this were just about efficiency, they wouldn’t have fired the people whose entire job was to improve the VA’s work.”
Barrera-Bunch also noted that many people are expressing glee over these firings — something he finds deeply troubling.
“A whole segment of people are celebrating these job losses,” he said. “But if a plant in the Midwest shut down and laid off 100,000 workers, I wouldn’t be cheering. I wouldn’t want that to happen to them.”
Although he feels for his colleagues and for the people who will be affected by these firings, Barrera-Bunch admits he is “not free from schadenfreude” when it comes to those who voted for Trump either out of MAGA loyalty or despite knowing the chaos he would bring.
“I don’t feel bad for people who knew exactly who Trump was and still voted for him,” he said. “Some people are only going to learn through suffering; unfortunately, we’re all suffering because of them. If you didn’t want to pay attention to what he did before, well, now you get to experience it firsthand.”
He is especially frustrated with progressives and independents who spent four years criticizing President Joe Biden but failed to act when it mattered.
“People like to play politics like it’s a TV show. But now they’ve lost the plot,” he said. “I have friends with PhDs who couldn’t even tell you the difference between the House and the Senate, but they spent all their time complaining about Democrats instead of doing anything useful.”
Unemployment benefits battle looms and D.C. officials respond
Barrera-Bunch will have to fight for unemployment benefits because the VA listed his termination as performance-related — a label that complicates claims. In D.C., as in most states, workers fired for cause are generally ineligible for unemployment benefits unless they can prove their firing was unjust. The process involves an appeal and potentially weeks or months of waiting, leaving former employees with no immediate financial support.
“They did this on purpose,” Barrera-Bunch said. “They fired thousands of probationary employees so they couldn’t get unemployment. Just say it outright: They are intentionally gutting the middle class of D.C.”
The widespread terminations have also caught the attention of local government officials, who say the economic impact on Washington, D.C., will be severe. A spokesperson for the D.C. Department of Employment Services directed The Advocate to a town hall event held by D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat, and city officials, including Director of Employment Services Unique Morris-Hughes.
Bowser, addressing the impact of the federal job cuts, said the firings had caused “dramatic” financial consequences for the city, estimating a revenue shortfall of $325 million due to lost wages, reduced sales tax revenue, and overall economic decline.
Morris-Hughes, speaking about unemployment benefits, confirmed that some former federal workers have struggled to access benefits because their termination letters cite performance issues.
“There is language in some of these letters that cites performance as a reason for termination,” she said. “I have not received any additional guidance from the Department of Labor on whether we should be treating these claims differently than how we normally treat claims.”
She advised affected workers to submit as much documentation as possible when filing claims to prove they were not terminated for cause.
The political fallout and what comes next
As a career employee, Therit is not a political appointee. Yet she has played a key role in implementing the firings, signing off on termination notices that some supervisors reportedly say do not reflect reality. The Advocate reached out to Therit for comment, asking how a longtime civil servant could justify signing off on firings that appear to have been driven by political motives rather than legitimate performance concerns. The Advocate also asked whether she has considered resigning in light of the growing criticism surrounding the VA’s actions.
Therit did not respond to The Advocate’s request for comment.
The VA plans to eliminate 80,000 jobs as part of an “aggressive” reorganization to return staffing levels to 2019, the Associated Press reports. An internal memo obtained by AP outlines the plan to reduce the workforce and restructure the agency. The cuts come after the VA expanded significantly under the Biden administration to provide care for veterans impacted by burn pits under the 2022 PACT Act. The memo instructs VA officials to move forward “aggressively” while working with the White House’s Department of Government Efficiency to “resize and tailor the workforce” to align with the administration’s new priorities.
More than 25 percent of VA employees are veterans themselves, meaning many of those fired once relied on the very system they were working to improve, according to the AP. The cuts have drawn significant backlash, with Sen. Richard Blumenthal, the top Democrat on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, condemning them as a betrayal.
“Their plan prioritizes private sector profits over veterans’ care, balancing the budget on the backs of those who served. It’s a shameful betrayal, and veterans will pay the price for their unforgivable corruption, incompetence, and immorality,” Blumenthal told the AP.
Despite the uncertainty he now faces, Barrera-Bunch remains committed to fighting back — not just for himself but for others in similar situations.
“This isn’t just about me,” he said. “If they can do this to federal employees, they can do it to anyone. And people need to wake up before it happens to them.”
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.
Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon, a Republican, has signed a bill into law allowing people to sue if they encounter a member of the opposite sex — which, as defined by the bill, includes any transgender person — in certain single-sex, multi-occupancy restrooms or changing rooms, or if they have to share sleeping quarters with one in a state prison.
House Bill 72, which Gordon signed quietly Monday and which goes into effect July 1, applies to facilities in buildings owned, overseen, or leased by a governmental entity. Titled the Protecting Women’s Privacy in Public Spaces Act, it does not apply to K-12 public schools but does apply to the University of Wyoming and community colleges. State and private prisons are included but not local jails. It applies to both males and females, as designated by reproductive characteristics.
Those who encounter a trans person or a member of the opposite sex in one of these settings has a cause of action to sue the governmental entity overseeing it if the entity did not take reasonable steps to restrict access. “Reasonable steps may include but are not limited to posting appropriate signage and adopting policies and procedures for the enforcement of the provisions of this act,” says an amendment to the measure.
“This bill ensures that women and girls can feel safe and respected in places where privacy is essential — bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, and correctional facilities,” its lead sponsor, Republican Rep. Martha Lawley, wrote in a column for the Powell Tribune in December.
“We have all heard stories of discomfort and fear when policies aren’t clear, leaving institutions scrambling to balance privacy concerns with the risk of lawsuits. It’s time for the Legislature to act. The Protecting Women’s Privacy in Public Spaces Act provides clarity and creates consistent policies that prioritize privacy and safety.”
The American Civil Liberties Union’s Wyoming affiliate denounced the legislation. ”Like previous efforts to expel people of color, people with disabilities, and others from communal spaces, these arguments for privacy just mask a fear of difference. Eroding the fundamental rights of transgender people is dangerous for every one of us,” said an ACLU statement quoted by radio station KGAB.
Lawley is also backing a bill to extend the state’s trans-exclusionary sports law,which now applies to grades 7-12, to intercollegiate sports. It has passed the House and Senate with some differences, which will have to be rectified before it goes to the governor.
She characterizes her anti-trans bills as protections for women, but she has supported legislation to make abortion inaccessible in the state. She backed a bill that Gordon signed into law in February requiring clinics that provide surgical abortions to be licensed as surgery centers — something that medical professionals say is unnecessary and that would require expensive remodeling at Wyoming’s only full-service abortion clinic, the Associated Press reports. That clinic, Wellspring Health Access in Casper, is performing no surgical or medication abortions while awaiting the outcome of a suit it filed to challenge the law, according to the AP. A ban on both surgical and medication abortions was struck down by a Wyoming judge last year, but the state has appealed the ruling.
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.
