

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Young people are more than twice as likely to attempt suicide if they have been subject to conversion therapy, which LGBTQ+ rights advocates say is "proven to cause lasting psychological harm."
The US Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy,” drawing warnings from LGBTQ+ groups that the ruling could expose children in dozens of states to the harmful practice.
Colorado's law forbade licensed physicians and mental healthcare providers from attempting to "convert" or change a minor's sexuality, a practice that the American Psychological Association has found to be both ineffective and dangerous, raising rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide in LGBTQ+ youth.
The law defined "conversion therapy" as any treatment that “attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”
It allowed exemptions for pastors and religious organizations. It also allowed health professionals to engage in wide-ranging discussions with children about their sexual and gender identities, so long as they did not try to change the child's orientation.
Nevertheless, on Tuesday, the high court sided 8-1 with Kaley Chiles, a Christian counselor who said she wished to offer talk therapy to children who want to reduce same-sex attraction and argued that the ban on this practice was in violation of her First Amendment rights.
Chiles was backed by the Trump administration, as well as the far-right Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian nationalist legal group with a long history of seeking to outlaw same-sex conduct.
Most famously, the group argued in support of state laws criminalizing homosexuality in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case, and it has since gone on to back many other cases attacking birth control access, same-sex marriage, and transgender equality.
In the majority opinion, the conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that Colorado's law “censors speech based on viewpoint" and therefore must be subject to strict scrutiny—the highest form of judicial review, which the court determined it did not pass.
The lone dissenting justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, argued that Chiles' treatment was not mere speech, but that it was acting in her capacity "as a licensed healthcare professional," which formed the crux of Colorado's defense of the ban.
She argued that the ruling "opens a dangerous can of worms" and "threatens to impair states’ ability to regulate the provision of medical care in any respect."
"Because the majority plays with fire in this case, I fear that the people of this country will get burned," Jackson said.
Two liberals, Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, joined the conservatives in striking the law down. However, they argued in a concurring opinion that a full ban on therapy aimed at changing minors' sexuality might be more lawful than the one Colorado passed, which included carveouts for specific circumstances.
Kagan also argued that allowing Colorado to outlaw conversion therapy could backfire and give red states the legal framework to also ban counselors from providing affirmative care to LGBTQ+ minors.
LGBTQ+ rights organizations have roundly condemned the court's decision, which is expected to weaken bans on conversion therapy in the 23 states and the District of Columbia that currently have them.
"Today’s reckless decision means more American kids will suffer," said Kelley Robinson, the president of the Human Rights Campaign. "The Court has weaponized free speech in order to prioritize anti-LGBTQ+ bias over the safety, health, and well-being of children."
A 2024 mental health survey by the Trevor Project, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group, found that 13% of LGBTQ+ young people have been either threatened with or subject to conversion therapy—including about 1 in 6 transgender or nonbinary youth.
Previously, the group published peer-reviewed research in the American Journal of Public Health, showing that young people subject to conversion therapy were more than twice as likely to attempt suicide as their peers.
"These efforts, no matter what proponents call them, no matter what any court says, are still proven to cause lasting psychological harm," said Trevor Project CEO Jaymes Black. "That’s why protections have been enacted in more than 20 states, and are supported by every major medical and mental health association in the country."
Carl Charles, a senior attorney at Lambda Legal who joined more than a dozen survivors of the practice in a friend of the court brief in support of Colorado's law, said, "I know firsthand the long-lasting harms of conversion therapy, having been subjected to it when I was 15 years old."
"This practice did not change my sexual orientation or gender identity," said Charles, a transgender man. "Instead, it destroyed important relationships and created shame and fear that took time and effort to undo. For many survivors, it is a reverberating life-long harm."
"LGBTQ+ youth do not need to be changed," Charles said. "Rather, like all youth, they need to be supported and celebrated for the unique and important people they are becoming."
Colorado's Democratic Gov. Jared Polis has said he will seek to pass new legislation that complies with the Supreme Court's ruling.
"Conversion therapy doesn’t work, can seriously harm youth, and Coloradans should beware before turning over their hard-earned money to a scam," Polis said. "I am evaluating the US Supreme Court ruling and working to figure out how to better protect LGBTQ youth and free speech in Colorado."
In other states whose bans could be undermined by the ruling, efforts have already begun to ensure that providers who cause harm to children still face accountability.
In California, which has a similar ban on conversion therapy to Colorado’s, state Sen. Scott Weiner (D-11) introduced a bill proposing a longer statute of limitations and making it easier for LGBTQ+ individuals to bring malpractice claims against medical professionals who subject them to conversion therapy.
Weiner noted that the Supreme Court's ruling "explicitly states that malpractice claims for conversion therapy are different than bans," since they require a plaintiff to demonstrate injury caused by their treatment.
"You can’t 'convert' someone who’s LGBTQ—full stop—and people who think you can are peddling quackery," Weiner said. "California will always have the community’s back."
The 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline can be reached by calling or texting 988, or through chat at 988lifeline.org. The Trevor Project, which serves LGBTQ+ youth, can be reached at 1-866-488-7386, by texting "START" to 678-678, or through chat at TheTrevorProject.org. Both offer 24/7, free, and confidential support.
"These proposed actions would put Donald Trump and RFK Jr. in those doctor’s offices, ripping healthcare decisions from the hands of families," said one critic.
President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Thursday unveiled new policies aimed at cutting transgender minors off from gender-affirming care.
As reported by the New York Times, Kennedy announced new proposed rules that would bar Medicare and Medicaid from sending any funds to hospitals that carry out gender-affirming care on transgender minors, a move that would essentially force these facilities to shut down given that spending from those two programs account for nearly half of all spending on hospital care.
Dr. Mehmet Oz, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, warned during a news conference announcing the proposed rules that hospitals are "going to pay a very steep price" if they continue providing gender-affirming care to minors.
Many hospitals throughout the US are already under financial strain while bracing for the impact of the Medicaid cuts in this year's Republican-passed budget law, which are projected to total $1 trillion over the next decade.
Dr. Susan Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), slammed Trump administration health officials for their "unprecedented actions and harmful rhetoric" while announcing the new proposed rules, which she described as a vast overreach by the federal government.
"These rules are a baseless intrusion into the patient-physician relationship," said Kressly. "Patients, their families, and their physician—not politicians or government officials—should be the ones to make decisions together about what care is best for them. The government’s actions today make that task harder, if not impossible, for families of gender-diverse and transgender youth."
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, hammered the Trump administration for being "relentless in denying healthcare to this country, and especially the transgender community."
"Families deserve the freedom to go to the doctor and get the care that they need and to have agency over the health and well-being of their children," Robinson added. "But these proposed actions would put Donald Trump and RFK Jr. in those doctor’s offices, ripping healthcare decisions from the hands of families and putting it in the grips of the anti-LGBTQ+ fringe."
The ACLU wasted no time in announcing that it would sue the administration if it goes forward with enacting the proposed rules, which it described as an unconstitutional attack on healthcare practices that have been endorsed by both the the American Medical Association and the AAP.
Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Rights Project, accused the administration of launching "cruel and unconstitutional attacks on the rights of transgender youth and their families."
"By attempting to strip away essential healthcare, the administration is not 'protecting' anyone," Strangio added. "It is weaponizing the federal government to target a vulnerable population for political gain. Healthcare decisions belong to families and their doctors, not politicians. The latest proposals from the administration would force doctors to choose between their ethical obligations to their patients and the threat of losing federal funding."
"The American people are fed up with Trump's pathetic attempt at wearing the crown," said one event organizer.
The coalition of progressive organizations that helped organize the nationwide "No Kings" protests this summer are ramping up for a potentially even bigger event in the fall.
The organizations pushed out new publicity on Monday about the "No Kings 2" demonstrations scheduled to take place across the country on October 18. The planned demonstrations come as the Trump administration is accelerating its plans to send the National Guard into US cities and continues to send masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents into immigrant communities.
Sponsors of the No Kings 2 events include ACLU, American Federation of Teachers, Common Defense, 50501, Human Rights Campaign, Indivisible, League of Conservation Voters, MoveOn, National Nurses United, Public Citizen, SEIU, and United We Dream Action.
In an interview with Rolling Stone, Indivisible co-founder Ezra Levin said that he expected this fall's No Kings sequel to be even bigger than the first one, which drew an estimated 5 million people into the streets across more than 2,000 events. Levin also outlined the importance of hitting a critical threshold for anti-Trump demonstrations.
"Experts in authoritarianism tell us, based on research, that you need 3.5% of the population engaged, in a sustained way, to successfully push back against an authoritarian regime," he said. "In the American context, that's about 11 or 12 million people. For No Kings 1, we got about halfway there. And we have funneled a lot of those people into our trainings around strategic noncooperation. But we need to come together again."
Jacob Thomas, a United States Armed Forces veteran and communications director for "No Kings 2" sponsor Common Defense, said in a statement that a common theme that has united the organizations is the fight against US President Donald Trump's authoritarian ambitions.
"We must all do our part to fight back against his authoritarianism and military occupation of cities," he said. "We cannot allow a wannabe dictator to destroy our democracy, gut veteran healthcare, keep people from accessing the ballot box, and tank our economy. We must all join together in solidarity to fight back and secure our freedoms."
Human Rights Campaign president Kelley Robinson said the protests were necessary because Trump's actions were direct attacks on the American dream of "freedom afforded to all people."
"Since taking office, he has tried to erode our freedoms and amass power for himself, censoring history, undermining our voting rights, defying the rule of law, and stripping people of basic rights simply because of who they are or who they love," she said. "But this country does not and will never have a king. The power of the people is and will continue to be greater than the man obsessed with keeping power for himself."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, ticked off a list of grievances against the president to argue that mass protests against him are needed now more than ever.
"In less than 10 months of his presidency, Trump has ticked off every box of a king's playbook," she said. "He has plastered his face on banners across DC, weaponized National Guard troops against our communities, disappeared people or thrown them out of the country without due process, attempted to sabotage elections and erode our democracy, and trivialized the power of Congress and the courts. He has violated the Constitution over and over again. The American people are fed up with Trump's pathetic attempt at wearing the crown."
The first set of "No Kings" protests came on Trump's 79th birthday, on the same day he put on a massive military parade that cost $30 million to produce.
"This fight is bigger than any one state," said the chairman of the Texas House Democratic Caucus.
Nationwide protests against US President Donald Trump's scheme to get Republican state legislatures to redraw their congressional maps are set to kick off this weekend.
The "Fight the Trump Takeover" movement is planning a national day of action on Saturday, August 16 that will feature coast-to-coast demonstrations from as far east as Lubec, Maine, to as far west as Anchorage, Alaska.
"Trump is trying to steal the 2026 election by rigging the system and changing electoral maps," the coalition behind the protests said on its website. "He started in Texas, but he won’t stop there. We are fighting back."
The protests are being done in partnership with several prominent progressive groups, including Indivisible, MoveOn, Human Rights Campaign, Public Citizen, and the Communication Workers of America. Some Texas-specific groups—including Texas Freedom Network, Texas AFL-CIO, and Texas for All—are also partners in the protest.
Axios reports that an "anchor rally" in Austin, Texas will kick off the nationwide events and will feature speakers including Democratic US Reps. Greg Casar and Lloyd Doggett, as well as former Democratic Rep. Beto O'Rourke and labor activist Dolores Huerta.
The location of the Austin rally is symbolically important because Texas is trying to become the first state to redraw its maps to benefit Republicans under Trump's nationwide gerrymandering scheme, which in the coming weeks could include states such as Ohio, Indiana, Florida, and Missouri.
Texas House Democratic Caucus Chair Gene Wu told Axios that "this fight is bigger than any one state" because "we're defending our entire country from the Trump takeover, and I'm honored to stand with every patriotic American who refuses to let extremists rig the system."
Ezra Levin, the co-founder and co-executive director of progressive organizing group Indivisible, told Axios that Trump's plan "is as crooked as it gets" and described it as part of a larger plot to "lock in minority rule for a generation."
Democratic-controlled states, led by California under Gov. Gavin Newsom, have started to fight back against the Trump plan by proposing their own redrawn maps aimed at squeezing out Republicans in their states. Newsom this week held a big rally in Los Angeles with other California Democratic heavyweights where he stressed the need for Democrats to give Republicans a taste of their own medicine.
"It's not enough to just hold hands, have a candlelight vigil, and talk about way the world should be," Newsom said at the rally. "We have got to recognize the cards that have been dealt, and we have got to meet fire with fire!"
Dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that "there is no constitutional justification" for the decision, and access to gender-affirming care "can be a question of life or death."
LGBTQ+ advocates decried Wednesday's U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding Tennessee's prohibition on gender-affirming medical treatments for minors as a dangerous green light for states to violate personal privacy and ban healthcare that many transgender people say saved their lives.
Writing for the 6-3 majority in U.S. v. Skrmetti, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that S.B. 1, Tennessee's 2023 ban on gender-affirming care for people under age 18, does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The majority concurred with a lower court's ruling that S.B. 1 is not subject to heightened scrutiny, a standard of judicial review also known as intermediate scrutiny used to determine a law's constitutionality, especially in cases involving classifications based on sex or gender.
"The Supreme Court is green-lighting the eradication of trans people from society."
"This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field," Roberts wrote. "The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The equal protection clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best."
"Our role is not 'to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic' of the law before us... but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the 14th Amendment," the ruling adds. "Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process."
BREAKING: In a 6-3 Roberts decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care is not subject to heightened scrutiny. This decision will strip millions of trans people off their constitutional rights.www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
[image or embed]
— Alejandra Caraballo (@esqueer.net) June 18, 2025 at 7:17 AM
Roberts was joined in the majority by right-wing Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
Sotomayor wrote in her dissent that "there is no constitutional justification" for the decision, which "does irrevocable damage to the equal protection clause and invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight. It also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them."
She continued:
Transgender adolescents' access to hormones and puberty blockers... is not a matter of mere cosmetic preference. To the contrary, access to care can be a question of life or death. Some transgender adolescents suffer from gender dysphoria, a medical condition characterized by clinically significant and persistent distress resulting from incongruence between a person's gender identity and sex identified at birth. If left untreated, gender dysphoria can lead to severe anxiety, depression, eating disorders, substance abuse, self-harm, and suicidality. Suicide, in particular, is a major concern for parents of transgender teenagers, as the lifetime prevalence of suicide attempts among transgender individuals may be as high as 40%. Tragically, studies suggest that as many as one-third of transgender high school students attempt suicide in any given year.
S.B. 1—introduced by Tennessee state Sen. Jack Johnson (R-23)—who was also behind the state's public drag ban—prohibits minors from undergoing hormone therapy or taking prescribed puberty blockers. Three transgender teens and their parents, as well as a Tennessee doctor who treats trans youth, challenged the law, claiming it violated the equal protection clause.
The plaintiffs were joined by the Biden administration along with the national and state ACLU, Lambda Legal, and the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP in asking the Supreme Court to review the ban after the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld it in September 2023.
Responding to Wednesday's ruling, Allison Scott of the Campaign for Southern Equality—which manages the Trans Youth Emergency Project (TYEP)—said: "I am heartbroken today. No one should be forced to leave their home state to access healthcare—and it is outrageous to see the U.S. Supreme Court uphold these bans and continue to allow the government to interfere with the personal medical decisions of families."
Scott was alluding to the argument often made by proponents of bans on not only trans healthcare but also abortion and other reproductive rights that people seeking such care are free to go where it is legal—even as some states pass laws banning such travel.
There are approximately 300,000 people aged 13-17 and 1.3 million adults in the United States who identify as transgender, according to the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, which notes that more than two dozen states have passed laws similar to S.B. 1.

Transgender activist Alejandra Caraballo, a civil rights attorney and instructor at the Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic, said on the social media site Bluesky, "I can't begin to tell you just how incredibly fucked trans people are here."
"This will pour gasoline on the Trump administration's attacks on trans people and they will get even harsher and more cruel," Caraballo added. "The Supreme Court is green-lighting the eradication of trans people from society."
Caraballo and others including the ACLU and trans rights activist Erin Reed noted that the decision is somewhat limited because it leaves previous rulings against anti-trans laws intact. However, Caraballo warned that "while the decision didn't explicitly say heightened scrutiny doesn't apply to all contexts involving trans people, it held that it was on the basis of medical diagnosis."
Therefore, "the government could just do whatever it wants to trans people based on gender dysphoria," she wrote. "For instance, they could strip everyone with gender dysphoria of security clearance in the government. Declare everyone with gender dysphoria a national security threat and purge them from the government entirely. The trans military ban will be upheld under this."
"Most importantly, states can now just ban gender-affirming care for everyone, including adults," Caraballo added. "We'll likely see that coming soon in addition to federal government efforts to eliminate access for all trans people."
"This will pour gasoline on the Trump administration's attacks on trans people."
U.S. President Donald Trump has renewed and expanded his first-term attacks on transgender people, including by issuing a day one executive order declaring that only two genders exist, another order advocating action against educators who "facilitate the social transition of a minor," and yet another directing the Department of Education—which he has vowed to abolish—to notify school districts that allowing transgender girls and women to compete on female teams violates Title IX, the federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex in education.
Trump also appointed a transphobe to head the Justice Department's civil rights office, ordered the removal transgender people and issues from federal agency websites, and reinstated his first-term ban on new military enlistment by trans people, who—according to the White House—cannot lead an "honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle."
"Every day I speak with families of transgender youth who are worried about the future," TYEP patient navigator Van Bailey said after Wednesday's ruling. "Many are panicking, unsure of where or when they'll get the medicine that their child needs to continue leading a healthy, happy life. These laws are cruelly thrusting families into impossible choices, and it is deeply unfair."
As we wait for legal guidance from our partners at @aclu.org and @lambdalegal.org, we want to share what we already know:The Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti is devastating, and we will not stop fighting.
[image or embed]
— Christopher Street Project (@christopherstreet.bsky.social) June 18, 2025 at 8:34 AM
ACLU LGBTQ & HIV Project co-director Chase Strangio—the first openly trans attorney to argue before the Supreme Court—said that "today's ruling is a devastating loss for transgender people, our families, and everyone who cares about the Constitution."
However, Strangio also noted that "the court left undisturbed Supreme Court and lower court precedent that other examples of discrimination against transgender people are unlawful."
"We are as determined as ever to fight for the dignity and equality of every transgender person and we will continue to do so with defiant strength, a restless resolve, and a lasting commitment to our families, our communities, and the freedom we all deserve," he added.
Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, said in a statement that "the court today failed to do its job."
"When the political system breaks down and legislatures bow to popular hostility, the judiciary must be the Constitution's backbone," Levi added. "Instead, it chose to look away, abandoning both vulnerable children and the parents who love them. No parent should be forced to watch their child suffer while proven medical care sits beyond their reach because of politics."
"When the political system breaks down and legislatures bow to popular hostility, the judiciary must be the Constitution's backbone."
National Center for LGBTQ Rights legal director Shannon Minter asserted: "The court's ruling abandons transgender youth and their families to political attacks. It ignored clear discrimination and disregarded its own legal precedent by letting lawmakers target young people for being transgender."
"Healthcare decisions belong with families, not politicians," Minter added. "This decision will cause real harm."
Sasha Buchert, counsel and director of the Nonbinary and Transgender Rights Project at Lambda Legal, called the ruling "heartbreaking" and contended it will make it "more difficult for transgender youth to escape the danger and trauma of being denied their ability to live and thrive."
"But we will continue to fight fiercely to protect them," Buchert added. "Make no mistake, gender-affirming care is often lifesaving care, and all major medical associations have determined it to be safe, appropriate, and effective. This is a sad day, and the implications will reverberate for years and across the country, but it does not shake our resolve to continue fighting."
The Supreme Court’s Skrmetti decision is a pivotal moment in our fight for LGBTQ+ equality. Here are three ways to TAKE ACTION:
[image or embed]
— Human Rights Campaign (@hrc.org) June 18, 2025 at 9:26 AM
Human Rights Campaign (HRC), Lambda Legal, and other advocacy organizations are planning to hold a "decision day" rally at noon Wednesday outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.
HRC lamented that Skrmetti "sets a dangerous precedent and threatens access to care for trans people across the country."
"We are showing up loud and clear: We will not go back," HRC said. "We will not be erased."
"This order will kill kids, there's no other way to say it," asserted one critic.
In his administration's latest attack on LGBTQ+ Americans, Republican U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday issued an executive order banning the federal government from supporting a wide range of gender-affirming healthcare for transgender youth.
Trump's order—titled "Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation"—states that the federal government "will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called 'transition' of a child from one sex to another, and it will rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures."
"Child" is defined in the order as anyone younger than 19—including 18-year-old adults. The directive covers treatments and procedures including gender-affirming surgeries, puberty blockers, and hormone replacement therapy. The ban will adversely affect people who rely upon federal programs including Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE, through which the Department of Defense provides health coverage for nearly 2 million youth dependents.
This order will kill kids, there's no other way to say it. It's the government forcibly taking control of the bodies of thousands of children.
[image or embed]
— Katelyn Burns (@katelynburns.com) January 28, 2025 at 3:19 PM
Furthermore, the order—which is almost certain to be challenged in court—places hospitals, clinics, and other providers of gender-affirming care at risk of losing federal funding.
"This executive order is a brazen attempt to put politicians in between people and their doctors, preventing them from accessing evidence-based healthcare supported by every major medical association in the country," Kelly Robinson, president of the LGBTQ+ advocacy group Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement. "It is deeply unfair to play politics with people's lives and strip transgender young people, their families, and their providers of the freedom to make necessary healthcare decisions."
"Questions about this care should be answered by doctors—not politicians—and decisions must rest with families, doctors, and the patient," Robinson added. "Everyone deserves the freedom to make deeply personal healthcare decisions for themselves and their families—no matter your income, zip code, or health coverage."
Trump made opposing rights for transgender people—especially children—a major part of his 2024 campaign, as it was during his first term.
The president's executive order claims that "medical professionals are maiming and sterilizing a growing number of impressionable children under the radical and false claim that adults can change a child's sex through a series of irreversible medical interventions."
"This dangerous trend will be a stain on our nation's history, and it must end," asserts the directive, which dubiously claims that "countless children soon regret that they have been mutilated and begin to grasp the horrifying tragedy that they will never be able to conceive children of their own or nurture their children through breastfeeding."
However, trans advocate Erin Reed pushed back, noting on social media that "detransition is rare, 1-4% in most studies, and regret even lower."
Furthermore, many doctors and medical experts agree that gender-affirming care saves the lives of trans youth, who are at higher risk of suicide and other self-harm, partly due to discrimination, bullying, and other societal pressures.
Trans people and their allies are already fighting back against Trump's policies. On Tuesday, half a dozen active-duty transgender U.S. troops and two people seeking to join the military sued to block a revival of the president's first-term ban on trans people enlisting in the armed forces.
The previous day, a transgender woman inmate in a federal women's prison sued the Trump administration over a recent executive order narrowly defining sex, arguing it is motivated by hate, violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, and places her in mortal danger if she is transferred to a men's facility as ordered by the government.
In stark contrast with the direction in which Trump is steering the U.S., health officials in Thailand—which last year became the first nation in Southeast Asia to legalize same-sex marriage equality—this week announced a multimillion-dollar initiative to provide gender-affirming care for 200,000 transgender people in the country.
Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra said last week that the marriage equality law, which went into effect this month, "marks the beginning of Thai society's greater awareness of gender diversity, and our embrace of everyone regardless of sexual orientation, race, or religion—our affirmation that everyone is entitled to equal rights and dignity."
"We do not need to spend almost a trillion dollars on the military, while half a million Americans are homeless and children go hungry," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
The United States Senate overwhelmingly passed an $895 billion military funding bill on Wednesday as critics blasted what many called misplaced spending priorities and highly controversial provisions that ban gender-affirming health coverage for children of active-duty service members and prohibit the Pentagon from citing casualty figures issued by the Gaza Ministry of Health.
Senators voted 85-14 for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2025. The following senators voted against the legislation: Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Mike Braun (R-Ind.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), the vice president-elect, did not vote on the bill.
"We do not need to spend almost a trillion dollars on the military, while half a million Americans are homeless and children go hungry," Sanders explained earlier this month.
The peace group CodePink said it was "disappointed" by the Senate's passage of the NDAA, "which allocates nearly $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars to weapons and warfare while essential services like healthcare, education, food, and housing remain underfunded."
"Half of the budget will go directly to the pockets of private military companies in the form of contracts and weapons deals," the group continued. "On top of the massive topline and the large allocation to private companies, the Pentagon has never been able to pass an audit. Much like every Pentagon budget before, this money will be largely unaccounted for, with very little transparency."
"This budget is a huge slap in the face to working-class families who are struggling to make ends meet," CodePink added.
An amendment introduced on Monday by Baldwin and co-sponsored by two dozen of her Democratic colleagues "to remove language that would strip away service members' parental rights to access medically necessary healthcare for their transgender children" failed to pass.
Speaking on the Senate floor on Tuesday, Baldwin said that Congress has "broken" its commitment to the troops "because some Republicans decided that gutting the rights of our service members to score cheap political points was more worthy."
"We're talking about parents who are serving our country in uniform, having the right to consult their family's doctor and get the healthcare they want and need for their transgender children," she added. "Some folks poisoned this bill and turned their backs on those in service and the people that we represent."
Olivia Hunt, director of federal policy at Advocates for Trans Equality, said in a statement Wednesday that "every military family deserves respect and access to essential healthcare—free from the interference of political agendas."
Hunt continued:
Denying lifesaving, medically necessary care to trans members of military families creates profound hardships, forcing service members to make impossible choices between their duty and the health and well-being of their loved ones. Politicizing access to evidence-based healthcare undermines the principles of fairness, dignity, and respect that our nation aspires to. No one should have to choose between their duty and protecting their family.
By passing this harmful legislation, the Senate has failed our service members and their families. This decision prioritizes political gamesmanship over the dignity, rights, and well-being of those who serve our nation and sets a dangerous precedent of governmental overreach into decisions that should remain between doctors and families.
Some advocates including Hunt want President Joe Biden to veto the bill.
"If signed by the president, the passage of the NDAA will mark the first piece of federal legislation to restrict access to medically necessary healthcare for transgender adolescents," Hunt added. "It would be heartbreaking for an administration that has sought to advance the rights of LGBTQI+ Americans more than any other to date, to enact a law that would endanger countless trans youth. We urge President Biden to take a strong stance for trans youth and their families and veto this bill."
Congress has passed the NDAA, which contained a provision banning the coverage of gender affirming care for the children of active duty military. This is the first anti-LGBTQ bill to pass congress in almost 3 decades but certainly won't be the last. This will be Biden's legacy.
— Alejandra Caraballo ( @esqueer.net) December 18, 2024 at 10:02 AM
Human Rights Campaign president Kelley Robinson said that "President Biden has the power to put a stop to this cruelty."
"He should make good on his promises to protect LGBTQ+ Americans, defend military service members and their families, and ensure this country's politics reflect the best of who we are," Robinson added. "President Biden must veto this bill."
The NDAA also contains a provision prohibiting the Department of Defense from officially citing "fatality figures that are derived by United States-designated terrorist organizations" or governmental entities or organizations that rely upon such data. Critics say the measure is meant to censor the truth about Israel's 14-month assault on Gaza, which has left more than 162,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing. Various United Nations agencies, international charities and rights groups, and even the Israeli military and U.S. State Department have cited Gaza Health Ministry casualty figures, which have been deemed accurate—and likely an undercount—by experts around the world, including Israeli military intelligence and U.S. officials.
"In other words," Security Policy Reform Institute co-founder Stephen Semler said of the provision, "it's effectively a ban on talking about deaths in Gaza."
We have been seeing a concerning trend of companies, both large and small, scaling back or eliminating their DEI commitments out of fear. Instead, corporate leaders should stand up for their LGBTQIA+ employees.
Today, our nation celebrates National Coming Out Day. This October 11, you may see a wave of brave stories from your friends or family members, right along with messages of support from corporations touting their inclusive environments. It is a day when many of us in the LGBTQIA+ community choose to share our true selves with our loved ones, our community, our co-workers, and the world. And it serves as a reminder of the progress that has been made and how fortunate we are that so many can now feel comfortable to live openly and out loud.
After centuries of battles, whether that be on the streets outside Stonewall or in the courtrooms across our country, it is comforting to know that the efforts of our elders have helped to create a society where more people feel comfortable enough to live as their authentic selves.
Yet, the progress that we see today can, if we are not paying careful attention, belie the reality that our communities—and the progress we've made—continue to be under attack. Coming out is a deeply personal choice—a choice that becomes more difficult without cultural acceptance, and without the promises of security and protection we have increasingly begun to expect. But these hard-fought protections are, sadly, now being stripped away by the anti-DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) movement and its pressure campaign pushing employers to backtrack on their commitment to inclusivity.
Now is the time to prove you respect your LGBTQIA+ employees as people, and that their personhood is not a fad that can be easily discarded when there is pushback.
Across the country we have been seeing a concerning trend of companies, both large and small, scaling back or eliminating their DEI commitments out of fear. One key measure of that is the number of companies withdrawing from participation in the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Corporate Equality Index, a long-time and widely used measure of companies' commitment to respecting the rights of their LGBTQIA+ employees. To maintain the progress we've made, it is important that we recognize and push back on these attacks.
National Coming Out Day was created in 1988 to commemorate the first anniversary of the 1987 National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights. Inspired by the visibility of that event, the day was meant to encourage individuals to live openly and make themselves visible at home, at work, and in their local communities—demonstrating the strength of the LGBT movement and promoting acceptance. By 1993, the National Coming Out Day organization had merged with the Human Rights Campaign Fund. HRC's Corporate Equality Index later grew from this sentiment and was developed to push for a world where gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer employees could be out at work without facing discrimination in hiring or on the job. This was a crucial tool for LGBTQIA+ employees at the time of its creation, and it still stands as an important resource for the community to this day.
When companies like Ford, Harley-Davidson, and Lowe's —all targeted by ultra-conservatives to sow division and fear—withdraw from participating in the Corporate Equality Index, they undermine a tool that has driven substantial progress for LGBTQIA+ employees over the past two decades.Today, the index is as crucial as ever. It's not just about acceptance or branded pride parade swag; it's about creating an environment where everyone—regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity—can thrive. And thriving requires that our laws and institutions guarantee that one's livelihood, healthcare, and chance for financial security are not put at risk by choosing to live openly and freely. LGBTQIA+ employees in many states are already feeling their human rights come under attack through hateful and discriminatory state laws. The last thing they need is to have their places of employment also turning their backs on them. How can individuals feel safe coming out when the very systems designed to protect them are under attack?
The rollback of DEI programs isn't just a moral issue; it's increasingly a legal one. Lawsuits have been filed against employers claiming that DEI initiatives that work to welcome and include people of color and LGBTQIA+ folks discriminate against white people and straight cisgender people. While these suits exploit existing tensions, they overlook an important fact—legal protections exist to support inclusive workplaces.
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employment discrimination in the United States on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is illegal. This was made clear in 2020 with the Supreme Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. This legal framework provides a foundation for companies committed to true inclusivity and is the starting point for them to showcase an authentic commitment to equality.
To the corporate leaders reading this, now is the time to stand firm and hold strong in your values. It's easy to support diversity in times of peace, but it's during times of challenge that true commitment is tested. Companies who were early allies in the fight for equality are still remembered and respected to this day. Now is the time to prove you respect your LGBTQIA+ employees as people, and that their personhood is not a fad that can be easily discarded when there is pushback.There are legal protections to ensure your commitment to the principles of equality and inclusion are bolstered against this wave of divisive political agendas. And it is your duty to ensure DEI is cemented into your institution's core values.
National Coming Out Day is a celebration of courage. It is a reminder of the progress that has been made possible by that courage, and that every person deserves the right to live openly without fear of retribution or exclusion. But this can only happen in an environment where safety and acceptance are firmly rooted in our laws and our institutions. This October 11, let's reaffirm our commitment to equality and stand up to this hateful and divisive anti-DEI rhetoric.
"Decisions about healthcare belong to patients, their doctors, and their families—not politicians," said Rep. Mark Pocan.
As LGBTQ+ rights advocates prepare for oral arguments in a U.S. Supreme Court case about bans on gender-affirming healthcare for trans youth, 164 members of Congress on Tuesday urged the justices to strike down Tennessee's 2023 law.
Tennessee is one of over two dozen states that has recently banned some or all of such care for trans minors, according to the Movement Advancement Project. In response to challenges from advocacy groups and the Biden administration, the right-wing high court agreed to take the case in June.
Arguments in United States v. Skrmetti are expected in the fall. The justices will decide whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1—which bans surgery, puberty blockers, and hormone treatment for trans youth—violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Congressional Democrats' new "friend of the court" brief argues that the court "should be highly skeptical of legislation banning safe and effective therapies that comport with the standard of care," and "should carefully examine the deeply troubling role that animosity towards transgender people has played in state legislation."
"The law at issue in this case is motivated by an animus towards the trans community and is part of a cruel, coordinated attack on trans rights by anti-equality extremists."
The amicus brief is led by House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Congressional Equality Caucus Chair Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Subcommittee on Primary Health and Retirement Chair Ed Markey (D-Mass.).
"For years, far-right Republicans have been leading constant, relentless, and escalating attacks on transgender Americans," Markey said in a statement. "Their age-old, discriminatory playbook now threatens access to lifesaving, gender-affirming care for more than 100,000 transgender and nonbinary children living in states with these bans if the Supreme Court upholds laws like Tennessee's at the heart of Skrmetti that are fueled by ignorance and hate."
"It takes a special type of cruelty to target children for who they are," he continued. "I am proud to stand with my colleagues against dangerous, transphobic attacks and to reaffirm that our nation's commitment should be to equality and justice for all."
Pocan emphasized that "decisions about healthcare belong to patients, their doctors, and their families—not politicians."
"The law at issue in this case is motivated by an animus towards the trans community and is part of a cruel, coordinated attack on trans rights by anti-equality extremists," he added. "We strongly urge the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution's promise of equal protection under the law and strike down Tennessee's harmful ban."
The brief is co-signed by another 150 Democrats in the House of Representatives, eight other Democratic senators, and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with the party. It is also supported by the ACLU and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).
"Thank you to the many members of Congress for standing with transgender and nonbinary youth across our country in asking the Supreme Court to find bans on lifesaving gender-affirming care to be unconstitutional," said HRC vice president of government affairs David Stacy.
"The government should not be able to interfere in decisions that are best made between families and doctors, particularly when that care is necessary and best practice," Stacy stressed. "These bans are dangerous, animated purely by anti-transgender bias, and have forced families to make heartbreaking decisions to support their children."
"It is shocking that an opportunity was missed to revoke a law that undermines the rights of LGBTI persons in Uganda, their allies, human rights defenders, and activists," said one Amnesty International campaigner.
Human rights defenders on Wednesday condemned a ruling by the Constitutional Court of Uganda upholding most of the African nation's so-called "Kill the Gays" law criminalizing sex between consenting adults of the same sex and imposing the death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality."
The court's five justices largely affirmed the Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2023 (AHA)—signed into law last year by Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni amid widespread condemnation from Western nations and international human rights groups—as being consistent with the country's constitution.
However, the justices struck down four sections of the law that criminalized renting properties for use in same-sex sexual acts and failure to report such acts to the authorities, finding that those provisions violate portions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights related to health, privacy, and religious freedom rights.
"This ruling is wrong and deplorable," said Frank Mugisha, executive director of Sexual Minorities Uganda. "Uganda's Constitution protects all of its people, equally. We continue to call for this law to be repealed. We are calling on all governments, [United Nations] partners, and multilateral institutions such as the World Bank and the Global Fund to likewise intensify their demand that this law be struck down because it is discriminatory."
Tigere Chagutah, a regional director at Amnesty International, said that "it is shocking that an opportunity was missed to revoke a law that undermines the rights of LGBTI persons in Uganda, their allies, human rights defenders, and activists by criminalizing consensual same-sex acts, 'promotion' of homosexuality with all its vagueness as an offense, and contemplates the death penalty for the offense of 'aggravated homosexuality."
"As we mark the 10th anniversary of the African Commission's Resolution 275 on the protection against violence and human rights violations against persons on the basis of their real or imputed sexual orientation or gender identity, the government of Uganda must repeal the entire Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2023 and ensure accountability for the attacks against LGBTI people," Chagutah added.
Amnesty called the Ugandan law "one of the most extreme anti-LGBTI laws in the world."
Human Rights Campaign president Kelly Robinson said in a statement: "For the Constitutional Court of Uganda to uphold such a draconian law in any capacity is a horrific display of hatred that will mean further discrimination and physical harm for LGBTQ+ Ugandans. Over the last year, we have mourned the wave of violence targeting the LGBTQ+ community, and we know that this decision will only result in further damage."
Rightify Ghana, which advocates for sexual minorities in Africa, called Wednesday's ruling "deeply disappointing" and "a significant setback for human rights and democracy in Uganda."
"Human rights and democracy are under attack, not just in Uganda, but across Africa," the group added. "It is crucial that our courts uphold the constitution and protect the rights of all citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity."
Under the Ugandan law, people convicted of "aggravated homosexuality"—defined as same-sex sexual acts by HIV-positive people or with children, disabled people, or anyone deemed vulnerable—can be hanged to death. The law punishes same-sex acts with life imprisonment and attempted same-sex acts with 10 years behind bars. It also criminalizes the "promotion" of LGBTQ+ rights.
According to the Human Rights Awareness and Promotion Forum, a Ugandan advocacy group, 55 people have been arrested under the law, including three who face possible execution. At least eight people have been subjected to forced anal examinations, while 254 people accused of either being or associating with LGBTQ+ people have been evicted from their homes.
Rights groups have also sounded the alarm on anti-gay "witch hunts" and violence targeting LGBTQ+ Ugandans.
The law has sparked international outrage and alarm. In the United States, the Biden administration responded by cutting aid to Uganda, imposing visa restrictions on its citizens, and canceling a planned regional military exercise.
"The announcement that some provisions of Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Act have been removed by the Constitutional Court is a small and insufficient step towards safeguarding human rights," White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Wednesday in response to the ruling.
"The United States is deeply concerned about the remaining provisions which undermine public health, human rights, and Uganda's international reputation," she added. "As the president has said time and time again, no one should have to live in constant fear nor be subjected to violence or discrimination. It is wrong. We will continue to work to advance respect for human rights for all in Uganda and also around the world."
The Delegation of the European Union to Uganda also condemned Wednesday's ruling, calling the AHA "contrary to international human rights law."
"The E.U. also regrets the retention of the death penalty, to which the E.U. is opposed in all circumstances," the delegation added.
Advocates have noted the role of European colonization and U.S. evangelicals in demonizing and outlawing homosexuality in Africa.
The Ugandan LGBTQ+ advocacy group Convening for Equality lamented that the Ugandan court missed an opportunity to follow in the footsteps of other African nations including Mozambique, Botswana, Seychelles, Mauritius, Gabon, Cape Verde, South Africa, and Angola that "have recognized anti-gay laws as remnants of colonial rule, and repealed them through law reform processes and court decisions."
"In the summary released describing the basis for their ruling, the court only cited one case by name: the U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down the right to abortion, Dobbs v. Jackson [Women's Health Organization], as providing justification for upholding criminalization of [LGBTQ+] Ugandans," the group added. "Advocates noted that this could point to influence on Uganda's judiciary by the U.S. extremist hate groups who funded that U.S. Supreme Court challenge."