SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
transgender rights
Trump-Aligned PAC Drops Six Figures in Texas on 'AI Brainrot' Ad Putting Talarico in a Dress
"We need to make this type of undisclosed AI political advertising illegal yesterday," one tech journalist said.
Jun 09, 2026
Republicans are once again using artificial intelligence to attack US Senate candidate James Talarico. This time, they're spending big to air an ad featuring the Democratic nominee for Texas in a dress singing a song about transgender children.
It follows a previous video posted by the Senate GOP's official social media channels in March featuring an uncanny AI rendering of Talarico reading what they described as "extreme statements" he'd previously made on X (then known as Twitter) discussing his views on religion and support for the LGBTQ+ community.
Now, a Trump-aligned dark money group known as Citizens for Sanity is taking it even further. According to a report from The Daily Caller on Tuesday, the group has spent "six figures" on an ad campaign portraying the Texas state representative in a dress singing a parody of "My Favorite Things" from The Sound of Music about trans kids.
“Boys in white dresses with blue satin sashes. Girls dosed with hormones til they grow mustaches. Changing the gender of all your offspring. These are a few of my favorite things," Talarico is shown belting out in the ad.
The ad references comments made by Talarico in 2023 in which he celebrated the trans youth who had shown up, along with other activists, at the Texas state capitol to hold a protest in opposition to Senate Bill 14, which sought to ban transition-related medical care for transgender minors, part of a wave of hundreds of pieces of legislation proposed across the US attacking LGBTQ+ individuals.
Speaking on a podcast, Talarico said: “I love—I’m just going to say this because it’s on my mind—the trans children who showed up yesterday at the state Capitol to advocate for their humanity. They shouldn’t have to, but it was an inspiration to watch.”
As Talarico became the Democratic nominee in Texas, where he'll face off against Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton in November, official Republican channels have spliced the comments to portray Talarico as a creep.
One post in March, from the Republican National Committee Research account on X with 1.3 million views, quotes the interaction dishonestly, as follows:
HOST: "Something that you love that's not family or friends?"
TALARICO: "Trans children."
The ad is in line with others put out by Citizens for Sanity in 2022, when it spent a staggering $93 million attacking Democrats in swing districts. As The Guardian explained in 2024:
The group... flooded the airwaves in battleground states and swing districts with deeply offensive and often misleading ads. Some ads targeted LGBTQ+ rights and attacked “Biden and his radical allies” for supporting “the woke left’s war on girls’ sports” and the “woke war on our children”. Others pictured Latino immigrants and characterized them as criminals “draining your paychecks, wrecking your schools, ruining your hospitals [and] threatening your family”, declaring that “Joe Biden and the Democrats have erased our southern border.”
With AI deepfakes playing an increasing role in political campaigning—especially among Republicans—the group is discovering new frontiers for misinformation in this year's election.
The 15-second spot it plans to roll out across Texas makes no indication of the fact that it was generated with AI, nor of the fact that Talarico never actually uttered any of the words in the song.
Like many other states, Texas has a law prohibiting the use of AI deepfakes to deceive voters during elections. However, it would not apply to this ad, since it is limited to state races and only applies within 30 days before the vote.
Lawmakers in the state have introduced legislation to strengthen the law by scrapping the 30-day rule and requiring disclosures on paid political content generated with AI. But despite some bipartisan support, the reforms failed to pass through the GOP-controlled Legislature.
While this new Talarico ad would be unlikely to fool most voters, others—like the one released by the Senate GOP in March—are already realistic enough to influence even savvy viewers, explained Sandra Cai, the founder of Plurall AI, an AI deepfake and fraud detection platform.
"By the time a viewer questions what they saw, the impression is already made," she said in a social media post. "The 2026 midterms laid bare an uncomfortable truth: Disclosure labels are easy to miss and easy to ignore. The tools to produce these ads are cheap, fast, and widely available. Regulation remains a patchwork, often applying only in the final weeks before an election."
On the left, the Talarico ad has led to familiar bewilderment that such misleading material has not been outlawed.
"We need to make this type of undisclosed AI political advertising illegal yesterday," said the liberal tech journalist Taylor Lorenz.
And while some Talarico opponents boasted that they were "going to win the midterms by programming boomers with AI brainrot ads," others on the right said they were also disturbed by the trend.
"James Talarico is awful," said Frank DeVito, senior counsel at the right-wing Napa Legal Institute. "But this use of AI to generate a video of a political opponent saying or doing what he did not really say or do is not good."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trans Athletes Don't Threaten Women—Patriarchal Politicians Do
As the defense teams in Hecox and BPJ seek to police the bodies of transgender women and girls, all women and girls who don’t adhere to society’s rigid standard of femininity will feel the impact.
Jun 07, 2026
The power politicians have over women’s bodies is one of the oldest tools of control in American history. Throughout that history, the promise of protecting women has been the longtime excuse for excluding women from civic life and limiting our freedom. That history isn’t over.
The Supreme Court will soon decide Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. BPJ—legal cases out of Idaho and West Virginia that will determine whether transgender athletes will be allowed to compete on women’s and girls’ school sports teams.
Idaho’s attorney general has argued that the bans ensure “women’s spaces and sports remain fair, safe, and dedicated to empowering female athletes.” Or, in other words, that we must allow politicians to pass these bans to “protect” women. Although the court’s decision is expected any day now, I have already made mine. Transgender sports bans are not and never have been about protecting women.
I have spent my career fighting to protect the bodily autonomy and legal protections of all women and girls. When people ask me, whether genuinely or in bad faith, why transgender women are unequivocally included in my organization’s work, I tell them the truth: Our fight is the same.
If you have been in the business of fighting for women’s rights and protections as long as I have, you know that women face many threats to their safety and autonomy, but not one of those threats includes transgender people.
The tactics being used to exclude transgender athletes are similar to those once used to keep women from casting a ballot, having a credit card, or getting the healthcare they need.
In 1776, a woman couldn’t own the clothes on her back, much less the home she built. Proponents of the practice said it was “intended for her protection.” One 100 years later, when women were shut out of the legal profession, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of such paternalism, even stating that “man is, or should be, woman’s protector.” And when women were later fighting for the right to abortion, we were told that our bodies are not our own.
It is no wonder, then, that the red herring of protecting women is being deployed in the Trump administration’s executive orders and in the Hecox and BPJ cases. It is the same excuse being used in a flurry of sports bans and anti-transgender bills that have been introduced and implemented around the country over the past six years. Ultimately, transgender sports bans fail to address the real threats women face in sports, like unfair pay and unequal access to training and facilities.
The great irony is that bans against transgender women in women’s sports, women’s bathrooms, and other areas of public life actually endanger all women. The Idaho law that the Hecox case is challenging, for example, requires women and girl student-athletes whose sex is disputed to undergo invasive sex testing, including physical examinations. Athletes in men’s sports are not subject to the same degradation.
For as long as women and girls have been allowed to participate in sports, their bodies have been scrutinized. From non-white women who do not conform to white beauty standards, to girls with short hair or baggy clothes, to those who are deemed too strong, women athletes who do not perform femininity as some deem correctly have been harassed, punished, and forced to face humiliating tests to prove their gender.
It is no accident that Project 2025 and its supporters are pushing both anti-transgender legislation and a rollback of women’s protections against sexual harassment and assault, their right to reproductive healthcare, and even their ability to vote. Today, as the defense teams in Hecox and BPJ seek to police the bodies of transgender women and girls, all women and girls who don’t adhere to society’s rigid standard of femininity will feel the impact.
If you have been in the business of fighting for women’s rights and protections as long as I have, you know that women face many threats to their safety and autonomy, but not one of those threats includes transgender people.
It remains to be seen if the Supreme Court’s decision in Hecox and BPJ will reaffirm what I already know to be true: We women, including transgender women, must be in the fight for liberation together.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'It Will Kill People': HHS Proposal Targeting Transgender Healthcare Could Cause Even More Hospitals to Close
One advocate said the proposed rule would force hospitals "to choose between providing lifesaving care for trans people or maintaining the ability to serve patients through Medicare and Medicaid."
Oct 30, 2025
A pair of extreme new Trump administration rules aimed at functionally banning gender-affirming healthcare for transgender youth could force even more hospitals to close down.
NPR reported Thursday that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) drafted a proposed rule that would prohibit federal Medicaid reimbursement for medical care provided to transgender patients younger than 18 and prohibit the same from the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for patients under 19.
Another proposed rule goes even further, blocking all Medicaid and Medicare funding to hospitals that provide gender-affirming care to youth.
As Erin Reed, an independent journalist who reports on LGBTQ+ rights, explained, this "would effectively eliminate access to such care nationwide, except at the few private clinics able to forgo Medicaid entirely, a rarity in transgender youth medicine."
The policies are of a piece with the Trump administration and the broader Republican Party's efforts to eliminate transgender healthcare for youth across the country.
Bans on gender-affirming care for those under 18 have already been passed in 27 states, despite evidence that early access to treatments like puberty blockers and hormones can save lives.
As Reed pointed out, a Cornell University review of more than 51 studies shows that access to such care dramatically reduces the risk of suicide and the rates of anxiety and depression among transgender adolescents.
The new HHS rules are being prepared for public release in November and would not be finalized for several more months.
But if passed, the ramifications could extend far beyond transgender people, impacting the entire healthcare system, for which federal funding from Medicare and Medicaid is a load-bearing piece. According to a report last year from the American Hospital Association, 96% of hospitals in the US have more than half their inpatient days paid for by Medicare and Medicaid.
It is already becoming apparent what happens when even some of that funding is taken away. As a result of the massive GOP budget law passed in July, an estimated $1 trillion is expected to be cut from Medicaid over the next decade. According to an analysis released Thursday by Protect Our Care, which maintains a Hospital Crisis Watch database, more than 500 healthcare providers across the country are already at risk of shutting down due to the budget cuts.
Tyler Hack, the executive director of the Christopher Street Project, a transgender rights organization, said that the newly proposed HHS rule would be "forcing hospitals to choose between providing lifesaving care for trans people or maintaining the ability to serve patients through Medicare and Medicaid."
"Today’s news marks a dangerous overreach by the executive branch, pitting trans people, low-income families, disabled people, and seniors against each other and making hospitals choose which vulnerable populations to serve," Hack said. "If these rules become law, it will kill people."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular