Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga. speaks during the first day of the Republican National Convention.
Fresh off of her Election Night victory, anti-LGBTQ+ Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) has expressed excitement that she, President-elect Donald Trump, and their MAGA cohorts will no longer tolerate “turning our kids trans.”
“I am so excited!” Greene said from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Election Night party to convicted former Trump advisor Steve Bannon on the Real Americas Voice network. “America will no longer tolerate this communist regime, ripping our border wide open, turning our kids trans, and promoting abortion as reproductive rights. The American people are fed up with a weaponized government. President Trump is going back to the White House!”
She said that “Big Pharma” is lying to people about gender-affirming care.
She also claimed that Republicans will have to “continue to fight for election integrity…. because the Democrats will steal elections if they’re given the opportunity.” She and Trump have baselessly claimed that Trump only lost the 2020 election due to an unprecedented nationwide conspiracy of voter fraud that only occurred in the states that Trump lost.
She also said that Trump will pardon the insurrectionists who were jailed for the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, “end the climate change scam,” and “go after the people” who persecuted Trump and his supporters, including former U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Matthew Graves, U.S. Rep. Bennie Gordon Thompson (D-MS), and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Trump has referred to Pelosi as a “sick, crazy b**ch” and “an enemy from within.”
In July, Greene spoke at a press conference heralding the start of Bannon’s four-month sentence in the Danbury Federal Correctional Institution today for defying a congressional subpoena investigating his assistance in inciting the January 6, 2021 Capitol riots.
Greene has previously said that an airplane never hit the Pentagon during the September 11 terrorist attacks, claimed that all school shootings are fake, said that California wildfires were started by a Jewish-owned space laser, and accused former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of slicing off a child’s face and wearing it.
Trump has promised to ban gender-affirming care for minors nationwide and prohibit federal agencies from “promot[ing] the concept of sex and gender transition at any age.” He has pledged to deny federal funding to schools that push “radical gender ideology, and other inappropriate … sexual or political content on our children.” He has also promised to repeal Biden-era protections for LGBTQ+ students “on Day One.”
Trump insulted Bannon when he was convicted of a crime
On the last day of Trump’s presidency, he pardoned Bannon who served as chief executive officer of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. Bannon also served as White House chief strategist and senior counselor to Trump from January 2017 until August 18, 2017, when Trump fired him.
In August 2020, Bannon was indicted by a federal grand jury for allegedly spending $1 million of a $25 million GoFundMe campaign to help Trump construct a U.S.-Mexico border wall. Bannon pleaded not guilty and was set to face trial in May 2021 before Trump pardoned him.
Trump initially said the Mexican government would pay for the wall — they never did, and Trump only built 458 total miles of barriers, PolitiFact reported.
In January 2018, Trump and Bannon’s relationship soured after Bannon was quoted in Michael Wolff’s book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House as calling the president’s daughter Ivanka Trump “dumb as a brick” and calling Trump “a crooked business guy” and a “scumbag.”
In response, Trump said in a statement, “Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my Presidency. When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind,” adding, “Steve had very little to do with our historic victory.” Trump later referred to Bannon as “Sloppy Steve” on Twitter (now X) and claimed that Bannon “cried when he got fired and begged for his job.”
Project 2025, assuming it still needs to be explained at this point, is an infamous proposed manifesto for the ultra-conservative faction of the Republican Party and, many believe, Donald Trump’s second term.
And with many LGBTQ+ Americans waking up on 6 November to the bleak and shocking reality of a second Trump presidency, it feels like a particularly good time to unpick what the document could signify for queer peoples’ rights in the US over the next four years.
Unsurprisingly, while Project 2025 promises to “take down the ‘Deep State’ and return the government to the people”, it also threatens to shred the rights and advancements of the LGBTQ+ community in the US.
The handbook’s authors claim that one of the biggest problems facing the US today is the “toxic normalization of transgenderism with drag queens and pornography invading school libraries.”
Project 2025 goes on to say that “transgender ideology” is one form of “pornography” linked to the “sexualization of children”. In total, “gender” is mentioned 111 times, and “LGBT” or “LGBTQ” 18 times, in the handbook.
LGBTQ+ rights would all but disappear if Project 2025 came to fruition. (Getty)
Viewed as a sort of right-wing wish-list, Project 2025 pledges to strip away anti-discrimination policies, making it easier to target and discriminate against LGBTQ+ people.
Published by the hard-line right-wing Heritage Foundation, the document calls for the removal of terms such as “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” from federal rules and legislation, and the revoking of regulations prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status and sex characteristics.
Project 2025 set out plans to restrict the application of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock vs. Clayton County, which extended workplace protections against sex discrimination to LGBTQ+ employees.
In addition, it plans to restrict access to healthcare for transgender people, something it refers to as a form of “child abuse”. Its authors also want to see trans healthcare no longer being covered by insurance schemes Medicare and Medicaid, and an end to anti-discrimination rules based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
In addition, there are plans to reverse policies allowing transgender people to serve in the military, a ban that was initially brought in under the Trump administration but reversed by president Joe Biden. If enacted, Project 2025 would expel transgender servicemen and women as well as those living with HIV.
Donald Trump has tried to distance himself from the hard-line right-wing document. (Getty)
The State Department’s LGBTQ+ equality initiatives in Africa would also be axed. In other words, there would be no effort to stop draconian anti-queer laws being passed in countries such as Uganda.
In terms of education, the conservative blueprint is even more staunchly anti-LGBTQ+. It calls for a ban on students using names or pronouns that don’t match the sex on their birth certificate, and no school employee would be “forced” to use a pupil’s chosen pronouns.
It document outlines ideas to remove LGBTQ+-inclusive curriculums and policies from schools, claiming that “critical race theory and gender ideology” are “poisoning and indoctrinating children with leftist ideologies”. Instead, families “comprised of a married mother, father and their children” would be prioritized.
Despite many of its authors being one-time Trump administration advisors, the former president claims to know “nothing about Project 2025” or who is behind it, saying: “I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal.”
And two of his campaign advisors insisted: “President Trump’s campaign has been very clear that Project 2025 had nothing to do with the campaign, did not speak for the campaign, and should not be associated with the campaign in any way.”
A spokesperson for Project 2025 has even told CNN that it “does not speak for any candidate or campaign.”
However, Democrats have continued to point to links between the 922-page document and Trump. As he’s now won the election, will Trump finally admit to having any involvement with Project 2025? Only time will tell.
Donald Trump has been outspoken against the LGBTQ+ community. (Getty)
At the time of writing, it seems almost inevitable that Donald Trump will become the 47th President of the United States, meaning LGBTQ+ rights are under serious threat.
The election was one of the closest in history according to voting polls over the past few weeks, with polling group FiveThirtyEight reporting that Harris just barely reached a 1.2 per cent lead on Trump a day before the results were counted.
The last Trump presidency led to a roll-back of protections and anti-discrimination laws for LGBTQ+ people, and it doesn’t look as if a second term would be any different if he is re-elected, based on campaign promises and the detailed policy proposals outlined in Project 2025 – although Trump has tried to distance himself from the right-wing proposals.
In anticipation of a Trump win, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) suggested a new Trump administration would “reinstate and significantly escalate the removal of anti-discrimination policies… proactively require discrimination by the federal government [and] weaponize federal law against transgender people across the country”.
So, what are Trump’s views about LGBTQ+ rights, and what exactly might he do?
Erase federal non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people
Trump’s first term was extremely detrimental to the rights and protections of LGBTQ+ people, and a second term could roll back protections once again.
LGBTQ+ people might no longer be guaranteed to be free of discrimination across several federal government programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, housing and employment.
Exclude openly transgender people from the military
The first Trump administration reversed policies allowing trans people to serve in the military, and it is not difficult to foresee the president doing so again.
Another ban on trans people in the military would force out active-duty transgender service personnel as well as prevent trans people enlisting in the future.
This is despite a report in 2016 revealing that trans-inclusive policies have “little or no impact on unit cohesion, operational effectiveness, or readiness”.
In fact, trans-inclusive military policies could benefit all active service members by “creating a more inclusive and diverse force.”
Trans people could once again be banned from serving. (Getty)
Withhold federal funding if school officials affirm transgender students
Trump has said he would act to stop any school district introducing or maintaining trans-inclusive policies and practices.
This would include withholding federal funding that allow trans students to use toilets and changing rooms that align with their gender identity, or even acknowledging that they are trans, as well as arguing that trans-inclusive policies violate the rights of cisgender pupils.
Discrimination against trans students, causing significant harm to the community as a whole, would be the likely result of such a move.
During a recent campaign rally, Trump said he was not going to “let” trans women compete in sporting events at all if he becomes president again.
He said invoking the ban would “not [be] a big deal”, citing recent sporting events in which trans women competed against cisgender women, claiming that the trans athlete had a competitive edge over their opponent.
“Physically, from a muscular standpoint… look at what’s happened in swimming. Look at the records that are being broken,” he said.
Prohibit gender-affirming care in federal healthcare programmes
His website also promises that on his first day in the Oval Office, he would issue an executive order “instructing every federal agency to cease all programs that promote the concept of sex and gender transition, at any age”.
The administration would also probably deny Medicaid funding for hospitals that provide gender-affirming care, forcing medics to deny trans people the care they require.
Access to healthcare for more than 100,000 transgender youngsters in 24 states has already been halted in the past three years.
Allow employers to discriminate against LGBTQ+ staff
A second Trump administration could bring in provisions to allow employers to discriminate against LGBTQ+ members of staff based on the boss’ stated religious beliefs, a reversal of existing non-discrimination laws.
This would not require congress or bipartisan support, and could be pushed through using an executive order from the president.
The administration could go one step further to prevent state and local governments enforcing non-discrimination laws if the defendant says the discrimination was based on religious belief.
Laws protecting LGBTQ+ people and other minorities from discrimination based on protected characteristics might also disappear.
Donald Trump has continued to target the LGBTQ+ community. (Getty)
Criminalize gender-non-conformity in public life
Project 2025 – a hard-line right-wing blueprint for a future Republican president – suggests the use of criminal laws to punish gender-non-conformity in public life, with pornography being the crux of the issue.
The authors of the plan, the Heritage Foundation, inexplicably link pornography with “transgender ideology” and argue that neither has a “claim to First Amendment protection” and therefore should be outlawed.
“The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned,” they demand. “Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders, and telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be [closed down].”
That means any discussion of transgender people in schools and libraries could be criminalized, and trans people might face jail time for being themselves.
Trump would only be able to put this into practice with congress’ approval and there is unlikely to be bipartisan support for such a law, but even the slim possibility is terrifying.
Finally – could gay marriage be reversed?
Same-sex marriage supporter Vin Testa, of Washington DC, waves a rainbow pride flag near the Supreme Court. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Unfortunately, yes, it could.
After crucial abortion legislation Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court, many people said that next, they would be coming for Windsor and Obergefell and Lawrence – three rulings that unlocked a national right to same-sex marriage.
Whether a same-sex couple could marry varied by state before 2015. With its 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court extended the full federal right to marry to all same-sex couples.
So would – or could it be taken away? Many people think that the Supreme Court wouldn’t dare. Same-sex marriage is now too accepted in American society, they argue. It would cause “legal chaos.”
However, it remains the case that some justices, particularly Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, appear to be itching to overturn Obergefell. In 2022, Justice Thomas said the Supreme Court “should reconsider” its past rulings codifying rights to contraception access, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage.
It’s important to remember in all of this Pride is a protest, and it continues to be. We can fight any and all of these attacks by standing up, speaking out and refusing to stay silent.
What We Know About How Trump Will Approach LGBTQ+ Rights, Abortion, and Other Issues
Much is still unknown about how Trump will carry out some of his big promises on issues like the economy and immigration, or how he may curb abortion access and LGBTQ+ rights. Project 2025 and what he’s said so far offer some clues.
Sign up for The Agenda— Them’s news and politics newsletter, delivered to your inbox every Thursday.
Throughout his campaign, President-elect Donald Trump has made big promises on issues of enormous consequence to Americans, from the economy to reproductive health care — but offered few details on how he would see those promises through.
What he’s said in his campaign and what he did during his first term offer some clues, as does Project 2025, the blueprint for a second Trump term written by the conservative Heritage Foundation. Though Trump has distanced himself from Project 2025, saying he has “no idea who is behind it” and that he has not read it, six of his former cabinet secretaries contributed to it in some form and much of what is in the 920-page document aligns directly with statements Trump has made this year.
Though there are still many unknowns, here is what we know so far about how a second Trump term will approach reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ rights, the economy, education, immigration and aging and disability care.
Abortion
Throughout his campaign, Trump has repeatedly taken credit for the fall of Roe v. Wade. He appointed three of the Supreme Court justices who helped overturn the decades-old case protecting federal abortion rights. His stance on abortion access has wobbled over time between a national ban and state-by-state laws.
Though Trump has said he would not support a federal abortion ban and he’s called restrictive abortion laws like Florida’s six-week ban “a terrible mistake,” it’s unclear how much he will stick to those statements: A day after he said people needed “more time” than six weeks, he said he would vote to uphold the ban in Florida, where he lives. About 57 percent of Floridians voted in favor of an amendment to undo the six-week regulation, but it fell short of the 60 percent threshold it needed to pass.
The biggest question mark heading into the election was his support of a federal ban. During the presidential debate in September, Trump said “there’s no reason to sign a ban, because we’ve gotten what everybody wanted, Democrats, Republicans and everybody else, and every legal scholar wanted it to be brought back into the states,” meaning the issue had been returned to the states. A majority of Americans disapproved of the Supreme Court decision that led to a patchwork of abortion decisions, according to polling from the nonpartisan Pew Research Center.
What Trump will ultimately do will likely come down to who he appoints — and listens to — in his administration. Some of his closest supporters, including Vice President-elect JD Vance, have said they support a national ban on abortion, though during the vice presidential debate in October, Vance acknowledged that his position is not popular with “a lot of Americans.”
Trump has also said he’s open to limiting whether mifepristone, one of the pills used in medication abortions, can be sent by mail.
Economy
Much of Trump’s win Tuesday was likely due to Americans’ view on how he could improve the economy — and particularly their own personal finances. Early exit polls show that the economy was a lead motivator for many after record inflation during the Biden administration brought on by a confluence of factors, including supply chain issues, Russia’s war in Ukraine and coronavirus stimulus checks.
In the end, the reason for the inflation — and how much of it was Biden’s doing — didn’t matter. Trump presented himself as the person to “fix” the economic troubles that have plagued Americans over the past four years, and it appears to have been a salient message.
Trump inherits an economy in repair: Inflation is back down to 2.1 percent from 9 percent, hovering at the Federal Reserve’s 2 percent goal. And the country has been adding jobs consistently for months, though the most recent report shows fewer jobs added in October than expected. Still, the unemployment rate is down to about 4.1 percent from 6.3 percent when Trump left office in January 2021.
The biggest economic showdown of a second Trump term will likely come next year, when parts of Trump’s 2017 tax bill expire. Among those provisions is the child tax credit, which was expanded in 2017 to $2,000 per child. Trump has expressed support for the credit, but has not said what he’d do with it in 2025. Vance has floated increasing the credit further to $5,000 per child. Trump has also called for further lowering the corporate tax rate, which he brought down from 35 to 21 percent in 2017, to 15 percent.
The president-elect has also proposed several tax breaks — on tips, Social Security and overtime pay — but it’s unclear how he would pursue those aims.
Cutting taxes on tips would impact the women who make up the majority of tipped workers directly, but only those who earn enough to be taxed in the first place. Nearly 40 percent of tipped workers already don’t earn enough to pay federal income taxes.
If Trump also eliminates payroll taxes on tips, most workers would see some impact, but could also see their Social Security benefits diminish (payroll taxes fund Social Security and Medicare). The same would happen if taxes are cut on overtime pay, though it’s also unclear what the impact of that would be. Trump has offered no details on how he would approach the policy.
Trump has also called for eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits, a proposal that would impact about half of recipients, most of them higher income, who currently pay taxes. But that proposal alone could make Social Security insolvent three years earlier than predicted, by fiscal year 2031, rather than 2034, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization.
It is likely that the second Trump administration will vigorously pursue curbing the rights of trans Americans. Trump’s campaign has proposed terminating Medicare and Medicaid funding for hospitals that provide gender-affirming care to trans youth, attempting to charge teachers with sex discrimination for affirming students’ gender identities and ordering federal agencies to “cease all programs that promote the concept of sex and gender transition at any age.” Trump has also pledged to ask Congress to halt the use of federal funds to promote or pay for gender-affirming care, without distinguishing between care for adults or minors.
Leading up to the election, Trump falsely claimed that schools were performing gender-affirming surgeries on children without parental knowledge or consent — a claim divorced from reality that marked a particularly bizarre moment in a campaign littered with anti-trans misinformation. At an October 28 rally, as Trump did at multiple rallies on the tail end of his campaign, he doubled down on framing anti-trans policies as key to his vision for the Republican party, saying: “We’re the party of common sense. That means no open borders, and no transgender operations.”
In October, about 41 percent of the campaign’s ad spending was focused on messaging around trans people, particularly trans athletes and children receiving gender-affirming care.
When polled, most Americans do not rank trans issues highly compared to issues like the economy or abortion rights. It is currently unclear if these ads motivated Trump voters to turn out in 2024 or if they were incidental to issues that voters rank more highly.
Education
Trump has called repeatedly for an end to the Department of Education and presented himself as a champion for school choice, a position that will likely take center stage in a second term.
That stance aligns with details in Project 2025, which also supports eliminating the agency, as well as gutting protections for LGBTQ+ students and what he sees as progressive curriculum. Trump has vowed to cut federal funding for schools that teach lessons related to race or that teach “gender ideology.” Much of the impact will be on trans students, especially in sports.
Under his previous administration, then-Education Secretary Betsy DeVos worked to limit trans women’s participation in women’s sports, arguing it violated the anti-discrimination law Title IX.
DeVos also sparked outrage by revising Title IX regulations to make it harder for sexual misconduct survivors on college campuses to hold perpetrators accountable.
Earlier this year, the Biden administration reversed these controversial DeVos-era regulations and offered protections for LGBTQ+ students in schools, but the incoming Trump administration will almost certainly introduce their own updates to this federal law. Specifically, Trump is expected to go further by defining “sex” to exclude transgender students from playing on teams or experiencing school generally in ways that align with their gender identity.
Gutting the Department of Education would also have a major negative impact on disabled students, who rely on federal enforcement of civil rights laws to protect them from discrimination, lack of access to appropriate education, unnecessary segregation and abuse.
Immigration
Some of Trump’s most divisive rhetoric during his campaign was toward Latinx people and immigrants, who he blamed as the reason for many of the country’s challenges, from safety to job loss to affordable housing. In the final days of his campaign, at a Trump rally in Madison Square Garden, comedian Tony Hinchcliffe called Puerto Rico “a floating island of garbage.”
Throughout his campaign, Trump has called immigrants “the enemy from within,” saying undocumented immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country.”
His response as president, he said, would be to mount the “largest deportation in the history of our country,” but he has offered very little information on how that would happen, who would be targeted and with what resources.
Much of what Project 2025 has to say about immigration overlaps with Trump’s campaign promises. The document discusses reinstating “every rule related to immigration that was issued” during Trump’s first term, and the president-elect has specifically called for putting back into place his “Remain in Mexico” policy, by which some asylum seekers had to wait out the outcomes of their U.S. immigration cases in Mexico.
Plans laid out in Project 2025 would also make it even more difficult for undocumented students to attend college. It calls for the Department of Education to deny loan access to students who aren’t in the country with authorization and for loan access to be denied to students at schools that offer in-state tuition to the undocumented population. Nearly 20 states, including California, Texas and New York, offer in-state tuition to undocumented students.
Disability and aging
During the presidential debate in September, Trump indicated that he had “concepts of a plan” for replacing the Affordable Care Act, which protects disabled, chronically ill and older Americans from being excluded from standard health insurance coverage.
Opposition to the Affordable Care Act was a centerpiece of Trump’s 2016 campaign, and his first year in office was characterized by a failed, widely unpopular attempt to repeal and replace it, in addition to cutting Medicaid funding. Medicaid, a federal poverty program, funds the majority of long-term care for disabled and older adults in the United States.
Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson has indicated that he is willing to commit to dismantling the Affordable Care Act during a Trump presidency. While Trump promises on his website not to cut Medicare, which provides health insurance for Americans over 65, he has made no such promises about Medicaid.
Affordable drug pricing may also take a hit during a second Trump term. The Biden administration vigorously pursued Medicare price negotiation to lower the cost of some particularly expensive prescription drugs for older adults. While Trump promised to pursue a similar policy during the 2016 race, he never implemented that promise.
Both Vance and Trump have promised a tax credit for family caregivers of older and disabled adults between $5,000 to $6,000 per year. The average cost of home care in the United States, per the most recent data from the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program, is $42,120 per year. The average cost of a shared room in a nursing home is $100,740 per year.
Nadra Nittle and Orion Rummler contributed to this reporting.
“There has to be as many traitors executed as he has days in office,” urged another Gab post. “Build the gallows, restore the REPUBLIC.” “Many many many executions are warranted,” someone wrote on Truth Social. One viral meme that was shared widely across platforms on Wednesday had the caption “RELEASE THE PROJECT 2025 HANDMAIDS TALE RAPE SQUADS.”
Read the full article. Other posts and memes call for executing Nancy Pelosi, Alejandro Mayorkas, and Kamala Harris. A Proud Boys account depicts Harris as “Whore Of The Year.” Hit the link for more.
In a follow-up post, Davis said the following: “Here’s my current mood: I want to drag their dead political bodies through the streets, burn them, and throw them off the wall. (Legally, politically, and financially, of course.)”
In August 2024, Davis appeared here when he threatened to sue any publication or social media user who referred to Trump as a “convicted felon.”
In April 2024, he appeared here when he vowed to imprison Trump’s critics and prosecute Barack Obama for murder.
In February 2024, we heard from him when he declared, “What’s so bad about Christian nationalism?”
His first appearance here came last year when he threatened to “arrest and deport” journalist Mehdi Hasan and throw gay reporter Tim Miller in a women’s prison.
And he could be the nation’s next Attorney General.
As I said yesterday, today is the day we start to figure out how to fight back against what is coming. From what I read yesterday a lot of men still won’t vote for a woman, especially Latino heritage men. Plus people said things cost less under tRump in 2019 and felt he could bring prices down to those levels. But that is stupid, he won’t and can’t because to him and the wealthy profit is king. But what could happen is that their incomes will be cut, their safety nets will be cut. One guy was heard saying tRump had the economy and immigration and Harris only had women’s rights and Democracy. Think on it, hating others was more important than others rights and Democracy. But we will learn more. Arab voters who claim they warned Harris she needed to change on Gaza will notice that already Israel has increased its take over of Gaza, saying that Palestinians will NOT be allowed to return to the north and all that are still there will be killed. Knowing that tRump will back him. So they sure made a difference didn’t they. Hugs.
Vice President Kamala Harris led President-elect Donald Trump 86% to 12% among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender voters, according to the NBC News Exit Poll Desk.
By Patrick J. Egan, NBC News Exit Poll Desk
Former President Donald Trump defeated Vice President Kamala Harris to become the next U.S. president, NBC News projected, but he didn’t do so with the help of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender voters.
LGBT voters shifted even more solidly into the Democratic camp this year, according to the NBC News Exit Poll. Harris led President-elect Trump 86% to 12% among LGBT voters, the poll found. That’s a 15-point change from 2020, when Trump won 27% of the LGBT vote against Biden.
Harris’ performance among LGBT voters was stronger than that of any Democratic candidate in the last five presidential elections.
Although Republican vice presidential candidate Sen. JD Vance predicted that he and Trump would win the “normal gay guy vote,” the GOP presidential ticket captured fewer than 1 in 5 LGBT male voters, though that figure could also include bisexual and transgender men. Trump’s support among LGBT female voters was even more tepid, at 8%. White LGBT people went solidly for Harris over Trump by 82% to 16%, though Harris’ margin was even bigger among LGBT voters of color at 91% to 5%.
Most LGBT voters said they’d be either “excited” (39%) or “optimistic” (43%) if Harris were elected president. By contrast, 62% of LGBT respondents said they’d be “scared” if Trump won.
According to the exit poll, 8% of American voters identified as LGBT in 2024. That’s the highest share on record. The percentage of the electorate identifying as LGBT has doubled since Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, when it was 4%.
As in previous elections, LGBT voters stood out as one of the most left-leaning voter blocs in the electorate. Among LGBT voters, Democrats vastly outnumber Republicans, 56% to 5%, and liberals surpass conservatives, 61% to 5%. LGBT voters are staunchly pro-choice: 59% say abortion should be legal in all cases, a much higher level of support for abortion rights than among non-LGBTs, at 31%.
Ron and I stayed up until 4 am watching the election results. We got about an hours worth of sleep. Then we got up and sat stunned. I am sorry this is going to take me a long time to understand and bounce back from. So many people of this country are so uninformed and so many thought sending a message by not voting for Harris would somehow be better for the Palestinians. What this means for Gaza and the West bank is no more restraints on Israel, no aid for Ukraine. More right wing ideologue justices who rule not by law but by ideology and feelings. Thomas and Alito have hinted that if tRump won and had the Senate they would retire so he could fill their seats with 40 year olds to be there for generations. What this means for other countries and our relationships with them … who knows. But what this means for the LGBTQ+ community is clear. We have large targets on us now. Sad hugs
A broken window on an LGBTQ fashion boutique storefront in Manhattan, New York on June 12, 2023.Photo: Shutterstock
There has been a 112% increase in documented attacks on LGBTQ+ people nationwide, according to a newly unveiled Anti-LGBTQ Extremism Reporting Tracker (ALERT) from the queer media watchdog organization GLAAD. GLAAD hopes to use the tracker to provide comprehensive reporting and analysis detailing anti-LGBTQ+ hate in the U.S. and the specific communities and targets affected by it.
ALERT recorded 524 such incidents between June 2022 and 2023 and 1,109 incidents from June 2023 to 2024. These attacks have included over 450 protests, 330 propaganda drops, 320 acts of vandalism, 200 bomb & mass shooting threats, 130 assaults, and 45 cases of arson that have resulted in at least 161 injuries and 21 deaths, GLAAD’s ALERT Desk reported.
While the cases focus on drag bans and trans protections, they address larger issues of free speech and civil rights.
The attacks have also included over 567 attacks on transgender and gender non-conforming people, 360 incidents targeting educational institutions and libraries, 325 incidents targeting Pride flags and other LGBTQ+ community symbols, 160 protests and violent threats against drag performers, and 140 incidents targeting health care providers of gender-affirming care and their patients.
The tracker, which will be updated quarterly, includes data on criminal and non-criminal acts of hate from sources like news media, partner organizations (like the Human Rights Campaign or Anti-Defamtion League’s Center on Extremism), right-wing forums on social media sites like Gab or chat apps like Telegram as well as incident reports submitted via GLAAD’s website. All documented incidents must occur against groups or individuals within the U.S. and must include harassment, threats, or actual violence specifically targeting LGBTQ+ people.
GLAAD’s ALERT team will verify the validity of each incident to maintain credibility, remove duplicates, and exclude spam and trolling, the organization said.
“The ALERT Desk tells a story not entirely captured by the FBI’s hate crime statistics because many of these incidents, like protests at Pride events, don’t meet the criteria necessary to bring legal charges [and] aren’t included in most official hate crime counts,” GLAAD wrote in its recently released report on ALERT’s findings. “However, we must recognize that the impact of these acts on local LGBTQ communities is felt regardless of whether or not the incident is prosecuted.”
“We must recognize that the impact of these acts on local LGBTQ communities is felt regardless of whether or not the incident is prosecuted.”
GLAAD’s 2024 report on ALERT’s findings
During a press call, Barbara Simon, senior director of news and campaigns at GLAAD, noted that ALERT seeks to contextualize anti-LGBTQ+ incidents to help media and other experts understand larger systems of violence.
“[Recently], there was a bomb threat against a library in Massachusetts,” Simon said, a threat against a Drag Queen Story Hour at the public library in Somerville. “But it’s not just about that library. It’s not just about the inclusive materials and programs they had, about how the bomb squad had to come in and sweep the library, how children and families and patrons had to evacuate the library.”
“Our data shows how that incident is connected to the bigger picture, which is more of a broad-based, systemic attack against LGBTQ people, our visibility, our equality and our allies,” Simon added. “It is one of 365 attacks nationwide against drag artisan events. It’s one of 63 anti-LGBTQ attacks in Massachusetts alone, one of 15 attacks specifically against drag in Massachusetts.”
The quarterly reports will also include stories from those affected by the incidents.
GLAADA bar graph showing anti-LGBTQ+ hate incidents from GLAAD’s ALERT Desk. | GLAAD
For example, Dr. Jack Turban, pediatric psychiatrist and director of the gender psychiatry program at the University of California in San Francisco, said during the press call that bans on gender-affirming care for youth in 26 states have worsened the mental health of his young trans patients even though they live in a state where such health care is protected. Their mental health has been worsened, Turban said, because of an increase in anti-trans rhetoric nationwide whose indirect effects cross state lines.
“Kids are hearing things like being trans is a mental illness, or being trans is bad, or you shouldn’t be allowed to use the bathroom that aligns with your gender identity because trans people are sexual assaulters, or you shouldn’t be allowed to play on sports teams with your friends because you’re going to physically hurt them,” Turban said. “My patients know that none of those things are true, right? They can know that, but if you’re hearing it every single day, all over social media and all over the news and now right in their communities, even it’s impossible to not be impacted by that.”
GLAAD pointed out that media coverage tends to falsely frame medical care for transgender people as a “debate” despite every major medical association supporting the care. This coverage compounds the effect of hateful rhetoric from anti-trans politicians, protestors, and pundits.
ShutterstockSalina EsTitties attends the 35th Annual GLAAD Awards on March 14, 2024 in Beverly Hills, California. | Shutterstock
The hateful rhetoric affects even LGBTQ+ celebrities and their fans, like Salina EsTitties, a competitor who appeared in Season 15 of RuPaul’s Drag Race. EsTitties told the press call that she’s generally insulated from hatred against gender non-conforming people since she lives in the very gay city of West Hollywood, California. However, she sees its impact whenever she travels to other states or posts social media videos about LGBTQ+ issues.
“There’s comments every single day of people being like, ‘This is not what God created. God created two genders. Oh, they keep adding alphabets. Oh, just shoot it between the eyes and get rid of it,’” EsTitties said. “The online hate is insane and there’s so much of it, and people are so willing to just let it all out, but it’s a clear representation of how people actually feel in America and across, you know, the U.S. here.”
“Not only are our LGBT community dealing with having to be their authentic selves,” she continued. “Being their authentic selves with just who they are outside of their queer identity is a lot to navigate, and it’s not easy, especially when people are telling you, ‘You’re the Devil, you’re a demon,’ or ‘It’s not acceptable to be that.’”
Hate crimes typically increase during presidential election years. Marie Cottrell, executive director for the New Jersey-based LGBTQ+ advocacy center Out Montclair, said she hopes that increased awareness of anti-LGBTQ+ hate incidents will empower communities to build intersectional coalitions between other demographic groups whose members are targeted by similar hate.
“I think that it’s really important that you be the person that the community needs,” Cottrell told the press call. “They need to see you stand for and with them. Find folks who in your community who will stand with you in the face of intolerance, build a community of support within your township — whether that’s forging a relationship with your LGBTQ liaison within the local police department … working with the township, the mayor, the town council, and really having open conversations … having conversations that address really hard questions and topics and that starts the process of understanding and healing in your community.”
“It’s a small step, but it’s a step forward and a step forward in helping others understand the community,” she said.
Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.
The stakes in United States v. Skrmetti are even higher than most Americans realize and could have wide-reaching consequences if the court rules to keep the ban on gender-affirming care in place.
This piece was published in partnership with The 19th, a nonprofit newsroom covering gender, politics, and policy. Sign up for their newsletter here.
A Supreme Court case that will decide whether Tennessee can continue to ban gender-affirming care for transgender youth could imperil the ability of all Americans to make decisions about their health care, experts say. The outcome depends on how far the court is willing to stretch its ruling that overturned federal abortion rights.
In United States v. Skrmetti, the court has agreed to take up the question of whether gender-affirming care bans for trans youth are unconstitutional, in response to the Biden administration petitioning on behalf of trans youth and their families in Tennessee — one of 26 states that has bannedsuch care for minors. The outcome of the case will grant much-needed clarity in a political landscape that has thrown the lives of trans people across the country into turmoil, as hospitals turn patients away, pharmacies deny prescriptions and families travel hundreds of miles to find care.
But with the case set for oral arguments on December 4, the stakes are even higher than most Americans realize, legal and policy experts say. Tennessee has banned gender-affirming care, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy, for a specific demographic — trans youth — while allowing those same treatments for cisgender youth. If the Supreme Court allows the state to keep its ban in place, that could imperil everyone’s access to health care.
“What the state of Tennessee is arguing is really dangerous for any person who has any sort of medical condition,” says Ezra Young, a civil rights lawyer and constitutional scholar. Tennessee is dictating what medical treatments people should or should not be allowed to have, Young said; that goes well beyond states’ authority to regulate medicine, specifically because giving health care to trans people is not a public health concern.
“The state can make sure that the doctor you see has a medical degree and has an active medical license, for instance,” he says. “What the state can’t do is micromanage the medical decision-making of patients or doctors, and that’s for good reason. Bureaucrats or lawmakers aren’t medical experts.”
Yet in half of U.S. states, Republican lawmakers have banned or restricted medical care that many trans people need to live, over the protests of the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, and other leading medical groups. Federal judges have attempted to block these bans from taking hold, finding them to be likely unconstitutional. Appeals court judges have disagreed and overturned those decisions. Now, the Supreme Court will have the final say.
“If we don’t win here, it’s going to be open season on any health care related to transgender people,” says Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. If the Supreme Court holds that banning gender-affirming care is not discriminatory, then trans people would no longer be protected under the Affordable Care Act, he argues. States and private insurers would be able to exclude gender-affirming care from coverage plans.
“It would be devastating. I mean, absolutely catastrophic,” Minter says.
Ultimately, the outcome of this case will have a wider impact beyond gender-affirming care. A Supreme Court ruling endorsing Tennessee’s argument that the state can ban safe medical care — just because it disagrees with who that treatment is being given to — would enable the government to control people’s health decisions and enact other blatantly discriminatory policies, legal experts say.
“I think this case has bigger and broader implications than a lot of people realize, even frankly within the legal community,” says Michael Ulrich, an associate professor of health law, ethics and human rights at Boston University’s School of Public Health and School of Law. If the Supreme Court agrees with Tennessee’s ban, there’s nothing stopping states from banning or restricting other kinds of health care, he said — like what gets covered under Medicaid.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar’s office, representing the Biden administration, will split argument time before the Supreme Court with Chase Strangio, co-director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s LGBTQ & HIV Project.
The United States v. Skrmetti case is focused on whether Tennessee’s gender-affirming care ban violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. The state insists that its ban has nothing to do with sex and that it does not target trans people. Instead, the law “sets age and use-based limits,” Tennessee’s attorney general argues. Minors can still access hormones and puberty blockers for medical purposes, as long as those treatments are not being used as part of a gender transition or to alleviate gender dysphoria. The state claims such a distinction is not based on sex because “neither boys nor girls can use these drugs for gender transition.”
In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court found that there is no constitutional right to an abortion in the United States. This ruling overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that had guaranteed the right to an abortion since 1973. When writing the majority opinion in Dobbs, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito briefly addressed a theory that suggests abortion could be covered under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. This idea is not part of Roe, or at issue in Dobbs, but was invoked in a separate “friend of the court” brief. Alito dismissed it, saying that state regulations on abortion do not discriminate based on sex.
“So that’s what the state of Tennessee is now latching on to, this passing reference, this brief statement in Dobbs, and they’re pinning their whole argument on it,” says Minter. “Everything hinges on it.”
In Dobbs, Alito wrote that abortion cannot be protected under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, citing the arcane Geduldig v. Aiello — a case about pregnancy-related disability benefits — and Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, a case dealing with the rights of anti-abortion protesters. These rarely cited cases found that state regulations on abortion and pregnancy, or opposing abortion, are not sex discrimination. Tennessee is now using this framework to argue that “any disparate impact on transgender-identifying persons” caused by its law does not single trans people out for discrimination in ways covered by the 14th Amendment.
If the state’s gender-affirming care ban is found by the Supreme Court to be discriminatory under the 14th Amendment, it is subject to heightened scrutiny — a more rigorous review to determine whether a law is constitutional or not. In that scenario, Tennessee is more likely to lose.
Using abortion case law to support bans on gender-affirming care is especially dangerous, experts say. Tennessee is taking the Supreme Court’s own decision in Dobbs out of context, according to lawyers who have worked in LGBTQ+ rights cases for decades. And, if the justices read Tennessee’s law, it is obvious that banning gender-affirming care for trans people is discriminating based on sex, they say.
The United States v. Skrmetti case is focused on whether Tennessee’s gender-affirming care ban violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. The state insists that its ban has nothing to do with sex and that it does not target trans people. Instead, the law “sets age and use-based limits,” Tennessee’s attorney general argues. Minors can still access hormones and puberty blockers for medical purposes, as long as those treatments are not being used as part of a gender transition or to alleviate gender dysphoria. The state claims such a distinction is not based on sex because “neither boys nor girls can use these drugs for gender transition.”
But, although the question before the court has become more specific, this ruling still has the potential to broadly set back LGBTQ+ rights.
Tennessee argues that the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that employment discrimination against LGBTQ+ workers is sex-based discrimination prohibited under the Civil Rights Act, has nothing to do with this case. But going down this road leads to more questions, Ulrich says: Is discriminating due to sexual orientation also not considered sex-based discrimination?
“Then you can see just a proliferation of discriminatory laws that are coming out thereafter,” he says. “That’s a really dangerous proposition for the entire LGBTQ+ community and it’s setting us back significantly.”
Sruti Swaminathan, an ACLU staff attorney who has been counsel in this case from the beginning, said United States v. Skrmetti will test how far the Supreme Court is willing to stretch its Dobbs decision. They are well aware that the outcome of this case could curtail bodily autonomy for everyone. And taking this challenge before a conservative-majority Supreme Court has stoked fears among trans people of worst-case scenarios.
“We’re already at the place where half the country has banned this care. We need to not let the 6th Circuit decision stand idly and be utilized in the way it has,” Swaminathan says.
But Tennessee’s tactics, and the consequences that they could have during a time when laws targeting reproductive and transgender health care are proliferating, still worry them.
“I’m terrified. What we learned from Dobbs is that these attacks won’t stop with abortion,” Swaminathan says. “Banning abortion seems to be one pillar of an effort to write outdated gender norms into the law.”
U.S. v. Skrmetti began as a lawsuit against Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors.
Tennessee’s argument in this case illustrates a larger coordinated effort to attack abortion access alongside gender-affirming care, says Logan Casey, director of policy research at the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit that tracks LGBTQ+ legislation.
States across the country have attempted to define sex based on reproductive capacity at birth. These efforts open transgender people up to discrimination and ignore the realities of intersex people, as well as cisgender women with conditions like primary ovarian insufficiency. Proponents of gender-affirming care bans inaccurately portray the effects of hormone replacement therapy on trans people’s reproductive ability by conflating the treatment with sterilization.
This Supreme Court case exemplifies a much larger argument that’s been a through line across attacks on transgender care and trans issues across the country, Casey says: What is sex, and who is protected when we think about that?
“Many of these state actors and politicians and extremists are clearly very invested in the concept of sex and defining sex in a very restricted and extraordinarily old-fashioned way that focuses only on people’s reproductive capacity, and then they use that argument in whatever context they can to advance the policies that would match that worldview,” he says.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga. speaks during the first day of the Republican National Convention.
