I admit this is long at 44 minutes. I found it worth the watch even though at times Gagnon tries to get technical and uses a circular argument in favor of his predetermined view of homosexuality and the LGBTQ+ spectrum. He is not using the bible to inform him as Reverend Trevors says but instead using it as a weapon for his dislike / hate for anything not superior male inferior female relationships. I find McClellan easy to follow and understand and I like that he leaves his feelings at the door when he tries to understand the texts of that time. He points how Gagnon is using his biases to inform his religion and not his religion forming his biases. The other interesting thing to me is that McClellan seems to have researched the times and cultures of the different passages to see the context they were written in, whereas Gagnon seems to simply impose his modern standards on the words. Hugs
Bob Bolus refiled a lawsuit to get the pride flag, which is a symbol of support for LGBTQ+ people and inclusivity, removed from Scranton City Hall and barred from display at all government buildings in Lackawanna County.
The city has been flying a rainbow-motif pride flag on a flagpole at the municipal building at 340 N. Washington Ave. since June 1 for the annual commemoration of Pride Month.
Bolus initially filed a lawsuit June 6 in Lackawanna County Court on a pro-se basis, meaning representing himself without an attorney, in a legal attempt to compel the removal of the pride flag from City Hall, as well as having it barred from display there and at all government buildings in the county. Also on June 6, Lackawanna County Judge Terrence Nealon dismissed Bolus’ lawsuit on various procedural errors, including that he did not properly file or serve the action or name defendants. Nealon dismissed the case “without prejudice,” meaning Bolus could try to do it again properly.
The Pride flag outside of City Hall in Scranton on Monday, June 16, 2025. (REBECCA PARTICKA/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER)
On June 9, Bolus filed a new lawsuit in county court, again on a pro-se basis, and again seeking a court order requiring the removal of the pride flag from public display at Scranton City Hall and barring its display there and at “all public buildings within the jurisdiction of Lackawanna County.”
The new lawsuit names as defendants the city, Mayor Paige Gebhardt Cognetti and Scranton City Council members, who are council President Gerald Smurl, Bill King, Mark McAndrew, Jessica Rothchild and Tom Schuster, all individually and in their official capacities as municipal elected officials. The mayor and council members are all Democrats.
Bolus also named as a defendant, individually and in his official capacity, Lackawanna County Commissioner Bill Gaughan, who is a Democrat.
Bolus, who is a Republican, did not name Republican Lackawanna County Commissioner Chris Chermak as a defendant. In a phone interview Monday, Bolus said he named only Gaughan because he is the chairman of the commissioners.
Bob Bolus Sr. (COURTESY OF BOB BOLUS SR.)
Scranton City Solicitor Jessica Eskra declined to comment on the lawsuit, saying the city would respond in court.
Lackawanna County Solicitor Donald Frederickson said in a statement, “Mr. Bolus’ frivolous action has been denied by the court on its own motion,” and thus Frederickson believes Bolus would have to ask the court for reconsideration to refile.
Some of the claims in Bolus’ lawsuit include:
• Scranton City Council, the mayor and Lackawanna County commissioners “are responsible for the decision to raise and display the Pride Flag at Scranton City Hall.”
• Title 16, Chapter 161 Section 27 of state law regarding display of municipal flags on county buildings says: “It shall be lawful to display the flag of any county, city, borough or other municipality in the Commonwealth or the official POW/MIA flag on the public buildings or grounds of any county;” and thus the state does not specifically authorize the display of a pride flag on public grounds.
• The pride flag is a “catalyst” for political and social division; and it is not inclusive “as it does not represent” all citizens of the city or county.
• The pride flag has become a political symbol associated with the Democratic Party; as well as “a symbol of sexual orientation, sexual practices and a sexual lifestyle” that is “abhorrent to a significant number of people due to religious and personal beliefs;” and it is not neutral or appropriate for display on public buildings.
The filing and refiling of the lawsuit comes amid controversy aired at recent city council meetings.
On June 10, Smurl apologized for not stopping derogatory remarks made during public comment at the June 3 weekly council meeting. The apology was a response to comments by Bolus made June 3 opposing having the rainbow flag displayed at City Hall, as well as other remarks that Bolus directed at a pro-LGBTQ+ resident Angela Ramone. Residents also came out to council’s June 10 meeting to express support for LGBTQ+ people and condemn hate speech, while Bolus said, “I make no excuse for last week,” according to an Electric City Television simulcast and video of the weekly meeting posted online.
Right now the tRump people are arguing in court that the right of judges to invoke country wide injunctions should be stopped. But they never held that view when republicans ran to this judge’s jurisdiction to stop and hinder every Biden executive order and law. Instead they crowed about it. However like the debt now that it is them in charge they don’t like what they used to stop Democratic Party initiatives. Hugs
Anti-LGBTQ+ Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk | YouTube screenshot
Anti-LGBTQ+ federal Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act doesn’t protect LGBTQ+ people from workplace discrimination — it only protects them from discriminatory termination. Kacsmaryk’s ruling contradicts the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, a case that classified anti-LGBTQ+ workplace discrimination as a form of sex-based harassment prohibited by Title VII.
In the case, the state of Texas sued the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), claiming that the federal agency’s June 2021 guidance interpreting Title VII as prohibiting anti-LGBTQ+ workplace discrimination violated Texas’s “sovereign right” to establish governmental workplace policies dictating employee names, pronouns, dress codes, and facility usage as being based on a person’s sex assigned at birth (and not their gender identity).
The EEOC’s June 2021 guidance said that, to avoid illegally discriminating against LGBTQ+ people in the workplace, adherence to dress codes, use of personal pronouns, and access to gender-segregated facilities must be differentiated based on one’s gender identity and not their sex assigned at birth.
Texas said that the EEOC violated Texas’s free speech rights and Title VII’s sex-based protections by forcing the state’s Department of Agriculture (TDA) to base its workplace policies on gender identity instead of one’s sex assigned at birth. These particular TDA workplace policies were created by Sid Miller, a supporter of the current U.S. president who has said he’s “thrilled” by the ban on trans military members and has called trans identity a form of “leftist social experimentation.”
Texas sued the EEOC with the assistance of the Heritage Foundation, the right-wing think tank that constructed Project 2025, the very anti-LGBTQ+ blueprint for the current U.S. president’s second term in office.
Kacsmaryk agreed with the state of Texas, ruling that the TDA’s policies can legally ban transgender employees from using restrooms, pronouns, and dress codes that align with their gender identity. The TDA’s policies don’t constitute unequal treatment of trans employees, Kacsmaryk wrote, because they “equally” apply to everyone based on their sex assigned at birth, Truthout reported.
Kacsmaryk’s ruling altogether ignores trans identities in a manner consistent with the current president’s interpretation of federal anti-discrimination law. The president has signed executive orders directing all federal agencies, including the EEOC, to end all legal recognition of trans people’s gender identities and to, instead, only recognize a person’s “biological sex” as assigned at birth.
Kacsmaryk ordered the EEOC to remove all references to sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes under Title VII from its June 2021 guidance.
In 2022, Kacsmaryk ruled against LGBTQ+ protections in Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act – a law that bans healthcare discrimination on the basis of sex. The two doctors who sued in that case were represented by former Trump advisor Stephen Miller’s America First Legal Foundation, a far-right public interest group that opposes pro-LGBTQ+ civil rights.
Republicans and Christian groups often file their lawsuits in his district because of his tendency to rule in their favor.
Before his 2019 Senate confirmation hearing, Kacsmaryk removed his byline from an article condemning transgender health care in the Texas Review of Law and Politics, a far-right publication that he led as a law student at the University of Texas.
Hiding his contribution to the article likely prevented public scrutiny and questions about the article and his ties to The First Liberty Institute, a Christian conservative legal group that has represented clients who refused to serve LGBTQ+ people based on religious beliefs.
Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.
The state’s ban on gender-affirming pediatric care “cannot be justified” by science, a two-year review concluded.
Madison PaulyMay 27, 2025, 3:00 pm EDT
Spencer Cox of Utah answers a question during a discussion about how our society can learn to disagree in a way that allows us to find solutions on Wednesday, Nov. 15, 2023. | Logan Newell/The Coloradoan / USA TODAY NETWORK
In 2022, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox was the rare Republican governor who seemed to truly care about the well-being of transgender kids. “I don’t understand what they are going through or why they feel the way they do. But I want them to live,” he wrote in a letter that year, explaining why he was vetoing a bill that would have banned four trans middle- and high schoolers in Utah from playing on sports teams with classmates who shared their gender identity. “All the research shows that even a little acceptance and connection can reduce suicidality significantly.”
Meanwhile, nationally, Republican politicians were making opposition to trans rights a core tenet of their platforms, filing hundreds of bills attacking trans kids at the doctor’s office, at school, and on the field. Early in the 2023 legislative session, Cox capitulated, signing a bill that placed an indefinite “moratorium” on doctors providing puberty blockers and hormone therapy to trans kids with gender dysphoria. The bill ordered the Utah health department to commission a systematic review of medical evidence around the treatments, with the goal of producing recommendations for the legislature on whether to lift the moratorium. “We sincerely hope that we can treat our transgender families with more love and respect as we work to better understand the science and consequences behind these procedures,” Cox said at the time.
Now, more than two years later, that review is here, and its conclusions unambiguously support gender-affirming medical care for trans youth. “The conventional wisdom among non-experts has long been that there are limited data” on gender-affirming pediatric care, the authors wrote. “However, results from our exhaustive literature searches have lead us to the opposite conclusion.”
The medical evidence review, published on Wednesday, was compiled over a two-year period by the Drug Regimen Review Center at the University of Utah. Unlike the federal government’s recent report on the same subject, which was produced in three months and criticized gender-affirming pediatric treatments, the names of the Utah report’s contributors are actually disclosed on the more than thousand-page document.
The authors write:
The consensus of the evidence supports that the treatments are effective in terms of mental health, psychosocial outcomes, and the induction of body changes consistent with the affirmed gender in pediatric [gender dysphoria] patients. The evidence also supports that the treatments are safe in terms of changes to bone density, cardiovascular risk factors, metabolic changes, and cancer…
It is our expert opinion that policies to prevent access to and use of [gender-affirming hormone therapy] for treatment of [gender dysphoria] in pediatric patients cannot be justified based on the quantity or quality of medical science findings or concerns about potential regret in the future, and that high-quality guidelines are available to guide qualified providers in treating pediatric patients who meet diagnostic criteria.
In a second part of their review, the authors looked specifically at long-term outcomes of patients who started treatment for gender dysphoria as minors:
Overall, there were positive mental health and psychosocial functioning outcomes. While gender affirming treatment showed a possibly protective effect in prostate cancer in transgender men and breast cancer in transgender women, there was an increase in some specific types of benign brain tumors. There were increased mortality risks in both transgender men and women treated with hormonal therapy, but more so in transgender women. Increase risk of mortality was consistently due to increase in suicide, non-natural causes, and HIV/AIDS. Patients that were seen at the gender clinic before the age of 18 had a lower risk of suicide compared to those referred as an adult.
Submitted with the review was a set of recommendations—compiled by advisers from the state’s medical and professional licensing boards, the University of Utah, and a Utah non-profit hospital system—on steps the state legislature could take to ensure proper training among gender-affirming care providers, in the event it decides to lift the moratorium.
But according to the Salt Lake Tribune, legislators behind the ban are already dismissing the findings they asked for. In response to questions from the Tribune, Rep. Katy Hall, who co-sponsored the 2023 ban, issued a joint statement with fellow Republican state Rep. Bridger Bolinder, the chair of the legislature’s Health and Human Services Interim Committee, that dismissed the study’s findings. “We intend to keep the moratorium in place,” they told the Tribune. “Young kids and teenagers should not be making life-altering medical decisions based on weak evidence.”
Why ignore their own review? Polling, the legislators’ statement suggests. “Utah was right to lead on this issue, and the public agrees—polls show clear majority support both statewide and nationally,” Hall and Bolinder added in their statement. “Simply put, the science isn’t there, the risks are real, and the public is with us.”
Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.
At the same time this flag allows the flags supported by the right, the Confederate battle flag, the thin blue line flag, the Dresden don’t tread on me flag, along with others. The only political flag not allowed is those supporting the LGBTQ+ community. Hugs
Montana’s Gov. Greg Gianforte (R) has passed a law prohibiting the flying of Pride flags on government property and public schools. However, the law allows “historic flags,” like the Confederate flag, to be flown even though that flag represents support for Black slavery.
House Bill 819 allegedly restricts any flags that “represent a political party, race, sexual orientation, gender or political ideology.” It also allows the flying of any flags “honoring law enforcement officers, military service members, and public service organizations [that] provide appropriate, nonpolitical recognition of their contributions to public safety and national defense.”
The law was sponsored by 25-year-old state Rep. Braxton Mitchell (R), who introduced a law banning drag shows (including drag storytime events) from taking place on public property. The law remains unenforceable due to a federal court injunction against it.
Justifying his flag ban, Mitchell said during a March 6 state House floor debate, “Government buildings, schools and public facilities serve all citizens and should not be used to promote political, ideological or activist messaging,” according to KTVH.
However, Rep. Pete Elverum (D) pointed out, “What we’re doing here is we’re expressly prescribing what speech is allowed, ‘these flags’, and what speech is not allowed, ‘these other flags’,” adding, “And as for the definition of ‘promoting a certain ideology,’ those [flags] are expressly prohibited, but at the exact same time we’re sitting here with a bill proclaiming to be about free speech, we’re expressly prohibiting some and promoting others.”
Both Utah and Idaho have signed similar laws restricting the flying of Pride flags in schools and government property. The move led the capitol city governments of Salt Lake City,Utah and Boise, Idaho to designate the Pride flags as official city flags, so they can still fly them under the law.
When Mitchell introduced his aforementioned statewide drag ban, he claimed that all drag performances are “sexually oriented,” “indecent,” “inappropriate,” and “harmful” for minors. A federal judge issued an injunction against the ban in October 2023 — saying the broadly written law would encourage “discriminatory enforcement” and “disproportionally harm … anyone who falls outside of traditional gender and identity norms.” The judge’s injunction has stayed in place ever since.
Mitchell supports far-right causes, like pro-gun protests in the face of school shootings, joined the young conservative group Turning Point USA, supported the current U.S. president’s baseless claims of a “stolen” 2020 election, and has shared images of the far-right paramilitary group the Proud Boys on social media,The Daily Beast reported.
Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.
A representative of Seattle Sperm Bank admitted to selling unused sperm vials to the FBI during an industry conference, purportedly for the agency to research splat patterns, multiple sources told LGBTQ Nation.
The sources say the admission came from the representative – who one source identified as Seattle Sperm Bank General Supervisor Angelo Allard – during an October 2022 meeting at the California Cryobank campus in Los Angeles. Allard did not reply to LGBTQ Nation’s multiple requests for comment, nor did Seattle Sperm Bank CEO Fredrik Andreasson, nor the bank’s communication team.
For decades, commercial sperm banks (on which many LGBTQ+ people rely to build their families) have faced ardent criticism over a host of ethical issues fueled by a lack of industry regulations. Donor-conceived people, recipient parents, and donors themselves have long sounded the alarm on the industry’s shady practices – from failing to enforce reasonable family limits to outright lying about donor medical histories. These activists continue to fight for legislation that would keep the banks in check.
This ongoing tension is why the 2022 meeting occurred in the first place. Sources say sperm banks hosted the gathering as a sort of olive branch to the reform advocates, though some who attended felt the banks were not actually willing to listen. Reportedly in attendance were lawyers, medical experts, activists, and scholars.
Although these activists have long known about the unethical practices of the industry, many were still shocked at what they heard.
Anti-fertility fraud activist Eve Wiley called it a “nails on a chalkboard moment” and said that the admission brought “a collective gasp in the room.” It was “unlike any other procedure any of us had heard,” she said.
She said the comment was skated over pretty quickly and that the man next to the speaker “was kind of like, ‘Dude, stop,’ giving, you know, the death stare essentially.”
A fertility expert who was also present in the room confirmed the story to LGBTQ Nation, saying they are “not sure what precipitated it” but that a “gentleman who was involved at a sperm bank raised his hand and basically said they sent sperm to the FBI at the request of the FBI for training purposes.”
“On one level it makes sense, you know, that you would need sperm to train on or to do some analysis of,” they said, “but I guess none of us had ever considered that law enforcement might reach a sperm bank and do this, certainly without consent from the parties themselves who could be genetically identified and put into a database if this were done.”
They said the representative seemed completely taken aback that anyone found the information troubling.
“They just stated it so matter-of-factly, like, ‘Yeah, this is what we do.’ And it was almost as if they didn’t see any privacy protections that needed to be discussed, any issues with that, any hesitation about turning information over to law enforcement in that manner, even for training purposes.”
Another expert who attended the meeting also heard the admission. They told LGBTQ Nation in an emailed statement that they remembered the representative from Seattle Sperm Bank “telling the group that they… provided the FBI with unused sperm for them to use for ‘practice.”’ The source (the same one who identified the speaker as Allard) said they do not remember the representative saying the sperm was “sold,” though.
A transcript of a Zoom chat obtained by LGBTQ Nation shows those who attended virtually discussing the admission in the chat. Folks called the revelation “shocking” and “incredibly concerning,” with some questioning if the DNA was being added to a criminal database.
LGBTQ Nation reached out to the National FBI office and received the following response from Seattle Field Office public affairs specialist Steven Bernd: “Our policy prohibits us, except in rare circumstances, from disclosing investigative techniques of an FBI investigation. However, I can plainly state that I did not find any information to suggest that the FBI has been purchasing sperm from a sperm bank.”
It’s not clear, however, whether the sperm would have been sold to the local or national office. Additionally, Bernd took less than an hour to reply to our request for a statement, raising the question of how much digging he did before saying he “did not find any information.”
The queer connection
Also reportedly present at the meeting were several LGBTQ+ family-building organizations, though none have corroborated the FBI admission with LGBTQ Nation.
Ron Poole-Dayan, executive director of Men Having Babies, stated over email that he had “no specific recollection” of the admission being made. The representative who attended the meeting from Family Equality no longer works for the organization, and a spokesperson said, “No current staff members have additional information to share.” Representatives from Colage, an organization for the children of LGBTQ+ people, and GLAD, an LGBTQ+ legal advocacy organization, did not respond to a request for comment.
Wiley called it “shocking” and “disheartening” that no LGBTQ+ organizations have come forward.
Laura High, a donor-conceived person and activist who was not present at the meeting, expressed disappointment that these organizations have not taken action.
“Especially right now we need to be able to rely on these organizations to keep the queer community safe,” she told LGBTQ Nation over email. “And the fact that they stayed silent on this incredibly clear violation of rights that clearly puts the queer community in jeopardy, especially under this regime is terrifying.”
High said many people in the activist community have told her they do not want to contribute to this story going public for fear of not being invited to future meetings or losing a seat at the table, and she wonders if perhaps that’s why these organizations also have not spoken up.
“But why on earth would you want to be sitting at that kind of table that clearly has no problem putting the queer community or any marginalized group in utter danger?” she said.
What’s at stake
The prospect of a bank selling sperm to the FBI without informed consent raises a number of ethical concerns, though the legality of it all is murky.
Donor contracts from Seattle Sperm Bank obtained by LGBTQ Nation state, “I understand that once I agree to participate in the donor program and have been accepted into the program, I may not impose restrictions on the manner in which my donor sperm may be used.”
“Technically, people can buy sperm for any purpose… but sperm samples are not intended for that purpose,” explained the fertility expert. “They’re intended for people to buy to family build. That is the assumption.”
“I think there would be a lot of people who would object, for example, if law enforcement just started suddenly going through trash in search of hair or saliva or discarded toothbrushes or fingernail clippings to include people in databases for ‘training purposes.’”
They said the lack of informed consent is one of the biggest issues. “I’ve talked to sperm donors, and they were not informed that this was going on.” LGBTQ Nation independently received direct confirmation from one Seattle donor who said they were never told this was a possibility.
Wiley said she is most concerned with sperm being mishandled or planted as evidence in a crime.
“What if someone steals that sperm and then sells it on the black market, and they plant that?” she said. “And is DNA being extracted and then being used in a database to catch criminals?… It’s hard to say what can happen.”
As someone who has spent her life fighting fertility fraud, Wiley has witnessed firsthand the horrific ways gametes can be mishandled. “It’s unbelievable,” she said, adding that “in the absence of laws and that legal landscape being the wild wild west, it’s really frustrating.”
High said trans people also have specific safety concerns, since they often preserve their sperm or eggs at these banks before starting gender-affirming care.
“We know this administration is targeting the queer community,” High said, “Especially the trans community, who actively uses the fertility industry to store their DNA before they medically transition.”
She said there is also particular concern for people of color. “We are well aware that people of color are actively and heinously targeted by the police force,” she said. “Secretly handing over sperm from Black donors or any donor of color does not just affect that donor, but potentially their entire family. We have a long and terrible history in this country of people of color getting set up for a crime by the police force.”
“This industry who’s already very famous for excluding recipient parents and donors of color is demonstrating that they are also willing to put those donors at risk for severe injustice… Seattle has given the FBI the ability to have a genetic tracker.”
There is also the matter of the DNA of the children conceived from each donor being in the hands of a government agency. One recipient parent, Romy Razuri, who told LGBTQ Nation she became an activist in the space after she had reason to believe Seattle Sperm Bank failed to report critical pieces of her donor’s medical information, called it “creepy.”
“It just doesn’t sound right. I mean, no matter how you look at it and if you try to make sense of it… Whatever the reason is, it’s just not okay.”
Asked if the information made her feel worried about her kids, she replied: “I mean, anything at this point related to donor conception makes me feel scared for my kids.”
Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.
With DEI initiatives firmly in the crosshairs of the Trump administration, many large corporations that were once so quick to celebrate June as Pride month have quietly ditched their public support for LGBTQI+ rights even faster.
It used to be common for companies to emblazon their social media accounts with rainbow-themed versions of their logo, but in 2025, the same big businesses that were so vocal about supporting Pride initiatives have fallen silent.
The controversial post that sparked a social media backlash.
That’s certainly true for big international airlines in the United States, which were falling over themselves to show their support for Pride until very recently (critics might argue they were just chasing the so-called ‘Pink Dollar’).
In 2025, the social media accounts of American Airlines, Delta, and United make no mention or reference to Pride, even if these airlines do still support LGBTQ+ initiatives (Alaska and United are still sponsors of San Francisco’s Pride parade even as other big name corporations drop their support).
German flag carrier Lufthansa doesn’t seem too concerned that supporting LGBTQ+ rights is no longer fashionable… at least not in Trump’s America.
On June 2, the airline posted a photo of a pilot waving a Pride rainbow flag out the window of a cockpit, captioned with the words: “Carried with pride, waved with passion. We will always spread the love, across borders, screens, and the skies.”
Lufthansa has been quick to respond to critics.
It seemed like a pretty inoffensive and inspiring message that didn’t directly reference LGBTQ+ rights, but it didn’t take long for Lufthansa’s Facebook page to be deluged with homophobic comments.
But it looks like Lufthansa knew exactly what it was getting itself into, and its social media team quickly fired back at critics with sassy replies that shut down the hateful comments without censoring them or turning off the comment feature altogether.
“Thank you for you for giving me a reason not to be a Lufthansa passenger,” one person wrote underneath the post. Lufthansa clapped back with: “You’re welcome to join us on board whenever rainbows are not scary to you anymore!”
While one person inferred that inclusivity was a safety issue, saying: “That could actually affect the flight of the plane. I’ll take the bus.”
Lufthansa was not having any of it, though, relying: “It is a disappointment that we are losing you as a customer for this reason, but we stand by our values.”
Another referenced DEI, saying: “Never flying on a plane with one of them pilots. You know they are a DEI hire. I’m not testing fate for their delusional world.”
Again, Lufthansa stood firm: “Sorry to see you go but we stand by our values and will continue to implement DEI.”
Many responses to the post have, however, been positive, and some fans have pointed out that the response has proved exactly why, even in 2025, Pride is still needed.
June has traditionally been recognized as Pride Month to mark the Stonewall riots that occurred in late June 1969. Since then, several US presidents have issued proclamations, declaring June as the month of Pride, but White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said earlier this week that President Trump has no plans to issue a similar proclamation this year.
Trump was, however, the first Republican President to acknowledge LGBT Pride Month back in 2019 when he Tweeted a message in support of the commemoration.
UPDATED:
Anti-LGBTQ+ Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk | YouTube screenshot
Spencer Cox of Utah answers a question during a discussion about how our society can learn to disagree in a way that allows us to find solutions on Wednesday, Nov. 15, 2023. | Logan Newell/The Coloradoan / USA TODAY NETWORK
Molly Sprayregen (She/Her )May 21, 2025, 12:00 pm EDTKyle Neal
With DEI initiatives firmly in the crosshairs of the Trump administration, many large corporations that were once so quick to celebrate June as Pride month have quietly ditched their public support for LGBTQI+ rights even faster.
Scottie's Playtime 