Connect with us

News

Knives out for Buttigieg in debate as LGBTQ issues finally come up

Five takeaways on the Democratic candidates last 2019 foray

Published

on

Democratic debate, gay news, Washington Blade

Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D-South Bend, Ind.) speaks at a Democratic primary presidential debate on Dec. 19. (Photo courtesy of PBS News Hour/POLITICO)

Climate change, health care — and for the first time this year in a substantive way, LGBTQ issues — were major topics during the Democratic debate Thursday night, when seven candidates squared off on stage for the last time in 2019 and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg found himself the target of criticism.

In no particular order, here’s five takeaways from the PBS/Politico debate, which took place in Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University’s Gersten Pavilion.

The seven candidates on stage along with Buttigieg were entrepreneur Andrew Yang, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), former Vice President Joseph Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and businessperson Tom Steyer.

1. Lower-tier candidates had their moment

With the number of candidates on the debate stage winnowed down to seven, each of the contenders on stage had a greater opportunity for speaking time, giving those considered lower tier — like Yang, Klobuchar and Steyer — their time in the sun.

Klobuchar was both energetic, forceful and engaging as she made her case for the nomination. Keeping her reputation as queen of puns in the Democratic primary, Klobuchar in response to the first question quipped, “As a wise judge said, the president is not king in America, the law is king.”

The Minnesota Democrat’s use of imagery was particularly powerful when the issue of climate change came up and she talked about the way her home state has first-hand experience with the issue.

“What we are seeing there is unprecedented flooding, we’re seeing an increase of 50 percent in homeowners’ insurance over the last few years,” Klobuchar said. “And when we make these changes, we have to make clear to people that when we put a price on carbon, that that money is going to come to back to those areas where are going to be hurt, where jobs are going to change and to make them whole with their energy bills.”

Klobuchar was able to tie that in with electability, saying when you make that case “you bring in the Midwestern votes, you win big.”

“I think the best way to do it is by putting someone at the top of the ticket who’s from the Midwest,” Klobuchar concluded.

Steyer, who has been struggling to make his case for relevancy in the Democratic primary, certainly made up for that in his debate performance when he made his case for being the best candidate to take on Trump, who’s likely to run a strong economy.

“I built a business over 30 years from scratch,” Steyer said. “We’re going to have to take him on on the economy in terms of growth as well as economic justice. We’re going to have to be able to talk about growth, prosperity across the board for everyone in America. My experience, building a business, understanding how to make that happen, means I can go toe-to-toe with Mr. Trump and take him down on the economy and expose him as a fraud and a failure.”

Yang also had some good moments, especially in response to the first question on the topic of impeachment, when he seamlessly transitioned to a changing economy.

“If your turn on cable network news today, you would think he’s our president because of some combination of Russia, racism, Facebook, Hillary Clinton and emails all mixed together,” Yang said. “But Americans around the country know different. We blasted away 4 million manufacturing jobs that were primarily based in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri. I just left Iowa — we blasted 40,000 manufacturing jobs there.

“The more we act like Donald Trump is the cause of all our problems, the more Americans lose trust that we can actually see what’s going on in our communities and solve those problems,” Yang concluded.

But the extra time wasn’t always good for these candidates, especially Yang. Among other things, he made a bizarre comment his plan for a $1,000 universal monthly income would somehow have led to more candidates of color on the debate stage. Later on, he said American youth are addicted to both smartphones and drugs, drawing an odd comparison between the two.

Yang’s response to the final question, what he would give as a gift to the candidates, was a copy of his book. That ended up coming off as self-serving when other candidates offered more aspirational answers like beating President Trump in 2020 election.

2. The knives were out for Buttigieg

Buttigieg didn’t have his best night, and that’s putting it gently. He had a lot of canned answers and talking points that made him seem robotic. The only breakout moment for him was when the issue of China came up and he had a great line about the country using technology for “the perfection of dictatorship.”

On top of that, the knives were out across the stage for Buttigieg, whom many polls shows is the front-runner in the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire. In each instance, Buttigieg fought back aggressively, but his opponents — who are reportedly grumbling about his success given his lack of experience — knew how to draw out his weaknesses.

The first exchange took place between Buttigieg and Warren, when the Massachusetts Democrat took an oblique knock at him by saying she doesn’t raise money from wealthy donors who pay $5,000 for a selfie.

Buttigieg — who unlike Warren, is willing is hold fundraisers with major donors — picked up on that, rejecting the criticism.

“Donald Trump and his allies have it abundantly clear that they will stop at nothing, not even foreign interference to hold on to power,” Buttigieg said. “They’ve already put together more than $300 million. This is our chance. This is our only chance to defeat Donald Trump, and we shouldn’t try to do it with one-hand tied behind our back.”

But Warren twisted the knife in further, pointing out Buttigieg held a fundraiser in California in a “wine cave” full of crystals where alcohol was served for $900 a bottle.

“Think about who comes to that,” Warren said. “He had promised that every fundraiser that he would do would be open door, but this one was closed door. We made the decision many years ago that rich people in smoked-filled rooms would not pick the president of the United States. Billionaires in wine caves should not pick the next president of the United States.”

Buttigieg shoot back by saying he’s the only candidate on the stage who isn’t a millionaire or a billionaire, decrying such complaints as “purity tests” and saying if he swore off those donations he couldn’t be on the stage. Buttigieg also made it personal: “Senator, your net worth is 100 times mine.”

The exchange went on with Warren saying she doesn’t sell access to her time. Buttigieg went on to say her presidential campaign was funded in part by money she transferred after having raised money at big ticket events.

“Did it corrupt you, Senator?” Buttigieg said. “Of course not.”

Taking a different approach, Klobuchar said she was hurt by earlier comments Buttigieg made about his lack of experience being a lack of experience in Washington. To the contrary, Klobuchar said, many candidates on the debate stage accomplished a lot as representatives in the federal government.

“I have not denigrated your experience as a local official,” Klobuchar said. “I have been one. I just think you should respect our experience.”

Buttigieg responded Klobuchar had, in fact, denigrated his experience before a break in the debate by implying his relationship to the First Amendment was talking point, but he “was going to let it go because we have bigger fish to fry here.”

Klobuchar shot back, “I don’t think we have bigger fish to fry than picking a president of the United States.”

The Afghanistan war veteran wouldn’t stand for that.

“Let me tell you about my relationship to the First Amendment,” Buttigieg said. “It is part of the Constitution that I raised my right hand and swore to defend with my life. That is my experience, and it may not be the same as yours, but it counts, Senator. It counts.”

Klobuchar said she certainly respects Buttigieg’s military experience, but the election is about choosing a president.

“We should have someone heading up this ticket that has actually won and has been able to show that they can gather the support that you talk about from moderate Republicans and independents as well as a fired up Democratic base,” Klobuchar said. “And I have not just done it once, I have done it three.”

If there’s a such a thing as a gay card, Buttigieg played it.

“Do you want about the capacity to win?” Buttigieg said. “Try putting together a coalition to bring you back to office with 80 percent of the vote as a gay dude in Mike Pence’s Indiana.”

But Klobuchar pointed out Buttigieg tried before to win statewide in Indiana and couldn’t make it happen. South Bend, she said, was another matter.

“If had won in Indiana, that would be one thing,” Buttigieg said. “You tried and you lost by 20 points.”

Those weren’t the only times the debate was heated. On the issue of health care, Biden, who wants to build on Obamacare, and Sanders, who wants Medicare for All, got into a quarrel about affordability that got testy. Klobuchar came in to rescue to resolve it, saying her plan for a non-profit public option was both progressive and practical.

3. Biden showed off his foreign policy chops

In contrast to Buttigieg, Biden had inarguably his best debate performance over the course of the year. He was filled with a new energy he hadn’t exhibited before on stage and offered concrete plans for policy.

When the issue of age came up, Biden had the response he should have given in the first debate when Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) all but told him it was time to give up the torch: With experience comes wisdom.

“I’m running, because I’ve been around, on my experience,” Biden said. “With experience hopefully comes judgment and a little bit of wisdom.”

Amid media reports Biden has indicated he’d only serve one term as president, he somewhat blunted this response by refusing to commit one way or the way on stage about a second term, but it’s debatable whether that was much of a drawback.

But Biden shined the most during the debate when foreign policy came up, giving the former vice president a chance to show off his chops on his credentials on the issue.

Take for instance, the issue of China, when Biden condemns the nation for human rights abuses and offered a specific plan his audience could easily envision.

“We have to make clear is that we, in fact, are not going to abide by what they’ve done,” Biden said. “A million Uighurs, as you pointed out, are in concentration camps. That’s where they are right now. They’re being abused. They’re in concentration.”

Biden pledged to move 60 percent of U.S. seapower to the Pacific Ocean to “let, in fact, the Chinese understand that they’re not going to go any further, we are going to be other to protect other folks.”

The former vice president went on call for rebuilding alliances with South Korea, Australia and Indonesia and going to the United Nations to issue sanctions against China.

4. LGBTQ issues finally came up

After one question on LGBTQ issues had come up heretofore in only the Democratic debates this year (and one that didn’t really require candidates to give thoughtful answers on policy), a debate moderator finally posed a question on LGBTQ issues to the candidates.

PBS NewsHour White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor asked the candidates about their support Equality Act, comprehensive legislation that would prohibit anti-LGBTQ discrimination, and what they would do to address anti-trans violence. In this year 2019 alone, 27 transgender people were counted as killed.

Sanders, who was the first candidate asked to respond, drew a contrast with the current anti-LGBTQ Trump administration and himself by saying leadership on LGBTQ issues is important.

“We need moral leadership in the White House,” Sanders said. “We need a president who will do everything humanly possible to end all forms of discrimination against the transgender community, against the African-American community, against the Latino community and against all minorities in this country.”

With transgender people calling for greater access health care, including transition-related care, Sanders said his Medicare for All plan would ensure all Americans would have access to health care “regardless of their sexual orientation or their needs…including certainly the transgender community.”

Warren took a slightly different route, committing herself to each year as president reading the names of the transgender people killed in the Rose Garden of the White House.

“I will make sure that we read their names so that as a nation, we are forced to address a particular vulnerability on homelessness,” Warren said.

Additionally, Warren pledged to reverse the Trump administration policy at the Bureau of Prisons that refuses to respect the gender identity of transgender inmates when placing them into federal detention.

Before the question was asked, Warren also name-checked the transgender community in reference to comments former President Obama made about needing new women leaders, saying she believes he was “talking about women and people of color and trans people and people whose voices just so often get shoved out.”

5. Impeachment was avoided like the plague

Impeachment only came up during the debate in the context of the first question, when moderator Jody Woodruff pointed out the U.S. House impeached Trump this week despite polls showing a majority of American public are opposed to impeachment.

That might have something to do with why the candidates wouldn’t touch it with a ten-foot-pole afterward.

Klobuchar used the opportunity to call for White House officials to serve as witnesses in the Senate trial, a sentiment echoed on stage. All the candidates responded by criticizing Trump, but clearly were eager to move to other subjects.

Just as Yang moved to the topic of the changing economy, Buttigieg shifted to corporate greed and being able to change things in the 2020 election.

“it’s up to us,” Buttigieg said. “No matter what happens in the Senate, it is up to us in 2020. This is our chance to refuse to be taken in by the helplessness, to refuse and reject the cynicism.”

Not one candidate brought it up afterwards. It was clear they wanted to have the job of ousting Trump from the White House themselves.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Politics

Out Rep. Mark Takano recalls fight against the religious right

“We must be unrelenting in the struggle for equality,” says Takano

Published

on

Rep. Mark Takano

U.S. Rep. Mark Takano, a gay Democrat from Riverside, California, has a message for LGBTQ+ people who are despairing under the Trump administration: Keep on fighting.

“This is a moment of real challenge for LGBTQI+ Americans,” Takano said. But based on his experience, he added, “My advice to all LGBTQI+ people is to press on in this moment of adversity and stay true to your values.”

Takano – the first out LGBTQ+ person of color elected to Congress and chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus – recalled in a Friday email interview with LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters how he was outed in his campaign for Congress in 1994.

It was a fraught time. Newt Gingrich’s “Republican Revolution” was sweeping the country, including reliably Democratic California. Two years earlier, Takano, a trustee of the Riverside Community College District who taught high school history and English, lost to Republican real estate investor Ken Calvert by just over 500 votes. But reports of Calvert owing back taxes and a scandal with a prostitute gave Democrats reason to believe that 33-year- old Takano had a good shot at defeating the lackluster freshman in the conservative 43rd Congressional District.

Then the onslaught began. Newly elected rich Republican State Sen. Robb Hurtt – who funded rabidly anti-gay Traditional Values Coalition leader Rev. Lou Sheldon and co-founded the anti-gay Capitol Resource Institute with fellow Religious Right multimillionaire Howard Ahmanson – contributed heavily to the rough and tumble “Republican Revolution” in California to push back on the Democratic energy generated by Bill Clinton’s presidential victory in 1992.

Former California Republican Party political director Allan Hoffenblum told the Los Angeles Times just before the 1994 midterm elections that he suspected Calvert ally California Assemblymember Ray Haynes outed Takano during a closed-door Republican strategy session to shift negative attention from Calvert and onto Takano.

Haynes told fellow Republicans that Takano was a “liberal homosexual” Democrat. “Everyone knows he’s a homosexual,” Haynes told The Times. “It’s no major-league secret.”

Calvert said he was “surprised” to see the comments later published in the media. However, his campaign sent out a flyer on pink paper that didn’t specifically call Takano “a homosexual” but noted his support for gay rights and said he might make a better representative for San Francisco than Riverside.

Takano said his sexual orientation was irrelevant to voters – but he lost to Calvert and the Gingrich/Hurtt conservative Republican agenda that ran the California Legislature until 1998.

Rep. Mark Takano and Rep. Jared Polis in LA 2017 (Photo by Karen Ocamb)

Fast forward to 2012. Takano ran for Congress again – this time as an openly gay man in a year that saw America’s first Black President, Barack Obama, announce support for marriage equality and still win reelection. Takano beat Republican John Tavaglione in the newly created 41st Congressional District. He had support from other out politicians, including Colorado Rep. Jared Polis and Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, as well as LGBTQ+ groups such as the Human Rights Campaign and Victory Fund.

Rep. Mark Takano honors contributions of Japanese World War II servicemembers on Memorial Day 2026 (Photo via Takano’s Facebook page)

Of Japanese heritage, Takano was the first out gay person of color and the first Asian American elected to Congress. Takano has been reelected easily ever since. The Cook Political Report favors Takano over Steve Manos (a Republican) in the June 2 Primary in the 39th Congressional District.

But nothing has been easy during Donald Trump’s second term as president. Takano has introduced numerous pro-LGBTQ+ and otherwise progressive bills, but they’ve gone nowhere in the Republican-majority Congress.

One, for instance, would establish a Commission on Equity and Reconciliation in the Uniformed Services to examine the effects of anti-LGBTQ+ policies on members of the military and recommend ways to compensate them for the harm done. As ranking member—the top Democrat—on the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, he has decried the Trump administration’s treatment of out service members.

“I have and will continue to use my position on the Veterans’ Affairs Committee to fight for the rights of LGBTQI+ veterans, including those pushed out of the service by Trump’s trans military ban and those who have lost access to medically necessary VA health care under Secretary [Doug] Collins,” Takano tells us. “I was proud to co-lead the introduction of the Veterans Healthcare Equality Act to ensure the VA does not discriminate on the basis of gender identity when providing health care to our veterans.”

Rep. Mark Takano at California Democratic Convention 2018 (Photo by Karen Ocamb)

Takano is also a member of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, and he noted the Trump administration has been no friend to the Department of Education, which has seen huge staffing cuts, especially for civil rights enforcement.

“I’m working very closely with my colleagues [on the committee] to conduct congressional oversight and demand accountability from Secretary [Linda] McMahon and Trump administration officials who are so hell-bent on undermining the rights of all students, including LGBTQI+—and particularly transgender—students. Under Trump, there have been massive layoffs at the Office for Civil Rights, and OCR has stopped addressing sexual harassment and sexual violence,” he says.

“This administration’s obsession with attacking transgender rights has led them to abandon the Department of Education’s mission of protecting students from harm—that’s unacceptable,” he says. “That’s why I challenged Secretary McMahon directly about her dismantling and weaponization of OCR at a recent oversight hearing.”

Takano did indeed grill McMahon, who implied that she disagreed with the cuts. “They were firing half the staff that you need at OCR, and it took you 10 months to figure out that was a mistake,” he said in the hearing.

Takano has also introduced the long-pending Equality Act, comprehensive legislation to ban anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination nationwide in employment, housing, and more. He said he looks forward to reintroducing the Equality Act in the next session of Congress, when he’s confident Democrats will hold power after this year’s midterm elections.

In addition, he said he’ll work for Supreme Court reform and to restore voting rights protections. “Like millions of Americans, I was outraged by the Supreme Court’s recent decision to gut the Voting Rights Act,” he said. The Equality Caucus has also announced it is exploring ways to fight anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy after the high court struck down Colorado’s law against subjecting minors to the practice.

There may be a new crop of feisty LGBTQ+ legislators shaking things up among the old guard in the next session. The LGBTQ+ Victory Fund has endorsed 220 candidates at all levels of government so far this year, including 18 for U.S. House and Senate, although four have already been knocked out in primaries. It will undoubtedly endorse more.

Among the Victory Fund endorsees for U.S. House are two California Democrats who’ll be in Tuesday’s “jungle primary”: Scott Wiener in the San Francisco district long represented by Nancy Pelosi and Marni von Wilpert in a Palm Springs-area district near Takano’s district. He has endorsed her.

Also in the California primary—in which the top two vote recipients advance to the general election, regardless of party—Takano has endorsed Xavier Becerra for governor. Becerra has been a California state legislator, attorney general, and congressman, and he was U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services under President Joe Biden.

In announcing the endorsement in April, Takano praised Becerra’s “leadership abilities in challenging situations” and his “distinguished career in public service.” Becerra, a Democrat, is leading in one of the most recent polls, with Republican Steve Hilton (a former Fox News commentator) and Democrat Tom Steyer (a former hedge fund manager, now an environmental activist) vying for second place.

Republicans are already employing anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric, especially anti-transgender rhetoric, against out candidates and allies, including Democratic U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico of Texas, a straight cisgender man. But Takano doesn’t think this is a winning strategy.

“We saw in election after election in 2025-2026 that Democratic candidates won by not letting anti-trans fearmongering define their races,” Takano told LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters. In the midterms, he added, “It is my firm belief that Americans will make their voices known loud and clear that they overwhelmingly reject Trump’s disastrous policies.”

Rep. Mark Takano at Riverside Pride (Photo via Facebook)

Written by Trudy King. Karen Ocamb contributed to this story. This is a cross-post from Karen’s LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters Substack.

Continue Reading

Ghana

Ghanaian lawmakers approve anti-LGBTQ+ bill

Measure that would criminalize allyship awaits president’s signature

Published

on

Ghanaian flag (Public domain photo by Jorono from Pixabay)

Ghanaian lawmakers on Friday approved a bill that would, among other things, criminalize LGBTQ+ allyship.

Reuters reported MPs approved the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2025, in a voice vote after parliament’s Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee backed it.

MPs in 2024 approved a similar bill, but it faced legal challenges and then-President Nana Akufo-Addo didn’t sign it. Lawmakers last year reintroduced the measure after President John Dramani Mahama took office.

The bill awaits his signature.

Rightify Ghana, a Ghanaian LGBTQ+ advocacy group, in a series of social media posts notes MPs passed the bill days before the 4th African Inter-Parliamentary Conference on Family Values and Sovereignty will take place in Accra, the country’s capital.

Continue Reading

Russia

Nine Russian LGBTQ+ groups deemed ‘extremist’ banned

Human Rights Watch: authorities ‘intensifying their criminalization’ of queer people

Published

on

(Los Angeles Blade photo by Ernesto Valle)

Nine LGBTQ+ groups in Russia have been banned so far this year after authorities deemed them as “extremist.”

Human Rights Watch on Thursday noted courts in seven regions between March and May banned Coming Out, the LGBT Resource Center, Parni Plus, the Moscow Community Center for LGBT+ Initiatives, Irida, the Russian LGBT Network, the Kallisto movement, T9 NSK, and Center T. Human Rights Watch also pointed out a lawsuit has been filed against the Alliance of Straights and LGBT for Equality.

Parni Plus is an LGBTQ+ media outlet.

“Russian authorities are intensifying their criminalization of those who provide critical support to the very LGBT people they have systematically persecuted,” said Human Rights Watch Europe and Central Asia Director Hugh Williamson in a press release. “Authorities should vacate all court decisions and criminal convictions based on these spurious ‘extremism’ charges.”

The Kremlin over the last decade has faced global criticism over its crackdown on LGBTQ+ rights.

The Russian Supreme Court in 2023 ruled the “international LGBT movement” is an extremist organization and banned it.

The country in January designated ILGA World, a global LGBTQ+ and intersex rights group, as an “undesirable” organization. ILGA World in response to the designation noted Russians who are found guilty of engaging with “undesirable” groups face up to six years in prison.

Continue Reading

California Politics

Los Angeles LGBTQ+ organizers condemn ‘harmful anti-LGBTQ+ tropes’ in ads targeting John Erickson’s Senate race

Leaders worry about the impact of the ads on the LGBTQ+ community at large

Published

on

John Erickson

Multiple organizations — including Equality California, the nation’s largest statewide LGBTQ+ civil rights organization — condemned a recent string of political ads targeting West Hollywood councilmember John Erickson.

The political ad was mailed out to voters, with AI-generated photos of Erickson. One ad portrays a photo of Erickson, depicted leisurely in Paris with the phrase “John Erickson: Where public service meets room service.”

AI political ad in question / Distributed by Keep California Golden

On the flyer, claims were made saying that Erickson “used taxpayer dollars to fund a trip to Paris,” implying he was there on vacation and or mismanaging funds.

In a joint statement with the Los Angeles County LGBTQ+ Elected Officials, the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, and the nonpartisan political organization HONOR PAC, Equality California said these ads “have raised serious concerns within the LGBTQ+ community for relying on imagery and stereotypes that evoke harmful anti-LGBTQ+ tropes.”

“Whether intentional or inadvertent, these tactics cause real harm and contribute to a broader climate in which LGBTQ+ people are increasingly being targeted and attacked across the country for who they are,” the statement continued.

Senate District 24, which Erickson is running for, is “among the most LGBTQ+ voters in California,” according to the statement.

“These tactics feel especially harmful and out of touch with a deeply inclusive district,” a portion of the statement said. “We demand that all candidates and committees in this and other races throughout California carefully review these materials and take meaningful steps to ensure future communications reflect the values of dignity, inclusion, and respect.”

The flyer was paid for by Keep California Golden, a coalition of “industry associations, labor unions, and businesses,” according to its website.

Beyond a paragraph as a description and a list of top donors being the California Association of Realtors, California Correctional Peace Officers Association, and California Building Industry Association, the website for Keep California Golden is blank.

On both the physical ads and website, a note says that the ads were “not authorized by a candidate or a committee controlled by a candidate.”

Additional AI political ad / Distributed by Keep California Golden

Keep California Golden has been around since 2017, but didn’t start receiving significant contributions until quarter 2 of 2018, according to Transparency USA, which tracks data on money in state politics.

Its second and third highest expenditures are to the U.S. Postal Service and Red Printing and Mail, at $411,431 and $218,600, respectively, according to Transparency USA.

Erickson’s trips referenced in the flyer were approved by the city council in a public council meeting, were unanimously approved, and went through proper channels, he told the Los Angeles Blade. 

Erickson was elected to the West Hollywood City Council in 2020 and was reelected in 2024. This is his first run for the California Senate, where he’s running for the District 24 seat.

“They’re distorting the facts to make it seem like I’m one person, but in reality, they’re doing it because they’re afraid of what I actually am going to offer,” Erickson said.

His trips were official business, he said, one of which was a trip to meet the late Pope Francis as a West Hollywood representative, for a program that Los Angeles County and the city co-sponsored to foster youth civic engagement through sports.

The ads referenced another approved trip to the most recent Paris Olympics. West Hollywood is hosting Pride House, a housing village for LGBTQ+ Olympians during the upcoming 2028 Olympics.

“We have people here in California that are not only trying to further harm the LGBTQ+ community, but then spending millions of dollars to push it out to voters to mislead them,” Erickson added. “Even here in West Hollywood, we still face homophobia.”

He called the ads “disgusting and reprehensible,” but said he was honored that the community is standing behind him and pushing back.

“Billionaires are spending money against a candidate whom they are deeply afraid of,” Erickson said. “I’m out there calling to tax the billionaires and the corporations to pay their fair share to fund education, health care, social services… and they’re afraid of me, because I’m also supported and endorsed by the California Federation of Labor.”

He feels the ads are aiming to weaken him as a candidate due to his strong labor ties, as a former labor union president, and endorsements by multiple labor unions.

This is also part of a trend of attacking LGBTQ+ rights and existence, he said.

“This is how we’re engaging in politics at a time where LGBTQ+ people are so attacked in every way, shape, and form,” Erickson said. “In states like Kansas and other places, transgender individuals aren’t even able to get a driver’s license. Internationally, Senegal just increased the penalties for LGBTQ+ people to 10 years in prison.”

Whatever the reason, Erickson worries for future openly LGBTQ+ political leaders aiming to make a larger change in higher offices.

“More people need to be aware of how this impacts other LGBTQ+ elected officials or who might want to consider running for office,” Erickson said. “Those are the things that I’m most concerned about, because an attack on me as an out LGBTQ+ elected official is an attack on everyone.”

“Why would someone else want to put themselves up for the scrutiny of running, if all they’re going to do is get lied and distorted about? I think it does more harm to LGBTQ people than we actually know,” he added.

Continue Reading

China

China’s top court acknowledges anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination

Postgraduate student petitioned for legal clarification

Published

on

(Photo by Aylandy/Bigstock)

China’s Supreme People’s Court on May 8 issued a rare response to a petition involving LGBTQ+ discrimination.

In a surprising response; it discussed sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. The response also mentioned workplace discrimination, public humiliation, and school bullying, language considered uncommon from China’s legal system.

The response stemmed from a proposal submitted by a postgraduate student in Qingdao through China’s xinfang petition system on March 25, urging the court to establish clearer judicial standards against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Six weeks later, the Supreme People’s Court Research Office issued a written reply.

The Research Office is an internal legal and policy body within the Supreme People’s Court. It studies legal issues, drafts judicial guidance, and responds to legal inquiries submitted through official channels. Its responses do not carry the same legal weight as a judicial interpretation or court ruling.

“The opinions and suggestions you raised are of great value,” reads a translated version of the Supreme People’s Court Research Office response. “In order to thoroughly implement the Constitution, Civil Code, Employment Promotion Law and other legal provisions, and effectively protect citizens’ personality rights from infringement, the Supreme People’s Court has guided local courts at all levels to handle a number of related cases, and through typical cases and other forms has clarified adjudication rules.”

The response stated that courts may determine public insults, defamation and, discriminatory conduct targeting sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression as infringement of personality rights. It also said employers treating individuals differently in hiring, employment, transfer or dismissal based on those characteristics could face employment discrimination claims. Schools could also bear legal responsibility for improper discipline or bullying involving students based on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, according to the response.

“It’s not a systematic change from the authorities recognizing LGBTQ rights,” said Renn Hao, an LGBTQ+ activist in China. “However, it’s an informal statement from the Supreme Court. According to a scholar researching LGBTQ legal cases in China, courts are recognizing more cases involving LGBTQ discrimination and same-sex partners through their verdicts.”

China decriminalized consensual same-sex sexual relations in 1997 and removed homosexuality from the country’s list of mental disorders four years later. Chinese law, however, does not recognize same-sex relationships.

Public advocacy involving LGBTQ+ issues also remains tightly controlled. Authorities in recent years have continued restricting community organizing, public events, and online expression involving sexual minorities.

Discussions involving LGBTQ+ issues are also frequently censored on Chinese social media platforms. 

Activists and advocacy groups say Chinese authorities in recent years have removed online content, shut down LGBTQ+ student group accounts and restricted public discussion involving sexual minority issues. After the Supreme People’s Court response began circulating online, related posts and articles were also removed from some Chinese platforms.

“It may still be too early to fully assess the long-term impact, as this development has only just happened and the situation is still unfolding,” said Xiaogang Wei, a Beijing-based LGBTQ+ rights activist, filmmaker, and founder of the China Rainbow Collective Foundation. “Although the reply is not legally binding, it represents a rare form of institutional acknowledgment of SOGIE-related discrimination in China. For Chinese LGBTQ people and advocates, this could become a meaningful reference point for future legal advocacy, public communication, and community awareness.”

Wei said the rapid removal of related posts and articles limited the development’s broader public impact and underscored how fragile LGBTQ+ visibility remains in China. 

“This is why we believe it is important to continue sharing verified information and ensuring that this development is not erased from public understanding,” Wei said.

Chinese courts in recent years have also heard a number of LGBTQ+-related employment discrimination cases, despite the absence of explicit nationwide protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity. In one notable case, the Supreme People’s Court in 2018 formally recognized “equal employment rights disputes” as a legal cause of action, allowing some discrimination-related cases to proceed through the courts.

Chinese courts have previously handled several LGBTQ+-related disputes involving employment discrimination, custody, and so-called conversion therapy. In 2024, a Beijing court drew attention after recognizing visitation rights for a child involving a same sex couple, a decision activists described as a milestone for LGBTQ+ families in China.

Continue Reading

Kenya

Kenyan High Court issues landmark transgender rights ruling

Government ordered to allow trans people to amend ID documents

Published

on

(Image by Bigstock)

Kenya’s High Court has ruled the country’s government cannot refuse requests to amend gender markers on birth certificates and other ID documents.

Audrey Mbugua, a prominent transgender activist, and two other people in 2020 sued Attorney General Dorcas Oduor, the Registrar of Births and Deaths, the National Registration Bureau, and Immigration Services Director General Evelyn Cheluget after they did not receive amended birth certificates.

The Washington Blade previously reported the three plaintiffs argued documents that do not correspond with their gender identity “has denied them opportunities and rights.” Oduor, for her part, in response to the plaintiffs’ claims argued “a person’s gender is based on fact — not feelings — and the plaintiffs at birth were registered and named based on their gender status.”

High Court Justice Bahati Mwamuye ruled on May 20.

“The silence and delay cannot defeat rights,” ruled the court, according to the Daily Nation, a Kenyan newspaper. “Constitutional rights cannot be delayed over administrative convenience.”

The court in 2014 ordered the Kenya National Examinations Council to change Mbugua’s name on her academic diplomas and to remove the male gender marker from them.

Kenya’s intersex rights law took effect in 2022. The government in February 2025 announced intersex people can receive birth certificates with an “I” gender marker.

The Daily Nation notes Mwamuye ordered the Registrar of Deaths and Births and other government agencies to “begin receiving and considering applications for gender-marker changes within” 60 days.

“Access to legal identity documentation is not just a human rights issue; it is a foundational pillar of socio-economic inclusion,” said the Initiative for Equality and Non-Discrimination, a Kenyan advocacy group, in response to the ruling. Without accurate IDs or passports, individuals face severe barriers to employment, financial systems, global business travel, and participation in governance and democratic processes.”

“This ruling marks a critical step forward in reducing administrative discrimination and fostering an inclusive environment where every Kenyan citizen’s legal identity aligns with their dignity,” added INEND.

Outright International, a New York-based global LGBTQ+ and intersex advocacy group, in a statement described Mwamuye’s ruling as “a meaningful shift towards aligning Kenya’s legal framework with constitutional guarantees of equality, privacy, and human dignity. Outright International also applauded Mbugua and other activists who fought for this change.

“Today, we celebrate a milestone — one achieved through resilience, solidarity, and an unwavering belief in justice,” said the group. “Outright International stands with transgender and intersex Kenyans in honoring this victory and reaffirming our commitment to advancing rights, recognition, and equality for all.” 

Continue Reading

Commentary

When impunity meets history

Raúl Castro indicted for alleged role in shooting down Brothers to the Rescue aircraft

Published

on

Former Cuban President Raúl Castro (Photo by Golden Brown/Bigstock)

The scene would have seemed impossible only a few years ago.

The name of Raúl Castro Ruz appearing formally inside a United States federal criminal indictment. Cuba’s former general of the Army, for decades one of the most powerful figures inside the Havana regime, accused in connection with the shootdown of the Brothers to the Rescue aircraft and the deaths of American citizens in 1996. And all of it unfolding in Miami, inside the Freedom Tower, on May 20.

That detail matters.

Because this indictment arrives at one of the most fragile and politically tense moments in recent relations between Washington and Havana. It comes as Cuba faces deep economic collapse, growing political exhaustion, mass migration, blackouts, and increasing public frustration both inside and outside the island. It also arrives on a date carrying enormous symbolic weight for Cuban exiles — the anniversary of the founding of the Cuban Republic in 1902.

But the true significance of this moment goes far beyond symbolism.

What happened in Miami represents something much larger: the collapse of the idea that certain men would never face accountability.

For decades, Raúl Castro embodied the permanence of revolutionary power in Cuba. Defense minister. Military strategist. The man who oversaw the armed forces for generations. One of the central architects of the Cuban political and security apparatus built alongside Fidel Castro. A figure many believed would leave this world untouched by any court, shielded forever by power, time, and history itself.

Today the image is very different.

Today his name appears inside the language of American criminal prosecution.

And that changes the historical dimension of this case completely.

Because this is no longer simply a political accusation voiced by the Cuban exile community. It is now a formal federal criminal indictment publicly announced by the United States government against one of the highest-ranking figures in the history of the Cuban regime.

The setting itself carried enormous meaning.

The Freedom Tower is not just another building in Miami. For generations of Cuban exiles it represents memory, displacement, survival, and the beginning of a new life after fleeing Cuba. Thousands of Cubans passed through those doors after escaping the revolution. Families arrived carrying fear, uncertainty, grief, and hope all at once. Announcing these charges from that location transformed the moment into something far deeper than a legal proceeding.

And the people witnessing it were not only members of the exile community.

Among those present were relatives of the young men killed nearly 30 years ago. Families who spent decades waiting to hear words they feared might never come. Families who carried the weight of loss while believing the men responsible would never be formally accused by any court.

That emotional weight still surrounds this case.

On Feb. 24, 1996, two civilian aircraft operated by Brothers to the Rescue were shot down over the Florida Straits by Cuban military jets. Armando Alejandre Jr., Carlos Costa, Mario de la Peña, and Pablo Morales were killed. The flights were connected to humanitarian rescue efforts searching for Cubans attempting to flee the island during the migration crisis of the 1990s.

Those aircraft were not military bombers.

They were not attacking Cuba.

They were civilian planes associated with rescue operations involving Cubans risking their lives at sea.

That reality has always shaped how this tragedy lives inside the memory of the Cuban exile community.

For many, this was never viewed simply as a geopolitical conflict between hostile governments. It was seen as the use of military force against civilians connected to humanitarian missions during one of the darkest chapters in modern Cuban migration history.

But for many Cubans, the indictment reaches far beyond the Brothers to the Rescue case itself.

It touches decades of unresolved pain tied to one of the central figures behind Cuba’s military and political system.

It reaches mothers who buried sons lost in compulsory military service or in distant wars they never chose to fight. Families who spent years believing promises that were never fulfilled. Political prisoners who disappeared into silence. Relatives who watched loved ones die trying to flee the island.

And for many LGBTQ Cubans, the moment carries another layer of historical weight.

Long before official campaigns promoting tolerance and inclusion emerged from within the Cuban government, there were years of persecution, fear, forced silence, and humiliation carried out under the revolutionary system itself.

The UMAP labor camps remain one of the deepest scars in modern Cuban history. Gay men, pastors, religious believers, artists, and others considered incompatible with the revolutionary ideal were sent away under the language of “re-education” and forced labor.

In recent decades, public gestures toward LGBTQ inclusion promoted by figures close to the Cuban leadership attempted to project an image of progress and openness to the international community. But for many survivors, and for many Cuban LGBTQ people, those gestures never erased the trauma or the historical responsibility tied to the same structures of power that once persecuted them.

For many, acknowledgment without accountability still feels painfully incomplete.

That is why this indictment resonates so deeply today.

Because it arrives while Cuba once again faces profound national crisis. The island is losing entire generations through migration. Public frustration continues to grow. Economic collapse shapes daily life. And the revolutionary narrative that once projected permanence and control appears increasingly eroded by reality itself.

Against that backdrop, the image emerging from Miami becomes even more striking.

A man once viewed as untouchable by history now formally accused by the United States government and legally transformed into a fugitive wanted by American justice.

History moves slowly until suddenly it does not.

And for many Cubans, both on the island and throughout the diaspora, what happened today inside the Freedom Tower felt like witnessing something they once believed they would never live long enough to see.

As a Cuban, as an immigrant, and as someone who has lived close to that pain, one thought keeps returning tonight:

Justice takes time.

But when it finally arrives, it arrives with history behind it.

Continue Reading

Politics

Scott Wiener seems headed to run without Pelosi’s endorsement

The gay State Senator is seeking the Speaker Emeritus’ seat

Published

on

Scott Wiener

For a while, it seemed that Scott Wiener, a gay California state senator, would be a shoo-in to succeed Nancy Pelosi in the state’s 11th Congressional District. But Monday, 15 days before the June 2 primary election, Pelosi threw a wrench into the race by endorsing one of his rivals, San Francisco Supervisor Connie Chan.

Wiener remains ahead in the polls; he, Chan, and former software engineer and congressional staffer Saikat Chakrabarti are the leading candidates in the race. They are among eight Democrats running, along with one Republican and one candidate declaring no party preference. In California’s primary system, the two top vote recipients in the primary advance to the general election, regardless of party. The district is heavily Democratic.

Pelosi is retiring after representing the district, which covers all of San Francisco, since 1987. In endorsing Chan, Pelosi said in a video, “She’s a mom who knows her power and knows her why. She has fought tirelessly to rebuild our middle class, strengthen our safety net, and protect our rights.” She also called Chan “the leader best prepared to carry forward the fight for San Francisco in the Congress of the United States.”

Wiener released a statement on the endorsement, saying, “I have tremendous respect for Speaker Emerita Pelosi and deep gratitude for everything she has done for our city and our country. Whoever wins in November will have giant stilettos to fill.” To the San Francisco Chronicle, he added, “I think it’s been crystal clear that I would be honored to have her endorsement, and I respect that she has made a choice, and that is entirely her choice to make, and that she’s made a choice.”

“There’s no longstanding disagreement nor any personal animus behind Pelosi’s decision,” political columnist Joe Garofoli wrote in the Chronicle. But Pelosi “bristled” when Wiener announced his candidacy for the seat last year, before she confirmed that she wouldn’t run again, Garofoli noted. She and Chan are also close allies of organized labor, although Wiener has significant labor support as well. And Pelosi, the first woman to be speaker of the U.S. House, often supports women for public office and urges them to “know their why”—why they’re running.

In a poll this month by the Chronicle, 40 percent of likely voters supported or were leaning toward Wiener, while 18 percent chose Chan and 17 percent preferred Chakrabarti. So Pelosi’s endorsement may not push Chan ahead of Wiener, but it may push her ahead of Chakrabarti, setting up Chan and Wiener to face off in the general election, according to Garofoli.

“This endorsement is more than an adrenaline shot in the arm for Chan’s campaign,” David McCuan, a professor of political science at Sonoma State University, told the columnist.

But Pelosi has not always backed winners. Last year, she called California Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis a particularly great candidate for governor, but Kounalakis soon dropped out of the crowded race. Some of the San Francisco supervisors she’s supported have won their elections, and some have not. She did endorse then-Congressman Adam Schiff for U.S. senator from California in 2024, and he won. Pelosi remains popular in San Francisco, though some constituents wish she had stepped aside earlier in favor of younger pols.

Schiff has endorsed Chan in the 11th District race, along with many high-profile politicians and activists, such as Congresswoman Judy Chu, former San Francisco Mayors Willie Brown and Art Agnos, former California Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (a gay man), and veteran gay activist Cleve Jones. She has also been endorsed by the Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club, which praises her as a champion of the working class.

Wiener has the endorsement of the California Democratic Party and many LGBTQ+ groups, including the Human Rights Campaign PAC, the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, Equality California, Equality PAC, and the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus. He has been endorsed by The Bay Area Reporter, San Francisco’s largest LGBTQ+ publication, as well.

Both Chan and Chakrabarti have positioned themselves to the left of Wiener, who “would be identified as pretty far to the left in most places; in San Francisco, he’s deemed a moderate,” Mother Jones noted. The three share many positions—support for LGBTQ+ rights, opposition to Donald Trump’s brutal treatment of immigrants, and condemnation of his cuts to many federal programs. They differ on new state taxes on the wealthiest residents, with Wiener opposed and Chan and Chakrabarti in support. Wiener does want to reverse Trump’s federal tax cuts for the rich.

However, the biggest problem facing San Francisco is a shortage of housing, at least housing that middle- and working-class people can afford. The three leading candidates have ideas to address that, but they differ on details. Wiener has pushed for more housing for residents of all income levels and for loosening regulations as an incentive to build. Chan opposes deregulation and says the focus should be on “housing that working people can afford,” she recently told local publication The Frisc. Chakrabarti is friendlier to deregulation and has proposed a public national bank to finance housing.

As a state senator, Wiener has put forth several bills calling for the construction of high-density housing near public transit, including in areas where such buildings were not previously allowed; he finally got one passed and signed into law in 2025, and it goes into effect July 1. Previous bills had drawn opposition from those who wanted to keep their neighborhoods exclusive to single-family homes, as well as from groups worried that the new construction would push out low-income residents. The law’s effective date could be delayed because of confusion over how to implement it; Wiener told Politico he’s open to that if it’s based on “good-faith feedback.”

Wiener was involved in another controversy recently, this one over the war in Gaza. At a candidates’ forum in January, he stayed silent when asked if Israel’s actions in the region constituted genocide, while Chan and Chakrabarti had said yes. Less than a week later, he shifted positions, saying the term was appropriate. Criticism from his fellow Jews then led him to resign as co-chair of the California Legislative Jewish Caucus. He went on to call Israel’s government an “abomination” that “is making Israelis less safe,” as quoted by The American Prospect.

A bit more about each candidate: Wiener was first elected to the California Senate in 2016. He previously represented Harvey Milk’s district on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, S.F.’s city council, and before that, practiced law. In the Senate, his persistence has annoyed some colleagues, but he has said it means he gets things done. Chan is a first-generation immigrant, having been born in Hong Kong and coming to the U.S. at age 13. She was an employee in several city departments, including a stint as an aide to then-District Attorney Kamala Harris, before her election as a supervisor. Chakrabarti amassed a fortune with Stripe, a payment processing company, and has put millions into his campaign. He was briefly chief of staff to U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York but offended many in Washington with his criticism that mainstream Democrats weren’t doing enough to fight Trump.

The hard-fought primary campaign will come to a head June 2—but expect another hard-fought campaign leading up to November.

Written by Trudy King, this is a cross-post from Karen Ocamb’s LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters Substack.

Continue Reading

Congress

Eight Democrats break with party as House advances ‘Don’t Say Trans’ bill

Measure not expected to pass in Senate

Published

on

(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a federal “Don’t Say Trans” bill on Wednesday, attempting to force teachers to out transgender students nationwide.

The bill, House Resolution 2616, also called the “Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act,” would require schools to get parental consent before allowing students to use their preferred, rather than originally assigned, gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form, and to use any sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms.

The bill amends Section 8526 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, legislation that allows for federal aid to help elementary and secondary education programs — particularly those under its lowest-income Title I-A program — to stop allocating funds to any education that teaches concepts “related to gender ideology.”

This is directly related to Executive Order 14168, also known as the “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” order, one of President Donald Trump’s first executive orders of his second term. It requires the federal government to recognize only sex assigned at birth and dismiss gender identity rather than sex.

The bill was sponsored by U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) and passed by a 217-198 margin. The vote fell mostly along party lines; however, eight Democrats voted for its passage. They were U.S. Reps. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), Donald Davis (D-N.C.), Cleo Fields (D-La.), Laura Gillen (D-N.Y.), Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas), Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.), and Eugene Vindman (D-Va.).

Proponents of the bill argue a child’s gender identity should be directed by parents at home rather than in public schools.

Critics say this is dangerous and will force students to be outed by their teachers to parents — some of whom may not be supportive of their gender identity — which could lead to violence or possibly conversion therapy.

California Congressman Mark Takano, chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, spoke on the House floor while the bill was being debated.

“Republicans claim to be the party of small government, but they have no problem bringing the full force of the federal government down against children. The GOP thinks they can legislate transgender people out of existence with this inhumane Don’t Say Trans bill, but all they’re doing is making life worse for a small minority of already-vulnerable children,” Takano said. “I spent 24 years as an educator where I worked with hundreds of high school students and their parents. Most children go to their parents when they need help or are struggling — including transgender children — but not all parents are accepting. The forced outing provision of this bill puts teachers in an impossible situation by requiring them to out trans kids to their parents in certain situations — even if the teacher knows the student will likely face physical abuse. Students like these are who Republicans want to put in immediate physical danger with this bill.”

The Los Angeles Blade talked to Tyler Heck, founder and executive director of the trans advocacy organization and Christopher Street Project PAC, following the bill’s passage.

“Most queer kids go to their families when they are figuring out who they are, and then not all queer kids have that option,” Heck told the Blade. “If this became law, it would harm those already vulnerable kids who rely on school as a safe place and might not have a safe place at home.”

They explained this is not about protecting parents’ rights to know what is going on with their children, but rather the weaponization of trans identity that has become a mainstream Republican ideal pushed by the Trump-Vance administration.

“Young people deserve the space to figure out who they are without the federal government interfering in their lives,” they said. “It is beyond the pale, or rather it should be beyond the pale, and has become a norm for Republicans in Congress to villainize kids, because I mean, this bill targets kids, it’s in the name of the bill, and it’s in the implications.”

Heck continued, saying that amid the rising cost of everyday necessities — from gas to groceries — and while the Trump-Vance administration continues to defund programs intended to help the most vulnerable Americans while creating slush funds for political allies, this is not what Congress should be focusing on.

“At a time when people are really struggling, and politicians need to be focused on lowering costs, they’re using queer and trans kids as political pawns,” Heck said. “They want to divide and conquer this country, and we need to stand up against them and unite behind values of inclusion and of trust in our teachers.”

David Stacy, the Human Rights Campaign’s vice president of government affairs, provided a statement to the Blade.

“Trans kids are not a political agenda — they are students who deserve safety and affirmation at school like anyone else,” Stacy said. “Despite the many pressing issues facing our nation, House Republicans continue their bizarre obsession with trans people. HR 2616 does not protect children. It targets them. This bill is cruel, and we’ll continue to fight to ensure it never becomes law.”

The bill will move to the U.S. Senate in the coming days and weeks, but it must first be reviewed by a Senate committee before leadership schedules it for a floor vote, where it will need 60 votes to pass.

Continue Reading

India

Iran war causes condom shortage in India

Trade disruptions have strained petrochemicals, lubricant supplies

Published

on

(Photo by nito/Bigstock)

About 80 days into the U.S.-Iran war, while much of the world struggles with oil supplies, India is confronting a different crisis: a widening condom shortage. Health activists warn the supply disruption could worsen HIV/AIDS risks in the world’s most populous country.

Disruptions in maritime trade through the Strait of Hormuz have strained supplies of petrochemicals and industrial lubricants used in condom manufacturing. The crisis has increased production costs across the sector and pushed retail prices sharply higher.

India’s condom manufacturing industry is valued at nearly $1 billion

Production depends heavily on silicone oil and ammonia. Silicone oil, a key lubricant used in manufacturing, is in short supply. Ammonia, which stabilizes raw latex, is expected to see price increases of 40-50 percent. Rising packaging costs have added further pressure. Some manufacturers and retailers have reported condom prices increasing by as much as 50 percent.

India is home to an estimated 2.5 million people living with HIV, the world’s second-largest population of HIV-positive people, according to a 2024 report. The Health Ministry’s India HIV Estimation 2025 technical report said 5.4 percent of HIV cases in 2024-2025 were linked to transmission between men who have sex with men.

In 2024, India recorded an estimated 64,470 new HIV infections and 32,160 AIDS-related deaths nationwide. The figures marked declines of 48.69 percent and 81.42 percent, respectively, compared with 2010.

Ankit Bhuptani, an LGBTQ+ activist in India, told the Los Angeles Blade that the country has made significant progress in reducing HIV infections over the past two decades. But, he said, that progress depended heavily on affordable condoms, targeted outreach programs and on-the-ground work by NGOs serving MSM and transgender people.

“Pull one thread and the whole thing loosens. What worries me about this particular shortage is that it arrives at exactly the moment when India’s LGBTQ community was beginning to access healthcare more openly after the Section 377 reading down,” said Bhuptani. “Young queer Indians in tier-two cities were just starting to trust government health systems enough to engage with them. A price spike that prices them out, or a shortage that sends them to substandard alternatives, could set that trust back by years.”

The Indian Supreme Court in 2018 struck down Section 377, a colonial-era law that criminalized consensual same-sex sexual relations.

In March, the Commerce and Industry Ministry acknowledged the difficulties faced by Indian exporters due to disruptions caused by the war in West Asia and launched a roughly $51.5 million Resilience and Logistics Intervention for Export Facilitation, or RELIEF, program. It provides credit insurance support for exporters whose shipments have been stranded because of the conflict.

“Price elasticity in sexual health products is brutal. When a condom pack goes from 20 rupees to 40, usage drops. It’s that simple,” said Bhuptani. “And when usage drops in populations with higher baseline HIV exposure, you don’t see the consequences for two or three years. Then the numbers arrive and everyone acts surprised.”

The situation has been further aggravated by the structure of India’s condom market, which operates on a high-volume, low-margin model designed to keep products affordable for a population of more than 1.4 billion people. Industry analysts say that model is now under growing pressure from rising raw material and shipping costs.

Reports in Indian media said supply constraints and price volatility involving PVC foil, aluminium foil, and packaging materials have disrupted production and complicated order fulfilment across parts of the condom manufacturing sector.

“Supply chain vulnerability assessments almost never include sexual health commodities. They should. India imports roughly 86 percent of its anhydrous ammonia from West Asian countries including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman, with that ammonia being essential for stabilizing the natural rubber latex used in domestic condom production,” said Bhuptani. “That is a documented strategic dependency that was never flagged as a risk. The Iran war converted it from a latent vulnerability into an active supply shock in a matter of weeks.”

The National AIDS Control Organization, or NACO, which oversees India’s HIV/AIDS programs, during the 2026-2027 fiscal year received an allocation of about $249 million, up from roughly $238 million the previous year. By comparison, the U.S. approved a $6 billion funding package in 2026 for global HIV/AIDS programs, according to the United Nations.

“The gay and trans community in India report high perceived HIV risk and adopted PrEP through non-profit and private channels, with cost and access remaining consistent concerns,” said Bhuptani. “The community organizations managing that risk perception are now operating in a tighter supply environment while simultaneously absorbing the downstream effects of USAID funding cuts. Health workers seeing increased anxiety among community members are observing the predictable consequence of removing redundancy from a system that had very little to begin with.”

The Blade reached out to Indian condom manufacturer Manforce several times, but the company declined to comment.

Harish Iyer, an LGBTQ+ and equal rights activist in India, told the Blade that this is the time when the government needs to step in. Condoms, Iyer said, are not about pleasure, but about life.

“Not just in terms of HIV, it is also a source of contraception in a nation which is heavily populated. So, if there is a crisis in the condom industry, it has an adverse effect on the LGBTQ community,” said Iyer. “And eventually it has a compounding effect on the economy as well. Because if the cases of HIV wrecks to rise, if the population was to explode, it is going to have a straining effect on the economy as well. So, I think it is time that the government steps in, and condoms should be recorded as a necessity commodity rather than making it feel like any kind of commodity that some (privileged people) can afford.”

Iyer told the Blade that the government should provide condoms free of cost. 

He pointed to the Nirodh Scheme, India’s long-running family planning and safe sex program launched by the government in 1968. Condoms, Iyer said, are a necessity, not a luxury product. He urged the government to classify them as essential items and either remove the Goods and Services Tax or reduce it to a minimum.

The Nirodh Scheme was launched by the Health and Family Welfare Ministry to promote contraception and prevent the spread of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, through the nationwide distribution of subsidized and free condoms.

Continue Reading

Popular