Politics
LA County native Leondra Kruger may be nominee for U.S. Supreme Court
If nominated and confirmed, Kruger would be not only the first Black woman on the court, but also the youngest justice
By Amy Howe | WASHINGTON – During a 2020 Democratic presidential primary debate, then-candidate Joe Biden pledged that, if elected, he would nominate a Black woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. With Justice Stephen Breyer expected to retire at the end of this term, California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger is one of the frontrunners to succeed him.
If nominated and confirmed, Kruger – who is just 45 years old – would be not only the first Black woman on the court, but also the youngest justice by over four years and the youngest justice confirmed since Clarence Thomas joined the court in 1991 at age 43. Despite her relative youth, Kruger would bring substantial experience at the high court, with 12 Supreme Court arguments under her belt, as well as a seven-year record on the California Supreme Court that resembles the record of the justice she would replace.
Early life and career
A native of southern California, Kruger is the daughter of two physicians. Her mother hails from Jamaica, while her late father was the son of Jewish immigrants from eastern Europe. Kruger attended the prestigious Polytechnic School, a private prep school in Pasadena, California, whose other alumni include Julia Child and James Ho, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit who was on former President Donald Trump’s short list to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.
After graduating from Polytechnic, Kruger compiled the kind of sterling resume the public has come to expect from Supreme Court nominees. She graduated with honors from Harvard University, where she was a reporter for the Harvard Crimson. Kruger covered a wide range of stories, including a hearing on Cambridge’s affirmative-action policy, the 1994 Senate race between the late Sen. Edward Kennedy and Mitt Romney, and a travel guide to her hometown of Pasadena that humorously dismissed East Coast stereotypes about catastrophes in California (“Earthquakes! Fires! Mudslides! Riots!”) as “only jealousy.”
After Harvard, Kruger went to Yale Law School, where she was the editor in chief of the Yale Law Journal – the first Black woman to hold that job. During law school, Kruger spent one summer as an intern for the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles and a second summer as a summer associate at Munger, Tolles & Olson. After graduating from Yale in 2001, she spent a year working as an associate at Jenner & Block in Washington, D.C., before going to clerk for Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 2002 to 2003. Kruger went from the D.C. Circuit to the Supreme Court, where she clerked for Justice John Paul Stevens during the 2003-04 term.
When Kruger finished her clerkships, she went into private practice at a third firm, now known as WilmerHale. During her two years there, her clients included Shell Oil, which Kruger represented in an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit involving a half-billion-dollar judgment in a Nicaraguan court against Shell and others, as well as Verizon Communications, which Kruger represented in federal district court in California in litigation challenging the participation by telecommunications companies in the government’s domestic-terrorist surveillance program. Kruger left WilmerHale for the University of Chicago Law School, where she taught a class in transnational litigation as a visiting assistant professor.
A stint in the Obama administration, including arguments at the Supreme Court
Kruger returned to Washington in 2007 to take a job as an assistant to the U.S. solicitor general. She served in that role for several years, until she was named the acting principal deputy solicitor general. The lawyer who holds that job, which is sometimes known as the “political deputy,” is normally the only deputy in the solicitor general’s office who is not a career civil servant (and the only other political appointee, beyond the solicitor general, in the office).
During her six years in the solicitor general’s office, Kruger argued 12 cases at the Supreme Court on behalf of the federal government. One of those cases was a high-profile dispute involving whether the “ministerial exception” to employment-discrimination laws – the idea that religious institutions normally have the sole right to determine who can act as their ministers – barred a lawsuit by a teacher and ordained minister who had been fired by the Lutheran school where she worked. Kruger argued that the teacher should be able to pursue her lawsuit against the school for alleged discrimination on the basis of disability. The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, unanimously rejected that position and held that the ministerial exception applied.
The other cases Kruger argued touched on a wide range of issues, from the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause and right to counsel to federal “career criminal” laws and federal benefits laws. At the lectern, Kruger’s tone with the justices was conversational from the start, with a quiet confidence. She was poised even when she was being peppered with questions from all sides of the bench, as she was in defending an ultimately unsuccessful position in her first argument, in Begay v. United States.
Kruger left the solicitor general’s office in 2013 to serve as a deputy assistant attorney general in another section of the Department of Justice: the Office of Legal Counsel, which (among other things) provides legal advice to the president and other agencies within the executive branch. As Rory Little observed, that office has “yielded an unusual share of prominent federal judges and Justices over the past half century,” including the late Justice Antonin Scalia and the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
During her time in the Department of Justice, Kruger twice received the attorney general’s award for exceptional service, the department’s “highest award for employee performance.” Both awards give a glimpse into her work at DOJ beyond the courtroom. In 2013, she was part of a team that won the award for its work in defending the Affordable Care Act, while in 2014 she was a member of a group that won the award for its work implementing the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor, striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
An “out of the box” pick for the California Supreme Court
In 2014, California Governor Jerry Brown nominated Kruger, then just 38 years old, to serve on the California Supreme Court when Associate Justice Joyce Kennard retired. Kruger’s former bosses in the solicitor general’s office praised her selection, with then-Solicitor General Don Verrilli describing her as “brilliant, deeply principled and eloquent” and former Solicitor General Paul Clement calling her an “outstanding lawyer” who “combines an understated and easygoing manner with a keen legal mind and unquestioned integrity.” Former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal echoed those thoughts, saying that “California, and the nation, could do no better than Leondra Kruger.”
But despite those accolades from Washington, Kruger’s nomination was not greeted with unbridled enthusiasm within California because Kruger was not a practicing lawyer in the state, was not a judge, and lacked trial experience. However, Kruger was rated “exceptionally well qualified” by the California state bar group responsible for evaluating judicial nominees, and in December 2014 she was confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments, a three-member body that holds a hearing to consider and decide whether to confirm nominees to the state’s highest courts. The commission’s members included Kamala Harris, then the state’s attorney general and now the vice president of the United States. Kruger was sworn into office in January 2015, becoming only the second Black woman to serve on the California Supreme Court.
Lawyers who practice regularly before that court describe Kruger in terms that are not unlike those used to characterize Breyer. In a November 2020 story for The Recorder, appellate lawyer Ben Feuer indicated that Kruger was “not looking to create radical change in the law emanating from the judicial branch.” “Rather,” Feuer continued, she understands the limited yet critical role the judicial branch plays in the complex ballet of our representative democracy.”
In a 2018 interview with the Los Angeles Times, Kruger herself said that she tries to do her job “in a way that enhances the predictability and stability of the law and public confidence and trust in the work of the courts.” Many of the published decisions that Kruger has written or joined while on the California Supreme Court have been unanimous rulings, with largely (although not uniformly) liberal-leaning results.
Upholding rights of the accused, from juvenile court to death-penalty cases
Kruger wrote for a unanimous court in April 2018 in a decision holding that videotaped statements by a three-year-old who claimed that she had been sexually molested by her father should not have been used as the basis to find that the child had been abused, which in turn led to an order for the father’s removal from the family’s home. Kruger acknowledged that juvenile courts have a “sensitive and difficult task” in such cases. However, she continued, the evidence in this case of the child’s reliability was “weaker than the juvenile court acknowledged.” The juvenile court failed to take into account that the child had also recently been molested by an older child, and that “[h]er repeated statements about abuse were strikingly similar to descriptions of that” incident. Moreover, Kruger added, “the child’s account contained both inconsistencies and inaccuracies that were woven through her core allegations.”
Photo: State of California
With automatic appeals to the California Supreme Court, death penalty cases are a staple of the court’s docket. However, California has not executed anyone since 2006, and in 2019 the state’s governor, Gavin Newsom, imposed an official moratorium on executions. In 2019, Kruger wrote for a unanimous court in overturning the death sentence of Jeffrey Scott Young, who was convicted of killing two people during a 2002 robbery and carjacking at an offsite parking lot near San Diego International Airport. The court agreed with Young that the jury should not have been allowed to consider evidence regarding his white supremacist beliefs and tattoos, which prosecutors had introduced during the sentencing phase of his trial to rebut evidence about his good character.
The specific evidence to which prosecutors had been responding, Kruger explained, was testimony from Young’s grandmother about, for example, “his commitment to his family and children.” Although the court did not rule out the possibility that, in a different case, evidence of a defendant’s racist beliefs could be admitted, it cannot be used, Kruger concluded, simply to demonstrate the offensiveness of those beliefs.
Kruger wrote again for a unanimous court in 2020 to throw out another death sentence, this time in the high-profile case of Scott Peterson, who was convicted and sentenced to death for the 2002 murders of his pregnant wife, Laci, and the couple’s unborn child, Conner. Kruger agreed with Peterson that the trial court had made “a series of clear and significant errors in jury selection that, under long-standing U.S. Supreme Court precedent, undermined Peterson’s right to an impartial jury at the penalty phase.” Most notably, Kruger explained, the trial court should not have dismissed potential jurors simply because they expressed general opposition to the death penalty, without also determining whether that opposition would have meant that they would be unable to follow the law and impose the death penalty if warranted. In December 2021, Peterson was resentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Bodycam footage and sexual-abuse lawsuits
Two years ago, Kruger wrote for the court in its decision holding that a California city could not charge a public-interest group seeking public records for the approximately 40 hours that city employees spent editing footage from police body cameras. A local chapter of the National Lawyers Guild sought records relating to the Hayward Police Department’s actions in the 2014 demonstrations that followed grand jury decisions not to indict the police officers involved in the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown. The city of Hayward billed the group $3,000, citing a state-law provision that requires the person or group requesting electronic records to pay the costs associated with producing copies of those records when producing those copies would require the extraction of data.
The extraction of data, Kruger explained, does not cover redacting exempt material from electronic records that the city would otherwise need to disclose. That interpretation, Kruger reasoned, is more consistent with both the text of the statute and the California legislature’s intent in enacting the law. Moreover, she added, interpreting the term “extraction” to include the costs of redaction “would make it more difficult for the public to access information kept in electronic format” – contrary to the state’s constitution, which “favors an interpretation that avoids erecting such substantial financial barriers to access.”
Kruger acknowledged the city’s argument that “requests for body camera footage present unique concerns for government agencies with limited resources” because of the privacy interests involved, among other things. But this provision does not only cover body-camera footage, Kruger stressed. Instead, she noted, “it covers every type of electronic record, from garden-variety emails to large government databases.” Only the legislature, Kruger indicated, can decide whether to create special rules for body-camera footage.
Last year, Kruger wrote for the court in a unanimous decision holding that three athletes who allege that they were sexually abused by a coach as teenagers can sue USA Taekwondo but not the U.S. Olympic Committee. In her opinion, Kruger rebuffed the plaintiffs’ suggestion that the court should adopt a “more flexible and holistic approach” to determine whether a defendant can be held responsible for failing to protect a victim from harm caused by another person. “Without denying the gravity of the injuries these plaintiffs suffered,” Kruger stressed, “nor the broader problem of sexual abuse of minors in organized youth sports and other activities,” a defendant cannot be held responsible for injuries that it did not cause “unless there are special circumstances” that create a special duty for the defendant to provide protection or help to the plaintiffs.
Other notable decisions Kruger joined
In 2018, Kruger joined a unanimous decision that upheld a state law requiring new handgun models to imprint “micro stamps” inside the guns and on shell casings to make it easier for police to identify them. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for gun manufacturers, argued that the requirement should be invalidated because it was impossible to implement the technology. The decision by Justice Goodwin Liu emphasized that the ruling did not involve the constitutionality of the requirement, but instead was simply a question of statutory interpretation. The California Supreme Court’s cases, Liu explained, have acknowledged that statutes may contain an exception when it is impossible to comply with the law when that is what the legislature intended. But in this case, Liu wrote, neither the text nor the purpose of the law indicates that, once the law went into effect, gun manufacturers may be excused from the requirement because it is impossible to comply with it.
Kruger concurred in a 2019 opinion by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye that unanimously upheld the death sentence of a man convicted of a brutal double murder and robbery. Cantil-Sakauye’s opinion also rejected the challenge by the inmate, Thomas Potts, to the constitutionality of the state’s death-penalty scheme, as well as his contention that his more than two decades on death row constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
Kruger did not join a concurring opinion by Liu that, while expressing “tremendous compassion for the victims and their families,” characterized the state’s death-penalty system as “an expensive and dysfunctional system that does not deliver justice or closure in a timely manner, if at all.” It is time, Liu suggested, for a discussion of the death penalty’s “effectiveness and costs.”
Kruger joined a unanimous opinion by Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, another Brown appointee, abolishing the state’s cash bail system. The question came to the court in the case of Kenneth Humphrey, a 66-year-old man charged with robbery. Humphrey’s bail was initially set at $600,000 and then was reduced to $350,000 – an amount that Humphrey still could not pay. Cuellar concluded that the “common practice of conditioning freedom solely on whether an arrestee can afford bail is unconstitutional.” “Other conditions of release,” he continued, including “electronic monitoring, regular check-ins with a pretrial case manager, community housing or shelter, and drug and alcohol treatment,” can often “protect public and victim safety as well as assure the arrestee’s appearance at trial.”
A varied record in divided cases
But not all of the California Supreme Court’s opinions are unanimous. And when the court has divided, Kruger has been difficult to pigeonhole. She has sometimes joined Democratic appointees to reach an arguably “liberal” result, but at other times she has joined Republican appointees to arrive at an arguably “conservative” result.
In the 2016 case Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Kruger declined to join Cuellar’s majority opinion holding that an employer violated state labor laws by requiring its employees – security guards – to keep their radios and pagers on during their rest periods in case they were needed. Cuellar, whose ruling was joined by four other justices, reasoned that the employer’s policies “conflict with an employer’s obligation to provide breaks relieving employees of all work-related duties and employer control.”
In an opinion joined by Justice Carol Corrigan, who was named to the court by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, Kruger agreed with the majority that employers “must provide off-duty rest periods” for their employees. But, she continued, simply requiring those employees to carry a radio or a pager during their rest periods isn’t, standing alone, work – particularly when there is no evidence that the security guards’ rest periods were actually interrupted. Kruger would have sent the case back to the lower courts for them to determine whether the company’s “on-call policy actually interfered with its employees’ ability to use their rest periods as periods of rest.”
Kruger provided the key vote in 2018 in Hassell v. Bird, in which the court declined to uphold an order that would have required Yelp to remove negative reviews of a law firm from its site. A three-justice plurality, in an opinion by Cantil-Sakauye, another Schwarzenegger appointee, agreed with Yelp that requiring it to take down the reviews would violate Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996, which generally gives websites immunity for content created by their users. (Corrigan and Justice Ming Chin, who was appointed by Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican, provided the other two votes for Cantil-Sakauye’s opinion.)
In a separate concurring opinion, Kruger explained that in her view it was “unnecessary to reach” the Section 230 issue. Instead, she would resolve the case on the “more basic” ground that Yelp – which had not been named as a defendant in the case – could not be required to take the review down without “its own day in court.” Kruger agreed that the majority had reached the correct result, but she emphasized that she would not weigh in on how Section 230 might apply more broadly in future cases. She reasoned that although Section 230 “has brought an end to a number of lawsuits seeking remedies for a wide range of civil wrongs accomplished through Internet postings,” “the broad sweep of section 230 remedies also has ‘troubling consequences.’” “Whether to maintain the status quo,” Kruger concluded, “is a question only Congress can decide.”
Joined by Cuellar and two other Brown appointees — Liu and Justice Joshua Groban — Kruger wrote for a 4-3 court in 2019 in throwing out a lower-court ruling that upheld a search of a car without a warrant to look for the driver’s identification. Kruger described the “central issue” before the court as “not whether the search of” the driver’s car was “consistent with the guidance given in” an earlier case, but instead whether to “continue to adhere to” that earlier decision in light of U.S. Supreme Court cases since then.
Noting that the California decision had become an outlier, Kruger observed that although the California Supreme Court’s ruling had “attempted to cordon off” the power it gave to police officers, experience had shown that in practice, the searches have come “perilously close” to full searches of the cars. There are other ways for officers to obtain the information that they need, she suggested, such as asking a driver for her name and date of birth and cross-checking that information against the Department of Motor Vehicles database.
Addressing the dissent’s argument that, without carving out an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s general warrant requirement for cases like this one, “officers may not be able to achieve absolute certainty about the identity of some subset of traffic violators before issuing traffic tickets,” Kruger countered that “the test for whether an exception should be recognized is not whether, in its absence, there might be some cost in effective enforcement of the traffic laws.” Instead, she wrote, it is “whether the tradeoff to lower that risk is worth the coin in diminished privacy.” “It is not,” she concluded, “a price we should lightly require California drivers to pay.”
In 2018, Kruger wrote for a divided court – in an opinion joined by Cantil-Sakauye, Chin, and Corrigan – in rejecting a challenge to a state law that requires law enforcement officials to collect DNA samples and fingerprints from anyone arrested for a felony. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Maryland v. King, the majority concluded that the defendant in the case, Mark Buza, had been arrested for a serious offense – arson – and, at least as applied to him, the requirement therefore did not violate either the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment or the California constitution.
The majority did not weigh in on whether the law was valid for other defendants, and it rejected a suggestion – made by Liu and Cuellar, in dissenting opinions – that it determine whether the state can require a DNA sample before a judge determines that a defendant’s arrest was valid. Kruger stressed that the court’s holding was “limited,” and she explained that “the law teaches that we should ordinarily focus on the circumstances before us in determining whether the work of a coequal branch of government may stand or must fall.”
Kruger joined an opinion by Liu in 2019 that reinstated a challenge by psychotherapists to a state law that would require them to report to authorities patients who admit to viewing child pornography, even when the therapists don’t believe that the patients pose any harm to children. Writing for a four-justice majority, Liu acknowledged that the “proliferation of child pornography on the Internet is an urgent problem of national and international dimension,” but the court – over a dissent by Cantil-Sakauye, Chin, and Corrigan – concluded that the reporting requirement implicated an interest in privacy. Stressing that the court was not ruling that the reporting requirement was unconstitutional, Liu sent the case back to the lower courts for them to determine whether the reporting requirement actually advances the law’s purpose of protecting children, or whether it instead deters patients from seeking treatment for sexual disorders.
Kruger sided with the court’s conservative justices in a 4-3 ruling in 2017 that made it more difficult for inmates sentenced under the state’s “Three Strikes” law to obtain resentencing. In a separate concurring opinion joined by two of her colleagues, Kruger explained that the other provisions in the ballot initiative on which the inmates seeking resentencing relied reflected a “clear and exclusive focus on affording relief to individuals who have committed specified drug- and theft-related offenses, and neither the stated purposes of the proposition nor the ballot materials alerted voters to any possibility that a favorable vote might also result in a significant change to the separate statutory scheme governing the resentencing of life prisoners under the ‘Three Strikes’ law.” “Although this is certainly a choice the voters could make,” Kruger acknowledged, “I do not think we can say it is a choice the voters have already made.”
Under the California system, although Kruger was nominated by Brown and confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments, she was still required to face the voters in a “retention election,” without an opponent, in 2018. Kruger won retention easily, with nearly 73% of voters – 6.6 million in total – voting “yes.”
Personal life
Kruger is married to Brian Hauck, a partner at the law firm of Jenner & Block and a former senior official in the Department of Justice during the Obama administration. The couple has two children: a son and a daughter.
When she had their daughter in 2016, Kruger became the first California Supreme Court justice to give birth while in office. A 2018 story in the Los Angeles Times recounted how Kruger traveled from the San Francisco Bay area, where she lives, to Los Angeles with her newborn to hear oral arguments; Kruger’s mother-in-law cared for the baby, then four weeks old, while Kruger was working.
If Biden nominates Kruger, it will not be his administration’s first effort to get Kruger to return to the east coast. In January, Marcia Coyle and Ryan Barber of the National Law Journal reported that Kruger had twice turned down offers to serve as the administration’s solicitor general. Like a position as a Supreme Court justice, that job requires Senate confirmation – but a job as a Supreme Court justice comes with life tenure.
*********************
Amy Howe is the former editor and a reporter for SCOTUSblog and still is a contributor. She primarily writes for her eponymous blog, Howe on the Court.
Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there.
Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
*********************
The preceding article was previously published by SCOTUSBlog and is republished by permission.
Politics
From the desk of Equality California: the top political news for California’s LGBTQ
Equality California is bringing together LGBTQ+ elected and appointed officials from across California to discuss the challenges facing our communities, develop strategies for the future, and hear from distinguished leaders.
Pride season may be largely in the rearview mirror, but Equality California is gearing up for a busy fall. On August 3–4, we’ll convene our annual LGBTQ+ Leadership Summit in Sacramento, bringing together LGBTQ+ elected and appointed officials from across California to discuss the challenges facing our communities, develop strategies for the future, and hear from distinguished leaders, including former U.S. Senator Laphonza Butler.
Just one week later, we’ll return to the state Capitol for our final Leadership Academy of the year. This special Gender Equity Edition will help prepare lesbian, bisexual and queer women, as well as transgender and nonbinary people, to run for office and serve their communities.If you’re interested in applying or know someone who’d be a great fit, learn more!
To read more stories, join our mailing list, and sign up for the weekly Equality Brief, visit eqca.org/equalitybrief.
- Governor Newsom Signs Budget That Includes Funding for Trans Healthcare, Uncompensated Care, LGBTQ+ Centers:
On Monday, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a pro-equality budget that specifically seeks to preserve access to healthcare for transgender Californians in addition to monies for Uncompensated Care and LGBTQ+ community center support. With the federal government threatening to withhold Medicare and Medicaid funding for hospitals and providers that offer transition-related care, Equality California and a coalition of civil rights, LGBTQ+ and healthcare organizations had lobbied for $26 million to set up a state pathway for such care. Read our statement alongside reactions from our coalition partners, as well as our list of thank-yous to the legislators who championed our ask. - 6-3 Supreme Court Ruling Lets Transgender Athlete Bans Stand:
The conservative majority court ruled on Tuesday that state bans on transgender girls participating in school sports do not violate the Constitution, and may be enforced. However, as disappointing as the ruling is, the decision was limited to the specific questions before the Court and does not resolve broader questions about protections for transgender people. Schools and states can continue to adopt inclusive policies that ensure every student is treated with dignity and respect. Read our statement here. - California AG Releases Hate Crimes Report; LGBTQ+ Numbers a Mixed Bag:
On Monday, July 6, California AG Rob Bonta’s office released the 2025 Hate Crimes in California report, tracking hate incidents throughout the state. While overall reported hate crimes decreased by 3.4%, and those with a sexual orientation bias fell by more than 35%, anti-transgender incidents saw a 23.4% increase. There is absolutely no place for hate in California. Transparent and accessible data is a critical part of understanding where we are and how we can end hate crimes in our communities,” said Attorney General Bonta. - Merck Enlists Seven Drugmakers for Generic Version of New PrEP Drug:
Pharmaceutical company Merck has announced that it will license seven generic drugmakers to produce a low-cost alternative to a new PrEP medication, alimatravir. The move is meant to make stockpiles of the drug available pending the anticipated positive outcome of two late-stage clinical trials occurring next year. UNAIDS reported 1.2 million new HIV infections in 2025; efforts to decrease transmissions have taken a hit in the wake of Trump administration decisions to pull American funding from global HIV/AIDS initiatives. - Trump HHS Department Ends Rule Protecting LGBTQ+ Foster Children:
The Department of Health and Human Services, led by Secretary RFK, Jr., has formally rescinded a hard-won Biden era rule that protected LGBTQ+ foster youth throughout the placement and reunification processes. The rule ensured that LGBTQ+ foster children would be placed in affirming homes, help them report mistreatment, request alternate placements, and prohibit so-called conversion therapy. LGBTQ+ foster youth are overrepresented in the system due in part to family rejection and fears for their safety. LGBTQ+ minors are also less likely to be reunified with their families of origin, adopted, or placed permanently with relatives. - Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Parental Rights Case Next Term:
The conservative majority Supreme Court will take up a case in its next term involving parental rights and the ability of youth to access certain services independent of parental consent. The lawsuit, International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson, brought by a Chicago-based Christian nonprofit, challenges Washington state laws that allow minors to access shelter services, mental health and gender-affirming care without parental consent. The Ninth Circuit Court had refused to hear the case, stating the parents lacked standing because none of their teenagers had actually run away and sought state shelter. - Pete Buttigieg Targeted by False CPS Report, Resulting in Temporary Parental Separation:
After a false anonymous complaint was filed against Buttigieg accusing him of putting his children at risk, the former Secretary of Transportation and Presidential candidate was separated from his children temporarily while law enforcement and CPS completed an investigation. After the report was determined to be false, Buttigieg and husband Chasten were reunited with their 4-year-old twins Gus and Penelope. On his Substack, Buttigieg wrote about what he called “every parent’s nightmare,” noting he believed it was no coincidence that the events transpired during Pride Month. - Federal Judge Questions Pentagon on Blatant Double Standard Around Testosterone:
Judge Ana Reyes, currently overseeing a legal challenge to the Trump administration’s transgender military ban, ordered the government to address Secretary Pete Hegseth’s recently-announced “testosterone screening and treatment” policy and explain how it is any different from hormone therapy prescribed to transgender servicemembers. At the heart of Reyes’ order is the fundamental question: Why can testosterone be treated as a “tool of health and readiness” for cisgender troops, but serve as “evidence of unfitness” when prescribed to transgender men?
STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
Equality California’s priority sponsored legislation continues to move through the legislative process. As we come out of summer recess in August, we will update you on the status of these critical LGBTQ+ bills. To view our entire 2026 state legislative package, visit eqca.org/legislation
UPCOMING EVENTS
Our premier event of the year, the Los Angeles Equality Awards, is happening on Saturday, October 17, 2026 from 6:00-10:00 PM at the gorgeous Fairmont Century Plaza. And this year, we’re making Monét moves — Drag Race All-Stars winner, comedian, actor, and presenter Monét X Change will serve as emcee! We’ll also honor Asm. Rick Chavez Zbur with the Equality Leadership Award. More details will be announced soon, but tickets are on sale now! Don’t miss out!
Politics
Weho’s GYM bar owner Jonathan Cottrell is running for city council
The local business owner hopes to increase public safety, government trust, and affordability
Between caring for his newborn and running the popular GYM Bar WEHO sports bar, Jonathan Cottrell is also juggling his campaign for West Hollywood’s city council in the upcoming November general election.
Cottrell, who has lived in WeHo for over a decade, is running on a campaign of increasing government trust, neighborhood safety, and more affordable housing.
He is running because he believes in a government that “listens, acts with compassion, and works for all people,” according to his campaign website.
“I’m a software engineer by trade, so I love big ideas, taking big swings, and I think that pragmatic approach that I bring to my work can carry over,” Cottrell, 36, said.
Cottrell has been involved with the city in various ways over the years. Since March of last year, he’s been on the public facilities, recreation and infrastructure commission. Alongside being a business owner, he’s also a renter and helps run his HOA.
“Through the course of all those things, I’ve gotten to know the people that work at City Hall, the staffers, the council, the agencies that are county-run like fire, sheriff’s office, the health department,” Cottrell, 36, said. “All that together, I’ve gotten to see what works great about our city, but also what we can improve.”
He hopes to improve the city’s government trust by increasing transparency and accountability policies and building them up.
“If we have easy-to-use, transparent technology, that doesn’t require you to drill down through PDFs and download things and search and find dates of disclosures that exist within our government,” Cottrell said. “If we have systems where things aren’t buried in endless files, that’ll increase government trust.”
He hopes to increase this “lack of ease of accessibility” that bars people from knowing where to go to find city government information.
Prioritizing community safety is another big goal of Cottrell’s.
“As a bar owner and restaurant owner, I see it every day, all the issues we have,” Cottrell said.
Some issues he’s seen include street fights, an increase in the unhoused population, and recent issues like the waterline burst that led to a large sinkhole. He said issues like these “affect the whole community.”
If voted in, he’d like to focus on recruitment and retention of West Hollywood’s law enforcement, which he says will improve safety of the neighborhood.
He’d like to increase the number of deputies in the city and “find a path to increase public safety and better night shifts that are permanent.”
“I’d like us to increase our investment in public safety, but in a way that actually increases being safe and feeling safe,” he added. “We need to beef up the budget but also use those dollars wisely and make sure that they are actually providing safety on our blocks that we can feel.”
In 2022, West Hollywood voted to cut the sheriff budget, replacing four deputies with unarmed security ambassadors.
Since then, the budget has continued to increase sheriff and protective services (one category) and public safety budgets. In 2022, these two groups’ costs were around $22 million. By fiscal year 2028, the projected budget for public safety and sheriff and protective services is just shy of $40 million, according to WeHo’s two-year city operating budget.
WeHo’s serious crimes dropped more than 13% in the first half of 2026, according to WeHo Times, despite increases in auto thefts, shoplifting, and burglaries in residential areas.
“$40 million may seem like we’re spending a lot, but it is a smaller budget than some of our neighbors,” Cottrell said. “Increasing it will allow more presence on the street and, for example, a permanent night shift that is there at the high-risk times, at high-risk places.”
Housing and affordability in WeHo remain a common topic for many city council campaigns.
For Cottrell, a focus for long-term fixes for the city’s housing shortage is imperative.
“We need to continue to have a great housing policy here, a decade of rent control policies that were implemented by people that founded the city,” Cottrell said.
He thinks there’s a way to increase economic opportunity while also addressing the affordability crisis that impacts renters, homeowners, small businesses, and workers.
“I really believe we have to be bold about where we’re going, but also very thoughtful and strategic about how we get there,” he said.
He hopes that with a city full of creatives and the city’s reputation for being unique, some solutions can be found.
“In addition to our rent control and rent stabilization ordinances, I think we can get more creative about looking at creative zoning, such as light industrial residential,” Cottrell said. “I picture, say, an artist who lives and works in their studio, but also part of the space can be a gallery.”
“There’s actually a lot of spaces in West Hollywood that could be mixed-use, where we need to figure out what is the path to make that viable,” he added. “We have to continue being very thoughtful in our approach, but we can also shoot for the stars.”
Investing in more creative housing options will lead to vibrancy and growth in economic opportunity for WeHo, he said.
“Let’s invest in our people, invest in our community, and be innovative,” Cottrell said. “I have a lot of excitement for the future. There’s a lot of scary stuff happening federally, but let’s build a gold standard for the country for what a city can be in the modern world.”
For more information, head to Cottrell4Weho.com.
Politics
Black, gay Elijah Manley is running against Florida stalwart Debbie Wasserman Schultz for Congress
‘We need fresh ideas, a new generation of leadership, not just career politicians,’ says Manley.
Florida may elect two Black gay Democrats to the U.S. House of Representatives this year—and one of them is in one of the most complicated races in the nation, due to the state’s redistricting.
In addition to Shevrin Jones in Florida’s 24th Congressional District, Elijah Manley is seeking a seat from the state’s 20th Congressional District. It’s a majority minority, plurality-Black, heavily LGBTQ+ and heavily Democratic district in the southeastern part of the state. The district is centered on Broward County and includes several areas with high concentrations of same-sex couples, including Fort Lauderdale’s Victoria Park neighborhood and suburbs such as Wilton Manors and Oakland Park.
But because of redistricting by the state’s Republican-led government, a longtime Democratic congresswoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, is running in the 20th District instead of the 22nd, where she lives (members of the House don’t have to live in the district they represent, just the state). Wasserman Schultz currently represents the 25th District, but changes to the map put her in the 22nd District, which is Republican-leaning, hence her decision to run in the 20th. The 20th District has long been represented by a Black Democrat, and that has led to criticism of Wasserman Schultz’s decision to run there, as she is white. Redistricting is threatening Black representation in several states, plus Florida’s redistricting reduced the number of safe Democratic congressional districts from eight to four.
Also, Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, who resigned the 20th District seat this year, is running to reclaim it. She resigned after her fellow representatives found her guilty of ethics violations, and she faces criminal charges of stealing federal disaster relief funds and directing them to her 2021 congressional campaign. She has denied wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty to the criminal charges.
Into this mix comes Manley, along with two other Black candidates: Dale V.C. Holness, a former Broward County mayor, and Luther Campbell, a.k.a. Uncle Luke, from the hip-hop group 2 Live Crew. The Democratic primary will be held August 18, and given the makeup of the district, the winner will most likely go on to beat the Republican nominee in November.
“We need fresh ideas, a new generation of leadership, not just career politicians,” Manley, a 27-year-old middle school history teacher, told LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters. That doesn’t mean pushing out all older elected officials, but the nation would benefit by putting younger people with bold stances into the mix, he said.
“I think people are tired of the same old thing,” he said. “They want people who are going to fight back.”
He became deeply concerned about the future of the U.S., especially its young people, after the 2024 election, he said. He thought the Democratic leadership wasn’t meeting the moment, and that inspired his congressional run.
But Manley had run for office before. When he was just 19, he ran for the Broward County School Board, and later he ran for the Florida House of Representatives. He didn’t win either time, but he’s glad to have had the experience. Also, in the wake of the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, he became active in the March for Our Lives movement for gun control.
He says his combination of lived experience and his positions on the issues make him the best candidate in the race. His family lost everything in the financial crisis of 2008, and they were homeless for a time. He’s confronted racism and homophobia. “I understand discrimination,” he said. “I’ve experienced it firsthand.” He’s held working-class jobs and is a survivor of sexual assault.
“I refuse to believe that to serve in government, you have to have this elite profile,” Manley said. “In Congress, we need people who’ve been through some stuff.”
He denounces the Trump administration’s hostility to diversity, equity, and inclusion. That’s played out in the Department of Defense—something that hits close to home for him, as he participated in Navy Junior ROTC in high school—and elsewhere in the federal government.
“All this talk about DEI comes down to they hate progress,” Manley said. To the current administration, being pro-DEI and being “woke”—aware of inequities and willing to fight them—is a bad thing, but certainly not to him, he said. “I’m completely for woke and completely for DEI,” he noted.
The diversity of the U.S., he added, has helped it understand and aid other countries.
Some of that aid has been taken away now, with the destruction of the U.S. Agency for International Development at the hands of onetime Trump ally Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). “I have talked to dozens upon dozens of federal workers … I’ve seen the federal government fire them and treat them like garbage,” Manley said. Restoring humanitarian aid would be one of his priorities if he’s elected, he said.
Among Manley’s other priorities are health care reform, including Medicare for all; investment in public education, including universal pre-kindergarten and child care; civil rights measures, including the Equality Act; criminal justice reform; support for Ukraine; a two-state solution in Israel; and abolition of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), replacing it with a more humane immigration policy.
To accomplish this, “we’re going to have to use the power of the purse the same way Republicans do,” Manley said. That includes not voting for budgets that defund health care, housing, and other necessities, he said.
In addition, “we need to be willing to impeach and remove people from office who aren’t following the Constitution,” he said. Among them would be Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, federal judges, and even Supreme Court justices such as Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh. He would love to have seen Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem impeached, he said, but Trump fired her before that could happen.
He is for expanding the Supreme Court—nine justices aren’t enough to represent the entire country, he said—and for expanding the number of federal court circuits.
Another priority is the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which has stalled in Congress. It’s named for the late, esteemed congressman and civil rights activist, who was honored over the July 17-19 weekend in a series of events called the Weekend of Action. Manley counts Lewis as one of his heroes. “I miss him every day,” Manley said. “His spirit just blew me away, and it still does.”
While the 20th District is unlikely to elect a Republican, one of the GOP aspirants recently made headlines with his homophobia. Rod Joseph told the South Florida Sun Sentinel, “You cannot be born gay. That’s impossible biologically.” He claimed that people are often turned gay by being sexually abused.
“He’s wrong and ignorant,” Manley said. “I love when Republicans use science to justify their bigotry, and it never works out. It’s not going to work in this district.”
Manley has received some high-profile endorsements. One is from Congressman Ro Khanna of California, who called Manley “the only progressive in this race” and one who “understands this district’s economic struggles firsthand, as an educator who works with its kids and who grew up homeless after his family lost their home in the global financial crisis.”
Other endorsers include the Florida Young Democrats, College Democrats of America, Democratic Progressive Caucus of Florida, and Peace Action.
However, Equality PAC, the political arm of the Congressional Equality Caucus—which is made up of LGBTQ+ members and allies—has endorsed Wasserman Schultz. It cited her record of supporting Florida’s working families and “defending fundamental freedoms.” She has consistently had perfect scores on the Human Rights Campaign’s Congressional Scorecard.
But Wasserman Schultz failed to win the endorsement of the Florida LGBTQ+ Democratic Caucus. When the caucus met recently, she received 53 percent of the vote and Manley 40 percent—but it takes a two-thirds majority to get the endorsement.
Earlier in the race, there was talk that some of the Black candidates might drop out so the electorate would coalesce behind one, but that hasn’t happened, and Manley doesn’t think it will. “Everybody has the right to run,” he said.
As the primary approaches, he said, “I feel pretty strong. I feel I’m getting my message out there.”
This is a cross-post from Karen Ocamb’s LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters Substack.
Congress
House blocks effort to codify transgender servicemember ban into law
Lawmakers approved two anti-trans NDAA amendments
The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday rejected an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have codified a ban transgender servicemembers in the military.
The bipartisan vote was 212-217.
The NDAA is for the 2027 fiscal year and sets policies for the Defense Department programs and activities and the national security programs of the Department of Energy.
U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) proposed the amendment on July 21. It stated that all personnel are required to serve in accordance with their biological sex, citing military readiness and discipline.
Human Rights Campaign Senior Director of Government Affairs Jennifer Pike Bailey stated that she is grateful for the bipartisan vote that rejected President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s “dangerous and discriminatory policy that has kicked brave transgender servicemembers out of the military and weakened our national security.”
“Everyone who meets the same rigorous standards should be able to serve their country. We should honor that patriotism, particularly in this moment where we are witnessing brave servicemembers making the ultimate sacrifice for our country, instead of ending their careers and politicizing their existence. We’re grateful that a permanent extension of this ban failed, and we will keep fighting to reverse this senseless policy,” Bailey said.
Mark Takano, chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, stated that he and his members put in countless hours of work to kill the amendment.
“When Americans know they or their families are going to be targeted by or not supported by the military, that leads them to avoid signing up to serve or staying in the service — making it harder to keep the ranks of the armed services full and our nation safe. My colleagues in the Equality Caucus and I will continue working to prevent these attacks on our servicemembers and their families from becoming law,” Takano said.
According to the Congressional Equality Caucus, two other bills could potentially be passed that would also target the transgender community, both of which were proposed by U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.).
The first was a bill that would have prohibited gender-related medical care under TRICARE and to prevent TRICARE from covering certain gender-related medical procedures and treatments, which was approved in a vote of 219-208.
The second was a bill that would have prohibited male participation in female sports at DoDEA schools. DoDEA schools are Department of Defense Dependents Schools, which is a network of primary and secondary schools.
The amendment was approved in a vote of 221-203.
Congress
Lindsey Graham has passed away. Do LGBTQ+ people have a right to celebrate his death?
SC senator opposed marriage equality, despite speculation over sexual orientation.
Uncloseted Media published this article on July 16.
By SPENCER MACNAUGHTON | On Sunday, the office of Lindsey Graham reported that the Republican senator and Trump ally from South Carolina died “from a brief and sudden illness.” The office said that the preliminary cause of death was a rupture of his aorta due to a hardening of his arteries.
Since then, many folks in the LGBTQ+ community, including a large number of Uncloseted followers, have — for better or worse — celebrated the senator’s death. When we posted the news on our Instagram page on Sunday, our followers commented:
- “Maybe he rest in hell”—this one got 194 likes.
- “She made sure to wait until Pride was over.”
- “And just like that the world is a better place.”
These responses are fueled by allegations that the senator lived as a closeted gay man while supporting policies that would roll back LGBTQ+ rights. In 2006, he voted in support of a constitutional amendment that would have restricted marriage to only being between one man and one woman. After gay marriage became legal across the U.S. in 2015, he said “I am a proud defender of traditional marriage.” And in 2022, he told CNN he would oppose the Respect for Marriage Act and later reiterated that states should decide the issue of marriage.
Outside the Washington rumor mill, there wasn’t much evidence that Graham could be gay until 2020, when adult video performer Sean Harding wrote on Twitter that “There is a homophobic republican senator who is no better than Trump who keeps passing legislation that is damaging to the lgbt and minority communities. Every sex worker I know has been hired by this man. Wondering if enough of us spoke out if that could get him out of office?”
Harding followed up with another post, writing “If you’d be willing to stand with me against LG please let me know,” and, “So far I have two individuals who would be willing to go public and support my claims. Anyone else?”
A few days later, another anonymous sex worker came forward and made similar allegations.
But after that, there was silence, with some believing these sex workers were slapped with non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). And while at least one lawyer took to Twitter saying that he’d “be more than happy to read the NDAs and look for loopholes. For free!” nobody else came forward.
That is until earlier this week, when author Jesse James Rose posted to her Instagram that Graham had paid her for sex work prior to her gender transition. Rose wrote that “Most of you know him as the homophobic senator from South Carolina but to me he will always be the man who paid a twinky pre-transition college student a fat stack of cash to do unspeakable things to him in a hotel room while he wore red lingerie.”
This dynamic has created a complicated question for LGBTQ+ people: Is it appropriate to posthumously celebrate the death of a man who railed against our community and used his position of power to make our lives less equitable and less safe? Is it even more fair to criticize him if he was living a secret queer life?
Or should we go high and give his track record on LGBTQ+ issues a positive spin now that he’s no longer with us?
In a time where social media feels like a breeding ground for angertainment, I’ll admit that the immediacy of the response to his death at first felt intense.
At the same time, I knew I didn’t want to send thoughts or prayers to a man who tried to rip my rights away.
If the alleged NDAs that Graham handed his sex workers were legitimate, they likely evaporated after his death. So now really may be the first time people can speak their truth and offer an accurate window into the absurd hypocrisy between Graham’s public and private life.
For that, I think it’s fair game to speak candidly about the story he may have worked hard to muzzle while he was here.
Pentagon
Hegseth announces testosterone initiative as trans troop ban continues
SPARTA Pride criticized Pentagon policy
The U.S. military will begin testing and treating service members with hormone therapy despite banning similar medical care for transgender service members.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that troops ages 30 and older will be subject to annual testosterone screenings, while younger service members will have the option to voluntarily opt in. Some troops may then be recommended for hormone therapy, he explained in a video posted to social media.
“Under the supervision of our world-class medical professionals, warfighters age 30 and older are going to be tested annually as part of their periodic health assessment,” Hegseth said in a video posted to X, captioned “The High-T Department of War.”
This push to test testosterone levels, as the hormone is commonly referred to as “T,” runs counter to current medical guidelines. Physicians are generally advised to discuss testosterone therapy only with men who have symptoms consistent with low testosterone and documented low hormone levels on two separate blood tests.
Testosterone is a vital sex hormone that all humans naturally produce. It helps regulate muscle mass, bone density, and sex drive. In men, it is primarily produced in the testicles, while in women it is produced in the ovaries and adrenal glands.
Natural testosterone levels in men decline with age and have long been associated with issues such as erectile dysfunction, low libido, mood changes, and weight gain. However, experts continue to debate whether these conditions should routinely be treated with testosterone therapy.
Hegseth’s announcement aligns with other actions taken by the Trump-Vance administration — including efforts by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — to make testosterone therapy more accessible for men, particularly those assigned male at birth.
Last month, the Food and Drug Administration proposed easing prescribing restrictions on testosterone gels, pills, patches, and injections following a December advisory panel that recommended reducing regulatory hurdles to expand access to testosterone therapy.
Currently, FDA labeling specifies that these medications are approved only for men with hypogonadism, a medical condition that causes abnormally low testosterone levels.
The announcement came as a shock to many LGBTQ+ advocates because Hegseth and the Defense Department have cited the use of hormone therapy by trans service members as justification for their dismissal under President Donald Trump’s 2025 executive order, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness.“
The Pentagon continues to pursue implementation of the trans military ban as litigation proceeds. As a result, many trans service members have had their gender-affirming medical care halted, even as similar hormone therapy is now being expanded for cisgender service members. Under the executive order, the military currently disqualifies individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria and has begun formal administrative separation proceedings for trans personnel.
SPARTA Pride, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization made up of trans service members, veterans, and their allies, issued a statement to the Los Angeles Blade following Hegseth’s announcement.
“If hormone therapy helps warfighters perform at their best, then it cannot simultaneously be used as evidence that transgender service members are unfit to serve,” said Kara Corcoran, executive director of SPARTA Pride. “The same class of evidence-based medical treatment cannot be characterized as readiness-enhancing for one group and readiness-destroying for another.”
The legal fight over trans military service remains ongoing.
On June 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that trans service members already serving in the military could continue to do so, while allowing the armed services to continue refusing to enlist new trans recruits.
The Blade reached out to the Pentagon to ask why cisgender service members could receive hormone therapy while trans service members could not, but did not receive a response by the time of publication.
Politics
Political drama in Angie Craig’s Minnesota Senate race heats up
Craig already voted twice to impeach Trump
by Karen Ocamb and Trudy Ring
After an historic and expensive July 4th fireworks display capped Donald Trump’s self-indulgent commemoration of America’s 250th birthday, voters are now watching state races explode into political pyrotechnics as Democrats fight to win majorities in Congress and Republicans plan to keep buying power.
With the midterm elections just over three months away and several primary races still undecided, most pundits predict the decline in Trump’s approval ratings will result in Democrats winning the House, if infighting doesn’t turn off voters.
Democrats’ dream of taking the Senate, however, turned into a nightmare with the scandalous Graham Platner debacle in must-win Maine. Energized party leaders hope to put on a Master Class in democracy as they pick a new candidate before July 27.
The hike to Senate victory is still steep. Republicans have a 53-47 advantage – meaning Democrats must win 8 of 11 competitive races, including defending seats currently held in Minnesota, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Georgia, for a net gain of four seats.
LGBTQ+ people intent on reversing Project 2025’s prolific erasure might focus on lesbian Rep. Angie Craig’s race in Minnesota.
With the retirement of Democratic Sen. Tina Smith, The Cook Political Report’s out guru Amy Walter labeled the open seat “likely” Democrat but with only a +3-point advantage.
New York Times Polling data reporter Alex Lemonides notes that “Trump lost Minnesota by four percentage points in 2024, and Minnesotans have not sent a Republican to the Senate since the 2002 midterms, so a Republican win in the general election would buck the trend.”
But this whole election cycle is about bucking trends. With so many Democratic Socialists defeating Establishment candidates, “socialist” is no longer a slur, forcing Trump to switch to the old Cold War charge of Communist!
In Minnesota, Bernie Sanders-backed candidate Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan is out-polling Craig, a more centrist Democrat who flipped a battleground House seat in 2018. Their primary is on August 11.
Republicans are salivating over challenging Flanagan for her administrative role in the scandal that forced Gov. Tim Walz to forgo a third term and deal with widespread fraud in social programs.
Former NBC’s Sunday Night Football sideline reporter and current political podcaster Michele Tafoya has a built-in “bro” audience. The announcement of her Republican candidacy was featured on ESPN.com.
“As Minnesota’s senator, I will clean up the system, fighting corruption, ending the fraud, and protecting your tax dollars,” Tafoya said. “I will protect what’s fair and safe, standing with our law enforcement officers, deporting dangerous criminals, and keeping female sports for female athletes.”
Craig responded quickly. “Trump’s hand-picked candidate just jumped in the race for US Senate,” she said on social media. “Minnesota needs a Senator who will stand up and fight for our state – and we know it won’t be MAGA Michele.”
Craig tells LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters that she has been happy to represent Minnesota’s Second Congressional District in the U.S. House since 2019. Now she wants to represent the entire state as a U.S. senator.
“The state of Minnesota has been so good to me and my family,” says Craig, who chose to move to the state because it would accept her family.
Craig grew up in a mobile home park in Arkansas, one of three children of a single mother. She worked her way through the University of Memphis, earning a degree in journalism, and became a reporter with the Memphis Commercial Appeal.
She has a long history of fighting for LGBTQ+ rights, including her own. In the late 1990s, while living in Tennessee, Craig and her then-partner, Debra Langston, adopted their first son, Joshua. Under Tennessee law at the time, only one of them could be recognized as an adoptive parent; Craig was listed as Langston’s roommate.
The birth mother wanted the couple to have Joshua, but her parents intervened, seeking to adopt him. The courts had to decide if Langston and Craig were “fit” parents. One appellate court judge objected to the boy being raised by “open, practicing lesbians,” but his two colleagues disagreed, and Langston and Craig won the precedent-setting case in 2000, albeit with lots of caveats.
“The issue in this case is not whether the members of this court approve the homosexual lifestyle or the adoption of children by homosexuals, but rather whether the adoption of this child by this prospective parent is in the child’s best interest. As in any adoption case, the determinative issue was and remains what is in the child’s best interest,” wrote Judge Alan E. Highers in his opinion concurring with the majority in ruling In re: ADOPTION OF M.J.S. in the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
By then, Craig was working in corporate communications for Smith & Nephew, a multinational maker of medical equipment, and the couple had another son, Jacob, born to Craig through alternative insemination. She and her family moved to London, where the company was based, in the early 2000s. They returned to the U.S. in 2005; Craig went to work for another medical equipment company, St. Jude Medical, in the suburbs of Minneapolis-St. Paul. She later said it was the least lucrative job offer she had, but she took it because she knew the area was welcoming to LGBTQ+ people.
Craig and Langston separated in 2006, and Craig married Cheryl Greene in California in 2008. They have four sons and three grandsons, with a fourth on the way. Greene is a former middle school teacher still involved with youth programming.
Craig worked for LGBTQ+ equality within her company and for statewide marriage equality in Minnesota. She also fought against an anti-marriage equality constitutional amendment in 2012, which voters rejected. The state legislature passed a marriage equality bill the following year that Gov. Mark Dayton signed into law.
In 2016, when she ran for Congress in Minnesota’s 2nd District, a Republican stronghold for more than a decade, she told the Twin Cities Pioneer Press that the fight for custody of Joshua gave her strength.
“Whether I win or lose on Election Day, I know that that won’t be the hardest thing or the biggest challenge that I’ve ever faced,” said Craig, then 44. “When you get up every day and wonder, ‘Am I going to (still) have my child the next day?’ you get pretty good at being focused on the big picture.”
“I’ve always talked about my family openly” on the campaign trail and in office, Craig, Co-Chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, tells LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters. Often at events in her district and around the state, she’ll meet someone who mentions they have an LGBTQ+ family member, she notes. She finds that if she listens to constituents and addresses what’s important to them, her identity isn’t an issue.
What Craig has addressed for constituents includes health care costs, such as capping the out-of-pocket cost of insulin and limiting overall out-of-pocket drug costs for people on Medicare. These came from a bill introduced by Craig and became provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law by President Joe Biden in 2022. She also wants a public option for health insurance, an increased child tax credit, and she introduced a bill to eliminate federal taxes on Social Security benefits.
In a June 19 SurveyUSA poll, Minnesotans say their single most important issue is inflation (39%) and cost of living, followed by health care, immigration, gas prices, and the war in Iran.
But immigration may soon jump to the front as more information leaks out about ICE agents shooting and killing Lorenzo Salgado Araujo during a traffic stop in Houston, Texas, on Tuesday morning, July 9. Homeland Security says the father, with no criminal record, driving to work, ignored verbal instructions and tried to ram their vehicle. ICE shot him in self-defense – the same excuse ICE used on January 7th, 2026, when an ICE agent killed nonviolent protester Renee Good. In both instances, video footage proved ICE lied.
Also caught on tape was Craig’s angry confrontation with Republican Majority Whip Tom Emmer on the House floor the day Renee Good was killed after Emmer supported ICE on social media. The story and her response went viral.
But Craig continues to be criticized for voting for the Laken Riley Act, named for a woman who was killed by an undocumented immigrant. It allows for undocumented immigrants to be detained or deported if they are simply accused of crimes, even nonviolent ones. Critics say she has never apologized – but she has.
In a commentary for The Minnesota Star Tribune in May, Craig wrote, in part:
“The text of the bill did not include the word deportation. I made the difficult decision to vote for it. Democrats like Sens. Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego, Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff — leaders I deeply respect — all came to the same conclusion.
But as I stood side by side with protesters on the streets of Minneapolis and opposite dozens of armed Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at the Whipple Federal Building after Renee Good’s killing — and again after the killing of Alex Pretti — I couldn’t help but question whether I made the right call last year… It’s also become clear that supporting any bill that gives ICE new authority in this administration was the wrong decision. And I regret my vote.”
“What happened under Operation Metro Surge was horrific,” Craig tells LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters. The U.S. can secure its borders in a humane fashion while providing a path to citizenship for undocumented people, those brought here as children, and others, she adds.
On LGBTQ+ rights, Craig says the Equality Act has been a huge priority of hers in the House and would remain so in the Senate.
Since 2019, Craig has introduced The John Lewis Every Child Deserves a Family Act that “would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or marital status in those programs, prohibit the use of federal funds for so-called ‘conversion therapy’ and create a resource center for LGBTQ+ foster and adoptive youth within the Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families,” according to a press release.
Another priority is passage of the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, named for the late civil rights activist and longtime congressman. “I was lucky enough to serve with John Lewis,” she says.
Additionally, Craig supports campaign finance reform. The recent Supreme Court ruling that further loosened restrictions was “just another blow to our democracy,” she says. She supports limits on Supreme Court terms.
On foreign policy, she condemns Trump’s war of choice in Iran. “The administration has had zero strategic objectives,” she says, adding that the war has caused “tremendous economic damage,” such as the spike in gas prices.
And though Craig supports a two-state solution to the ongoing Israel-Palestinian conflict, with Palestinians having their own state, her campaign does not accept direct donations from AIPAC’s political action committee — the pro-Israel group held fundraisers for her before her Senate announcement – another point exploited by primary opponent Flanagan.
On gender-affirming care for trans youth, Craig says politicians should not interfere with decisions made by young people and their parents. Regarding trans girls and women in sports, she says the matter is best handled locally—and that local conversations can foster understanding.
But Craig has had a strong public reaction to federal transphobia. After that, Reps. Tulsi Gabbard and Markwayne Mullin introduced the Protect Women’s Sports Act in December 2020. Craig released the following statement:
“As a lesbian woman, I am no stranger to prejudice and intolerance — but this legislation is beyond the pale. Plain and simple, the Protect Women’s Sports Act is transphobic — and this type of discrimination has no place in the halls of Congress. Especially at a time when the transgender community is suffering from a tragic rise in suicide rates and experiencing a surge of transphobic violence, such a bigoted and appalling effort is simply unacceptable. Queer and transgender women must stand together in the face of intolerance — and I am proud to do so today by emphatically denouncing this narrow-minded and hateful legislation, which is harmful not only to transgender women but to the LGBTQ Community at-large.”
Craig has been endorsed by prominent LGBTQ+ groups, including Victory Fund, the Human Rights Campaign PAC, Equality PAC, and LPAC. She has also been endorsed by Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her, plus many nationally known political figures, such as former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
Flanagan has the endorsement of Sen. Smith and her predecessor, Al Franken, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, and, from outside the state, Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, among others. Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and the state’s governor, Tim Walz, so far haven’t made endorsements.
“I’m ready on day one” to serve in the Senate, says Craig, noting her four terms in the House, her substantial career before going into politics, and her two votes to impeach Trump. “If we can take the House and Senate, we can put a cap on this administration.”
This is a cross-post from Karen Ocamb’s LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters Substack.
Congress
Who might replace Lindsey Graham? The contenders and their LGBTQ+ records
Long-time SC senator died suddenly on Saturday
Republican U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has died, and what he has left behind is a power vacuum for his U.S. Senate seat — and within the Republican Party.
The South Carolina senator had been a major part of Republican politics up until his Saturday death at his home in Washington, reportedly of an aortic dissection related to arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
Graham has been a fixture in government at both the state and federal level. He began his political career in the South Carolina House of Representatives in 1992, representing the Palmetto State’s 2nd District before eventually moving to the federal government.
He moved up to Capitol Hill after his 1994 run for the U.S. House of Representatives. In 2003 he stepped across the rotunda to the Senate in 2003 following the retirement of longtime U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond.
He consistently opposed LGBTQ+ rights while alive.
He voted against the 2022 Respect for Marriage Act, saying the decision should be left up to state governments, and the 2013 Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and opposed the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
With Graham’s sudden passing, the Republican Party is scrambling to find a replacement who can advance both its goals and those of the president as Republicans’ supermajority in the federal government begins to shrink.
Among those reportedly in the running is Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the highest-ranking openly LGBTQ+ federal official in American history and fifth in the presidential line of succession.
Bessent, a South Carolina native, was formerly a supporter of the Democratic Party and donated to several Democratic presidential candidates before switching parties in 2017 following Trump’s election in 2016. He later donated $1 million to Trump’s 2017 presidential inaugural committee.
On Sunday, Bessent was also fielding calls from people asking him to run, according to a person familiar with the communications. A person close to Bessent told Politico that he is not interested in the seat, saying he is happy in his role as Treasury secretary, a position he has long wanted.
The Los Angeles Blade reached out to the Treasury Department for comment, but did not receive a response by publication time.
One of the most anticipated and widely discussed names for the vacant Senate seat is Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette.
Evette is a staunch supporter of President Donald Trump and has gone as far as criticizing Republicans for not supporting the conspiracy theory that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. Trump also endorsed her gubernatorial campaign, though she ultimately lost to her now-boss, Gov. Henry McMaster.
McMaster has a long history of opposing LGBTQ+ rights.
During an October 2022 gubernatorial debate, McMaster said that if the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Obergefell v. Hodges, he would enforce South Carolina’s preexisting law banning same-sex marriage. In 2022, he also signed legislation requiring student athletes from elementary school through college to compete on teams corresponding to the sex listed on their birth certificates.
Other names reportedly being considered include U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), who has had a contentious relationship with LGBTQ+ issues during her time in Congress. She began as a supporter of LGBTQ+ rights, becoming one of the few Republicans to publicly support the Respect for Marriage Act, before making a complete about-face as transgender issues became a central part of the Republican Party’s political strategy.
As part of that strategy, Mace introduced a resolution to ban trans women from using female restrooms in the U.S. Capitol, a move she acknowledged was in direct response to the election of U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.), the first out trans person elected to Congress.
In a November 2024 post on X, Mace wrote: “We support gay marriage, and voted for the Respect for Marriage Act twice. However, if you think protecting women is discrimination, you are the problem. We don’t care if you’re trans, if you have balls we don’t want you in the women’s bathroom.”
Two other names being floated are U.S. Rep. Russell Fry, who represents South Carolina’s 7th Congressional District, and U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman, who represents the state’s 5th Congressional District.
Trump recommended Graham’s sister, Darline Graham, should serve as the state’s temporary senator in a post on Truth Social on Monday.
“This would be a fabulous tribute to Lindsey, who loved her dearly!” Trump wrote on his social network.
The scramble comes as Republicans hold increasingly narrow majorities over Democrats in both the Senate and House, potentially complicating efforts to advance Trump’s agenda. That agenda includes continuing the war in Iran, securing Todd Blanche’s confirmation as attorney general, and adding $350 billion in defense spending to the SAVE America Act — a controversial proposal deemed a “Jim Crow 2.0” among voting rights advocates.
McMaster is expected to announce Graham’s interim replacement on Monday at 4 p.m. ET.
Congress
Lindsey Graham dies at 71
Republican SC senator passed away ‘from a brief and sudden illness’ on Saturday
U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) died suddenly on Saturday.
The South Carolina Republican’s office in a statement said Graham, 71, “passed away from a brief and sudden illness.” The Washington Post reported first responders responded to Graham’s Washington home on Saturday and transported him to a local hospital.
Graham had been in the U.S. Senate since 2002.
The close Trump ally was running for re-election. Graham died a day after he returned to the U.S. from Ukraine.
Speculation over Graham’s sexual orientation persisted during his tenure.
The Los Angeles Blade will update this story.
Politics
Is America on the brink of a makeover?
PART 2: AHF’s Michael Weinstein on grassroots power and the pendulum swinging
Count on “the people” to determine how they wanted to celebrate the 250th birthday of the United States of America during the July 4th weekend. For those not fixated on FIFA World Cup matches or Taylor Swift’s wedding to Travis Kelce or CNN’s Andy Cohen and Anderson Cooper getting drunk waiting for the ball to drop in Times Square marking the historic Independence Day, FOX News breathlessly covered poster-boy-for-pomposity Donald Trump as he took a massive South Dakota stage against the backdrop of Mount Rushmore, where he hopes to mount his own visage.
Mount Rushmore is internationally famous as the backdrop used by director Alfred Hitchcock in his 1958 film “North by Northwest.” One Hitchcock scholar described the acclaimed movie in which villain James Mason chases Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint over recreations of the granite presidential faces as “a comic thriller about mistaken identity, political depravity, sexual blackmail, and ubiquitous role-playing.”
The weather also added drama for 4,800 fans who secured tickets through an online lottery. “A nearby lightning storm Friday afternoon pushed people indoors before the programming started, with hundreds cramming into the memorial’s cafeteria,” the South Dakota Searchlight reported. “Thunder, hail, and heavy rain continued for over an hour.”
After Trump’s speech, California-based Pyro Spectaculars, with a $700,000 contract, produced a fireworks show to The Village People’s gay anthem “YMCA.”
Trump evoked a hell storm of his own, warning about “a resurgence of the communist menace in our land,” resurrecting his Red and Lavender Scare closeted gay McCarthy era mentor, Roy Cohen.
“Communism is a mortal threat to American liberty,” Trump said, apparently alluding to the recent primary victories of Democratic socialist candidates. “It is the greatest threat to our country, including World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbor, or even 9/11.”
AP fact check: linking Democrats to communism is “inaccurate.”
Trump’s penchant for an “alternative facts” Orwellian spin that demands loyal acceptance of a lie suggests this is his new gauntlet for the midterms. “Communism is the exact opposite of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” he declared. “It’s death, tyranny, and the pursuit of evil.”
In his Mount Rushmore speech, Trump “was sharpening a line of attack that the White House has started to use to head off a newly insurgent progressive wing of the Democratic Party that appears to be resonating with liberal voters,” the New York Times reported. “He said the word ‘communism’ so many times, you might’ve thought the Cold War was still on.”
Trump also asserted that Republicans will “not lose an election for a hundred years” if they end the filibuster and pass the SAVE America Act, which would require anyone attempting to register to vote to prove U.S. citizenship and show identification at the polls. He wants to choose who votes, flipping the democratic principle of having voters choose their own leaders and representatives.
For America’s 250th birthday, Trump has shifted from talking about kings and dictators to comparing himself favorably to other American presidents, especially George Washington. As CNN noted in 2019, during an April 2018 tour of Washington’s home with French president Emmanuel Macron, Trump reportedly remarked on Mount Vernon and Washington: “If he was smart, he would’ve put his name on it. You’ve got to put your name on stuff, or no one remembers you.”
This Washington comparison is also familiar. “I don’t know if you knew it, but he actually ran his business simultaneously when he was president,” Trump said during an October Cabinet meeting. “George Washington was actually considered a very rich man at the time. … George Washington, they say, had two desks. He had a presidential desk and a business desk.”
Trump cited Washington again in his March 2025 State of the Union speech. “In fact, it has been stated by many that the first month of our presidency — it’s our presidency — is the most successful in the history of our nation. And what makes it even more impressive is that, do you know who No. 2 is? George Washington. How about that? I don’t know about that list. But we’ll take it.”
Experts disagree. On Feb. 18, 2024, Justin Vaughn and Brandon Rottinghaus said their Presidential Greatness Project poll ranked Trump last.
“Trump,” the scholars wrote in the Los Angeles Times, “maintains the position he held six years ago: dead last, trailing such historically calamitous chief executives as James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson. In that and other respects, Trump’s radical departure from political, institutional and legal norms….puts him behind not only Buchanan and Johnson but also such lowlights as Franklin Pierce, Warren Harding and William Henry Harrison, who died a mere 31 days after taking office.”
Given Trump’s tantrums over aerial photos showing low attendance for his big 250 State Fair address, one wonders if splashing his name and image on buildings, money, and other “beautification” projects, currently projected by Forbes to be roughly $162.5+ million – plus the “vanity” $1.4+ billion ballroom – might be his middle finger to critics. Might his ultimate goal be replacing Washington DC’s name with his own?
Trump raked in a $2 billion haul last year, according to a 927-page financial disclosure report showing how he and his family “reaped huge financial rewards in 2025 through his money-losing Trump Media venture and a separate cryptocurrency firm called World Liberty Financial, even as routine investors suffered vast losses,” the New York Times reported July 1. “He also amassed hundreds of millions through deals that involved foreign governments or corporations with agenda items pending before the Trump administration.”
Meanwhile, the federal government debt as of July 5 is $39.46 trillion or $115,625 per American, according to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.
Washington warned about potential despots like Trump. Sarah Pruitt’s 2020 analysis of Washington’s Farewell Address, the first version of which was written by his friend and protégé Alexander Hamilton, concludes that the retiring president focused on three themes: 1) the Importance of unity; 2) The ‘Worst Enemy’ of Government: Loyalty to Party Over Nation; 3) Danger of Foreign Entanglements.
Shirking the nation’s common interest could engender a “spirit of revenge” and prompt the rise of “cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men” who would “usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterward the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion,” Washington cautioned.
The Constitution’s system of checks and balances and separation of powers prevented despots or groups from taking control of the government. And the system also allowed for change through laws or constitutional amendments rather than by force.
Washington urged unity above all. “The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations,” he wrote. “You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.”
In their survey, the presidential scholars said their assessments “are driven not only by traditional notions of greatness but also by the evolving values of our time.”
That emphasis on common interests and shared values was represented on July 3 by New York City Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani, an inspirational Democratic Socialist, who delivered remarks commemorating America’s 250th Fourth of July birthday while sitting at George Washington’s desk, surrounded by recently naturalized American citizens.
“Two hundred and fifty years presents a rare opportunity for more than 340 million people to turn together — both towards one another and towards ourselves, to take measure of who we are as a nation. When we look at America, what do we see?” he asked.
“The truth, my friends, is that America is exceptional because here, nothing is fixed into place. The frontier may be closed, we may have walked on the moon, but the work of fulfilling the values first enshrined in the Declaration of Independence — that work endures, my friends, and it belongs to us all. It belongs, too, to our newest Americans, those standing here with me today,” Mamdani said.
“Patriotism has never been about pretending our nation is without flaws,” he said. “Patriotism is every act of righteous dissent, it is every march led under the heavy sun, it is every protest held a decade before its time. It is precisely because we love this nation that we will not leave it. After all, who loves America more than those who have sacrificed so much to make it free?”
The real celebrations of America’s 250 anniversary came from regular grassroots folks like the thousands organized by AIDS Healthcare Foundation and representatives from 50 coalitions for their “We the People March for Freedom” in Fort Lauderdale, Florida on July 3. Gov. Ron DeSantis missed the patriotism. He was at Mount Rushmore with Trump.
The marchers were encouraged to bring signs with messages about issues that matter to them, such as the war in Iran, affordability, which Trump called a “hoax,” and housing, which he calls “a yawn”.
Longtime AHF friend, labor leader and activist Dolores Huerta, Haitian American activist Santra Denis, Healthcare advocate Alecia Tramel-McIntyre, Gen Z activist Maxx Fenning, and AHF President/CEO Michael Weinstein all participated in a rally and marched through downtown Fort Lauderdale, culminating in another event with a powerful musical performance by award-winning gospel artist Erica Campbell.
Florida is of particular importance to AHF and other HIV/AIDS activists. Recently, AHF and coalition members won a strong pressure campaign against the state, requiring DeSantis to restore ADAP funding to his state budget, though other serious issues remain.
“This victory belongs to our whole coalition, the clinicians, providers, and people living with HIV who told their stories at real personal cost,” Esteban Wood, Director of Advocacy and Legislative Affairs at AHF, said in a press release. “We led this fight together. For months, it was a promise. Today it is the law, and people can finally breathe.”
In a recent hour-long Zoom conversation, Michael Weinstein and I talked about Trump’s obsession with communism; Michael’s long association with Democratic Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders; how the issue of income equality crosses all lines; opposition to corporate politics expressed by young Democratic Socialists; and comparing the possibility of their influence and pull to the pull the Tea Party had on the Republican Party.
Michael also gives his take on the political scene and disapproval of Trump – in Part 1, along with strong comments on Gaza, immigration, race, and Texas political star James Talarico.
In Part 2 of our interview here, Michael and I talked more about politics, HIV/AIDS, and AHF. I’ve been covering AHF since the late 1980s, when the nonprofit was AIDS Hospice Foundation While AHF is now a global $3 billion healthcare organization with 10,000 employees (for which they won a Forbes Award as one of America’s Best Large Employers, #98), Michael’s through-line from the Lavender Left until now is his deep commitment to helping those in need. At the end of our conversation/interview on the cusp of this historic moment, I asked him what freedom and independence meant to him.
MW: “Well, on a personal level, it means being able to be all of who I am – a senior, a gay man who’s married to another man, a history thinker. I’m an activist on a societal level.
I still get goosebumps when I drive by the Capitol, when I see the Lincoln Memorial. When I reflect on so many American heroes.
We are very imperfect, right? But that’s humanity. We have a choice between the angels of our nature and the sub-basement of our nature. It’s up to us individually and collectively to bring out the best in us.
And I have found the individual protests, which I usually go to in my neighborhood. I don’t go to the one downtown. I go to the one in Hollywood – and seeing that mix of people with their homemade signs and seeing the people honking and all that – it’s a tonic.
Sometimes I argue with my family members who are… I describe them as: left, very left, and extremely left – more or less. It’s my extended family, too, [with] a couple of conservatives thrown in there, but not much. We don’t have to worry about arguing at family gatherings. But sometimes I have to say to them, ‘I like living in the California bubble’….
So, it’s all about keeping the promise, right? The promise isn’t fulfilled. But it’s about aspiring to keep the promise.
And if I just reflect on LGBTQ and AIDS issues, America stepped up to bring treatment to the world. Nobody else did that, besides us.
When I think about the movement for LGBTQ rights, we were the spearhead of that.
I think about the Women’s Movement. I think about the Civil Rights Movement – we’ve both lagged behind but also been the tip of the spear.
And so, I’m American, through and through. And I’m an Angeleno. This is my fate, for better or worse. I’m gonna make the best of it….
Sometimes when I’m talking to progressive people, I have to say, ‘I have a simple definition of being a progressive: I want to help the most people in need with the things they need the most.’
I think part of my evolution from being a far lefty to where I am now is – it was a point at which I gave up on ideology. I said – that is not the answer. The answer is how to help….
This is so extreme [now]. I mean, this makes the Pharaohs and the Gilded Age look like child’s play. It’s not sustainable. It’s not going to continue this way. It can’t continue. You can’t have this many people so disenfranchised. It will change. The pendulum does swing.
And it will.”
Watch the full interview with Michael Weinstein.
This is a cross-post from Karen’s LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters Substack.
Madonna to perform at World Pride in Amsterdam
‘Heartstopper Forever’ delivers satisfying conclusion
From the desk of Equality California: the top political news for California’s LGBTQ
White House orders warning signs at Smithsonian over gender identity exhibits
US official protested at 2026 International AIDS Conference
Ellen Greene returns to ‘Little Shop of Horrors’ for the film’s 40th anniversary
From pornstar to psychotherapist: How diverse life experiences shaped my therapeutic perspective
Things are heating up: Summer gym etiquette
How ‘Staples Baddie’ Kaeden Rowland is fighting for a queerer workplace
‘Into the Grey’ unites Cavill, Gyllenhaal for thrills and gay love
-
a&e features2 days agoEllen Greene returns to ‘Little Shop of Horrors’ for the film’s 40th anniversary
-
Commentary4 days agoFrom pornstar to psychotherapist: How diverse life experiences shaped my therapeutic perspective
-
Fitness3 days agoThings are heating up: Summer gym etiquette
-
Social Media Platforms2 days agoHow ‘Staples Baddie’ Kaeden Rowland is fighting for a queerer workplace
-
Movies5 days ago‘Into the Grey’ unites Cavill, Gyllenhaal for thrills and gay love
-
Politics2 days agoWeho’s GYM bar owner Jonathan Cottrell is running for city council
-
a&e features2 days agoTello Films opens the door to Christmas in July
-
Germany4 days ago1 dead, 29 injured in Berlin Pride attack
-
a&e features4 days agoLaverne Cox Is ‘Transcendent’ At Madame Tussauds Hollywood
-
National2 days agoTrump ends direct HIV prevention funding to community groups