News
Trump’s vow to invoke national emergency powers and use military force for mass deportations roils LA
Fearing loss of constitutional rights, executive overreach, and military involvement in civil law enforcement, immigration community scrambles
Donald Trump has made clear his intention to begin mass deportations immediately upon taking office on January 20, 2025, a promise he made repeatedly during his 2024 presidential campaign.
“On Day 1, I will launch the largest deportation program in American history to get the criminals out,” he declared during a rally at Madison Square Garden in the final days of the presidential race. “I will rescue every city and town that has been invaded and conquered, and we will put these vicious and bloodthirsty criminals in jail, then kick them the hell out of our country as fast as possible.”

This week, for the first time, Trump vowed to invoke national emergency powers to execute this plan and, particularly troubling, will use the Armed Services to do so.
National emergency declarations have long been used by U.S. presidents to access extraordinary powers, often bypassing congressional oversight. The National Emergencies Act (NEA) of 1976 was designed to prevent unchecked executive authority, but its provisions have failed to effectively curb presidential overreach. While the act sets guidelines for declaring national emergencies, presidents have frequently invoked this power to justify wide-ranging actions, from military interventions (abroad) to surveillance programs (domestically and abroad).
For example, in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush invoked national emergency powers to pass the Patriot Act, which allowed for sweeping surveillance and counterterrorism measures with minimal congressional oversight. This precedent establishes a concerning foundation for Trump’s proposed use of emergency powers in the realm of immigration enforcement.
Trump’s pledge to invoke emergency powers to detain, round up, and deport over 11 million undocumented immigrants would result in a domestic military operation of unprecedented scale.
He vows to build “vast holding facilities that would function as staging centers” for immigrants as their cases progressed and they waited to be flown to other countries. While large-scale deportation efforts have been attempted in the past—most recently President Eisenhower’s “Operation Wetback” in the 1950s, which deported 1.1 million people—today’s proposed numbers are far greater. Even the Obama administration, which deported 1.8 million people during its tenure, faced significant legal and logistical hurdles that made large-scale deportations difficult to carry out quickly and without consequence.
Many hurdles exist.
Legal challenges are almost certain to engulf Trump’s administration should it pursue such a plan. These challenges will include key issues such as whether the president can lawfully bypass Congress to enforce mass deportations. There will also be significant legal disputes surrounding the treatment of detained immigrants, particularly their Due Process rights under the U.S. Constitution.
The 2018 Supreme Court case Jennings v Rodriguez, reaffirmed that due process protections apply to all individuals on U.S. soil, regardless of immigration status, guaranteeing them rights such as bond hearings and access to counsel.
Any attempt to bypass these rights would invite immediate and substantial legal challenges, further complicating Trump’s efforts.
In addition to these legal complexities, the logistical challenges of executing such a massive operation would be immense. Deporting millions of individuals would require extensive resources for transportation, housing, medical care, and sustenance. Some estimate the price tag could exceed $300 billion dollars.
The U.S. government would need to significantly expand detention facilities and infrastructure to accommodate such a large influx of detainees.
Historical attempts to increase detention capacity, such as the family detention centers under Obama, faced severe criticism for overcrowding, inhumane conditions and the violation of human rights.
Legal objections are likely to arise concerning the use of armed military personnel in civilian spaces. Deploying military forces for domestic law enforcement operations could violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts the use of military personnel in civilian law enforcement activities. Previous efforts to militarize U.S. immigration enforcement—such as the use of the National Guard at the U.S.-Mexico border—faced constitutional challenges and public backlash.
If Trump proceeds with using the military for mass deportations, it would almost certainly prompt immediate legal challenges based on this law.
Trump has long expressed disdain for the traditional system of checks and balances, viewing even basic constitutional arguments as an obstacle to his leadership.
He has shown that he will not hesitate to bypass Congress and other governmental processes for key appointments. For example, during his first term, Trump repeatedly sought to circumvent the Senate confirmation process, such as with his appointments to the Department of Justice and Health and Human Services, where he clashed with Senate Democrats over key nominations.
Trump is not shy about his broader desire to centralize power within the executive branch, diminishing the role of both the legislative and judicial branches. His antagonism toward agencies like the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council—which he has accused of undermining his administration—further underscores his aim to weaken institutional checks on executive power. If unchecked, we could see a presidency where unilateral decisions by the executive become the norm, with minimal oversight from Congress or the courts.
Already, Trump has signaled his intent to appoint loyalists to key agencies, many of which he clashed with or feels have hindered his agenda. Examples include his controversial Pentagon appointments, as well as his selection of Director of National Intelligence and Health and Human Services leaders, who have been seen as part of his push to exert more control over agencies he perceives as obstructionist or hostile. He has already assigned a Border Czar, Tom Homan, who separated thousands of families at the border during Trump’s first term; that policy resulted in children never again being found.
Seizing emergency powers would allow Trump to bypass some, but not all, political and legal barriers to implementing his deportation plan.
To make it more feasible, he would likely need to suspend aspects of Due Process protections, militarize public spaces and bypass rules surrounding the detention of individuals without adequate hearings or access to credible legal counsel. This would create a system where any individual could be detained, processed and deported with no actual regard for constitutional protections.
In short, a frustrated Trump—empowered by a Republican-majority Congress and a potentially willing DOJ and Supreme Court—might attempt to suspend the constitution.
This is not without precedent.

Over 120,000 people of Japanese descent were interned in camps throught out the US during World War II, including 20,000 at Los Angeles County’s Santa Anita Assembly Center. (Photo: PBS)

In 1862, President Lincoln issued Presidential Proclamation 94 which suspended the writ of habeas corpus. (Photo from National Archives education division)
During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to suppress dissent, and during World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s internment of Japanese Americans involved the suspension of their constitutional rights in the name of national security.
While these actions were taken during times of war, they set dangerous precedents for the suspension of civil liberties in the face of perceived national crises. Trump has called the immigration an ‘invasion’ and has referred to migrants and their protectors as the ‘enemy within.’
Though few are publicly contemplating this possibility, we must acknowledge that we are on a trajectory toward some form of civil rights suspension, and certainly, we are witnessing a potential for widespread executive overreach.
At the local level, cities and states have vowed to resist Trump’s immigration plans.
The Los Angeles City Council has declared itself a Sanctuary City, and Mayor Karen Bass has pledged that no city resources or personnel will support deportation efforts.
Similarly, Governor Gavin Newsom of California has made declarations on behalf of the state.
However, these measures do not prevent the federal government from taking action on the ground.
In fact, Trump and Congress have the authority to terminate federal funding to uncooperative states and local governments.
In 2021, for example, California received over $150 billion in federal funding, which could be withheld as political leverage at every turn to force compliance with federal immigration policies.
Most immigration rights advocates, attorneys and others want to point out that there is every reason to remain hopeful and that Due Process rights, good judges and justice minded citizens will work to protect most people from unjust treatment and deportation.
However, it’s not clear what Due Process or advocacy might look like if Trump militarizes the process and suspends the Constitution.
There are currently several immigration violations that could lead to the deportation of individuals attempting to remain in the U.S. and people who entered the country without authorization are often a focus of immigration enforcement, particularly under the Trump administration.
However, the specifics of deportation policies can vary and it’s important to note that many individuals who entered the U.S. improperly have remained in the country for years, blending into communities.
Some of these individuals have applied for asylum or are in the process of adjusting their status through other legal avenues, such as family-based petitions or employment-based green card applications.
The process for detaining and deporting these individuals can depend on several factors, including whether they have a criminal record, whether they are in removal proceedings or their current legal status.
Ally Bolour, a well-known immigration attorney based in Los Angeles, says he has faith in Due Process but is “concerned that the process may become much more restrictive and that due process may be minimal and not applied fairly.”
Bolour has since 1996 worked with individuals facing deportation and specializes in cases involving people who have entered the U.S. without authorization and those seeking asylum.

“Sensitivity to the queer minority is going to be minimal,” under Trump’s immigration system, he says.. “They won’t care. It’s literally a fact that, if you are a gay person fleeing the Islamic Republic, you’re fleeing because they’re gonna hang you. Credible fear. But after January 20, as I see it,chances of a gay Iranian being able to and pass the credible fear becomes more difficult than it is today.”
Los Angeles Blade spoke with Bolour about 23 year old Jesus, one of the more than 200,000 LGBTQ immigrants who have made their way to California in the past few years.
His immigration situation as an asylum seeker today illustrates the impact a growing maze of intentional legal and bureaucratic hurdles has on immigrants’ ability to advance their cases.
Jesus made his way to the U.S. seeking refuge from the violence and instability that defined his life in Venezuela.
Born in Caracas, Jesus’ childhood was marked by the unraveling of his family’s middle-class life as Venezuela descended into political and economic chaos. His father, once a government worker loyal to Hugo Chávez, witnessed the system’s collapse from within. He refused to comply with orders from high-ranking officials like Diosdado Cabello, resulting in the family’s swift downfall.
Jesus’ early years were defined by loss, as their possessions and status vanished, leaving them targets of a ruthless government.
Venezuela’s economic collapse, particularly between 2013 and 2023, created unimaginable hardship. Hyperinflation and a crumbling economy made basic necessities unattainable, and survival became a daily struggle. But for Jesus, being gay in a country that became increasingly hostile to LGBTQ people added another layer of peril.
“In Venezuela, being gay isn’t just a social challenge—it’s a potential death sentence,” he explains, recalling countless friends lost to violence or suicide. The societal rejection and threats, he says, were constant.
Faced with this brutal reality, Jesus made the decision to flee Venezuela. “It wasn’t impulsive; it was a matter of survival” he says. Part of a larger wave of over 7 million Venezuelans fleeing the country, Jesus traveled to Mexico City, then to Tijuana, before crossing the U.S. border on foot near San Diego. He chose to surrender to U.S. border authorities, a decision that led to his detention across various facilities in the Southwestern and Southeastern U.S.
During his six months in detention, Jesus faced COVID-19, potential deportation, and constant uncertainty. Yet, even in these grim circumstances, he found a sense of community among other LGBTQ detainees. “We watched out for each other,” he recalls. Eventually, a friend bailed him out.
Today, Jesus works and lives in California, grateful for his newfound safety but now facing the prospect of having his American journey crushed by Donald Trump.

Jesus mingles in the crowd at a recent Washington DC Pride celebration. (Photo by Los Angeles Blade)
Because he crossed the U.S. border illegally, his designation remains “Entered Without Inspection” (EWI)—a status that may pose a significant threat to his ability to remain in the country.
Trump’s immigration round up plan appears to target individuals with EWI status no matter how long they have been in the country or where they are in the process of becoming a visa holder (witness his determination to remove even American-born adult children of elderly immigrants in this status).
In an effort to strengthen Jesus’ case, his attorney has suggested a bold and complicated strategy: leave the U.S. and re-enter through legal channels.
Attorney Bolour says he would advise against this strategy for someone like Jesus.
“For those with pending asylum applications and an expired TPS, it is very difficult to obtain Advanced Parole,” he says. “There are significant risks involved.” He recommends that people in this situation “do not travel until they have some form of approved status, such as TPS.”
Bolour notes that “every case is different” and it is imperative that people “consult with counsel before making any firm decisions.”
In the case of Jesus, if he was able to wipe the EWI status from his record, it might help him avoid the First Country Rule.
This rule mandates asylum seekers apply for asylum in the first country they reach after fleeing their home country, and for Jesus, that country was Mexico. If he were able to reset his immigration record, this rule might potentially no longer apply to him.
However, his ability to exit the US and reenter is made risky because his Temporary Protected Status , which had allowed him to stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation, expired in March 2024. Since then, he has been waiting for his renewal application to be processed.
TPS was set for automatic renewal but the system has conveniently failed to renew status for thousands of people.
Without a valid TPS, Jesus cannot legally leave the U.S., as doing so would trigger an automatic ban on his re-entry.
To leave the country legally, he would need to apply for Advanced Parole, a document that permits individuals to travel abroad temporarily without risking their legal status.
But obtaining Advanced Parole is no simple feat. The application process can take months and even if expedited, there is no guarantee of timely approval. It’s impossible, however, without an active TPS.
The intersection of expired TPS, bureaucratic delays and the looming threat of U.S. military lead deportation and harsh immigration policies leaves Jesus in a state of perpetual uncertainty.
Bolour says everyone “must be prepared for the worst possible outcome: a systematic erosion of civil rights, aggressive federal action, and a significant legal, human rights, and constitutional crisis.”
To that end, Bolour says the most important thing any person facing immigration challenges should have, is a plan:
- Remain Calm:
- Stay calm and do not physically resist. Immigration agents have the authority to detain you, but resisting can lead to additional charges or complications.
- NOTE: If agents appear at your door with a warrant for your arrest, do not let them in unless the warrant has been signed by a judge.
- Know Your Rights:
- You have the right to remain silent and not answer questions about your immigration status. You also have the right to ask for a lawyer. Remember, anything you say can be used against you in the future.
- You have the right to remain silent and not answer questions about your immigration status. You also have the right to ask for a lawyer. Remember, anything you say can be used against you in the future.
- Request to Contact an Attorney:
- Ask to speak with an immigration attorney immediately. You have the right to legal counsel, and an attorney can guide you through the process and ensure your rights are protected.
- Ask to speak with an immigration attorney immediately. You have the right to legal counsel, and an attorney can guide you through the process and ensure your rights are protected.
- Do Not Sign Any Documents Without Legal Advice:
- Do not sign anything without understanding what it means. Immigration officials may ask you to sign forms or waivers, which could impact your case. Consult with an attorney before signing any documents.
- Do not sign anything without understanding what it means. Immigration officials may ask you to sign forms or waivers, which could impact your case. Consult with an attorney before signing any documents.
- Provide Only Basic Information:
- Only provide your name, address, and date of birth. Avoid answering other questions or providing more personal information without a lawyer present.
- Only provide your name, address, and date of birth. Avoid answering other questions or providing more personal information without a lawyer present.
- Limit Social Media posts:
- Do not post private information or photos and restrict your interactions to known participants. If your page is public, set to friends only and do not share your location.
- Do not post private information or photos and restrict your interactions to known participants. If your page is public, set to friends only and do not share your location.
- Document the Detention:
- If possible, have a trusted friend or family member document your detention, including the time, location, and agents involved. This information can be important for legal proceedings or for advocacy groups that may assist in your case.
- If possible, have a trusted friend or family member document your detention, including the time, location, and agents involved. This information can be important for legal proceedings or for advocacy groups that may assist in your case.
- Exercise Your Right to Make a Phone Call:
- You have the right to make a phone call to family, friends, or your attorney. Immigration authorities should allow you to call a lawyer, though this may vary by location.
- You have the right to make a phone call to family, friends, or your attorney. Immigration authorities should allow you to call a lawyer, though this may vary by location.
- Request a Hearing:
- You have the right to request a hearing in front of an immigration judge. Your attorney can help you with this process and inform you of any options for contesting your detention.
- You have the right to request a hearing in front of an immigration judge. Your attorney can help you with this process and inform you of any options for contesting your detention.
- Avoid Talking About Your Case:
- Do not discuss your case with other detainees, as it may be used against you. Stick to speaking with your lawyer or trusted individuals.
- Do not discuss your case with other detainees, as it may be used against you. Stick to speaking with your lawyer or trusted individuals.
- Stay in Contact with Support Networks:
- Keep your family, friends, and advocacy organizations informed about your situation so they can assist with legal or practical needs during the detention process.
- Keep your family, friends, and advocacy organizations informed about your situation so they can assist with legal or practical needs during the detention process.
- Create an emergency notification group:
- If you are detained or face any urgent situation, inform a trusted core group of family and friends who can collaborate to assist you.
By following such steps, Bolour says, you can help ensure that your legal rights are respected and that you have the best chance of navigating the immigration detention process effectively.
“It is affecting my health and I don’t know what my real options are,” says Jesus. “They keep adding rules and conditions and slowing my ability to keep the case up to date. It’s like a game of musical chairs where you run out of time to get to the right place before Trump stops the music.”
“But,” adds Jesus, “I am not going to give up. I can’t. Even though I don’t know what’s next.”
Politics
Honoring Stonewall: A conversation with Senator Toni Atkins on the past, present, and future of Pride
As we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall Uprising, the Stonewall Democratic Club honors leaders like Senator Toni Atkins, whose lifelong commitment to equality and public service reflects the enduring legacy and ongoing promise of Stonewall
As we rapidly approach the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall Uprising – an inarguably paramount moment that fueled a national movement for LGBTQ civil rights – the Stonewall Democratic Club continues to carry into the future the spirit of that rebellion through advocacy and political action. This milestone also provides our community with an opportunity to reflect on the leaders who have carried that spirit forward, including Senator Toni Atkins, whose decades of public service have been shaped by a resounding commitment to equality and representation of marginalized communities. Her journey, from growing up in rural poverty to becoming one of California’s most impactful legislative leaders, embodies the progress made since Stonewall and the work that still lies ahead for us.
As our community and our country approach the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall Uprising, how does that milestone resonate with you personally, politically, or otherwise?
Personally, I came out at age 17 in a very conservative rural community. I didn’t see other people like me, and I didn’t believe society was built for someone like me. So I am simply grateful to have been part of our movement for civil rights for my LGBTQ+ community. Politically, we have made tremendous gains, and we now face a very intentional and serious backlash. Our work and political engagement are more important than ever.
In your opinion, what do you believe was the most significant achievement that came from Stonewall? What unfinished business do we still have to work on?
The most significant achievement was visibility – seeing our collective strength for the first time.
Today, we must fight to regain the ability to serve openly in the military, protect marriage equality, and hold our hard-won ground. We must continue educating allies and families about the lives and experiences of nonbinary and transgender community members. In many ways, we are refighting some of the same battles.
We also have to work in partnership with other marginalized communities on issues beyond civil rights – income inequality, access to healthcare (including gender-affirming care), educational opportunities, and affordability. The struggle for justice is interconnected.
How do you view the connection between the activism of that time in our country and the modern policy work of the California Legislature?
Activism and organizing were essential then, and they remain essential today. We still have to strategize, organize, and take action. That hasn’t changed.
You have had a long and devoted career in public service in California. What first inspired you to get into politics? How have your own experiences as a queer woman shaped your journey along the way?
Our stories – every one of them – matter. My history has shaped every policy issue I’ve worked on. I grew up in a working-poor family. My parents, three siblings, and I lived in a four-room house with no indoor plumbing. We carried water from a nearby spring to drink, cook with, and bathe. We lacked consistent healthcare. My father was a lead miner; my mother worked as a seamstress in a factory.
Coming out as a lesbian at a young age was another defining part of my story. All of this influenced my work on housing, healthcare, LGBTQ rights, the environment, and labor protections. I saw firsthand how the mines destroyed the environment, how little safety, benefits, or protections my father had, and how families like mine struggled. Much of my political work has been about empowerment – for myself, my family, and others facing similar obstacles.
I entered politics by helping my mentor, Christine Kehoe, get elected to the San Diego City Council in 1993 – the first openly LGBTQ candidate elected to that body. Working with her at City Hall showed me the difference we could make when we had a seat at the table. That was my motivation – not only for the LGBTQ community but for all marginalized communities, working families, and women. I am forever grateful to Chris for giving me a chance to serve.
What moments in your legislative or leadership roles shine brightest in your mind as being most impactful to you?
So many- the Gender Recognition Act, Proposition 1, which I authored to enshrine abortion and contraception into the California Constitution, and Proposition 3, which did the same for marriage equality. The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for working individuals and families. Creating a permanent source of funds for affordable housing. The California Dream For All downpayment assistance loan for people to buy their first home. Support for funding Prep and for community clinics and Planned Parenthood. Increased funding for childcare for working families and increased paid family leave! So many issues and so much good can be done through public policy and budget actions. That is the importance of the political work of the LGBTQ community and our allies!
As the former Speaker and as President ProTem – I have had the ability not just to sit at that table but to actually set the agenda. I’m grateful and honored for the opportunity.
Over the years you have spent in politics, how has your sense of “why I do this work” evolved, particularly in relation to our queer community and broader social justice aims?
I have seen how strategy, organizing, fundraising, and activism empower us to influence policy and budget decisions rooted in shared values. Relationships also matter – the ones we build, the conversations we have, and the listening we do. Those connections make us better and more effective.
Decades ago, we relied heavily on allies because we didn’t have seats at the table ourselves. We must never forget that. There is no shortcut for the crucial, ongoing conversations needed to continue advancing equality.
How would you describe the state of queer rights and representation in California today?
California’s values – in the public and in the Legislature – largely reflect strong support for our community. Still, especially regarding trans rights, we must keep engaging allies and others about who we are as nonbinary and transgender individuals. That is the next frontier of our civil-rights journey.
And our LGBTQ Caucus has never been larger or more effective. Many members, as I once was, are now in positions of real power and influence, moving forward policies that support our community.
West Hollywood
West Hollywood invests $1 million to build LGBTQ+ Olympic hospitality house
Pride House LA/WeHo will be an interactive space for queer athletes and allies to celebrate the 2028 Summer Games together.
The first-ever Olympic hospitality house began with humble roots in 1992: a tent pitched on the Port of Barcelona for athletes to gather with their families. Since then, they transformed into fixtures of several major sporting events, with hopes of fostering belonging and safety for athletes of various cultural backgrounds.
It wasn’t until 2010 that the first LGBTQ+ hospitality house, the Pride House, appeared during the Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Over the years, its existence and visibility have faced barriers. During the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympic Games in Russia, Pride House International was denied from organizing its safe hub. The rejection was a blow to the visibility and safety that the organization was trying to promote and create for queer athletes. But this didn’t go unnoticed. International fans demonstrated quiet resistance, hosting remote Pride Houses in support of the Olympians who were barred from openly communing and celebrating together.
As Los Angeles prepares to host the Summer Olympics in July 2028, Pride House is coming back stronger than ever. In early October, the West Hollywood city council approved an agreement that would allocate $1 million to sponsor Pride House LA/WeHo as they prepare to build a temporary structure at West Hollywood Park for the 2028 Games. For 17 days, vibrant LGBTQ+ sports programming will fill the park’s grassy knolls.
Pride House LA/WeHo CEO Michael Ferrera detailed at a Nov. 1st Out Athlete Fund fundraising event that the team plans to build a concert stage to seat over 6,000 people. There will also be a museum that will take viewers through 100 years of queer Olympics history, viewing areas for people to watch the games, and a private athlete village for queer Olympians. “The dream of that is — imagine you’re an athlete from a country where you can’t be out,” said Ferrera. “You come here, and you can be safe and sound.”

As outlined in the city council agreement and stated by Ferrera, most of the programming will be free and open to the public, and in the heart of a neighborhood that many of the county’s queer residents recognize as their safe haven. “We’re centering this important event in West Hollywood Park where our community has come together for decades in celebration, in protest, to support each other and to live our lives,” Pride House LA/WeHo CEO Michael Ferrera wrote to the Blade. “There is no place that is more representative of inclusion and safe spaces.”
The City of West Hollywood is promoting this inclusion further by asking for local community members to voice their perspectives on the formation of Pride House LA/WeHo at West Hollywood Park. On Monday, a community conversation will take place at Plummer Park to encourage residents to help shape the cultural programming that will take place in the summer of 2028. Another conversation will take place on Nov. 21st at the City’s 40th anniversary of Cityhood event.
“We couldn’t do this without the generosity and partnership of the city of West Hollywood,” Pride House LA/WeHo marketing co-lead Haley Caruso wrote to the Blade. “We are so happy to help bring the Olympic spirit to West Hollywood while also providing the community a safe and entertaining venue to enjoy the Games.”
Head to PrideHouseLAWeho.org for more information
President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed a bill that reopens the federal government.
Six Democrats — U.S. Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.), Adam Gray (D-Calif.), Don Davis (D-N.C.), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) — voted for the funding bill that passed in the U.S. House of Representatives. Two Republicans — Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Greg Steube (R-Fla.) — opposed it.
The 43-day shutdown is over after eight Democratic senators gave in to Republicans’ push to roll back parts of the Affordable Care Act. According to CNBC, the average ACA recipient could see premiums more than double in 2026, and about one in 10 enrollees could lose a premium tax credit altogether.
These eight senators — U.S. Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Angus King (I-Maine), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) — sided with Republicans to pass legislation reopening the government for a set number of days. They emphasized that their primary goal was to reopen the government, with discussions about ACA tax credits to continue afterward.
None of the senators who supported the deal are up for reelection.
King said on Sunday night that the Senate deal represents “a victory” because it gives Democrats “an opportunity” to extend ACA tax credits, now that Senate Republican leaders have agreed to hold a vote on the issue in December. (The House has not made any similar commitment.)
The government’s reopening also brought a win for Democrats’ other priorities: Arizona Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva was sworn in after a record-breaking delay in swearing in, eventually becoming the 218th signer of a discharge petition to release the Epstein files.
This story is being updated as more information becomes available.
El Salvador
El Salvador: el costo del silencio oficial ante la violencia contra la comunidad LGBTQ+
Entidades estatales son los agresores principales
En El Salvador, la violencia contra la población LGBTQ+ no ha disminuido: ha mutado. Lo que antes se expresaba en crímenes de odio, hoy se manifiesta en discriminación institucional, abandono y silencio estatal. Mientras el discurso oficial evita cualquier referencia a inclusión o diversidad, las cifras muestran un panorama alarmante.
Según el Informe 2025 sobre las vulneraciones de los derechos humanos de las personas LGBTQ en El Salvador, elaborado por el Observatorio de Derechos Humanos LGBTIQ+ de ASPIDH, con el apoyo de Hivos y Arcus Foundation, desde el 1 de enero al 22 de septiembre de 2025 se registraron 301 denuncias de vulneraciones de derechos.
El departamento de San Salvador concentra 155 de esas denuncias, reflejando la magnitud del problema en la capital.
Violencia institucionalizada: el Estado como principal agresor
El informe revela que las formas más recurrentes de violencia son la discriminación (57 por ciento), seguida de intimidaciones y amenazas (13 por ciento), y agresiones físicas (10 por ciento). Pero el dato más inquietante está en quiénes ejercen esa violencia.
Los cuerpos uniformados, encargados de proteger a la población, son los principales perpetradores:
- 31.1 por ciento corresponde a la Policía Nacional Civil (PNC),
- 26.67 por ciento al Cuerpo de Agentes Municipales (CAM),
- 12.22 por ciento a militares desplegados en las calles bajo el régimen de excepción.
A ello se suma un 21.11 por ciento de agresiones cometidas por personal de salud pública, especialmente por enfermeras, lo que demuestra que la discriminación alcanza incluso los espacios que deberían garantizar la vida y la dignidad.
Loidi Guardado, representante de ASPIDH, comparte con el Los Angeles Blade un caso que retrata la cotidianidad de estas violencias:
“Una enfermera en la clínica VICITS de San Miguel, en la primera visita me reconoció que la persona era hijo de un promotor de salud y fue amable. Pero luego de realizarle un hisopado cambió su actitud a algo despectiva y discriminativa. Esto le sucedió a un hombre gay.”
Este tipo de episodios reflejan un deterioro en la atención pública, impulsado por una postura gubernamental que rechaza abiertamente cualquier enfoque de inclusión, y tacha la educación de género como una “ideología” a combatir.
El discurso del Ejecutivo, que se opone a toda iniciativa con perspectiva de diversidad, ha tenido consecuencias directas: el retroceso en derechos humanos, el cierre de espacios de denuncia, y una mayor vulnerabilidad para quienes pertenecen a comunidades diversas.
El miedo, la desconfianza y el exilio silencioso
El estudio también señala que el 53.49 por ciento de las víctimas son mujeres trans, seguidas por hombres gays (26.58 por ciento). Sin embargo, la mayoría de las agresiones no llega a conocimiento de las autoridades.
“En todos los ámbitos de la vida —salud, trabajo, esparcimiento— las personas LGBT nos vemos intimidadas, violentadas por parte de muchas personas. Sin embargo, las amenazas y el miedo a la revictimización nos lleva a que no denunciemos. De los casos registrados en el observatorio, el 95.35 por ciento no denunció ante las autoridades competentes”, explica Guardado.
La organización ASPIDH atribuye esta falta de denuncia a varios factores: miedo a represalias, desconfianza en las autoridades, falta de sensibilidad institucional, barreras económicas y sociales, estigma y discriminación.
Además, la ausencia de acompañamiento agrava la situación, producto del cierre de numerosas organizaciones defensoras por falta de fondos y por las nuevas normativas que las obligan a registrarse como “agentes extranjeros”.
Varias de estas organizaciones —antes vitales para el acompañamiento psicológico, legal y educativo— han migrado hacia Guatemala y Costa Rica ante la imposibilidad de operar en territorio salvadoreño.
Educación negada, derechos anulados
Mónica Linares, directora ejecutiva de ASPIDH, lamenta el deterioro de los programas educativos que antes ofrecían una oportunidad de superación para las personas trans:
“Hubo un programa del ACNUR que lamentablemente, con todo el cierre de fondos que hubo a partir de las declaraciones del presidente Trump y del presidente Bukele, pues muchas de estas instancias cerraron por el retiro de fondos del USAID.”
Ese programa —añade— beneficiaba a personas LGBTQ+ desde la educación primaria hasta el nivel universitario, abriendo puertas que hoy permanecen cerradas.
Actualmente, muchas personas trans apenas logran completar la primaria o el bachillerato, en un sistema educativo donde la discriminación y el acoso escolar siguen siendo frecuentes.
Organizaciones en resistencia
Las pocas organizaciones que aún operan en el país han optado por trabajar en silencio, procurando no llamar la atención del gobierno. “Buscan pasar desapercibidas”, señala Linares, “para evitar conflictos con autoridades que las ven como si no fueran sujetas de derechos”.
Desde el Centro de Intercambio y Solidaridad (CIS), su cofundadora Leslie Schuld coincide. “Hay muchas organizaciones de derechos humanos y periodistas que están en el exilio. Felicito a las organizaciones que mantienen la lucha, la concientización. Porque hay que ver estrategias, porque se está siendo silenciado, nadie puede hablar; hay capturas injustas, no hay derechos.”
Schuld agrega que el CIS continuará apoyando con un programa de becas para personas trans, con el fin de fomentar su educación y autonomía económica. Sin embargo, admite que las oportunidades laborales en el país son escasas, y la exclusión estructural continúa.
Matar sin balas: la anulación de la existencia
“En efecto, no hay datos registrados de asesinatos a mujeres trans o personas LGBTIQ+ en general, pero ahora, con la vulneración de derechos que existe en El Salvador, se está matando a esta población con la anulación de esta.”, reflexiona Linares.
Esa “anulación” a la que se refiere Linares resume el panorama actual: una violencia que no siempre deja cuerpos, pero sí vacíos. La negación institucional, la falta de políticas públicas, y la exclusión social convierten la vida cotidiana en un acto de resistencia para miles de salvadoreños LGBTQ+.
En un país donde el Ejecutivo ha transformado la narrativa de derechos en una supuesta “ideología”, la diversidad se ha convertido en una amenaza política, y los cuerpos diversos, en un campo de batalla. Mientras el gobierno exalta la “seguridad” como su mayor logro, la población LGBTQ+ vive una inseguridad constante, no solo física, sino también emocional y social.
El Salvador, dicen los activistas, no necesita más silencio. Necesita reconocer que la verdadera paz no se impone con fuerza de uniformados, sino con justicia, respeto y dignidad.
National
Serving America, facing expulsion: Fight for trans inclusion continues on Veterans Day
Advocates sue to reverse Trump ban while service members cope with new struggles
President Trump signed EO 14183, titled “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” on Jan. 27, directing the Department of Defense (DoD) to adopt policies that would prohibit transgender, nonbinary, and gender-nonconforming people from serving in the military.
The Trump-Vance administration’s policy shift redefines the qualifications for military service, asserting that transgender people are inherently incapable of meeting the military’s “high standards of readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity,” citing a history or signs of gender dysphoria. According to the DoD, this creates “medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on [an] individual.” Regardless of their physical or intellectual capabilities, transgender applicants are now considered less qualified than their cisgender peers.
On Jan. 28, 2025, GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) Law and the National Center for LGBTQ Rights (NCLR) filed Talbott v. Trump, a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the executive order. Originally filed on equal protection grounds on behalf of six active service members and two individuals seeking enlistment, the case has since grown to include 12 additional plaintiffs.
The Blade spoke exclusively with Second Lt. Nicolas (Nic) Talbott, U.S. Army, a plaintiff in the case, and with Jennifer Levi, Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights at GLAD Law, who is leading the litigation.
For Talbott, serving in the military has been a lifelong aspiration, one he pursued despite the barriers posed by discriminatory policies.
“Being transgender posed quite the obstacle to me achieving that dream,” Talbott told the Blade. “Not because it [being trans] had any bearing on my ability to become a soldier and meet the requirements of a United States soldier, but simply because of the policy changes that we’ve been facing as transgender service members throughout the course of the past decade… My being transgender had nothing to do with anything that I was doing as a soldier.”
This drive was fueled by early life experiences, including the impact of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, which shaped his desire to protect his country.
“Even for an eight-year-old kid, [9/11] has a tremendous amount of impact… I remember thinking, you know, this is a terrible thing. Me, and when I grow up, I want to make sure nothing like this ever happens again,” he said. “I’ve still tried to gear my life in a way that I can be preparing myself to eventually help accomplish that mission of keeping America safe from anything like that ever happening again.”
The attacks inspired countless Americans to enlist; according to the New York City government, 181,510 joined active duty and 72,908 enlisted in the reserves in the year following 9/11. Although Talbott was too young to serve at the time, the events deeply influenced his educational and career path.
“For me, [9/11] just kind of helped shape my future and set me on the path that I’m currently on today,” he added. “It ignited my passion for the field, and it’s something that you know, I’ve carried with me into my adult life, into my professional life, and that I hope to have a career in the future.”
Talbott holds a master’s degree in criminology with a focus on counterterrorism and global security, and while completing his degree, he gained practical experience working with the Transportation Security Administration.
Despite the public scrutiny surrounding the lawsuit and the ongoing uncertainty of his military future, Talbott remains grounded in the values that define military service.
“Being so public about my involvement with this lawsuit grants me the very unique opportunity to continue to exemplify those values,” Talbott said. “I’m in a very privileged spot where I can speak relatively openly about this experience and what I’m doing. It’s very empowering to be able to stand up, not only for myself, but for the other transgender service members out there who have done nothing but serve with honor and dignity and bravery.”
The ban has created significant uncertainty for transgender service members, who now face the possibility of separation solely because of their gender identity.
“With this ban… we are all [trans military members] on track to be separated from the military. So it’s such a great deal of uncertainty… I’m stuck waiting, not knowing what tomorrow might bring. I could receive a phone call any day stating that the separation process has been initiated.”
While the Department of Defense specifies that most service members will receive an honorable discharge, the policy allows for a lower characterization if a review deems it warranted. Compensation and benefits differ depending on whether service members opt for voluntary or involuntary separation. Voluntary separation comes with full separation pay and no obligation to repay bonuses, while involuntary separation carries lower pay, potential repayment of bonuses, and uncertain success in discharge review processes.
Healthcare coverage through TRICARE continues for 180 days post-discharge, but reduced benefits, including VA eligibility, remain a concern. Those with 18–20 years of service may qualify for early retirement, though even this is not guaranteed under the policy.
Talbott emphasized the personal and professional toll of the ban, reflecting on the fairness and capability of transgender service members.
“Quite frankly, the evidence that we have at hand points in the complete opposite direction… there are no documented cases that I’m aware of of a transgender person having a negative impact on unit cohesion simply by being transgender… Being transgender is just another one of those walks of life.”
“When we’re losing thousands of those qualified, experienced individuals… those are seats that are not just going to be able to be filled by anybody … military training that’s not going to be able to be replaced for years and years to come.”
Talbott also highlighted the unique discipline, dedication, and value of diversity that transgender service members bring—especially in identifying problems and finding solutions, regardless of what others think or say. That, he explained, was part of his journey of self-discovery and a key reason he wants to continue serving despite harsh words of disapproval from the men leading the executive branch.
“Being transgender is not some sad thing that people go through… This is something that has taken years and years and years of dedication and discipline and research and ups and downs to get to the point where I am today… my ability to transition was essential to getting me to that point where I am today.”
He sees that as an asset rather than a liability. By having a more diverse, well-rounded group of people, the military can view challenges from perspectives that would otherwise be overlooked. That ability to look at things in a fresh way, he explained, can transform a good service member into a great one.
“I think the more diverse our military is, the stronger our military is… We need people from all different experiences and all different perspectives, because somebody is going to see that challenge or that problem in a way that I would never even think of… and that is what we need more of in the U.S. military.”
Beyond operational effectiveness, Talbott emphasized the social impact of visibility and leadership within the ranks. Fellow soldiers often approached him for guidance, seeing him as a trusted resource because of his transgender status.
“I can think of several instances in which I have been approached by fellow soldiers… I feel like you are a person I can come to if I have a problem with X, Y or Z… some people take my transgender status and designate me as a safe person, so to speak.”
With the arrival of Veterans Day, the Blade asked what he wishes the public knew about the sacrifices of transgender service members. His answer was modest.
“Every person who puts on the uniform is expected to make a tremendous amount of sacrifice,” Talbott said. “Who I am under this uniform should have no bearing on that… We shouldn’t be picking and choosing which veterans are worthy of our thanks on that day.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights, also spoke with the Blade and outlined the legal and human consequences of the ban. This is not Levi’s first time challenging the executive branch on transgender rights; she led the legal fight against the first Trump administration’s military ban in both Doe v. Trump and Stockman v. Trump.
Levi characterized the policy as overtly cruel and legally indefensible.
“This policy and its rollout is even more cruel than the first in a number of ways,” Levi explained. “For one, the policy itself says that transgender people are dishonest, untrustworthy and undisciplined, which is deeply offensive and degrading and demeaning.”
She highlighted procedural abuses and punitive measures embedded in the policy compared to the 2017 ban.
“In the first round the military allowed transgender people to continue to serve… In this round the military policy purge seeks to purge every transgender person from military service, and it also proposes to do it in a very cruel and brutal way, which is to put people through a process… traditionally reserved for kicking people out of the military who engaged in misconduct.”
Levi cited multiple examples of discrimination, including the revocation of authorized retirements and administrative barriers to hearings.
She also explained that the administration’s cost argument is flawed, as removing and replacing transgender service members is more expensive than retaining them.
“There’s no legitimate justification relating to cost… it is far more expensive to both purge the military of people who are serving and also to replace people… than to provide the minuscule amount of costs for medications other service members routinely get.”
On legal grounds, Levi noted the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause.
“The Equal Protection Clause prevents laws that are intended to harm a group of people… The doctrine is rooted in animus, which means a bare desire to harm a group is not even a legitimate governmental justification.”
When asked what she wishes people knew about Talbott and other targeted transgender military members, Levi emphasized their extraordinary service.
“The plaintiffs that I represent are extraordinary… They have 260 years of committed service to this country… I have confidence that ultimately, this baseless ban should not be able to legally survive.”
Other organizations have weighed in on Talbott v. Trump and similar lawsuits targeting transgender service members.
Human Rights Campaign Foundation President Kelley Robinson criticized the ban’s impact on military readiness and highlighted the counterintuitive nature of removing some of the country’s most qualified service members.
“Transgender servicemembers serve their country valiantly, with the same commitment, the same adherence to military standards and the same love of country as any of their counterparts,” Robinson said. “This ban by the Trump administration, which has already stripped transgender servicemembers of their jobs, is cruel, unpatriotic, and compromises the unity and quality of our armed forces.”
Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Sasha Buchert echoed the legal and moral imperative to reverse the policy.
“Every day this discriminatory ban remains in effect, qualified patriots face the threat of being kicked out of the military,” she said. “The evidence is overwhelming that this policy is driven by animus rather than military necessity… We are confident the court will see through this discriminatory ban and restore the injunction that should never have been lifted.”
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court rejects Kim Davis’s effort to overturn landmark marriage ruling
Justices declined to revisit the Obergefell decision
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal from Kim Davis, the former Rowan County, Ky., clerk best known for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the landmark 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
Following the Obergefell ruling, Davis stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether and has since filed multiple appeals seeking to challenge same-sex marriage protections. The court once again rejected her efforts on Monday.
In this latest appeal, Davis sought to overturn a $100,000 monetary award she was ordered to pay to David Moore and David Ermold, a same-sex couple to whom she denied a marriage license. Her petition also urged the court to use the case as a vehicle to revisit the constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
The petition, along with the couple’s brief in opposition, was submitted to the Supreme Court on Oct. 22 and considered during the justices’ private conference on Nov. 7. Davis needed at least four votes for the court to take up her case, but Monday’s order shows she fell short.
Cathy Renna, the director of communications for the National LGBTQ Task Force, a non-profit organization that works towards supporting the LGBQ community through grassroots organizing told the Los Angeles Blade:
“Today’s decision is not surprising given the longshot status of Davis’s claim, but it’s a relief that the Supreme Court will not hear it, given the current make up of the court itself. We hope that this settles the matter and marriage equality remains the law of the land for same-sex couples.”
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson released the following statement:
“Today, love won again. When public officials take an oath to serve their communities, that promise extends to everyone — including LGBTQ+ people. The Supreme Court made clear today that refusing to respect the constitutional rights of others does not come without consequences.
Thanks to the hard work of HRC and so many, marriage equality remains the law of the land through Obergefell v. Hodges and the Respect for Marriage Act. Even so, we must remain vigilant.
It’s no secret that there are many in power right now working to undermine our freedoms — including marriage equality — and attack the dignity of our community any chance they get. Last week, voters rejected the politics of fear, division, and hate, and chose leaders who believe in fairness, freedom, and the future. In race after race, the American people rejected anti-transgender attacks and made history electing pro-equality candidates up and down the ballot.
And from California to Virginia to New Jersey to New York City, LGBTQ+ voters and Equality Voters made the winning difference. We will never relent and will not stop fighting until all of us are free.”
This story is developing and will be updated as more information becomes available.
Los Angeles
LA Assessor Jeffrey Prang to be honored by Stonewall Democrats
Prang is among America’s longest-serving openly gay elected officials
You may not be too familiar with LA County Assessor Jeffrey Prang. You’ve probably never heard of the office of the LA County Assessor, or you might only have a vague notion of what it does.
But with a career in city politics spanning nearly thirty years, he’s among the longest-serving openly gay elected officials in the United States, and for his work serving the people of Los Angeles and championing the rights of the city’s LGBTQ people, the Stonewall Democratic Club is honoring him at their 50th Anniversary Celebration and Awards Night Nov 15 at Beaches Tropicana in West Hollywood.
Prang moved to Los Angeles from his native Michigan after college in 1991, specifically seeking an opportunity to serve in politics as an openly gay man. In 1997, he was elected to the West Hollywood City Council, where he served for 18 years, including four stints as mayor.
“I was active in politics, but in Michigan at the time I left, you couldn’t really be out and involved in politics… My life was so compartmentalized. I had my straight friends, my gay friends, my political friends, and I couldn’t really mix and match those things,” he says.
“One of the things that was really impactful was as you drove down Santa Monica Boulevard and saw those rainbow flags placed there by the government in the median island. That really said, this is a place where you can be yourself. You don’t have to be afraid.”
One thing that’s changed over Prang’s time in office is West Hollywood’s uniqueness as a place of safety for the queer community.
“It used to be, you could only be out and gay and politically involved if you were from Silver Lake or from West Hollywood. The thought of being able to do that in Downey or Monterey Park or Pomona was foreign. But now we have LGBTQ centers, gay pride celebrations, and LGBT elected officials in all those jurisdictions, something that we wouldn’t have thought possible 40 years ago,” he says.
Prang’s jump to county politics is emblematic of that shift. In 2014, amid a scandal that brought down the previous county assessor, Prang threw his name in contention for the job, having worked in the assessor’s office already for the previous two years. He beat out eleven contenders in the election, won reelection in 2018 and 2022, and is seeking a fourth term next year.
To put those victories in perspective, at the time of his first election, Prang represented more people than any other openly gay elected official in the world.
Beyond his office, Prang has lent his experience with ballot box success to helping get more LGBT people elected through his work with the Stonewall Democrats and with a new organization he co-founded last year called the LA County LGBTQ Elected Officials Association (LACLEO).
LACLEO counts more than fifty members, including officials from all parts of the county, municipal and state legislators, and members of school boards, water boards, and city clerks.
“I assembled this group to collectively use our elected strength and influence to help impact policy in Sacramento and in Washington, DC, to take advantage of these elected leaders who have a bigger voice in government than the average person, and to train them and educate them to be better advocates on behalf of the issues that are important for us,” Prang says.
“I do believe as a senior high-level official I need to play a role and have an important voice in supporting our community,” he says.
Ok, but what is the LA County assessor, anyway?
“Nobody knows what the assessor is. 99% of people think I’m the guy who collects taxes,” Prang says.
The assessor makes sure that all properties in the county are properly recorded and fairly assessed so that taxes can be levied correctly. It’s a wonky job, but one that has a big impact on how the city raises money for programs.
And that wonkiness suits Prang just fine. While the job may seem unglamorous, he gleefully boasts about his work overhauling the office’s technology to improve customer service and efficiency, which he says is proving to be a role model for other county offices.
“I inherited this 1970s-era mainframe green screen DOS-based legacy system. And believe it or not, that’s the standard technology for most large government agencies. That’s why the DMV sucks. That’s why the tax collection system sucks. But I spent $130 million over almost 10 years to rebuild our system to a digitized cloud-based system,” Prang says.
“I think the fact that my program was so successful did give some impetus to the board funding the tax collector and the auditor-controller to update their system, which is 40 years behind where they need to be.”
More tangible impacts for everyday Angelenos include his outreach to promote tax savings programs for homeowners, seniors, and nonprofits, and a new college training program that gives students a pipeline to good jobs in the county.
As attacks on the queer community intensify from the federal government, Prang says the Stonewall Democrats are an important locus of organization and resistance, and he encourages anyone to get involved.
“It is still an important and relevant organization that provides opportunities for LGBTQ people to get involved, to have an impact on our government and our civic life. If you just wanna come and volunteer and donate your time, it provides that, if you really want to do more and have a bigger voice and move into areas of leadership, it provides an opportunity for that as well,” he says.
Los Angeles
SNAP benefits remain delayed — local leaders are creating their own solutions
Assemblymember Mark González has announced a $7.5 million partnership with the YMCA’s FeedLA food distribution program.
Today marks the 37th day of the current government shutdown, the longest witnessed in the country’s history. As a result, people who receive federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits have not received their monthly aid for November. In Los Angeles, over 1.5 million people rely on these funds to purchase groceries.
On Oct. 28th, Governor Gavin Newsom announced that California joined over 20 other states in suing the administration over its “unlawful refusal” to provide SNAP aid even though it has the funds to do so. Two federal judges ruled in favor of the lawsuit, though when and how much aid will be distributed remains inconclusive.
At a press briefing on Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that the administration is “fully complying” with the court order. “The recipients of the SNAP benefits need to understand: it’s going to take some time to receive this money because the Democrats have forced the administration into a very untenable position,” Leavitt continued. “We are digging into a contingency fund that is supposed to be for emergencies, catastrophes, for war.”
On Wednesday morning, local leaders in Los Angeles held their own press conference at the Weingart East Los Angeles YMCA to denounce the administration’s inaction and to discuss alternative efforts that are trying to fill the gap as SNAP aid remains suspended. “We’re here today because the federal government has turned its back on millions of families, and we refuse to stay silent,” said District 54 Assemblymember Mark González. “This is more than a press conference. This is a plea for sanity, a demand for humanity, and a call to action…California is stepping up to do what Washington will not, and that’s to feed our people.”
Alongside a number of other local leaders and advocates, including Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, Speaker of the California State Assembly Robert Rivas, Boyle Heights community leader Margarita “Mago” Amador, Congressman Jimmy Gomez, YMCA president Victor Dominguez, and Food Forward founder Rick Nahmias, González announced a partnership with the YMCA’s FeedLA program. $7.5 million has been secured to fund food distribution efforts across the county’s 29 YMCA sites.
Residents do not need to have a YMCA membership to take part. Resources like groceries, warm meals, and home deliveries will be available at various times throughout the week. There are currently no weekend distribution dates listed.
This announcement comes in the midst of other local efforts bolstering on-the-ground SNAP relief. On Tuesday, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved a motion that will strengthen the Office of Food Systems (OFS), a partnership between county leaders and local philanthropic organizations aiming to create equitable food systems for residents. The motion would establish deeper connections between OFS and all County departments, as well as strengthen state and federal food policy coordination.
The county has also funded a $10 million contract with the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank, which will allow the organization to purchase more produce and create additional pantry and food distribution pop-up sites.
For many, these solutions offer a temporary landing pad as they hold out for their benefits to be reinstated. “Food pantries are not just places where a bag of food is handed out. They are a bridge of hope for our most vulnerable communities,” said Amador, at Wednesday’s press conference. “When a family comes to a pantry, many times they don’t just bring an empty bag. They also bring worries, stress and [the] fear of not being able to feed their children. They leave with a bag of food [and] they take with them a bit of dignity, relief, and a feeling that they are not alone.”
National
Pelosi won’t seek re-election next year
Longtime LGBTQ+ ally played key role in early AIDS fight
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the nation’s first and only female speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and a lifelong LGBTQ+ ally, announced Thursday that she will not seek re-election next year, after 38 years in Congress, many of them as House party leader.
“I have truly loved serving as your voice in Congress, and I have always honored the song of St. Francis, ‘Lord make an instrument of thy peace,’ the anthem of our city. That is why I want you, my fellow San Franciscans, to be the first to know. I will not be seeking reelection to Congress,” Pelosi, 85, announced in a video.
Thank you, San Francisco. pic.twitter.com/OP8ubeFzR6
— Nancy Pelosi (@TeamPelosi) November 6, 2025
Pelosi has represented San Francisco in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1987.
Her time in Congress began with the AIDS crisis, and she has kept up the fight ever since, as the Washington Blade reported in an exclusive and wide-ranging 2023 interview conducted just after she left House leadership.
Some excerpts from that interview:
“After committing herself and Congress to the fight against HIV/AIDS during her first speech from the floor of the House in 1987, Pelosi said some of her colleagues asked whether she thought it wise for her feelings on the subject to be “the first thing that people know about you” as a newly elected member.
“They questioned her decision not because they harbored any stigma, but rather for concern over how “others might view my service here,” Pelosi said. The battle against HIV/AIDS, she told them, “is why I came here.”
“It was every single day,” she said.
“Alongside the “big money for research, treatment, and prevention” were other significant legislative accomplishments, such as “when we] were able to get Medicaid to treat HIV [patients] as Medicaid-eligible” rather than requiring them to wait until their disease had progressed to full-blown AIDS to qualify for coverage, said Pelosi, who authored the legislation.
“That was a very big deal for two reasons,” she said. First, because it saved lives by allowing low-income Americans living with HIV to begin treatment before the condition becomes life-threatening, and second, because “it was the recognition that we had this responsibility to intervene early.”
“Other milestones in which Pelosi had a hand include the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS program, President Bush’s PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief) initiative, the Affordable Care Act (which contains significant benefits for Americans living with HIV/AIDS), and funding for the Ending the Epidemic initiative.
“Outside the U.S. Capitol building, Pelosi has also been celebrated by the LGBTQ community for signaling her support through, for example, her participation in some of the earliest meetings of the NAMES Project AIDS Memorial Quilt, her meeting with the survivors of the 2016 Pulse nightclub massacre, and her appearance at a host of LGBTQ events over the years.
“Of course, at the same time, Pelosi has been a constant target of attacks from the right, which in the past few years have become increasingly violent. During the siege of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, her office was ransacked by insurrectionists who shouted violent threats against her. A couple of weeks later, unearthed social media posts by far-right Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.) revealed she had signaled support for executing Pelosi along with other prominent House Democrats. And last October, the speaker’s husband Paul Pelosi suffered critical injuries after he was attacked by a man wielding a hammer who had broken into the couple’s San Francisco home.
“Pelosi told CNN last week that her husband is “doing OK,” but expects it will “take a little while for him to be back to normal.”
“Among her fans in progressive circles, Pelosi – who has been a towering figure in American politics since the Bush administration – has become something of a cultural icon, as well. For instance, the image of her clapping after Trump’s State of the Union speech in 2019 has been emblazoned on coffee mugs.
“What is so funny about it,” Pelosi said, is rather than “that work [over] all these years as a legislator,” on matters including the “Affordable Care Act, millions of people getting health care, what we did over the years with HIV/AIDS in terms of legislation, this or that,” people instead have made much ado over her manner of clapping after Trump’s speech. And while the move was widely seen as antagonistic, Pelosi insisted, “it was not intended to be a negative thing.”
“Regardless, she said, “it’s nice to have some fun about it, because you’re putting up with the criticism all the time – on issues, whether it’s about LGBTQ, or being a woman, or being from San Francisco, or whatever it is.”
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson in a statement said there “will never be another Nancy Pelosi.”
“Throughout her career, Speaker Emerita Pelosi has remained a tireless champion for LGBTQ+ equality and worked alongside LGBTQ+ advocates to pass historic legislation that expanded access to health care, protected marriage equality, honored Matthew Shepard with federal hate crimes protections and ended ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” said Robinson. “Her steel spine, allyship and keen insight have served as powerful tools in our shared fight for progress and we are grateful for her unwavering commitment to our community.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) described Pelosi as an “iconic, heroic, trailblazing, legendary, and transformational leader” who is “the greatest speaker of all time.” President Donald Trump, for his part, told Peter Doocy that Pelosi’s retirement “is a great thing for America.”
“She was evil, corrupt, and only focused on bad things for our country. She was rapidly losing control of her party, and it was never coming back,” said Trump. “I’m very honored that she impeached me twice and failed miserably twice. Nancy Pelosi is a highly overrated politician.”
Gay California Congressman Mark Takano in a statement said he will “miss” Pelosi “immensely.”
“At a time of extraordinary challenge and change, her leadership has been a constant,” said Takano. “She has guided our caucus and our country through some of our hardest moments. But her legacy reaches far beyond the landmark legislation she passed. It lives in the people she mentored, the values she imparted, and the example she set for every person who believes that politics can still be a force for good.”
California
Prop 50 has passed, with overwhelming support from local voters and LGBTQ+ advocates
Over 5 million Californians voted in support of the congressional redistricting measure.
Yesterday, on the night of the California statewide special election, polls closed at 8 pm for the vote on Proposition 50, the “Election Rigging Response Act.” The measure was created to combat Texas lawmakers’ plans to redraw their state’s congressional districts ahead of the November 3rd, 2026, midterm elections in order to secure more Republican seats in Congress.
A “yes” vote on Prop 50 would allow California to temporarily redraw its own congressional district maps beginning in 2026, according to the California Voter Information Guide. Since August, Democratic organizers and leaders have been advocating for the passage of the measure as a way to stand up to “cheating” that has been committed by other states.
Last night, over 8 million ballots were counted, and an overwhelming 63.8% of these were votes in favor of Prop 50. In Los Angeles County alone, nearly 2 million ballots were submitted, and 73% of voters sided with passing the measure.
Governor Gavin Newsom celebrated the victory as an act of resistance. “Instead of agonizing over the state of our nation, we organized in an unprecedented way,” he said, in a series of video statements posted online. “We stood tall and we stood firm in response to Donald Trump’s recklessness. And tonight, after poking the bear, this bear roared — with an unprecedented turnout in a special election with an extraordinary result.”
The results have also fueled impassioned LGBTQ+ leaders to keep the fight going, especially as federal legislation continues to put queer and trans communities at risk. “Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans have systematically targeted LGBTQ+ rights, rolling back nondiscrimination protections, erasing our history, and attacking transgender kids and their families,” said Tony Hoang, director of LGBTQ+ civil rights organization Equality California, in a press release. “With the passage of Proposition 50, Californians have sent a clear message: our votes will not be silenced, our voices will not be ignored, and our rights will not be rolled back during a rigged midterm election.”
Advocates have also stressed that Prop 50 sets a precedent in creating more ground in the ongoing battle for increased rights and protections for queer communities. “Tonight’s victory is critical in the fight to secure a pro-equality majority in Congress,” said Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, another notable LGBTQ+ civil rights group. “This is a victory powered by communities that refuse to be silenced and are unwavering in their commitment to defending democracy.”
-
West Hollywood2 days agoWest Hollywood invests $1 million to build LGBTQ+ Olympic hospitality house
-
Books1 day agoNew book highlights long history of LGBTQ oppression
-
Events3 days agoDandyland, America’s steamiest queer erotic art and gift market, returns to downtown Los Angeles
-
Politics2 days agoHonoring Stonewall: A conversation with Senator Toni Atkins on the past, present, and future of Pride
-
a&e features4 days agoGottmik and Violet Chachki are bringing drag excellence across the country with ‘The Knockout Tour’
-
a&e features3 days agoHow Nurse Blake is bringing ‘holistic comedy’ across the country
-
Federal Government4 days agoFederal government reopens
-
a&e features13 hours agoHow Dropout is changing LA’s entertainment industry
-
Movies1 day agoIn solid ‘Nuremberg,’ the Nazis are still the bad guys
