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.”
Hungary
Charges against Budapest mayor for organizing Pride march dropped
Country’s new government took office last month
Hungarian authorities on Thursday dropped charges against Budapest Mayor Gergely Karácsony over his role in organizing the city’s 2025 Pride march.
Karácsony spoke at the event, even though then-Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government banned it.
More than 100,000 people defied the ban and participated in the march that took place on June 28, 2025. The Associated Press notes the Budapest Chief Prosecutor’s Office in January charged Karácsony with “organizing the unlawful assembly despite a prohibition order.”
Karácsony, who has been Budapest’s mayor since 2019, described himself as a “proud defendant” after his indictment.
“It seems that in this country, this is the price you pay if you stand up for your own freedom and the freedom of others,” he said in a statement, according to the AP. “If anyone thinks they can ban me, deter me, or prevent me and my city from doing so, they are gravely mistaken.”
Budapest is Hungary’s capital and largest city.
Prime Minister Péter Magyar took office last month after his center-right Tisza party ousted Orbán’s Fidesz-KDNP coalition in elections that took place on April 12.
Hungarian police on May 29 announced they will allow the Budapest Pride march to take place this year.
The European Union’s top court, the EU Court of Justice, days after Orbán’s ouster struck down Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ+ propaganda law that MPs approved in 2021. The BBC notes Hungarian authorities cited the decision in their decision to drop the charges against Karácsony.
Authorities in Pécs, a city near Hungary’s border with Croatia, have also dropped charges against Géza Buzás-Hábel, who organized a 2025 Pride event.
Congress
Ogles faces bipartisan backlash over anti-gay social media post
Tenn. congressman blamed the comment on staffer
U.S. Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.), who represents Tennessee’s 5th Congressional District, is facing backlash from LGBTQ+ advocates and fellow Republicans after a social media post declared that “homosexuality has no place in America.”
“Homosexuality has no place in America. Happy Nuclear Family Month,” the congressman wrote in a post on X that was later deleted.
According to the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, an estimated 6.3 percent of U.S. adults identify as LGBTQ+.
Following widespread criticism, Ogles removed the post and blamed it on a staff member.
“The post was stupid, hurtful and a complete distraction from my America First focus. The employee has been reprimanded,” Ogles said in a statement.
The Los Angeles Blade reached out to Ogles’s office for comment but did not receive a response by press time.
Among those condemning the message was U.S. Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), who called it “absolutely idiotic” in a social media post.
“Homosexuality exists. In America,” Lawler wrote on X. “In fact, Andy, you have family, friends, neighbors, colleagues, and constituents who are gay and lesbian. It doesn’t make them less than or somehow unworthy of being an American.”
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) also criticized Ogles’s remarks.
“For all of recorded history, homosexuals have been a part of humanity,” Cruz told TMZ DC. “I think the behavior of consenting adults is their business.”
Chris Sanders, the executive director for the Tennessee Equality Project and Tennessee Equality Project Foundation provided a statement to the Blade about Ogles’s comment.
“The Tennessee Nuclear Family Month resolution has really backfired on conservatives by ensnaring Congressman Ogles in scandal. He used the resolution as a pretext to say that our community doesn’t belong in America, resulting in incredible backlash from across the partisan divide,” Sanders said. “It is a good opportunity for him to pause and reflect on whether it’s time for him to resign. Fighting one’s own constituents is not the purpose of serving in Congress.”
Human Rights Campaign Senior Press Secretary Jarred Keller provided a statement to the Blade regarding Ogles’s comments.
“LGBTQ+ people are woven into the fabric of America, and any politician who questions that is severely out of touch with reality. When so many people are worried about whether they can afford gas to get to work or groceries for their families, the last thing we need is right-wing Republicans targeting marginalized communities with hateful attacks,” Keller said. “Representative Ogles should spend less time attacking LGBTQ+ people and start addressing the issues that actually matter, because last I checked, our community isn’t the reason families are struggling to make ends meet.”
The controversy comes as Tennessee continues to advance legislation affecting LGBTQ+ residents. The state already has several laws on the books that LGBTQ+ advocates have criticized, including the Adult Entertainment Act, enacted in 2023, which restricts certain “adult cabaret performances.”
Lawmakers have also introduced additional measures this legislative session, including the “No Pride Flag or Month Act,” which would prohibit state employees, volunteers, and agents from displaying Pride flags or participating in Pride observances while acting in an official capacity.
Another proposal, the “Banning Bostock Act” would seek to limit the application of state anti-discrimination protections based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. Tennessee lawmakers have also passed other measures restricting LGBTQ+ rights and access to gender-affirming health care.
News
Gallup finds LGBTQ+ support among Americans is dropping
Marriage equality support lowest since 2016
Gallup, one of the leading organizations in public opinion polling, has found that LGBTQ+ support among Americans is dropping.
The poll, whose data was collected using Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs survey, was conducted in May and was published on Wednesday. The data was collected through telephone interviews from a sample of more than 1,000 adults living in all 50 states and D.C. using random digit dialing.
It highlights declining attitudes surrounding LGBTQ+ issues in multiple areas — from support for same-sex marriage to views on gender identity and the morality of one’s sexuality.
One of the most striking findings was that support for marriage equality fell six points from its 2022-2023 high.
The survey also found that 62 percent of Americans view gay and lesbian relations as morally acceptable, the lowest level since 2016 just after same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide by the U.S. Supreme Court.
One newer question on the poll found that the perceived morality of changing one’s gender has dropped eight points since 2021, indicating the American public is less supportive of transgender people.

The data attributes much of the decline to shifting Republican views alongside the party itself. Conservative leaders have pushed back against diversity, equity, and inclusion programs that were intended to foster greater acceptance of LGBTQ+ people and other historically disadvantaged groups.
President Donald Trump has been a guiding force behind waves of anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment, particularly when it comes to trans rights. The president has enacted multiple executive orders, including Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which mandates that gender be defined by one’s sex assigned at birth. He also signed Executive Order 14183, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” which barred qualified trans applicants from joining the military and led to the removal of trans service members already serving in the armed forces.
Additionally, he signed Executive Order 14201, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” which prohibits trans female athletes from participating on women’s and girls’ sports teams.
In February, Gallup found that an estimated 9 percent of Americans identified as part of the LGBTQ+ community in some form.
The organization also found that 23 percent of adults under age 30 identify as LGBTQ+, compared with 10 percent of those ages 30 to 49 and 3 percent or less among those ages 50 and older.
Politics
Los Angeles Primary Election Day results are in
Karen Bass and Spencer Pratt to face off; the Governor’s race is still being called
Since Donald Trump became President, each election has become very high-stakes. While to the average voter, primary elections may not seem as important, this year is the first year after California Ballot Measure 50 redistricting map opened up more seats for the House of Representatives. This was to combat the redistricting of Texas to get more conservative Congressional areas.
Sadly, given our political climate, voting along party lines is not enough. California is unique in that the primary allows two candidates to advance to the general election regardless of party. To people sick of the two-party system or the lack of progressive candidates, primaries are an important moment to vote for different options. Additionally, many races, such as judicial races, government positions, and ballot measures, can be decided by this election alone.
That being said, the Los Angeles County Registrar shows there was only a 22.38% voter turnout for election day. The 77.62% of registered voters does include some mail-in ballots that are yet to be counted, but also shows that a significant amount of voters did not show up for a pretty important race. Votes will be tallied until June 26th, with any votes postmarked on Tuesday affecting these results.
Two of the most notable races include the vote for California Governor and Los Angeles City Mayor. The race to replace Gavin Newsom is yet to be called, but of the large list of potential nominees, Democrat Xavier Becerra (28.9% of the vote) and Steve Hilton (23.1%) were in the lead and will move on to the general election. Billionaire and progressive Tom Steyer is in the number three position with 22.29% of the vote. Time will tell if he’ll be included in the next election. But Steyer has famously invested millions of his own money in this election and positioned himself as a “class traitor” willing to push progressive reform.
Former reality personality Spencer Pratt will join incumbent Karen Bass in the mayoral race. Despite his lack of political experience, Pratt’s use of AI attack ads, extensive media coverage, and celebrity endorsements, including West Hollywood Pride Grand Marshall Kathy Hilton, helped him secure 30.44% of the votes, with incumbent Bass receiving 34.78% of the votes. Nithya Raman received 22.32% of the vote.
County Measure ER, which would add a .5% increase to sales tax over 5 years to cover any potential federal cuts to medical care, failed, receiving only 46.89% of votes.
On the State level, Nancy Pelosi’s Senate seat is up for grabs. Two Democrats, Scott Wiener and Connie Chan, will move on to the general election. Chan received Pelosi’s endorsement while Equality California highlights Wiener’s commitment to LGBTQIA rights. “For nearly a decade in the California Legislature, Scott Wiener has been one of the nation’s most effective champions for LGBTQ+ people, leading the fight to expand civil rights, protect vulnerable communities, and defend fundamental freedoms. We are proud to congratulate him on his decisive first-place victory in today’s primary election,” said Tony Hoang, Executive Director of Equality California.
Non-binary candidate and drag queen Maebe Pudlo received 11.32% of the votes in her race for California State Senate, District 26, with Democrats Sara Hernandez (31.44%) and Sarah Rascón (16.14%) set to face off in the general election. Another State Senate race included former West Hollywood Mayor John M. Erickson, who received 16.38% of the vote. Republican G. Rick Marshall (20.46%) and Democrat Brian Goldsmith (18.48%) are poised to take that race to the general.
To clarify some of the importance of the primary election, Judge Robert Draper was running for re-election to the Superior Court despite facing multiple ethics violations and potential censure. He received 49.09% of the vote while his challenger, Tal K. Valbuena, received 50.91% of the votes.
For up-to-date details on votes, check out the LA County Registrar/County Clear tallies.
Pentagon
Federal appeals court rules White House illegally banned trans troops
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says Pentagon will appeal to SCOTUS
A panel of federal appeals court judges ruled that President Donald Trump’s policy banning transgender troops likely violates their constitutional rights.
The three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that Trump’s Executive Order 14183, also known as “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” was created with the intent to exclude people from the military based on their gender identity.
The policy argues that trans people are inherently incapable of meeting the military’s “high standards of readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity,” citing a history of or signs of gender dysphoria as the cause. According to the Defense Department, this creates “medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on [an] individual.”
The policy states that, regardless of the physical or intellectual capabilities of each applicant, it views trans military applicants as a monolith, considering them less qualified than their cisgender peers.
Despite the panel’s majority opinion issued on Monday, the first day of Pride Month, the ban remains in effect. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Pentagon to enforce the policy last year and will continue to allow it to remain in place as litigation proceeds.
The panel’s new ruling will prevent the military from discharging current service members named in the lawsuit, but it does not allow new transrecruits to join.
The policy “appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender,” Judge Robert Wilkins, a Democratic appointee of President Barack Obama wrote for the majority.
Judge Justin Walker, the author of the dissenting opinion and a Republican Trump appointee, argued that the authority to determine military policy does not rest with the courts. Instead, he wrote, the Constitution grants that power to Congress through legislation and to the president as commander in chief of the armed forces.
“We have neither the expertise nor the authority to decide whether the military can exclude the plaintiffs from its ranks. The Constitution assigns that authority to Congress and the commander-in-chief,” Walker wrote.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth indicated that an appeal is in the works, posting, “See you at SCOTUS” on X on Monday in response to the ruling.
Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, which has led the litigation since last November, applauded the decision.
“Today’s decision is a powerful vindication of the plaintiffs’ extraordinary courage and unwavering commitment to their country,” Levi said.
The Los Angeles Blade spoke with Second Lt. Nicolas (Nic) Talbott of the U.S. Army, the lead plaintiff in the case, and Levi from GLAD Law back in November.
While discussing the case and his experiences as a trans service member, Talbott said his identity is an asset rather than a hindrance, particularly when it comes to identifying problems and finding solutions, regardless of what others may think or say.
“Being transgender is not some sad thing that people go through,” Talbott told the Blade. “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 also discussed the impact of removing qualified and dedicated service members from the military, arguing that the consequences will be felt long after Trump leaves office.
“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,” he said. “[That’s] military training that’s not going to be able to be replaced for years and years to come.”
“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.”
Levi characterized the policy as overtly cruel and legally indefensible to the Blade.
“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 also argued that the administration’s cost justification is flawed, saying that removing and replacing trans 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.”
National
Results from key Tuesday primary races
Wiener advances in effort to replace Pelosi in House
State officials in California had not called the governor’s race as of Wednesday morning but Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra appear likely to advance to the general election.
The race for governor has been scrambled several times after Kamala Harris opted not to run, Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out after sexual misconduct allegations surfaced, and Rep. Katie Porter’s campaign fizzled. Becerra would be the state’s first Latino governor since 1875 if elected. Hilton was endorsed by President Trump.
In the Los Angeles mayor’s race, the AP declared that incumbent Mayor Karen Bass will advance to the Nov. 3 runoff while former reality TV star Spencer Pratt and LA Council member Nithya Raman were competing for second place. California is notoriously slow in counting ballots and only about half of the results were available by Wednesday morning.
In San Francisco, Democratic State Sen. Scott Wiener advanced to the general election in November, besting Supervisor Connie Chan, who was endorsed by House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is retiring from Congress after nearly 40 years in the House.
In Iowa, Democratic state Rep. Josh Turek won the primary for an open U.S. Senate seat, defeating state Sen. Zach Wahls. Turek will face Rep. Ashley Hinson, who won the GOP primary with President Donald Trump’s endorsement, in the general election.
The Iowa seat is open because Sen. Joni Ernst (R) decided not to seek re-election. The primary was closely watched by LGBTQ advocates because Wahls rose to national prominence after a speech he made defending marriage equality went viral in 2011. Wahls was raised by a lesbian couple.
Congress
10 HIV/AIDS activists arrested on Capitol Hill
Protesters interrupted Secretary of State Marco Rubio during hearing
U.S. Capitol Police on Tuesday arrested 10 HIV/AIDS activists who protested Secretary of State Marco Rubio during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.
The activists from Housing Works, Health GAP, the Treatment Action Group, and ACT UP held signs and chanted “Rubio’s Cuts Kill People with AIDS, PEPFAR Saves Lives!” before officers removed them from Dirksen Senate Office Building room where the hearing took place.
A media advisory the Los Angeles Blade received before the protest noted “mounting evidence of Rubio’s attempts to sabotage PEPFAR (the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, U.S. bilateral AIDS program) and vital global health programs.” The press release specifically highlighted three specific points:
• Eliminating Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) lifesaving PEPFAR programs, which currently support approximately 12 million people on HIV treatment across 51 countries. Instead, Rubio intends to dismantle CDC’s current PEPFAR role and stamp out their global footprint in disease outbreak and surveillance for pandemics beyond HIV. Experts including eight former CDC Directors under Republican and Democratic administrations have spoken out against this effort to dismantle PEPFAR. Recent PEPFAR data showed sharp decreases in the numbers of people newly tested, diagnosed, and treated for HIV, but these data would have been even worse if not for CDC’s PEPFAR programs.
• Withholding $2 billion in Congressionally appropriated FY25 funding, including $330 million to combat HIV, $250 million to fight malaria, $320 million for maternal and child health programs, and nearly $650 million in global health security programs.
• Negotiating secret bilateral deals blackmailing African governments by demanding access to critical mineral wealth as a condition of access to HIV treatment and prevention funding.
The groups have staged several protests against the Trump-Vance administration’s HIV/AIDS policies since it took office.
Rubio on Jan. 28, 2025, issued a waiver that allowed PEPFAR and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during a freeze on nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending. HIV/AIDS service providers around the world with whom the Blade has spoken say PEPFAR cuts and the loss of funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, which officially closed on July 1, 2025, has severely impacted their work.
The State Department last September announced PEPFAR will distribute lenacapavir in countries with high prevalence rates.
The New York Times last summer reported Vought “apportioned” only $2.9 billion of $6 billion that Congress set aside for PEPFAR for fiscal year 2025. (PEPFAR in the coming fiscal year will use funds allocated in fiscal year 2024.)
Bipartisan opposition in the U.S. Senate prompted the Trump-Vance administration last July withdraw a proposal to cut $400 million from PEPFAR’s budget. Vought a few weeks later said he would use a “pocket rescission” to cancel $4.9 billion for HIV/AIDS prevention and global health programs and other foreign aid assistance initiatives that Congress had already approved.
The White House in January expanded the global gag rule to ban U.S. foreign aid for groups that promote “gender ideology.” President Ronald Reagan in 1985 implemented the original regulation, also known as the “Mexico City” policy, which bans U.S. foreign aid for groups that support abortion and/or offer abortion-related services. Advocacy groups insist the expanded rule will adversely impact HIV prevention efforts around the world.
“Congress must stop Secretary Rubio before he dismantles PEPFAR,” said Treatment Action Group’s Kendall Martinez-Wright. “Rubio continues to defy the will of Congress and the American people who want this program restored and repaired. Under his leadership he is diverting funding and trying to eliminate the essential role of technical experts in global HIV and global health, while program performance is flailing.”
Federal Government
Advocates push back on proposed FCC warning labels
New rating system public notice seeking comments issued on April 22
The Federal Communications Commission is considering a new rating system that would require a warning label to appear before any television content that includes LGBTQ+ characters.
On April 22, the FCC issued a public notice asking Americans to submit comments on whether the TV Oversight Management Board should create new TV ratings to alert viewers to “transgender and gender nonbinary programming” and “the discussion or promotion of gender identity themes.”
This proposed warning would appear before content, similar to warnings that explain a program contains sexual content, drug use, or violence — categories that Congress explicitly included in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 on the grounds of obscenity and violence that some parents “believe is harmful to their children.”
The public notice says that “recently, parents have raised concerns that controversial gender identity issues are being included or promoted in children’s programs without providing any disclosure or transparency to parents.”
It goes on to say that not having a warning for trans and nonbinary people is “undermining the ability of parents to make informed choices for their families.”
LGBT Tech is an organization that works to provide LGBTQ+ representation in mainstream media or entertainment. The group notes 81 percent of trans respondents it surveyed said these representations had a positive impact on them discovering or learning about their identity.
“These numbers reflect a basic truth: for many people, and especially young people, seeing LGBTQ+ lives represented in ordinary media is not harmful. It is formative, affirming, and often lifesaving.”
Since the public notice’s publication, more than 40 organizations have come out against the proposed alert.
GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis issued a statement in May on the proposal, highlighting what she described as a concerted effort by the Trump-Vance administration to other trans and nonbinary people.
“The FCC does not set TV ratings, but under this administration the FCC has repeatedly tried to control what Americans can see on their own televisions. This government overreach is dangerous and a threat to our community and our democracy,” Ellis said.
“LGBTQ+ people and their families deserve to see their lives represented in the media they watch. And media companies must have the freedom to create programming that appeals to their viewers and subscribers without interference from a government pursuing its own anti-LGBTQ+ political agenda.”
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson pointed out that this is an act of politically motivated policy, not one based on any rhyme or reason.
“LGBTQ+ stories matter and deserve to be told, seen, and heard,” Robinson said. “The Trump administration does not get to use the FCC to try and erase us simply because they want to pretend to live in a world where we don’t exist. This is a brazen form of political interference that will hurt the ability of all people to appreciate, understand, and learn about the world and people around them.”
Brian Dittmeier, director of LGBTQI+ equality at the National Women’s Law Center Action Fund, echoed Robinson’s concerns that this is attempted censorship for the sake of political gain.
“The FCC is cloaking itself in purported concern for parents in an attempt to censor content, intimidate industry, and silence depictions of our trans siblings and neighbors,” Dittmeier wrote. “The FCC is overstepping its authority to undermine the existing ratings system, which is well understood by parents and enjoys broad public support. The FCC’s presumption that it knows better does not reflect parents’ priorities and reeks of government overreach.”
PFLAG National Vice President of Policy and Government Affairs Diego Sanchez said this is federal government overreach into censorship — something the First Amendment protects against.
“The FCC has given us yet another example of what ‘small government’ means: small enough to fit in your living room; to interrupt family movie night; small enough to make home feel unsafe,” Sanchez said. “Parents and families with transgender loved ones in particular know too well how big government actions impact their families directly, because they feel those impacts before everyone else.”
This proposed warning follows a slew of other federal actions targeting trans people in America, including Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which mandated that only sex assigned at birth be used on federal government documents regardless of gender identity, as well as broad-based restrictions on gender-affirming care, particularly for trans minors.
Politics
From the desk of Equality California: The legal issues hitting California and beyond this Pride Month
EQCA shares the local and state political developments that affect LGBTQ+ people across California
Happy Pride Month! This year, we’re excited to Rise Up in community to celebrate queer joy and continue fighting back against attacks on LGBTQ+ people. Equality California will be present at several Pride events throughout the state — including West Hollywood and Los Angeles — so stop by and say hello if you see our table!
Or even better, come volunteer with us! For all things Pride 2026, visit our EQCA x Pride page.
To read more stories and sign up for the weekly Equality Brief, visit eqca.org/equalitybrief.
- Anti-Trans Sports Ban Fails to Qualify for November Maine Ballot:
Maine’s Secretary of State announced that a proposed ban on transgender athletes playing sports would not appear on the November ballot following the discovery of signature fraud that disqualified thousands of petitions. The group spearheading the initiative, Protect Girls Sports in Maine, has filed an appeal with the Secretary of State’s office. Similar anti-trans sports ballot initiatives in states like Missouri and Nevada may still make their states’ ballots, pending signature verification. - Federal Judge Renews Preliminary Injunction Preventing Transgender Female Inmates From Transfer to Male Prisons:
U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth once again blocked the Trump administration’s efforts to transfer transgender women in federal custody into male prisons. The case at hand, Doe v. Blanche, was brought in January 2025 after three transgender women incarcerated in federal prison sued over an executive order mandating the federal government only recognize “sex assigned at birth.” - Barney Frank, First Out Gay U.S. Congressman, Dies at 86:
Barney Frank, who represented Massachusetts in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1981-2013, died on May 19 after a prolonged bout with congestive heart failure. Elected to Congress in 1980 following a tenure in the Massachusetts House, Frank came out publicly in 1987, the first Congressman to do so voluntarily. In 2012 he became the first incumbent member of Congress to marry someone of the same sex. While Frank is recognized as a pioneer in politics, many took issue with his more recent statements encouraging Democrats to step away from focusing on issues affecting the transgender community. - Trump State Department Rings Death Knell for Global HIV Prevention Program:
The Department of State has announced that it will end CDC support of PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief) by September 30 of this year. The program, launched with bipartisan support by President George W. Bush in 2003, has saved the lives of over 26 million people in poor countries living with HIV. PEPFAR had previously suffered a blow in 2025 when the Trump administration dismantled USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development), upending other HIV initiatives in several countries. Critics warn this action could lead to a backslide in prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS. - Trevor Project Releases Latest LGBTQ+ Youth Mental Health Report:
The Trevor Project has released its 2025 U.S. National Survey on the Mental Health of LGBTQ+ Young People, which surveyed 16,000 LGBTQ+ youth ages 13-24 across the U.S. The findings show that rates of suicidality and risks of self-harming behavior have increased over the past year in large part due to growing anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment, particularly from the federal government. Among the key findings, 36% of LGBTQ+ youth say they seriously considered attempting suicide in the past year.
If you or someone you know is an LGBTQ+ young person in need of support, text ‘START’ to 678-678 to be connected to a trained counselor from The Trevor Project for 100% confidential, 100% free help. - Federal Appeals Court Hears Arguments Over Forcibly Outing Trans Students on School Trips:
A panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in a case challenging a Colorado school district’s policy that allows transgender students to room with peers that share their gender identity. The Alliance Defending Freedom, a notoriously anti-LGBTQ+ legal organization, brought the case on behalf of two parents who sued the Jefferson County Public School District after learning their daughter had shared a hotel room with a transgender girl during a 2023 Washington, D.C. trip. The district’s attorneys argue that any change in policy would single out transgender students for unfair and unequal treatment. - Texas Hospital, DOJ Reach $10 Million Settlement With Disturbing Caveat:
The Department of Justice announced on May 15 that it had reached a $10 million settlement with Texas Children’s Hospital in relation to its provision of transition-related care for minors. While the settlement was reached out of court, with neither party admitting wrongdoing, part of the agreement mandates that the hospital revoke privileges for any physicians involved in providing such care, and also requires the creation of a so-called “detransition clinic.” Both actions stand to have a chilling effect on transgender healthcare providers nationwide.
STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
All of our 2026 priority sponsored bills, with the exception of AB 2014 (Elhawary) — Challenging Unfair Gender Bias in Criminal Trials, moved out of the Appropriations Committee’s “suspense file,” on May 14 alongside hundreds of other measures.
Following that, all Equality California priority legislation passed the “house of origin” deadline on May 29, 2026 — meaning that the bills successfully cleared a floor vote of the full chamber where they were initially introduced. The bills now await scheduling for policy committee hearings in opposite chambers.
To view our entire 2026 state legislative package, visit eqca.org/legislation
UPCOMING EVENTS
Want to join Equality California at an upcoming Pride festival, or march alongside us in a parade? Visit our Mobilize page to see all the events we’re a part of this June!
Our Pride Parties return this summer as we gather in community and celebrate Pride 2026! Rise Up and join us at an event near you! Tickets are on sale now!
Los Angeles: Wednesday, June 10 @ Hi Tops Los Feliz, 6:00-9:00 PM
San Francisco: Tuesday, June 23 @ El Rio, 6:00-9:00 PM
San Diego: Tuesday, July 14 @ InsideOUT, 6:00-9:00 PM
Hungary
Hungarian authorities lift Budapest Pride ban
Country’s new government took office last month
Hungarian police on May 29 announced they will allow the annual Budapest Pride march to take place.
“The Budapest Metropolitan Police has approved the 2026 Budapest Pride Parade and also has issued restrictive orders in relation to three counter-demonstrations,” a Budapest Metropolitan Police spokesperson told Politico.
Budapest is Hungary’s capital and largest city.
Hungarian lawmakers last year passed a bill that banned Pride events and allowed authorities to use facial recognition technology to identify participants. MPs later amended the Hungarian constitution to ban public LGBTQ+ events.
More than 100,000 people defied the ban and participated in last year’s Budapest Pride parade. The event became one of the largest protests against then-Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his government since he took office in 2010.
Prime Minister Péter Magyar took office last month after his center-right Tisza party ousted Orbán’s Fidesz-KDNP coalition in elections that took place on April 12. The European Union’s top court, the EU Court of Justice, days after Orbán’s ouster struck down Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ+ propaganda law that MPs approved in 2021.
The EU on May 29 announced it will release more than €16 billion ($18.59 billion) in funds to Hungary that it withheld while Orbán was in office.
The Budapest Pride march will take place on June 27.
“We will march freely in fresh air for our rights, for the democratic Hungary,” said Budapest Pride on its Facebook page.
-
Hungary3 days agoHungarian authorities lift Budapest Pride ban
-
Pride Special2 days agoControversy looms as Kathy Hilton is named West Hollywood Pride Grand Marshal
-
a&e features4 days agoWhy Michelle Visage needs you to get ‘PrEP Wise’
-
Bars & Parties5 days agoMeet your local bartender: Hunter Cassidy
-
Celebrity News1 day agoOutright International honors Cyndi Lauper at annual NYC gala
-
Books4 days agoBooks for a pre-Pride celebration
-
Colombia4 days agoClaudia López comes up short in Colombian presidential election
-
Congress2 days ago10 HIV/AIDS activists arrested on Capitol Hill
-
Theater2 days agoIn ‘A Man Called Mommy,’ Noadiah Eckman delivers queer joy across the aisle
-
a&e features4 days agoHow Saunder Choi crafts a queer anthem
