A Pride flag was raised at the site of the Stonewall National Monument days after a National Park Service directive banned flying the flag at the birthplace of the LGBTQ rights movement in the U.S.

The flag-raising was led by Manhattan Borough President Brad Hoylman-Sigal and supported by other elected officials.

“The community should rejoice. We have prevailed,” Hoylman-Sigal said shortly after the flag was hoisted. “Our flag represents dignity and human rights.”

The flag now sits in Christopher Street Park, feet away from the Stonewall Inn, where in 1969 a police raid of the gay bar sparked outrage and led to a rising of LGBTQ people pushing back on NYPD brutality and unjust treatment.

Elected officials brought a new flagpole with them, using plastic zip ties to attach it to the existing pole.

In 2016, President Barack Obama declared the site a national monument.

One day before the planned re-raising of the Pride flag, the National Park Service installed only an American flag on the flagpole, which days prior had flown a rainbow flag bearing the NPS logo.

The directive removing the flag was put forward by Trump-appointed National Park Service Acting Director Jessica Bowron.

This comes one day after more than 20 LGBTQ organizations from across the country co-signed a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and General Services Administrator Ed Forst, demanding the flag be restored to the monument.

“It is our understanding that the policy provides limited exceptions for non-agency flags that provide historical context or play a role in historic reenactments. Simply put, we urge you to grant this flag an exception and raise it once again, immediately,” the letter read. “It also serves as an important reminder to the 30+ million LGBTQ+ Americans, who continue to face disproportionate threats to our lives and our liberty, that the sites and symbols that tell our stories are worth honoring … However, given recent removals of the site’s references to transgender and bisexual people — people who irrefutably played a pivotal role in this history — it is clear that this is not about the preservation of the historical record.”

The letter finished with a message of resilience the LGBTQ community is known for: “The history and the legacy of Stonewall must live on. Our community cannot simply be erased with the removal of a flag. We will continue to stand up and fight to ensure that LGBTQ+ history should not only be protected — it should be celebrated as a milestone in American resilience and progress.”

When asked about the directive, the NPS responded with this statement:

“Current Department of the Interior policy provides that the National Park Service may only fly the U.S. flag, Department of the Interior flags, and the Prisoner of War/Missing in Action flag on flagpoles and public display points. The policy allows limited exceptions, permitting non-agency flags when they serve an official purpose. These include historical context or reenactments, current military branch flags, flags of federally recognized tribal nations affiliated with a park, flags at sites co-managed with other federal, state, or municipal partners, flags required for international park designations, and flags displayed under agreements with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for Naturalization ceremonies.”

An Interior Department spokesperson on Thursday called the move to return the flag to the monument a “political stunt.”

“Today’s political pageantry shows how utterly incompetent and misaligned the New York City officials are with the problems their city is facing,” a department spokesperson said when reached for comment.

The clash comes amid broader efforts by the Trump-Vance administration to minimize LGBTQ history and political power. The White House has spent much of President Donald Trump’s second presidency restricting transgender rights — stopping gender-affirming care for transgender youth, issuing an executive order stating the federal government will recognize only two sexes, male and female, and blocking Medicaid and Medicare from being used for gender-affirming care.

The University Grants Commission is a regulatory body under India’s Education Ministry that is responsible for coordinating and maintaining standards in higher education. The University Grants Commission Equity Regulations, 2026, aim to address discrimination and promote the inclusion of lower castes, tribes, people with disabilities, those who are economically disadvantaged, and other marginalized groups in higher education.

The regulations quickly triggered controversy.

Students, faculty and civil society groups criticized them, largely around concerns about potential discrimination against students and the absence of certain procedural safeguards. Yet, even as the debate intensified, there was little public discussion about the lack of explicit mention of transgender students in the framework. The omission, though not central to the overall controversy, raised questions among some advocates about the scope of the regulations and who they ultimately protect.

According to the All India Survey on Higher Education, trans student enrollment in universities and colleges rose from 302 in the 2020-2021 academic year to 1,448 in the 2022-2023 academic year, reflecting a sharp increase but still representing a very small share of India’s overall higher education population.

The Supreme Court in its 2024 National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India affirmed trans people are entitled to full constitutional protection, including equality, dignity and access to education, and directed governments to treat them as a socially and educationally disadvantaged group eligible for quota-based protections in education and public employment. The ruling recognized gender identity as integral to personal autonomy and held that discrimination on this ground violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21. 

Against this legal backdrop, the regulations do not explicitly reference trans students, an omission that has drawn attention in discussions on how constitutional protections are implemented within higher education institutions.

In the Indian constitutional framework, Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 collectively form the foundation of equality and personal liberty. 

Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws; Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds such as religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth; Article 16 ensures equality of opportunity in public employment; and Article 21 protects the right to life and personal liberty, which courts have interpreted to include dignity, autonomy, and access to education. These provisions underpin judicial recognition of protections for marginalized communities, including trans people, within public institutions.

Judicial and policy frameworks in India have increasingly recognized the need for institutional support for trans students, underscoring the contrast with the absence of explicit mention in the University Grants Commission Equity Regulations, 2026, regulations. 

The Madras High Court has directed educational institutions to implement measures such as gender-neutral restrooms, mechanisms to update name and gender in official records, inclusion of trans identities in application forms and the appointment of LGBTQ-inclusive counselors for grievance redressal alongside enforcement of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act and its Rules. 

Policy instruments have echoed similar priorities. 

The National Youth Policy 2014 acknowledged trans youth as a group facing social stigma and called for targeted interventions, while the National Education Policy 2020 emphasized reducing dropout rates and ensuring equitable access to education. The University Grants Commission itself has previously indicated that universities should adopt affirmative steps and institution-specific plans to support trans people, making their absence from the current regulatory text more pronounced.

Research and policy analyses have consistently documented structural barriers faced by trans students in India’s education system. The Center for Development Policy and Practices and other academic studies note that discrimination, bullying, and the absence of gender-sensitive infrastructure contribute to high dropout risks among trans students in both school and higher education. Census data underscore this disparity. 

The 2011 Census recorded a literacy rate of about 56.1 percent among trans people, significantly lower than the national average of roughly 74 percent, reflecting long-standing barriers to access and retention in formal education.

The controversy intensified after the Supreme Court on Jan. 29 stayed the implementation of the University Grants Commission Equity Regulations, 2026, and agreed to examine their constitutional validity. 

A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant observed the regulations raised serious legal questions, including concerns that some provisions appeared vague and potentially open to misuse, and sought responses from the federal government and the University Grants Commission. The court directed that the earlier 2012 anti-discrimination framework would remain in force in the interim and listed the matter for further hearing, signalling the need for detailed judicial scrutiny.

Public and political reactions followed, with student groups, academics, and political actors divided over the stay and the broader policy direction. The federal government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, maintained the regulations were intended to address caste-based discrimination and strengthen accountability within higher education institutions even as debate intensified nationally.

The regulations go beyond paperwork. They require universities to create on-campus equity monitoring teams and designated officers responsible for identifying incidents of discrimination, receiving complaints and reporting them to institutional committees for action. However, while the framework spells out protections for certain caste and social categories, it does not explicitly include trans students within this structure. In practice, that absence could leave uncertainty about whether routine monitoring, reporting and grievance mechanisms would extend to them with the same clarity, particularly in campuses where implementation already varies widely.

The regulations also prescribe penalties for faculty and staff found responsible for discrimination, including suspension, withholding of promotions, or termination of service following institutional inquiry. For students, disciplinary action may range from warnings to suspension depending on the severity of the misconduct. Where an incident amounts to a violation of existing statutory or criminal law, institutions are required to refer the matter to law enforcement authorities, placing responsibility on universities to escalate cases beyond internal mechanisms when warranted.

The regulations do not create new criminal offences but require institutions to escalate cases to law enforcement when conduct violates existing statutes. These may include the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, relevant provisions of the country’s penal code, such as criminal intimidation, assault or sexual harassment, disability rights protections, workplace harassment laws, and statutes addressing campus hazing. The framework is therefore stringent: campus inquiries can lead to disciplinary action, and, where legal thresholds are met, mandatory reporting to police. In the absence of explicit mention of trans students within the framework, questions remain about how individuals from the community would navigate complaint systems, interact with authorities, and access consistent institutional protections under these processes.

The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is among India’s strictest anti-discrimination criminal laws and applies to students, staff and any individual accused of caste-based offences. It criminalizes acts such as intentional insults or humiliation, social exclusion, threats, physical assault and other forms of harassment directed at members of specific castes or tribes. Offenses under the law can lead to arrest, non-bailable charges in several categories, and imprisonment that may extend from months to years depending on the severity of the conduct, along with fines. The law also restricts anticipatory bail in many cases and mandates prompt registration of complaints, which is why it is often viewed as a powerful legal safeguard for marginalized communities while also being regarded by some as carrying serious legal consequences once invoked.

Nishikant Dubey, a member of India’s ruling Bharatiya Jana Party, welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision to stay the regulations, stating the judges had acted appropriately and that the matter required careful legal scrutiny. Indrani Chakraborty, an LGBTQ rights activist and mother of a trans woman, told the Washington Blade the University Grants Commission Equity Regulations, 2026, is a welcome step toward supporting vulnerable students.

“The saddest part is that the transgender community is excluded which is very unfair,” said Chakraborty. “Presently, the transgender community is the most vulnerable and not mentioning the community is the act. I regard it as the biggest discrimination and will never help in changing the scenario of the transgender students.”

Chakraborty told the Blade the trans community, as a minority facing persistent social stigma and taboo, is often overlooked and must repeatedly advocate even for basic rights.

“I believe that grouping of individuals under caste, religion, gender, etc., is the base of discrimination. Personally, I disagree with naming and tagging any individual. Equity over quality is the need now for the most vulnerable. And the transgender community faces discrimination the most. Discrimination against any individual in educational institutions needs immediate attention and preventive measures should be necessarily implemented.”

Chakraborty said the absence of explicit inclusion of trans students amounts to discrimination, undermining equality in education and violating human dignity.

Ankit Bhupatani, a global diversity, equity and inclusion leader and LGBTQ activist, told the Blade that debate around the University Grants Commission Equity Regulations, 2026, has largely centered on concerns raised by relatively privileged students, particularly those in the unreserved category, while communities with limited visibility in higher education have received far less attention. Bhupatani also referenced the All India Survey on Higher Education statistics.

“According to Queerbeat, more than half of these 1,448 students are clustered in a few states and several large states still report almost no transgender students at all. Any serious equity regime has to guard every individual, including upper-caste students who are unfairly targeted or stereotyped , but the public conversation cannot pretend this tiny, highly vulnerable group does not exist,” said Bhupatani. “When outrage dominates headlines and the most marginalized are barely mentioned, the word ‘equity’ starts to lose meaning.”

Bhupatani told the Blade that the University Grants Commission Equity Regulations, 2026, define gender to include the “third gender” and prohibit discrimination on that basis, but then repeatedly identify lower castes, tribes, economically disadvantaged groups, people with disabilities, and women as specific groups, while trans students and teachers are not explicitly listed. Bhupatani said that for a young trans person reading the regulations, the message can feel indirect — that others are clearly recognized while their protections depend on interpretation. He added that explicitly naming trans people as a protected group would not dilute safeguards for others, but would instead ensure those already facing stigma are not left to seek recognition case by case.

“Transgender people sit at the intersection of legal vulnerability and social prejudice, so if they are not named and centered in large regulatory exercises, they quickly disappear from view,” said Bhupatani. “Campus rules need to start with a simple moral intuition. No one, whether Dalit or Brahmin, trans or cis, rich or poor, should be harassed, excluded or denied opportunity because of who they are. The University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 already move in this direction by defining discrimination broadly for all students and staff and by listing grounds such as caste, gender, religion, disability, and place of birth. That universal shift is essential.”

Bhupatani said a fair equity framework should operate on two levels. First, it must guarantee that any individual, regardless of background, can seek redress if treated unfairly. Second, it should explicitly identify groups that face entrenched barriers — including lower castes and tribes, people with disabilities, and trans people — and build specific safeguards for them. He added that concerns about misuse could be addressed through clearer definitions, transparent procedures, trained inquiry committees, representation from diverse groups, and meaningful penalties for false or malicious complaints.

Kalki Subramaniam, a trans activist and artist, told the Blade that trans students face layered vulnerabilities — including social stigma, harassment, and systemic neglect — that often go unaddressed on campuses. When policies do not explicitly name them, she said, it signals that their struggles are not seen as warranting recognition, reinforcing isolation, and undermining their ability to access safe and dignified education.

“I have faced this and I really do not want this generation of transgender students to go through the same kind of exclusion and treatment,” said Subramaniam. “If the government truly believes in inclusive education, transgender students must be explicitly recognised in every policy conversation. Otherwise, we remain erased from the very spaces that claim to be suitable. We will certainly urge the government to ease and prioritise education for transgender community students.”

Subramaniam said limiting protections primarily to caste categories reflects a narrow approach to justice, noting that discrimination on campuses can also be shaped by gender, class, disability, and sexuality. She said a more expansive framework would protect any student facing discrimination, regardless of identity, and emphasized that equity must operate universally for campuses to function as spaces of learning rather than exclusion.

The Council for Global Equality and Physicians for Human Rights have filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department for PEPFAR-related data and documents.

The groups, which Democracy Forward represents, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Wednesday.

Then-President George W. Bush in 2003 signed legislation that created PEPFAR. UNAIDS Executive Director Winnie Byanyima last March said PEPFAR has saved 26 million lives around the world.

The Trump-Vance administration in January 2025 froze nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending for at least 90 days. Secretary of State Marco Rubio later issued a waiver that allowed PEPFAR and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during the freeze.

The Washington Blade has previously reported PEPFAR-funded programs in Kenya and other African countries have been forced to suspend services and even shut down because of gaps in U.S. funding. HIV/AIDS activists have also sharply criticized the Trump-Vance administration over reported plans it will not fully fund PEPFAR in the current fiscal year.

The lawsuit notes the Council for Global Equality and Physicians for Human Rights have “filed several FOIA requests” with the State Department for PEPFAR-related data and documents. The groups filed their most recent request on Jan. 30.

“On Jan. 30, 2026, plaintiffs, through counsel, sent State a letter asking it to commit to prompt production of the requested records,” reads the lawsuit. “State responded that the request was being processed but did not commit to any timeline for production.”

“Plaintiffs have received no subsequent communication from State regarding this FOIA request,” it notes.

“Transparency and inclusion have been hallmarks of PEPFAR’s success in the last decade,” said Beirne Roose-Snyder, a senior policy fellow at the Council for Global Equality, in a press release that announced the lawsuit. “This unprecedented withholding of data, and concurrent ideological misdirection of foreign assistance to exclude LGBTQI+ people and others who need inclusive programming, has potentially devastating and asymmetrical impacts on already marginalized communities.”

“This data is vital to understanding who’s getting access to care and who’s being left behind,” added Roose-Snyder.

“We filed this lawsuit to seek transparency: the administration’s PEPFAR data blackout withholds information the public, health providers, and affected communities need to track the HIV epidemic and prevent avoidable illness and death, obscuring the true human cost of these policy decisions,” said Physicians for Human Rights Research, Legal, and Advocacy Director Payal Shah.

The State Department has yet to respond to the Blade’s request for comment on the lawsuit.