National
Baldwin sees hope in 112th Congress
LGBT Equality Caucus meeting set for March 16
Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) (Blade photo by Michael Key)
Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) maintained this week that pro-LGBT legislation could see progress in the Democratic-controlled Senate during the 112th Congress as prospects of movement are unlikely in the Republican-controlled House.
In an interview with the Washington Blade, the only out lesbian in Congress said she sees room for progress on pro-LGBT bills in the Senate, where Democrats retained control following the mid-term elections.
“There’s still a prospect with a Democratically controlled Senate that bills could progress through committee and maybe even come to the floor, depending on the circumstances,” Baldwin said.
Baldwin said determining which pro-LGBT legislation would have a shot of passing the Senate is hard to say, but cited one bill that she previously sponsored that would extend health and pension benefits to partners of LGBT federal employees.
“I think the Domestic Partnerships Benefits [& Obligations Act] could be one that might advance,” Baldwin said. “Obviously, they still have their 60-vote rule for advancing certain measures to the floor. But could something come up as an amendment to a bill that’s very likely to pass? Well, that remains to be seen.”
While Baldwin said the Senate could lead the way for pro-LGBT legislation in the 112th Congress, she said lawmakers who would introduce the bills have yet to determine the schedule for doing so.
“We’re having some initial discussions about timing, but as the bills have different co-sponsors, I think that different folks have their own timeline,” she said.
Even for her own Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act, Baldwin said the timing for introduction of her bill remains uncertain as House and Senate sponsors work on hammering out identical legislation.
“We just want to make sure that we’re on the same page with the Senate sponsors and introduce the bill in the same [form],” Baldwin said.
Baldwin also commended President Obama for his recent declaration that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and his decision to no longer defend the statute in court.
The Wisconsin lawmaker called the move a significant step toward DOMA’s “ultimate demise” and said it would bolster efforts to legislatively repeal the law. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) have announced they plan to introduce repeal legislation in the 112th Congress.
“In terms of the advancement of Congressman Nadler’s bill on repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, I expect that the president’s announcement and the administration’s decision will give it a boost and renewed attention,” Baldwin said. “Obviously, we should be working to repeal statutory measures that aren’t constitutional. I’m hoping that that will enable us to gather more co-sponsors than we’ve had in the past, and to draw attention to the topic of why it’s so necessary that we repeal this.”
Still, Baldwin expressed skepticism about the prospects of advancing DOMA repeal legislation to passage in the Republican-controlled House. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has convened a panel to direct House counsel to defend DOMA in court now that the Obama administration is no longer willing to defend it.
Despite Republican control of the House, Baldwin expressed continued optimism about the strength of the LGBT Equality Caucus, which she co-chairs along with the other three openly gay members of Congress, and said the group is only three lawmakers short of the membership it had in the 111th Congress before Democrats lost 63 seats in the chamber.
“That’s encouraging,” she said. “Even though we had these sweeping changes in House membership, we still have a very rock-solid core of people who are supporting equality.”
Baldwin said she expects the LGBT Equality Caucus to hold public events during the 112th Congress to highlight pro-LGBT legislation and discuss the members’ commitment to passing the bills.
One such meeting is already scheduled for March 16, when the caucus will host its first business meeting to honor its new chairs and vice chairs. Baldwin said the meeting will be open to the public.
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) — known as perhaps the most pro-LGBT House Republican — is the only GOP member of the LGBT Equality Caucus, but Baldwin said she’s courting other Republicans to sign on to the group now that they have control of the House.
“I’ve made it a personal goal during the next Congress to try to enroll a greater number of Republicans to our ranks,” Baldwin said. “We certainly know that there are some in the Republican caucus who do not wish it to remain the party of discrimination and hope that LGBT equality can become a bipartisan issue in the future.”
Among the GOP lawmakers that Baldwin said she may solicit to join the LGBT Equality Caucus is Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), who voted for an amendment to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in May even before the Pentagon report was released.
Also on Baldwin’s list is Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.), who has cast votes for hate crimes protection legislation, a version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as well as votes against a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Although Baldwin said she believes the prospects for sending legislation to President Obama’s desk are slim, she said she expects all 33 bills identified as pro-LGBT legislation from the previous Congress to make an appearance again.
“I certainly anticipate that all of the pro-LGBT equality legislation that was introduced in the last Congress will be reintroduced in this Congress with a focus on those bills to educate our colleagues and to enlist larger numbers of supporters for that legislation even if we anticipate that the Republican leadership will not allow those bills to advance,” Baldwin said.
Baldwin also said omnibus legislation that would encompass all the pro-LGBT measures from the previous Congress into one bill could be a way to highlight their importance. Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), the newest openly gay member of Congress, has said he wants to explore the possibility of introducing such legislation.
“I think that pointing out that discrimination still exists in many different arenas is a powerful and important point to keep on raising, and you can do so with legislation, you can do so with other means,” Baldwin said.
Still, Baldwin said she expects members of Congress who introduced the individual pro-LGBT bills to want to introduce them again and said omnibus legislation would work to complement those efforts.
“Any such omnibus bill would be in addition to a complement to the wonderful legislation that so many pro-equality colleagues have introduced,” Baldwin said.
Of all the pro-LGBT legislation that would be introduced in the 112th Congress, Baldwin expressed the greatest optimism about legislation that would eliminate the federal tax on employer-provided health benefits for same-sex partners. In the previous Congress, the legislation was known as the Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act.
Baldwin said work that gay GOP groups are doing to promote the legislation may give the bill “a slim chance.”
“I have been pleased to see both GOProud and Log Cabin Republicans make these tax equity issues a high priority,” Baldwin said. “Obviously, those organizations have some influence that we only hope increases over time. But, I think, probably if there were one legislative issue that there were rosier prospects for, that might be it.”
One possible vehicle for a measure that may see movement in the 112th Congress is reauthorization of the Elementary & Secondary Education Act. Gay rights supporters have been hoping this measure could pass with anti-bullying safeguards for LGBT students even with Republican control of the House.
Standalone legislation that would have addressed this issue was known as the Student Non-Discrimination Act and the Safe Schools Improvement Act in the 111th Congress.
Still, Baldwin expressed reservations about whether Republicans would agree to such a provision and said she has been discouraged by talk against anti-bullying efforts among her GOP colleagues.
“I have heard rhetoric from some of my Republican colleagues on the issue of anti-gay bullying that has disappointed me profoundly,” Baldwin said. “I would expect that if the Senate could include some language on anti-bullying measures, there would be some prospect to reach out to more reasonable-minded Republicans, but I certainly anticipate that there would be opposition.”
Additionally, talk in the Senate about restarting efforts to pass comprehensive immigration reform have given LGBT advocates hope that such legislation might include a provision to allow gay Americans to sponsor to sponsor their foreign same-sex partners for residency.
In the previous Congress, standalone legislation that would achieve such a goal was known as the Uniting American Families Act.
But Baldwin said she hasn’t yet gotten “a good read” on the prospects of passing comprehensive immigration reform at this stage in the 112th Congress — with or without the UAFA language.
“I know when the president mentioned it in his State of the Union address, I certainly saw some of my Republican colleagues either leap to their feet or express optimism about another attempt at passing comprehensive immigration reform,” Baldwin said. “But I would say that as we started our session, things have been quite divisive and whether this is the two-year term in which we can get it done or not is a big question mark to me.”
While generally pessimistic about the chances of passing pro-LGBT legislation this Congress, Baldwin also dismissed chances that anti-gay bills could make it into law.
The lawmaker said the Democratic-controlled Senate should be able to block the passage of anti-gay bills that pass the House — such as measures to repeal same-sex marriage in D.C. or thwart “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal — from making it to the president’s desk.
“We do know that at the federal level, we still have divided government,” Baldwin said. “While it would be a sad day for the representatives of the People’s House to pass any of these specific measures, we do know that their likelihood of being considered or embraced by the U.S. Senate is slim, and we also know that the president can exercise his veto if anything were to get to his desk.”
Massachusetts
EXCLUSIVE: Pressley rips State Department over LGBTQ rights rollbacks abroad
Massachusetts Democrat sent letter to Marco Rubio on Tuesday
Massachusetts Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley sent a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio urging the Trump-Vance administration to take urgent action to defend LGBTQ people across the globe; including in countries that are violating international human rights protections for LGBTQ individuals, putting at risk the safety of civilians and U.S. citizens working, living, and traveling abroad.
The letter, which the Washington Blade got an exclusive preview of prior to it’s sending, criticizes the Trump-Vance administration’s foreign policy direction at the State Department, arguing that it has moved to roll back LGBTQ protections that have long been part of the U.S.’s global human rights posture.
“Criminalizing LGBTQI+ individuals undermines democracy globally, as well as U.S. national security. Thus, we urge the State Department to take adequate measures to speak out against this criminalization and protect U.S. citizens abroad, including your staff, who may be detained or harmed under such laws, policies, and practices,” Pressley, a Democrat who represents roughly three-fourths of Boston and much of the city’s suburbs, said. “U.S. civilians, diplomatic personnel, military members, and nonprofit workers on the ground providing health care and disaster support will be affected and have their safety threatened if the U.S. does not take action. Even U.S. citizens perceived as being part of the LGBTQI+ community and traveling or living in those countries may be used as bargaining chips. This is a serious U.S. national security concern.”
In the letter, Pressley underscores what she describes as a global escalation in criminalization and violence against LGBTQ people, noting that one-third of countries still criminalize consensual same-sex sexual relationships and that 12 countries impose the death penalty. She argues that these conditions make LGBTQ travelers, diplomats, and aid workers particularly vulnerable, and calls on the State Department to reassert U.S. leadership in defending human rights abroad.
“Every person deserves to live authentically, yet several countries are violating international human rights laws that protect LGBTQI+ individuals,” she said. “One-third of countries around the world criminalize same-sex consensual acts between adults, and 12 countries allow LGBTQI+ people to be executed for being themselves.”
She also invokes the U.S. has played in promoting democratic values internationally, arguing that LGBTQ rights should remain central to that mission.
“Historically, the United States has played a critical diplomatic role in promoting democracy and freedom for all individuals, including LGBTQI+ persons. The U.S. should be a world leader promoting human rights domestically and globally.”
In a separate statement included in the letter, Pressley emphasized both the moral and national security implications of the issue, warning that rising anti-LGBTQ laws abroad are endangering lives and require a coordinated U.S. response.
“Every person deserves to show up as their true, authentic selves here in the United States and in countries across the globe — and that includes our LGBTQI+ community members,” she said.
“However, we are witnessing a deeply concerning rise in human rights violations and criminalization of LGBTQI+ individuals in other countries, endangering the lives of civilians and U.S. citizens. It is incumbent upon the United States to protect our LGBTQI+ siblings at home and abroad not only for our national security but for the safety and freedom of LGBTQI+ people everywhere.”
The letter goes on to press the State Department for concrete action, including a public reaffirmation of U.S. commitments to LGBTQ human rights, the restoration of LGBTQ analysis in annual country reports, and clearer guidance for Americans traveling abroad. It also seeks clarity on whether the department is tracking cases of U.S. citizens detained or harmed under anti-LGBTQ laws and what proactive steps are being taken to warn and protect LGBTQ travelers.
While she is not a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Pressley remains highly active in international affairs and global policy.
While the letter focuses on current policy, it also lands in the broader context of Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s long record on LGBTQ issues. Rubio, a former senator from Florida, has consistently opposed same-sex marriage, calling the federal Respect for Marriage Act, which he voted against, a “stupid waste of time.” He has also expressed support for efforts to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
During his time in the U.S. Senate and as a Florida political leader, Rubio has a long anti-LGBTQ track record. He defended state policies that LGBTQ advocates say target queer and transgender people, including Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law — commonly known by critics as “Don’t Say Gay” or “Don’t Say Trans” — which restricts classroom discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity.
He has also drawn criticism for his voting record, including a 0/100 score from the Human Rights Campaign’s Congressional Scorecard, reflecting opposition to expanding federal civil rights protections for LGBTQ people and for opposing adoption rights for same-sex couples.
Now serving as secretary of state, Rubio has overseen changes at the State Department that LGBTQ advocates say have reduced visibility and protections for transgender people, including the removal of trans-specific references from parts of the department’s public-facing materials and travel guidance. He has also been linked to broader restructuring efforts involving U.S. foreign assistance programs, including the U.S. Agency for International Development, which has historically supported global HIV prevention and LGBTQ rights initiatives in regions such as sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia, and Latin America.
Those cuts and shifts, critics argue, have weakened programs like PEPFAR — credited with saving millions of lives worldwide — and reduced U.S. support for LGBTQ communities facing persecution abroad. The program is credited with saving at least 25 million lives.
Pressley’s own record stands in contrast, with a 100/100 on HRC’s Congressional Scorecard and a long history of legislative and advocacy work centered on LGBTQ equality. In recent years, she has secured federal funding for The Pryde, an affordable housing development for LGBTQ seniors in Boston, and has repeatedly pushed for expanded civil rights protections, including support for the Equality Act and the Equal Rights Amendment.
She has also advanced policy efforts aimed at LGBTQ survivors of violence, trans, and nonbinary individuals navigating credit and legal systems, and broader protections under housing and civil rights law — framing her work as part of a sustained effort to ensure LGBTQ people are included in federal policy at every level.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court upholds state laws banning trans athletes from sports teams
Justices heard oral arguments in two cases in January
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld state laws that ban transgender athletes from school sports teams that correspond with their gender identity.
The justices in January heard oral arguments in two cases — Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. — that challenged laws in Idaho and West Virginia respectively.
Both cases question the constitutionality of laws from both states that block trans girls from participating on girls’ teams at publicly funded schools — specifically if these bans violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. Since 2020, 27 states have banned transgender youth from playing school sports.
In a 6-3 decision made on party lines, the conservative justices asserted that laws prohibiting trans women and girls from participating in sports programs at publicly funded schools does not violate either constitutionally protected right. Notably the ruling does not require any state to categorically bar transgender girls from participating on girls’ sports teams, or transgender boys from participating on boys’ sports teams.
In the majority for the case, Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the opinion. It holds that schools can determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports teams based on biological sex. It also holds that West Virginia did not violate Title IX, which bars educational programs that receive federal funding from discriminating based on sex.
“Consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, we hold that the States may maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females. They may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex,” Kavanaugh wrote. “The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women’s and girls’ sports throughout America.”
The Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett joined Kavanaugh’s majority opinion. It permissibly maintains female sports for biological females.
In his conclusion, Kavanaugh shares his belief of the importance of sports to women and girls but also a caution that “[n]o student-athlete on either side of the issue … deserves to be ostracized or vilified.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor opinion was concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. Justices Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Sotomayor’s opinion.
In her dissent, Sotomayor explains that the majority opinion, while attempting to protect one groups Constitutional rights (those assigned women at birth), it puts another group’s constitutional rights (trans women) at its expense and in principle violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
“Because the majority, however, inflicts a hardship on those it disfavors without giving them the fair and full opportunity the Constitution requires to litigate their contentions, I respectfully dissent,” Sotomayor wrote, eventually pointing to how the states had evaluated issues of trans sports participants prior to these bans as evidence of general omission. “The ban eliminated this individualized approach in favor of categorical exclusion.”
She also pointed out that these rules to not equally exclude, further bolstering her argument that the majority opinion was not created with the truest sense of the Equal Protection Clause at its center.
“Teams “designated” for “females” “shall not be open to students of the male sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport.” Teams “designated” for “males” do not have the same restriction.”
Jackson wrote in her dissent that this ban does explicitly allow for sex discrimination in any school or education program that receives federal funding.
“A transgender woman penalized for being perceived as aggressive has experienced discrimination ‘on the basis of sex’ just as much as a cisgender woman has, no matter that the transgender woman’s behavior matches expectations of her sex assigned at birth,” Jackson said. “Either way, the institution has imposed its gender-based expectations upon her. And either way, the institution may have violated Title IX.”
In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the case centers on B.P.J., a trans girl who was barred from competing on her school’s girls’ cross-country and track teams under West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act, enacted in 2021. Under the law, it requires participation to be based on the athlete’s biological sex as indicated on their original birth certificate issued at the time of birth.
In Little v. Hecox, the details are slightly different, but ask the same 14th Amendment and Title IX questions but against Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act. In this case Hecox, a trans woman and student at Boise State University wished to join the women’s cross-country team, but couldn’t under the law. She, with a cisgender athlete filed a suit against the governor, arguing the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment explicitly protects their rights to participate on the woman’s team.
Trans rights activists have criticized the highest court in the land’s decision, highlighting it legally allows for discrimination based on gender identity — something they argue is a foundational element of the spirit of the Equal Protection Clause.
Jennifer Levi, senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights at GLAD Law outright called the six conservative justices view of Equal Protection and Title IX as “wrong.”
“Today’s ruling gets it wrong. And it’s kids who will suffer for it. By upholding these blanket bans, the Supreme Court has allowed states to deny students even the chance to try out for a school team, simply because they are transgender,” Levi told the Washington Blade in a statement. “Policies that categorically bar students don’t advance fairness; they mandate exclusion.”
She continued, pointing out excluding some for the protection of others does not ensure fairness as the justices are arguing in their opinion.
“When a law bars every transgender girl regardless of age, hormones, or physiology, it isn’t about competitive fairness. It’s about keeping transgender kids out. We can protect women’s sports without doing that. Most of the country already does.”
Chris Erchull, senior staff attorney at GLAD Law, pointed out that while disappointing, the court does not mandate discrimination as the policy.
“This ruling does not require any state to follow West Virginia’s or Idaho’s cruel, overly-broad approach, and it does not mandate categorical bans on transgender students participating in school sports,” Erchull said. “It also leaves intact broader nondiscrimination protections for transgender students in education, including Title IX’s protections against sex discrimination for LGBTQ+ students. Discrimination has no place in our schools, and we can and should ensure that every student has the opportunity to learn, to thrive, and to know that they belong.”
Sasha Buchert, senior attorney and director of the Nonbinary and Transgender Rights Project at Lambda Legal, also emphasized the bad faith argument the majority opinion pushes for the sake of one exclusionary view of the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX.
“This ruling is deeply harmful for transgender women and girls who only asked for the ability to participate in sports with their peers,” Buchert said. “Countless studies have demonstrated the myriad benefits that come with participation in team sports. Now, one population, transgender youth and collegians, are targeted for specific and baseless discrimination. We will not be deterred and will continue to fight back to secure the equal participation that all youth, including transgender youth, deserve.”
Joshua Block, senior counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union’s LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project also echoed the lasting negative impact this ruling will have for trans Americans.
“This is a heartbreaking ruling for our clients and transgender girls like them who’ve asked for nothing more than the same opportunities afforded to their peers.” Block said. “The reality is that the equality of transgender women and girls takes nothing away from, and in fact promotes, the equality of all women and girls. We will continue to advance the fundamental principle that all young people deserve equal opportunity to thrive and succeed.”
Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, who himself is trans, issued a statement, reassuring that while upon face value the decision seems to undermine the rights of trans sports participants, it does not make that the rule.
“Today’s limited decision means that states and schools across the country still have the power to make reasonable rules to ensure fairness without banning all transgender girls,” said Minter. “Like other health or medical considerations in sports, reasonable policies for transgender student athletes rely on individual assessments rather than blanket bans. Every child deserves the chance to play sports with their friends and learn the lessons sports teach, including determination, resilience, and teamwork.”
Kelly O’Neill, an attorney for Legal Voice’s from Idaho also provided a statement to the Blade.
“It is profoundly unfair to deny a young person the benefits of teamwork and dedication because of who they are,” O’Neill said. “We should be removing barriers for girls and women in sports, not creating new ones.”
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson came to a similar conclusion.
“No kid — not my kid, not your kid, not any kid — deserves to be discriminated against. Yet this ruling is heartbreaking for transgender student athletes who are being forced to sit on the sidelines simply for who they are. When politicians convince the public that any girl could be ‘the wrong kind of girl,’ they invite harassment, intimidation, invasive questioning, or even an inspection of their body by a total stranger,” Robinson wrote in a statement shared with the Blade. “It’s sadly just the latest decision by the conservative justices on the Supreme Court to roll back protections for marginalized communities and create a second class citizenship for millions of people. We are sacrificing the dignity, privacy, and safety of America’s young people to solve a problem that was manufactured and exploited for political gain … We must continue this fight with full force until freedom, justice and equal opportunity are not flimsy promises, but nationwide guarantees.”
GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis, who presides over the world’s largest LGBTQ media advocacy organization, issued a statement on the ruling.
“This decision is at odds with the fundamental principles of fairness, freedom, and family that define our country and our communities. By allowing sweeping restrictions on a very small number of transgender students who simply wanted to participate in sports alongside their peers, the ruling creates an unnecessarily unfair playing field,” Ellis said. “Personal freedom and opportunity are best served when our legal protections expand access and guarantee safety for everyone. Today’s decision unfairly strips the rights of a few and threatens the ability of every girl and woman to play the sports they love.”
On the other side of the ideological isle, U.S. Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) applauded the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the state’s women and girl trans sport ban. In a statement the Republican called the court’s conservative view of as a win for “women, fairness, and the Gem State.”
“Idaho was the first state in the nation to ban biological men from competing in women’s sports and uphold the opportunities Title IX promised more than 50 years ago,” Risch said in a statement. “The Supreme Court’s decision affirms those protections and the generations of women who fought for fair, equal athletics.”
California
Gay Calif. lawmaker confronted during San Francisco Trans Pride over Gaza stance
State Sen. Scott Wiener running for Nancy Pelosi’s seat
A video posted on X by user Dimitry Yakoushkin of the incident went viral, showing gay California state Sen. Wiener (D-San Francisco) being chased out of Dolores Park, while the group screamed at him. Multiple people in the protest group were wearing black ski masks that concealed their identities.
Wiener is contending to take over Nancy Pelosi’s seat in Congress in the upcoming November general election.
The video started off with Yakoushkin, a local activist, highlighting how great Wiener’s LGBTQ policies and lawmaking work are. As Yakoushkin started to criticize Wiener about his housing policies, others started to gather around the politician.
Yakoushkin and the group quickly transitioned to yelling at him about his stance on the genocide in Gaza.
“You’ve been wonderful for trans people, and … you’ve been terrible on Gaza,” Yakoushkin is heard saying in the video. “You do not belong here (at Trans Pride) anymore, Scott.”
“I want to support someone who’s so positive on trans rights, but you’re a piece of sh*t on Gaza,” he says later in the video. “How could you do that?”
Other protestors shouted obscenities that were hard to distinguish from, but some that jumped out included cries of “f*ck you” and “You’re a piece of sh*t.”
When it was clear this would not be a one-and-done criticism, Wiener is seen on video pivoting to exit Dolores Park, with the group following behind until Wiener was out of the park.
The video garnered over 12 million views as of Monday.
Scott Wiener showed up to the trans march and for the first time we kicked his ass out. It's sad because while he's written some good legislation for queers, hes ultimately a genocidal-supporting center right shill. Trigger warning: broken man walking away defeated. Vote Connie! pic.twitter.com/TXIB7omxde
— Dimitry Yakoushkin (@decadimitry) June 27, 2026
In early January of this year, Wiener declined to call Israel’s actions in Gaza a genocide during a congressional debate forum, as many other politicians have.
A week later, on Jan. 11, Wiener reversed that decision.
“For years, I’ve condemned (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu and his extremist government and the devastation they’ve inflicted on Gaza,” Wiener posted on X. “It’s why I’ve been clear I won’t support U.S. funding for the destruction of Palestinian communities. I’ve stopped short of calling it genocide, but I can’t anymore.”
This was after two years of Israeli bombing that led to thousands of Palestinian deaths in the Gaza Strip, following the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas.
After Friday’s incident, Wiener posted a statement, calling it “physical intimidation and harassment” by “people who had previously targeted” him with “aggressive behavior in the past.”
“Last night I attended the Trans March, as I’ve done each year for the past 22 years since the first march in 2004,” the statement said. “I attend each year in solidarity with our trans siblings, who are facing existential threats from right-wing extremists, including the President.”
“I have no objection whatsoever to anyone disagreeing with me, opposing me, or protesting me.
“All of that is core to democracy,” the statement continued. “I also have no issue when people talk to me on the street and ask questions or express opposition. That’s democracy, even when the people engaging in this conduct misrepresent my views. But when opposition and disagreement transition to harassment, including cornering me, touching me, or trying to physically bully me out of a public event, that crosses a line.”
Wiener’s congressional opponent, Supervisor Connie Chan, appeared to march without any incident.
Many critics of Wiener took to social media to point out that Wiener posted this statement and used it as a fundraising opportunity, while not posting about the heavy police presence and arrests during San Francisco’s Pride weekend.
Independent journalist Jersey Noah made an Instagram post to Wiener saying, “What do you have to say about (San Francisco Police Department) assaulting and arresting trans people on the public streets of San Francisco for two consecutive nights? Because you haven’t said a… word.”
This is not the first time a politician has been ousted from San Francisco’s Trans Pride festivities, according to San Francisco-based outlet Mission Local.
Past politicians forced to leave over the last decade include Mayor Daniel Lurie, then-Mayor Ed Lee, City Attorney David Chiu, and then-state Sen Mark Leno, according to Mission Local.
Yakoushkin said the protest was spontaneous, saying, “It was not planned, I was walking home, and I saw him from a distance and I got my camera out to start filming,” according to Mission Local.
The California Senate Democratic Caucus and California LGBTQ+ Caucus made a joint statement of support for Wiener, denouncing the verbal harassment toward Wiener as “unacceptable.”
“Senator Wiener has spent the last 16 years in service to San Francisco,” their statement said. “In that time, he has been a fearless champion for the LGBTQ+ community even when it was not politically popular, leading on landmark legislation advancing the rights and protections for transgender, gender Expansive, and intersex people. He is a steadfast advocate for his communities.
“In California, we believe everyone deserves dignity and respect, regardless of political differences,” the statement continued.
Santiago Pride march doubles as protest against new Chilean president
PHOTOS: Frederick Pride Festival
EXCLUSIVE: Pressley rips State Department over LGBTQ rights rollbacks abroad
Longtime Blade staffer Stephen Rutgers steps down after 14 years
‘Girlfriends’ wanted for murder in Silver Spring arrested in Ohio
‘Leviticus’ demonizes homophobia for gripping queer horror yarn
Orioles take on Nats for Pride Night
11 years after Obergefell, marriage equality remains under scrutiny
Comings & Goings
Federal officials launch Title IX probe into Md. schools over trans athletes
-
Movies4 days ago‘Leviticus’ demonizes homophobia for gripping queer horror yarn
-
Out & About4 days ago
Orioles take on Nats for Pride Night
-
U.S. Supreme Court4 days ago
11 years after Obergefell, marriage equality remains under scrutiny
-
Maryland4 days ago
Federal officials launch Title IX probe into Md. schools over trans athletes
