Politics
Floyd Abrams: GOP-backed Fla. bill targeting the press is ‘plainly inconsistent with’ First Amendment
LGBTQ groups have criticized measure
A bill by Florida Republicans that would relax the standards required for public officials to sue journalists and media organizations for libel is “plainly inconsistent with the First Amendment” according to the acclaimed attorney and constitutional law expert Floyd Abrams.
“The statute is a frontal attack” on the U.S. Supreme Court’s longstanding interpretation of the principles “governing First Amendment libel law as it currently exists,” Abrams told the Washington Blade by phone on Wednesday.
Abrams has represented parties in litigation before the Supreme Court more than a dozen times in some of the most important and high-profile First Amendment cases brought over the last 50 years, which has led to landmark rulings including on matters governing press freedoms.
Abrams is senior counsel at Cahill Gordon and Reindel, the multinational law firm where he has worked since 1963. He is widely considered among the country’s preeminent litigators and experts in constitutional law and was described by the late diplomat and U.S. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) as “the most significant First Amendment lawyer of our age.”
With this Florida statute, Abrams said it appears Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and his conservative allies in the legislature are making “an effort to come up with something which will lead the Supreme Court to take another look” at its 1964 ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan, which established that the First Amendment confers certain protections for the press against libel lawsuits by public figures.
The ruling, reaffirmed and developed in subsequent cases over the years, acts as a bulwark preventing powerful public figures including elected officials from weaponizing lawsuits or the threat of litigation to silence or censor reporters and news organizations.
DeSantis and Florida’s GOP legislators are hardly out of step with leaders in the Republican Party including former President Donald Trump, who repeatedly pledged to change the libel laws so he could more easily sue media companies.
When Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska and 2008 vice presidential candidate, sued the New York Times for libel in 2016, the paper wrote that advocates for weakening the press’ protections against libel lawsuits were “more emboldened now than at any point” since the Sullivan case. They have ideological allies in the right-wing legal establishment, too: In 2021, conservative Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch expressed an interest in revisiting the court’s ruling in Sullivan.
Supreme Court unlikely to revisit longstanding approach to First Amendment, libel law
Abrams said if the Florida bill is signed into law, given that “virtually any entity, which reports the news would be imperiled by this statute,” he can envision legal challenges from a variety of entities, from groups like the “ACLU to the Reporters’ Committee [for Freedom of the Press] to organizations of journalists to newspapers.” Litigation over the law’s constitutionality could, of course, reach the Supreme Court.
At the same time, Abrams said he doubts there is much appetite among the justices to abrogate or weaken the decades-old ruling in Sullivan, which stipulates that to bring a successful libel case against the press, public officials must first prove the offending material was defamatory and then show it was published with “actual malice,” either with the knowledge that it was false or with “reckless disregard” for whether it was true.
“I would be very surprised if Chief Justice Roberts is in favor of revisiting New York Times against Sullivan because he has been a strong First Amendment defender,” Abrams said, and based on “Justice Kavanaugh’s opinions when he was on the Court of Appeals, I would be surprised if he is prepared to challenge” Sullivan.
Abrams conceded “there may be more reasons to think that one or more conservative jurists” on the Supreme Court could be convinced to join Thomas and Gorsuch’s calls to reconsider libel protections for the press. Working against this effort, however, is the extent to which the Florida statute is inconsistent from the court’s analysis of the relevant legal questions, Abrams said.
Examples, he said, include: (1) the proposal’s narrowing of the parameters used to define certain plaintiffs as “public figures” for purposes of First Amendment libel law, a distinction that carries a higher burden of proof than that which is required of private citizens suing members of the press; (2) its treatment of information attributed to anonymous sources as presumably false, a finding that plaintiffs claiming defamation would otherwise be required to prove; and (3) its characterization as inherently defamatory any accusations published by the press of discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity.
The statute’s presumption that material attributed to anonymous sources is false would undermine the method by which the courts evaluate libel claims brought by public figures, Abrams said: “The Supreme Court has certainly made clear that the legal test requires the party suing to demonstrate the newspaper [or] journalist didn’t believe what he or she was saying.”
Put differently, Abrams said, the analysis turns on the defendant’s state of mind “as a basis for determining if the alleged libel of a public figure is actionable.”
Therefore, Abrams said, to “have a flat presumption that any use of confidential sources will be held against the journalist is inconsistent” with the type of claims that might “lead the Supreme Court to take another look at the law” established with Sullivan.
Censoring criticism of anti-LGBTQ discrimination
Likewise with the legislation’s provision that the press’s accusation of discrimination by a public official would constitute prima facie evidence of defamation, Abrams said “The Supreme Court has said more than once, and often in the voice of conservative jurists, that such speech is protected by the First Amendment.”
Florida’s statute goes even further, however. Per the substantial truth doctrine, a defendant accused of defamation can avoid legal liability by showing that the gist of the material at issue in the complaint was true. Under the proposed bill, a journalist who is sued for publishing accusations of discrimination (now considered inherently defamatory) may not cite as evidence of their truth (or substantial truth) the public official’s membership in any religious or scientific organization — even if that organization has a documented pattern and practice of discrimination, or well-known views that are unambiguously sexist, racist or anti-LGBTQ.
The bill’s apparent effort to censor media coverage of discrimination by public officials raised red flags with LGBTQ groups like GLAAD, whose president, Sarah Kate Ellis said, in a statement shared with the Blade on Wednesday: “Those spewing harmful and inaccurate words do not have the support for their dangerous rhetoric and policies, and they’re rightfully afraid they’ll be held accountable by voters and a free press that accurately reports on efforts to scapegoat and target vulnerable people.”
“This bill is another futile attack on LGBTQ Floridians, a sign of full-blown panic against a rising tide of acceptance for LGBTQ people and for the full equality of women, people of color and queer people of color,” Ellis said.
Jon Harris Maurer, an attorney who serves as public policy director for Equality Florida, the state’s largest LGBTQ advocacy organization, told the Blade by phone on Thursday that based on the alignment of DeSantis and Republicans in the legislature, chances are the bill will be signed into law.
Maurer said Florida’s Republican lawmakers, with supermajorities in both chambers, “have made clear they are prioritizing Gov. DeSantis’ legislative agenda.” At, or at least near, the top of that agenda is the state’s proposal to weaken libel protections for journalists, Maurer said, noting DeSantis’ decision to convene a recent roundtable discussion on the matter where speakers explained their reasons for wanting the Supreme Court to revisit Sullivan.
Other recent high-priority policy items for DeSantis and his allies have focused on using “the LGBTQ community to score political points with a far-right presidential primary base,” Maurer said. Florida’s governor, state lawmakers, or other officials might find the press coverage of these matters unflattering, Maurer said, but that hardly means the coverage is false or even defamatory.
So, the proposal to relax the standards required for public officials to sue reporters and media organizations for libel “is intended to have a chilling effect on media, particularly media that would be critical of Gov. DeSantis and those who share his positions,” Maurer said.
Maurer agreed with Abrams that the bill’s proponents likely have their sights set on the Supreme Court — and that the proposal, as currently written, is totally inconsistent with the court’s treatment of First Amendment libel law.
If the bill is signed into law and litigation over its constitutionality reaches the Supreme Court, Maurer declined to speculate what the outcome might be. The court’s conservative justices have scrapped longstanding precedent in other recent cases, he said, noting last year’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that revoked the constitutional right to abortion first established in 1973 with Roe v. Wade.
Removing protections for confidentiality of anonymous sources
Particularly in circumstances that raise national security concerns, the U.S. government has sometimes sought to prevent news organizations from publishing sensitive information in their possession or issued subpoenas demanding that journalists reveal the identities of the confidential sources who leaked it to them.
In 1971, Abrams successfully represented the Times before the Supreme Court in a landmark First Amendment case challenging the Nixon administration’s claims of executive authority to suppress the paper’s publication of confidential documents. The court’s ruling allowed the Times and other organizations to publish the material, known as the Pentagon Papers, which revealed the Johnson administration had “systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress” about America’s political and military involvement in Vietnam.
The government employee responsible for providing the documents to the Times was charged with espionage, though the charges were later dismissed.
The Supreme Court ruled in the 1972 case Branzburg v. Hayes that the First Amendment does not protect reporters from being called to testify before grand juries, but the government must “convincingly show a substantial relation between the information sought and a subject of overriding and compelling state interest.”
The decision was cited by Judge Thomas Hogan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in his 2004 memorandum opinion rejecting a motion to rescind grand jury subpoenas issued to two reporters, one represented by Abrams, in connection with criminal investigations of leaks that had revealed the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson (in what became known as the “Plame affair”).
Abrams’ client, who had not published a story about Plame but learned she was working as a covert CIA operative through a confidential government source, served several months in jail for her refusal to reveal his identity as demanded by the subpoena.
Some courts have upheld the concept that journalists have a constitutional right to conceal the identities of their sources, and some states and jurisdictions have codified these rulings with so-called “shield laws,” which vary in the extent of their protections afforded to members of the press.
Florida’s proposed statute, in addition to presuming that published information attributed to anonymous sources is false, would revoke the state’s shield laws that protect journalists’ right to keep their identities confidential.
Politics
In Trump’s divided America, Michael Weinstein’s AHF responds
PART 1 | Group helps Venezuela, president on Democratic Socialists, Fla. march
As the United States of America acknowledges her 250th birthday, too many Americans are partying with fewer family and friends because their wallets and their patriotic hearts just aren’t in it. Meanwhile, the president is using taxpayer dollars to finance ugly pet projects, and a war of choice with Iran that no one wants, and Congress didn’t authorize, while We the People just watch an uncontrolled Trump train speeding through American lives.
Theoretically, this is nothing new. Since the nation’s founding in 1776, individuals have struggled with where to place their allegiance to best uphold their personal freedom and protect the collective unity of the country.
But now the simple democracy-project premise “of the people, by the people, and for the people” has been upended and subverted by Donald Trump, the amoral corrupt 47th president who is using the once independent Justice Department to bypass “due process” and pursue retribution against his enemies — especially around his baseless 2020 election claims — while rewarding his Jan. 6 army of criminal loyalists with pardons and a proposed $1.8 billion “anti-Weaponization” slush fund, now temporarily blocked by a federal judge.
There have been amoral and ineffectual presidents in the past, as well as arrogant presidents who wielded power inhumanely, such as Andrew Jackson, who defied the Supreme Court and oversaw the Indian Removal Act, and Rutherford B. Hayes, who pulled troops out of the South, effectively ending the post-Civil War Reconstruction era. And there have been dangerous, outright liars like Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, and Warren G. Harding, whose Teapot Dome Scandal in his administration may have killed him.
But American history has never seen such a profoundly corrupt con artist who has taken over the federal government, installing ideological autocratic loyalists intent on expanding Trump’s power in the Supreme Court and Congress — the second and third branches of government intended to provide checks and balances to an overreaching Executive.
And now, in allegiance to White Supremacy and Christian Nationalism, Trump is trying to claim the right and power to decide who gets to claim citizenship, how he can pre-determine the outcome of elections through gaslighting and disinformation, and how he can make American residents afraid and silently complicit by not challenging his blatant racism, sexism, and transphobia.
New York Times columnist M. Gessen writes: “Read the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on transgender athletes — the majority’s decision, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and the dissent, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor — and you will see the members of the court arguing about something more fundamental than the law. They are arguing about who should be seen, whose story ought to be heard, and who deserves to be protected.”
AIDS Healthcare Foundation co-founder and President Michael Weinstein might add that deciding who lives and dies is fundamental, too. The nonprofit is the world’s largest provider of HIV medical care, cutting-edge medicine, and advocacy regardless of ability to pay with 3 million in care and 50 countries served.
AHF has a history of acting quickly with coalitions when there is a need. For that, Weinstein was honored by the Los Angeles Urban League on June 24 with the John W. Mack Legacy Award during the annual Whitney M. Young Jr. Awards Celebration.
“The Los Angeles Urban League is proud to present the John W. Mack Legacy Award to Michael Weinstein — transformative leader, fearless advocate, and champion for health equity and human rights,” they wrote in their announcement on Facebook.
“As founder and president of AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Michael Weinstein has led one of the largest global HIV/AIDS medical care providers in the world, expanding access to treatment, housing, prevention, and advocacy for underserved communities. His bold leadership has saved lives while challenging stigma and systemic inequities in healthcare,” they continued.
“For decades, he has stood at the intersection of public health and social justice — building systems of care that affirm dignity, expand access, and ensure that the most vulnerable are not left behind. His unwavering advocacy reflects the very principles that guide the Los Angeles Urban League’s mission: advancing equity, protecting opportunity, and strengthening communities,” they said. “In many ways, his work echoes the legacy of Whitney M. Young Jr. — courageous leadership rooted in policy, partnership, and a belief that justice must be both spoken and enacted.”
Interestingly, on June 24, the night the Urban League celebrated Weinstein as “a leader whose impact continues to shape a more just and compassionate future,” two consecutive 7.2 and 7.5 magnitude earthquakes struck northern Venezuela, killing and injuring thousands.
Interim President Delcy Rodríguez later called the earthquakes the “most brutal natural catastrophe” in Venezuela’s history.
In a horrific twist of fate, the BBC reported that ICE had deported more than 140 Venezuelans back to their home country on June 24, where they were housed in a hotel near the coast. The massive quakes struck there hours later, killing at least 2,200 people, injuring more than 10,000, and, according to UN figures, leaving 50,000 missing.
On July 2, the Venezuelan government estimated that 2,295 people died in the earthquakes, with another 11,000 injured.
“However, that’s believed to be a vast undercount. Gianluca Rampolla del Tindaro, the United Nations’ humanitarian coordinator for Venezuela, said the organization was procuring 10,000 body bags. And U.N. emergency relief coordinator Tom Fletcher called an estimate of 50,000 missing people ‘terrifyingly plausible,’” PBS reported.
Remember when Trump said the U.S. will ‘run’ Venezuela after capturing Maduro in surprise military strike?
Meanwhile, the Associated Press reported that Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested 10,000 people over a five-day period at the end of June — that’s roughly 2,000 arrests per day — continuing Trump’s mass deportations agenda. No news about where they might be sent.

But while Trump is wildly spinning about his Fourth of July plans, AHF is in Venezuela, actively helping those in desperate need.
“The number of fatalities continues to rise, and many shelters have been set up in public spaces to help those in need. Hospitals and morgues are working tirelessly beyond their capacity, demonstrating the community’s resilience. Fortunately, international rescue teams have arrived, offering much-needed assistance to recover those still trapped in the debris. Venezuela’s government response has been uncoordinated, poor, and delayed, influenced by political interests,” AIDS Healthcare Foundation Latin America Bureau Chief Patricia Campos wrote to Weinstein on June 29.

“Despite the communication challenges, our team from AHF Colombia has been communicating with 600 of the 1080 of our patients in care who live in Venezuela. We are continuing to search for the 480 others to be sure they are alive or to support them,” Campos concluded, noting that AHF´s Emergency Aid supplies arrived with 11/13 Foundation and distribution was underway.
In an hour-long Zoom interview, Weinstein talked about a number of issues, including his long association with U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a self-described Socialist, and the New York races that just yielded three Democratic Socialist candidates (Part 1) and his long, successful fight against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s HIV/AIDS cuts (Part 2).
Check out the video interview here.
“Well, as a native New Yorker,” Weinstein says, “the election in New York is a clash between the corporate Democrats and, particularly, a younger generation, with the exception of Bernie. It’s an epic change, right? And I would say that younger people who powered this (New York Mayor) Mamdani, AOC (New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez), and the rest of the movement do not feel that they have a stake in the system the way it is, right? And so, they’re willing to look at more radical answers.
“And this really is similar to the 1930s, you know, whereby when [President Franklin D.] Roosevelt came to office, who was a blue blood, right? He basically said, ‘in order to save the system, we have to move in the direction of socialism.’ He may not have called it that, but that’s essentially what it was,” Weinstein says.
“I mean, the model for democratic socialism is essentially Scandinavian and Northern European countries, right? Which is, essentially, a capitalist system that has a strong safety net, or basically says, ‘we’re going to tax the rich heavily in order to maintain a minimum level of existence for everyone.’
“So that’s basically what Bernie is espousing, and what Mamdani and others are espousing. And I don’t take too seriously … the characterizations that Trump has of them being Communist, et cetera, et cetera.”
Weinstein, longtime Latina activist Dolores Huerta, and an expected crowd of thousands in an AHF-created coalition are participating in a We The People March for Freedom in Trump’s Florida backyard on July 3.
“At a time in our nation when healthcare is being rationed, and rents are outpacing wages, teachers are working second jobs, and rural hospitals are closing, we must continue to stand up for what’s right for all Americans. July 4, 2026, marks 250 years since the Declaration of Independence. The We the People March for Freedom is not just an event to celebrate this document or its declaration of independence, but the night before the fireworks, to remind America what and who it’s for,” stated Esteban Wood, AHF director of advocacy and legislative affairs and March for Freedom coordinator.
This is a cross-post from Ocamb’s LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters Substack.
Politics
Buttigieg says false report temporarily separated him from his children
Michigan State Police corroborated his account
Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg on Friday recounted being separated from his children following an anonymous police report later determined to be false.
The openly gay former mayor of South Bend, Ind., and current 2028 presidential contender was accused of posing a danger to his children and was not allowed to be with his four-year-old twins until after interviews were conducted.
Buttigieg went public with this account on his Substack, sharing how a woman anonymously — and falsely — accused him of posing a danger to his children.
“The caller said that he had spoken to a woman who claimed to have met me at a conference several years ago in Alabama, where she said I told her that I had committed unspeakable violent crimes, and the caller believed my children were still at risk,” Buttigieg wrote in a post he titled “A Terrible Thing Happened to My Family.” “I am a reasonable man. I try to keep as calm and low-key as possible. But I cannot describe the mix of rage and sadness that I feel at the idea that someone brought our children into this.”
Michigan State Police spoke to the BBC following Buttigieg sharing his story.
“The Michigan State Police and Child Protective Services responded and determined the report was false.”
The statement also went on to explain that these types of false reports were “dangerous” and divert “workers from responding to legitimate emergencies and protecting vulnerable children and families.”
In that post recounting the ordeal, Buttigieg continued, saying that it was “among the darkest hours of my life,” and pointed out that his children should not be subjected to this type of harassment as a circumstance of his own place in the national political spotlight.
“They are four years old. Four. They do not know or care what a Democrat or a Republican is.”
He finished his post:
“We cannot let American politics keep going in this direction. And we must not all go on as if it’s acceptable for this kind of thing to be part of the cost of entering public service.”
“Most importantly, Chasten and I will continue to pour ourselves into the joyful and demanding work of raising and educating our two children. Being their parents is the best thing in our lives. They are just children, kids who deserve the best upbringing that their parents can provide, who mean more to us than anything, whom we love beyond words and will do anything to protect, and whose right to a safe and happy childhood deserves absolute and unconditional respect.”
In response to the story Buttigieg shared on his Substack, Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, released the following statement:
“I know how I would feel if someone tried to come between me and my kids. This is truly bottom-of-the-barrel stuff. It takes an awful, hateful person to question someone’s fitness as a parent just because of who they are, who they love, or in Sec. Buttigieg’s case, perhaps even who he speaks out against politically. We’re thinking of Pete, Chasten, and their whole family in this moment — and we aren’t resting until all LGBTQ+ families have the kind of safety and justice every one of us deserves.”
Buttigieg was transportation secretary during the Biden-Harris administration.
The Washington Blade reached out to Michigan State Police to ask if any disciplinary actions would be imposed on the woman who made the false report, but was told to file a FOIA request to view the full report. the story will be updated as new information is shared.
2026 Midterm Elections
LGBTQ political candidates see surge in threats, harassment: report
Majority fear physical attack, discouraging them from running
A new study reveals that LGBTQ candidates running for public office are seeing an unprecedented amount of harassment and threats as President Trump and his far-right MAGA supporters continue to strip protections for minority groups at all levels of government.
The LGBTQ+ Victory Institute, the nation’s largest LGBTQ candidate training and leadership organization, recently partnered with Loyola Marymount University to collect data on the rising political violence experienced by LGBTQ candidates. The organization is closely affiliated with the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, its sister political action arm dedicated to helping LGBTQ candidates get elected.
The Washington Blade sat down with Evan Low, president and CEO of the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute and LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, to discuss what the data reveals about the climate LGBTQ candidates have found themselves in.
Low argued that the findings cannot be separated from the broader political environment facing LGBTQ Americans in 2026. Anti-transgender legislation continues to surge across the country while federal recognition of LGBTQ communities has diminished. This is the second consecutive year Trump has declined to recognize June as Pride month. He also made no public statement commemorating Juneteenth, the anniversary marking the emancipation of enslaved people in the United States.
The survey included 215 LGBTQ+ candidates who ran for office between 2023 and 2025 from 42 states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, D.C., and asked about their experiences while running for office.
The data, while not particularly surprising given the highly divisive political era we have been living through under Trump 2.0, contains stark findings showing that LGBTQ candidates are not only finding it more difficult to run for office — something protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments — but that it has also become increasingly dangerous for openly LGBTQ candidates to do so.
One of the report’s most significant findings focuses on what happens before an LGBTQ person’s name ever appears on a ballot or yard sign: widespread fear among prospective candidates. Nearly 9 in 10 candidates worried that running as an openly LGBTQ+ person would increase their risk of harassment or attack, while 4 in 5 feared physical violence.
Key Takeaways From the Data
Harassment Is the Norm — Not the Exception: Nearly two-thirds of LGBTQ candidates experienced in-person harassment, while nearly 8 in 10 faced online abuse, with many encountering it regularly.
The escalation from rhetoric to serious threats mirrors the current political climate. One in three candidates received death threats online, and one in seven experienced them in person, highlighting the severity of the current threat environment.
Campaigns Altered by Safety Concerns: More than half of candidates changed how or where they campaigned due to safety fears, and nearly 1 in 5 described the impact as significant — limiting public engagement and visibility.
Security Out of Reach: Fewer than 1 in 10 candidates could afford private security, even as threats escalated, underscoring a growing inequity in who can safely run for office.
Severe Mental Health Impact: Nearly two-thirds of candidates said attacks negatively impacted their mental health, with some reporting long-term trauma and lasting psychological effects.
“What we’re seeing is not just harassment, it’s a systemic challenge to participation,” said Elliot Imse, the now former executive director of LGBTQ+ Victory Institute. “When candidates are forced to change their behavior, limit public engagement, or reconsider running altogether because of safety concerns, that’s not just a personal issue — it’s a breakdown in the conditions required for a healthy democracy.”
“This isn’t theoretical — I, like so many LGBTQ+ candidates and elected leaders, have lived it,” said Daniel Hernandez, vice president of political programs at LGBTQ+ Victory Fund. “From surviving gun violence to having my own campaign office targeted, I know how real these threats are and how deeply they affect candidates, their teams, and their families. The LGBTQ+ Victory Institute has been doing this work for years — preparing candidates, supporting them through these challenges, and making sure they’re not facing it alone. This report makes clear the stakes are higher than ever. If we want people to step up and serve, we have to meet this moment with the resources, support, and commitment to their safety demands.”
Low, who before leading the Victory organizations was an openly gay elected official representing California’s 26th Assembly District, which includes portions of Silicon Valley and San Jose, views the findings as both a political violence issue and a threat to democracy itself.
“We’re living in a moment in a time in which the pendulum is swinging backwards,” Low told the Blade. “We’ve seen a historic amount of anti-LGBTQ+ legislative proposals across this country. So naturally, when members of our community are targeted, it gives that license then to be harassed and discriminated against accordingly. It absolutely is a challenge to democracy.”
The data also shows that LGBTQ candidates face unique barriers to entry — many of them financial. Low argued that reducing those barriers would help diversify candidate pools and create a more representative democracy.
“Does [the current system] disproportionately then impact and limit the segment within our populations to serve? The answer is absolutely yes. When you think about the increased challenges of a barrier to entry– that’s why we’re focused on doing the report in the first place. It also then goes to show the importance of how we utilize taxpayer dollars and budgets accordingly to help encourage and support members of the community to run for office.”
He used that point to emphasize the importance of the LGBTQ+ Victory Institute, not only in collecting data on these trends but also in helping LGBTQ candidates navigate them.
“That’s the fundamental reason why there’s the need for the Victory Fund of the Victory Institute,” he said. “It’s to say that the members of our community will not face this or run alone. They should know that there is a national network, a national organization that will be the wind in their sails to help guide them.”
So far in 2026, the Victory Fund has endorsed at least 249 candidates.
In addition to providing financial support, the Victory Institute helps LGBTQ candidates prepare for the realities of the campaign trail, including coping with harassment, threats, and personal security concerns.
Low expanded on what that reality looks like in 2026 as anti-transgender legislation continues to surge and federal recognition of LGBTQ communities has diminished.
“Part of that discussion is we don’t try to sugarcoat it,” he said when emphasizing the realities facing LGBTQ candidates. “We will speak truth about ‘Here’s how to put a campaign budget together’ and ‘Here’s best practices on public speaking.’ But also we have to deal with showing the unfortunate reality on ‘Here’s how to keep your family safe.’ ‘Here’s how to retain and keep in mind your mental health’…especially when you see members of our community being doxxed constantly by bots and such hate speech.”
He also highlighted the unique challenges facing transgender candidates running for office, particularly as hundreds of bills across the country continue to target transgender people.
“We hear that many times there may be individuals from the community, specifically the trans community, who may want to run for office, but their existence is criminalized, which is to say that they may live in a state or jurisdiction in which it’s criminal to exist; laws prohibiting them from being who they are,” Low said.
“When many of our candidates run for office, they are not running because they are trans, they’re not running because they’re gay or a member of their community, they’re running to advance the quality of life on the key issues on housing affordability, health care, education, you name it, and so these are the campaign issues, but the challenge exists as well.”
Those pressures often lead candidates to question whether running for office is worth the personal toll.
“Many times the candidate and/or elected official will speak candidly with members of our organization to say, ‘Is it worth it anymore? What should I do? Is this something that I should continue? This is taking a personal toll on my family, but I care about the call to service and making a difference in my community.'”
Low also spoke about what he sees as more than simple anti-LGBTQ bias in politics, pointing instead to the growing number of laws targeting LGBTQ people.
“I don’t think it’s simply bias — it’s fact. Again, we can cite laws on the books and proposals across the country, so no wonder why the conversation is so toxic and hostile to members of our community.”
Despite those threats, Low said LGBTQ candidates continue to run for office in record numbers.
“While this political violence report does reflect the hard truth about the challenges to our community, we have seen more candidates apply for an endorsement and sign up for our programs than we’ve ever seen before. We have seen more candidates run for federal office than we ever have had in the history of our 35 years as an organization. What does that tell us? It tells us that yes, it is a challenging and harmful time, yet members of our community are willing to run toward the front lines and answer the call for service.”
The data shows that queer women and transgender candidates are among those most heavily impacted by political violence and heightened political polarization.
“We’ve seen specifically LGBTQ+ women and members of our trans community being disproportionately impacted by [political violence]. When you disaggregate the data, it is also really important to address within our community. We do know anecdotally, as well as from the report, that it may be more challenging for LGBTQ+ women and our trans individuals given some of the other cited conclusions.”
Two of the issues that disproportionately affect transgender candidates and LGBTQ women are mental health challenges and increased security needs.
“What we’ve seen is some of the top demands for services. In many jurisdictions, governmental entities do not have budgets for it– either access to mental health services, as well as public safety services,” he explained. “Security — whether it be surveillance cameras around their homes — those are the key areas. Oftentimes candidates are left to their own devices and may not have access to those key areas to support them.”
Low noted that when LGBTQ candidates are elected, they can advance policies aimed at reducing discrimination, pointing to legislation he championed while serving in California.
“I passed a bill to require Peace Officers Standards and Training curriculum on diversity training for members of the LGBT community. Police officers would have to go through diversity and sensitivity training with respect to members of the LGBT community. That’s something that I very much would like to see amplified, not just state by state, but at the federal level — federal funding to support standards and trainings in dealing with members of the LGBT community.”
“The key data points reflect an increase in not only violence but also intimidation and increased barriers to entry over the years. You can make the direct nexus between that of the increase in anti-LGBTQ legislation and the current rhetoric that exists in this political environment. It’s not just here in the United States — you see it globally as well. So it is something that most certainly we’re seeing increase.”
When asked about the long-term consequences, Low warned that political violence could make American democracy less representative and discourage future generations of LGBTQ leaders from seeking office.
“I think we will likely see a decrease in the diversification of candidates and their lived experiences. It can be insurmountable for those from a younger generation who have to put food on the table and support their families. When it takes political violence to a different level and doxxing and being harassed online, it’s taken on a whole new meaning. We may see that deterioration of the quality and caliber of candidates, or not as much participation from the wide segment of our LGBTQ+ community.”
The Blade also asked how he feels about the future given the current political climate.
“One can always be optimistic and hopeful for the future, but I won’t hold my breath.”
When asked what success would look like for the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund and LGBTQ+ Victory Institute, Low said he hopes to see a decrease in threats against candidates, more LGBTQ people elected to office, and fewer legislative efforts targeting the community.
“I think certainly a decrease when we do this report again and have seen a decrease [in threats] is oftentimes telling. But similarly, seeing less of the legislative proposals in various state houses that are hostile, that criminalize our existence, is another key factor. Those are the two data points that we would cite and highlight as it relates to the political climate with respect to LGBTQ+ leaders.”
-
Opinions5 days agoDemocratic Socialists of America are not automatically Democrats
-
Opinions5 days agoD.C. queer faith leaders commit to exist, resist, persist
-
United Kingdom5 days agoQueen Camilla meets with JK Rowling
-
District of Columbia5 days agoSMYAL receives $25,000 award for ‘courageous acts’
