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.
Congress
Jeremy Moss looks to bring LGBTQ advocacy from Lansing to Capitol Hill
Congressional candidate would represent Detroit suburbs if elected
With fall comes swapping out T-shirts for sweaters, raking leaves and, of course, elections. The summer’s primaries have narrowed the playing field in a slew of races, but the big ones — the actual races for seats in federal and local elections — are still to come.
Jeremy Moss is one of those people running for a congressional seat in Michigan. Despite his young age, Moss has quickly learned the ropes of politics in the state, already serving terms in the Great Lakes State’s House of Representatives and Senate.
Moss sat down with the Washington Blade to discuss his history in Michigan politics, his experience as an openly LGBTQ legislator and his vision for a better America as he looks toward Congress.
He currently represents Michigan’s 7th Senate District, but now he is setting his sights beyond Lansing toward Capitol Hill to represent Michigan’s 11th Congressional District, which includes Detroit’s northern suburbs.
Moss earned his bachelor’s degree in journalism from Michigan State University, where just a few years later he made history as the first openly gay person elected to the Michigan Senate and the first to serve as its president pro tempore.
His political experience stretches across multiple offices.
Moss worked in the offices of Southfield Mayor Brenda Lawrence, who also served in the U.S. House of Representatives, and State Rep. Paul Condino.
Moss, at age 25, was elected to the Southfield City Council in 2011, becoming the youngest member elected in the body’s history. He then switched over to the state legislature, representing Michigan’s 35th House of Representatives District in the Michigan House of Representatives from 2014-2018, becoming the second openly gay member elected to the Michigan legislature.
He then moved from Michigan’s House to its Senate in 2018, elected to represent the 11th Michigan Senate District and becoming the Assistant Democratic Leader. Moss started his second term in the Michigan Senate in 2023, this time representing District 7.
He currently has a long list of priorities listed on his campaign website, many of which have become standard for Democrats running across the country, with a particular focus on minimizing — and cleaning up — issues that the Republican-controlled federal government has created under President Donald Trump.
Those goals include lowering healthcare costs, tackling the cost of living crisis, holding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement accountable and fixing the broken immigration system, restoring national voting rights, protecting rights — with a particular focus on abortion access and LGBTQ rights — combating corruption in politics, preventing gun violence and strengthening gun safety, empowering Michigan workers, and preserving the environment.
Why Moss is running for Congress
When asked why he wants to run for Congress, Moss pointed to his lengthy resume in state leadership, with a clear voice arguing that if he can do it in Lansing, he can get it done in Washington.
“I’ve served 12 years in the legislature and have ascended into leadership as president pro tem of the Senate,” Moss explained to the Blade. “We flipped our state legislative chamber to a Democratic majority for the first time in 40 years in 2022, and we passed some big, generational-changing, consequential Democratic wins that had languished for a generation, but had improved people’s lives in our state.
“We’ve passed the first gun safety laws in a generation that are saving lives. We protected the right to vote amidst attacks from Donald Trump and other conspiracies. We pushed forward and finally put LGBTQ rights in our state civil rights law. We provided free school meals and lunches for all public school children in the state of Michigan.
“The problems from Washington, D.C., aren’t getting less severe over time,” he continued. “They’re getting more severe. So this district unexpectedly opened up due to a series of retirements and it was just a great opportunity for me to continue to advocate for big change that we’ve already achieved here in the state legislature.”
“I’m a product of this district. I grew up here. I’ve represented a bulk of the district already in the state legislature, and I knew that I was going to earn grassroots support to be able to wage this campaign. We sought it out, we earned it, including some premier endorsements from Gov. (Gretchen) Whitmer, among many others, and were highly successful in the primary because we were in tune to the needs of this district.”
Moss has been endorsed by a slew of Democratic leaders and organizations, including, as he pointed out, by Whitmer.
Other endorsements include former Gov. Jim Blanchard, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, Attorney General Dana Nessel, the Equality PAC, the Human Rights Campaign, the Unity Fund, and the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund.
His political identity and the Democratic Party
Moss described himself as being “on the liberal end of the spectrum,” but argued that the Democratic Party’s internal divisions should not be the central focus.
“I’m certainly on the liberal end of the spectrum, but I don’t even think it necessarily has to be this progressive versus establishment fight that we’ve seen play out,” Moss said when asked about various elements of in-party disagreements. “It has to be between action and, and inaction, fighters versus folders.”
He said that distinction between action and inaction is central to how he would approach Washington.
“At this moment, I think we need to demonstrate that we are ready to take on Donald Trump and MAGA chaos with boldness and effectiveness. I’ve been saying all along our campaign trail, we can no longer be the party that shows up to the knife fight carrying a pie chart, and so I think we have to be showing that we have spine and we have punch, and we’re really ready to be tough fighters for, for Michiganders and the American people.”
“We can’t walk on eggshells anymore. We can’t pull our punches,” he added. “We can’t fear that we’re offending someone, you know, one way or another with how we act. People are expecting a bold party to take on MAGA, and I think that’s exactly what the Democratic Party needs.”
Becoming an LGBTQ legislator
Moss also reminisced with the Blade about his first run for elected office — at a time when Michigan had no openly LGBTQ members serving in the state legislature — and how that experience became deeply connected to his identity and his approach to LGBTQ politics.
In 2014, Michigan was in the pre-marriage equality era, and the state had no openly LGBTQ members serving in the legislature.
“12 years ago in 2014 — this was pre-marriage, the pre-marriage equality era — we had zero people from our community serving in the legislature, and still they were talking about us.
“The big topic then in Michigan was whether or not to expand our civil rights law to include LGBTQ protections, so that people from our community would no longer face discrimination in housing and employment. And they were talking about us regardless of whether or not we were at the table.”
Moss eventually helped lead the effort to expand Michigan’s civil rights protections to include LGBTQ people, a measure that passed with bipartisan support.
He said his experience as an openly gay lawmaker allowed him to make the case for LGBTQ protections in terms that extended beyond LGBTQ issues.
“One thing I definitely aligned with Gov. Whitmer at the time was making the case that discrimination was not only morally wrong, but it was bad for business,” he said. “By not having these protections for our LGBTQ neighbors and family members and friends and community members, we were actually holding back our economy. We were essentially allowing people to be kicked out of Michigan as consumers and workers, because of who they are and how they identified.”
That led to various efforts — including committee hearings and meetings with advocates, businesses and the public — that helped make Michigan what the Movement Advancement Project deems the 16th most LGBTQ-friendly state, solidly above other states due to its robust LGBTQ-related legislation.
“I wanted to meet everybody where they were, including those who may have not been involved with or engaged with the LGBTQ community as legislators, but understood that we couldn’t sustain the economic impact of discriminating against our community,” Moss said. “And as I’ve said all along, discrimination is bad for business. That’s something I think helped broaden the vote and earn some bipartisan support for it.”
Representation and LGBTQ youth
For Moss, the importance of LGBTQ representation also comes from his own experience growing up.
“I think about when I was younger, when I was 18 years old. It was in 2004, and, you know, there are certain things that really shaped me in that time … Michigan had a ballot proposal that passed to have the strictest language banning marriage equality in our state constitution. We didn’t even allow civil unions in that language in our constitution to exist, and there were scandal-plagued LGBTQ politicians.”
“It was the same year that Jim McGreevey was forced to resign as he came out,” he said. “So it really was a signal to me that, you know, you don’t have a future. Not just you don’t have a future in politics; you might not even have a future. Period, and it was pretty defining for me.”
Despite those fears, Moss continued to pursue public office.
“And you can’t be what you can’t see, and so to be able to break the barriers at the state level and at this congressional level, I think is a signal to anybody who is struggling with wondering where their place is?”
“I think that visibility is incredibly important, and it’s something that I needed when I was much younger, and it’s something that I’ve been honored to be able to provide for the, for the next generation of emerging leaders.”
His LGBTQ priorities in Congress
When asked what LGBTQ issues he would prioritize in Congress, Moss emphasized the importance of growing the number of LGBTQ lawmakers while also expanding federal nondiscrimination protections.
“To have a caucus in the legislature has made all the difference because you can, you know, run these issues across the field. You can have somebody take on marriage. You can have somebody take on trans rights. You can have somebody take on LGBTQ youth. You can have somebody take on discrimination protections.”
He sees much of the work he wants to get done on Capitol Hill as a direct follow-up to his work in Lansing — most importantly, the passage of the Equality Act. The legislation has been debated in some form for more than 50 years at the federal level, with the goal of protecting LGBTQ people from discrimination under federal law.
“I think the Equality Act is incredibly important. That’s kind of the, the counterpart to what we’ve done in the state legislature, ensuring discrimination protections for the LGBTQ community,” he said.
“I think housing and, and workplace discrimination is, is everything, you know, to protect our community so that they can have a safe place to call home and earn a living … That’s incredibly important across the board. And I would really want to take a leading role in telling the story of how we were able to do it in Michigan after 50 years since this act was first written — and finally finished the job federally to ensure their federal protections in, in, in, in employment and housing.”
LGBTQ political organizations and Congress
Moss said the LGBTQ political organizations that have supported his political career from its early stages have helped him along the way.
“Obviously, I’ve been affiliated with Victory Fund since I first ran for office, and they were early endorsers, but Equality PAC, which is the political arm of the LGBTQ caucus in Congress, has been an incredible part of my support system. From day one they helped me out.
“I’ve been getting to know a lot of the members of Congress who are LGBTQ, really over the last year of this campaign. So I’m eager to join them. I’m eager to be one of the players on the field here to be able to advocate and advance our issues.”
Voting rights
Voting rights are another major focus for Moss, an issue he said dates back to his experience during the 2004 campaign over marriage equality.
“Something I’m very passionate about is voting rights, and it really does go back to that 2004 campaign where it was very evident that elections can determine your future.
“Elections can determine what rights you do have and don’t have, and so I’ve been very laser focused on increasing access to the ballot box, making sure our democracy remains whole and accessible.”
He explained how Trump’s recent attacks on voting legitimacy and mail-in voting have only made his desire to help that much stronger.
“We went through a real trial of that in 2020 with, with Michigan’s presidential election, with Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani — as he jetted into Michigan and tried to overturn our valid and accurate election results. We were kind of the spotlight of the nation in that stop this deal movement that led to Jan. 6.”
That, according to Moss, spurred direct action on his end.
“I took the helm as chair of the Senate Elections Committee, and we wrote the law to implement pieces of that ballot proposal, including drafting the law that implemented nine days of early voting here in Michigan, increased access to absentee ballot. We further secured our canvassing and certifications so that nobody could jet in with an alternative slate of electors and send them to Congress on Jan. 6.”
“So I’ve been on the front lines in Michigan on defending our election systems and strengthening protections for both voters to access the ballot box and protections against those who want to overturn our election results.”
Those issues are still present today, he explained.
“He’s pushing for suppressive tactics like the Save Act. The Supreme Court has eroded the federal Voting Rights Act,” Moss said. “I want to really get into Congress as an election expert, we have a Michigan story to tell. I wrote a lot of that story, and, and I think the most urgent thing that we could pass is the John Lewis Voting Rights Act to make sure that there’s no pocket of discrimination anywhere in our country, and that people have the ability to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to vote.”
What he would do differently in Washington
Moss also shared that he believes Democrats should communicate differently in Washington, with an emphasis on getting things done.
“Yeah, again, we’ve, we’ve seen politics evolve in this Trump era, and I think that Democrats need to communicate differently.
“He talks so brazenly, and how proud he is that he’s renamed the Gulf of Mexico or Lake Ontario. I put that in the stupid category.
“He’s also done things in the harmful category that he boasts about, like cutting Medicaid and cutting SNAP. And of course, he’s doing things in the dangerous category, but proud of it, like trying to overturn our elections or suppressing the vote.
“What we’re doing is both popular and good for people, whether it’s growing our economy from the middle class outward, whether it’s lowering costs, whether it’s making healthcare more affordable, whether it’s strengthening the core functions of our democracy, we have to be talking about it with the same gusto and confidence that MAGA talks about their agenda.
“I think this is a party that needs more spine and more punch, and really meet this moment because I think that’s what people are looking for, and that’s really what I think a new generation will bring into this next Congress.”
2026 Midterm Elections
LGBTQ issues, attacks on Democrats dominate unusual RNC midterm convention
“Trumpapalooza” emphasized the gains Republicans need to maintain control of the federal government.
The Republican Party held an unusual midterm convention in Dallas last week, where President Donald Trump and other prominent GOP officials spoke in hopes of building enthusiasm and support ahead of the November elections.
The two-day gathering at the American Airlines Center was the first midterm convention of its kind for the Republican Party. Unlike a traditional presidential nominating convention, there was no official party business or nominations. Instead, the event was designed to energize Republican voters and unite the party behind its candidates and broader message heading into the midterm elections.
Trump, who spoke during both nights of the convention, repeatedly emphasized the importance of Republicans turning out to vote in the midterms — elections in which incumbent presidents and the parties in power have historically faced significant challenges.
“I’m asking you to pretend that I’m on the ballot,” the president implored attendees on the first day.
On the second night, Trump delivered another direct appeal to Republican voters.
“You know what happens if you don’t vote? You go to hell,” he said.
Trump also urged attendees at one point to “cheat like hell” to keep Republicans in control of Congress.
The president also used the event to promote Republican candidates, including Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, the GOP nominee in the state’s closely watched Senate race against outspoken LGBTQ rights supporter James Talarico.
“He may not dress right, he may not talk exactly perfectly, and he may not be the best-looking guy I’ve ever seen, but he’s the greatest attorney general in America and he deserves to be your next senator,” Trump said when talking about Paxton.
Among those in attendance were gay Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas), North Carolina Senate nominee Michael Whatley, and Ohio Republican Sen. Jon Husted.
Both days, there were thousands of empty seats, including almost all of the upper level, despite Trump insisting the arena was “packed” with “thousands” more waiting outside.
The convention’s message frequently emphasized personal and political attacks on Democrats, often over detailed policy discussions. Speakers repeatedly targeted Democratic candidates and progressive figures, with Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed among those mentioned throughout the event.
The first lady was notably absent from the event.
Five RNC officials described the scope of the party’s nationwide “election integrity” effort to Axios. They said strict enforcement of voting laws and preventing noncitizens from registering and voting are top priorities, even as analysts say voter fraud is rare and there is no evidence of any systemic or significant problem.
President Trump also proposed giving American adults $5,000 if Republicans retain control of the House and Senate, a proposal that immediately raised questions about its legality and implementation.
The Republican base has also fractured over several key issues during the last 18 months, including the war in Iran, the handling of the release of the Epstein files, surging gas prices, and rising costs driven by tariffs. The convention was organized as an effort to rally Republicans around the party and motivate turnout despite those divisions and broader concerns heading into the midterms.
A protester carrying a Mexican flag interrupted Vice President JD Vance’s speech on Sept. 10.
“It’s about sending a message to the Democratic Party that if you send your crazies, we’re going to send you packing,” Vance said of the stakes of November’s elections.
More than 100 protesters also marched through downtown Dallas during the RNC Midterm Convention, briefly blocking traffic near the American Airlines Center.
At the convention both nights, an image that can only be described as a thirst trap of Democratic socialist commentator and creator Hassan Piker was shown on the jumbotron, garnering attention on social media.
The social media star posted a video shortly after images of him, abs and all, appeared on the jumbotron, sitting at a desk and completely dumbfounded at the thought that “my meat pic was on the jumbotron at the republican midterm convention.”
Piker has been a frequent target of conservative and Republican figures because of his criticism of the Israel-Palestine war, the war in Iran, and his broader critiques of the establishment and political institutions of both parties. Piker and El-Sayed were two of the most targeted progressive figures during the convention.
Another figure from the other side of the aisle who made an appearance was Democratic Sen. John Fetterman, who in recent months has adopted more conservative positions on some issues and continued to voice strong support for Israel — an issue on which there are divisions within the Democratic Party.
“Yes, I’m a Democrat. Why am I here talking to you today? Because well, I’m a common sense Democrat,” Fetterman said in the prerecorded video that also aired on the American Airlines Center’s jumbotron. “I’m always going to stand with America. I’m always going to reject the extremes and socialism and that anti-American way of life.”
“We’ll work with President Trump to fight and defend the steel way of life right here in the steel valley,” he added.
Fetterman’s prerecorded appearance was a notable moment at an event otherwise dominated by Republican officials and speakers.
Also at the event, accusations began to spread online about alleged Grindr outages in the area of the convention — a juxtaposition with the anti-LGBTQ positions the Republican Party officially reflects and its emphasis on “family values.”
A spokesperson for Grindr told Snopes, “Grindr has not experienced recent outages. Third party sources that often make these claims rely on unreliable data such as self-reporting, while Grindr reports outages directly on its status page.” The status page showed no outages in August or September 2026.
Another person, who goes by the name of Nick Pringle online, garnered over eight million views on an Instagram video in which he claims he was about to start working “undercover as a male escort” at the convention.
In the video, he appears to be in a hotel bathroom and says he will post for the sake of exposing hypocritical Republican lawmakers who have used their power to champion what he described as hateful and divisively anti-LGBTQ legislation.
The Blade reached out to Pringle via Instagram to ask whether he ultimately carried out what he described in the video and whether he had any evidence or additional information to share about his experience at the convention, but did not hear back by the time of publication.
Politics
Ind. prosecutor declines to press charges over false Buttigieg child welfare complaint
Former Biden-Harris Cabinet member declined to comment on decision
An Indiana prosecutor has declined to file criminal charges against a woman who made a false child welfare complaint against Pete Buttigieg.
Buttigieg, the former transportation secretary in the Biden-Harris administration, was accused in June of posing a threat to his children via an anonymous call to police that resulted in him being temporarily separated from his four-year-old twins.
Marshall County Prosecuting Attorney E. Nelson Chipman Jr. opted not to pursue charges against the Alabama woman who filed the false child welfare claim against the Democratic political figure while she was in Marshall County.
According to ABC 57, the television station in South Bend that published a letter from Michigan State Police to Indiana State Police, the 50-year-old woman, identified only as TJ of Alabama, was responsible for the “brief and intrusive investigation” into Buttigieg and his family.
In the letter to Indiana State Police, Michigan State Police described TJ’s documented alcoholism and other chemical dependencies, as well as hallucinations and delusional thinking. The prosecutor also noted that TJ has self-identified as God and claims to hear voices only she can hear.
The letter from Michigan State Police to Indiana State Police states:
“Your investigation reveals that TJ, 50 years old, has a documented history of alcohol abuse and has experienced numerous treatment facilities and programs for alcoholism and other chemical dependency over the years. Further, TJ has a long history of mental illness, manifested by hallucinations and delusional thinking which includes frequently responding to voices only she hears and grandiose ideation including self-identifying as God. She frequently reports she has enjoyed an evening meal with Barack and Michele Obama.
TJ is from Alabama. During her relatively short stay here, TJ was able to generate three separate police encounters that resulted in reports, one of which resulted in TJ’s arrest for domestic battery. I note her BAC in that case was reported at .323. I also note one of the three early reports was based upon TJ’s claim of herself being a victim of sexual abuse at the age of 3 by her mother some 47 years prior. Her explanation for such a delayed report was incoherent.
As you found out, TJ returned to Alabama and took up residence in a treatment facility only to be soon evicted for a rule violation. She currently resides in a half-way house near Alabama, with very limited mental health treatment options available. I note TJ’s abusive and harassing attitude has resulted in restricting only somewhat her access to a telephone, and that she continues to have access to computers at the facility. Obviously she may still have the ability to file additional complaints. No doubt a regrettable situation.
In light of the totality of circumstances, I am unable to conclude that TJ is capable of forming the requisite intent to support a criminal conviction for this offense. Accordingly, this office will not be filing a criminal case in this matter.
Thank you, as always, for a thorough investigation and cogent report.
Stay safe.
Best regards,
E. Nelson Chipman, Jr.
Marshall County Prosecuting Attorney”
When the situation first arose in June, Buttigieg opened up about the experience via his Substack, where he described the situation as one of the worst things that has ever happened to his family — one that resulted in him being separated from his twins, Joseph August “Gus” and Penelope Rose, for their safety.
“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.”
A Buttigieg spokesman declined to comment on the prosecutor’s decision not to pursue charges, but did tell the Washington Post in a statement: “This has been a painful and infuriating situation for the family. They are in touch with Michigan authorities, seeking answers and accountability for what happened.”
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.”
The Washington Blade reached out to Michigan State Police after the story initially broke to ask if any disciplinary action would be imposed on the woman who made the false report, but was told to file a FOIA request to view the full report. After filing a FOIA request, the Blade was denied access to any additional information.
-
Opinions4 days agoTrump’s Cabinet: Dumb, dumber, dumbest, and evil
-
Turkey4 days agoMore than 150 people detained outside Istanbul courthouse
-
Virginia5 days agoVirginia Anti-Violence Project struggles to fill federal funding gaps
-
Delaware5 days agoGay man sues Delaware AG for not prosecuting partner in domestic violence case
