National
Right-wing media watchdog project launched
Equality Matters created by gay ex-conservative David Brock
Former Clinton administration official Richard Socarides will head the newly created Equality Matters. (Photo courtesy Equality Matters)
Gay former conservative strategist and author David Brock, who changed sides in 2002 to become a champion of LGBT equality and progressive causes, announced the founding this week of a new initiative aimed at exposing “right-wing bigotry and homophobia wherever we find it.”
Brock said the new entity, Equality Matters, would be an arm of the progressive-leaning media watchdog group he founded in 2004 called Media Matters.
A statement released Monday says New York gay attorney and former Clinton administration official Richard Socarides would serve as president of Equality Matters. Lesbian journalist and Washington correspondent for The Advocate, Kerry Eleveld, was named editor of the project’s website, EqualityMatters.org, which organizers say will provide “news, opinion, and messaging” on LGBT-related issues in the media.
“Despite huge progress in gay rights in recent years, exemplified by the historic vote [on Dec. 18] finally striking down the ban on gay men and women from serving in the military, we are now living through a period of ferocious fundamentalism in the Republican Party and the conservative movement,” Brock said.
“Traditional conservatives and the Tea Party movement are united only in their contempt for equal rights for all Americans and a desire to return America to a 19th century idyll,” he said. “Equality Matters will not allow these latter-day ‘clerics’ to gain serious recognition by the media nor influence the policies that affect the lives of every American.”
A source familiar with Media Matters said the group and an affiliated entity, Media Matters Action network, raised about $23 million in 2010 in cash contributions and “long term commitments for 2011 and 2012.”
The New York Times reported that much of Media Matters’ funding comes from large contributions by wealthy liberal donors, including gay philanthropists.
The Blade source, who spoke on condition of not being identified, said the two entities yielded between $13 million and $14 in revenue this year. The 2010 figure disclosed by the source represents a significant boost in Media Matters’ revenue of $6.7 million in 2009 and $8.09 million raised in 2008, according to reports the group filed with the IRS in 2008 and 2009.
Socarides told the Blade Tuesday that Equality Matters would not have a separate budget and instead would operate under the Media Matters budget. He said Equality Matters, which would be based in the same offices as Media Matters at 455 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., would operate initially with a six-person staff, including him and Eleveld.
“We will draw on the Media Matters staff extensively,” he said. “And there are just under 100 people who work there. So we’ll have six people dedicated to just this and then parts of 95 others.”
According to Socarides, Equality Matters will not be involved in direct lobbying and won’t make campaign contributions – unlike existing LGBT groups like the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force.
“Much like Media Matters already does on a broad range of issues, we will do news and information media monitoring,” he said. “And we’ll be a rapid response to any homophobic misinformation in the media or in political discourse. So part of our mission is to respond rapidly with smart and accurate information when the right wing – be it in media or politics – puts out misinformation.”
At least two activists involved with national LGBT groups said the launching of Equality Matters would likely trigger speculation among LGBT movement insiders about whether Brock and Socarides were seeking to step into the realm of other national LGBT groups that came under some criticism in the past year.
Expectations were high in January 2009 for significant progress on LGBT-related legislation as President Obama entered the White House and Democrats were in control of Congress, the two activists said. Although Congress passed an important hate crimes law last year with protections for LGBT people and last week repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” all other important bills remain stalled in committee. Among them is the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, which calls for banning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
“The feeling among some of us is the established groups could have done more and could have put more pressure on the Democrats to do more,” said one of the activists.
But others, including gay U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), considered one of the leading advocates for LGBT rights in Congress, have said there were not enough LGBT-supportive votes in Congress to advance the other bills. Frank has said it is up to LGBT advocates to do the lobbying and advocacy work in the sections of the country, especially the so-called “red states,” where members of Congress oppose LGBT equality and won’t vote for pro-gay bills.
Socarides said he sees Equality Matters as a new force that will work with the existing groups, including the Human Rights Campaign and Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), which also specializes in media-related initiatives.
One gay activist, who spoke on condition of anonymity, questioned whether Equality Matters would be replicating the work of existing groups.
“Media Matters is fantastic at pushing back at conservative disinformation, and if they’re ramping up that function in the gay space, God bless,” the activist said. “But if they’re doing policy advocacy, plenty of people with vastly more substantive experience than Socarides are doing that pretty well, as the passage of DADT suggests. It’s not clear this isn’t a completely redundant vanity project, but I guess we’ll see.”
GLAAD, which has a budget of $7.95 million and a 48-member staff located in New York and Los Angeles, focuses on the positive portrayal of LGBT people in the media and in entertainment, according to its president, Jarrett Barrios.
“GLAAD fights defamation in the media from major outlets to small markets around the country,” Barrios said. “Some of GLAAD’s most visible work is in Hollywood, but much of our work is with journalists and news organizations to ensure accurate and responsible coverage of LGBT peoples’ lives and the issues that affect them.”
He said that unlike Equality Matters’ stated objective, GLAAD steers clear of addressing specific political and policy-making issues.
“I think our effort will be complimentary rather than overlapping with GLAAD,” said Socarides. “And in fact one of our core missions at Media Matters and at Equality Matters is to help other progressive and LGBT rights organizations fulfill their own missions.”
Now that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has been addressed legislatively, Socarides said Equality Matters plans to devote much of its resources to promoting same-sex marriage equality, both on the national and state level. He said the group would jump into the media fray as ballot measures seeking to ban same-sex marriage surface in the states.
He said Equality Matters would also push to advance legislation stalled in Congress to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage under federal law as a union only between a man and a woman and bars all federal programs – including Social Security benefits – for same-sex married couples.
“Despite our best efforts over the years to stiffen the spines of progressives in the face of unrelenting smears from the Republican attack machine, fearful progressives continue to cede the political field to right-wingers who are waging war against core American values,” Brock said in a statement. “We need to do more. Our new communication war room for gay equality, Equality Matters, will expose right-wing bigotry and homophobia wherever we find it, show that the real political vulnerability on these issues belongs to the GOP, provide desperately needed ballast in the media, and trigger progressive passion – so that our political leaders act on their convictions and fight for them,” he said.
Federal Government
Trump budget targets ‘gender extremism’
Proposed spending package would target ‘leftist’ political ideologies
The White House submitted its 2027 budget request to Congress last month, outlining a push for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to “proactively” target what it describes as “extremism” related to gender — raising concerns about the potential for law enforcement to target LGBTQ people.
The Trump-Vance administration’s 2027 budget request, submitted to Congress on April 4, proposes a dramatic increase in national security and law enforcement spending, while reducing foreign aid and restructuring multiple domestic security programs. In total, the administration is requesting $2.16 trillion in discretionary budget authority (including mandatory resources), a 15.3 percent increase over the 2026 proposal.
Central to the proposal is the creation of a new “NSPM-7 Joint Mission Center,” a direct follow-up to the September 2025 National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7). The directive instructs the Justice Department, the FBI, and other national security agencies to combat what the administration defines as “political violence in America,” effectively reshaping the Joint Terrorism Task Force network to focus on “leftist” political ideologies, according to reporting by independent journalist Ken Klippenstein.
The American Civil Liberties Union has characterized NSPM-7 as a way for President Donald Trump to intimidate his political enemies.
In a press release following the memorandum, Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, said, “President Trump has launched yet another effort to investigate and intimidate his critics,” and had described the move as an “intimidation tactic against those standing up for human rights and civil liberties.”
The proposed mission center would include personnel from 10 federal agencies tasked with targeting “domestic terrorists” associated with a wide range of ideologies. Among them is what the administration labels “extremism” related to gender, alongside categories such as “anti-Americanism,” “anti-capitalism,” “anti-Christianity,” and “support for the overthrow of the U.S. government.” The document also cites “hostility toward those who hold traditional American views” on family, religion, and morality — language LGBTQ advocates have increasingly warned could be used to frame queer and transgender rights movements as ideological threats.
The mission center is one component of a proposed $166 million increase in the FBI’s counterterrorism budget.
In total, the FBI would receive $12.5 billion for salaries and expenses under the proposal, a $1.9 billion increase. Planned investments include unmanned aerial systems operations and counter-drone capabilities, counterterrorism efforts, and security preparations for the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. The budget also cites 67,000 FBI arrests since Jan. 20, 2026, which it describes as a 197 percent increase from the prior year.
When Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, it also enacted 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5), which defines domestic terrorism as activities involving acts dangerous to human life that violate criminal laws and are intended to intimidate or coerce civilians or influence government policy through violence. That statutory definition has not changed.
However, federal agencies have historically categorized domestic terrorism threats into groups such as racially or ethnically motivated violent extremism, anti-government or anti-authority violent extremism, and other threats, including those tied to bias based on religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
The language in the budget suggests a shift in how those categories are interpreted and applied — particularly by explicitly linking “extremism” to gender and to perceived opposition to “traditional” views — without any corresponding change to federal law. Only Congress has the power to change the definition of domestic terrorism by passing legislation.
The budget document states:
“DT lone offenders will continue to pose significant detection and disruption challenges because of their capacity for independent radicalization to violence, ability to mobilize discretely, and access to firearms. Additionally, in recent years, heinous assassinations and other acts of political violence in the United States have dramatically increased. Commonly, this violent conduct relates to views associated with anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the U.S. government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility toward those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.”
This language echoes earlier actions by the Trump-Vance administration targeting trans people.
On the first day of his second term, President Trump signed Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”
The order establishes a strict binary definition of sex and withdraws federal recognition of trans people.
“It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female,” the order states. “‘Sex’ shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female. ‘Sex’ is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of ‘gender identity.’”
Appropriations committees in both chambers are expected to begin hearings in the coming weeks.
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Sri Lankan government withdraws support for LGBTQ tourism initiative
In an act of artistic defiance, Baltimore Center Stage stays focused on DEI
Trump budget targets ‘gender extremism’
Susan Lucci on love, loss, and ‘All My Children’
How to navigate shifting tenant expectations
Report: Grenell wants Russian ambassadorship
Log Cabin Republicans to honor Scott Presler
Trump’s war threats trigger rare 25th Amendment discussion
New book celebrates 1970s dance music icons
