Veteran FBI employee files lawsuit claiming he was fired for displaying Pride flag

Read more at CBS News.

A 16-year FBI employee has filed a lawsuit alleging he was fired last month because he had a Pride flag draped near his desk. 

David Maltinsky, who was weeks away from being elevated to the position of agent, claims the firing was unlawful and sent a ripple of fear through the LGBT employees at the FBI.   

“We’re not the enemy and we’re not some political mob. We’re proud members of the FBI, and we have a mission to do. We go to work every day to do it,” Maltinsky told CBS News in his first interview.

In a civil complaint filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Maltinsky seeks a court order to restore his job. 

The suit makes several allegations, including an argument that the FBI has violated Maltinsky’s First Amendment rights and retaliated against him for protected expression.

According to the lawsuit, the First Amendment “forbids government officials from firing government employees, or otherwise retaliating against them, simply for engaging in expressive conduct concerning a matter of public concern.”

The lawsuit states that Maltinsky was fired in a letter signed by FBI Director Kash Patel in October. A copy of the letter was provided by Maltinsky to CBS News. In it, Patel writes: “I have determined that you exercised poor judgment with an inappropriate display of political signage in your work area during your previous assignment at the Los Angeles Field Office. Pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States, your employment with the Federal Bureau of Investigation is hereby terminated.”

The FBI had no comment regarding Maltinsky’s lawsuit.

Maltinsky, who began working at the FBI in 2008, was in the midst of a training program for future agents at the FBI’s facility in Quantico, Virginia, when he was fired, according to the lawsuit.

The rainbow flag that Maltinsky displayed at his workspace in the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office was presented to him after it had previously been displayed outside the Bureau’s federal office complex there, according to the lawsuit.   

Maltinsky said the federal government approved the display of Pride flags at federal office complexes in June 2021. His lawsuit alleges that a colleague filed a complaint with a supervisor about Maltinsky’s flag on Jan. 20, 2025, the day of President Trump’s second Inaugural.

In an hourlong interview with CBS News, Maltinsky said his firing has had a chilling impact inside the Bureau.  

“The ripple effect of fear has been felt. Many gay colleagues have removed Pride flags from their desks, allies have removed Pride flags from their desk,” he said.

“David’s dream was to serve our country as an FBI Special Agent,” said Christopher M. Mattei, counsel for Maltinsky and a partner at Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, PC. “When that dream was cruelly taken from him, he stayed true to his oath and is now fighting to protect the rights of all Americans.”

“This case is about far more than one man’s career—it’s about whether the government can punish Americans simply for saying who they are,” Mattei said.

Under questioning at a congressional hearing in September, Patel told senators he was not taking action against any “enemies list,” including among FBI employees.

“The only actions we take, generally speaking, for personnel at the FBI, are ones based on merit and qualification and your ability to uphold your constitutional duty,” Patel said. 

“You fall short, you don’t work there anymore.”

Maltinsky’s firing is part of a large and growing wave of terminations, resignations and retirements inside the Justice Department since Jan. 20. Justice Connection, an organization that supports the ex-employees, told CBS News more than 5,000 employees have left or been fired from the agency this year.  

The purge includes agents and prosecutors who handled the U.S. Capitol riot prosecutions and the special counsel criminal probes of President Trump, which were dropped after Mr. Trump won the election in November 2024.

“It’s very sad that it’s happening,” Maltinsky told CBS News. “But part of this filing is that: I’m not intimidated. We’re not intimidated.” 

“Diversity means so much to so many different people,” he added. “There is no one definition that everyone will agree on. What I believe is diversity brings strength.”

Why some Texas teachers are being forced to “deadname” trans students under a new state law

Read more at the Texas Tribune.

Ethan Brignac, a transgender student at Wylie East High School, has been “Ethan” since seventh grade — to his friends, family and teachers. When he reached high school, his dad further validated his chosen name by requesting “Ethan” be used in school records, including in his email, class rosters and ID, which his teachers honored until this fall.

Three weeks after Brignac started his senior year, Wylie East administrators called him to the library and gave him a new ID. On it, in white capital letters, was a name he hadn’t been called in five years.

“In the first week of school, when I was kind of trying to convince my teachers to call me Ethan, I was like, ‘Hey, look, it’s still on my ID,’” said Brignac, who did not want The Texas Tribune to publish his birth name because it causes him discomfort. “Then one of my teachers this year said, ‘Okay, they’re gonna fix that soon.’”

Now, he said, some teachers seem to wedge his legal name into every interaction, outing him to peers and resurrecting the dread he felt before school records reflected his chosen name.

“It was definitely a big change having my deadname kind of sprawled everywhere,” Brignac said, referring to a derogatory practice of calling a trans person by their birth name. “It was like, wow, okay, that wasn’t just a social media post I saw, this is real life.”

A Wylie spokesperson said the move was “to ensure full compliance with state law, including Senate Bill 12.”

A sweeping piece of legislation that went into effect Sept. 1, SB 12 bars public school employees from socially transitioning a student, which it defines as helping to change a student’s sex assigned at birth by using a different name, pronoun or other practice that denies the birth sex. Dubbed the “Parents’ Bill of Rights,” the law allows guardians to report school-supported social transitioning to the school board, among other powers.

The law also prohibits K-12 faculty from referencing LGBTQ+ identities in class instruction and casual conversations, and it bans school-sanctioned clubs that center sexual orientation or gender identity.

Several transgender students at Texas schools that enforce birth names told the Tribune the new policies have transformed school from a place of support to one that rejects who they are. Considered a derogatory practice in the LGBTQ+ community, dead-naming undermines the wishes of trans people and in some cases, forcibly reveals their trans identity, which can cause or worsen mental health problems among these children, studies have found.

Some parents of trans Texas students say they are frustrated because the law appears to ignore their rights for those of other guardians. A few of these parents joined advocacy and teacher groups to file a lawsuit against SB 12 in August, seeking to pause districts from enforcing the law while the case proceeds.

Parents who support SB 12 say the law boosts their role in their children’s education. Many of them want to erase LGBTQ+ topics from K-12 schools, saying they prompt children to question their identities or that schools force progressive views onto their kids.

“We live in an insane world where a school board has to remind teachers that they cannot tell children, you know, suggest to kids they might be homosexual or they might be actually a girl if they’re a biological male,” said Jeffrey Keech, whose children go to Wylie schools. “It’s unbelievable to me that this even is an issue.”

The Tribune contacted two dozen districts across the state, including districts in the Austin, Houston and San Antonio areas, and spoke with a dozen teachers, parents and transgender students about how schools are implementing SB 12, finding that administrators are taking varied approaches. This is because the law leaves the Texas Education Agency and school districts to decide how to implement it, said Rachel Moran, a law professor at Texas A&M University who directs the education law program.

Some Texas school districts and boards, like Wylie, have adopted policies to ban teachers from aiding in social transitioning, but many have not yet — and are still allowing teachers to honor students’ preferred names and pronouns.

TEA would not respond to questions about how school districts are implementing SB 12, how many districts have complied with the law or deadlines for doing so.

Moran said schools might adopt hard-line policies to shield themselves from retribution.

“This is true with any broad mandate — some are going to be overcomplying,” she said. “It has a real chilling effect. They’re afraid to get anywhere close to a perceived line.”

Teachers told the Tribune the law leaves them anxious and confused because they are unsure when they can use nicknames or how they should respond to parents who request their children’s preferred names and pronouns be used. They lament that they won’t be able to support students who come out as queer. School district officials also worry how the policies will interfere with federal and district rules and daily affairs.

Now, Texas public school students sit in the crosshairs of debates over free speech, race, religion and gender and sexuality in school.

SB 12 is part of a slate of laws that increase oversight of K-12 schools, including new rules that mandate the Ten Commandments in classrooms and clear the way for book bans. In federal and state governments and now school board meetings, disagreements have escalated from “I don’t think that you have the right idea,” to “I don’t think you’re the right kind of person,” Moran said.

Once a place to hear diverse perspectives, she worries schools will leave children unable to tolerate different views.

“The stakes are not just whether I win or lose this particular culture war,” Moran said. “It’s whether I preserve a tradition that has been so formative of our democracy.”

School policies vary

In addition to the ban on social transitioning, SB 12 prohibits hiring, training, programs and activities centered on race, ethnicity, gender identity and sexual orientation — referenced in the law as diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives.

It also requires schools to tell parents their rights, such as allowing them access to school records and course content, and requiring that they give permission for their child to receive health care, hear lessons about sexuality and join clubs.

Among parts of the bill that confuse teachers and administrators is how to respond when parents ask that schools use their child’s preferred name and pronouns or what to call students who have already transitioned.

More than two months after the deadline to comply with SB 12, districts are implementing the bill differently.

Conner Carlow, a former registrar who now works as a classroom support specialist in the Leander school district, said faculty can continue to call students by their preferred name if that was done prior to SB 12 going into effect. However, faculty cannot use new names or new pronouns moving forward, and administrators must approve fresh changes on a case-by-case basis through a form parents submit. These updates are only allowed if they appear unrelated to social transitioning, he said.

The name change form is the only written directive Carlow has gotten regarding SB 12. Leander spokesperson Crestina Hardie would not say how the school district is handling name changes because the board has no policy about it. Hardie said the school district is waiting to enact new rules while it reviews the law and gets clarification from TEA and the district’s legal counsel.

“SB 12 deeply impacts personal and highly complex areas of school life, and the biggest challenge for districts statewide is the lack of clarity and consistency in how these laws intersect with existing Board policy, federal protections and day-to-day school operations,” Hardie said.

The Cypress-Fairbanks and Conroe school districts adopted policies that ban DEI practices and prohibit social transitioning or providing information about it.

Argyle and Academy school districts have posted parental rights resolutions, but nothing on social transitioning.

Deer Park linked SB 12 on its website, but it is unclear how the district will implement the law, including gender-affirming names and pronouns.

Wylie distributed a fact sheet advising employees to use the names and pronouns in school records and barring them from discussing race, color, ethnicity, gender identity and sexual orientation.

Although officials disagreed with parts of the law, Houston-based DRAW Academy rolled out the new rules. The 98% Hispanic charter district issued parental notices and consent forms, banned DEI and limited instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity, according to superintendent and CEO Patricia Beistegui.

“DRAW Academy stands for Diversity, Roots, and Wings, founded under the core belief that diversity and inclusivity is a strength in our democracy,” Beistegui said in an email. She said SB 12 is designed to make positive changes but actually revokes protections.

SB 12 and the way schools are implementing it forces teachers to blindly try to follow the law, said Charlotte Wilson, a Garland ISD special education teacher.

“It’s not clear to teachers what we can say or even do,” Wilson said, referencing instruction about race and LGBT topics. “Teachers are afraid because we don’t want to lose our certifications.”

Wilson wants a say in her children’s learning, but she thinks the law might lead teachers to skip lessons that touch on prohibited themes, undermining students’ quality of education.

“We already highlight different cultural historical events throughout the year, like MLK Day, Hispanic Heritage Month, women’s history,” Wilson said. “If we approach Pride Month the same way, as part of America’s inclusion, and communicate about what’s being taught, that shouldn’t violate anyone’s rights.”

Carlow said Leander’s bar on LGBTQ+ topics makes it hard to support his students. He remembers grappling with his sexuality as a middle schooler and how hard that was.

“I wasn’t telling my parents what was going on, so I imagine these kids aren’t either,” Carlow said. “The fact they’re willing to tell us before even the parents is a big deal, and now the fact that we have to just not accept them, I mean, it’s awful.”

“Called something I’m not”

The varied approaches to SB 12 means transgender students across Texas are experiencing different levels of alienation.

Pride flags fly and teachers use gender-affirming pronouns at Alief Early College High School, said Marshall Romero, a transgender third-year. The only change he noticed was a permission slip to join the speech and debate club.

An Alief spokesperson said the district also sent parents an opt-in and opt-out form for school health services.

Romero said the school remains largely supportive of LGTBQ+ students.

“I never had to worry about the teacher or any instructor telling me, like, ‘Hey, I can’t call you that, or I’m not going to call you that,’” Romero said. “Being able to be called by a name that reflects who I am, being called by certain pronouns, just really gives me a quality of life that I feel like I can hold on and is worth living.”

Cassie Hilborn, a Woodlands High School junior, yearns to be called her gender-affirming name at school. One of Hilborn’s earliest memories is looking in the mirror and wishing she was a girl. During the pandemic, she watched a YouTube video explaining what it meant to be transgender and finally understood why she felt misaligned with her body.

But the past year’s onslaught of transgender-focused federal and state policies stripped her confidence and dashed her plan to wear feminine clothes and ask her teachers to use her chosen name.

“It feels like every day I look at the news and then the headline just reads, ‘Sorry, more things you’ve lost,’” Hilborn said.

The Conroe school board, which governs Woodlands High School, was among the first in Texas to bar teachers from using gender-affirming names and pronouns.

At the school Dungeons & Dragons club, Hilborn’s peers and faculty adviser call her “Cassie,” but everyone else uses the legal name on her ID, which she hides under blue masking tape. She wants her classmates and teachers to know she’s transgender, but laws like SB 12 have discouraged her from coming out.

“Now, even teachers that might have respected my identity have been told that they unequivocally are not allowed to do so,” Hilborn said.

Once school records reflected Brignac’s preferred name, his grades climbed. He became president of the National Art Honor Society and founded an art mentorship program. He raised his hand so often that one teacher joked about it.

His stepmom Shannon Keene worries that being misgendered at school will thrust him back into isolation, like she saw before he entered high school.

This year’s reversal “made him feel rejected as a human being,” she said.

Having socially transitioned in seventh grade when he cut his hair and asked to go by Ethan, Brignac’s peers have been confused to hear his feminine name now used.

He’s reminded every day that his state and school deny his identity. “It’s rough being called something I’m not,” said Brignac, who now avoids talking in class.

Queer young people have disproportionate rates of depression and mental illness. But a study of 129 transgender and gender nonconforming students found that having their identities affirmed decreases symptoms of severe depression. Being called preferred names and pronouns is correlated with a drop in suicidal thoughts by 29% and suicidal behavior by 56%, according to the study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health in 2018.

Refusing to use preferred names tells transgender and nonbinary students they’re unworthy of respect, said Johnathan Gooch of Equality Texas, a nonprofit that advocates for LGBTQ equality.

“It’s as if someone else picked a nickname for you that you didn’t want, a malicious nickname, that they repeatedly use despite the fact they know what you prefer to be called,” Gooch said.

Parental rights for all?

Some parents who support expelling discussions about queer identities from schools say SB 12 protects children from viewpoints that might spur them to question who they are.

Around three years ago, after Kevin Brooks’ then-middle school daughter returned from school in the Wylie district and said her friend used nonbinary pronouns, he responded: “Sweetheart, don’t buy into that foolishness.”

The army veteran thinks children are too young to learn about LGBTQ+ identities and that it confuses them to hear that gender and sexuality are spectrums, like some schools have taught.

“Why are you teaching these kids that are as young as 5 and 6 years old all this stuff that they don’t need to deal with?” Brooks said. “I told my son the other day, I wish you’d stay innocent till you’re 35 years old, because the stuff that’s going on in the world right now absolutely just, it not only mortifies me, it terrifies me. It just really pisses me off.”

Brooks hasn’t heard of teachers at Wylie discussing LGBTQ+ identities, but he’s terrified to imagine them pledging allegiance to a rainbow flag, which happened in a California classroom in 2021.

In May, Don Zimmerman participated in a protest against a transgender teacher at Cedar Ridge High School in the Round Rock district, where he lives and previously ran for the school board.

Students and at least one faculty member stood across the street with posters saying, “Y’all means all.” To Zimmerman, the faculty member’s presence is proof of schools “coaching children and encouraging them to embrace and publicly protest in favor of this transgender extremism.”

“The school is so hell bent on this agenda of promoting transgenderism and the LGBT lifestyle, …and the parents feel so powerless at stopping the public schools agenda that they go to the Legislature and get these laws passed,” said Zimmerman, who sent his third grader to private school to shield him from LGBTQ+-themed lessons.

Parents of transgender students say new policies complying with the so-called “parents’ bill of rights” are a slap in their face. Keene, Brignac’s stepmom, said policies against using gender-affirming names and pronouns pander to conservative views and hurt gender-queer children, who are 3.3% of youths ages 13-17 in the U.S.

Brignac’s biological mom told the Tribune she is now seeking to change her son’s legal name so he hears Ethan when he graduates.

“I fail to see the correlation between a parent asking that their child be called by their preferred name and pronouns and providing direct instruction on gender identity,” Keene said. “It’s about control, not about rights. And it’s also just blatant disregard for a person’s sense of self. And to do that to kids is unconscionable.”

Dutch court denies U.S. trans woman asylum on basis of her gender identity

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

A Dutch court has upheld the decision to reject an American trans woman’s application for asylum after the 28-year-old challenged the decision earlier this year.

Veronica Clifford-Carlos, a visual artist from California, applied for asylum in the Netherlands in the wake of the president’s continued targeting of trans rights and villainization of the trans community.

With the support of Dutch advocacy group LGBT Asylum Support – which is working with about 20 other trans Americans on asylum claims as well – Clifford-Carlos said the anti-trans administration has made her feel unsafe remaining in the United States.

The court, however, disagreed that Clifford-Carlos personally faces a legitimate risk of persecution, Reuters reported. The judge also said she did not prove she systemically lacks protection or access to essential services.

The court sent her case back to immigration authorities to review again due to a procedural error the first time around.

statement from LGBT Asylum Support in August explained that the Netherlands’ Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND) “generally states that discrimination by authorities and fellow citizens can be considered an act of persecution if it is so severe that victims can no longer function socially and societally” but that it “maintains that there are no grounds for exceptional treatment of transgender and queer refugees from the U.S.”

Clifford-Carlos was the first trans American to legally challenge an asylum rejection in the Netherlands. In September, she told Reuters how bad it had become in the States for her since the new administration took office.

“I have people screaming f**got at me in the street… I have people threatening my life, threatening to assault me, threatening to follow me home and kill my family.”

She spoke to The World in September from a Dutch refugee camp, where she explained, “It feels like the U.S. doesn’t see me as human. I am not seen as a woman in the eyes of the government, and because of my transition, I am technically not a man either.”

She said the thought of returning to the U.S. gives her “more dread than I have ever experienced in my entire life.”

The Netherlands has long been considered a refuge for LGBTQ+ acceptance. In 1981, it was the first country in the world to grant refugee status to someone due to their sexual orientation, and in 2001, it became the first country to grant marriage equality.

But Marlou Schrover, an economic and social history professor in the country, told The World that reality has not lived up to the reputation. She said it is extremely rare for someone to be given refugee status based solely on LGBTQ+ identity, and that one must not only prove they have experienced physical violence, but that the police refused to help when it was reported.

Schrover explained that Dutch immigration authorities still view the United States as mostly safe for trans people because there are many other states they can move to if they don’t feel safe in their own.

The administration’s anti-trans policies may also not be enough, she said. “Exclusion from the military or exclusion from sports may be unpleasant and horrible, but it’s not seen as persecution in the eyes of Dutch immigration officials.”

She added that granting asylum to trans people from the U.S. is a risky decision because it makes a big statement about the U.S. and could affect relations between the two countries.

Pro basketball team embraces homophobia, rejects the Pride rainbow

Read more at Outsports.

If you are an LGBTQ fan of the New Zealand Breakers of Australia’s National Basketball League, your favorite team won’t be wearing a Pride rainbow in 2026.

The NBL holds a Pride Round annually to celebrate the diversity of LGBTQ basketball fans worldwide, but the Breakers decided as a team to forgo wearing any Pride symbols, rainbows or colors this season that could be construed as supporting the gay community.

“In line with the league’s voluntary participation policy to wear the patch, the players discussed the matter as a team,” a team source said. “Some players raised religious and cultural concerns about wearing the insignia.”

The NBL’s Pride Round is from January 21 to February 1, 2026. The Breakers appear to be the only team that decided to skip honoring LGBTQ fans; the resulting uproar has spilled over to social media platforms like Instagram.

Many people have shared their disappointment with the players on the team in the comments section of any post involving the Breakers.

“Long-term member, won’t be anymore. Disgusted at the team, not supporting inclusion. Should all be ashamed,” someone wrote.

Another fan resounded the sentiment: “Been with the Breakers through thick and thin, but you’ve lost me on this one.”

It’s refreshing to see people stand with LGBTQ fans during a Pride controversy, as a handful of homophobes are often quick to complain anytime a pro sports franchise celebrates Pride.

Statistical analysis suggests that Australia is very supportive of gay people, with a study in 2023 reporting that seven percent more people in Australia support gay couples having children than an average of the rest of the world.

What makes the Breakers’ boycott of Pride even more disappointing is the fact that the team will be playing against the only openly gay player in the NBL during the Pride Round.

Isaac Humphries plays for the Adelaide 36ers, and he will face the Breakers in January during what could have been their Pride Night. Humphries went viral in 2022 when he came out in front of his teammates and talked about the difficulties of his journey.

Keeping the gay away from the Breakers certainly hasn’t given the team any sort of ability to win games this season. They are currently ninth in the NBL standings as of this writing. May their lack of support continue to deliver bad mojo for the rest of the year and beyond!

Catholic preschools appeal to Supreme Court in Colorado case over LGBTQ rights and religious liberty

Read more at CPR News.

Two Denver-area Catholic parishes asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to reconsider a lower court decision that said parish preschools participating in Colorado’s state-funded preschool program couldn’t deny admission to LGBTQ children or children from LGBTQ families.

The appeal to the Supreme Court comes about six weeks after the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Catholic parishes, which had argued that enrolling children from LGBTQ families would conflict with their religious beliefs.

Gov. Jared Polis lauded the circuit court’s Sept. 30 ruling, which was a major win for the state.

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, the justices could answer a question at the heart of the case: Can private religious schools that accept public education dollars refuse to enroll certain kids based on religious principles? The state and two lower courts have said no. The Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority, could give a different answer.

A spokesperson for Colorado Department of Early Childhood, which runs the state-funded preschool program, said officials won’t comment on pending or active litigation.

The Catholic preschools sued the state in 2023 as Colorado launched its new universal preschool program, which provides tuition-free preschool to 4-year-olds statewide. The $349 million program serves more than 40,000 children and allows families to choose from public, private, or religious preschools.

St. Mary Catholic Virtue School in Littleton and Wellspring Catholic Academy in Lakewood wanted to join the program when it started, but didn’t want to admit LGBTQ children or children from LGBTQ families.

They asked for an exemption from state rules banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, but the Colorado Department of Early Childhood refused. The two preschools never joined the program, and in August 2023, the parishes that ran the preschools sued the state.

Of more than 2,000 preschools participating in Colorado’s universal preschool program this year, about 40 are religious.

Attorneys from The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the Catholic preschools in the case, have argued that Colorado is discriminating against the preschools based on religion.

“Colorado is picking winners and losers based on the content of their religious beliefs,” Nick Reaves, senior counsel at Becket, said in a press release Friday.

The release suggests that Colorado’s rules barring discrimination have hurt Catholic preschool enrollment.

Since universal preschool began, “enrollment at Catholic preschools has swiftly declined, while two Catholic preschools have shuttered their doors, including one that predominantly served low-income and minority families,” the press release said.

Wellspring, one of two parish preschools involved in the case, did close last year when the K-8 school it was part of closed because of low enrollment and financial problems. A Catholic preschool in Denver also shuttered when the K-8 school it was part of — Guardian Angels Catholic School — closed at the end of the 2024-25 school year. At the time the Archdiocese of Denver announced the closure of Wellspring and Guardian Angels, it also announced the consolidation of two Catholic high schools into one campus.

LGBTQ+ Texans fought to be recognized. That work is eroding under a conservative pressure campaign.

Read more at The Texas Tribune.

Arlington Mayor Jim Ross stood under the June sun and delivered an impassioned speech in front of a crowd awash in rainbows and glitter.

“You know Martin Luther King taught us way back in the ‘60s, that there’s only one thing strong enough to overcome hate,” the North Texas mayor said.

“Love! Love!” the crowd gathered at the city’s annual Pride celebration shouted, answering his call.

His faith, he continued, instructed him to love his neighbor regardless of their differences.

“So I wanted to come here and say thank you for loving us,” he said. “And I love you!”

Five months later, Ross faced a similar crowd at City Hall on Oct. 14. There was no love in the room.

The Dallas-area suburb was — in an effort to comply with new presidential executive orders — considering eliminating the city’s protections for LGBTQ+ people that prohibit employers and any business providing accommodation from discriminating against them.

More than $60 million in federal funds for parks, roads and public safety were at stake, city leaders said.

“It’s a horrible balancing attempt,” Ross said in a recent interview with The Texas Tribune, referring to protecting the city’s budget and its residents.

Other Texas cities, including Dallas and Fort Worth, have revised city policies and ended programs that comply with Trump’s executive orders that end diversity and inclusion efforts. Arlington is believed to be the first city to consider ending explicit protections for LGBTQ+ residents.

The City Council tabled its vote and is expected to revisit the issue Monday night. The impending vote is the result of a pressure campaign waged by conservative activists, state Republican lawmakers and the White House to roll back protections for LGBTQ+ people they say are unfair and harm women and children.

LGBTQ+ advocates, meanwhile, argue that such revisions push residents further away from public life. And these decisions erode the recognition and acceptance this community worked for decades to secure.

Texas — like many states — has a long history of criminalizing certain acts by LGBTQ+ people. While the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned sodomy laws and legalized same-sex marriage, Texas state lawmakers and Gov. Greg Abbott have since 2023 sought to undo those victories by passing a suite of laws that put new limits on how LGBTQ+ people live their lives and express their identities in public.

Meanwhile, at the federal level, President Donald Trump has, since returning to office in January, instructed government agencies to remove words and phrases associated with diversity, race and transgender people — exerting the full strength of the federal government across the U.S. to achieve its agenda.

It’s those executive orders that triggered the Arlington City Council to review its policies, which LGBTQ+ advocates fought to put in place to provide protections that don’t exist at the state and federal levels.

Brad Pritchett, interim CEO of Equality Texas, one of the state’s oldest advocacy groups, said the policies at the city level are one of this community’s few available safeguard.

“It has fallen on local municipalities to find a way to protect the folks that live in their communities,” he said. “And I think when we see these types of non-discrimination laws passed at the local level, what that’s really doing is sending a message to the residents of these cities that who you are should not impact whether or not you have a job, a roof over your head, or can access basic services.”

Many of the recent efforts to curtail the LGBTQ+ community have been largely targeted toward transgender people. However, Pritchett said the Arlington debate shows more is on the line for all LGBTQ+ people.

“When they shift their gaze to another group of people that they don’t like,” he said, “they’ve proven that they can weaponize government to harm anyone they want.”

Conservative leaders say they aim to reset an imbalance pushed by former Democratic presidential administrations and to protect women. Passing these laws and executive orders, conservatives argue, is a necessary step toward acknowledging the differences between the two genders.

“I think what’s been missing a lot of times from the opposition is the recognition of the rights of women and the vulnerability that women have in these private spaces,” said Mary Elizabeth Castle, director of government relations at Texas Values, a statewide nonprofit that advocates to end abortion, expand religious liberties, and other conservative causes. “It’s very important to have that in law because the dignity of the two sexes is not recognized. A lot of rights and modesty that belong to women are diminished.”

“I promised to obey the law”

Ross, the Arlington mayor, first learned the city might have to revisit its anti-discrimination policies when the city’s lawyer told him the municipality lost out on a $50,000 federal grant because a certain policy used the word “inclusive.”

Ignoring Trump’s orders could come at too great an economic loss for the city. And his job is to obey the law, he said.

“I took an oath, and I promised to obey the law,” Ross said. “I didn’t say I’ll follow the law unless I disagree with it, so I’m torn. I don’t want to do things that are harmful to any part of our community or that paint the perception that we don’t love every single person here.”

To be sure, executive orders are not laws. They serve as marching orders for agencies across state and local governments, said Cathryn Oakley, senior director of legal policy at the Human Rights Campaign, a nationwide LGBTQ+ advocacy group.

The manner in which the Trump administration has issued its orders is meant to intimidate and bully, Oakley said.

“It’s really frustrating if you’re a person who cares about the rule of law,” Oakley said. “It is not clear how folks are supposed to implement these things, and it sets up this culture of fear and intimidation because there’s no safe harbor. Either the president will come after you, or the governor will come after you.”

Presidents of both political parties have used executive orders increasingly to drive policy outcomes. For example, President Joe Biden used executive orders to push a climate-friendly agenda and diversity efforts in the wake of the 2020 Black Lives Matter movement.

Sherry Sylvester, a senior fellow at the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation, said rolling back Biden-era DEI efforts was a return to the status quo — and fundamentally American.

“When you remove Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies from agencies, universities and public schools, all you’re saying is all decisions must be made on merit,” Sylvester said. “When you interview people for a job, you’ve hired a person who is most qualified for the job. You get no points if you’re African American, no points if you’re female, no points if you have a gender identity based on your sexual preference.”

Executive orders are meant to spur local governments to act quickly and comply to win much-needed capital to keep their cities operating. Conservatives supporting Trump’s efforts say the tactic began with former President Barack Obama.

In 2011, Obama issued a directive intended to crack down on sexual violence in public schools and universities. In 2016, the U.S. Department of Education updated those rules and said that schools receiving federal funding had to respect a transgender student’s gender identity, which Castle said sparked a movement to oppose such acknowledgements, including in Texas.

In 2017, the Texas Legislature attempted to pass a bill restricting transgender people’s access to restrooms. It died in the legislative process. With Trump back in office this year, the movement to regulate transgender people’s actions in public gained momentum and lawmakers passed a bill restricting the restrooms transgender people can use in government buildings and schools. Castle insisted that such a bill would promote safety in restrooms.

“No one is being denied going to the restroom,” Castle said. “They just have to go to the restroom based on their biological gender.”

The result of Trump’s orders naming transgender people undermines decades of work by the LGBTQ+, the scientific and medical community to participate in public life, said Elana Redfield, federal policy director for UCLA’s School of Law. And they undermine years of scientific research that helped governments and communities understand transgender people’s place in society.

“We can’t function in society without bathrooms,” Redfield said. “It’s very difficult to have a job, take public transportation, travel long distances, go shopping, or do anything without access to bathrooms. These kinds of laws really do have the potential to deeply, deeply exclude transgender people from all aspects of society.”

A renewed movement for queer equity

LGBTQ+ Texans are familiar with laws regulating their right to exist publicly and have fought for an equal standing with everyone else for just as long. The modern movement can be traced back to the 1960s, said Wesley Phelps, a historian at the University of North Texas whose focus is the LGBTQ+ community in the south.

At the time, Texas advocates fought sodomy laws banning sex for gay men and lesbian women.

“There were activists all over Texas who understood that as long as that sodomy law was on the books, as long as it was illegal to engage in sex with someone of the same sex, queer people would always wear that stigma of criminality,” Phelps said. “You could be denied employment, you could be denied housing, you could be denied food stamp assistance, because if you were gay, you were an admitted criminal.”

By the 1970s, advocacy groups had been established in major cities, including Dallas and Houston. And in these cities, activists formed political advocacy groups. The sentiment eventually spread farther, reaching Austin, San Antonio and El Paso. Part of that movement included adding local protections to city charters that prohibited housing and employment discrimination that don’t exist at the state or federal level.

And in 2003, the Texas Supreme Court ruled the sodomy law unconstitutional.

The push to eliminate protections for the broader LGBTQ+ community will trigger a backlash, Phelps said.

“I think things like that have reignited a movement for queer equality today,” Phelps said. “It’s not just that we’re entering a period where it’s going to be difficult to win victories, but the ones already achieved are under threat.”

Many Texans told The Texas Tribune that they plan to stay put, regardless of the policies seeking to regulate their everyday lives. They are turning to optimism and each other, reminding themselves of their right to live openly, they said.

In Houston, Daron Yanez Perez hosts support groups for transgender men. Trans Men Empowerment, which he founded in 2023, has more than 200 members and hosts meetings in person and online. As part of the programming, Perez invites policy and mental health experts who help the members understand how the policies affect them.

Many of Perez’s members are reluctant to use public restrooms, he said, out of fear for their safety. Perez said he would not use the women’s restroom because he does not think women would feel comfortable sharing a restroom with him.

“They’re using restrooms to go after us because they don’t like us, but we’re not going anywhere, we’ve always been here,” Perez said.

In Dallas, Javier Enriquez helps LGBTQ+ people who struggle with loneliness. Enriquez, who is president of the Dallas Social Queer Association, hosts about a dozen events a month. Up to 40 attended each event, which include gay trivia and activities tailored for disabled, elderly people, Hispanic and Asian Pacific Islanders who identify as LGBTQ+.

Enriquez said directives that spell out limits for transgender people and rainbow crosswalks are a distraction from real issues like potholes and unmet trash service. And LGBTQ+ Texans as a community are used to enact that distraction, he said. The resources spent on removing the rainbow colors from the crosswalks, he said, could be put to better use on the city’s infrastructure.

Still, he acknowledged that the orders have instilled fear.

“There are people, especially our transgender siblings, who are worried about being able to call Dallas their home with everything going on, and not all of them have the privilege of the resources to be able to move out,” he said. “And to some of them, this is home, where they built their lives and families… and despite what happens in this world, we are here and we aren’t going anywhere.”

How to Flee the U.S. Safely: Golden Visas, Healthcare & LGBTQ Rights | Dan Brotman Flee Red States

Are you thinking about leaving the United States for safety, stability, or a better quality of life? In this powerful conversation, we sit down with Dan Brotman, an American expat based in Montreal who specializes in investment migration—including Golden Visas, Digital Nomad Visas, and residency-by-investment options tailored to the LGBTQ+ community.

With an academic background in immigration policy, multiple citizenships, and years of frontline experience helping people relocate, Dan brings unmatched insight into how Americans can legally, safely, and strategically build a future outside the U.S.
Follow Dan on Instagram: @danbrotman
linktr.ee/danbrotman

🏡 IN THIS VIDEO, WE COVER:

🌍 Why Americans—Especially LGBTQ+ People—Are Exploring Life Abroad

We discuss political extremism, threats to civil rights, financial instability, and what it means to live somewhere your rights are not up for debate.

💶 Golden Visas & Migration Pathways

Dan explains the residency-by-investment programs opening doors across Europe, Latin America, and beyond—and why securing a visa before your “red line” is crossed is essential.

❤️‍🩹 Healthcare Without Fear

Real stories from Spain, Uruguay, and Canada:

€80/month private healthcare in Spain

A 5-day ICU stay for $19

An emergency room visit in Canada that cost $0

A U.S. insurance premium high enough to rent an apartment in Valencia

🧠 Financial Relief & Peace of Mind

We explore how predictable, low-cost healthcare abroad reduces anxiety for families who worry about a single medical emergency derailing their finances.

🎓 Education & Opportunity

Why families are sending their children to Europe—especially the Netherlands—for nearly free, world-class university education.

🏳️‍🌈 Rights, Safety & Community

Dan discusses LGBTQ+ rights, abortion access, universal healthcare, and gun laws in Canada—issues considered settled and not weaponized politically.

🚨 Red Lines & Safety Planning

We explore how LGBTQ+ people can assess danger, decide their personal boundaries, and obtain the documentation needed to leave quickly if the situation in the U.S. deteriorates.

This is an essential conversation for anyone considering relocation for safety, rights, opportunity, or long-term stability.

🔔 Subscribe for more guides on LGBTQ+ migration, Golden Visa pathways, and global relocation options.

Trump Admin Quietly Changes State Department Page To Indicate It May Invalidate Trans Passports

Read more at Erin in the Morning.

The State Department quietly updated its website this week to signal that the Trump administration may move to invalidate passports held by transgender Americans, following a Supreme Court emergency ruling that overturned earlier protections on gender-marker updates. The change was first spotted by journalist Aleksandra, who writes as Transitics on Substack. Until recently, the website assured transgender passport holders that their documents would “remain valid until [their] expiration date.” As of Thursday morning, that language had been replaced with: “A passport is valid for travel until its date of expiration, until you replace it, or until we invalidate it under federal regulations.” The new phrasing has sparked alarm across the transgender community, with one government source telling Erin in the Morning that there is growing interest within the administration in exploring some level of revocations.

The change comes one week after the Supreme Court issued an emergency ruling allowing the Trump administration’s passport restrictions on transgender people to take effect. In that decision, the Court concluded that the administration is likely to prevail in ongoing litigation, and rejected the argument that the policy was driven by “a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group.” This conclusion stands in stark contrast to the administration’s own executive orders enabling the passport crackdown, which describe transgender people as inherently “wrong,” “dishonorable,” and “socially coercive.”

“The Court ignores these critical limits on its equitable discretion today. The Government seeks to enforce a questionably legal new policy immediately, but it offers no evidence that it will suffer any harm if it is temporarily enjoined from doing so, while the plaintiffs will be subject to imminent, concrete injury if the policy goes into effect,” responded Justice Jackson in her dissent.

Previously, there were signs that a Trump administration victory in court could trigger efforts to invalidate transgender people’s passports. As first reported by Erin in the Morninga single paragraph in a government filing stated that “if the government prevails in this case and the Department proceeds to revoke and replace passports issued pursuant to the preliminary injunction, the Department will incur additional administrative costs.” At the time, some observers dismissed this as routine legal positioning. But the State Department’s latest website change suggests the administration may, in fact, be preparing to take exactly that step.

One government source familiar with internal discussions said such conversations are indeed underway, though any revocation effort would be difficult to carry out and would almost certainly ensnare some cisgender people by mistake. According to the source, the most likely targets would be passport holders with X markers and those who updated their documents through the affidavit process—a temporary pathway created under lower-court rulings that allowed transgender people to obtain corrected passports if they signed a sworn statement attesting to their gender identity. At the time, EITM reported that the State Department was collecting data on every person who signed the affidavit in case a ruling like this arrived, enabling the government to potentially invalidate those passports. Now, that appears to be one of the avenues the administration is actively considering.

For those who updated their passports before this administration, any attempt to revoke those documents would be far more complicated. The process would be costly, the relevant information is not easily accessible, and such actions would almost certainly run into additional legal hurdles and face separate court challenges. And for anyone whose passport the government does seek to change, the law guarantees an appeal with a hearing on request—an extraordinarily expensive and resource-intensive process for an agency that is not equipped to handle a surge of such cases.

When asked what the process would look like for transgender people traveling overseas if their passports were revoked, the source told EITM that those individuals would likely be contacted and instructed to report to the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to replace their passport or receive special guidance. Such a requirement could severely disrupt international travel for transgender people. For now, however, any move in this direction appears to be weeks or even months away—if the administration chooses to pursue it at all.

Meanwhile, the case will continue in the lower courts, a process that could drag on for years. And while those courts could, in theory, rule in favor of transgender plaintiffs, recent Supreme Court actions suggest the justices are prepared to side with the administration on virtually any policy targeting trans people. The Court is already set to hear a case in January that will determine whether transgender Americans receive equal protection under the law at all, and the memory of the Skrmetti decision—upholding bans on trans youth care—still hangs heavily over the legal landscape. In the meantime, transgender people in the United States are left to navigate shifting rules in nearly every aspect of daily life under an administration and a Republican Party intent on making that life as difficult as possible.

While no one was watching: Belmont NC removes LGBTQ employee protections

Read more at QNotes Carolinas.

Karen Hinkley, an attorney in Belmont, filed a lawsuit in Gaston County on October 30 claiming the city of Belmont violated North Carolina’s open-government laws when the city council removed workplace protections for LGBTQ employees in March.

The City of Belmont, a suburban community with a population around 15,000, is generally viewed as more politically moderate than the rest of Gaston County, where Donald Trump received about 62% of the vote in 2024.

In June 2020 Belmont added protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity for its employees after a statewide moratorium on local nondiscrimination ordinances was due to expire. Several other cities such as Asheville, Charlotte, and Durham also added protections for LGBTQ residents and employees around this time.

The lawsuit centers on a March 3 vote in which the city council unanimously approved a new personnel policy that no longer includes explicit nondiscrimination protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The Gaston Gazette reported that “After several unsuccessful public records requests for documentation of behind-the-scenes conversations among City council members, Hinkley filed a lawsuit.”

North Carolina’s Open Meetings Law states that it “is the public policy of North Carolina that the hearings, deliberations, and actions of public bodies be conducted openly.”

According to the suit, city officials discussed the policy change outside of public meetings and used private text messages to coordinate the decision, violating North Carolina’s Open Meetings Law and Public Records Law. Hinkley argues that these private exchanges and the lack of transparency denied residents their legal right to witness how local policies are made.

The Gazette also reported that Hinckley “spoke about the policy change during public comment at a meeting on April 7. The video recording of that meeting began late and lacked audio for about 30 minutes, she said in the lawsuit, and minutes of the meeting misrepresented her comments. To Hinkley, the paraphrased notes about her comments in the official minutes of that meeting make it sound like she was supporting the removal of the protective language when the opposite is true,” she said.

Belmont city officials have not publicly commented on the lawsuit.

If the lawsuit is successful, the case could require Belmont to revisit its decision and restore LGBTQ protections, while also serving as a reminder that local governments must conduct business openly and transparently, and that secret policymaking, even on sensitive issues, can carry legal repercussions.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑