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.
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.”
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.
Explore how to choose countries where you can live authentically and safely. We’ll discuss rights, culture, and communities for LGBTQ+ expats worldwide. You’ll finish with both encouragement and practical strategies for finding your ideal destination.
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 Morning, a 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.
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.
Tijuana is opening a facility that will help members of the LGBTQ+ community and women and children who are victims abuse, including those who are migrants deported from the U.S. or have just arrived in the city.
The center will be run by a group called Ayuda Acción México and will provide people with a home for up to three months as they remain in transition, said Tania Rodríguez Zafra, the agency’s director.
Those who live at the site will also receive job placement, basic health care, legal assistance and other resources.
She stated the site will especially cater to women and children who are victims of abuse.
“These are the most vulnerable members of the population,” Rodríguez Zafra.
The site opened its doors this week and it’s the third such facility in Mexico.
“We are very interested in giving opportunities to those who come here, including those who get deported,” she said. “We want to help as many people as we can.”
There will be room for up to 30 people at a time, but Rodríguez Zafra hopes to grow in the future and be able to accommodate 50 residents.
“Our utmost mission is to change the American dream for the Mexican dream,” she said. “Mexico needs to be more than a transit country, but a destination where people want to remain, we are not encouraging anyone to cross the border.”
The center will also help relocate residents to other areas in Mexico, especially if it means getting them jobs and more opportunities in cities such as Monterrey, Querétaro and Mexico City.
Private donations and contributions, along with some grants from the Mexican government will fund the site and its programs.
“We are affiliated with different firms who will help us accommodate and cater to whoever comes here seeking help, we will find them dignified jobs to meet their level of experience and education,” said Rodríguez Zafra.
A Moscow court Friday found an LGBTQ travel agent who had killed himself in custody a year ago guilty of extremism, as Russia increasingly targets individuals it says undermine “traditional” values.
The posthumous ruling came a year after 48-year-old Andrei Kotov was found dead in his cell in a Moscow pre-trial detention centre.
Russia has heavily targeted the LGBTQ community under President Vladimir Putin, and Friday’s ruling against somebody who had died a year earlier is seen as a particularly symbolic example of how zealous the crackdown is.
Kotov, who ran a travel company called Men Travel, had said he was beaten by 15 men when he was arrested in November 2024.
The Moscow Golovinsky court found him guilty of taking part in “extremist activity” as well as using underage people for pornography, the independent Mediazona website reported from inside the court.
His lawyer had said in December 2024 that Kotov’s body was found in his cell and that investigators told her he died by suicide.
Rights groups have accused authorities of using the case as a show trial — not dropping it after his death to scare LGBTQ people.
In November 2024, Kotov described his arrest in court: “Fifteen people came to me at night, beat me, were punching me in the face.”
Putin has for years denounced anything that goes against what he calls “traditional family values” as un-Russian and influenced by the West.
In 2023, Russia’s Supreme Court banned what it called the “international social LGBT movement” as an “extremist organisation”.
Human Rights Watch has said that the ruling “opened the floodgates for arbitrary prosecutions of individuals who are LGBT or perceived to be, along with anyone who defends their rights or expresses solidarity with them”.
Russia has never been a hospitable environment for LGBTQ people, but has become far more dangerous since Moscow’s Ukraine offensive, which massively accelerated the country’s hardline conservative turn.
In 1980, Cuban police detained Fidel Armando Toboso-Alfonso without charge, encouraged co-workers to publicly shame him, and warned he faced four years in prison unless he fled the country. His “crime” was being gay. Having previously faced 60 days in a labor camp, Toboso-Alfonso chose exile. When he reached the United States, an immigration judge made a historic ruling: He granted Toboso-Alfonso refuge. That decision became a lifeline for countless LGBTQ people.
The United States was once considered a place where LGBTQ people could claim asylum. Today, under a harsher immigration system shaped by Trump-era judges, this image is slipping away.
In June, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued an alert reminding officers that marriages must be legally valid where celebrated to qualify for immigration benefits. For queer couples from countries that criminalize or refuse to recognize same-sex marriage, that’s an impossible standard. They must present a marriage certificate that, in their home country, they could be jailed or killed for attempting to obtain.
This is just one part of the Trump Administration’s broader rollback of protections for immigrants and LGBTQ people.
Under Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, the United States resettled tens of thousands of refugees annually, including LGBTQ people fleeing persecution, arrest, torture, or death. Today, that number has been slashed to just 7,500—a fraction of its former scale and overwhelmingly skewed toward white applicants from South Africa.
The Trump Administration has also ordered federal agencies to remove recognition of transgender and nonbinary identities from official documents. Because the asylum process demands consistency across forms, nonbinary refugees now face an impossible choice: misrepresent themselves on paper or risk rejection for “inconsistency.”
These bureaucratic changes to passports, marriage certificates, and federal forms carry devastating consequences. By narrowing who counts as married or whose gender “exists” on paper, the White House has effectively barred countless queer individuals from asylum protections. Bureaucracy has become a new border wall, keeping the most vulnerable people out.
The United States does not jail or execute people for being LGBTQ. But the government is asking queer people to erase themselves to remain here—a quieter, procedural form of violence. A nation cannot call itself a refuge while demanding that those seeking safety deny who they are.
Last week, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump Administration to require that U.S. passports list only the sex assigned at birth. The decision halts lower-court efforts to block the policy, meaning the State Department may now refuse to process passports reflecting a person’s self-identified gender. The change may seem technical, but it signals something larger: When combined with other anti-LGBTQ measures, it threatens not only the rights of citizens, but also the safety of queer immigrants and refugees.
Meanwhile, some lawmakers are pushing to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 Supreme Court decision that recognized same-sex marriage as a constitutional right. The Court recently declined to hear one such challenge, but its mere consideration shows how precarious equality has become.
For queer asylum seekers already in the United States, the situation remains perilous. Claims based on sexual orientation or gender identity are often met with skepticism, as adjudicators demand “proof” of identity—an impossible expectation when visibility itself can be a death sentence. Instead of offering protection, the system pressures applicants to conform to stereotypes of what being “gay enough” looks like.
Worse still, immigration judges may now deny asylum applications without hearings, silencing stories that could save lives. Bureaucracy, once again, has become a weapon.
The next generation must do more than defend LGBTQ people—they must reclaim the promise of this country. A true refuge is defined not by paperwork or policy, but by the belief that every person deserves to live in truth and safety.
State Representative David Borrero (HB 347) and Senator Clay Yarborough (SB 426) filed the first anti-LGBTQ bill of Florida’s 2026 legislative session — the Pride Flag Ban. The legislation seeks to prohibit state and local government buildings from displaying any flag representing “race, gender, or sexual orientation,” including the Pride flag. The bill also attempts to strip cities and counties of the power to design or adopt their own municipal flags, while carving out protections for “historical” flags — including Confederate symbols. This proposal follows a summer of state action to remove LGBTQ visibility, when Governor Ron DeSantis ordered the removal of rainbow crosswalks and street murals in cities across Florida. Now being introduced for the fourth year, the legislation has been widely rejected three years in a row.
Statement from Joe Saunders, Senior Political Director, Equality Florida:
“This bill is a direct attack on LGBTQ visibility and a textbook example of government overreach and censorship. The Pride flag is a symbol of safety, inclusion, and community for millions of Floridians. After DeSantis spent the summer ripping up rainbow crosswalks and street murals for his own political agenda, legislative extremists are now attempting to finish the job by banning Pride flags in public facilities. These bills prevent local cities and counties from using flags to recognize their own communities or make them welcoming to residents and tourists. Floridians deserve leaders focused on solving real problems, not weaponizing government to erase LGBTQ people from public life. We’ve defeated this bill before, and we will defeat it again.”
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.