Four years after launching a push for more diversity in its ranks, McDonald’s is ending some of its diversity practices, citing a U.S. Supreme Court decision that outlawed affirmative action in college admissions.
McDonald’s is the latest big company to shift its tactics in the wake of the 2023 ruling and a conservative backlash against diversity, equity and inclusionprograms. Walmart, John Deere, Harley-Davidson and others rolled back their DEI initiatives last year.
McDonald’s said Monday it will retire specific goals for achieving diversity at senior leadership levels. It also intends to end a program that encourages its suppliers to develop diversity training and to increase the number of minority group members represented within their own leadership ranks.
McDonald’s said it will also pause “external surveys.” The burger giant didn’t elaborate, but several other companies, including Lowe’s and Ford Motor Co., suspended their participation in an annual survey by the Human Rights Campaign that measures workplace inclusion for LGBTQ+ employees.
McDonald’s, which has its headquarters in Chicago, rolled out a series of diversity initiatives in 2021 after a spate of sexual harassment lawsuits filed by employees and a lawsuit alleging discrimination brought by a group of Black former McDonald’s franchise owners.
Related Stories
“As a world-leading brand that considers inclusion one of our core values, we will accept nothing less than real, measurable progress in our efforts to lead with empathy, treat people with dignity and respect, and seek out diverse points of view to drive better decision-making,” McDonald’s Chairman and CEO Chris Kempczinski wrote in a LinkedIn post at the time.
But McDonald’s said Monday that the “shifting legal landscape” after the Supreme Court decision and the actions of other corporations caused it to take a hard look at its own policies.
A shifting political landscape may also have played a role. President-elect Donald Trump is a vocal opponent of diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Trump tapped Stephen Miller, a former adviser who leads a group called America First Legal that has aggressively challenged corporate DEI policies,as his incoming deputy chief of policy.
Vice President-elect JD Vance introduced a bill in the Senate last summer to end such programs in the federal government.
Robby Starbuck, a conservative political commentator who has threatened consumer boycotts of prominent consumer brands that don’t retreat from their diversity programs, said Monday on X that he recently told McDonald’s he would be doing a story on its “woke policies.”
McDonald’s said it had been considering updates to its policies for several months and planned to time the announcement to the start of this year.
In an open letter to employees and franchisees, McDonald’s senior leadership team said it remains committed to inclusion and believes a diverse workforce is a competitive advantage. The company said 30% of its U.S. leaders are members of underrepresented groups, up from 29% in 2021. McDonald’s previously committed to reaching 35% by the end of this year.
McDonald’s said it has achieved one of the goals it announced in 2021: gender pay equity at all levels of the company. It also said it met three years early a goal of having 25% of total supplier spending go to diverse-owned businesses.
McDonald’s said it would continue to support efforts that ensure a diverse base of employees, suppliers and franchisees, but its diversity team will now be referred to as the Global Inclusion Team. The company said it would also continue to report its demographic information.
The McDonald’s Hispanic Owner-Operators Association said it had no comment on the policy change Monday. A message seeking comment was left with the National Black McDonald’s Operators Association.
Meta, the parent company of Instagram, is under fire for its treatment of LGBTQ+ users after journalist Taylor Lorenz revealed that the platform had restricted LGBTQ-related hashtags for months. The issue, reported in Lorenz’s Substack publication User Mag on Monday, has sparked criticism of Meta’s content moderation practices and repeated failures to support marginalized communities.
Lorenz, a journalist known for her reporting on technology and social media in The New York Times and, most recently, The Washington Post, uncovered that Instagram blocked users—especially teenagers—from searching hashtags like #gay, #lesbian, #trans, and #nonbinary under its “sensitive content” policy. The restrictions, which were in effect for months, were applied by default to teen accounts. When teens searched these hashtags, they were met with a blank screen and a prompt about Instagram’s content restrictions. Meta reversed the blocks only after Lorenz reached out for comment, User Mag reports.
“These search terms and hashtags were mistakenly restricted,” a Meta spokesperson told Lorenz. “It’s important to us that all communities feel safe and welcome on Meta apps, and we do not consider LGBTQ+ terms to be sensitive under our policies.” Meta added that it was investigating how the error occurred but provided no timeline for the investigation or concrete actions to prevent such mistakes in the future.
“Meta categorizing LGBTQ hashtags as ‘sensitive content’ is an alarming example of censorship that should concern everyone,” Leanna Garfield, social media safety program manager at GLAAD, told Lorenz. “These platforms are lifelines for young LGBTQ+ people, and restricting this content isolates them further.”
A GLAAD spokesperson also told The Advocate, “LGBTQ people all over the world, especially young people, use Instagram to express who they are and to find and be part of a community. A responsible and inclusive company would not build an algorithm that classifies some LGBTQ hashtags as ‘sensitive content,’ hiding helpful and age-appropriate content from young people by default.”
The spokesperson added that whether it was an unintended mistake, “Meta should remedy this issue immediately, publicly apologize to its LGBTQ users, and test significant product updates before launch.” They added, “Everyone, not just LGBTQ people, should be deeply concerned about the larger implications of this kind of content suppression.”
Garfield highlighted the damage that blocks like the one Meta had in place do.
“For many LGBTQ people, especially youth, platforms like Instagram are crucial for self-discovery, community building, and accessing supportive information,” Garfield told User Mag. “By limiting access to LGBTQ content, Instagram may be inadvertently contributing to the isolation and marginalization of LGBTQ users.”
Reports of such challenges on Instagram are not new. In September 2023, Mashable highlighted the issue of shadowbanning—when content is flagged as “non-recommendable” and hidden from non-followers. LGBTQ+ creators were disproportionately affected by these restrictions. Topher Taylor, a sexuality educator and creator, told Mashable that his content had been categorized as non-recommendable for years because of reports from bigoted users. “You will get more reports if you’re visibly queer,” he said. Meanwhile, mainstream accounts promoting explicit or suggestive content, such as those tied to celebrities or brands catering to heterosexual audiences, often bypass these restrictions.
The controversy over restricted hashtags is the latest in a series of criticisms against Meta. Last year, a GLAAD report revealed that Meta had failed to moderate harmful anti-trans content across its platforms, including Instagram and Threads. The report detailed violent speech and harassment targeting transgender and nonbinary users, much of which remained live despite clear violations of Meta’s community guidelines.
Meta also faced backlash in September for delaying the ban of far-right Republican Valentina Gomez, who used Instagram to spread antigay slurs and burn LGBTQ-themed books. In December, U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina posted videos on Instagram using a transphobic slur to mock protesters opposing her anti-trans bathroom bill. Despite repeated reports from advocacy groups, Mace’s videos remain live on the platform.
Critics argue that these incidents highlight systemic flaws in Meta’s approach to content moderation.
Like the residents of Munchkinland celebrating Elphaba’s watery demise in Wicked‘s opening number, anti-‘woke’ pundits are delightedly banging the drum that diversity, equality and inclusion policies (DEI) – aimed at reducing discrimination in the workplace – are dead, dunzo and pushing up daises.
“The death of DEI is finally here,” Michael Deacon proclaimed, “the DEI cult is now imploding,” Sam Ashworth-Hayes declared – citing car manufacturer Jaguaras the first fatality – “the DEI game is up,” Matthew Lynn insisted.
You get the picture.
Whilst you could argue these statements are just the overzealous sells of attention grabbing headlines, it is undeniable the right’s self-imposed ‘War on Woke’ – which this year turned its Eye of Sauron-esque gaze on DEI – has forced US multi-billion dollar businesses to abandon commitments to fostering fair and equitable workplaces.
Robby Starbuck is leading campaigns against companies he deems ‘woke’. (Jason Kempin/Getty Images)
Leading the charge throughout 2024 has been former music video director turned MAGA pundit and anti-woke campaigner Robby Starbuck, whose mission to bring “sanity back to corporate America” via public pressure campaigns and boycotts has seen big name US brands like Harley-Davidson, Jack Daniel’s, Ford, Stanley Black & Decker and John Deere – just to name a few – all roll back DEI policies.
Starbuck’s ire is with American firms supporting minority causes and communities, such as sponsoring LGBTQ+ Pride events, running inclusivity training for staff and taking part in the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index. That being said, business participation in the HRC’s Index reached record levels in 2024, despite Starbuck’s best efforts.
Further to this, corporations abandoning their DEI commitments has certainly not happened without criticism, with disdainful LGBTQ+ folks voting with their feet and making it clear that they’re more than willing to take their cash elsewhere.
The 2024 LGBTQ+ Climate Survey found that 80 per cent of LGBTQ+ adults in the US would boycott a company that rolled back equality programmes, whilst more than 75 per cent said that they would have a less-favourable opinion of a company that cut its DEI policies. The survey found 52 per cent of people said they would urge others to boycott the company, including by posting negative reviews on social media.
As the year draws to a close, here are some of the biggest and most well-known businesses that have backed down on supporting diversity this year.
Walmart
(Getty Images/Bob Riha, Jr.)
Not the most recent company to fold on its DEI commitments, but no doubt the biggest.
Walmart is the America’s largest private employer and has 1.6 million associates working across nearly 5,000 locations in the US, with a total of 2.1 million staff on the books worldwide.
According to revenue data published by Forbes for its Fortune 500 list, Walmart generated revenue worth $645.15 billion in 2023.
Walmart’s decision to step back on its DEI policies came as Starbuck threatened to galvanise a boycott in conjunction with the Black Friday sales, a post-Thanksgiving shopping event which generated a total of $9.8 billion across the US economy in 2023.
Taking to X, formerly Twitter, Starbuck said he warned Walmart executives he was “doing a story on wokeness there” and had “productive conversations to find solutions.”
The business will now no longer take part in the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index – it earned a perfect score of 100 in 2023 – stop selling “inappropriate sexual and/or transgender products” marketed at children, review Pride funding and no longer provide staff with racial-equity training.
Walmart will also stop using the term Latinx, discontinue the use of DEI as a term and “will evaluate supplier diversity programmes and ensure they do not provide preferential treatment and benefits to suppliers based on diversity.”
Starbuck said the decision would “send shockwaves throughout corporate America.”
Ford
(Carl Court/Getty Images)
Iconic car manufacturer Ford is known not only for producing vehicles but for entirely revolutionising the means of mass production through assembly lines. But despite its industry-leading history, it seems it flinches at the risk of conservative upset.
According to the Fortune 500 list, the brand generated revenue of $176,191,000,000 ($171.19 billion) in 2023 and employs around 130,000 staff members in the United States.
In August, the company announced it would be ending its participation in the HRC’s Corporate Equality Index, with CEO Jim Farley saying in a memo: “We are mindful that our employees and customers hold a wide range of beliefs, and the external and legal environment related to political and social issues continues to evolve.”
Farley added Ford would focus on taking care of employees and customers “versus publicly commenting on the polarising issues of the day.”
The HRC slammed the decision, writing on a social media post that Ford was “cowering to MAGA weirdo Robby Starbuck.”
Starbuck, unsurprisingly, celebrated the move: “This isn’t everything we want but it’s a great start. We’re now forcing multi-billion dollar organisations to change their policies without even posting just from fear they have of being the next company that we expose.”
Lowe’s
(Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
Another large retail chain, Lowe’s might be smaller than Walmart but still has more than 2,000 stores and employs 300,000 people. It generated $86 billion in 2023.
The home improvement chain announced its DEI rollback via an internal memo where the firm announced it would stop taking part in surveys for the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), combine employee groups into one umbrella organisation and end support for “festivals, parades and fairs” – arguably meaning Pride events.
Starbuck claimed he contacted executives at the chain last week “to let them know I planned to expose their woke policies” and subsequently “woke up to an email where they pre-emptively made big changes”.
However, a spokesman for Lowe’s told CNN they had heard from Starbuck after the company “already announced changes that had long been in process.”
Toyota
Toyota. ( Ralph Orlowski/Getty Images)
After coming under fire from Starbuck, car-manufacturer Toyota announced their “refocus” of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programmes means they won’t sponsor cultural events and parades such as LGBTQ+ Pride in the US.
In a memo sent to 50,000 US employees and more than 1,500 dealerships, the company said the decision follows a “highly politicised discussion” around business commitments to DEI.
“We will no longer sponsor cultural events such as festivals and parades that are not related to Stem [science, technology, engineering and maths] education and workforce readiness,” the memo read.
According to Bloomberg, Toyota will also no longer participate in cultural surveys, and will end their participation in the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) annual Corporate Equality Index, which once gave them a perfect score for their DEI efforts.
The car-makers will refocus employee resource groups for professional development, networking and mentoring with a “clear alignment to driving the company’s business”.
John Deere
Tractor manufacturing John Deere was targeted by the ‘anti-woke’ brigade. (Getty)
In a post on social media in July following a Starbuck campaign, agricultural manufacturer John Deere confirmed it was rolling back its corporate inclusion efforts.
The statement read: “We will no longer participate or support external social or cultural awareness parades, festivals or events. Business resource groups will exclusively be focused on professional development, networking, mentoring and supporting talent recruitment efforts.”
All company-mandated training materials and policies would be audited to ensure the absence of socially motivated messages while being in compliance with federal, state and local laws, the company promised while reaffirming that “the existence of diversity quotas and pronoun identification have never been and are not company policy”.
However, the statement also noted that the company “fundamentally believe a diverse workforce enables us to best meet our customers’ needs, and because of that, we will continue to track the advancement of the diversity of our organisations”, adding: “Your trust and confidence in us are of the utmost importance to everyone at John Deere, and we fully intend to earn it every day and in every way we can.”
Stanley Black & Decker
Stanley Black & Decker became the focus of another right-wing campaign group. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Toolmakers Stanley Black & Decker have been accused of “scrubbing” all mentions of DEI from its corporate website.
This time though, the backlash came from Consumers’ Research, a right-wing campaign group that prides itself on targeting “wokeness” in business.
The pressure group’s executive director, Will Hild, believed Stanley Black & Decker might continue to undertake DEI activities “albeit more surreptitiously than before they were caught”.
Molson Coors
Despite a history of supporting LGBTQ+ causes, Molson Coors scrapped progressive policies. (Getty Images)
Molson Coors Brewing Company reportedly began restructuring its corporate training programmes in March, according to an internal memo.
Despite once being “refreshingly proud”, the brewer added that it will do away with DEI programmes and diversity quota because of the “complicated” rise of anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric.
Human rights groups struck back, with GLAAD shaming the company for deciding to “walk away” from supporting marginalised groups “when it gets noisy and hard”.
Ford
Ford will focus on employees and customers rather than “polarising issues of the day”. (Getty Images)
The car manufacturer announced in August an intention to leave the HRC’s CEI. Chief executive Jim Farley wrote in a memo that the company would focus on taking care of employees and customers “versus publicly commenting on polarising issues of the day”.
Farley also sits on the corporate board at Harley-Davidson.
While Starbuck publicly celebrated another win, the HRC condemned the move, saying: “Today, Ford abandoned its values and commitments to an inclusive workplace, cowering to MAGA weirdo Robby Starbuck.”
Harley-Davidson
Harley-Davidson was another big name to bow to the anti-woke brigade. (Emanuele Cremaschi/Getty Images)
The motorcycle maker succumbed to the anti-woke brigade after Starbuck accused the company of taking on DEI initiatives. “I don’t think the values at corporate reflect the values of nearly any Harley-Davidson bikers,” he wrote on X.
“Do Harley riders want the money they spend to be used later by corporate to push an ideology that’s diametrically opposed to their own values?”
Despite a long history of supporting LGBTQ+ causes, Harley-Davidson said they hadn’t had a DEI function since April and “no longer have supplier diversity spend goals”.
In addition, all employee training would only be business-related and “absent of socially motivated content.”
Jack Daniel’s
The parent company of Jack Daniel’s axed initiatives because the “world has changed since 2019”. (Getty Images)
Another well-known brand, Jack Daniel’s, announced the scrapping of all DEI initiatives because “the world has evolved” since 2019 when the business, owned by Brown-Forman, first introduced the policies.
Starbuck considered this a big win, writing on X that he received the news before he could expose the company and bragging: “We are winning… one by one we will bring sanity back to corporate America”.
Despite the new “strategic framework”, including leaving the HRC’s CEI index, the company will still foster an inclusive culture where “everyone is welcomed, respected and able to bring their best self to work”.
Tractor Supply Co
Rural farm supply store Tractor Supply was one of the first companies to scrape DEI policies. (Getty Images)
The rural America retail chain specialising in agricultural wares was the first domino to fall under Starbucks’ scrutiny. In a lengthy tweet exposing Tractor Supply for having “woke priorities”, including donations to charities that support LGBTQ+ youngsters, the company faced an intense backlash on social media.
The firm quickly relented, promising to eliminate their DEI programmes and climate change goals, saying: “We have heard from customers that we have disappointed them. We have taken this feedback to heart.”
In addition, the company will no longer provide data to the Human Rights Commission’s (HRC) Corporate Equality Index (CEI), a bench-marking tool that rates American businesses on policies and practises that affect their LGBTQ+ employees.
Another American-based big-leaguer is kicking in cash to incoming President-elect Donald Trump’s January inaugural fund.
Ford Motor Company, headquartered in Dearborn, Mich., will donate $1 million as well as a fleet of vehicles for the festivities, a spokesperson confirmed to USA TODAY Monday.
Earlier this month, Ford CEO Jim Farley told reporters his leadership team is carefully watching for policy changes in Washington but isn’t panicked about Trump returns to the presidency.
While the economic challenges of the last few years have tested organizations of all stripes, Black-owned businesses closed their doors at twice the rate of other businesses during the pandemic. Studies show that less access to the financial system and lack of family wealth to draw from – both key avenues of financial security during economic slowdowns – are partly to blame.Consumer spending habits are another major challenge for Black-owned businesses, which can struggle to scale up because of a misperception that their target market is a narrow demographic. Minority-owned businesses, however, are often marketing to broader audiences who never consider them.I have personally experienced how convenient it is to visit the website of a prominent retailer and locate a significant portion of my shopping list in a single location. However, in order to contribute to the advancement of Black-owned enterprises in the United States, UK, Ireland, and the Netherlands, I have assembled an extensive roster of more than 450 Black-owned businesses spanning various sectors. Please take a moment to explore the list provided below!
Users of Elon Musk‘s X/Twitter are looking for a new social media platform on which to connect and share their thoughts – and Bluesky might be the answer.
Bluesky has been the talk of the internet for some time now, and last week it became the top free app in the Apple App Store in the UK, as users looked for an alternative to Musk’s platform where LGBTQ+ hate appears free to continue unabated.
Having launched in 2022, Bluesky has been steadily gaining numbers, especially in the wake of the recent US presidential election and with Musk co-leading the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency. This month, the platform’s audience hit 19 million, with 700,000 new members in just one week.
So, is the grass really greener – or maybe bluer – elsewhere? Here is everything you need to know about the up and coming social media platform.
Is Bluesky free?
Yes.
Bluesky started as an internal project by former Twitter chief executive Jack Dorsey in 2019. In 2021, it became an independent company with Jay Graber taking the reins.
Previously, new users were only able to migrate to the site if they received an invitation from an existing user. That policy has been scrapped and anyone can join. Visit bsky.app and click the sign-up button to begin.
What is the difference between X and Bluesky?
At first look, X/ and Bluesky seem similar, both are scrollable social media platforms but when you look closer the new alternative solves a lot of problems that users have been having with Musk’s adopted child recently.
People using Bluesky can post, comment, repost and like their favourite things using the home page, notifications and search functions.
Bluesky prides itself on being a network that prioritises user control, a stark contrast to X’s algorithm-driven feeds that had become increasingly populated by bots. Being decentralised is an essential difference because users can host their data on their own servers rather than those owned by the company.
However, most people are unlikely to use this feature and will simply join with a “.bsky.social” at the end of their username.
Toxic algorithms and right-wing hate are driving people to Bludsky. (Mario Tama/Getty)
Why is everyone going to Bluesky?
It’s no coincidence that following Trump’s re-election, the number of new users on Bluesky shot up.
Elon Musk backed Trump’s presidential campaign both vocally and financially and has now been nominated for a position in the incoming administration. With political division on the platform being felt by all, some are leaving X as a protest.
Other X users have grown fed up with the platform’s toxic algorithmic feeds and the South-African-born billionaire’s failed promises to end the bot problem.
Also, since Musk took over, X seems to have been increasingly prioritising right-wing/MAGA attitudes.
The platform has also become increasingly hostile for LGBTQ+ users. Musk – whose own trans daughter has cut him out of her life – rolled back anti-hate protection policies on the social media platform after he took it over, such as those against misgendering and deadnaming.
The policy which prohibited “targeted harassment, including repeated slurs, tropes” or content intended to dehumanise protected categories, had been in effect since 2018 – prior to Musk’s acquisition of the platform – but was dropped last year.
In December, the verified Facebook page of Adam Klotz, a Fox News meteorologist, started running strange video ads.
Some featured the distinctive voice of former President Donald Trump promising “$6,400 with your name on it, no payback required” just for clicking the ad and filling out a form.
In other ads with the same offer, President Joe Biden’s well-known cadence assured viewers that “this isn’t a loan with strings attached.”
There was no free cash. The audio was generated by AI. People who clicked were taken to a form asking for their personal information, which was sold to telemarketers who could target them for legitimate offers — or scams.
Klotz’s page ran more than 300 of these ads before ProPublica contacted the weather forecaster in late August. Through a spokesperson, Klotz said that his page had been hacked and he was locked out. “I had no idea that ads were being run until you reached out.”
Klotz’s page had been co-opted by a sprawling ad account network that has operated on Facebook for years, churning out roughly 100,000 misleading election and social issues ads despite Meta’s stated commitment to crack down on harmful content, according to an investigation and analysis by ProPublica and Columbia Journalism School’s Tow Center for Digital Journalism, as well as research by the Tech Transparency Project, a nonpartisan nonprofit that researches large tech platforms. The organizations combined data and shared their analyses. TTP’s report was produced independently of ProPublica and Tow’s investigation and was shared with ProPublica prior to publication.
The network, which uses the name Patriot Democracy on many of its ad accounts, is one of eight deceptive Meta advertising operations identified by ProPublica and Tow. These networks have collectively controlled more than 340 Facebook pages, as well as associated Instagram and Messenger accounts. Most were created by the advertising networks, with some pages masquerading as government entities. Others were verified pages of people with public roles, like Klotz, who had been hacked. The networks have placed more than 160,000 election and social issues ads on these pages in English and Spanish. Meta showed the ads to users nearly 900 million times across Facebook and Instagram.
The ads are only a fraction of the more than $115 billion Meta earns annually in advertising revenue. But at just over $25 million in total lifetime spend, the networks collectively rank as the 11th-largest all-time advertiser on Meta for U.S. elections or social issues ads since the company began sharing data in 2018. The company’s failure to block these scams consistently highlights how one of the world’s largest platforms struggles to protect its users from fraud and deliver on its nearly decadelong promise to prevent deceptive political ads.
Most of these networks are run by lead-generation companies, which gather and sell people’s personal information. People who clicked on some of these ads were unwittingly signed up for monthly credit card charges, among many other schemes. Some, for example, were conned by an unscrupulous insurance agent into changing their Affordable Care Act health plans. While the agent earns a commission, the people who are scammed can lose their health insurance or face unexpected tax bills because of the switch.
The ads run by the networks employ tactics that Meta has banned, including the undisclosed use of deepfake audio and video of national political figures and promoting misleading claims about government programs to bait people into sharing personal information. Thousands of ads illegally displayed copies of state and county seals and the images of governors to trick users. “The State has recently approved that Illinois residents under the age of 89 may now qualify for up to $35,000 of Funeral Expense Insurance to cover any and all end-of-life expenses!” read one deceptive ad featuring a photo of Gov. JB Pritzker and the Illinois state seal.
More than 13,000 ads deployed divisive political rhetoric or false claims to promote unofficial Trump merchandise.
A deceptive ad used the image of Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and the state seal. Credit: Screenshot by ProPublica
Meta removed some of the ads after initially approving them, the investigation found, but it failed to catch thousands of others with similar or even identical content. In many cases, even after removing the violating ads, it allowed the associated Facebook pages and accounts to continue operating, enabling the parent networks to spawn new pages and ads.
Meta requires ads related to elections or social issues like health care and immigration to include “paid for by” disclaimers that identify the person or entity behind the ads. But its rules for verifying advertisers and publicly disclosing who paid for such ads are less stringent than those of its main competitor, Google, ProPublica and Tow found. Many of the disclaimers on Facebook ads listed nonexistent entities.
A Meta spokesperson said it invests heavily in trust and safety and uses a mix of humans and technology to review election and social issues ads.
“We welcome ProPublica’s investigation into this scam activity, which included deceptive ads promoting Affordable Care Act tax credits and government-funded rent subsidies,” spokesperson Margarita Franklin said in an emailed statement. “… [A]s part of our ongoing work against scams, impersonation and spam, our enforcement systems had already detected and disabled a large portion of the Pages — and we reviewed and took action against the remainder of these Pages for various policy violations.”
Our analysis showed that while Meta had removed some pages and ads, its enforcement often lagged or was haphazard. Prior to being contacted by ProPublica and Tow, Meta had taken action against roughly 140 pages affiliated with these eight networks, representing less than half of the total identified in the investigation.
By then, the ads on those pages had been shown hundreds of millions of times, resulting in financial losses for an untold number of people.
Meta ultimately removed a substantial portion of pages flagged by this investigation. But after that enforcement, ProPublica and the Tow Center found that four of the networks ran more than 5,000 ads in October. Patriot Democracy alone activated two pages a day on average in the first half of this month.
“Their enforcement here is just super spotty and inconsistent, and they’re not actually attacking root problems,” said Jeff Allen, the chief research officer of the Integrity Institute, a nonprofit organization for trust and safety professionals.
He said networks like Patriot Democracy exploit the fact that a single Facebook page can be connected to multiple ad accounts and user profiles, creating a complex challenge for enforcement. “But these cracks have existed for the past eight years,” said Allen, a former Meta data scientist who worked on integrity issues before departing in 2019.
“There are a lot of gaps in the system, and Facebook’s overall strategy is to play Whac-A-Mole.”
Franklin noted that scammers use a variety of tactics to conceal their activity. Meta constantly updates its detection and enforcement systems and works with industry and law enforcement partners to combat fraudulent activity, she said.
“This is a highly adversarial space, and we continue to update our enforcement systems to respond to evolving scammer behavior,” Franklin said. She added that Meta has taken legal action against several operators.
Meta’s Rules
Misleading election ads have posed a challenge for Meta since at least 2016, when Russian trolls purchased thousands of Facebook and Instagram ads targeting Americans ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
Amid public outcry and pressure from Congress, Meta has created special rules for political and social issues advertisers, launched a public Ad Library to archive such ads and hired additional people to review ads. An integrity team has been tasked with enforcing Meta’s community and advertising standards.
In 2022 and 2023, Meta laid off over 20,000 employees, including members of its integrity team. The company said it has more than 40,000 people working on safety and security around the world, an increase since 2020. It declined to say whether it has more people working on election ad reviews this cycle compared with the last presidential election.
One of the team’s key responsibilities is to verify that election and social issues advertisers are who they say they are, and that their ads adhere to the company’s rules. Since 2019, Meta has required political and social issues advertisers to submit an Employer Identification Number, a government or military website and an associated email address, or a Federal Election Commission registration number.
Meta also allowed state and local organizations and candidates who aren’t federally registered to run ads by providing a corresponding website and email address, a “valid” phone number and a mail-deliverable address. It later relaxed the rules to allow advertisers to simply display the name of their Facebook page as the entity that paid for the ad.
Google, Meta’s main U.S. election ads competitor, doesn’t have similar carve-outs for ad disclaimers. It accepts only an FEC registration number, state elections ID or EIN to verify an organization. Google’s political ad disclaimers list the organization name or the name of a person who completed the ID verification process.
Franklin said Meta has rules to ensure that page name disclaimers aren’t abused. The company’s guidelines say that regardless of how much information advertisers disclose, the ads must “Accurately represent the name of the entity or person responsible for the ad.” But more than 100,000 ads identified by ProPublica and the Tow Center did not.
Patriot Democracy
Adam Klotz’s Facebook page and an example of an ad featuring a deepfake version of President Donald Trump’s voiceCredit: Screenshots by ProPublica
The “paid for by” disclaimers on the ads that mysteriously started appearing on weather forecaster Klotz’s hijacked page listed “Klotz Policy Group” as the advertiser. Klotz Policy Group is not affiliated with Adam Klotz, and the email and website address in the disclaimer do not point to a dedicated website. The group is also not listed in OpenCorporates or other business registration databases.
The advertiser disclaimer information for Klotz’s page listed the email admin@patriotdemocracy.com and the website patriotdemocracy.com/klotzpolicygroup. That URL led to a page that promoted dental coverage for Medicare recipients and used the branding of a site called Saving Tips Daily. Similar URLs with the patriotdemocracy.com domain appeared across other pages in the network, which enabled ProPublica, Tow and the Tech Transparency Project to link them to the same network. (For more details on how the ads and networks were identified, see the methodology section at the end of this story.)
Patriot Democracy is the biggest of the eight networks identified during the course of the investigation and has been active on Meta’s platforms for nearly five years. It includes 232 pages that have spent more than $13 million on more than 110,000 ads.
Allen said operations like Patriot Democracy spend millions on Meta ads because it helps them find victims.
“If they gave over $10 million to Facebook, then they may have extracted $15 million from American seniors with this garbage,” he said. “The harms add up.”
The pages often have official-sounding names such as “Government Cash Program,” “US Financial Relief” and “USA Stimulus Fund,” and their ad disclaimers list organization names that do not correspond to registered entities or websites.
Meta also allowed the page owners to falsely identify themselves as affiliated with the federal government. If a user looked up the page details of “Government Cash Program,” they would see a notation showing that it’s a “Government Website.” US Financial Relief is listed as a “Government organization.” More than 20 pages claimed to be a “Public Service.”
The Government Cash Program Facebook page falsely listed itself as a “Government Website.” Credit: Screenshot by ProPublica
One of the most common types of ads run by Patriot Democracy pages is for Trump merchandise, including coins, flags and hats.
One of these ads ensnared Sam Roberson, a 57-year-old Texas resident, last month. While browsing Facebook, Roberson was drawn to an offer for a Trump coin from a page called Stars and Stripes Supply. The coin was embossed with an image of the former president raising his fist after the assassination attempt in Pennsylvania. One click took him to the site patriotprosnetwork.com, where Roberson paid $39.99 for 11 coins that he planned to give to his grandkids. He received the coins. But two weeks later, his card was charged another $29.99.
Roberson told ProPublica that he didn’t realize that he had signed up for a subscription. He contacted customer support to request a refund, but is skeptical the company will follow through.
“With these knuckleheads and how deep they are dug in, I may end up having to cancel the card,” he said.
When ProPublica called the site’s customer service line, a person who did not give their name said that customers who choose the “VIP” checkout option receive a discount on their purchases and are automatically enrolled in a monthly membership. The spokesperson said that customers are informed on the site and by email “how they got involved [in the membership] and how they can cancel.”
They said that someone else from the company could answer questions about advertising but hung up when asked how often they receive customer complaints about the membership fee.
An example of a Trump coin ad run by the Stars and Stripes Supply Facebook page Credit: Screenshot by ProPublica
ProPublica also sent an email with detailed questions about the coin offer and the subscription but did not receive a response.
The Stars and Stripes Supply page spent over $700,000 on Meta ads for Trump merchandise and ran ads as recently as Sept. 28 before it was removed by Meta. The page and the store have received onlinecomplaints about the billing scheme. It’s unclear who controls the page or the store, or how they are connected.
In addition to the billing schemes, the Trump merchandise ads often draw clicks with false claims and divisive language. Stars and Stripes Supply ran ads for Trump and JD Vance yard signs that falsely claimed “liberal activists are ripping Trump-Vance yard signs from the ground, sparking a wave of controversy across the nation.”
A page called Truly American ran a video ad for a “free” Trump flag and coin offer that was narrated by a female voice claiming to be Melania Trump. “Today we see free thinkers and independent voices like gay conservatives and Log Cabin Republicans silenced, censored and bullied by cancel-culture mobs. Donald stood against this and they tried to silence him for good,” the voice intoned, as the ad showed an image of Trump with his bloodied ear.
It’s unclear who ultimately controls the Patriot Democracy pages and associated Instagram accounts or who paid for the ads. Along with listing fake advertiser names, Patriot Democracy ad disclaimers show addresses that often correspond to WeWork co-working spaces or UPS stores. And the phone numbers, which are shared among multiple pages, led to generic voicemail messages — with one exception.
A man who answered one number said he’d never run ads on Meta and didn’t know why his phone number was listed. He said he was on his way to court and asked the reporter to call back later. He did not answer a subsequent call, and the phone number was soon disconnected.
The ownership information for patriotdemocracy.com and its related domains is also private, making it impossible to know who registered the domain. Meta did not answer specific questions about the network.
Before ProPublica and Tow reached out, Meta had removed less than half of Patriot Democracy pages for violating its advertising standards. It also failed to take action against the larger network, even after some of its pages were exposed in earlier reports by Forbes and researchers at Syracuse University.
Of the more than 110,000 ads on Patriot Democracy pages identified by ProPublica and Tow, Meta stopped just over 7,000, or roughly 6%, from running for violating standards. These ads were shown nearly 60 million times before Meta took action. Meta also consistently failed to detect and remove copies of ads it had previously banned due to policy violations, according to the analysis.
Franklin said Meta uses a variety of automated approaches to detect and remove duplicate ads. This includes training systems to recognize the images and videos used in previously removed ads in order to prevent them from running again. It also looks at a variety of signals, including user and payment information and the devices used to access accounts, to restrict or ban people who break its rules, she said.
Two ads run by the Patriot Democracy network falsely promised government subsidy checks. Credit: Screenshots by ProPublica
One of the most popular lures used by Patriot Democracy and other networks is the promise of free government cash.
More than 30,000 ads across the networks identified by ProPublica and Tow falsely claimed that nearly all Americans could receive government subsidies or are eligible for a “FREE Health Insurance Program.” People who clicked were often directed to unethical insurance agents who altered their existing ACA plan details or signed them up for plans they weren’t eligible for, pocketing a commission in the process. These ads were shown to users at least 38 million times.
The scheme has caused victims to lose their existing ACA health insurance or to be hit with unexpected tax bills from the IRS. In those cases, the agent falsely reported a lower income to enroll clients and secure a commission. In response to the surgein fraudulent enrollments, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the federal agency that administers the ACA, implemented stricter rules this summer for insurance agents.
A CMS spokesperson declined to comment on specific ads or platforms. But insurance marketers and other industry experts told ProPublica that Facebook ads are a scammer’s preferred method for ensnaring victims. Meta declined to comment on whether it’s in touch with CMS.
“It’s clear from speaking with a lot of different consumers that were ripped off that the Facebook ads played a big part,” said Jason Doss, an Atlanta lawyer who filed a class-action suit against a group of companies and individuals who allegedly used online ads, high-pressure insurance call centers and other methods to commit mass ACA enrollment fraud. The companies have moved to dismiss the case, citing a lack of jurisdiction and failure to show that any laws were broken, among other defenses. “We deny the allegations made and will be defending the case,” the CEO of one company named in the suit told ProPublica. The suit is ongoing.
Since 2021, Google has required U.S. health insurance advertisers to verify their identity and license status prior to running ads. Meta does not have this requirement. The company did not respond to questions about health insurance advertisers.
Taking on a Network
Meta’s failure to stop deceptive ads about government programs has forced some state and local officials to step in.
In January 2023, investigators in the Alaska Division of Insurance received complaints from consumers who said they were shown misleading ads on Facebook.
The ads used the state seal of Alaska and in some cases a photo of the governor to falsely claim that the state was offering new funeral and burial benefits. “The State of Alaska approved NEW affordable Funeral programs, designed to cover 100% final expenses up to 25,000 or more. Not just a portion,” read one ad.
As with other types of deceptive ads, the burial ads tricked people into filling out a form. In this case, they often ended up on the phone with someone trying to sell life insurance.
Alex Romero, Alaska’s chief insurance investigator, was alarmed. There weren’t any “new” state benefits. It’s also illegal in Alaska, and just about every state, to use a state seal without permission.
Searching the Meta Ad Library, he found hundreds of deceptive ads that used state seals. Romero warned his fellow state insurance investigators on a scheduled conference call soon after his discovery. “There was a proliferation of advertising using the same deceptive marketing,” Romero told ProPublica.
Around the same time, officials in Ventura County, California, were alerted to the unauthorized use of its county seal in Facebook ads. A local news outlet sent the county examples of burial insurance ads that used the Ventura County seal. Tiffany North, the county counsel, began an inquiry. She and Romero connected last spring and realized the same person was connected to the Facebook ads: a lead-generation marketer and insurance broker named Abel Medina.
Officials in Alaska and Ventura County, California, were alarmed by ads that used their seals without permission.Credit: Screenshots by ProPublica
Public records show that Medina, 35, owns companies such as Heartwork Global and Kontrol LLC, which have run election and social issues ads on several Facebook pages.
Romero said his research showed that Kontrol LLC was a key source of Facebook ads with state seals and images of governors. “Practically every state, a bunch of counties, several cities, they’re all getting tagged by this guy Medina,” he said.
Corporate records show that Final Expense Authority LLC is registered to Tiffani Panyanouvong, a 24-year-old former insurance broker. She told ProPublica that Medina registered the entity in her name without her permission when they were dating.
American Benefits & Services LLC is registered in Delaware and does not publicly list an owner. Panyanouvong said that Medina used that company and Final Expense Authority to run ads on Meta and that she “had nothing to do with his lead-generation services.”
“This is all because of him, and I was just his girlfriend at the time,” Panyanouvong told ProPublica in a WhatsApp message. “And he used me as another person to hide behind to get through the Facebook advertising loop holes.”
On his LinkedIn profile, Medina touts his Facebook ad expertise. He says he generated “$1.6 Million in sales in under eight months with only Facebook Final Expense Media Buying and growing other verticals.”
He’s also teaching others how to do it — for a fee. His profile points to a website, Scale Kontrol, which promises to help clients create a “cash cow advertising machine” by using Facebook ads to generate customer leads. The site also assures customers that it knows “work arounds” to avoid having ads “flagged, banned, restricted.”
Medina did not respond to phone messages or to a detailed list of questions sent to three email addresses, his Facebook account and a home address.
ProPublica and Tow found that the four companies have operated at least 40 Facebook pages and spent $2.1 million on more than 21,000 election and issues ads. Thousands of ads reviewed by ProPublica and Tow across pages linked to the companies made deceptive claims and appeared to break one or more Meta rules.
A deceptive ad for car insurance falsely suggested that President Joe Biden was sending government checks to pay for gas. Credit: Screenshot by ProPublica
The pages used deepfake audio of Biden to make false claims about government subsidies, ran deceptive auto insurance ads that promoted nonexistent “Biden Gas Relief Checks” using images of a U.S. Treasury check, and falsely claimed that “The State has approved a NEW Mortgage Protection Plan that protects your home and family in the event of an unexpected tragedy.” No such state plan exists.
Prior to being contacted by ProPublica, Meta had removed about half of the pages. Ten pages connected to these companies ran ads in the last three months.
In March 2023, North sent a cease-and-desist letter to Final Expense Authority. “Your use of the County’s official seal and your actions in misleading the public are unauthorized and unlawful,” she wrote.
The following month, Romero sent a similar letter to Medina, Panyanouvong and three of the companies. It cited five criminal and civil statutes that the state of Alaska believed they had violated and demanded they stop running ads with the state seal and images of the governor.
North and Romero said the ads with their respective seals stopped soon after the letters were sent. (Neither contacted Meta directly, telling ProPublica they focused on the companies running the ads.)
Final Expense Authority, the company registered to Panyanouvong, is the subject of an ongoing investigation by the Monterey County district attorney’s office over its use of the California county’s seal. Emily Hickok, Monterey County’s chief deputy district attorney, confirmed the investigation to ProPublica and said her office reported the ads to Meta in February. She declined to comment further, citing the ongoing investigation.
Panyanouvong’s California insurance license was revoked in January. An attorney for the state Department of Insurance cited the use of Ventura County and Alaska seals in ads, among other alleged violations, state records show. Due to a prior criminal conviction for petty theft, records show that in 2019 Medina received a California insurance license on a probationary basis. It has been inactive since last November. He holds an active license in Texas.
The California Department of Insurance declined to comment on any investigations into the companies. “While we do not comment on open investigations, deceptive advertising on social media platforms can be a cause for licensing action or criminal prosecution,” it said in a statement to ProPublica.
Meta removed all of the active pages linked to the four companies after ProPublica and Tow shared them. It declined to say whether it had taken additional action. But as recently as early October, an ad from American Benefits & Services offered $100K to homeowners: “Claim cash back with these new home owners benefits programs that just became available.”
Still Locked Out
After ProPublica emailed Klotz, the meteorologist, in August to ask about the ads running via his page, his employer, Fox News, contacted Meta to get the ads removed and to restore his access. His verified page continued running ads promising easy money to Americans until early October. As of this week, he still doesn’t have access to his page.
“As far as I know the account is still hacked and in their control,” Klotz said.
Methodology
The pages and networks included in this investigation were identified by searching Meta’s Ad Library for keywords including “benefits,” “subsidy,” “stimulus,” “$6400” and “burial.” The initial keywords were chosen based on examples sourced from reports, FTC investigations and lawsuits. Each page added to the initial seed set was vetted by viewing its ads, advertiser disclaimer information, and page content and manager information.
Using this initial set, we expanded the list of keywords based on ads run by the pages and by searching the Ad Library for websites that the ads linked to. We then used the Ad Library Report interface to identify all pages for each advertiser. We also looked for pages that ran ads using the same advertiser disclaimer information.
Patriot Democracy
In the case of the Patriot Democracy network, we connected the pages and ads together via three domains that were used in “paid for by” ad disclaimers: informedempowerment.com, tacticalempowerment.com and patriotdemocracy.com. The disclaimers that used these domains often used the same phone numbers or addresses. Additionally, a Domain Name System analysis showed that all three domains resided on the same server.
Several small business owners in Lancaster, Ohio, say they saw an increase in new customers after a local anti-LGBTQ+ group tried to start a boycott campaign against them.
According to local NBC affiliate WCMH, the group Fairfield County Conservatives began circulating a list of local small businesses on social media following two September city council meetings at which members protested drag performances hosted during Lancaster’s family-friendly Pride celebration the same month. Members characterized the events as “pornographic,” an anti-LGBTQ+ tactic that has become all too common in recent years.
Fairfield County Conservatives member Chuck Burgoon, who is also the executive director of Fairfield Family Forum, told WCMH that the group’s list was meant to inform the community about businesses that have supported The Rainbow Alliance of Fairfield County, a local LGBTQ+ group that hosted the Pride events.
“None of us have called for anyone to boycott these businesses; we were just trying to figure out who was supporting [the events],” Burgoon said. “Our downtown has suffered greatly, and it has come back now. We don’t want to lose that again, so we haven’t called for anybody to boycott anyone.”
But the owners of businesses on the list aren’t buying it. Brandon Love, owner of gift shop Bewilderment argues that the list was always meant to discourage people from patronizing the businesses on it. He claims to have seen posters slandering his shop around town, while Teresa Speakman, whose Mud Gallery was not on the list, says she’s seen Fairfield County Conservatives members taking photos and videos of businesses in downtown Lancaster with pro-LGBTQ+ signage and merchandise.
Love thinks that if Fairfield County Conservatives “are going to launch a boycott, they need to stand by it.”
If the group had intended to launch a boycott, their efforts apparently backfired.
“We’ve probably had at least 200 people who have never been to Lancaster that have come to town to support the boycotted businesses,” Love said. “People from, not just Columbus, but out of state have been visiting us on the daily now, and so it’s definitely something I didn’t expect.”
Speakman, an LGBTQ+ ally who displays a Pride flag at her gallery, said she’s also seen increased support. “I’ve had people come in here and say, ‘Oh, thank you for your flag, your rainbow flag, thank you for being here. Thank you for being a safe space,’” she told WCMH. “I’m always interested in building community, and I’m an ally of anyone that needs a safe space.”
Love has even responded to Fairfield County Conservatives’ list with his own, comprised of many of the same businesses on the anti-LGBTQ+ groups as well as others that are either LGBTQ+-owned or supportive.
“Brandon took their boycott list and made another list public that said, ‘Hey, these are actually businesses that you do want to support,” Speakman explained. “So, it was kind of turned around to being shared and shared and shared, and has brought me a lot more people that have found me.”
“I’ve been boycotted before as a queer-owned business, I think Ohio’s just kind of sick of their rhetoric and tired of being a hateful state,” said Love. “It’s just not true, this is our home, too. We’re queer people, we’re here, we have communities, we have businesses.”
At the same time, Burgoon and other members of Fairfield County Conservatives continue to push for the Lancaster city council to adopt a measure banning “adult cabaret performances.” According to WCMH, the measure would be similar to House Bill 245, a Republican-backed bill introduced in July 2023 that opponents say would amount to a state-wide ban on drag performances in public spaces.
During testimony before the Ohio House Criminal Justice Committee in June, Democrats questioned why the bill would be necessary when local laws address lewd behavior.
But for members of Fairfield County Conservatives, those existing laws don’t go far enough. At a September 23 city council meeting, members of the group shared a screenshot from a video taken during a September 14 Lancaster Pride event showing a drag performer with their legs splayed open. Lancaster city law director Stephanie Hall argued that while she considered the image “tasteless,” the performer did not break any laws.
“The video from that night shows the performer in question was in that position for a split second while performing a dance routine. Dance, like speech, is an expression that is protected,” Hall said, according to WCMH.
Fairfield County Conservatives member Robert Knisley said this was why the group is “pursuing a legislative solution.”
In honor of National Coming Out Day (October 11) and Spirit Day (October 17), GLAAD together with eharmony has released a report which explores the ways dating apps and pop culture intersect with how the LGBTQ community shares their identities in their dating lives.
The report unpacks brand new insights from the LGBTQ community (age 18+) and includes tips from Alex Schmider, GLAAD’s Senior Director of Entertainment & Transgender Inclusion.
eharmony.com
Some key findings from the report include:
Trans and Nonbinary daters:
The #1 reason transgender and nonbinary people reported not disclosing their gender is that they might be fetishized (45%)
Concerns of being bullied rose 3x higher among transgender participants compared to cis participants
58% find it hard to know who will be accepting of their gender
53% feel like an after-thought by dating app companies
41% feel unwanted by cis people
Bi+ Daters:
74% of all LGBTQ+ respondents say that bisexuality is still misunderstood in our society
When cis gay men and lesbians were asked about their feelings dating a bisexual person, 87% said they were open to it
43% said that indicating their sexuality on dating profiles gives them more options and helps them confirm who is interested in them
42% said they don’t like having to interact with straight people on dating apps
30% reported men tend to fetishize them
26% reported feeling judged by others in the LGBTQ+ community
eharmony.com
WLW Daters:
Many cis women are turning to dating apps to not only explore their sexual orientation and gender identity (41%), but to authentically express themselves when dating someone as their true selves (45%)
61% report having deeper emotional intimacy when dating women
Several myths and stereotypes about sapphic relationships were debunked by the study as well:
U-Hauling: Only 26% of cis lesbian and gay women report moving in together too quickly. “U-Hauling” isn’t as pervasive as we thought.
Lesbian Bed Death: Only 33% of cis lesbian and gay women said sex life declines over time when dating the same person, and 43% said they have a better sex life because their partners understand their body.
Friend-zoning: Just over one-quarter, 28% said they can’t get out of the friendzone.
Is there really a Masc Lesbian shortage? This past summer there was social media chatter regarding a lack of masc lesbians, but only 17% said they have experienced this
“eharmony continues to be an incredible example of what brands can achieve when choosing to responsibly support and serve their LGBTQ audiences and consumers, especially in the face of anti-LGBTQ attacks on corporate inclusion,” said GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis. “Together with GLAAD, eharmony’s new study measuring dating and pop culture sentiment will have a profound impact on expanding our understanding of the roles dating apps play in the coming out process and sharing identities. Coinciding with National Coming Out Day and Spirit Day, organized by GLAAD, this research underscores the fact that while there is no correct timeline for coming out, LGBTQ people must feel safe and supported in the coming out process, no matter how or where they decide to.”
via Getty Images
“Younger generations are more likely to be LGBTQ than the generations before them. While the LGBTQ community, including our corporate allies, is facing extraordinary levels of legislative and cultural backlash, LGBTQ people are wanting places to feel safe and be able to be fully themselves,” Ellis said. “Providing places that not only invite and welcome LGBTQ people, but also take measures to protect and support their belonging will not only bring about connection online but create a more accepting world outside.”
via Getty Images
“While we know that storytelling allows LGBTQ+ people to more clearly see themselves and be seen by others, we cannot underestimate the power of out and visible LGBTQ+ people in our culture who impact the way LGBTQ+ people feel about themselves, particularly those who are transgender,” Alex Schmider stated. 75% of respondents said that seeing transgender people in the media gives them more confidence. According to Schmider, “It’s not always been the case that LGBTQ+ people could be out as public figures but as they are, more LGBTQ+ people relate to and can find confidence in their examples.”
This report examines experiences of employment discrimination and harassment against nonbinary adults using a survey of 1,902 LGBTQ adults in the workforce, including 163 nonbinary adults, conducted in the summer of 2023. We compare the experiences of nonbinary employees with those of cisgender LGBQ employees and transgender employees who do not identify as nonbinary.
The majority of nonbinary adults in the workforce are under age 35 (87%), and half (51%) are people of color. About three-quarters (74%) of nonbinary people in the workforce are making less than $50,000 a year.
Our analysis indicates that employment discrimination against nonbinary employees is persistent and widespread. At some point in their lives, about six in 10 nonbinary employees (59%) reported experiencing discrimination or harassment at work (including being fired, not hired, not promoted, or verbally, physically, or sexually harassed) because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Many nonbinary employees reported recent experiences of discrimination and harassment. Within the past year, 16% of nonbinary employees reported that they had been fired, not hired, or not promoted because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and 20% reported experiencing harassment at work. One in four (26%) nonbinary employees reported experiencing adverse treatment because of their LGBTQ status at their current job.
Many nonbinary employees also reported engaging in actions to avoid discrimination and harassment, including hiding their nonbinary identity and changing their appearance or behaviors. Nearly half (45%) of nonbinary employees were not out to their current supervisor, and 17% were not out to any of their co-workers. Two-thirds (67%) of nonbinary employees reported downplaying their LGBTQ status at work by doing one or more of the following: changing their speech, mannerisms, appearance, or how they dress at work; avoiding work social events; or not talking about their outside activities at work.
Nearly six in 10 (58%) nonbinary employees have looked for another job because of how they were treated based on their sexual orientation or gender identity at work, and half (50%) reported leaving a job because of such treatment.
Along many measures of adverse workplace experiences, nonbinary employees fall in between cisgender LGBQ employees and transgender employees who do not identify as nonbinary, with cisgender LGBQ employees reporting the lowest rates of adverse experiences and transgender employees reporting the highest. In many cases, nonbinary employees’ reports of adverse workplace experiences were closer to the higher levels reported by transgender employees. While the report’s key findings are summarized below, the full report includes quotes from respondents to provide more detail about their experiences of discrimination and harassment in the workplace.
Key Findings
Demographics
An estimated 87% of nonbinary adults in the workforce are under the age of 35, compared to 51% of cisgender LGBQ adults and 71% of transgender adults in the workforce.
About half (51%) of nonbinary adults in the workforce are people of color.
Over 58% of nonbinary adults in the workforce identified as bisexual, 21% selected “something else,” and 4% selected “not sure” to describe their sexual orientation.
Almost three-quarters are making less than $50,000 a year (74%), compared to less than half (48%) of cisgender LGBQ adults in the workforce.
Lifetime Experiences of Discrimination and Harassment
At some point in their lives, about six in 10 nonbinary employees (59%) reported experiencing discrimination or harassment at work, including being fired, not hired, not promoted, or verbally, sexually, or physically harassed because of their gender identity.
Discrimination: Forty-five percent of nonbinary employees reported experiencing at least one form of employment discrimination (being fired, not hired, not promoted, or being denied other workplace opportunities) because of their sexual orientation or gender identity at some point in their lives.
About one in four nonbinary employees reported being fired (23%) and/or not hired (28%) because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Nonbinary employees also described other types of unfair treatment based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. Some of these experiences included having their shifts changed or their hours reduced, being isolated from other employees or customers, and being excluded from company events.
Harassment: Half of nonbinary employees (50%) reported experiencing at least one form of harassment (verbal, physical, or sexual) at work because of their sexual orientation or gender identity at some point in their lives.
Forty percent of nonbinary employees reported experiencing verbal harassment from supervisors or co-workers because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Many nonbinary respondents cited examples of being persistently misgendered, deadnamed, or harassed for not conforming to traditional binary genders or gender stereotypes.
About one in five (21%) nonbinary employees reported experiencing physical harassment at work because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Reports of physical harassment included being “threatened,” “cornered,” “roughhoused,” “assaulted,” “attacked,” and “strangled.”
Close to one-third (31%) of nonbinary employees reported experiencing sexual harassment at work because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Intersectional Discrimination and Harassment
When asked to describe their worst experiences of discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity, many nonbinary employees described intersectional discrimination based on their multiple marginalized identities. Most frequently, in addition to discrimination based on their gender identity, they described discrimination related to being bisexual or based on living with a disability.
Recent Experiences of Discrimination and Harassment
Discrimination: About one in three nonbinary employees (35%) reported experiencing at least one form of employment discrimination (including being fired, not hired, or being denied a promotion or other workplace opportunities) based on their sexual orientation or gender identity within the past five years. One in six (16%) reported these experiences in the past year.
Harassment: Four out of ten nonbinary employees (39%) reported experiencing at least one form of harassment (including verbal, physical, or sexual harassment) in the workplace based on their sexual orientation or gender identity within in the past five years and one in five reported (20%) reported these experiences in the past year.
Negative comments: In the past year, about half of nonbinary employees (49%) reported hearing negative comments about LGBTQ people in the workplace.
Experiences at Current Job
Respondents were asked specifically about their experiences at their current job. About two-thirds of nonbinary employees (64%) felt that their current workplace environment was somewhat or very supportive of LGBTQ employees. In comparison, approximately one in ten (13%) felt their workplace environment was somewhat or very unsupportive.
Approximately one in five nonbinary employees (20%) reported one or more adverse workplace experiences related to their sexual orientation or gender identity at their current job, including 18% who reported unfair treatment, 11% who reported verbal harassment, 7% who felt they had not been promoted or were denied other opportunities in the workplace, 6% who reported sexual harassment, and 1% who reported physical harassment.
Out at Work
Forty-five percent of nonbinary employees reported that they are not open about being nonbinary to their current supervisor, and approximately one in six (17%) reported that they are not out to any of their co-workers. Only one-third (33%) of nonbinary employees reported being out to all their co-workers.
Covering
Two-thirds of nonbinary employees (67%) reported engaging in covering behaviors at their current jobs to avoid harassment or discrimination related to their sexual orientation or gender identity. About one-third reported changing how they dressed (35%), their physical appearance (35%), or their voice or mannerisms (36%) at work. Approximately one in five (20%) have changed where, when, or how frequently they used the bathroom.
Many nonbinary employees have also avoided work events or work-related travel (25%) and work-related social events (39%) to avoid discrimination and harassment.
Many nonbinary employees also avoid talking about their families at work to avoid discrimination and harassment. Twenty-nine percent of nonbinary employees have avoided talking about their family at work, 24% have not brought family to work events, and 21% have not displayed photos of their partner or family at work to avoid discrimination and harassment.
Retention
About two-thirds of nonbinary employees (68%) were very or somewhat satisfied with their current job, while almost one in six (17%) were very or somewhat dissatisfied with their current job.
Half (50%) of nonbinary employees reported that they had left a job at some point in their lives because of how their employer treated them based on their LGBTQ status. About six in 10 nonbinary employees said that they have looked for other jobs because of how they were personally treated by their employer based on their LGBTQ status (58%) or had looked for another job because the workplace environment was not supportive of LGBTQ people (60%).
Due to the workplace environment for LGBTQ people at their current job, one in five nonbinary employees (20%) had considered leaving. Almost two-thirds (65%) of them had taken steps towards finding another job.
Nonbinary employees were more likely than cisgender LGBQ employees to have left a job (50% vs. 31%) or looked for another job (58% vs. 32%) because of how they were treated because of their LGBTQ status. Compared to cisgender LGBQ employees, they were also more likely to report they had looked for another job due to the general workplace environment for LGBTQ employees (60% vs. 36%).
