Charlie Kirk’s killer isn’t the only gender-confused individual to act on his rage by killing people. A disturbing number of recent mass shootings have been conducted by “queers” — the “Q” in LGBTQ that covers more than 550 paraphilias — including sexually identifying as “transgendered,” “xenogendered,” or “non-binary” (switching to male or female as the mood hits).
In each of these cases, Christian change counseling was BANNED in the shooter’s city or state. Utah banned change counsel by executive order in 2021, and then that ban was codified into law by the legislature and governor in 2023.
Christian change counseling has been repeatedly PROVEN to heal gender dysphoria. Had these unlawful bans not been in place, the shooters, as well as their victims, might have been saved.
Next month, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case challenging these horrible laws that ban this lifesaving therapy. Liberty Counsel teed up this case to the High Court with our two wins that struck down 23 laws, and we need your help to continue winning!
STOP Christian Counseling bans! Help us save lives. DOUBLE YOUR GIFT with our Challenge Grant. Seven of the last nine public or mass shootings by a gender-confused individual happened in cities or states that ban Christian counseling.
Read the full article. Staver appeared here two weeks ago when he blamed Charlie Kirk’s murder on the legalization of same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court will soon to decide whether to hear the Liberty Counsel’s appeal of the judgment against former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis.
At this year’s NLGJA: The Association of LGBTQ+ Journalists Convention, GLAAD and PEN America — a civil society organization that aims to safeguard free expression — came together to lead a critical conversation on digital safety. The session, “De-dox Yourself on Meta: Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp,”explored how LGBTQ journalists can better protect themselves from harassment and hate on social media — particularly as platforms roll back key safety policies under the current political climate. More than 700 journalists attended this year’s convention.
The panel featured Jeje Mohamed, Co-founder & Managing Partner at Aegis Safety Alliance; Tat Bellamy-Walker, Program Manager of Digital Safety Training and Resources (Media) at PEN America; and Leanna Garfield, Senior Manager of the Social Media Safety Program at GLAAD. Together, the panelists guided attendees through the current and emerging challenges facing LGBTQ journalists online, and offered practical strategies for protecting one’s digital footprint.
A Changing Policy Environment on Meta’s Platforms
The timing of this session could not have been more urgent. Journalists are grappling with an increasingly hostile environment under the current administration, and several platforms including Meta, YouTube, and LinkedIn, have removed key hate speech protections for LGBTQ people, notably transgender and gender nonconforming people.
In particular, Meta recently ended its third-party fact-checking program in the U.S., introduced explicit allowances for harmful content, and eliminated global safeguards for LGBTQ people, women, people of color, and other historically marginalized groups. GLAAD briefed attendees on the recent specific changes to Meta’s hate speech policy and its content moderation systems, as well as potential implications.
“LGBTQ journalists are facing unique risks online, including rising exposure to harassment and targeted disinformation. This adds to the challenge of balancing public visibility with personal safety,” Garfield said.
Panelists also noted that Meta’s recent rollbacks not only heighten the risks of online abuse, but also erode trust in the broader information ecosystem, making it harder for platforms to serve as reliable spaces for credible news and civil discourse.
Common Harassment Tactics and How to Respond
Belamy-Walker of PEN America emphasized that online harassment of LGBTQ journalists often takes familiar and repeating forms. These can include: hacking, online impersonation, threats of offline violence, doxxing efforts that reveal private information like addresses or phone numbers, targeted misgendering or deadnaming in order to intimidate trans journalists, and mass reporting campaigns that can lead to account suspensions. In some cases, bad actors have also been known to spread false narratives or even doctored images (facilitated by AI tools) to undermine trust in a journalist’s reporting.
He stressed that understanding these tactics is the first step toward resilience. Journalists who anticipate these forms of online abuse can respond more effectively, whether by documenting incidents for employers, restricting accounts, or reporting to platforms.
“Documenting is especially important because it can help you see patterns in abuse, and whether it is escalating,” Bellamy-Walker said. “We also recommend that you ask allies to help. More reports equals more attention.”
Practical Tools for Self-Protection
Beyond recognizing harassment patterns, the session equipped journalists with practical strategies for how they can better protect themselves across Meta’s platforms. Suggested steps included:
Locking down personal information by adjusting privacy settings to control who can access your content
Maintaining separate personal and professional accounts to better protect your private life
Using Meta’s built-in features, such as muting or blocking, and keyword blocklists that automatically remove inflammatory comments
Improving privacy by removing location-sharing from all accounts and using encrypted apps, like Signal or Proton, for secure communications
Strengthening digital security by creating strong and unique passwords, using a password manager, enabling two-factor authentication, and regularly updating devices
These tools, Mohamed noted, aim to empower LGBTQ journalists to maintain visibility while minimizing risk.
Closing Reflections
The session concluded with an interactive dialogue between panelists and LGBTQ journalists, giving attendees the opportunity to raise their own cases, share experiences, and receive tailored guidance based on their professional goals and levels of risk. The exchange highlighted how important it is for journalists to have access to clear information, practical tools, and trusted resources when navigating digital threats.
About the GLAAD Social Media Safety Program As the leading national LGBTQ media advocacy organization, GLAAD is working every day to hold tech companies and social media platforms accountable and to secure safe online spaces for LGBTQ people. The GLAAD Social Media Safety Program produces the highly-respected annual Social Media Safety Index (SMSI)and researches, monitors, and reports on a variety of issues facing LGBTQ social media users — with a focus on safety, privacy, and expression.
The conservative Justice said during a recent appearance at the Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law in Washington, D.C.that he would not follow court precedent “if I find it doesn’t make any sense.”
“I think we should demand that, no matter what the case is, that it has more than just a simple theoretical basis,” Thomas said, via legal news outlet Above the Law. “[If it’s] totally stupid, and that’s what they’ve decided, you don’t go along with it just because it’s decided. You could go up to the engine room and find that it’s an orangutan driving. And you’re going to follow that? I think we owe our fellow citizens more than that.”
“I don’t think that … any of these cases that have been decided are the gospel,” he continued. “And I do give perspective to the precedent. But … the precedent should be respectful of our legal tradition, and our country and our laws, and be based on something – not just something somebody dreamt up and others went along with.”
Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion when the conservative majority created by Donald Trump overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 that the court should revisit and overrule decisions that prevent state restrictions on contraception, marriage equality, sodomy, and other private consensual sex acts, calling the rulings “demonstrably erroneous.”
Thomas was one of the four dissenting votes in Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 ruling in which the Supreme Court determined that laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying are unconstitutional. While the court has made no official move to reconsider the case, nine states have recently introduced resolutionsasking the court to hear it again. None have yet passed, and even if they were to, the resolutions are nonbinding — meaning they carry no legal weight, and the court is not obligated to hear them.
Kim Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky who was sued by a same-sex couple for refusing to issue them marriage license, has also appealed the verdict against her to the Supreme Court, and included in her filing a petition to overturn Obergefell. The court has not agreed to hear her case, and doing so would not inherently reverse marriage equality.
If Obergefell is reversed, marriage equality would be outlawed in 31 states. Marriages between same-sex couples would still be recognized federally under the Respect for Marriage Act. Signed into law by President Joe Biden in 2022, the act mandates that the federal government recognizes same-sex and interracial marriages, and that all states recognize those performed in other states.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett also recently weighed in on the effort to overturn marriage equality. She called the right to marry “fundamental” in her new book, writing that “the court has held that the rights to marry, engage in sexual intimacy, use birth control, and raise children are fundamental, but the rights to do business, commit suicide, and obtain abortion are not.”
Over 68 percent of Americans support marriage equality, according to a recent poll from Gallup, including a record 88 percent of Democrats, 76 percent of Independents, and only 41 percent of Republicans – the highest recorded partisan divide since Gallup began polling opinions on marriage equality in 1996.
While Barrett did not directly address her views on marriage equality during her confirmation hearings, she had previously suggested it should be left up to the states. She also recently told CBS News that the law is “not just an opinion poll.”
“You know, what the court is trying to do is see what the American people have decided. And sometimes the American people have expressed themselves in the Constitution itself, which is our fundamental law. Sometimes in statutes,” Barrett said. “But the court should not be imposing its own values on the American people. That’s for the democratic process.”
Last month, it was reported that the Supreme Court will formally consider a petition for a case calling on them to overturn their 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, the historic ruling that made gay marriage legal nationwide. The petition comes from former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, who has made headlines and been embroiled in legal battles since she refused to sign marriage licenses for gay couples.
While Davis has been fighting against gay marriage since it was made legal, her lawyers have been doing it for longer. Davis is being represented by Liberty Counsel, a far-right Christian legal group and Southern Poverty Law Center-designated anti-LGBTQ hate group.
Since its inception in 1989, the group has opposed gay rights causes, including fighting against gay marriage, the legalization of homosexuality and bansonconversion therapy. In one instance, the group’s Facebook cover photoreferenced the Bible verse Leviticus 20:13, which reads, “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
When asked about the cover photo, the group responded in an email that “Liberty Counsel has never promoted or condoned the killing of anyone or asked anyone to ‘like’ any quote about killing gays.”
Experts say Liberty Counsel is arguably more powerful than ever in 2025, fueled by publicity from Davis’ case and the opportunity to capitalize on a moment when American politics are stacked toward the right-wing—something that could upend gay marriage.
“The alignments will never be as favorable as they are at this moment,” Anne Nelson, author of “Shadow Network: Media, Money, and the Secret Hub of the Radical Right,” told Uncloseted Media. “That’s why they’re going for broke.”
History
Liberty Counsel was founded by preacher turned lawyer Mat Staver and his wife Anita.
Mat Staver, who now serves as the chairman, senior pastor and primary spokesperson for the group, authored the 2004 book “Same-sex Marriage: Putting Every Household at Risk,” where he wrote that “homosexuality is rooted in fractured emotions” and “a common thread in virtually every case is some sort of sexual or emotional brokenness.”
While the organization started operations solely in Florida, Mat Staver told the Orlando Sentinel shortly after Liberty Counsel launched that the group “would be a Christian antithesis to the ACLU” and that he “always felt the Lord calling [him] to combine [ministry and law] together.”
Liberty Counsel was active throughout the 1990s, with a focus on First Amendment cases, but Staver and his group didn’t gain national attention until 1994, when he argued before the Supreme Court for a case that challenged the constitutionality of a Florida court ruling that barred anti-abortion protests outside of a clinic. Some parts of the ruling were successfully overturned while others remained in place.
After that, the group built up a reputation for taking up cases related to religion in schools and other public institutions, including one instance where they threatened a lawsuit against one school for changing the lyrics of a Christmas song in a school play.
Attacking Gay Rights
After the turn of the century, Liberty Counsel became more active on gay issues. In 2003, they filed an amicus brief in Lawrence v. Texas, the case that decriminalized gay sex nationwide, arguing in favor of state laws banning it by saying that “deregulating human sexual relations will erode the institution of marriage.”
When California was taken to court over Proposition 8, a 2008 state constitutional amendment that sought to ban gay marriage in the state, Liberty Counsel attempted to be among the lawyers defending it. The group publicly criticized fellow far-right Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom for, in their view, arguing the case poorly.
One lawyer for Liberty Counsel also disagreed with legal positions taken by one pro-Prop 8 lawyer, who reportedly refused to argue that homosexuality is an “illness or disorder.” In their amicus brief in support of the proposition, Liberty Counsel argued that homosexuality “presents serious physical, emotional, mental, and other health-related risks.”
And in 2015, just months before the Obergefellruling, the group offered to represent Alabama judges who refused to perform gay marriages after a state ban was overturned.
Staver, right, with Kim Davis after her release from jail in 2015 (CNN)
Once gay marriage became legal nationwide, Liberty Counsel took up Kim Davis’ case, which brought them more media attention than ever before.
“Kim Davis was a boon to Liberty Counsel,” says Peter Montgomery, research director at People for the American Way, an advocacy group aimed at challenging the far right. “[She] got them a huge amount of publicity, and I think they’ve really grown since they first took up her case.”
Much of the earned media from the Davis case, however, was negative. Liberty Counsel received criticism for encouraging Davis to continue refusing gay marriage licenses in violation of a court order. And even a Fox News panel of legal experts called Davis a “hypocrite” and Mat Staver’s legal arguments “stunningly obtuse” and “ridiculously stupid.”
In an email to Uncloseted Media, Liberty Counsel took issue with criticism of the group’s past litigation, writing that “[they] have 40 wins [they] briefed or argued at the US Supreme Court, including a 9-0 win in Shurtleff v. City of Boston.”
Liberty Counsel has created their own media, including a daily 11-minute radio broadcast, Faith and Freedom. Launched in 2010, the program is syndicated on 145 stations across the country and frequently contains anti-LGBTQ rhetoric, including assertions that LGBTQ-inclusive policies in the Boy Scouts create “a playground for pedophiles”; that gay people “know intuitively that what they are doing is immoral, unnatural, and self-destructive”; and that gay people are “not controlled by reason,” but rather “controlled by … lust.”
And after being boosted in popularity by Kim Davis, a 2016 CBS News investigation found that the group had worked with lawmakers in at least 20 states to author anti-LBGTQ bills, including trans bathroom bans.
“They’re pretty much anti-LGBT in every way you can be,” Montgomery told Uncloseted Media. “Staver is pretty shameless in lying about gay people and the laws.”
Why Now?
Photo by Fred Schilling
Davis’ case has fallen in and out of public attention over the years, with the Supreme Court rejecting a previous petition in 2020. Despite this, Liberty Counsel has remained confident in the case’s potential to upend gay marriage. In 2023, the group told their supporters in an email that they planned to use Davis’ case to persuade the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell. These comments came a year after Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas expressed interest in reconsidering Obergefell in his opinion on the case that overturned Roe v. Wade.
“[The far right have] been working for decades to get their pieces in place, so at this particular moment, looking at the chessboard, they’ve got a critical mass of conservative states with Republicans in the state house, they’ve got the White House, they’ve got both houses of Congress, and they’ve got a majority on the Supreme Court,” says Nelson. “In a year, that could change.”
Increasing Notoriety
Montgomery says that Liberty Counsel’s popularity and influence has been on the rise since the start of the pandemic, when the group gained traction by opposing restrictions on churches meeting during COVID lockdowns. During this period, Staver claimed that COVID-19 vaccines are designed to “prevent people from procreating.”
“One of the ways that [Staver] has boosted his visibility and influence was riding that parade, which a number of people on the religious right did, and took advantage of the resentment of public health restrictions,” says Montgomery.
Since then, the group has falsely claimed that the Respect for Marriage Act “would allow pedophiles to marry children,” and Staver wrote in a newsletter that “the LGBTQ agenda seeks nothing less than to eliminate all religious freedom rights that might make them feel bad about their choices.”
In the meantime, affiliates of the group have been cozying up to the Supreme Court. In 2022, a representative of the Liberty Counsel-owned D.C. ministry Faith & Liberty was caught bragging about praying with Supreme Court justices just weeks after the court overturned Roe v. Wade. Staver told Rolling Stone these allegations are “entirely untrue.”
In his majority opinion on the case, Justice Alito cited an amicus brief filed by Liberty Counsel where the group argues that “the birth control and abortion movements are racist and eugenic.”
Part of a Bigger Picture
Liberty Counsel’s website reports that it generated nearly $28 million in revenue between July 1, 2023 and June 30, 2024. While their internal team has roughly 40 employees listed on LinkedIn, they have claimed to have anywhere from 90 to 700 affiliate attorneys across the country. Some of the group’s larger and more consistent donors reportedly include fracking baronFarris Wilks; the Christian TV network Good Life Broadcasting; and Liberty University, where Staver previously worked as dean of the law school.
“The big Christian nationalist and plutocratic donors understand that the Supreme Court, and the judiciary in general, are central to their aims … so over the past few decades they spent enormous sums grooming and promoting candidates for the judiciary whose interpretation of the law is favorable to their interests,” Katherine Stewart, an author and expert on religious nationalism, told Uncloseted Media in an email. “Liberty Counsel has successfully positioned itself as one of the players in that space. It only picks up a slice from the total pie, but the pie is so well-funded that even a slice is rich indeed.”
Beyond this, Liberty Counsel is affiliated with a number of other right-wing groups, several of which operate directly under the group’s umbrella. Staver holds leadership positions in other conservative groups, including Salt & Light Council and National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference—the former of which has been outspokenly anti-LGBTQ. Liberty Counsel is also a member of the Remnant Alliance, a coalition of groups known for coordinating to elect Christian nationalist candidates to local school boards. A leaked membership directory from 2020 also listed Staver as a member of the Council for National Policy, a secretive group that includes Republican politicians and major leaders of Christian right organizations, though Staver told Uncloseted Media that Liberty Counsel and the Council for National Policy are not affiliated.
Nelson says connections like these allow different groups on the far right to coordinate together on anti-LGBTQ policies.
“They’ll have coordinated messaging about whatever campaign they’re launching at the moment. And it’s highly coordinated, as in the same story, the same language, the same spokespeople. It’s really quite impressive. And so all of a sudden there’ll be a story that will just erupt.”
The Council for National Policy did not respond to a request for comment
When Liberty Counsel filed its most recent petition for Davis’ case to the Supreme Court, multiple right-wing media outlets whose leadership have been members of the Council for National Policy quickly covered the story with a favorable spin, including Salem Media Group, the WashingtonTimesand WorldNetDaily. And earlier this year, Staver networked at the National Religious Broadcasters conference, where he discussed plans to overturn Obergefell.
Montgomery says that this coordination is especially powerful because different groups are able to influence different spheres. For example, while Liberty Counsel pressures the courts, a group like Salt & Light Council works to activate supporters in ministry.
“They have this broader vision of wanting to change the culture and change the country,” he says. “They are all different approaches to moving the country in the direction they want: courts, legislative advocacy, lobbying, organizing, and media outreach.”
Nelson says the far right’s recent legal success is thanks in part to the influxof right-wing judges since the start of Trump’s first term.
“It’s worked initially with trying to get local and political opposition to these laws, and it’s linked to getting the appointments of judges who’ve had to pass a litmus test,” she says. “And then [their strategy involves] mounting the lawsuits, starting usually at the state level and working their way up the court system, specializing in states where they believe they’ll have sympathetic judges. … It’s gaming [the system].”
In an email to Uncloseted Media, Liberty Counsel says this characterization does not describe their litigation strategy.
What Does This Mean for Marriage Equality?
Despite all of this, many legal experts believe that this latest challenge to marriage equality is a long shot. Liberty Counsel’s arguments were largely rejected by a federal appeals court panel earlier this year, and several of the justices have shown little to no interest in revisiting Obergefell. Just this month, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett
A GOP candidate who was caught following a nonbinary adult performer online dropped out of the race for Wisconsin governor on Friday, about a week after a local paper reported on his online activity.
“As a result of our politics today, I cannot focus on the issues I know will turn Wisconsin around. I have come to the conclusion I do not have a path to the nomination,” business owner Bill Berrien said in a statement, which attacked the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel for reporting the story.
“It was a major attack piece and we confirmed opposition research started in January of this year, if not earlier,” he said. “And for what? For reading! Nothing illegal, nothing unethical, and nothing immoral. Just reading. Wouldn’t you want your political and business leaders (and all of society, frankly) to be widely read and thoughtful and aware of different perspectives and ideas? Yet, when a supposedly major metropolitan newspaper condemns someone for reading, we have ourselves a problem.”
The Journal-Sentinel reported earlier this month that Berrien followed nonbinary, queer adult performer Jiz Lee on the blogging platform Medium, as well as several other sex- and polyamory-positive accounts. Some of the articles that he “clapped for” – i.e., liked – on the platform included “My Husband Loves Watching Me Flirt with Another Man” and “‘Ethical Porn’ Starts When We Pay for It.”
But on the campaign trail, he attacked LGBTQ+ rights.
“[Democratic Wisconsin Gov. Tony] Evers vetoed a bill to keep boys out of girls’ sports and calls Wisconsin moms ‘inseminated persons,’” Berrien says in one ad. “Enough!”
“Take it from a dad and a coach, I’ll keep boys out of our daughters’ sports and locker rooms.”
Lee, the nonbinary performer he followed, wrote about the matter in a post to Bluesky, where they called out Berrien’s “hypocrisy.”
“It’s okay to follow trans porn stars,” they wrote. “It’s okay to read articles about sex and relationships. What’s not okay is the hypocrisy of backing forceful legislation that restricts what people, trans and otherwise, can do with their own bodies. That is shameful.”
Berrien’s campaign didn’t deny that he owned the account that followed the posts and content creators in question. Instead, they said it’s “absurd” to say that Berrien knew about the authors’ “personal choices.” However, someone logged in to Berrien’s account and unfollowed 19 people and publications after the Journal-Sentinel inquired about Berrien’s online activities, but before their report was published.
“When you brought this up, he logged in on Tuesday and started messing around, which resulted in some folks being deleted,” a campaign spokesperson said.
Two other Republicans are left in the GOP primary for Wisconsin governor: Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-WI) and Washington County Executive Josh Schoemann. There are several Democrats running in their primary for the position, including Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez.
Berrien’s criticisms of Evers included that he “calls Wisconsin moms ‘inseminated persons.’” That is referring to a controversy from earlier this year about legal language used in the Wisconsin budget to refer to people who undergo IVF treatments, a reproductive technology where a person is literally inseminated.
His other criticism of Evers was that the governor “vetoed a bill to keep boys out of girls’ sports.” That is referring to a 2024 veto of a trans sports ban. Boys do not play in girls’ sports in Wisconsin, and the veto of that bill didn’t change that. Republicans wanted to ban certain girls – specifically, trans girls – from playing with other girls.
The GLO Center, an LGBTQ+ community center in Springfield, Missouri, closed for the day Monday after receiving a threat of violence, but it will go on with a Pride event Saturday as planned.
Executive Director Aaron Schekorra found two bullets on the ground when he opened the center Monday. “Scratched on them — there’s a word on each of them. One of them says in all caps, ‘DIE,’ and the other one says a slur for queer people, and it starts with an f, that I’d rather not repeat on the radio,” he told public radio station KCUR.
“We realized that these were left — they were left intentionally in front of our building using language that’s meant to attack our community,” he said.
The center shut down for the day, but its board and staff decided Tuesday evening to go ahead with Pride on C-Street, a festival on Commercial Street, a main thoroughfare in the city, the Springfield News-Leader reports.
“Fear wants to isolate us. Pride brings us back together,” said a statementposted on the center’s social media pages. “We refuse to let intimidation decide how we gather, care, or celebrate.”
The center planned Pride on C-Street “after the record-breaking success of Ozarks Pridefest this summer,” the News-Leader reports.
Pride on C-Street will be a “block-party-meets-street-fair that celebrates the history, heart, and future of our community,” the GLO Center’s website for the event says. There will be vendor booths, food and drink, and entertainment by several performers. The event runs from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Security will be tight, and the center has posted safety tips for attendees.
Police are investigating the Monday incident, but no arrests have been made.
Schekorra has received threats against himself, but when there’s a threat against the GLO Center, “it is also kind of a threat against our community and our identities,” he told KCUR.
“So it’s important that we let folks know so they can make the best decision for themselves … at the end of the day, you have to do what’s best for our community,” he added.
The five public universities within the Texas Tech University System must “recognize only two human sexes” in their classroom instruction, according to a memo released Thursday by the system’s chancellor.
“Therefore, while recognizing the First Amendment rights of employees in their personal capacity, faculty must comply with these laws in the instruction of students, within the course and scope of their employment,” Mitchell wrote. “As a system, our role is to provide clarity and guidance to administration, ensuring that each university fulfills its legal obligations.”
The five universities within the system, which collectively have more than 60,000 students, are Texas Tech University, Angelo State University, Midwestern State University, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center and Texas Tech University Health Science Center El Paso. The universities did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Mitchell directed faculty to review all instructional materials and adjust them accordingly.
“I recognize that members of our community may hold differing personal views on these matters,” Mitchell wrote. “Regardless, in your role as a state employee, compliance with the law is required, and I trust in your professionalism to carry out these responsibilities in a manner that reflects well on our universities.”
Though the Texas law declares that “an individual is one of two sexes,” it also recognizes that people can be born with a disorder of sex development or intersex, meaning having sex characteristics that do not fit binary definitions of male or female. The Texas law says intersex people “are not considered to belong to a third sex” and should receive “accommodations” in accordance with state and federal law, but does not say what those are. The chancellor’s office did not respond to a request regarding how the Texas Tech University System’s medical and nursing schools would navigate teaching about intersex people under the memo.
Brad Pritchett, interim CEO of Equality Texas, a statewide LGBTQ advocacy organization, said in a statement that limiting what information students have access to harms them.
“Free speech is the backbone of American Democracy,” Pritchett said. “We cannot stand idly by while the lives of our trans neighbors are erased from the history books. Texas is one of the most diverse states in the country, the melting pot of ideas, faiths, and identities is what makes us great. Students deserve universities where professors fearlessly observe and question our world—limiting classroom discussion and research topics will only degrade our state’s standing in the world of academia. Freedom cannot exist in a state where even our ideas are policed.”
In the memo, Mitchell added that “recent developments at universities across Texas … have highlighted the importance of understanding these compliance obligations.” He appeared to be referring to a controversy at Texas A&M earlier this month, in which a student recorded herself objecting to an English lecture related to gender identity. The student argued that such instruction was “illegal” due to Trump’s executive order recognizing only two sexes.
After public backlash, the university removed the head of the English department and a dean from their administrative positions and fired the professor, Melissa McCoul.
When asked for comment, McCoul directed NBC News to her attorney, who said McCoul has appealed her termination and is exploring further legal action.
Texas A&M’s president, Mark A. Welsh III, stepped down days later but did not say whether the controversy was a factor.
“When I was first appointed as President of Texas A&M University, I told then Chancellor John Sharp and our Board of Regents that I would serve as well as I possibly could until it was time for someone else to take over,” Welsh said in a statement issued earlier this month. “Over the past few days, it’s become clear that now is that time.”
The Trump Administration has lost yet another battle with one of its most formidable foes: the arts.
The right has long self-identified as the protector of free speech, except when that speech has to do with race, gender, sexuality, queerness, science, (non-Christian) religion, and anything else the Trump regime deems seditious, such as being critical of the government.
Four plaintiffs — Rhode Island Latino Arts, National Queer Theater, The Theater Offensive and Theatre Communications Group — sued federal officials following the signing of an executive order which directed the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to disfavor grant applications that “promote gender ideology.” Artists, represented by the ACLU, argued this provision violated the First Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the Fifth Amendment.
On Sept. 19, Senior U.S. District Court Judge William E. Smith sided with the plaintiffs’ first two claims, denouncing “a viewpoint-based standard of review to Plaintiffs that disfavors applications deemed ‘to promote gender ideology’” — a catch-all dogwhistle describing depictions of gender and sexuality outside rigid heterosexual marriage. The court “vacates and sets aside Defendants’ current plan to implement the Executive Order.”
The National Endowment for the Arts is an independent agency created by Congress to fund and shepherd great American art. The problem seems to be that Trump wants the agency to discriminate against artists who do not focus on straight, cisgender white men — prioritizing political virtue signaling over actual merit and talent, and stymieing the free marketplace of ideas to advance his political agenda.
While the government argued that NEA projects, which are government funded, are therefore government speech, the judge found that this was instead private speech supported by government funds — which means that artists’ freedom of expression should remain unobstructed.
The Trump Administration also correctly noted that “Plaintiffs undisputedly lack any right” to receive government grants, which are competitive.
But Judge Smith found this rhetoric “unavailing.” The plaintiffs never claimed to be entitled to the grant. “Rather,” Smith writes, “they claim a right to have their applications assessed according to criteria that are not viewpoint discriminatory.”
“This decision affirms what we have always believed: the freedom to create, to express one’s truth, and to tell our stories is a right protected by the First Amendment,” said Marta V. Martínez, the executive director of Rhode Island Latino Arts, in an email to Erin in the Morning. “As an organization deeply rooted in storytelling, theater, and the preservation of cultural history, we are relieved and grateful that the courts have recognized the importance of protecting artistic expression for all people, including those in LGBTQ+ communities.”
As in many authoritarian campaigns, art has been recognized as a vital form of resistance — but bad actors have sought to curtail it accordingly. During the reign of the Nazis, Adolf Hitler waged a vicious purge of German-dubbed “degenerate art,” works which were often made by, for and about Jews (among other things). Another famous example of this, closer to home, was the backlash to The Crucible (1953) by Arthur Miller. The play was a scathing political commentary on McCarthyism that resulted in Miller (and other “subversive” artists) being blacklisted from the industry at the government’s behest; he was even denied a passport. And as Erin in the Morning reported recently, chalk street art in Orlando honoring LGBTQ gun violence victims led to multiple arrests. We also shined a light on an Oklahoma college performance of a show dramatizing the lives of Shakespearean actors, which was cancelled by the school, which allegedly feared backlash if they let it debut. (That play, Boy My Greatness, contained themes of queerness.) And at the Smithsonian, a renowned Black artist cancelled an exhibition rather than let the Trump Administration bully her into removing a painting of a transgender woman dressed as Lady Liberty.
“Congress specifically set up the National Endowment for the Arts to insulate it from this type of political meddling in funding the arts,” said Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island. “This ruling is a win for our plaintiffs, and for free speech.”
In many ways, LGBTQ youth are just like any other youth in America: they are creative, curious people trying to grow into confident, fulfilled adults. They live in every community across the country, and they simply want to be themselves, have fun, and be free to learn who they are and work towards their dreams. Like all young people, LGBTQ youth need safety, community, and support. However, as social stigma and discrimination against LGBTQ people, especially transgender and nonbinary people, remain high in the United States, LGBTQ youth often have experiences that make their lives harder.
Today, the Movement Advancement Project (MAP), in partnership with Advocates for Trans Equality (A4TE), Advocates for Youth,Equality Federation, GLSEN, PFLAG National, and The Trevor Project, released a groundbreaking report offering a holistic picture of the lived experiences of LGBTQ young people. By combining new insights on who LGBTQ youth are and examining how social dynamics and public policy shape their lives, this comprehensive report expands our understanding of an often overlooked but frequently debated community.
The report centers on stories by and from LGBTQ youth about the obstacles they’ve experienced at home, in school, and when accessing health care. The report also offers key recommendations on how to best support LGBTQ youth and ensure they can thrive The Diversity and Lived Experiences of LGBTQ Youth According to recent estimates, more than 2 million youth ages 13 to 17—or roughly 9.5% of all youth in the United States—identify as LGBTQ. Additionally, research clearly and consistently shows that younger people are more likely to identify as LGBTQ, and that more youth identify as LGBTQ than in years past.
LGBTQ young people are incredibly diverse, with a range of lived experiences, including related to their race and ethnicity, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Additionally, the geographic location of LGBTQ youth in the United States can have a big impact on their everyday lives, as different states and regions of the country have drastically different policies that may amplify obstacles and/or opportunities to thrive. Research shows that the largest percentage (38%) of LGBTQ youth live in the South, followed by 24% in the West, 21% in the Midwest, and 17% in the Northeast.
However, it’s important to note that no matter where they live, LGBTQ youth need to be safe, supported, and treated with respect in order to thrive.
In All Areas of Life, LGBTQ Youth Can Experience Acceptance or Rejection Like all youth, LGBTQ young people’s lives are shaped by certain key areas: their home and family, their broader community, their experiences in school, and their access to health care, among others. This new report analyzes how LGBTQ youth can experience both acceptance and rejection across all of these areas, and how the impacts of both often ripple outward to shape experiences in other parts of their lives.
At Home. As with all young people, LGBTQ youth do better with family support, affection, and acceptance. Family acceptance not only positively impacts the health and well-being of LGBTQ young people, but it is protective against negative outcomes. Unfortunately, many LGBTQ youth instead face family rejection. For example, a 2024 national survey of LGBTQ youth and mental health found that only 2 in 5 (40%) respondents found their home to be LGBTQ-affirming. For example, PFLAG—which works to equip families with resources and tools to understand, support, and advocate on behalf of their LGBTQ loved ones—has seen a significant growth in its over 350 chapters around the country in recent years. Fortunately, there are signs that family interest in affirming and advocating for their LGBTQ children is increasing. In Community. LGBTQ youth emphasize the importance of community spaces where they feel accepted by people outside of their immediate family. These include faith communities, neighbors, after school programs, online communities, public spaces, and community organizations, among others. Despite these examples of welcoming spaces, many LGBTQ young people do not experience this kind of support. For example, only 9% of transgender youth say their communities are very accepting, and only 8% say that their faith communities are very accepting. This is why it is critical that LGBTQ youth have places in their community where they feel safe to be their full, authentic selves, receive affirmation from supportive peers and adults, and see imagery, signage, and policies that demonstrate that they are welcome.
In School. Outside of their home environment, most youth—including LGBTQ youth—spend the majority of their time in school. Feeling a sense of school belonging is therefore extremely significant. In fact, for many LGBTQ youth, school is a place where they feel safe being themselves: More LGBTQ youth report that their schools are affirming spaces (52%) than their homes (40%). Research shows that when LGBTQ youth specifically are supported by inclusive school policies and curricula, supportive staff, and affirming student clubs, the effects can be transformative. Yet data from GLSEN’s 2021 National School Climate Survey also shows that far too few LGBTQ students are able to benefit from these kinds of supports: 68% of students said they felt unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation, gender expression, gender identity, or a combination of these identities.
In Health Care. Even though we know that LGBTQ youth need access to quality medical care, care for transgender youth in particular has come under attack in recent years due to increasing political stigma, misunderstandings, and intentional disinformation about the science supporting access to care. Unfortunately, across the country, many transgender youth now live in the over half of U.S. states that ban best practice medical care for transgender youth.
Like all young people, transgender youth deserve to be able to access complete and competent health care, including medically necessary care related to their gender. This report talks about the types of affirming medical settings and policies necessary for providers to work with not only transgender young people, but all LGBTQ young people, from a place of knowledge, openness, and cultural competence about all aspects of their health, including mental health. The Policy Landscape There is more to life for LGBTQ young people than the laws where they live. However, LGBTQ youth are greatly impacted by the policy landscape, which varies widely from state to state. LGBTQ youth experience significantly different protections in terms of the health care they can access, how safe and welcoming their schools are, and how state-funded entities like child welfare agencies can treat them.
Recent, escalating waves of anti-LGBTQ bills introduced across the country—many of which target LGBTQ youth specifically—are politically motivated and designed to distract the public from real issues and stoke fears about the health and wellbeing of LGBTQ youth, especially transgender youth. But in doing so, these policies have had immediate and stark impacts on the wellbeing of LGBTQ youth. According to a 2024 survey from The Trevor Project, 90% of LGBTQ youth reported that recent politics have negatively impacted their wellbeing.
In the companion to this report, LGBTQ Policy Tally: Mapping Equality for LGBTQ Youth, MAP offers an in-depth analysis of 16 types of policies that affect the lives of LGBTQ youth. In this index, each state, U.S. territory, and the District of Columbia receive a policy score based on how supportive or harmful its enacted laws are towards LGBTQ youth.
As shown in the map below, half of all states have a “negative” LGBTQ youth policy score. The report further shows that more than half of all LGBTQ youth live in places that have passed at least one anti-LGBTQ law targeting youth in the last five years.
The analysis in this companion report also includes policies that can positively impact LGBTQ youths’ lives, such as child welfare nondiscrimination protections and protecting youth from conversion “therapy.” Showing Up for LGBTQ Youth “Joy is being seen and celebrated, not just tolerated.” — Black trans youth, age 16 (Source: MAP interview, 2025) In many important ways, LGBTQ youth are just like other young people in America. They need to be cared for, whether at home or in health care; they need to be nurtured and supported by the trusted adults in their lives, including given chances to lead and grow in their own right; and they need to be treated equally under the laws and policies of the places where they live and learn at the local, state, and national levels.
The fact is no one is in a better position to identify the supports that LGBTQ youth need to thrive than these youth themselves. The report includes thoughts and recommendations that LGBTQ young people wish to share with their loved ones and broader community, such as trusting that LGBTQ youth know who they are, standing up for LGBTQ youth, and not supporting politicians who advocate for anti-LGBTQ legislation. In addition, the report shares what advocates working with LGBTQ youth and their families have identified as supports that would positively impact youth well-being.
“All youth, including LGBTQ+ youth, deserve to thrive in the community they call home. Unfortunately, bullies at all levels of government are attacking LGBTQ+ youth, passing harmful legislation that makes it unsafe for them to be their full, authentic selves. Our LGBTQ+ young people deserve better.
This report underscores that we can and must meet their needs in every space they navigate — at home, in schools, in community, and in health care — without compromising their dignity or rights. Ensuring LGBTQ+ young people are given chances to lead and grow in their own right is not optional; it reflects our shared values of respect and belonging. We owe our young people nothing less.”
— Fran “ Hutch” Hutchins, Executive Director, Equality Federation
All of these recommendations can make a big difference in promoting LGBTQ youth’s health, their well-being, their feelings of belonging and joy, and creating space for them to simply be themselves.
To schedule an interview with the author of the report or for questions, please contact Dana Juniel at dana@mapresearch.org. # # # About MAP: MAP’s mission is to provide independent and rigorous research, insight and communications that help speed equality and opportunity for all. MAP works to ensure that all people have a fair chance to pursue health and happiness, earn a living, take care of the ones they love, be safe in their communities, and participate in civic life. www.mapresearch.org
About A4TE: Advocates for Trans Equality (A4TE) is an organization that fights for the legal and political rights of transgender people in the United States. Introduced in July 2024 after the Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund and the National Center for Transgender Equality merged, A4TE is the largest trans-led advocacy organization in the U.S. and brings together experts, advocates, and communities to shift government and society toward an equitable future where trans people live joyful lives without barriers.
About Advocates for Youth: Advocates for Youth is a 501(c)3 organization that champions efforts that help young people make informed decisions about their reproductive and sexual health. Advocates for Youth boldly advocates for a more positive and realistic approach to adolescent sexual health, focusing its work on young people ages 14-24 in the U.S. and around the globe. About Equality Federation: Equality Federation is an advocacy accelerator rooted in social justice, building power in our network of state-based lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) advocacy organizations.
About GLSEN: GLSEN, the nation’s largest advocate for LGBTQ+ issues in K-12 education, has been dedicated to establishing inclusive schools and learning environments for over 34 years. Amidst increasing threats against LGBTQ+ youth nationwide, GLSEN actively addresses harassment and discrimination by empowering educators, advocating for policy changes, and combating book bans through its Rainbow Library Program, which provides LGBTQ+-affirming literature to over 6 million students across 30 states.
About PFLAG National: PFLAG is an organization of LGBTQ+ people, parents, families, and allies who work together to create an equitable and inclusive world. We are hundreds of thousands of people and hundreds of chapters from coast to coast who are leading with love to support families, educate allies, and advocate for just, equitable, and inclusive legislation and policies. Since our founding in 1973, PFLAG works every day to ensure LGBTQ+ people everywhere are safe, celebrated, empowered and loved. Learn more, find support, donate, and take action at PFLAG.org.
About The Trevor Project: The Trevor Project is the leading suicide prevention and crisis intervention organization for LGBTQ+ young people.
Phoenix police have detained a man accused of threatening to shoot people at a local LGBTQ+ bar as revenge for Charlie Kirk‘s death.
Treven Michael Gokey, 49, was arrested Wednesday on two felony counts of making a terroristic threat and using a computer to threaten, according to the police report via AZ Family, and is currently being held in the Maricopa County jail on a $250,000 bond. Officers said that Gokey threatened a shooting at Cruisin’ 7th, allegedly telling them that “Charlie Kirk was a martyr” and he ”was a martyr for Charlie Kirk.”
Gokey reportedly told police during a a welfare check at his apartment that “radical left violence breeds a far-right response,” citing Kirk’s murder and two shootings at schools in Minnesota and Tennessee. He then said he “wanted to harm others” to send a message, using several slurs for transgender people.
Kirk, the conservative podcaster who co-founded Turning Point USA, died after being shot while hosting one of his “Prove Me Wrong” debates at Utah Valley University last week. Authorities have identified and arrested 22-year-old Tyler Robinson in relation to the shooting.
The Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington, D.C. and several historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) were forced to evacuate or lock down after receiving threats the day following Kirk’s killing. While law enforcement has not confirmed what motivated the threats, conservatives widely blamed “the left”for Kirk’s murder and vowed revenge even before the identity of the suspect was known.
The U.S. Secret Service Threat Assessment Center’s review of 172 mass attacks from 2016 to 2020 found that 96 percent of perpetrators were cisgender men. The Advocate has previously reported that out of more than 4,600 mass shootings between 2014 and 2024, at most six involved transgender suspects — just 0.128 percent. As trans people account for only one percent of the U.S. population, they are significantly less likely to be mass shooters than the overall population.
