The results from California’s first state-wide survey of LGBTQ+ older adults showed overall high levels of satisfaction with their quality of life but also concerns about the personal, financial, and mental health well-being of transgender women.
The survey, entitled “From Challenges to Resilience,” was conducted in early 2024 with 4,037 respondents. The survey was conducted by the California Department of Aging, the University of California, Berkeley, the University of California, San Francisco School of Nursing’s Department of Community Health Systems, and Openhouse, a nonprofit LGBTQIA+ older adults support group.
“This survey marks an important step in understanding the unique needs of LGBTQIA+ older adults, allowing us to take meaningful steps in shaping services that truly reflect and respond to this community,” CDA Director Susan DeMarois said in a statement. “We’re proud that so many respondents feel California offers a high quality of life, and we are committed to building on these strengths by addressing barriers and creating a more inclusive, supportive future for all older Californians.”
The survey explored seven topics: economic well-being, social well-being, discrimination and safety, health care access, service utilization, mental health and substance use, and cognitive and physical health.
Most of the survey respondents were white (78 percent). Most also identified as cisgender (86 percent). Most lived in Northern California (65 percent) and in urban areas (81 percent).
Most surveyed gave high marks for personal wellness and quality of life (86 percent), while 14 percent rated their quality of life as only fair or poor. Transgender and gender expansive were the least satisfied with the quality of their lives, with 22 percent giving only poor or fair ratings.
Trans women were also the most likely to have recently experienced unfair treatment, disrespect, and discrimination. Overall, 27 percent of those surveyed reported such experiences, but 54 percent of trans women said they have been so victimized recently.
Officials hope to use the results of the survey as a baseline for further research and as a key component of the state’s overall plan to deal with California’s aging population.
“California is leading the way in creating a future where every older adult, regardless of identity, is valued, respected, and supported,” Kim Johnson, Secretary of the California Health & Human Services Agency, said in a statement. “These findings provide a foundation for meaningful change, guiding us as we advance the Master Plan for Aging and ensure that all older Californians feel recognized and included.”
You can download the entire 96-page report here. Alternatively, you can download a 16-page summary of the report here.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom and state lawmakers returned to the state Capitol on Monday to begin a special session to protect the state’s progressive policies ahead of another Trump presidency.
The Democratic governor, a fierce critic of President-elect Donald Trump, is positioning California to once again be the center of a resistance effort against the conservative agenda. He is asking his Democratic allies in the Legislature, who hold supermajorities in both chambers, to approve additional funding to the attorney general’s office to prepare for a robust legal fight against anticipated federal challenges.
Democratic Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel on Monday introduced legislation to set aside $25 million for legal fees to respond to potential attacks by the Trump administration on state policies regarding civil rights, climate change, immigration and abortion access.
“While we always hope to collaborate with our federal partners, California will be ready to vigorously defend our interests and values from any unlawful action by the incoming Trump Administration,” Gabriel said in a statement.
“We’re not going to be caught flat-footed,” Newsom said at a recent news conference.
Trump often depicts California as representing all he sees wrong in America. Democrats, which hold every statewide office in California and have commanding margins in the Legislature and congressional delegation, outnumber registered Republicans by nearly 2-to-1 statewide.
Trump called the Democratic governor “New-scum” during a campaign stop in Southern California and has relentlessly lambasted the Democratic stronghold over its large number of immigrants in the U.S. illegally, homeless population and thicket of regulations.
Trump also waded into a water rights battle over the endangered delta smelt, a tiny fish that has pitted environmentalists against farmers and threatened to withhold federal aid to a state increasingly under threat from wildfires. He also vowed to follow through with his campaign promise of carrying out the mass deportation of immigrants without legal status and prosecuting his political enemies.
Before the special session begins, state lawmakers are scheduled to swear in more than two dozen new members and elect leaders for the 2025 legislative session. Hundreds of people also are planning to march around the Capitol on Monday to urge the Legislature to try to stop Trump’s mass deportation plans.
State Attorney General Rob Bonta said his office will protect the state’s immigration population, while Newsom last week unveiled a proposal to revive a rebate program for electric vehicle purchases if the incoming Trump administration eliminates a federal tax credit for people who buy electric cars. Newsom is also considering creating a backup disaster relief fund for the wildfire-prone state after Trump’s threats.
Republican lawmakers blasted Newsom and his Democratic allies over the special session. Rep. Vince Fong, who represents the state’s Central Valley farm belt, said California should work with the incoming Trump administration instead.
“Gavin Newsom’s actions are tone-deaf to the concerns of Californians who disapprove of the direction of our state and country,” Fong said in a video on social media.
Legislators also are expected to spend the year discussing ways to protect dozens of laws expected to be targeted by the Trump administration, including one that has made the state a sanctuary for people seeking abortions who live in states where such practices have been severely limited.
California, the nation’s most populous state, was the first to mandate that by 2035 all new cars, pickup trucks and SUVs sold in California be electric, hydrogen-powered or plug-in hybrids. The state also extends state-funded health care to all low-income residents regardless of their immigration status.
Newsom hasn’t provided details about what actions the lawmakers will consider but said he wanted funding in place before Trump’s inauguration day, Jan. 20. The state spent roughly $42 million in litigation costs during the first Trump administration, officials said.
California is projected to face a $2 billion budget deficit next year, with bigger shortfalls ahead. Gabriel, who sued the first Trump administration in 2017 when it tried to end a program to shield young immigrants from being deported, said lining up the funding now is “a wise investment.”
California successfully clawed back $57 million between 2017 and 2018 after prevailing in a lawsuit to block the Trump administration from putting immigration enforcement conditions on certain federal law enforcement grants. Another legal victory over the citizenship question in the 2020 census forced the federal government to return $850,000 to the state, according to the attorney general’s office.
“We are positioned, if necessary, to be the tip of the spear of the resistance and to push back against any unlawful or unconstitutional actions by the Trump administration,” said Gabriel, who chairs the budget committee.
During Trump’s first presidency, Democratic attorneys general banded together to file lawsuits over immigration, Trump’s travel ban for residents of Muslim countries, the environment, immigration and other topics. But Trump has one possible advantage this time around: He was aggressive in nominating conservative jurists to federal courts at all levels, including the Supreme Court.
A federal judge ruled Monday that a volleyball player for the San Jose State University women’s team, who is at the center of controversy about transgender athletes, can compete in this week’s conference tournament.
Judge S. Kato Crews, with the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, denied the emergency motion for a preliminary injunction filed this month against the Mountain West Conference.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit that preceded the emergency motion included San Jose’s co-captain Brooke Slusser and 10 athletes from other schools who argued that their Title IX rights are being violated by allowing the athlete to play for a women’s sports team, according to the news outlet.
The 132-page lawsuit sought to prevent the player from participating in the conference tournament.
The San Jose State University Spartans line up for the playing of the national anthem and player introductions for their NCAA Mountain West women’s volleyball game against the Colorado State University Rams in Fort Collins, Colo., on Oct. 3, 2024. Santiago Mejia / San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images
In addition to barring the athlete from the tournament, the emergency motion also sought to rescind the conference’s policy that establishes wins, losses and forfeits if a member of a non-canceling team has a transgender player; rescind the wins SJSU had and losses against teams that refused to play SJSU and to recalculate winning percentages based on games from earlier this season that some teams forfeited and apply the new calculations, and seedings, to the conference tournament that begins Wednesday.
Several conference teams have refused to play SJSU and instead forfeited the games.
The player, whom NBC News is not naming, has never spoken publicly, and SJSU has not confirmed that one of its players is transgender.
In Monday’s ruling, the judge determined that the emergency motion was a heavy lift for the conference at the 11th hour and was not needed because teams that had previously forfeited did so knowing the conference’s 2022 transgender policy.
“The relief requested with the Emergency Motion would risk confusion and upend months of planning and would prejudice, at a minimum, Defendants and other teams participating in the tournament depending on the results of any reseeding. On balance, the equities favor the MWC’s interest in conducting and proceeding with the tournament as planned,” the ruling read.
The judge also cited other laws and previous rulings noting that it’s impossible to discriminate against a person based on transgender status without discriminating against them based on sex.
In a statement Monday, San Jose State lauded the judge’s decision.
“San José State University will continue to support its student-athletes and reject discrimination in all forms,” the university said said. “All San José State University student-athletes are eligible to participate in their sports under NCAA and Mountain West Conference rules.”
The Mountain West Conference has said it is taking the suit’s allegations seriously.
“The Mountain West Conference prioritizes the best interests of our student-athletes and takes great care to adhere to NCAA and MW policies,” the group said in a statement. “While we are unable to comment on the pending litigation of this particular situation, we take seriously all concerns of student-athlete welfare and fairness.”
Last month, multiple teams canceled games against San Jose State, including on Oct. 24, when the University of Nevada, Reno, canceled citing it would not have enough players.
Nevada players announced that they were refusing “to participate in any match that advances injustice against female athletes,” without providing further details. The school’s athletic department said it wouldn’t back out from the match, referencing state equality laws, but added that no players would be disciplined.
The game was switched to San Jose, California, “in the interest of both programs,” the teams said in a joint statement — with no further explanation — before Nevada elected to forfeit.
Earlier this season, Southern Utah, Boise State, Wyoming and Utah State also canceled games against their conference foe.
In a letter sent Nov. 18 to the commissioner of the Mountain West Conference, Republican senators and representatives said the conference was violating Title IX sex discrimination protections and failing to meet its own requirements regarding gender equity.
“Permitting biological men to play in women’s sports is not equitable; it is an injustice,” the letter reads. “Under these guidelines, it is only fair that biological males play men’s sports and biological females play women’s sports.”
“Clearly, the Mountain West Conference has dropped the ball,” it continues.
The group of GOP lawmakers included Sens. Mitt Romney and Mike Lee and Reps. John Curtis, Blake Moore, Burgess Owens and Celeste Maloy of Utah; Sens. Mike Crapo and James Risch and Reps. Russ Fulcher and Mike Simpson of Idaho; and Sens. John Barrasso and Sen. Cynthia Lummis and Rep. Harriet Hageman of Wyoming.
Colombia’s Special Jurisdiction for Peace (Juridicción Especial para la Paz, JEP) has charged six former leaders of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia,FARC) guerrillas with war crimes for the forced recruitment and use of 18,677 children from 1971 to 2016. In addition to forced recruitment, the charges encompass torture, killings, reproductive and sexual violence, and targeted violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) children.
The JEP, a transitional justice mechanism created by the 2016 Peace Accordsbetween the Colombian government and the FARC, is tasked with trying crimes, including crimes under international law and grave human rights violations, committed during Colombia’s armed conflict.
“Macro-case” 07 before the JEP is focused on child recruitment and involves 9,854 victims, including 8,903 who belong to five indigenous communities and 951 others, including survivors and families who continue the search for missing recruited children.
The JEP’s Chamber of Recognition of Truth charged the former FARC leaders with heinous crimes, including the mistreatment, torture, and homicide of recruited children; reproductive violence affecting recruited girls; and sexual violence against recruited boys and girls, including torture, rape, and sexual slavery.
In a historic first under a transitional justice mechanism, the chamber also charged the former leaders with violence against recruited boys and girls based on prejudice related to the children’s sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. The chamber found that several LGBT girls and boys “suffered sexual violence and abuse as a way of ‘correcting’ or ‘punishing’ them.” This unprecedented recognition of violence targeted against LGBT children sets a new standard for addressing discrimination as an element of human rights abuses in conflict.
These indictments go a long way in addressing the impunity that has long characterized Colombia’s armed conflict. The JEP should now make sure that defendants are fairly prosecuted and, if found guilty, appropriately punished for their crimes.
In multiple states this election year, voters signaled an overall shift away from “parents’ rights” issues, fear mongering, and partisan politics, including the rejection of anti-trans candidate for North Carolina governor Mark Robinson as well as other state and local educational posts.
North Carolina voters also rejected Moms for Liberty-endorsed Superintendent of Public Instruction candidate Michele Morrow, whose campaign and record was nearly equally as disturbing as Robinson’s
Morrow’s anti-LGBTQ record included a defamatory rant against opponent Mo Green, who received the endorsement of state LGBTQ organization Equality North Carolina. Morrow falsely and dangerously misrepresented the plus symbol in LGBTQ+ in a post on Twitter/X: “NEWSFLASH…the ‘+’ includes PEDOPH*L*A!!” The American Psychological Association notes that the plus is often added “to recognize those not captured within or represented by the acronym LGBTQ,” including asexual, intersex, and nonbinary people.
Michele Morrow launches an anti-LGBTQ rant against opponent Mo Green. (Credit: QnotesCarolinas)
In a recorded clip on her website and YouTube, Morrow addressed a school board, laying bare her values under the guise of “protecting our children.”
“We are talking about trying to figure out how to make our children be as successful as possible, and I am sure that that is your goal. And what we have been called tonight is what they’re claiming we’re saying to children. We’re having an adult conversation,” Morrow said. “There are not children in this room. We aren’t going into the schools and calling them names. They call us Marxist, and hateful, and bigots, and everything else under the sun. Well, let me tell ‘ya: Less than five percent of the entire population of North Carolina identifies as LGBTQ. You guys all claim you want democracy. You know what democracy is? It’s the majority plus one! It’s 50 plus one! You know what? More than 50 percent of the people in this state claim that they believe in God – almighty God, who made us male and female. God who made marriage between a man and a woman. God who said that we must protect our children.”
Morrow had also falsely labeled the public schools she wanted to lead as “indoctrination centers,” while her record included participation in the January 6insurrection, and called for the execution of former President Barack Obama. Political comedy channel The Good Liarsheld Morrow accountable for her actions.
The Good Liars confronts Michele Morrow over threatening Tweets she made against former President Barack Obama. (Credit: The Good Liars on X)
In a viral clip, Jason Selvig approached Morrow with printed copies of her threatening tweets under the guise of requesting an autograph. After stroking her ego, he read the now-deleted social media posts back to her, word for word, before making a hasty escape.
Morrow ultimately lost the race to Mo Green, who captured just over 51 percent of the vote.
Maurice Green received a majority of the vote, 51.1%, in the race for North Carolina Superintendent, narrowly defeating opponent Michele Morrow.
Green served as superintendent to North Carolina’s third-largest school district, Guilford County Schools, and was Executive Director of Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation, which “has invested more than $691 million into North Carolina” to “address the impact of racism ingrained in state institutions — including schools — and support ideas aimed at mitigating hate’s effect on policy and people.”
Green’s platform includes a promise to “celebrate the good in public education” and “ensure safe, secure learning environments,” and opposes The Parental Bill of Rights, which bans discussion about gender identity and sexuality in K-4 classrooms, and requires that schools out students to their parents if they request a change to their name or pronouns.
Green, nominee for North Carolina Superintendent of Public Instruction, holds a news conference. (Credit: NC Newsline)
“Every child deserves to learn, and every staff member deserves to work, in an environment that is safe, welcoming, and inclusive,” Green said.
State’s Most Populous County Wakes up, Rejects Several Anti-Trans Candidates
Also in North Carolina, three of four Moms for Liberty-endorsed candidates were defeated in races for Wake County Board of Education:
District 5: Incumbent Lynn Edmonds “soundly” defeated Ted Hills. During her first term, Edmonds “voted, alongside the board’s six other Democrats, to bring the school system into compliance with new, federally-mandated protections for LGBTQ students.” Hills opposed the Title IX updates.
District 6: Sam Hershey, an anti-book book ban advocate, beat challenger Josh Points “by a 40-point margin.” Hershey voiced support for compliance with federally-mandated Title IX updates.
District 8: Lindsay Mahaffey, who was endorsed by the Equality North Carolina PAC, was elected to her fifth term. Her opponent Elizabeth McDuffie rejected Title IX protections for transgender students and campaigned alongside Michele Morrow.
District 3 incumbent Wing Ng was the only anti-LGBTQ candidate elected, but his victory was narrow. INDY Weekreports that Equality North Carolina PAC-endorsed Jordyn Blaise lost “by a razor-thin margin of just about one point.” Lastly, Toshiba Rice won her bid for reelection to District 4. Rice voted to support compliance with the Biden-Harris Administration’s federal Title IX updates.
Equality Victories in the Sunshine State
While Florida’s 60 percent supermajority requirement led to narrow losses for abortion rights (57.2 percent voted in favor of expanding access to abortion) and legalized recreational marijuana (55.9 were in favor), a GOP-supported proposed constitutional amendment that would have led to partisan school board races also lost. In their rejection of this amendment, the League of Women Voters of Florida and other opponents said, “schools should not be politicized and everyone should be welcome at schools regardless of party affiliation.”
Katie Blaxberg defeated DeSantis and M4L-endorsed Stacy Geier for Pinellas County School Board by over four percentage points (52.06% to 47.94%).
Michelle Bonczek bested Mark Cioffi, who was endorsed by DeSantis, by nearly 10 percent (54.99% to 45.01%).
Meanwhile, Equality Florida (EQFL) saw significant growth in their political representation. With the organization’s leadership on the ground, they doubled the number of LGBTQ legislators in the statehouse, one of their explicit goals for the election. But they didn’t only make gains in the statehouse. All told, more than 85 EQFL-endorsed candidates, including eight members of the LGBTQ community, were elected to office.
“In the fight against extremist takeovers of Florida school boards, voters rejected DeSantis’s culture wars and divisive agenda,” Equality Florida said. “This year, we delivered DeSantis and Moms for Liberty a string of humiliating school board defeats. Nearly two-thirds of DeSantis-backed school board candidates lost their races this year. Meanwhile, over 72% of Equality Florida Action PAC endorsed school board candidates won their elections. This progress is proof of the power of resistance. We are turning the tide, even when it feels like everything is stacked against us.”
Propelling the “Relentless Flow of Acceptance”
Journalist and transgender rights activist Erin Reed has been tracking the resultsof down-ballot races throughout the country.
“Even in affirming states, school boards can make life difficult for LGBTQ+ students,” Reed wrote in her newsletter, “or, in states with anti-trans and anti-queer legislation, they can push back against restrictive policies.”
Erin Reed and fiancée Montana State Rep. Zooey Zephyr celebrate after Reed wins a GLAAD Media Award for her Erin in the Morning blog. (Credit: ErinInTheMorning on X)
Reed’s reports on social media include LGBTQ news with an emphasis on transgender rights. In a post-election message of support to her trans and queer readers, she drew parallels between the 2024 election and the fight for marriage equality in the early 2000s that pushed on despite setbacks.
After former President George W. Bush was reelected in 2004, “he delivered a State of the Union speech where he said, for instance, that he will enshrine a constitutional ban on gay marriage into United States law,” Reed said. “And I could stop there. I could say that there are people that likely did stop there, that saw this and said that there was no future, but you cannot stop the relentless flow of time. You cannot stop the relentless flow of acceptance.”
US President-elect Donald Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric concerning the rights of lesbian, gay, transgender and bisexual (LGBT) people is nothing new. His first term in office from 2017 until 2021 resulted in a wave of discriminatory measures aimed at limiting protections for LGBT people across the United States. Since then, state legislatures around the country have continued to pursue or pass draconian bills to limit the presence of LGBT people in public life, including rolling back freedoms for trans children. Senior Web Producer Paul Aufiero spoke with LGBT rights specialist Ryan Thoreson about what’s at stake under a second Trump presidency.
What does a second Trump term mean for the rights of LGBT people in the US?
Donald Trump’s first term gives us a glimpse of what we can likely expect to see this time around. He previously stacked his administration and the judiciary with people who are overtly hostile to LGBT rights. We saw the consequences of that in a lot of the administration’s policies and executive orders, including one that banned transgender people from serving in the US military.
Trump and other Republican Party candidates also targeted transgender people during the 2024 campaign, running anti-trans attack ads in various states and making absurd claims about schools performing gender surgeries on children. So I think we’re likely to see the federal government turn against trans people in the way that individual US states have in recent years.
How have US states already been curbing LGBT people’s rights?
More than half of US states also prohibit transgender children from obtaining often life-saving, gender-affirming medical care. Major medical associations consider this type of care best practice for many transgender children, as it can alleviate a lot of the mental health stressors of gender dysphoria they can experience as they grow and their bodies change.
Some states have also sought to exclude transgender girls from participating in sports, including some imposing blanket bans. This has the detrimental effect that trans kids who are often bullied or face isolation at school can’t take part in and get the benefits of the teamwork and physical activity that school sports provide.
Seven states also limit or ban discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity in schools, and four more restrict whether and how same-sex activity can be discussed in schools. These laws are passed to prevent children from learning about diverse sexual orientations and gender identities, with little regard for the harmful effects that isolation and invisibility can have on young people who do or will identify as LGBT or have LGBT family members.
How could this kind of discrimination and erasure play out on the national stage under the next Trump administration?
Well, one example is Trump saying that he’ll outright ban gender-affirming care for minors in the US.
He also said he’ll ask Congress to establish that only two genders will be federally recognized. This would stop progress currently being made in the country to recognize non-binary individuals, which we’ve seen in federal and state efforts to allow people to choose a third gender option of “X” on passports, licenses, and other documents.
This is also problematic for trans people generally, as it lays the groundwork for laws and policies that Congress could pass. Some Republicans in Congress have already introduced legislation that would make providing gender-affirming care a crime in the US or that would prohibit transgender girls from playing sports nationwide.
Many of the changes proposed by lawmakers and Trump would exclude transgender students from Title IX protections, a federal law banning sex discrimination in federally funded educational institutions. This would affect school policies on students’ use of pronouns, bathrooms, and locker rooms.
Trump also said during the campaign that he would roll back federal policies prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. During his first term, his administration weakened some of these protections.
What about LGBT people’s rights globally?
Trump’s previous administration made some gestures toward respect for LGBT rights abroad, but they didn’t go far in terms of policy. The Biden administration went much farther, for example by promoting non-discrimination through State Department programming. The next Trump administration could roll some of that back.
Trump’s past unwillingness to discuss human rights issues with foreign leaders could prove very harmful to LGBT people abroad. As Russia, Hungary, and other governments pass anti-LGBT legislation – including laws that have cracked down on LGBT families, discussions of LGBT topics in public, and organizations working to promote LGBT people’s rights – the US voice on LGBT issues around the world could be lost.
How do you see your work changing?
I don’t think the guiding principles of Human Rights Watch’s work will change much. As we discussed, even under the Biden administration, we’ve been vocally critical of lawmakers at the state level passing legislation targeting trans kids and their families. We’ll also need to expand on work we did during the first Trump administration around erosions of non-discrimination protections and access to health care.
That said, I think one of the lessons from the first Trump administration is that there will be things that nobody expected. Banning trans people from the military was one of those. Advocates and LGBT people have to be nimble and responsive to threats as they come up.
What can LGBT people and advocates in the US do to prepare?
Over the next couple months, before the new administration takes office, people who feel they might be at risk should get their paperwork or documentation in order. That could be legal recognition of parentage or other family documentation. Many organizations are recommending that people shore up anything that bolsters legal recognition of their marriages, such as additional estate planning and powers of attorney. Also, if it’s important for someone to get a passport or birth certificate that reflects their gender identity, this is a good time to do that.
I think it’s important to prepare for institutions to be attacked. Lawmakers at the national level have proposed limiting federal funding for organizations that work on sexual and reproductive rights issues, including trans health and rights. Trump has likewise said that federal dollars shouldn’t go to institutions that promote “gender ideology.”
That could mean that comprehensive sexuality education may not be offered to LGBT, or any, kids through schools, so it will fall on community organizations and families to provide that education. And as books about LGBT people and issues may be removed from school and public libraries, donating resources or otherwise helping to fund and support community organizations that help marginalized LGBT communities might be helpful in the coming years.
Anything else we should look out for?
We talked about threats to gender-affirming care, but I think broader attacks on health care for LGBT people are likely to be a constant concern over the next four years.
The administration’s unwillingness to enforce civil rights could leave those alleging LGBT discrimination without much hope, especially if judges become more hostile to LGBT discrimination claims.
And having sex and gender defined federally as just that assigned at birth will likely exacerbate problems LGBT people already have in finding affordable, accessible care.
On a more positive note, watch out for opportunities to be an advocate and show support for LGBT people’s rights in any way you can. Many local organizations have been doing critical work meeting the needs of the most marginalized LGBT communities, and giving them your time, money, and energy goes a long way. Just being a vocal ally matters too. Supportive adults can make an enormous difference in LGBT kids’ mental health and well-being, and showing support is even more critical as policymaking and rhetoric become more hostile.
However you can, find ways to make a difference in your community to pave the way for stronger protections for human rights.
Romania has been described as being “in shock” today (25 November) after far-right candidate Calin Georgescu won the first round of the country’s presidential elections.
Calin Georgescu, an independent candidate who is a NATO critic, won with a 22.95% share, beating incumbent prime minister Marcel Ciolacu of the Social Democratic Party (PSD), who had been the favourite to win the first round.
62-year old Calin Georgescu will now go on to face Elena Lasconi of the centre-right Save Romania Union party on 8 December. It’s the first time in 35 years that the left-wing PSD won’t have a second round candidate.
What is life currently like for LGBTQ+ people in Romania?
Things haven’t exactly been rosy for the LGBTQ+ community under left-wing rule, so it’s concerning to see this far-right surge in the country, which was formerly run by tyrannical communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu. Could things get worse, and could queer peoples’ hard-won rights be rolled back?
More than 25,000 people joined this year’s Bucharest Pride in July 2024, marking the largest march to date. The Pride Festival featured 20 events and spanned over nine days.
You may like to watch
However, on the same day a counter-demonstration called March for Normality was held in the capital.
Also in July 2024, an MP named George Simion shared a social media post to say that LGBTQ+ people are to blame for the weather conditions, which are divine punishment. In the same month, the head of the Romanian Orthodox Church also said that “homosexuality was, is and will remain unnatural”.
Romania’s Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu during a meeting with Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer at 10 Downing Street on November 13, 2024 in London (Getty)
Marcel Ciolacu: country ‘not ready’ to uphold LGBTQ+ rights
A year ago, in November 2023, Romania’s Prime Minister said that the country isn’t ready to uphold LGBTQ+ rights in line with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
It came after the ECHR ruled in May 2023 that Romania had breached of article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights – the right to respect for private and family life – by refusing to legally recognise same-sex relationships.
In an interview with Europa FM, left-wing Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu was asked about his thoughts on the ECHR ruling and whether Romania would now consider expanding protections for the LGBTQ+ community.
Ciolacu said: “Romanian society is not ready for a decision at the moment. It is not one of my priorities and… I don’t think Romania is ready.”
Two women kiss as they take part in Bucharest Pride 2018. (DANIEL MIHAILESCU/AFP via Getty)
He continued: “I am not a closed-minded person, I… have friends in relationships with a man, I don’t have a problem with that, I am talking now from the point of view of a prime minister.”
Ciolacu added that he didn’t believe it would be the last time that Romania failed to enforce the ECHR’s rulings.
Although Romania decriminalised homosexuality in 2001, it has yet to legalise marriage or civil partnerships for same-sex couples.
In the ECHR’s investigation into Romania’s failure to recognise same-sex couples, it was determined that the societal opposition to same-sex marriage in Romania should not override same-sex couples’ right to have their relationships legally recognised.
Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu said ‘Romanian society is not ready” to introduce same-sex rights. (Getty Images)
The investigation had been prompted by complaints lodged by 21 different Romanian couples to the ECHR, arguing that there was no way to legally safeguard their relationships due to the country’s lack of recognition.
Each of the couples had given notice to their local registry offices expressing their intention to marry, but their requests were rejected under an article that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Their requests were also rejected under a separate article which states that same-sex marriage is “prohibited” in Romania.
LGBTQ+ propaganda bill
In 2022, Romanian lawmakers came under fire when the government introduced a so-called LGBTQ+ “propaganda” bill, which would ban the use of materials in schools that “promote” being queer.
According to the World Values Survey conducted between 2017 and 2020, three-quarters of the population said that they believed that homosexuality is “not justifiable”.
What rights could Romanian LGBTQ+ people lose under Calin Georgescu?
LGBTQ+ rights in Romania (Equaldex)
Equaldex – a collaborative knowledge base for the LGBTQ+ movement – give Romania an overall score of 46/100 for its treatment of LGBTQ+ people, taking into account factors like legal rights and also public opinion about queer people in general.
Trans people are currently banned from serving in the military and can’t legally change gender unless they have gender affirming surgery. Non-binary people are not legally recognised. Gay marriage is banned.
Homosexuality is, however, legal, as is gender affirming care. LGBTQ+ people are permitted to donate blood and the age of consent for queer people is equal to that of heterosexual people.
At the time of writing, it is still unclear whether Elena Lasconi or Calin Georgescu will win on 8 December, and what the premiership of either candidate could mean for the already less-than-comprehensive LGBTQ+ rights in the country. We’ll update this article when the results are known.
Some same-sex couples are worried about the status of their marriages under a new Donald Trump administration. Legal and financial experts don’t see an immediate threat to marriage equality, but they recommend some safeguards to put in place.
Trump has gone from supporting domestic partnerships for same-sex couples instead of equal marriage rights (in 2000, a common view at the time) to saying marriage should be left to the states to saying marriage equality is settled law.The kind of allies he has in Congress and those he’s appointing to his Cabinet and is likely to appoint to the Supreme Court if he has a chance aren’t exactly supportive, though. And Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas have said they’d like to overturn the court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling, Obergefell v. Hodges.That would take a case getting to the high court.
But how worried should same-sex married couples be? “I would like to think there is no reason to disrupt something that has worked so well for families, their children and society,” Mary Bonauto, senior director of civil rights and legal strategies at GLAD Law, who argued Obergefell at the Supreme Court, recently told The New York Times in response to readers’ anxieties. “It allows people to organize their families and affairs, pool finances, buy property and have kids. In the end, it is popular, and it harms no one.”
“But gay couples’ concerns aren’t entirely unfounded,” the Times notes. “The president-elect already reshaped the Supreme Court during his first term, appointing three conservative justices who are now part of a 6-to-3 majority.” Trump’s appointees, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, joined Thomas, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, and Alito and John Roberts, appointed by President George W. Bush. The conservative justices have chipped away at the rights of same-sex couples, with decisions asserting businesses have the right to refuse service to them in Masterpiece Cakeshopand 303 Creative.Legal experts expect to see more “right to discriminate” cases.
The act provides for federal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriages (the latter legalized nationwide in the Supreme Court’s Loving v. Virginia ruling in 1967) and requires all states to recognize those performed in other states. It doesn’t, however, require any state to offer same-sex marriages, so states could cease offering these unions if Obergefell were overturned. Marriage equality opponent Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky, is trying to set up a caseto overturn it.
Federal recognition comes with many benefits — “health insurance through a spouse’s employer, Social Security spousal and survivor benefits, estate tax advantages, retirement planning opportunities, pension rights and less cumbersome tax planning, among others,” as the Times article explains. In 2009, when marriage equality was limited to a few states, Times reporters Tara Siegel Bernard and Ron Lieber calculated the cost that came with lack of federal recognition, ranging from about $40,000 for a couple in the best-case situation and nearly half a million dollars for those in the worst-case scenario.
With uncertainly about the future, Jennifer Pizer, chief legal officer at Lambda Legal, suggests that same-sex couples make sure they have wills, medical and legal powers of attorney, and perhaps second-parent adoption confirmation for their children.
“It is always a very good idea for people, when they can, to prepare legal documents setting out their wishes for a crisis situation. … Take the steps that are within your power to take,” Pizer told the Times.
President-elect Donald Trump has been nominating controversial people to his second-term cabinet and it hasn’t been pretty. GLSEN, an organization that advocates for safe and inclusive schools for LGBTQ+ youth, has strongly criticized Trump’s nomination of former World Wrestling Entertainment CEO Linda McMahon as secretary of education. The nomination, announced earlier this week, was met with widespread concern from LGBTQ+ advocates and educators who fear it signals a rollback of Title IX protections and other federal policies supporting marginalized students.
In a press release, GLSEN executive director Melanie Willingham-Jaggers condemned the nomination, citing McMahon’s lack of educational experience and loyalty to Trump’s political agenda as deeply troubling.
“Donald Trump’s decision to nominate Linda McMahon, a political ally with no substantial background in education, is yet another deeply concerning move in his ongoing effort to undermine public education,” Willingham-Jaggers said in the release. “McMahon’s lack of expertise in education, paired with Trump’s focus on so-called ‘parents’ rights’ and ‘school choice,’ signals a continued push to strip critical protections for LGBTQ+ students and historically marginalized communities.”
The statement further emphasized the importance of leadership grounded in expertise. “Public education is not a performance—it is the foundation of our democracy and our nation’s future,” it read. “McMahon’s nomination instead prioritizes loyalty to Trump’s agenda over the well-being and futures of millions of students.”
Project 2025 and GLSEN’s concerns
In an interview with The Advocate, Willingham-Jaggers elaborated on the risks posed by McMahon’s nomination, linking it to broader concerns about the implementation of Project 2025, a conservative plan to overhaul federal governance in a second Trump term. The plan calls for the systematic dismantling of the education department and stripping of protections for LGBTQ+ students.
“They are coming in to slash and grab, slash and burn, drain, destroy, and break the confidence and really break the spirit of all the institutions, all the people in it, and everyone who relies on or whose life is touched by these institutions,” Willingham-Jaggers warned.
They expressed concerns that the speed of policy rollbacks could outpace public resistance. “The scariest thing I heard was it’s not the first 100 days. It’s the first 100 hours,” they said, adding that protections like Title IX could be among the first to be dismantled.
We’ve seen this movie before
Reflecting on the lessons of Trump’s first administration, Willingham-Jaggers described its approach as chaotic experimentation. “In the first Trump administration, they were just kind of smashing buttons. Nobody knew what they were doing,” they said. “It was like trying to hit the cheat code on a Nintendo game—just like, ‘Oh, would this give me 18 more lives?’”
They cautioned, however, that this time is different. “They’ve figured out what works and what doesn’t. They’ve purged the ‘immune system’ within the government that held back their worst impulses. And there are laws moving through Congress right now that will allow them to run the board,” Willingham-Jaggers added, emphasizing the urgency of resisting these efforts.
Challenging a backlash against acceptance
Willingham-Jaggers connected the current wave of anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment to the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that as children spent more time at home, some parents became exposed to how accepted their kids were in schools, GSAs, and online communities.
“It’s important for our side to know where we are right now had everything to do with young people going home during the pandemic and their parents seeing how accepted these children—that they did not accept themselves—how accepted and affirmed these kids were in school or their online community,” Willingham-Jaggers said.
This exposure, they argued, fueled backlash from some parents who resented the acceptance their children experienced elsewhere.
“It’s terrible parents of trans kids like Elon Musk and all the others who are now trying to make the world smaller for everyone’s children,” Willingham-Jaggers said. “They’re trying to make the world less accepting for everyone’s children because they saw their kids being accepted, and they said, ’No, you don’t. How dare you teach my child that they are loved, despite what I think.’”
GLSEN, however, remains committed to countering this hostility, they said.
A call to action
GLSEN called on the Senate to reject McMahon’s nomination and urged allies to rally to defend LGBTQ+ students. “GLSEN will not stand idly by while federal protections, including Title IX, are attacked or eroded,” the release stated.
“We call on the Senate to reject this nomination and demand a leader who will center equity, inclusion, and the needs of all students in their vision for education.”
The organization has also launched its Rise Up campaign, encouraging allies to actively support LGBTQ+ youth.
“Our young people are being told that they don’t exist or, if they do, it’s a mistake. That is not only not true; there are millions and millions of adults who love, appreciate, affirm, and understand that we need our young people here,” Willingham-Jaggers said.
Despite the challenges ahead, Willingham-Jaggers offered a message of resilience and determination for those advocating for inclusive education.
“Strap up, put your seat belts on, find your people, put your helmets on, and let’s go,” they said. “There are people like us at GLSEN who are in the fight, who aren’t going anywhere, and who will have your back.”
For more information on GLSEN’s Rise Up campaign, visit glsen.org/riseup.
Four men became the latest victims of anti-LGBTQ+ mob “justice” in the African country of Nigeria earlier this month, after they were accused of engaging in consensual same-sex sexual activity.
As the Los Angeles Blade reports, the four young men were paraded down a street and run out of Edo State capital Benin City on November 17 wearing only their boxer shorts. The angry mob threatened to kill them if they ever returned.
Nigerian LGBTQ+ activist Samson Mikel told the Blade that queer people have become scapegoats in Benin City, which he described as “backward” and a hotbed of “scammers and other crimes.”
“The people are proud of their roughness, they are never concerned about these other crimes or how the government is impoverishing them, but will light gay men on fire the moment they think,” Mikel said.
LGBTQ+ people he insisted, simply want to “live and experience love.”
“They are not the cause of the economic meltdown in the country, neither are they the reason why there are no jobs in the streets of Nigeria,” Mikel said.
The November 17 incident is just the latest example of the epidemic of mob violence in Nigeria. Between January 2012 and August 2023, Amnesty International recorded at least 555 people who were killed by violent mobs across the country, according to a report released in October. Of those victims, 32 were burnt alive, 2 were buried alive, and 23 were tortured to death.
“The menace of mob violence is perhaps one of the biggest threats to the right to life in Nigeria,” Amnesty International Nigeria director Isa Sanusi said in a statement. “The fact that these killings have been happening for a long time, with few cases investigated and prosecuted, highlights the authorities’ shocking failure to uphold and fulfil their obligation to protect people from harm and violence.”
As Daniel Anthony wrote for LGBTQ Nation earlier this month, LGBTQ+ people are especially at risk of being targeted: “The combination of strict anti-LGBTQ+ laws, social stigma, and a flawed justice system that fails to protect minorities has created an environment where the lives of queer individuals are not only expendable but also actively endangered.”
Homosexuality is illegal in Nigeria. The country’s Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition Act, which was signed into law by former President Goodluck Jonathan in 2014, makes same-sex relationships punishable by up to 14 years in prison. In predominantly Muslim areas of northern Nigeria, homosexuality is punishable by death under Sharia law, though death penalties passed by Sharia courts must be approved by the state governor. According to Daily Trust, the punishment has never been enforced.
According to Anthony, Nigeria saw a dramatic surge in violence and mob attacks against LGBTQ+ in the six years after the Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition Act became law.
“Homophobic mobs typically operate without fear of legal repercussions, knowing that the public is on their side,” he wrote, citing a 2019 Pew Research survey that found that 87% of Nigerians oppose gay rights. “These mob attacks are often perceived not as crimes, but as acts of moral policing — methods for the community to ‘cleanse’ itself of perceived corruption.”
As one man who witnessed the “lynching” of two gay men in Port-Harcourt, Nigeria, told Anthony, “We catch homosexuals all the time and teach them a lesson they won’t forget.”
The November 17 incident also follows another similar mob attack in Edo Statelast month, in which two men were allegedly caught “engaging themselves indecently as fellow men” in a car. At least one of the men, 32-year-old Eguabor Precious, was attacked by a mob and beaten unconscious. He was reportedly handed over to police, but managed to escape. Authorities have offered “a handsome reward” for information leading to his capture.
