LGBTQ+ rights

Subterms

    Latest story

    163 Shares47 Views

    FBI worker says he was wrongfully terminated for having Pride flag at desk

    by

    A longtime FBI employee has filed a lawsuit alleging that he was fired for displaying a Pride flag at his desk, naming FBI director Kash Patel, the justice department and attorney general Pam Bondi as defendants.According to David Maltinsky, an intelligence specialist who had served with the bureau for 16 years, his wrongful termination earlier this year was “unconstitutional and politically motivated”.The lawsuit claims the FBI violated Maltinsky’s first amendment rights and took retaliatory action against him for engaging in protected speech. Maltinsky is seeking a court order to restore his job.Maltinsky’s 18-page complaint, filed on Wednesday in the US district court for the District of Columbia, alleges that he was dismissed from the FBI academy last month for previously displaying the flag at his workstation with the support and permission of his supervisors.According to the complaint, the Pride flag, which the bureau flew from its flagpole in front of its Los Angeles building, was given to Maltinsky in recognition of his efforts to support the FBI’s diversity initiatives.“From a young age, all I have wanted to do is serve my country and ensure its security alongside the brilliant and dedicated men and women of the FBI,” said Maltinsky, who joined the bureau in 2009 and spent more than a decade supporting public corruption and cybercrime investigations including North Korea’s cyberattack on Sony Pictures in 2014.“I displayed that Pride flag – which in 2021 flew in front of the Wilshire federal building – not as a political statement, but as a symbol of inclusion, unity and equal service. These are the values that once made the FBI strong. Now it is a place where people like me are targeted. I believe I was fired not because of who I am, but what I am: a proud gay man,” he added.Earlier this year, Maltinsky was accepted into the FBI special agent training academy at Quantico, Virginia, until what he described as his “abrupt dismissal just three weeks before graduation”.Maltinsky’s lawsuit alleges that at some point after Donald Trump’s inauguration on 20 January, a co-worker reported an alleged concern to Maltinsky’s direct supervisor about the display of the Pride flag at his workstation.“Out of an abundance of caution, Maltinsky requested that the Chief Division Counsel for the LAFO [Los Angeles field office] review whether the display of the Progress Pride flag and placard was permissible,” Maltinsky’s complaint said, adding: ”The Chief Division Counsel advised Maltinsky that the display of the flag and placard did not violate any policy, rule, or regulation.”Nevertheless, on 1 October, Maltinsky was notified of his termination.In a letter cited in Maltinsky’s complaint, Patel wrote: “I have determined that you exercised poor judgment with an inappropriate display of political signage in your work area during your previous assignment at the Los Angeles Field Office. Pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States, your employment with the Federal Bureau of Investigation is hereby terminated.”In a statement released on Wednesday, Maltinsky’s lawyer Kerrie Riggs said: “This administration’s unlawfully firing him is part of a larger campaign to rid federal agencies of employees who may have different viewpoints, or are from marginalized groups, or who dare speak out against discrimination. David’s fight is not just about him, but about securing the rights and freedoms of all federal employees.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe FBI declined to comment on the lawsuit. The Guardian has also reached out to the justice department.Maltinsky’s lawsuit follows another one filed in September by three former senior FBI officials who said they were wrongfully terminated, alleging that Patel said he had been directed by the White House to fire any agent involved in an investigation into Trump.Meanwhile, the FBI fired a nearly three-decade veteran earlier this month after Patel reportedly became furious by reports that the FBI director had taken a government jet to attend a wrestling event where his girlfriend performed the national anthem.Steven Palmer, a bureau veteran since 1998, was removed as head of the FBI’s critical incident response group, which manages major security threats and the agency’s jet fleet. More

    More stories

    • 125 Shares75 Views

      in US Politics

      Trans air force members sue Trump administration over denied pension

      by

      A group of 17 transgender US air force members has sued the Trump administration for denying them early retirement pensions and benefits.The complaint, submitted in federal court, describes the government’s move against them as “unlawful and invalid”.The legal action follows the air force’s confirmation it would deny early retirement benefits to all transgender service members with 15 to 18 years of military experience, a decision that effectively pushes them out of the military with no retirement support at all.“The Air Force’s own retirement instruction provides that retirement orders may only be rescinded under very limited circumstances, none of which were present here,” the lawsuit says.Among the named plaintiffs are Logan Ireland, Ashley Davis, Kira Brimhall and Lindell Walley.Glad Law, one of the advocacy groups behind the lawsuit who is representing the affected service members, said the revocation of early retirement support had ripped away financial support and benefits these families were counting on after long years of excellent service to their country.“These service members will lose $1-2m in lifetime benefits, jeopardizing their families’ economic security,” Glad Law said in a statement. “The action also strips the airmen and their families of access to TRICARE, the military health insurance program, which would have provided access to civilian health care providers beyond VA [Veterans Administration] facilities.”The lawsuit came amid the latest escalation by the Trump administration to prohibit transgender people from joining the military and to remove those already serving. The Pentagon has argued that transgender people are medically unfit, something civil rights activists have pushed back on and say constitutes illegal discrimination.In March, a federal judge blocked Trump’s executive order banning transgender people from military service. US district judge Ana Reyes in Washington DC ruled that the order likely violated their constitutional rights. Pentagon officials have said in the past that 4,200 service members were diagnosed with “gender dysphoria”, which they use as an identifier of being transgender.The air force, however, has stood apart in its enforcement of policies that go beyond just separating troops from military service. As well as rescinding early retirement benefits, the service rolled out a new policy in August to deny transgender members the right to argue before a board of their peers for the right to continue serving.The most recent lawsuit, the latest in a string, is challenging that.According to the court documents, the “plaintiffs’ retirement orders remain valid and effective”. Their legal team are calling for these “orders to be reinstated” and pushing for “their military records be corrected accordingly”. The lawsuit also says “interest, costs and attorney’s fees” must be accounted for and “further relief as the court deems just and proper.”Ireland, a master sergeant in the air force with 15 years of service, told the Associated Press: “The military taught me to lead and fight, not retreat.“Stripping away my retirement sends the message that those values only apply on the battlefield, not when a service member needs them most.” More

    • 188 Shares153 Views

      in US Politics

      US supreme court allows Trump to block passport sex markers for trans and non-binary people

      by

      The supreme court on Thursday allowed Donald Trump’s administration to enforce a policy blocking transgender and non-binary people from choosing passport sex markers that align with their gender identity.The decision by the high court’s conservative majority is Trump’s latest win on the high court’s emergency docket, and it means his administration can enforce the policy while a lawsuit over it plays out. It halts a lower-court order requiring the government to keep letting people choose male, female or X on their passport to line up with their gender identity on new or renewed passports.Pam Bondi, the US attorney general, hailed the decision, saying in a post on X: “Today’s stay allows the government to require citizens to list their biological sex on their passport. In other words: there are two sexes, and our attorneys will continue fighting for that simple truth.”Meanwhile, the court’s three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson calling the decision a “pointless but painful perversion”.She added: “Such senseless sidestepping of the obvious equitable out-come has become an unfortunate pattern. So, too, has my own refusal to look the other way when basic principles are selectively discarded. This Court has once again paved the way for the immediate infliction of injury without adequate (or, really, any) justification.“What the Government needs (and what it does not have) is an explanation for why it faces harm unless the President’s chosen policy is implemented now. It suggests that there is an urgent foreign policy interest in dictating sex markers on passports, but does not elaborate as to what that interest might possibly be,” Jackson wrote.“As is also becoming routine, this court misunderstands the assignment,” she added.The state department changed its passport rules after Trump, a Republican, handed down an executive order in January declaring the United States would “recognize two sexes, male and female”, based on birth certificates and “biological classification”.Transgender actor Hunter Schafer, for example, said in February that her new passport had been issued with a male gender marker, even though she’s marked female on her driver’s license and passport for years.The plaintiffs argue that passports limited to the sex listed on a birth certificate can spark harassment or even violence for transgender people.“By classifying people based on sex assigned at birth and exclusively issuing sex markers on passports based on that sex classification, the State Department deprives plaintiffs of a usable identification document and the ability to travel safely,” attorneys wrote in court documents.Sex markers began appearing on passports in the mid-1970s and the federal government started allowing them to be changed with medical documentation in the early 1990s, the plaintiffs said in court documents. A 2021 change under Joe Biden, a Democrat, removed documentation requirements and allowed non-binary people to choose an X gender marker after years of litigation.A judge blocked the Trump administration policy in June after a lawsuit from non-binary and transgender people, some of whom said they were afraid to submit applications. An appeals court left the judge’s order in place.Solicitor general D John Sauer then turned to the supreme court, pointing to its recent ruling upholding a ban on transition-related health care for transgender minors. He also argued Congress gave the president control over passports, which overlap with his authority over foreign affairs.“It is hard to imagine a system less conducive to accurate identification than one in which anyone can refuse to identify his or her sex and withhold relevant identifying information for any reason, or can rely on a mutable sense of self-identification,” Sauer wrote in court documents.Since taking office in January, Trump has ramped up attacks against LGTBQ+ communities across the country. In October, his administration threatened to pause federal funding unless states remove references to gender identity and the existence of transgender and non-binary people from a federal sex education program.At least 11 states and two territories acquiesced to Trump’s demands. Meanwhile, 16 states and Washington DC sued the administration over the demand.The Associated Press contributed reporting More

    • 125 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      How rightwing groups help Trump’s education department target school districts

      by

      In late March, the education secretary, Linda McMahon, recorded a video to announce an investigation into Maine school districts that allow students to change their gender identity without their parents’ permission – a key target of the Trump administration.But she didn’t face the camera alone.She was joined by Nicole Neily, a longtime conservative advocate and president of Defending Education. It was Neily’s organization that scoured district websites for evidence of gender plans – what they call “parental exclusion policies”. In a letter to Maine’s education commissioner, Pender Makin, McMahon gave Defending Education credit for gathering the documents through public records requests and referenced two conservative websites, The Federalist and Maine Wire, that published the group’s findings.“We’re proud to stand with you and President Trump as you ensure that the law is being followed and that the school districts do not infringe on parents’ rights,” Neily said.Neily offered similar quotes when the Department of Education’s office for civil rights (OCR) opened investigations into school district equity policies in Chicago and Fairfax, Virginia. In February, Defending Education filed a complaint about Chicago’s Black Student Success Plan, which aims to increase the number of Black teachers, improve student behavior and make instruction more culturally relevant. Neily argues the initiative denies other students “educational opportunity because of the color of their skin”.Julie Hartman, a department spokesperson, defended the inclusion of advocates in press statements. She said the agency “welcomes support from – and has often worked with – outside groups who want to advocate for students and families and help those who believe that their civil rights have been violated”. Neily did not respond to questions about the department’s communications strategy.But she is just one of several activists working with the department to advance the Trump administration’s education agenda. Since February, at least 10 department press releases announcing investigations have featured quotes from advocates representing eight organizations. They all echo the administration’s position and, like the secretary, stake out conclusions before the OCR team has begun investigating.In July, McMahon announced an investigation into transgender students playing on girls’ sports teams in Oregon. The investigation, the press release said, was prompted by a complaint from the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) – the conservative thinktank she chaired for four years before she became secretary.In the release, Jessica Hart Steinmann, the thinktank’s executive general counsel, said: “Thanks to Secretary McMahon’s leadership, this investigation is moving forward as a vital step toward restoring equal opportunity in women’s athletics.”The organization helped set the agenda for Trump’s return to the White House and the president appointed several of its leaders to cabinet-level positions. At least six former AFPI staffers work at the education department. Former staffer Craig Trainor served as acting assistant secretary for civil rights until last week, when he was confirmed to a top position at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.The press releases create “a significant pressure point on educational institutions because they’re presumed to have violated the law from the get-go,” said Jackie Wernz, an attorney who worked in the civil rights office during the Obama and first Trump administrations. The department, she said, “has changed from a neutral arbiter of civil rights disputes to an advocacy organization”.Those who have worked at the department during both Democratic and Republican administrations, including in Trump’s first term, say such tactics could hinder investigators’ ability to gather evidence fairly.When OCR opens investigations, it assures subjects that a complaint is just the beginning of the process and doesn’t mean the department has reached a decision. In one case from 2020, for example, Kimberly Richey, acting assistant secretary for civil rights during Trump’s first term, committed in a letter to a school district that OCR would act as a “neutral fact-finder”.“Historically … on both sides of the aisle, the department has been extremely cautious about making public statements about open investigations,” said Jill Siegelbaum, who spent 20 years in the department’s general counsel’s office before she was let go as part of McMahon’s mass layoffs.Richey, who was confirmed last week to once again lead OCR, did not respond to requests for comment.Administration allies downplayed the significance of the relationships with advocacy groups, comparing them to former first lady Jill Biden’s decision to host Randi Weingarten, the America Federation of Teachers president, and Becky Pringle, the National Education Association president, as the first official White House guests when President Joe Biden took office in 2021. A former community college professor, Jill Biden is an NEA member.“It’s far better for the secretary to engage with Defending Education, which champions parents and students, than with Randi Weingarten’s AFT, a mouthpiece for the Democratic party’s progressive elite,” said Ginny Gentles, an education and parental rights advocate at the conservative Defense of Freedom Institute. “Nicki Neily and Defending Education have aggressively challenged the corrupt status quo, amplifying parents’ voices and demanding accountability.”The actions by the department are among several designed to radically repurpose and drastically downsize a civil rights office that McMahon said had been focused on “transgender ideology and other progressive causes” and that “muddled the enforcement of laws designed to protect students”. In March, she laid off roughly 250 employees and shuttered seven of 12 regional offices, moves that are still being challenged in court. Over the weekend, after another round of layoffs, one attorney who received notice that she had lost her job said three more offices had been closed, affecting roughly 45 additional staff members.Catherine Lhamon, who ran OCR during the Obama and Biden administrations, dismissed the comparisons. She likened the warm welcome for the teachers union presidents to a political event. OCR, by contrast, is supposed to be neutral. By opening investigations with accusatory quotations from department officials and their allies, she said, the Trump administration is putting its thumb on the scale. Under Biden, she recalled, investigations frequently led to outcomes that disappointed the advocates who brought the initial complaints.“There were lots of cases during my time where the complaints were appalling. Then we’d investigate and find that they weren’t,” she said. “You might think at the beginning of a case you’re going in one direction and then when you investigate, you find you’re going in another. That’s the job of an investigator.”

      This story was produced by the 74, a non-profit, independent news organization focused on education in the US More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      FBI arrest man who allegedly threatened to shoot people at Texas Pride parade

      by

      Federal authorities in Texas have arrested a man for allegedly threatening to shoot people at a pro-LGBTQ+ parade, to avenge the murder of Charlie Kirk.According to court documents viewed by the Guardian, on 18 September, the FBI’s field office in Dallas was notified by Abilene, Texas, police about online threats from a local resident.The resident, identified as Joshua Cole, allegedly used a Facebook account under the name “Jay Dubya” where he “threatened to commit a shooting” at a Pride parade in Abilene on 20 September.“Fk their parade, I say we lock and load and pay them back for taking out Charlie Kirk,” Cole allegedly wrote, referring to the rightwing political activist, in one comment.Kirk was shot to death on 10 September at Utah Valley University (UVU).Citing investigators’ interviews with people close to the suspect in the case, Utah prosecutors have alleged Tyler Robinson killed Kirk after becoming sick of what he perceived to be Kirk’s “hatred”. Investigators reported being told by his family that Robinson had become “more pro-gay and trans rights oriented” in the year prior to Kirk’s killing.Another comment Cole allegedly posted about the Abilene Pride parade read: “Theres only like 30 of em we can send a clear message to the rest of them.” Invoking an insult used to demean LGBTQ+ people, Cole also allegedly wrote: “come on bro let’s go hunting fairies.”In a sworn affidavit, FBI special agent Sam Venuti wrote that investigators confirmed the “Jay Dubya” account belonged to Cole.Venuti said that he had attempted to contact Cole at his place of work, where he had been employed for the past year. But the employer said that Cole had “just quit” and had “stormed out of the facility in anger”, Venuti said.Co-workers reportedly described him as a “hot head”, according to Venuti’s affidavit.Not long after, local police, with Venuti present, conducted a traffic stop on Cole.When the agent told Cole that he wanted “to talk to him about his online activity”, Venuti wrote that “Cole then sighed and his body posture indicated that [he] knew the reason for our discussion”.Venuti’s affidavit added that Cole “did not appear surprised”.Cole was then detained. According to the FBI, Cole waived his rights against self-incrimination and – during questioning – reportedly admitted to owning a firearm, to operating the “Jay Dubya” Facebook account and to making the threatening posts.The affidavit states that Cole reportedly agreed that “a reasonable person could interpret his comments as a threat”. He also said he did “not believe that the gay pride event should be allowed” though denied “that he was going to take action or shoot parade participants”.Venuti concluded in the affidavit that Cole’s “threats were not conditional”.“The threats were specific,” Venuti wrote. “The threats were also specific to a particular set of victims: people participating in the gay pride parade.”Based on the evidence, the FBI agent wrote, he believed that there was probable cause to arrest Cole for violating a federal law that prohibits threatening communications.Cole could face up to five years in prison if convicted, according to the Cornell University law school’s Legal Information Institute.After being jailed, Cole appeared briefly at a preliminary hearing, where a judge ordered him to remain in custody pending further proceedings.An attorney listed for Cole did not immediately respond to a request for comment.On 26 September, the Abilene Pride Alliance issued a public statement about the incident.“We want to reassure our community that the safety of everyone at Pride has always been, and will continue to be our top priority,” they wrote. “The swift action and continued diligence of [authorities] reflect their commitment to protecting our city and ensuring that Pride remains a safe, inclusive and celebratory space for all.”The Trump administration – which has threatened to crack down on leftwing groups who opposed Kirk’s views – did not announce and has not commented publicly on Cole’s arrest. More

    • 200 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Charlie Kirk was a divisive far-right podcaster. Why is he being rebranded as a national hero?

      by

      The streets of Washington DC are unmistakable. In addition to noting the city’s signature architecture and public monuments, one will know they are in the nation’s capital when they can barely go half a city block without spotting a US flag. Two weeks ago, those flags were flying at half-staff, but not in recognition of the passing of a high-ranking public official, as would be customary. Instead, the half-staff was ordered by the White House in a highly politicized effort to memorialize the 10 September killing of Charlie Kirk, a 31-year-old podcaster, hard-right party operative, and Maga youth influencer, as an event of national tragedy.Kirk ruled over an online fiefdom peddling his signature brand of rage-baiting racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic and misogynistic commentary. It wasn’t just his vitriolic style, but also his popularization of cruelty, humiliation and dehumanization of political opponents – especially college students – that attracted millions to his audience. He famously said empathy was “a made-up, new age term that does a lot of damage”.As a Black woman, I felt no sorrow watching these flags hang limp and lifeless from chrome posts in the stiff, humid summer heat that, even on the eve of autumn, will not unhand a city already stifled by federal threats of military occupation. I felt the same when, just hours after the shooting, the speaker of the House of Representatives called for a moment of silence on the floor for a private citizen who had never held office nor served in the military. (The brief silence erupted seconds later into a shouting match melee when congresswoman Lauren Boebert requested that members hold an open prayer for Kirk from the floor). Just nine days later, the House passed a Republican resolution eulogizing Kirk’s life with a sweeping 310-58 majority.I felt no mourning when seven teams in the National Football League – the very organization that has long been criticized for its inconsistent and often hypocritical stance on the place of politics in sports – held in-game memorials for Kirk, who never played any professional sport nor held a role within the league. In the Dallas Cowboys stadium in Texas, Jumbotrons featured a statesman-like image of Kirk, what one might expect for the passing of a former president or a longtime team affiliate. The grand gesture was drenched in hard-to-miss hypocrisy: forced silence from Black players who were punished for advocating for social justice in 2020, while, in the endzone, a painted astroturf read “End Racism” – a relic of just how fleeting the league’s lip service to the Black Lives Matter movement just a few years ago proved to be.I feel no grief because these memorials to Kirk are not created for me to grieve. Instead, they seek not only to enshrine Kirk into the national consciousness, but also to foster national memories about what he represents ideologically and culturally. The lionizing is an official effort to coalesce the state into his movement – a brazen proclamation that his consistently hostile white nationalist, homophobic and misogynistic convictions represent the federal government’s interests, and thus, what the presidency believes should be the national priority.It’s reminiscent of the long aftermath of the civil war, when Confederate memorials were fashioned well into the 20th century not by those seeking to grieve any one individual, but rather by those who wanted to send a message about racial politics in the present. Some people have settled comfortably into a belief that the recent years of anti-racism protests and organizing have successfully toppled enough of these Confederate monuments, that their white-washed histories collapsed with them. But memorials to Kirk conducted by the country’s most powerful institutions are evidence of the revival of a new iteration of neo-Confederate memorialization.Like the Confederate tributes and monuments of the past, current memorials to Kirk function to throttle any interrogation of their subject. Those who are elevated to the esteem of official national memorializing are commonly – although with notable exceptions –figures that the public agrees are beyond reproach. In honoring Rosa Parks with the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1996, for example, Bill Clinton sought to canonize the entire Civil Rights Movement for which she fought. It cemented the era as worthy of national honor because it telegraphed the meaning of democracy and freedom for all Americans.In contrast, with the insta-extolling of Kirk, Donald Trump, who has announced that his late close personal friend will be awarded a posthumous Medal of Freedom, echoes the intentions behind Confederate memorials of yore. Instead of public recognitions that reflect the long march towards a national reckoning with our past, memorials like those for Kirk elevate his consistent record of hard-right extremism above the reach of public questioning.Kirk’s style of seizing upon those who challenged his ideologies and punishing his detractors is an agenda that has expanded well beyond Trump’s track record of punishing his personal and political enemies. Though I, like the majority of Kirk’s critics, do not condone his shooting, Kirk himself said gun deaths were “worth it” to maintain gun rights. While rhetoric this extreme, including his claim that Black women in government and media lacked “brain processing power”, is being euphemized in tributes as his “advocacy for free speech”, media figures and government employees who openly question if he should be publicly lauded are being fired from their jobs.Additionally, hundreds of college professors were doxed, harassed and threatened by Kirk’s organization, Turning Point USA, and its notorious “Professor Watchlist”, which published the names and information of any academics with views Kirk construed as incompatible with his own. It’s curious how a virtue like “doing politics the right way” can be afforded to someone who sought to devastate the lives of scholars and intellectuals.The aggrandizing of Kirk shares yet another, more lasting legacy with Confederate memorialization. The historian David Blight notes that in the aftermath of the civil war, the call for reconciliation between white northerners and southerners was achieved at the expense of erasing the legacy of slavery from the postbellum narrative. Thus, the reunification of the white citizenry was done wholly on southern terms and exacerbated the racial atrocities that were never addressed in the postwar era, leaving Black Americans to be wholesale lynched and terrorized throughout the south.Further still, reunification campaigns exonerated and elevated rebel insurgents who were, by definition, traitors and enemies of the state, to a status otherwise reserved for senior statesmen and decorated US veterans. It was a damning declaration that even those who sought to overthrow this country would be celebrated as its heroes before Black Americans would be treated as its citizens. The same tone is struck in the tributes to Kirk that exalt a highly controversial private citizen as though he were a national hero.Elected officials, journalists and public figures on the left who stress calls for unity do so on the right’s terms, and are reminiscent of the kid-gloved white northerners who sought to rebrand a war fought expressly over human trafficking and bondage into a national moment for celebration of duty, honor and valorous military service on both sides. Those who call for us to honor the life of a man who said the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a “huge mistake”, and who described Martin Luther King Jr, as “awful”, have betrayed those of us who heard Kirk espouse eugenics and replacement theory loud and clear, with such vast online influence that it prompted a 2024 investigation by the Southern Poverty Law Center.The valorization of Kirk by his far-right defenders is an insult to millions of the most marginalized Americans who lived every day in the crosshairs of his rhetoric. Kirk’s memorialization by his supporters and apologists is but a new opportunity to announce an old message about whose country this is and whose it isn’t.

      Saida Grundy is an associate professor of sociology and African American studies at Boston University, and the author of Respectable: Politics and Paradox in Making the Morehouse Man More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Florida crosswalk wars take DeSantis’s ‘war on woke’ to street level

      by

      A battalion of transportation workers armed with cans of black paint has been deployed to open a new front in Ron DeSantis’s “war on woke”, while young students trying to make their schools safer have joined the LGBTQ+ community as targets of Florida’s Republican governor.The saga began with the state moving in the dead of night to paint over a rainbow-colored crosswalk outside Orlando’s former Pulse nightclub, where 49 people were killed in a 2016 shooting. The city’s mayor, Buddy Dyer, called the erasure of the memorial to the mostly LGBTQ+ victims “a cruel political act”.Since then, DeSantis’s crosswalk wars have spread across Florida. The governor has ordered the removal of about 400 “non-standard” pieces of street art, even though they all received state approval as a condition of installation. A growing number of municipalities has pledged to fight him.The state’s declared intent, acquiescent to a national directive by the Trump administration last month, is to “keep our transportation facilities free and clear of political ideologies”, Florida’s transport secretary, Jared Perdue, wrote in a post to X.Perdue has also said painted roadways are a safety hazard, despite research showing improved driver behavior and a “significantly improved safety performance” at sites that have art installations.The purge, which has targeted more than just rainbow crosswalks and other street symbols of LGBTQ+ pride street decorations, has reverberated in cities from Tallahassee to Key West.Several municipalities, under threat of losing state funding, have complied. Those include Port St Lucie, which removed hearts painted on a roadway as a memorial to a teenager who died of a heart condition, and Daytona Beach, which painted over checkered flag crosswalks at the city’s famous international speedway.More than a dozen schools in Tampa were also snared, and will lose vibrant asphalt artwork designed by students installed as part of the city’s award-winning Crosswalks to Classrooms program. Florida’s department of transportation (FDOT) recognized it as a gold standard of road safety only four years ago.“The innovative and collaborative efforts to combine public art and engineering treatments to improve school safety was truly inspiring,” a department official said at the time.In Orlando, bicycle lanes painted in May at an elementary school, designed by fourth-graders who won a FDOT art contest, must also go.DeSantis, at a press conference in Tampa, was unrepentant. He suggested students use his street art directive outlawing “social, political or ideological messages” as a civics lesson.“What I would tell kids is we have a representative system of government. People elect their representatives. They’re able to enact the legislation with the governor’s signature and then when that happens, obviously people will conform their conduct accordingly,” he said.Other cities are digging in their heels, setting up a likely legal fight with the DeSantis administration. A special meeting of the Fort Lauderdale commission on Wednesday voted to file an administrative appeal against a removal order on four pieces of pride-themed street art in the city, including a large rainbow flag.“Tonight, we must stand our ground. We cannot allow ourselves to be bullied into submission and to allow others to dictate what we should do in our own communities,” Dean Trantalis, the mayor of Fort Lauderdale, said. Trantalis has previously called the governor’s crosswalk directive an act of “irrational vengeance” on the LGBTQ+ community.Commissioners also voted to hire the same firm of outside attorneys contracted by officials in Key West and Miami Beach, two other cities known for inclusivity, to help in the legal fight. Delray Beach commissioners voted earlier this month to defy the state and retain its giant pride streetscape. An administrative hearing is scheduled for Tuesday.View image in fullscreenAnna Eskamani, a Democratic state representative for Orlando, noted DeSantis’s long history of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation – including the “don’t say gay” bill and efforts to ban or restrict gender-affirming healthcare – and saw deeper menace in the crosswalk orders.“It’s not just, ‘I despise queer people,’ which is clearly a part of the MO here, it’s bigger than that,” she said.“It’s trying to control what local governments can and can’t do and an effort to essentially target, harass, bully and potentially even eliminate them. Overwhelmingly, cities that have these crosswalks do not support DeSantis and didn’t vote for him. These are the same municipalities that are now getting Doge, the same municipalities where DeSantis is trying to take away property taxes, which means no revenue and the consolidation and elimination of local governments.“It’s worth connecting the dots. It’s not as simplistic as another culture war on LGBTQ+ people.”Charlie Crist, the former Republican Florida governor who switched parties to become a Democratic congressman, and challenged DeSantis for governor in 2022, said it was an “absurd and embarrassing” effort to silence residents.“It’s hard to understand. We have a right to free speech in this country, and these murals in our cities and our communities reflect the values of those communities and cities,” he said.“The notion that the state government would want to suppress that right of free speech is bizarre.”Crist said he also saw the move as an extension of DeSantis’s targeting of minority groups: “It’s hard to draw a different conclusion, frankly, and I don’t understand it. I believe in the golden rule to do unto others as you would have done unto you, and I don’t think DeSantis knows what that is. It’s disappointing.”Nadine Smith, executive director of Equality Florida, predicted the push to remove pride street art would backfire.“DeSantis may paint over rainbows and art, but people are answering with defiance, chalking sidewalks, raising flags, covering cars with stickers, and businesses painting their parking lots with rainbows. These acts declare we are not intimidated and we will not be erased,” she said in a statement.“This isn’t about safety. It’s a cowardly abuse of power and the latest in his campaign to ban books, whitewash history, and attack LGBTQ people. Cities must push back to protect the values that make them welcoming places to live, work, and visit.” More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Publications aimed at LGBTQ+ audiences face discrimination from advertisers, editors warn

      by

      Publications aimed at LGBTQ+ and other diverse audiences are facing “good old-fashioned discrimination” as advertisers avoid them after political attacks on diversity and inclusion campaigns, editors have said.Senior figures at publications aimed at the gay community and other minority groups said a previous “gold rush” to work with such titles was over.There has been a backlash in the US over corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in the past 18 months, which has led to some big names rolling back their plans.Tag Warner, the chief executive of Gay Times, said his publication, which had been growing digitally in the US, had lost 80% of its advertisers in the past year. It has also lost in excess of £5m in expected advertiser revenue.Warner, who has led the outlet since 2019, said his title’s growth had been accompanied by an enthusiasm from brands to embrace LGBTQ+ audiences. He blames an anti-DEI drive in the US for the dramatic shift.“I know that media and marketing is also going through a challenging year anyway, but when we’re thinking about other organisations that don’t talk to diverse themes, they’re not nearly as impacted as we are,” he said. “This is just good old-fashioned discrimination. Because discrimination doesn’t have to make business sense. Discrimination doesn’t have to be logical. Discrimination is discrimination.“We’re really experiencing the impact of what happens when voices that are pressuring organisations to give in to less inclusive perspectives start winning. Then it creates this massive behavioural shift in brands and organisations.”Nafisa Bakkar, the co-founder of Amaliah, a publication aimed at “amplifying the voices of Muslim women”, said there had been a “change in mood” among brands and advertisers. “There was this DNI [diversity and inclusion] gold rush,” she said. “It is, I would say, well and truly over.“We work with a lot of UK advertisers, but I would say that the US has a lot more emphasis on what they would call ‘brand safety’, which I think is a code word for ‘we don’t want to rock the boat’. I would say there is a lot more focus on this element.”Ibrahim Kamara, the founder of the youth platform GUAP, which has a large black and ethnically diverse audience, said he had detected a “relative difference” from 2020 in approaches from brands.He and others cited the economic pressures on advertisers generally in recent years. However, he said the “hype and the PR around wanting to support and connect with diverse audiences” had also subsided.“The thing that most people within these kind of spaces can probably agree on is that the energy and the PR is very different now,” he said. “It was almost a badge of honour to be able to say that you’re supporting certain communities. Now, I’ve seen that lots of the diversity and inclusion people that were hired around that period have probably lost their jobs. It doesn’t have the same PR effect any more.”Warner said the anti-DEI impact pre-dated the return of Donald Trump to the White House. Figures such as the conservative pundit Robby Starbuck have been engaged in a long-running anti-DEI campaign, pressuring firms to drop their diversity efforts. However, Warner said Trump’s arrival “gave everyone, I think, permission to be honest about it”.Not all publications in the sector have been hit in the same way as Gay Times. Companies with business models less reliant on US advertising, as well as some big players with long-established relationships, said they had managed to negotiate the changing political environment.“Brands are nervous, that’s for sure, or careful – or a combination of both,” said Darren Styles, the managing director of Stream Publishing, which publishes Attitude magazine. “They’re aware it can be a lightning rod for a vocal minority. But our experience is that most people are holding their ground, if not doubling down.”Styles also said he was not complacent, however, given the rise of Nigel Farage’s Reform party in the UK and its lack of historical support for the LGBTQ+ community.“I’m not incautious about the future,” he said. “Who knows what next year will bring, because that narrative is not going away. Obviously, there’s the rise of Reform in the polls.“[Farage] is quite clearly not an ally to our community and he’s expressed disdain in the past at the awards we’ve given out to people in the trans community. So it is a worry as political momentum gains around there. But I think broadly, consumers in the UK are a bit more capable of thinking for themselves.”Mark Berryhill, the chief executive of equalpride, which publishes prominent US titles like Out and The Advocate, said some brands and agencies “may have been a little bit more cautious than they have been in the past”. However, he said it had so far meant deals had taken longer to be completed, in a tough economic climate.He said the political headwinds made it more important to highlight that working with such titles was simply a sound business decision. “We’ve tried to do a better job in this political climate of just selling the importance of our buying power,” he said. “Everybody’s cautious and I don’t think it’s just LGBTQ. I think they’re cautious in general right now with their work with minority owned companies.“The one thing that maybe this whole controversy has helped us with a little bit is to really make brands realise it’s a business decision. It’s not just a charity or something you should do because you feel guilty.“You should do it because it’s the right thing to support LGBTQ journalism. We’re small. We need to get the word out. We have important stories to tell. But it’s also a good business decision. The more we show that side, certain brands will come along.” More

    • 238 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘I would not feel safe’: Americans on the sorrow – and relief – of leaving Trump’s US for Europe

      by

      The scramble began in November as news broke that Donald Trump had been re-elected. Benjamin and Chrys Gorman had long said they would leave the US before seeing Trump inaugurated again, giving them exactly 76 days to sell their home, cars and most of their belongings and move four people, three dogs and two cats to Barcelona.“I was saying: we’ve got more time than that, it won’t go that fast,” said Gorman. “My wife said no, we need to be out of here – not just on inauguration day, but a few days before. And she was so right.”Within hours of taking office, Trump signed an executive order defining sex as only male or female. The change was to be reflected on official documents, sowing confusion over what it meant for Americans with the non-binary identification of “X” in their passports.Relief gripped the Gormans as they watched it play out from afar. “Our kid’s passport has an X gender marker,” said Gorman. “So we managed to escape just in time.”View image in fullscreenSince Trump’s return to power, relocation firms from London to Lisbon and Madrid to Milan say they’ve seen a surge in inquiries from Americans. Undaunted by the gains made by the far right across the continent, many Americans cite a desire to escape the US’s increasingly polarised climate and an administration whose wide range of targets has included immigrants, diversity measures and political opponents.Statistics suggest that the barrage of interest is translating into action; in the first two months of the year, US applications for Irish passports were at their highest level in a decade – up 60% from the same period last year. In the first three months of the year, France reported a rise in the number of long-stay visa requests from Americans, while in March, the number of Americans who had solicited British citizenship in the 12 months before surged to its highest since record-keeping began in 2004.While the figures remain relatively small given the size of the US population, the movement has been galvanised by a steady drip of celebrity announcements. Rosie O’Donnell said in March that she had moved to Ireland, describing it as “heartbreaking to see what’s happening politically” in the US, while Ellen DeGeneres recently cited Trump’s re-election to explain why she and her wife, Portia de Rossi, had moved to the Cotswolds in 2024. Earlier this month, Jimmy Kimmel revealed that he had acquired Italian citizenship, saying that the US under Trump was “just unbelievable”.Across Europe, governments and institutions have sought to capitalise on the exodus, launching programmes aimed at attracting stateside talent or, in the case of one enterprising Italian village, seeking to bolster its population with disgruntled Americans.Among the first was France’s Aix-Marseille University, which in March put out an offer of “scientific asylum” for researchers reeling from Trump’s crackdown on academia. Three months later, the university said it had received more than 500 inquiries for the 20 spots.View image in fullscreenThose selected included Lisa, a biological anthropologist who was preparing to move her husband, a school teacher, and two children across the Atlantic. “When Trump was re-elected, the feeling was: ‘We gotta go,’” she told the Guardian earlier this summer. She asked that her last name not be used to protect her university in the US from reprisals.The sentiment had strengthened as she watched the Trump administration take aim at universities, dismantle research funding and undermine science. “We’re months into this presidency, and a lot has already happened. I can’t imagine what’s going to happen in another three and a half years.”The opportunity to swap the northern US for southern France was welcome, but not without its drawbacks. “It is a big pay cut,” she said. “My kids are super gung-ho. My husband is just worried that he won’t find a job. Which is my worry too, because I don’t think I’ll be able to afford four of us on my salary.”In January, as thousands of Trump faithful turned up in Washington DC for a televised viewing of his inauguration, Deborah Harkness knew the time had come to act on her longstanding dream of moving to southern Spain. “As soon as he was inaugurated, I started making plans,” she said.Months later she was in Málaga, watching as Trump’s administration sought to drastically reshape the judiciary, public broadcasting, higher education and immigration. “What frightens me most is how normalised it’s all become,” she said. “The chaos, the cruelty, the disinformation – that’s how authoritarianism takes hold.”The view was echoed by Monica Byrne, who in 2023 left North Carolina for Cork, Ireland. Trump was a factor in her decision, but only in that she saw his rise to power as a symptom of the bigger issues facing the US. “I didn’t know whether Trump specifically was going to come back, but I knew fascism was,” she said. “So it was more about the abject failure of the Democrats and knowing they weren’t going to protect us from fascism generally.”View image in fullscreenTrump’s re-election cemented her decision to remain abroad and enrol in a master’s programme in Ireland. “I get frustrated when people say: ‘You’re very lucky or you must be happy you’re not there,’” she said. “There is some degree of that, but 90% of the people I care about and love are in the States and are affected.”In Barcelona, Gorman and his family have been slowly settling into the rhythms of the city. “So many things have just been shockingly better,” he said. “For example, my wife was saying that the other day she was walking along La Rambla and a car backfired. And she was the only person who ducked.”While they were thrilled to have left behind the gun violence and shooter drills of the US, the challenge was now in explaining to their loved ones that they were unlikely to return home once Trump’s term ends. “I don’t foresee this movement ending with the end of the Trump administration … I think that the rot is much deeper,” said Gorman.“If he wouldn’t have a huge base of support, Trump is just, you know, your crazy uncle yelling things on a porch. That base of support needs to be addressed. Why was there support for this kind of fascism?” he added. “And that’s a much deeper question. I would not personally feel safe going back to a country that doesn’t fully reckon with its fascist impulses.” More