National
Bond’s departure triggers debate over White House role
Some say LGBT liaison lacked influence, others praise his style
The announced departure last week of the White House gay liaison is being met with praise from some who worked with him on LGBT issues and calls from others who say they want more from his successor.
Brian Bond, deputy director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, is set to leave his position mid-August to become the Democratic National Committee’s director of constituency outreach. Bond, who’s gay, handled LGBT outreach for the office.
A number of LGBT advocates who worked with Bond during his tenure at the White House say Bond was exemplary in his role of serving the LGBT community and meeting its needs.
Winnie Stachelberg, senior vice president for external affairs at the Center for American Progress, said he was “incredibly effective” in advancing the cause for the LGBT community and coordinating with administration leadership, federal agencies and advocacy groups.
“I think the combination of those relationships — with senior folks in the White House and in the administration and in the community — helped him deliver results that speak for themselves on behalf of the community, if you look at the accomplishments of the administration,” Stachelberg said.
Fred Sainz, vice president of communications at the Human Rights Campaign, said Bond is a “key force for positive change” that has included hospital visitation rights and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.
“I know first-hand that Brian has the trust and confidence of the president and his closest advisers,” Sainz said. “Brian would be the first to say that more needs to be done, but we are proud of what has been accomplished to date and are grateful to him for his service.”
Prior to becoming a White House official, Bond served as executive director of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund from 1997 to 2003. He was national constituency director for President Obama’s 2008 campaign and was executive director of the DNC’s LGBT leadership council. Bond returns to the DNC as President Obama ramps up his re-election campaign for 2012.
The choice to succeed Bond remains unknown. Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, said the White House has yet to determine a successor, but is seeking to have one in place by the time Bond leaves for his new position.
“The White House deeply appreciates Brian Bond for his years of service,” Inouye said. “While we do not have any specific staffing updates at this time, we are working to ensure that the LGBT community has a liaison within the Office of Public Engagement in place by the time he departs in mid-August.”
Although applauded for his work in some circles, the announcement of Bond’s departure has inspired debate about the extent to which he was involved in higher levels of policy making at the White House on LGBT issues.
Kerry Eleveld, senior fellow with Media Matters, wrote last week that Bond wasn’t primarily involved in advising President Obama and that John Berry, who’s gay and director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, primarily served as head of LGBT issues in the administration.
“Truth be told, Bond was not a chief political advisor to the president on LGBT issues and he didn’t carry the title of ‘special assistant’ (or higher) to the president — a rank that affords people clout and ensures them a certain amount of access to the Oval Office,” Eleveld wrote. “Bond was more likely to be relaying and implementing what had been decided by others.”
One LGBT advocate, who spoke on condition of anonymity, also said Bond “wasn’t a decision-maker” on LGBT policy at the White House and was mostly involved in scheduling between LGBT groups and higher-ranking Obama administration officials.
“I would be shocked if the White House or anybody tried to argue that’s his role because it clearly wasn’t,” the LGBT advocate said. “Some of the suggestions that he had this amazingly influential role behind the scenes are complete hogwash. He was a mid-level staffer, and mid-level staffers do not make major policy or strategic decisions.”
But Stachelberg said Bond took the initiative on many administrative actions that came from the White House to benefit the LGBT community.
“There are other examples of other administrative actions that have been done, and in the works, where … he helped identify a policy issue that needed work and worked with constituencies and communities at getting it done,” Stachelberg said.
Among the policy changes that Bond helped spearhead were the proposed non-discrimination rule at the Department of Housing & Urban Development, changes at the U.S. Census to publish data on same-sex couples and the recently announced change at the Department of Health & Human Services to start data collection on the LGBT population in federal health surveys.
Stachelberg said Bond’s quiet style of operating and lack of media engagement may have angered some in the LGBT community, but she added that he accomplished much through this mode of operation and said it may be appropriate for his successor.
“Some people — that’s not what they want to see,” Stachelberg said. “They want to see an up-front cheerleader. They want to see someone who’s constantly quoted, who’s constantly making noise. That’s not Brian’s style, and I think his style has been incredibly effective. I’m not sure you want someone as his successor to be particularly different in that regard.”
The White House
Trump tells Fox News he won the ‘gay vote’ — but polls tell a different story
Trump falsely claims LGBTQ support on Fox despite polling showing overwhelming opposition.
President Donald Trump claimed he won the “gay vote” in 2024, despite evidence showing otherwise.
While appearing by phone on Fox News’s panel show “The Five” on Thursday, Trump falsely claimed he performed particularly well among gay voters while discussing the ongoing war in Iran — a conflict he initiated without formal congressional approval.
“Now I think I did very well with the gay vote, OK? I even played the gay national anthem as my walk-off, OK?” Trump said on air.
“And I think it probably helped me. But I did great. No Republican’s ever gotten the gay vote like I did and I’m very proud of it, I think it’s great. Perhaps it’s because I’m from New York City, I don’t know…”
His claim contradicts 2024 polling from NBC News, which found that the GOP presidential ticket captured fewer than 1 in 5 LGBTQ male voters — a figure that may also include bisexual and transgender men. Trump’s support among LGBTQ female voters was even lower, at just 8%.
White LGBTQ voters favored Vice President Kamala Harris over Trump by a margin of 82% to 16%, while LGBTQ voters of color backed Harris by an even wider 91% to 5%.
Trump also used the appearance to criticize “Gays for Palestine,” saying: “Look at ‘Gays for Palestine’… they kill gays, they kill them instantly, they throw them off buildings, and I’m saying, ‘Who are the gays for Palestine?’”
He further pointed to his campaign’s use of the song “Y.M.C.A.” by the Village People — which he has repeatedly described as a “gay national anthem” — noting that it was frequently used as a walk-off song at rallies, as an indication that he and his campaign were supported by the gay community. The track, long associated with camp and hyper-masculine gay imagery, became a staple of Trump campaign events.
The Village People were later booked to perform at Turning Point USA’s inaugural ball celebrating Trump’s second inauguration. Lead singer Victor Willis previously criticized Trump’s use of the song dating back to 2020 and considered legal action to block it, but ultimately said there was “not much he can do about it.” He later acknowledged the renewed exposure was “beneficial” and “good for business,” boosting the song’s popularity and chart performance.
Despite Trump’s claims of strong support from gay voters, polling has consistently shown otherwise — even as several prominent gay men have held roles in or around his orbit, sometimes dubbed the “A-gays.” These include Richard Grenell, former executive director of the Kennedy Center and Special Presidential Envoy for Special Missions; Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent; Under Secretary of State Jacob Helberg; Department of Energy official Charles T. Moran; and longtime supporter Peter Thiel, co-founder and CEO of Palantir.
His efforts to portray himself as aligned with the gay community stand in conflict with policies advanced under his leadership. These include removing LGBTQ-related data from State Department reports, attempting to narrowly redefine gender identity in federal policy, restricting access to gender-affirming health care, and rolling back anti-discrimination protections. His administration also rescinded initiatives focused on LGBTQ health equity, data collection, and nondiscrimination in health care and education — moves advocates say contribute to stigma and worsen mental health outcomes.
Additionally, some HIV programs and community health centers have lost funding from the federal government after supporting initiatives inclusive of transgender people as a direct result of Trump-Vance policies.
National
Anti-trans visa ruling echoes Nazi regime destroying trans documents
Trump administration escalates attacks on queer community
The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security earlier this month released its third Red Flag Alert for the United States about the Trump administration’s anti-trans legislation. As the Lemkin Institute shared in the press release, “the Administration has moved from identifying transgender people as as threat to the family and to the nation’s military prowess to claiming that transgender people constitute a cosmic threat to the spiritual health of the nation and the great direct threat to the US national security in the world.”
The news came the same day that the State Department issued a new rule, “Enhancing Vetting and Combatting Fraud in the Immigrant Visa Program.” Under this new guidance, all visa applicants are required to disclose their “biological sex at birth” during all stages of the process, “even if that differs from the sex listed on the applicant’s foreign passport or identifying documentation.”
This rule also orders that applicants to the green card lottery program share their passport information, so in knowingly collecting passport information that the agency knows will not match a person’s biological sex at birth, it’s creating grounds to deny trans peoples’ biases on the basis of “fraud,” Aleksandra Vaca of Transitics explains.
As is written in the new ruling, “the Department is replacing ‘gender’ with ‘sex’ in accordance with E.O. 14168, Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, which provides that the term ‘sex’ shall refer to an individual’s sex at birth. Only male and female sex options are available for entrants completing the Diversity Visa entry form.”
Along with outright denying the existence of nonbinary, genderqueer and gender expansive people, this policy creates a precedence for trans people to be stripped of their visas and deported because under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), any foreigner found to have obtained or possess a visa “by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact” will have their visa revoked and face deportation.
By requesting information on “biological sex at birth,” the State Department is forcing a mismatch between documents and enabling officials to accuse trans, nonbinary, and gender expansive immigrants of fraud. Thus, trans and nonbinary immigrants can have their visas revoked and can be deported, and information gathered from immigrants during the visa request process can be added to federal databases and used by immigration authorities, including ICE agents.
With the Supreme Court’s decision this past year allowing ICE officers to use racial profiling, Vaca argues that “now, The Trump administration has given ICE the reason it needs. Under this rule, ICE agents now have the enforcement rationale to assert that trans people–especially those belonging to racial minority groups–are more likely than cis people to have ‘misrepresented’ themselves during the visa process, and therefore, are more likely to enter the country ‘unlawfully.’”
This would enable ICE agents to target trans individuals specifically for being trans. If the goal of this were unclear, a day later the Trump administration released its statement for Women’s History Month 2026, writing that “we are keeping men out of women’s sports, enforcing Title IX as it was originally written and ensuring colleges preserve–and, where possible, expand–scholarships and roster opportunities for female athletes. We are restoring public safety and upholding the rule of law in every city so women, children, and families can feel safe and secure.”
And this is not the first time that ICE has targeted and harmed trans and nonbinary immigrants. Last June, Vera reported that ICE is not including trans people in detection in their public reports, and back in 2020, AFSC reported that trans people held in ICE detention faced “dreadful, ugly” conditions.
While it seems like a new development in Trump’s anti-trans escalation, it echoes a deeply upsetting history of denying and destroying transgender people’s documents following members of the Nazi party seizing power in 1933.
In the early 20th century, Weimar, Germany was an epicenter for gender affirming care with Maganus Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science. One of the first book burnings of the rising Nazi regime destroyed the Institute’s extensive clinical records and library on trans health and history by Nazi students and stormtroopers. In doing so, the Nazis effectively destroyed the world’s first trans health clinic and one of the richest and most comprehensive collective of information about trans healthcare.
Similarly, the Nazi government invalidated or refused to recognize what was called “transvestite passes,” or passing certificates that allowed trans people to avoid arrest under Paragraph 175 which prohibited cross-dressing. During the Weimar Republic — the regime that preceded the Third Reich — recognized and affirmed the identities of trans people (in limited ways) with specific documentation that helped prevent them from arrest. Invalidating and disregarding these passes allowed police and Nazi officials to target trans people and harass, extort and arrest them, and the record of passes themselves helped officials target trans people.
The changes to visa guidelines — alongside Kansas’s move to revoke trans drivers’ licenses last month — is reflective of this escalation of violence against trans people during the Nazi’s rise to power, which scholars like Dr. Laurie Marhoefer is just beginning to uncover. And along with the revocation of identification documents this past week, a recent Fourth Circuit Court ruled that states can deny Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming surgery.
The Fourth Circuit Court decision affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision in Skrmetti, which ruled that bans on gender affirming healthcare for young people are constitutional. This ruling extends this ban to include adult healthcare bans, allowing West Virginia’s exclusion of Medicaid coverage for adult gender affirming healthcare to take full effect. Even more upsetting was what the ruling itself said, calling gender affirming healthcare “dangerous.”
As was written in the Fourth Circuit Opinion, “it’s not irrational for a legislature to encourage citizens ‘to appreciate their sex’ and not ‘become disdainful of their sex’ by refusing to fund experimental procedures that may have the opposite effect.”
In reality, what this ruling and the opinion reflect, is the next step in government regulation and oversight over marginalized peoples’ bodies. From the overturn of Roe v. Wade, which removed federal protection of access to abortion, this next step represents the denial of people’s access to vital, lifesaving care–and to be clear, gender affirming care is not just for trans, nonbinary, and intersex people. It’s a dangerous escalation and one that echoes previous violence against trans people under fascist regimes; the Lemkin Institute is right to raise concern.
Pennsylvania
Pa. House passes bill to codify marriage equality in state law
Governor supports gay state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta’s measure
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a bill that would codify marriage equality in state law.
House Bill 1800 passed by a 127-72 vote margin. Twenty-six Republicans voted for the measure.
The Republican-controlled Pennsylvania Senate will now consider the bill that state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta (D-Philadelphia), who is the first openly gay person of color elected to the state’s General Assembly, introduced. Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro supports the measure.
“Here in Pennsylvania, we believe in your freedom to marry who you love,” said Shapiro on Wednesday. “Today, the House has stepped up to protect that right.”
BREAKING: The Pennsylvania House just passed @RepKenyatta's bill to codify marriage equality into law in PA — and they did it with broad bipartisan support.
— Governor Josh Shapiro (@GovernorShapiro) March 25, 2026
Here in Pennsylvania, we believe in your freedom to marry who you love. Today, the House has stepped up to protect that…

