National
Key senator says hold off on ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal
Ben Nelson wants to wait, follow guidance from Gates
Sen. Ben Nelson, right, talks with U.S. Army General David Petraeus. Nelson this week said he would vote against a legislative effort to overturn "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." (Photo courtesy of Nelson’s office)
Sen. Ben Nelson, right, talks with U.S. Army General David Petraeus. Nelson this week said he would vote against a legislative effort to overturn “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” (Photo courtesy of Nelson’s office)
A key U.S. senator has told the Blade that he opposes repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” at this time.
In a brief exchange on Capitol Hill, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said Tuesday he would vote against an effort next week to overturn the law. He said he wants to adhere to guidance from Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen on holding off on repeal.
Asked whether he would vote in favor of a repeal measure, Nelson replied, “No, I want to follow with the advice and the suggestions of Secretary of Defense Gates to have the study that is underway right now before we make that final decision — because it’s not a question of ‘whether,’ it’s a question of ‘how.’”
A vote on repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as part of major defense budget legislation could take place next week during the Senate Armed Services Committee markup of the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill. Markup proceedings are scheduled to begin May 26 and are closed to the public.
It remains unclear whether there are enough votes on the committee to make repeal part of the legislation. Mustering enough votes to repeal the statute could be a challenge for opponents of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” following Nelson’s comments.
Repeal efforts were complicated last month after Gates released a letter to Congress saying he would “strongly oppose” repeal before the Pentagon completes at year’s end its study on the issue. Since then, supporters of repeal — including Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) — have advocated for a compromise in which Congress would vote now to repeal the law but delay implementation of repeal until 2011.
Asked whether he would be open to such a measure, Nelson appeared to be unaware that such an approach to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has been under consideration, but was reluctant to support the idea.
“I don’t know,” Nelson said. “I haven’t seen that legislation. I know there’s probably some support for that, but I think it’s been made pretty clear by Secretary Gates that we shouldn’t take any action until the study is completed, and that’s my position. That’s where I’m going to stay.”
Nelson’s statements came as a disappointment to people who had identified him as an uncommitted vote on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” that could be moved in favor of repeal this year.
He was among six senators that LGBT organizations, including the Human Rights Campaign, had lobbied through a grassroots campaign to vote in favor of repeal. The other five are Sens. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), and Jim Webb (D-Va.).
Alex Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, said Ben Nelson is only one of the six key senators and estimated that only two or three votes from those six are needed to advance repeal.
“If Sen. Nelson is entrenching himself that hard on that side of the vote, then I think he risks putting himself down on the wrong side of history,” Nicholson said. “That’s something he’s going to have to live with for the rest of his career, and that’s going to be part of his legacy.”
Nicholson said Nelson’s apparent unfamiliarity with delayed implementation legislation could mean that high-level discussions with him on moving forward with that plan hadn’t yet occurred.
‘Don’t Ask’ opponents push on
Even with Nelson representing a “no” vote on repeal during the committee vote, supporters of ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are moving forward with plans for a vote next week during the committee markup.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), the sponsor of standalone repeal legislation in the Senate, told the Blade that supporters of repeal are “working hard” to find a way forward for passage in the committee.
“Obviously, we were set back somewhat from the letter by Secretary Gates, but we’re talking to every member of the committee,” he said. “We have some, I think, creative ideas about how to deal with … concerns that Secretary Gates expressed.”
Lieberman said he’s uncertain if the votes are there for passage, but noted that “it’s important to get this done this year.”
Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), another member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a strong proponent of repeal, said he doesn’t think anyone knows whether the votes are there in the committee for repeal, but he’s “feeling guardedly optimistic” about the prospects.
“It’s crucial that we take this opportunity to lift it,” he said. “There’s different ideas about how to best work with the Pentagon on this approach, but I still think you could study and repeal.”
Nicholson said he thinks supporters “have a really good shot” at getting the two or three votes necessary to win repeal during Senate markup next week.
“It’s really going to come down to some of the one-on-one conversations that Levin and Lieberman are having this week with their colleagues on the committee,” he said.
In the wake of the Gates letter, many repeal supporters see pushing forward with delayed implementation legislation as the optimal path for a successful vote on ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” this year.
Lieberman said supporters are looking at alternatives, including a bill “to enact repeal, but have it not be this year, to have it not be effective until either sometime next year” or until the Pentagon working group issues a certification of its study.
“I think Secretary Gates was really talking about he doesn’t want us to do this until the rank-and-file military has had a chance to be heard,” Lieberman said. “So we’re trying to find a way to take legislative action this year, but still respect the opinions of the military and maybe delay the implementation until sometime next year.”
Lieberman said a number of different ideas are being discussed among committee members, but delayed implementation legislation “seems to be the one that commands the most support.”
Also noting that delayed implementation could have traction is Udall, who said such a bill is “one of the ideas” being discussed.
“That still remains my preferred course,” he said. “In other words, you would make it very clear the law is repealed, and then you put in place the timeframe by which you implement the changes that are necessary.”
Despite this push and work toward a compromise, the six targeted members of the Senate Armed Services Committee have been reluctant to endorse repeal publicly, although none of these six have been as explicit as Ben Nelson in their opposition.
Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) has maintained on several occasions the importance of the Pentagon study as a means to inform Congress on how to approach repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Asked this week whether he’s made a decision on how he’ll vote should an amendment come before him, Webb replied, “I think we need to respect the process that Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen put in place.”
Webb had a similar response when asked whether his position would be any different for delayed implementation legislation.
“I think we should honor the process that they’ve put in place,” Webb said. “I think people should understand that it’s a pretty significant historical event in terms of what Adm. Mullen said during that hearing in February.”
The offices of Bill Nelson and Bayh sent statements to the Blade that were similarly non-committal in how the senators would vote. The statements were virtually identical to those the offices sent to the Blade last month.
Dan McLaughlin, spokesperson for Bill Nelson, said the senator is “inclined” to support repeal, but “wants to see Secretary Gates’ study on how it would impact the military.”
In a statement, Bayh said his “personal belief” is that people serving their country in the armed forces “ought to be able to serve it openly,” but noted that he wants military leaders to be able to speak up on this issue.
“President Obama is absolutely right to solicit the input and support of his top military commanders about the effects of repealing the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy,” he said. “I will make a final decision after receiving the input of our top commanders.”
Some of the targeted senators were staying mum this week on how they’d vote should an amendment come before them. Byrd’s office declined to comment in response to a Blade inquiry on the issue. Brown’s office didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment.
Obama MIA in repeal effort?
As supporters of repeal work to gather support, one notable absence among those lending a hand is President Barack Obama.
Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was one of Obama’s campaign promises, but a number of senators say the White House hasn’t contacted them to move them one way or the other on the issue.
In public statements on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” issue, the White House has consistently refrained from saying Obama supports attaching repeal as part of the defense authorization bill.
Asked whether the White House is being helpful in building support, Lieberman suggested the president could be playing a greater role.
“I mean, they’re obviously for this, so we need their help,” he said.
Nicholson said he didn’t know if the White House had been helpful in moving senators in favor of repeal, but noted that he hasn’t “seen any evidence of that, certainly.”
Each of the targeted senators to whom the Blade spoke said they had not heard from the White House or the Pentagon on the issue.
Asked whether the White House or the Pentagon had contacted him to influence his vote on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Ben Nelson replied, “No, no.”
Jessica Smith, a Webb spokesperson, echoed those remarks in response to a Blade inquiry.
“As for the White House or the Pentagon contacting our office?” she said. “I don’t believe so.”
Similarly, McLaughlin said he doesn’t believe the White House or the Pentagon has contacted Bill Nelson to inform his vote on the issue.
“To my knowledge, neither the White House nor the Pentagon has recently contacted Bill about this issue,” McLaughlin said.
A White House spokesperson didn’t immediately respond to the Blade’s request for comment on why Obama hasn’t reached out to the senators.
National
U.S. in midst of ‘genocidal process against trans people’: study
Attacks rooted in Nazi ideology’s views on gender
Earlier this week, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security issued a haunting warning. Dr. Elisa von Joeden-Forgey, president of the Lemkin Institute, stated that the U.S. is in the “early-to-mid stages of a genocidal process against trans and nonbinary and intersex people.” Dr. Gregory Santon, former president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, flags “a hardening of categories” surrounding gender in a “totalitarian” way.
Stanton argues that this is rooted in Nazi ideology’s surrounding gender — this same regime that killed many LGBTQIA individuals in the name of a natural “binary.” As Von Joeden-Forgey said, the queer community, alongside other “minority groups, tends to be a kind of canary in the coal mine.”
In his first year in office, Trump and his Cabinet’s anti-trans rhetoric has only intensified, with a report released late September by journalist Ken Klippenstein in which national security officers leaked that the FBI is planning to classify trans people as “extremists.” By classifying trans people as “Nihilistic Violent Extremists,” far-right groups would have more “political (and media) cover,” as Abby Monteil reports for them, for anti-trans violence and legislation.
While the news is terrifying, it’s not unprecedented – the fight against trans rights and classification of trans people as violent extremists was included in Project 2025, and in the past several weeks, far-right leaders’ transphobic campaign has expanded: boycotting Netflix to pressure the platform to remove trans characters, leveraging anti-trans attack ads in the Virginia governor’s race and banning professors from acknowledging that trans people exist. In fact last month, two Republican members of Congress called for the institutionalization of trans people.
It’s a dangerous escalation of transphobic violence that the Human Rights Campaign has classified as an epidemic. According to an Everytown for Gun Safety report published in 2020, the number of trans people murdered in the U.S. almost doubled between 2017 and 2021. According to data released by the Gun Safety report from February 2024, 34 percent of gun homicides of trans, nonbinary, and gender expansive people remain unsolved.
As Tori Cooper, director of Community Engagement for the Transgender Justice Initiative for the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, this violence serves a purpose. “The hate toward transgender and gender expansive community members is fueled by disinformation, rhetoric and ideology that treats our community as political pawns ignoring the fact that we reserve the opportunity to live our lives full without fear of harm or death,” Cooper said.
“The genocidal process,” Von Joeden-Forgey said, “is really about destroying identities, destroying groups through all sorts of means.” And just like the Nazi regime, former genocide researcher Haley Brown said, the Trump administration is fueling conspiracy theories surrounding “cultural Marixsm” — the claim that leftists, feminists, Marxists, and queer people are trying to destroy western civilization. This term, Brown states, was borrowed directly from the Nazi’s conspiracies surrounding “Cultural Bolshevism.”
As Brown explains, historians are just beginning to research the Nazis’ anti-trans violence, but what they are finding reveals a terrifying pattern wherein trans people are stripped of their identification documents, arrested and assaulted, and outright killed.
Before World War II, Germany – especially Berlin – was a hub for transgender communities and culture. In 1919, Dr. Magnus Hirschfield, a Jewish gay sexologist and doctor, founded the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, the Institute for Sexual Science. The Institute was groundbreaking for offering some of the first modern gender-affirming healthcare, with a trans-affirming clinic and performing some of the first gender-affirming surgeries in the 1930s for trans women Dora Richter and Lili Elbe.
Researchers at the institute coined the term “trassexualism” in 1923, which while outdated now, was the first modern term that Dr. Hirschfield used when working with Berlin police to acquire “transvestite passes” for his patients to help them avoid arrest under public nuisance and decency laws. During the Weimar Republic, trans people could also change their names although their options were limited. In Berlin, queer press flourished after World War I along with a number of clubs welcoming gay, lesbian and trans clientele, including Eldorado, which featured trans performers on stage.
But as Hitler rose to power, trans people were targeted. In 1933, Nazi youth and members of the Sturmabteilung ransacked the institute, stealing and burning books – one of the first book burnings of the Nazi regime. German police stopped recognizing the “transvestite” passes and issuing new ones, and under Paragraph 175, which criminalized sexual relationships with men, trans women (who were misgendered by the police) were arrested and sent to concentration camps.
As the Lemkin Intsitute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security wrote in a statement:
“The Nazis, like other genocidal groups, believed that national strength and existential
power could only be achieved through an imposition of a strict gender binary within the racially pure ‘national community.’ A fundamentalist gender binary was a key feature of Nazi racial politics and genocide.”
History professor Laurie Marhoefer wrote for The Conversation that while trans people were targeted, there was not extensive discussion of them by the regime. But there was evidence of the transphobia behind the regime’s violence, specifically in Hermann Ferdinand Voss’s 1938 book “Ein Beitrag zum Problem des Transvestitismus.”Voss noted that during the Nazi regime, trans people could and were arrested and sent to concentration camps where they underwent forced medical experimentation (including conversion therapy and castration) and died in the gas chambers.
While there is growing recognition that gay, bisexual, and lesbian individuals were targeted during the Holocaust, few know about the trans genocide through which trans individuals were arrested, underwent forced castration and conversion therapy, and were outright killed alongside gay, lesbian, disabled and Jewish individuals in concentration camps. Historians are just beginning to undertake this research, writes Marhoefer, and to delve further into the complex racial hierarchies that affected how trans people were treated.
As Zavier Nunn writes for Past & Present, trans people of “Aryan” racial status and those not considered to be homosexuals were sometimes spared from the worst violence and outright murder. Depending on their skills, they could even be considered for rehabilitation into the Volksgemeinschaft, or Nazi utopian community. As Nunn highlights, trans violence was much more nuanced and individualized and should be explored separately from violence against gay and lesbian individuals during the Holocaust.
Marhoefer’s research of violence against trans women, as recorded in police files (as is the persecution of gay and lesbian individuals), is groundbreaking but rare. He gave a talk at the Museum of Jewish Heritage in 2023, shortly after a 2022 civil lawsuit about denial that trans people were victims of the Holocaust. The German court recognized that trans people were victimized and killed by the Nazi regime, but in the United States, there is still a hesitancy by the wider LGBTQ community and leftist groups to acknowledge that we are living during a time of anti-trans violence, that trans people are being used as political scapegoats in order to distract from real problems of accountability and transparency around government policy.
As anti-trans legislation escalates, it’s important to remember and call out how trans violence is not only a feminist issue, it’s a human rights one as well. While Shannon Fyfe argues that the current campaigns against trans people may not fit the traditional legal definition of a genocide, the destruction and denial of life saving care, access to public spaces, and escalating violence is still immensely devastating.
Kaamya Sharma also notes that the term “genocide” has deep geo-political implications. As she explained, “western organisations are, historically and today, apathetic to the actual lives of people in the Global South, and put moral posturing above Brown and Black lives,” so the choice to use “genocide” is a loaded one. But as the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security writes in the same statement: “The ideological constructs of transgender women promoted by gender critical ideologues are particularly genocidal. They share many features in common with other, better known, genocidal ideologies. Transgender women are represented as stealth border crosses who seek to defile the purity of cisgender women, much as Tutsi women were viewed in Hutu Power ideology and Jewish men in Nazi antisemitism.”
Trans people are not extremists, nor are they grooming children or threatening the fabric of American identity – they are human beings for whom (like all of us) gender affirming care is lifesaving. As we remember the trans lives lost decades ago and those lost this year to transphobic violence, knowing this history is the only way to stop its rewriting.
National
What to watch for in 2026: midterms, Supreme Court, and more
Federal policy battles carry grave implications for LGBTQ Americans
With the start of a new year comes a new slate of legal and political developments poised to change our world. From consequential Supreme Court cases and a potential House of Representatives leadership flip to preparations for the United States’s 250th anniversary, 2026 is expected to be a critical year—particularly as LGBTQ rights, and transgender rights specifically, remain a focus of national debate.
Across Congress, the courts, federal agencies, and statehouses, decisions made this year are poised to shape the legal and political landscape for LGBTQ Americans well beyond the next election cycle.
Congress
In 2026, a sizable number of federal seats will be up for grabs. All 435 districts in the U.S. House of Representatives will be on the ballot, offering Democrats a chance to flip the chamber and reclaim a measure of control from Republicans, who have held the House since 2022. Control of the House will be especially critical as lawmakers weigh legislation tied to civil rights, health care access, and the scope of federal protections for LGBTQ Americans.
A Democratic majority would also determine committee leadership, oversight priorities, and the ability to block or advance legislation related to transgender health care, education policy, and federal nondiscrimination protections.
Several House races are expected to be particularly significant for LGBTQ representation and leadership, including contests in Texas’s 32nd Congressional District, New York’s 17th, and Illinois’s 9th.
In Texas’s 32nd District, Democratic incumbent Julie Johnson is seeking reelection in the northeastern Dallas-area seat. Johnson is the first openly LGBTQ person ever elected to Congress from Texas or the South, according to her congressional website. Her reelection bid comes amid Republican efforts to redraw the district to consolidate GOP power, following demands from President Trump — moves that have made the race increasingly challenging.
While in office, Johnson has pushed for expanded Medicare access, stronger LGBTQ rights protections, and broader health care equity. The race has become a key test case for LGBTQ incumbents navigating increasingly hostile political and electoral environments, particularly in southern states.
In New York’s 17th Congressional District, Democrat Cait Conley is mounting a challenge against Republican incumbent Mike Lawler in the lower Hudson Valley, just north of New York City. Conley is a former active-duty Army officer who was deployed six times and has leaned into that experience to connect with the district’s mixed constituency.
The district has frequently flipped between parties and includes a politically influential conservative Hasidic community, making it one of the more competitive seats in the region. An out lesbian, Conley has spoken forcefully in support of LGBTQ rights and has received the endorsement of LPAC, positioning herself as a pro-equality candidate in a closely watched race that could help determine control of the House.
The Illinois 9th Congressional District is also shaping up to be a competitive open-seat contest. The district spans parts of Cook, Lake, and McHenry counties and includes much of Chicago’s North Side. In 2025, Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky announced she would not seek reelection after representing the district since January 1999.
Mike Simmons, who was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 2021, is seeking the seat. Simmons was the first openly LGBTQ person and the first Ethiopian American elected to the state Senate, where he has focused on expanding LGBTQ rights, strengthening democratic institutions, and addressing cost inequities in health care, housing, and support for community-based organizations. Given the district’s suburban makeup, the race could emerge as a frontline contest for pro-equality legislative influence.
If Democrats are successful in reclaiming control of Congress, the outcome would reshape leadership at the highest levels. One potential result would be Hakeem Jeffries becoming the first elected Black Speaker of the House, a historic milestone with implications for legislative priorities, representation, and the direction of Democratic leadership.
Beyond the House, control of the U.S. Senate will also be in play. In total, 35 of the Senate’s 100 seats will be up for election in 2026. Of those, 33 are regularly scheduled races, with two additional special elections set to take place in Florida and Ohio. Several of these contests are expected to hinge on issues such as abortion access, federal oversight, judicial confirmations, and the future of LGBTQ protections at the national level. Political observers view the Senate as a tougher flip for Democrats but not an impossible task.
Governorships
Gubernatorial races will further shape the policy environment across the country. A total of 36 states and three U.S. territories could elect new governors in 2026, many of whom will have significant influence over education policy, health care access, and the enforcement—or rollback—of civil rights protections.
One notable development is Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn’s entry into Tennessee’s gubernatorial race. Blackburn has been an outspoken opponent of LGBTQ rights and has previously proposed constitutional amendments aimed at banning same-sex marriage, making the race one to watch closely for LGBTQ advocates.
Two races to watch
Colorado governor’s race:
Jared Polis made history in 2018 as the first openly gay man elected governor in U.S. history, but his tenure in the Mile High State is coming to a close. Polis cannot run for reelection in 2026 because of term limits. U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet and Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser are the Democratic frontrunners in a race that could determine whether the state continues its trajectory on LGBTQ-inclusive policy.
Iowa Senate seat:
Zach Wahls is running for Iowa’s U.S. Senate seat. An Iowa State Senator, Wahls has built a record focused on expanding health care access, minimizing government corruption, and protecting LGBTQ equality. Wahls, who was famously raised by two lesbian moms, has frequently pointed to his family as shaping his advocacy, positioning his campaign around personal experience as well as legislative record.
SCOTUS
The Supreme Court is expected to issue several rulings this year that could have far-reaching consequences for LGBTQ rights nationwide. Two of the most closely watched issues involve transgender athletes in school sports and the legality of conversion therapy bans.
Two cases heard in 2025 involving transgender athletes in school sports—West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox—are expected to receive rulings later this year. Oral arguments are scheduled for Jan. 13, with the Court poised to determine whether states can ban transgender girls and women from participating on girls’ sports teams.
Legal experts have warned that the decisions could carry broader civil rights implications beyond athletics, potentially reshaping interpretations of sex discrimination and Title IX protections across education and employment.
The Court is also expected to rule on the future of conversion therapy bans and whether such restrictions are protected under the First Amendment. In October 2025, the justices heard oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar, a case that will determine whether state and local bans on conversion therapy for LGBTQ youth violate free speech or free exercise of religion protections. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could weaken or overturn bans that have been enacted in dozens of states and municipalities.
Federal policy changes
Several new federal policies are being implemented as the year takes shape, with some of the most immediate impacts falling on LGBTQ people. One of the most significant changes is the elimination of gender-affirming care coverage for federal employees.
The policy, put into place by President Trump’s Office of Personnel Management, eliminates health insurance coverage for most gender-affirming medical care in the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) and Postal Service Health Benefits (PSHB) programs. The change affects hundreds of thousands of federal workers and their families.
The Human Rights Campaign has filed a lawsuit against the OPM policy, alleging that the change violates Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination in employment. Advocates argue that the policy not only limits access to medically necessary care but also signals a broader federal retreat from LGBTQ-inclusive health protections.
Similar proposals are under consideration for the broader American public, including efforts to restrict Medicaid and Medicare coverage for gender-affirming care—moves that could disproportionately impact low-income transgender people, people with disabilities, and those living in rural areas.
Historic anniversaries
In 2026, several historic anniversaries will take place nationwide. The most prominent is the United States’ Semiquincentennial, marking 250 years since the Declaration of Independence. Events are planned across the country, from small-town commemorations to large-scale national celebrations in Washington, D.C.
Among the most anticipated events is the July 4 celebration commemorating 250 years since independence from Great Britain, which is expected to be one of the largest national events of the year.
However, the anniversary planning has already created ripple effects. Capital Pride—Washington’s annual Pride celebration—was forced to move from the second week of June to the third week after the White House announced plans for a large June 14, 2026 celebration on the South Lawn marking President Trump’s 80th birthday.
The White House said the event will include a large-scale Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) exhibition involving boxing and wrestling competitions, a decision that has drawn scrutiny from LGBTQ advocates amid ongoing concerns about federal priorities and messaging during a landmark year for the nation.
It also marks 11 years since SCOTUS ruled same-sex marriage is legally protected nationwide with Obergefell v. Hodges.
Minnesota
Tim Walz drops out of Minn. governor’s race
The longtime LGBTQ ally and Democratic party figure blames ongoing fraud investigations supported by Trump and the GOP for his withdrawal.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz announced Monday that he is withdrawing from the 2026 Minnesota governor’s race, citing what he described as political interference and attacks from Republican Party leaders.
Walz made the announcement on social media, where the post quickly gained traction, drawing more than 30,000 likes on Instagram and 23,000 reactions on Facebook.
In his statement, the incumbent governor directly blamed President Donald Trump and his allies, both in Washington and in Minnesota, for fueling what he characterized as politically motivated accusations of widespread fraud tied to federal nutrition programs in the state.
According to a 2024 ABC News story, more than 70 people have been charged as part of a “wide-ranging criminal conspiracy” that allegedly exploited two federally funded nutrition programs during the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in more than $250 million in fraudulent claims.
“I won’t mince words here,” Walz wrote. “Donald Trump and his allies — in Washington, in St. Paul, and online — want to make our state a colder, meaner place. They want to poison our people against each other by attacking our neighbors. And, ultimately, they want to take away much of what makes Minnesota the best place in America to raise a family.”
In his announcement, Walz also cited recent reports from Somali American child care center operators in Minnesota who said they have faced violent threats and vandalism after right-wing YouTuber Nick Shirley posted a video alleging fraud at their facilities. Following the video’s release, the Trump-Vance administration cut federal child care funding nationwide.
Walz also criticized the federal government’s decision to withhold child care funding from states amid the allegations.
“They’ve already begun by taking our tax dollars that were meant to help families afford child care,” he added. “And they have no intention of stopping there.”
Last week, a Department of Health and Human Services official confirmed that the Trump administration is pausing child care funding to all states following the Minnesota allegations, stating that funds will be released “only when states prove they are being spent legitimately.”
“Republicans are playing politics with the future of our state,” Walz said. “And it’s shameful.”
Walz previously served as the Democratic vice presidential nominee alongside then–Vice President Kamala Harris during her unsuccessful 2024 presidential campaign.
Meanwhile, longtime Trump ally and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell announced in December that he is running for Minnesota governor and has already received Trump’s endorsement.
Walz has been a longtime ally of the LGBTQ community, dating back to 1999, when he served as a football coach and teacher at Mankato West High School in Mankato, Minnesota, about 80 miles southwest of Minneapolis.
It is also possible that U. S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) is considering entering the race to succeed him.
U.S. in midst of ‘genocidal process against trans people’: study
Gay Va. State Sen. Ebbin resigns for role in Spanberger administration
Steny Hoyer, the longest-serving House Democrat, to retire from Congress
Just say no to the felon in the White House
‘Hedda’ brings queer visibility to Golden Globes
Safer Ways to Pay for Online Performances and Queer Events
Two pioneering gay journalists to speak at Thursday event
Blade travels to Colombia after U.S. forces seize Maduro in Venezuela
Queer highlights of the 2026 Critics Choice Awards: Aunt Gladys, that ‘Heated Rivalry’ shoutout and more
LGBTQ groups to join Spanberger inaugural parade
-
Sponsored4 days agoSafer Ways to Pay for Online Performances and Queer Events
-
District of Columbia3 days ago
Two pioneering gay journalists to speak at Thursday event
-
Colombia3 days ago
Blade travels to Colombia after U.S. forces seize Maduro in Venezuela
-
a&e features3 days ago
Queer highlights of the 2026 Critics Choice Awards: Aunt Gladys, that ‘Heated Rivalry’ shoutout and more
