National
Expensive year for gay donors
Baldwin Senate race, Obama re-election, ballot measures to compete for funds
An expected race for the U.S. Senate next year by lesbian Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) will likely intensify an unprecedented demand for fundraising within the LGBT community for the 2012 elections on the national, state and local levels, according to LGBT advocacy groups.
Political observers in Wisconsin say Baldwin has emerged as the leading Democratic contender to compete for a Senate seat being vacated by Democratic Sen. Herb Kohl, who announced that he won’t run for another term next year.
With Baldwin said to have a decent chance of becoming the nation’s first openly gay senator, LGBT rights groups from throughout the country are gearing up to raise funds for her campaign, even though she isn’t expected to officially announce her candidacy until later this summer.
Fundraising among LGBT donors for a Baldwin Senate campaign will come at a time when those same donors are being called on to give money to the re-election campaign of President Barack Obama and to the campaigns of LGBT and LGBT-supportive candidates running for Congress, state legislatures, and city and town government posts.
LGBT donors are also expected to be tapped for contributions to campaigns opposing state ballot measures seeking to ban same-sex marriage or to legalize the right of gay couples to marry in as many as five states in 2012.
Chuck Wolfe, executive director of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, which raises money for LGBT candidates, said the cost of a Baldwin Senate race would likely rise to between $15 million and $20 million.
“So if our community can be a significant player in that race, and we hope it will be, that will mean a significant investment,” he said. “And I would expect to see the LGBT community play an important role in that race.”
Campaign finance records show that Baldwin has already amassed more than $1 million for her House re-election race, which she’s expected to use for a Senate race. Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wisc.), who reportedly is considering challenging Baldwin for the Senate nomination in a Democratic primary, has raised far less money than Baldwin, and reported $478,000 cash on hand last week.
Nearly all observers say Baldwin would only back down from a Senate race if former Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold enters the race. Feingold, a champion of progressive causes for Wisconsin Democrats, lost his re-election bid last year to Republican Ron Johnson. He has hinted that he’s not likely to run for the seat being vacated by Kohl.
Wolfe said he expects nearly 200 qualified LGBT candidates will be running in the 2012 election on the federal, state and local levels, a development that will prompt the Victory Fund to activate its network of LGBT donors nationwide.
“We’ll continue to see more candidates running for higher levels of office, which, of course, means higher levels of investment,” he said.
Andy Tobias, treasurer of the Democratic National Committee, said the DNC and Obama for America, the president’s re-election campaign, will be doing all of their fundraising – including fundraising within the LGBT community – through a joint committee called Obama Victory Fund 2012.
Tobias, who’s gay, said all of the other races seeking support from the LGBT community are important and he hopes others capable of making contributions will try to support them all.
But he said only the race for president “will determine who gets to shape the Supreme Court going forward, which will be the final word on our equality.”
Added Tobias, “And only one race will determine whether the entire federal government sees us basically as allies deserving of support or citizens who’ve already gained too much equality that needs to be rolled back. We simply have to keep the White House.”
According to Tobias, the Obama Victory Fund effort is aimed at registering and turning out “a huge number of progressive-leaning donors” through 60 field offices and more such offices to come. Thus he said this effort would help all of the other LGBT-related races by bringing supportive voters to the polls.
“So in my view, all of us should support the national effort in a very big way, even as we support other races,” he said.
Among those agreeing with Tobias’s assessment is gay philanthropist Bruce Bastian of Utah, who has made large contributions to Democratic candidates and LGBT advocacy groups and causes for nearly a decade.
“I am not well versed on all of the races or ballot measures,” Bastian told the Blade this week. “That said, I believe the most important goal for the LGBT community in 2012 should be to re-elect President Obama. Why? Just look at the alternatives!”
The Human Rights Campaign has already endorsed Obama’s re-election bid and is expected to continue its past practice of contributing campaign funds to LGBT-supportive candidates through its political action committee.
The HRC PAC contributed just over $800,000 to candidates in 2010 and just under $1.1 million to candidates in 2008, according to HRC’s vice president for communications, Fred Sainz.
“The 2012 election year provides our community with a number of opportunities, including the successful re-election of our president, and a number of vulnerabilities,” Sainz said. “Unfortunately, the one ingredient that all of them share is the need for financial resources to be successful,” he said. “We will continue to monitor the landscape, work closely with our partners on these various contents and will make smart and realistic investments at the appropriate time.”
Evan Wolfson, executive director of the marriage equality advocacy group Freedom to Marry, said the appropriate time to address the expected marriage-related ballot measures is now.
He is calling on LGBT contributors to help raise money for the defeat of a ballot measure in Minnesota, where marriage equality opponents are asking voters to approve a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union only between and man and a woman.
In Oregon and Maine, LGBT rights groups are taking steps to place on the ballot initiatives calling for overturning existing same-sex marriage bans. The proposed ballot measure would also put in place laws to give same-sex couples the legal right to marry.
Ballot measures seeking to ban same-sex marriage are also a possibility in Maryland and North Carolina in 2012. A ballot measure in Maryland is only expected to take place if the state legislature votes to legalize same-sex marriage, a development that LGBT advocacy groups and supportive lawmakers say is a possibility.
“It’s unfortunately too early to be sure if we’re going to have enough money but it’s not too early to be doing the work,” said Wolfson, in discussing the effort for winning marriage equality rights in Maine and Oregon and defeat marriage bans in the other states.
“So we really need to step up and invest in the early persuasion and organizing that are the key to winning,” Wolfson said. “I strongly encourage funders, large and small, to make the best use of the money and time — the most crucial element beginning now so we can move hearts and minds in advance of the end game. That’s how we win.”
The two co-founders of eQualityGiving.org, an LGBT political donors group, said they plan to follow the same process for advising and guiding LGBT donors in 2012 as they have in past election years.
Juan and Ken Ahonen-Jover, a Miami-based couple, said their organization sets specific criteria related to the level of support a candidate must express on LGBT issues before the group places that candidate on its list as a possible recipient for contributions from LGBT donors.
“We want them to support all of the criteria,” said Juan Ahonen-Jover. “We base our recommendations on their positions on our issues,” he said.
He said the group doesn’t keep track of how much money its members give to candidates but he believes donors affiliated with the group contribute a sizable amount of money to congressional and state legislative candidates throughout the country.
National
HRC report: LGBTQ students face ‘far greater challenges’ in non-supportive states
Survey finds anti-LGBTQ school harassment, bullying highest in 17 states
The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the educational arm of the national LGBTQ advocacy organization Human Rights Campaign, has released a report showing LGBTQ public school students are more likely to face bullying, harassment, and “other barriers” in states that have less overall supportive LGBTQ laws and policies.
The report is based on the HRC Foundation’s National Educator Survey of School Climate and Bullying, which was released on Sept. 17.
“The report finds that harassment, bullying, and other barriers to LGBTQ+ inclusion are more prevalent in states with limiting policies, where educators report widespread restrictions on LGBTQ+ resources, visible expressions of support, and assistance for transgender students,” a statement released by HRC says.
“As just one example,” the statement adds, “while 59 percent of educators in states with limiting policies report restrictions on supporting their transgender students, just 6 percent to 8 percent of educators in states with supportive policies report the same, underscoring the impact of these policies on school climate, student well-being, and the stakes of the upcoming midterm elections for LGBTQ+ youth and inclusive classrooms.”
The report says the survey consisted of responses by 826 educators in 42 states who worked as teachers, principals, counselors, administrators, and others who worked in support services. All worked at schools with students from pre-kindergarten to 12th grade, most being public schools and a smaller number being charter schools, the report says.
It says the survey was conducted between April 15 and May 21, 2026, and included a survey questionnaire with about 55 questions covering a wide range of LGBTQ related school issues.
According to the report, its classification of LGBTQ supportive and non-LGBTQ supportive states is based on a detailed analysis of the LGBTQ related laws and policies of all 50 states, D.C., and U.S. territories conducted by the Movement Advancement Project, or MAP, which describes itself as an “independent, nonprofit thinktank.”
The report includes a chart consisting of 51 boxes representing the 50 states and D.C., with 32 plus D.C. colored as blue and said to have overall LGBTQ supportive policies. The 17 boxes colored in red are said to have overall non-LGBTQ supportive policies and laws, Each of the boxes has the initial of a state or D.C. printed inside it.
In addition to D.C., the chart shows Maryland, Virginia, New York, California, and Massachusetts as among the supportive states. Florida, Texas, West Virginia, and Ohio are among the states shown to be non-LGBTQ supportive.
The HRC statement includes these “key” findings from the survey:
- In states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 59 percent of educators report restrictions on supporting transgender students, compared to just 6-8 percent of educators in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with restrictive policies, nearly 50 percent of educators reported restrictions on LGBTQ+ books or resources, compared to just 7 percent of educators in states with supportive policies.
- Roughly 32 percent of educators in states with restrictive policies reported anti-LGBTQ+ harassment was a moderate or serious problem, compared with 11 percent of educators in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 29 percent of educators were very worried about anti-LGBTQ+ harassment, compared to 15 percent in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 36 percent of educators witnessed anti-LGBTQ+ student bullying, compared to 27 percent in states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies.
- In states with supportive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies, 75 percent of educators reported no restrictions on LGBTQ+-supportive displays, highlighting a substantially more supportive school environment than in states with restrictive policies.
- Educators in states with restrictive LGBTQ+ inclusion policies also reported significant harassment of students based on appearance (57 percent), race or ethnicity (43 percent), sexual orientation (42 percent), and gender identity or expression (39 percent). (No direct comparison figure from supportive-policy states is provided in the data above.)
“Every young person deserves to feel safe and supportive at school, but this report makes clear that for too many LGBTQ+ students, especially transgender youth, are being failed by policies designed to exclude them,” said HRC President Kelley Robinson in the HRC statement.
“We know that when students feel seen, supported, and affirmed, they are more likely to thrive, but when schools become places of exclusion or hostility, young people pay the price through lower engagement, missed opportunities to learn, and poorer mental and physical health,” Robinson said.
The HRC statement notes that the survey findings come at a time when a growing number of states have passed laws targeting LGBTQ students and the school officials and teachers who support them. It says that for the first time, the survey found that “educators themselves are also experiencing anti-LGBTQ+ harassment, highlighting the growing impact of these policies on school staff as well as students.”
The full survey findings and report can be accessed here:
U.S. Supreme Court
Trump asks Supreme Court to allow restrictions on gender-affirming care in prisons
SCOTUS could further restrict rights of trans inmates
The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow its policy limiting gender-affirming treatment for federal inmates to take effect while a legal challenge plays out in court.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the government to continue providing gender-affirming care, such as hormone therapy, which had become policy nearly a decade ago for inmates who were transitioning.
The Trump administration argues in its application that its policy restricting transgender rights was properly adopted and that the judge overstepped, posing nationwide “security and prison-administrative concerns.”
If allowed, the policy would halt surgeries, hormones and social accommodations such as wigs while allowing mental health therapy to continue as the legality of the policy reversal is litigated.
The government also argues in the application that the Bureau of Prisons had “determined that sex-trait-modification surgeries, hormone interventions in general, and social accommodations could no longer be justified as treatment for gender dysphoria.”
American Civil Liberties Union attorneys for the inmates said the policy is “a direct threat to the well-being of transgender people in federal custody and an open violation of their fundamental rights,” and said withholding necessary gender-affirming healthcare constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
The Blade has covered the ongoing developments surrounding changes to Federal Bureau of Prisons transgender inmate policy that went into effect earlier in Trump’s term. The changes primarily focus on rolling back Biden-era protections for trans inmates.
Earlier this year, the Blade published a joint letter from multiple senators in response to the rollback of the policy. Multiple senators — including Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Jeffrey A. Merkley (D-Ore.) and Mazie K. Hirono (D-Hawaii) — sent a letter to Attorney General Todd Blanche and Federal Bureau of Prisons Director William Marshall III calling for them to reverse the policy change, saying it endangers inmates’ health and safety.
The senators described how the policy shift, along with President Trump’s Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” is forcing policy changes they argued are rooted more in political rhetoric than in medical research or evidence-based correctional practices.
Federal Bureau of Prisons responded to the Blade’s request for comment in May, declining to reconsider its transgender inmate policy.
The Blade reached out to the Federal Bureau of Prisons once again over the application to the Supreme Court, but did not hear back before publication.
Federal Government
Education Department rolls back protections for LGBTQ students under Title IX
The DoE policy rescinds Biden-era protections
The Department of Education rolled back a Biden-era Title IX interpretation on Monday that secured sex-based discrimination protections for students on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Title IX was established in 1972 as landmark civil rights law. It prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or any other education program that receives funding from the federal government.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon spoke about the revision of the policy, claiming the decision would explicitly help “women and girls.”
“Thanks to today’s action, the published Title IX regulations faithfully reflect court orders and congressional intent — reducing confusion for parents, students, and educational institutions. We will continue to relentlessly champion equal opportunity for all Americans and hold accountable any school or college that violates the rights, privacy, or athletic opportunities of our women and girls,” McMahon said via press release.
Prior to her work under the Trump-Vance administration, McMahon was a World Wrestling Federation/World Wrestling Entertainment executive before resigning to pursue a career in politics. She was appointed to the Connecticut State Board of Education by then-Gov. Jodi Rell in January 2009, but resigned from her role shortly afterward to run what ultimately became two failed campaigns for Connecticut’s U.S. Senate seat in 2010 and 2012.
A “fact sheet” provided by the Department of Education also called the inclusive sexual assault and gender identity protections expanded under the Biden-Harris unlawful, saying, “This change is necessary to provide clarity in the Code of Federal Regulations so that institutions, administrations, students, and families can see the rules that are actually in force and to help eliminate public confusion about the Biden administration’s unlawful attempt to stretch Title IX’s legal protections to cover ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity.’”
This is not the first time this policy has faced judicial hurdles. While Biden was still in office, the plan was struck down in multiple courts in Republican states.
Opponents of the move say it will harm transgender athletes and weaken protections for sexual assault victims.
“Sexual harassment and assault continue to be pervasive in schools and, to the fullest extent possible, we should be working to enforce the laws that protect student survivors of sexual violence. Yet, Education Secretary Linda McMahon and the Trump administration have decided to ignore what survivors need, instead weaponizing Title IX to attack trans students,” said Shiwali Patel, senior director of education justice at the National Women’s Law Center.
This is a return to a first Trump term policy after Biden issued an executive order to attempt to curb discrimination for all — especially those with different sexual orientations and gender identities — that had been given a pass during Trump’s first term. Much of Title IX’s policy has a narrow vision of what sex protections look like that often and enthusiastically leave gender-diverse and non-heterosexual people out.
In March 2021, President Joe Biden signed Executive Order 14021, “Guaranteeing an Educational Environment Free From Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, Including Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity,” to attempt to undo some of the flagrantly anti-LGBTQ policy the Trump-Pence administration had set forth relating to Title IX protections for LGBTQ students and sexual assault survivors.
The secretary focused this “win” for the administration as one more step toward restricting transgender students from competing in women’s sports, but the 2020 rule, completed under former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, didn’t explicitly ban trans students from participating on sports teams consistent with their gender identity. It did limit the types of sexual harassment and assault complaints that schools had to investigate and required live hearings so male students could respond to accusations.
McMahon didn’t discuss those aspects in her statement or in requests for comment. The 2020 rule drew praise from conservatives and intense opposition from advocates who said it downplayed sexual abuse and left victims unprotected.
In a statement, U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), who chairs the House Education Committee, said, “Returning to the 2020 regulations restores longstanding protections for women and girls that the Biden-Harris administration attempted to dismantle and realigns Title IX policy with court precedents.”
LGBTQ activists have called this decision a direct attack on LGBTQ safety — particularly for trans students who continue to face a barrage of legislative, executive, and judicial attacks in recent years from the Trump-Vance administration.
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy group in the world, released a statement following the DoE’s announcement.
“Title IX is, quite simply, about protecting students and ensuring that they are safe from abuse, harassment, and discrimination while they pursue their education. But Donald Trump and his cronies aren’t interested in any of that,” Robinson said. “Donald Trump’s Department of Education has completely lost sight of that mission. Instead of enforcing protections for students, they’re rescinding them. They don’t care if sexual harassment and assault go unaddressed. And they’re happy to strip funding away from school districts and states that are actually trying to keep students safe.
“We know who will be hurt: women, girls, and others who are vulnerable to sexual harassment, assault and abuse — including LGBTQ+ students. The fact that they’re dropping this rule into place abruptly, without a comment period, denying families, educators, loved ones, and the students themselves a say in how they should be treated, shows how little they care about the safety of our students.
“This is a monstrous injustice, and it drives home how essential it is that we take action at the polls this November to start bringing some accountability to an administration that has turned its back on the very students Title IX was written to protect,” she added.
The Washington Blade reached out to the DoE for comment and questions on whether Title IX protections still included LGBTQ students, and received this email response from Education Spokesman Sabin Sidney:
“Your questions indicate you are clearly missing the entire point of this Final Rule. The Biden Administration illegally rewrote Title IX to include ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identification’ in the definition of sex-based discrimination. The Trump Administration is rescinding this rule—only after every federal court that heard legal challenges rejected it as unlawful.
“Since January 2025, the Department has been enforcing Title IX consistent with the President’s Executive Order grounded in biological truth that there are only two sexes. The Trump Administration is restoring the original promise of Title IX and providing clarity to students, parents, and educational institutions. We will vigorously defend equal opportunity consistent with the law’s intended purpose.”
