Connect with us

National

Barney, speaking frankly

Retiring congressman on state of LGBT movement, coming out in 1987 and his future plans

Published

14 years ago

on

Rep. Barney Frank

Retiring Rep. Barney Frank spoke to the Blade this week about a wide range of topics, including the state of the LGBT movement and his future plans. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Gay U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who announced last week that he won’t run for re-election next year, said the LGBT community has seen an “enormous” amount of progress during his more than 30 years in Congress and would achieve close to full equality in 12 years.

“I think we are on the verge of a very complete victory within a dozen years or so,” he told the Washington Blade in an interview in his office on Tuesday.

“That is, I think the country is supportive. It gets better generationally,” he said. “I don’t think people will be allowed to marry in every state, unfortunately, 10 years from now. I think people in those states where a majority of people live will be allowed to marry and will have full federal rights.”

Frank said he became the first member of Congress to voluntarily disclose he was gay in 1987, six years after taking office in 1981, after he determined staying in the closet was too constraining on his personal life.

“I got there and I thought, OK, well I can be privately out but publicly closeted,” he said. “But it didn’t work. I found it very hard to have a satisfying, healthy emotional and physical life.”

Frank said that during the years he withheld disclosing his sexual orientation, both as a congressman and a member of the Massachusetts State Legislature, he promised himself that he would never hold back on his strong political support for LGBT rights in an effort to conceal his status as a gay person.

“I remember my thought process was, well I can’t be honest about being gay. I wouldn’t win. But it would be despicable for me as a gay man to be any less than fully supportive,” he said.

In a wide-ranging discussion of his views on how the LGBT movement should push for civil rights legislation in Congress and through the states, Frank expressed in the blunt way he has been known to do that LGBT activists should use the most effective means of moving their agenda, even if that sometimes means making compromises.

He described as “political suicide” the call by some LGBT activists and bloggers for withholding support for President Barack Obama on grounds that Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress didn’t push harder for more LGBT legislative advances, including the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, which remains stalled in Congress.

Frank said he has seen important advances in the support for transgender rights in Congress and several states, including Massachusetts, which just passed a transgender non-discrimination bill that includes protections in employment, housing, credit and adds transgender protections to the state’s hate crimes law.

But Frank noted that the bill passed after transgender leaders and their supporters in the legislature agreed to a compromise that eliminated public accommodations protections from the bill. Lawmakers supportive of the bill said they would add public accommodations protections to the law as soon they can line up the votes in the legislature needed to do so.

Frank dismissed as “ridiculous” the attacks by some LGBT activists who called the compromise unacceptable and an outrage against the transgender community.

“That is an example of their political stupidity,” he said, noting that the compromise bill provides employment and housing protections that otherwise would not have passed if advocates held out for an all-or-nothing bill.

Frank described as “reasonable” a proposal by LGBT advocates that President Obama issue an executive order requiring companies that receive federal contracts in the defense and other industries to provide non-discrimination protections for their LGBT employees.

“I think that’s a reasonable thing to keep pushing for,” he said. “There are limits to what you can do. You don’t want the president to overreach from what could be required in legislation. I think that’s worth pushing for if it’s carefully done.”

A transcript of the Blade’s interview with Rep. Frank follows. The interview was conducted on Dec. 6, 2011, in Frank’s Capitol Hill office.

Washington Blade: To what degree have you seen support for LGBT equality increase in the U.S. Congress since you took office as a congressman in 1981?

Rep. Barney Frank: Oh, enormously. When I first got here, the first vote we had was in 1981 when the House – as it was able to do then by a one-house vote – overturned the D.C. Council’s repeal of the [city’s] sodomy law. It was a heavy vote against us. And we’ve just made very great progress since then. It’s to the point where now — and it’s unfortunate that it’s gotten very partisan. The country has gotten much better in its view on LGBT rights. The Democrats have gotten better — equal to or ahead of the country. But the Republicans have gotten much worse. So it’s now one of the major partisan issues. It’s unfortunate how terrible the Republicans have become. You saw that in ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ for instance, in the House. But in general the expectation is the Democrats in the House will be supportive on most issues, and I think that reflects the country.

Blade: What prompted you to come out as gay in 1987?

Frank: First, my personal life. I’ve known I’ve been gay since I was 13. I lived a very repressed life until then. And then, because I had emotional and physical needs that needed an outlet, I got here and I thought, OK, well I can be privately out but publicly closeted. But it didn’t work. I just found it very hard to have a satisfying, healthy emotional and physical life. So it was primarily my personal life. But it was also the secondary factor that I thought it would be helpful in fighting prejudice. One of the things I realized about talking a lot about gay rights – and increasingly by then people knew I was gay. I wasn’t out publicly. I realized they did not understand what it was like, what we went through, what the pain was. But that’s because they didn’t know anybody. It’s hard to sympathize with people when you don’t know who they are. You don’t see what it is.

Blade: Unlike other gay public officials who were in the closet, you didn’t seem to hold back in your public support for gay rights.

Frank: It was quite the opposite. I decided to run for office in 1972 – to run for the state legislature in Massachusetts. And I remember my thought process was, well I can’t be honest about being gay. I wouldn’t win. But it would be despicable for me as a gay man to be any less than fully supportive … There were then two gay groups, a men’s group and a women’s group. And they wrote to everybody who was running for the state legislature in 1972. It was just a couple of years after Stonewall. And for the first time you had organized gay political activity. And they said, ‘Would you introduce legislation to provide legal equality for gay people, which was the term we used then. And I said yes. I was the only one who said yes. So that’s how I became the prime sponsor of the legislation. I was the only one. But I was glad to take on the role. So, yeah, I clearly decided I would not in any way retreat. And I remember the first time I testified on gay rights. I was 32, unmarried. And I thought, well, what are they going to think? And my answer was, oh, the hell with what they think. I was prepared to sacrifice enough not to come out. But I was not prepared to degrade myself by pretending to be anything less than supportive of who I was.

Blade: When you came out in Congress did you sense you were being held back from advancing because of a so-called glass ceiling due to your sexual orientation?

Frank: I think there was one at first. I think, now, yes and no. Certainly it didn’t interfere with my being the chair of a very powerful committee and being, frankly, because of the circumstances, one of the major leaders. In fact I said that on the floor. I remember saying when we were talking about the hate crimes bill, ‘I’m a big shot now but I used to be 15 and I remember what it was like.’ … If I were running for a leadership position it might be a problem in the House. Some of the Democrats come from the few areas left where they’re afraid. But now we have almost all the Democrats on board. We have a handful that aren’t. So no. And the other – I assumed it would have been a bar to [running for] the Senate. But in 2004, when we thought John Kerry might get elected president, we had a mock election for the Senate in Massachusetts. Five of us were running – Congressman Markey, Congressman Lynch, myself, then Congressman Meehan and Martha Coakley, now the attorney general. And we were running and I’ve had people who worked in the other camps say I would have won that race. So if Kerry had been elected president I believe I would have been elected to the Senate in 2004. So I mean other than the presidency and the vice presidency I think there’s probably not one.

Blade: Where does the LGBT movement stand now in its ability to advance legislation?

Frank: We’ve gotten better. I think there’s two good examples of great victories. They didn’t involve demonstrations, they didn’t involve marches. They involved some discretion and some compromising. Deferring to [New York Governor] Andrew Cuomo’s leadership politically in the battle for [same-sex] marriage in New York, and he told them how to do it. And then accepting the exclusion of public accommodations from the trans [non-discrimination bill, which passed in November 2011] in Massachusetts.

Blade: The trans bill in Massachusetts became an issue to some—

Frank: An issue to whom?

Blade: Some of the more outspoken trans activists, who say they are outraged because it includes employment, housing and other protections but not public accommodations protections.

Frank: No, I would say ridiculous trans activists who are outraged, who would prefer there be no rights for employment than this. That is an example of their political stupidity. They may be very bright about other things. I don’t see how anybody can see that as a rational argument right now, nor, by the way, do I think it represents five percent of our community. I don’t even think it represents a majority of the transgender people. How can it possibly be – and by the way, these people don’t know history, because I will tell you that Martin Luther King and the other civil rights leaders would not for a second have hesitated to accept that deal. They were constantly moving toward making things better but those are both examples, I think, of the political maturity of our community – of knowing how to go about it. And I think as a result we are on the verge – well, by the way, we did the same thing with ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ We didn’t abolish ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ We didn’t ban statutorily discrimination against us in the military. We banned the requirement that we discriminate. And there was some, ‘Oh, gee, how do you know they maybe will not do it fairly?’ I think we are on the verge of a very complete victory within a dozen years or so. That is, I think the country is supportive. It gets better generationally. I don’t think people will be allowed to marry in every state, unfortunately, 10 years from now. I think people in those states where a majority of people live will be allowed to marry and will have full federal rights.

Blade: Are you concerned about the provision of DOMA – if it’s repealed – that says the states don’t have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states –

Frank: That doesn’t mean anything. I’ve said this all along. That doesn’t mean anything at all. The court will disregard that. Quite frankly people don’t understand that. That’s a matter of interpreting the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. The Supreme Court will tell Congress, ‘Mind your own business.’ It has nothing to do with you. That is totally meaningless, that section. It doesn’t mean a thing. Congress cannot affect by statute a constitutional interpretation. By the way, the Constitution always was that states did not have to recognize that. When the Supreme Court threw out the law against inter marriage racially it wasn’t based on one state having to recognize another state’s marriage. The assumption was in 1967 that Virginia, which is where the case was brought, didn’t have to recognize a marriage in Europe. So everybody agreed – an African American and a white person can get married in New York and Virginia can disregard it. It was thrown out on constitutional segregation grounds. So in the first place, that’s been the Constitution anyway. Secondly, if it was, Congress would have nothing to do with it. It’s an entirely meaningless provision.

Blade: Some, like Hillary Clinton when she ran for president in 2008, said her husband signed DOMA because it would act as a safeguard against passing a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Frank: That’s nonsense. Her husband signed it because he was afraid politically about what would happen if he didn’t sign it. It has nothing to do with a constitutional amendment. He signed it because it was politically necessary to sign it. And I understood that. The Republicans threw it on his lap three months before the election. [Liberal, gay-supportive Senator] Paul Wellstone [D-Minn.] voted for it. He was up for re-election that year and he was afraid of it. It had nothing to do with stopping a constitutional amendment. And the fact is it does not mean anything. And no good lawyer will tell you it has any meaning whatsoever. This is a matter of the Constitution. It would be like if Congress passed a law saying the 14th Amendment doesn’t mean this or that. No, it’s none of our business what it means or not. We can decide for ourselves what it means, and I can govern my vote. But whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause compels marriage recognition or not is entirely up to the Supreme Court. And clearly up until now they have said it doesn’t.

Blade: Do you have any predictions of what the Supreme Court might do if the Proposition 8 case gets there?

Frank: I think that’s not a good case. I think the better case is Mary Bonauto’s case [the attorney with the LGBT litigation group in Boston, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which is challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, in court on behalf of a same-sex couple.]

Blade: In your 1992 book, “Speaking Frankly: What’s Wrong with the Democrats and How to Fix It,” you said some liberal Democrats unnecessarily alienated voters by being reluctant to “demonstrate that liberals are patriotic supporters of the free-enterprise system who think that hard work should be rewarded and violent criminals severely punished.” Do some of these things still apply today and do they have any relevance to the gay movement?

Frank: Yes, I still believe it’s a mistake, for example, to insist that every Democrat be for gun control. That’s a great loser for us in most of the country. I’ll vote for gun control. But it’s a great loser. I also believe it has to do with – I’ll go back to marriage in New York and the non-discrimination bill in Massachusetts. Yeah, it’s very, very relevant still. You have to be smart about it, that you engage in political activity to advance your goals, not to feel morally superior.

Blade: Everybody’s talking about the presidential election. Are the Republican presidential candidates as horrible as a lot of gay activists are saying they are on LGBT issues?

Frank: Yes – they are. Romney is a total faker, having said he was going to be more pro-gay rights than Ted Kennedy and he’s moved against us on everything, not just on marriage. And Gingrich was the leader of homophobic stuff when he was here. Gingrich was the man who put the Defense of Marriage Act on the agenda in 1996 when he was the Speaker. I don’t know where Huntsman is, but he is irrelevant. It’s the whole Republican Party. On ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ you saw the overwhelming majority of Republicans vote against the defense bill in the House because it included the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ They ordinarily all vote for the defense bill. We did get a couple of votes in the Senate. [Senator] Susan Collins’ [R-Maine] support was very important in that. But in general the Republicans have become a 90 plus percent anti-gay party. By the way, [President George W.] Bush didn’t undo stuff. He wouldn’t do anything good. But I’m not at all confident that a Republican president won’t reinstate ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’

Blade: Is there a chance that the Congress would block that, even if there’s a Republican-controlled House?

Frank: Well Congress couldn’t reinstate it because they would never get it through the Senate and the president would veto it. But if the Republicans win the presidency they don’t need the Congress. The president could reinstate it by executive order.

Blade: Is it completely settled now that every gay civil rights bill will include gender identity and expression protections or it won’t be introduced, whether it would be ENDA or another bill?

Frank: I think it’s unlikely that it wouldn’t but that doesn’t necessarily mean it will pass. I think you’ll see transgender protections included. We’ve made progress on transgender. But my view is the same in that we still have the problem with the situation where people get naked together. But short of that, I think the next time we have a Democratic House, Senate and president – remember, we can only pass pro-LGBT legislation when we have a Democratic House, Senate and president. We’ve only had that twice since Jimmy Carter left office—two years under Bill Clinton and two years under Barack Obama. That’s the exception, not the norm. So the next time we get a Democratic House, Senate and president we’ll be able to pass a transgender-inclusive ENDA. But like the Massachusetts law, probably not allowing full and unrestricted access to locker and shower rooms

Blade: We get emails and calls from some activists saying the Democrats should have been held to a higher standard, that they should have done more on LGBT legislation during the period that they did have the House and Senate and the presidency under Obama.

Frank: Which was?

Blade: Among other things, ENDA.

Frank: We had a transgender inclusive hate crimes bill and a repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ I think that’s pretty good. I wish we had done ENDA. But part of the problem was the community refused to accept the kind of compromise that Massachusetts did. If we had that – one of the things the [House] leadership was worried about was … what are we going to pass the bill for if some of the people who are going to be the beneficiaries are attacking us? So what’s the point of that? People are holding us to a higher standard? Whose standard? Where did you become the standard setter? What we got, as I said, was the president coming out against DOMA and very importantly elevating the level of scrutiny that’s needed for ending discrimination. And we got hate crimes through and we got ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repealed. I think that’s pretty good.

Blade: Many in the community agree with that assessment.

Frank: In general, the people who are complaining — well, what’s their remedy? They’re complaining, what do they want, sympathy? If they’re saying they wish we had more, I do too. Are they saying that’s a reason not to be supporting Barack Obama? That’s political suicide. The next president will probably appoint another Supreme Court justice or two. I don’t see how people can say, oh, we care about the lawsuit for Prop 8, we care about the DOMA lawsuit but let’s make sure that a homophobe will appoint the next Supreme Court justice.

Blade: It’s hard to argue with that.

Frank: Well you raised it.

Blade: Some bloggers and activists have raised it.

Frank: And the answer is that it is suicidal and dumb and self-defeating. Plus, you focus much too much on this. They are a very small percentage of our community and I think that’s a tendency, whether you’re in the media or whether they blog. That is a very small percentage of the community. Do you think most transgender people – Diego would know better than you or I – What do most transgender people in Massachusetts think about the bill?

Diego Sanchez [Frank’s legislative assistant and longtime transgender advocate]: They support it.

Frank: OK.

Blade: A similar situation occurred this year in Maryland when most transgender leaders, including veteran transgender activist Dana Beyer, agreed to a compromise transgender non-discrimination bill that didn’t include public accommodations protections. Beyer was denounced by other trans activists for accepting the compromise.

Frank: Stop paying so much attention to a handful of people with terrible political judgment who are acting out emotionally. They’re only important to you, to be honest. They’re not important me. They’re not important to anyone in the Maryland Legislature.

Blade: What do you think about the possibility of an executive order by President Obama to require defense contractors or any private companies getting government contracts to have a non-discrimination policy for their LGBT employees?

Frank: I think that’s a reasonable thing to keep pushing for. There are limits to what you can do. You don’t want the president to overreach from what could be required in legislation. I think that’s worth pushing for if it’s carefully done.

Blade: To issue that executive order?

Frank: For contractors, yeah, using race as a model. The problem we do have is this. Racial discrimination is embodied in the Constitution and we’re not. So there is more power where race is concerned.

Blade: In terms of your own plans, can you say a little about what you plan to do when you leave Congress?

Frank: I’m going to teach, lecture for money, and write.

Blade: And did you say you don’t plan to become a lobbyist?

Frank: Oh, absolutely not. Now I will still be a supporter and an advocate, but I won’t lobby for money. I will continue to work on LGBT issues but not as a lobbyist for money.

Blade: Would you consider going on the board of one of the prominent national gay groups?

Frank: No, I don’t want to go to any more meetings and vote any more. I’ll do what I can do but I don’t want to go on a board. I’m just looking for freedom from that kind of responsibility. But I will continue to be an advocate and strategist.

Blade: Will you consider testifying on LGBT issues before –

Frank: Remember that for the year 2013 I will be under an ethics one-year pause. But I will be picking up again in 2014.

Blade: That’s an ethics requirement on the Hill?

Frank: One year – I can’t talk to my colleagues for a year about business.

Blade: We just saw a photo of you with your partner James Ready at a White House holiday party this week. You’ve been taking your partner to functions for quite a while. Has that caused any complications or negative political repercussions?

Frank: I read a book that was very important by a man named Charles Hamilton. It was a biography of Adam Clayton Powell. When Adam Clayton Powell got elected to Congress, while he was the third African American, he was the first to be self-respecting. The two before him had accepted segregation in the Congress. When Adam Powell got here, I think it was 1943, he was not allowed to use the House restaurant. He was told he couldn’t use either the restaurant or the swimming pool. He said ‘Screw you,’ and he did it. And what he then did, and this is what my view was. I should not do anything just to make a point. But I shouldn’t not do something because somebody else was trying to make a point. So I have insisted with the three partners I’ve had, but particularly with Jimmy Ready, we do everything everybody else does. He goes to the spouses’ lunches. We travel together. We do everything everybody else does. Not to make a point but because that’s what we want to do and I think we have come a long way in acceptance. I spoke earlier this year at the Bank of America in New York to a meeting of a couple of hundred LGBT people who are in the financial services industry, many of them younger. And Jimmy and I were there and Jimmy and I talked to them. And a couple of them, a number of them, said, boy, it really means a lot to us because you’re working in this financial industry, it’s somewhat conservative, can I put a picture of my girlfriend up on the desk? That’s what a woman said. I said, well, if the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee can bring his partner there, sure. And there’s also another reason. It’s a little easier for them to think of us other than this abstract embodiment of rights. I want them to think of us as flesh-and-blood people who love each other and are physical with each other.

Blade: In the course of your role as chairman of the Financial Services Committee, you were dealing with nation’s leading financial and corporate leaders. Did you sense any attempt by these people to take advantage of you because you were gay?

Frank: No, they didn’t dare. I don’t think most of them wanted to be. But early on, Jimmy and I went to in 2007 or 2008 into Manhattan. We had a series of meetings and Tim Geithner was then president of the New York Federal Reserve. And Jimmy went up to take a nap on Tim Geithner’s couch in his office while I had a meeting with him. But at the time, some guy said the Fed doesn’t yet have an affinity group for gay people. So we fixed that up that day. No, I’ve never sensed any problem.

And Hank Paulson, the then Secretary of the Treasury, to his credit, in his book, in the index, you can find Jimmy’s name. We’ve been out to dinner with him and his wife a couple of times. He and I get along very well. He said at one point the negotiations were breaking down, he was worried. And he knew that if he talked to me we could make a deal. And so he sent his two top guys to find me. He said they went looking for Congressman Frank and they found him on the third floor of the Capitol having dinner with his partner Jim Ready, which was just a gratuitous nice reference. But I’ll also tell you what I said. We had the [House Democratic] caucus [meeting] on hate crimes in 2008 when Judy Shepard [mother of Matthew Shepard, who was murdered in an anti-gay hate crime]. And they asked me about some of the African Americans who were being told by ministers that if we passed a hate crimes bill they would be criminally liable if they said homosexuality was against the Bible, which, of course, is nonsense. So I said let me address this because this has nothing to do with free speech. It’s only a crime if you hit somebody and harm somebody when you commit a crime. So I said let me put it this way. If this bill became law tomorrow it would still be entirely legal to call me a fag. I just wouldn’t recommend it if you were in the banking business. And that was my way of getting it across to my colleagues.

Blade: Is there anything else you’d like to bring up?

Frank: Well there’s one last thing. I think we’re winning. And the public opinion is on our side. But some people say if you’re winning you can take it easy. I say no. When you read military history they say sometimes military leaders make a mistake that they ease up at the point where they’re winning. That’s when you crack down. That’s when you’ve got them on the run. You have to continue to press, because I think we’re on the verge of winning this fight.

Blade: The opponents seem to be saying now, in response to the marriage fight, that society will be seriously harmed if the gay side prevails and gays are allowed to marry. How do you address that?

Frank: And the mainstream media always lets them get away with it. They’re always making these stupid predictions. They never come through. By the way, I give credit to the commandant of the Marine Corps, General [James] Amos, who just admitted that his gloom and doom predictions of six months ago aren’t true. Remember, he’s the guy who opposed repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ He said he was wrong. It was a non-event. But I think we ought to do a better job on that, to get the stupidities that they’ve predicted and show that they weren’t true. I’ve been doing this for a long time. I’ve heard those same predictions about the Equal Rights Amendment for women, about protecting people with disabilities, about gay rights, about race. Any time you talk discrimination they say, well, I don’t dislike those people but it’s going to be chaotic. And it never is. The fact is, unfortunately, given the nature of things, anti-discrimination laws are hard to enforce. The bigots are sophisticated. It’s hard to catch them.

Related Topics:
Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Minnesota

LGBTQ Minnesotans speak out amid ICE crackdowns

‘Our nervous systems are not set up to live under constant threat’

Published

20 hours ago

on

February 2, 2026

By

Thumbnail design by Sophie Holland.

Uncloseted Media published this article on Jan. 31.

By HOPE PISONI, SAM DONNDELINGER, SPENCER MACNAUGHTON, and TAYA STRAUSS | Since the start of December, Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minn., have been under the thumb of an extremely heavy presence of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

During the crackdown, which the agency refers to as “Operation Metro Surge,” at least 3,000 people — mostly undocumented immigrants — have been arrested so far. Tensions came to a boil in January when federal immigration enforcement agents shot and killed poet Renee Good and ICU nurse Alex Pretti on separate occasions. In response, Minneapolis-area residents have started to push back. On Jan. 23, Minnesotans organized the first citywide general strike in the U.S. in nearly 80 years, with tens of thousands protesting and over 700 businesses closing in solidarity. And additional protests are taking place nationwide in at least 36 states over Jan. 30 and 31.

Many queer people have been on the frontline of these protests. We spoke with six people on the ground in the Twin Cities to learn more.

Watch the full interview above or read the transcript here:

SPENCER MACNAUGHTON: Hi everyone, I’m Spencer Macnaughton, and today I am here with six queer folks from the Minneapolis area. Everyone, thank you so much for speaking with me and Uncloseted Media today.

ALL: Thanks for having us.

SM: Yeah, great to be with you. And obviously we reached out to you all based on the headlines. And a lot of what’s playing out at the national level is happening right there in Minneapolis where you guys live. And I just wanted to start to really get a pulse check. How are you guys feeling right now? I have not been in Minneapolis. For folks who only see what’s unfolding on social media or on TV, take us inside what life has been like for you all the past few weeks.

RACHEL DOMINGUEZ: It’s incredibly stressful. Our nervous systems are not set up to live under constant threat. That’s the biggest thing that I think people are not understanding about what’s going on. And I’ve lived in Minneapolis for 41 years. We had a little dress rehearsal for this about five years ago, but it was nothing — there was no precedent. There’s no precedent for this. It’s like water about to come to a boil. Everyone here is stressed out. We’re angry. We’re scared for our safety, for our neighbors’ safety, for our livelihoods. We have no idea when this is gonna stop. Oh, and it’s two fucking degrees out.

JUNE REICHERT: It’s hard to go on like normal when this is happening. Part of my, and I’m sure everybody in your profession, is to not even acknowledge it. Pretend that everything’s okay while you’re at work, while you are going to school, while you are going shopping and everything. And little do you know, down the street, a Somali family is being harassed for no good reason. It brings this feeling of sorrow, especially when it does affect your professional life. When somebody who you’ve been working with for a long time, all of a sudden, as part of my job, I can’t get a hold of them. I work with a lot of people from the Hispanic community and they’re just gone. And you just sit wondering. It’s horrible. It’s a horrible feeling.

SM: And June, tell me more about that. That actually happened?

JH: So for what it’s worth, I sell insurance. I have had clients who have been picked up and I can’t get a hold of them. I mean, I can verify what happened to them, but these people I’m able to get a hold of every single day when I need to, to take care of this, that or the other issue. And now I can’t get a hold of them for a week straight. What am I supposed to think? You know?

SKOT RIEFFER: My day job, I work for a catering company. We have no work at my catering company for the next two months because every single event has canceled because of the ICE occupation. And these events are things from corporate events to weddings. And we’re all now without a job, essentially. My catering company is maybe 30 percent white people and so all of us are checking in with everyone else all the time. One of our folks, also a member of the Hispanic community, has lost four family members. They just got kidnapped. And they’re just gone.

ALICIA KOPP: I am the child of a migrant. I’m from a mixed heritage. My father is from Guatemala. He’s been a citizen since ‘83. Right now, we’re not letting him leave the house. We’re running all errands. The stress that you had spoken to earlier, Rachel, that is definitely wearing thin on all of us.

SM: I mean, what type of mental health effects is that having on him by not being able to leave the house and also probably understanding the reasons why he’s not leaving the house?

AK: When I handed him things like, I showed him what was in a whistle kit with the red cards. This is an emergency contact card. On the inside, the top part says, “help me,” and it’s got whoever’s holding it, their information. The bottom has their loved one and their lawyer and contact information. And they carry this in one of these red cards that on one side has your constitutional rights and on the other side says what you would tell to an immigration agent if they tried to stop you. Or you would just put it up to the window in your car or slip it through, so that you don’t have to talk to them. Now, what good it does? Yeah, I don’t exactly know. Because they’re not exactly following the rules, they kind of tell a lot of people, “That doesn’t matter, we don’t care.” But with this contact card, you have it on you, you literally hand it to somebody if you feel like you’re about to get picked up and say, “I need help. Contact this person for me.” Trying to explain to my dad why, even though he’s a citizen now, I wanted him to have this on him if he’s leaving the house? That was hard. And he was a little belligerent at first. I’m just like, “Look, you’ve kept me alive for 50 fricking years. It’s my turn to do the same for you. And right now, they don’t care that you’re a citizen. They just see you and they go, ‘Yep, we don’t want him here.’ And they’re gonna take you away. You’ll be away from your medicine. You’ll be away from us. It will take us how long to figure out where you are.” Even if it’s like hours, that probably isn’t great for somebody that probably shouldn’t be rassled to the ground by young dumb men or women or whoever they are. But you know, it’s hard. It’s really hard for him and it’s hard for all of us because you don’t wanna have to talk to your parents like that.

TERRESA HARDAWAY: I just wanted to comment on how I’m feeling in this moment, and I would say that while I am tired, I’m not exhausted. And it’s because Black people have always been under occupation. And I’m so happy that people are coming to the realization that state violence and national violence is something that affects all of us. But I gotta say my exhaustion probably comes from the long story posts and the Instagram posts of people realizing for the first time that they are also a part of this system. And they realize that they are also subject to be attacked and to be violently murdered in the street, just like Black people, I think that’s where my exhaustion might come in. But I will say, because we are used to this, I know that this is not gonna be the final moment. I don’t want to hold onto this hopelessness that I feel like a lot of folks who are just coming into that realization are starting to feel on their own. And so we have to just keep fighting. And as tired as we are, now is the time for us to actually push the system that we want to stop harming our neighbors.

SM: And how do you push a system in this moment? What is the strategy in terms of pushing? Because, you know, it does feel like a moment where change could happen because there’s so much attention on it.

TH: There are many, many ways that folks can tap into mutual aid networks, can tap into organizations who have been advocating for immigrant rights and equity in those spaces. If there are holes within our neighborhoods that need to be filled, people need food, people need supplies, and they aren’t comfortable leaving their house, there are organizations who have already been doing that work that people can tap and support. People can become legal observers. There is a lot of things that folks could do. This anxiety that I know that we’re all feeling and this exhaustion? I would say focus that into some of the work that’s already happening.

RD: My kid has only gone to Southside Family School for his entire life. That’s where Renee Good, that’s where her kid went. Still goes there actually. So, our kids, first off, they couldn’t be in school. Because the New York Post ran some bullshit article about how our school was some like communist indoctrination training center that recruited her to join an ICE watch. And then all of a sudden death threats, bomb threats, people coming into the teachers’ houses and knocking on the doors and running away. Bomb threat, they had to bring the dogs in. So my kid didn’t even get to go to school for two weeks and now they’re back in school in a secret location. Like this is the fucking Taliban that we’re hiding from.

SM: Wow.

RD: I can’t even say where my kid goes to school. We’re not even supposed to text it.

SM: I’m sorry you have to do that. And I, yeah, and we’ve all seen those harrowing headlines and images of children as young as 2, as young as 5, being taken by ICE over the last few weeks. I wanted to ask more broadly, for the kids you guys know in your life, what is the impact this is having on children?

AK: A lot of stuff for kids are being canceled. I know that the Minnesota Orchestra has canceled their Young People’s Concert Series for the time being because it’s just not safe to go down there. The students that auditioned last spring to be part of the All State Ensembles, all of their concerts have been canceled because it is just not safe.

SR: My partner and I have started doing neighborhood patrols because there’s a daycare two houses down from ours that caters to our small little, poor community around here and everything like that. And so there’s a lot of different folks who go to this daycare. And so every morning from 7:30 ‘til 10, I’m out there, and then from 3 until 5, which is the pickup times. And so we’re out there as observers.

And there’s been some real scary things, and one thing that is really burned in my head was this dad came up and was chatting with me and thanking me for being there and whatnot. He said to me that his kid, his daughter came up to him and asked him, “Dad, what do I do when the men come and take my friends?” And he didn’t have an answer and he was like, “I feel like my job as a dad is to be able to answer these questions and I do not have an answer” and he was sitting there, and we’re outside, it’s –10 and he’s crying. And I’m crying. And our tears are freezing to our damn faces and all I can do is just nod and hug this guy and just be like “yeah, I don’t have an answer either, man.”

SM: You mentioned the ICE patrolling. Tell me about what that is, what you do and why you’re doing it.

SR: We’re just looking for suspicious vehicles. So if out-of-state plates, a slew of identical looking SUVs drive by, we’re marking it, we’re reporting it to the other people in our Signal groups and everything like that. And then in the situation, just the other day, there were three black SUVs that drove by, all of them with ICE agents in full equipment, everything. So we reported all of that. We’re monitoring, we’re taking pictures, we are marking plates, we’re running plates if needed, and just letting every — like there’s a Hmong Market just down the road, and so we let them know. There’s a small, kind of a strip mall that’s almost all owned by people of color, and we call one of them and then they distribute the word and they’ll lock their doors if we see anyone. Just things like that.

SM: When you say you report it, who do you trust right now to report to?

SR: Our neighbors.

SM: Your neighbors.

SR: We have a Signal group, I’m part of several Signal groups. I will get called. Someone will tell me and be like, “hey, we need a big white guy here right now.” And I will show up. And then when I get there, I see things, I take pictures, I send it to that group and I send it to my group of my immediate block of neighbors. And so then they all know, and then they’ll either go check on the neighbors next door who didn’t respond in the group or will drive to the daycare or whatever is needed to do.

SM: Maybe this is a dumb question, but why do you think they’re saying “we need a big white guy”?

SR: I mean, I’m just as likely to get shot and killed and kidnapped and everything as anybody else at this point. But if they’re trying to push the agenda that these types of people are bad people and whatnot, and if in every camera frame that they have, if there’s someone who looks just like you? That bullshit narrative, it’s harder for them to sell it. If I’m standing there, it’s harder for them to sell it. And I hate it. It sucks on so many levels, obviously.

SM: Can people talk about what they’re doing to push back?

TH: Yeah. I think for me and my teams at Blackbird Revolt and Black Garnet Books, we have these spaces. And so this is something that we didn’t have in 2020. And so being able to activate these spaces, hosting a poster making and community space for folks to come together who do feel similarly and just want to be in space with each other has been really amazing. We are also holding a drive where folks can purchase a book, that’s either in English, Spanish or Somali, that we’re able to deliver to families that don’t feel comfortable leaving their homes.

RD: The people here, we don’t have any faith in the politicians, that they’re going to do anything meaningful or that they have any power at all. We don’t have any faith that the police are going to protect us or that the National Guard is gonna protect us or that Tim Walz or Jacob Frey or any of them are gonna be able to protect us.

SM: Why don’t you feel like you have faith in Jacob Frey? I mean, when I see him on TV and he’s saying “get the hell out,” it seems like he’s giving his best effort, but is that a sentiment that is not felt on this call?

SR: It’s super fucking easy to say “get the fuck out.” We’re all saying that, but all of us are also in the street. All of us are also helping, donating food, donating time. Where the fuck has he been?

TH: I’m seeing the real people who are standing up for these communities out at the protest. I ain’t never once seen that man and that man just stay talking shit and never moves and never has any action behind it. Fuck that man. Fuck all of this whole, “get the fuck out.” Stop, anybody can say a cuss word, but you actually have the power to pass policy and you’re not doing it. So it’s not about not having faith. We have a history of seeing them say shit and then not backing that up with action. So it’s not about faith. We have a historical record of y’all not doing shit for the people.

SM: So let me ask then quickly, what do you want him to do? What could he do that would be meaningful right now if he could actually do, that’s within his power?

JH: If you don’t want to start a constitutional crisis by arresting an ICE officer while he’s doing the awful things that he’s doing, fine, I guess. I would argue differently.

RD: No, that’s not fine. That’s what they should do. That’s what they could do.

JH: Correct.

RD: They could get some fucking balls and call the commanders into their office and say, “Look, are you loyal to the constitution or are you a Nazi that’s gonna fold?”

JH: If these people want to preserve whatever level of normalcy that we know has not existed as Rachel, Terry and Alicia have all described, then citations, parking violations, trespassing violations, these people are using their administrative warrants, that are not admissible to use to enter people’s homes, to enter people’s homes. And they aren’t getting trespassing citations for that. They aren’t getting charged for that, I don’t even think the mayor has talked about the fact that they’re doing that. And these are all things that are actions that can be done instead of tweeting really hard. I want action. I don’t want words. I don’t want you to look like a big tough guy and to get all the people on Twitter or Bluesky or whatever to go, “Oh, he owned him.” I want them gone. I don’t want them here anymore.

SR: He could at the very least talk to us. All he’s doing right now is talking to the media. Talk to us, show up. Maybe he’s doin’ shit behind closed doors. Okay fine, but tell us. Talk to us. Come out, listen. Talk. Be present.

SOREN ASTER: One thing we did at the clay pit as well is I changed it to appointment only. I did as much research as I could on how to keep ICE from coming into the public space of my business, and I found that by making it by appointment only, the whole space becomes private and they cannot come in. So my door stays locked. I let people in as I see fit, but just as another form of precaution, keeping those doors locked. It’s an absolute nightmare.

SM: It literally sounds like it’s created a situation where every move you make is nerve-wracking because of what’s happening.

SA: Absolutely.

SM: I’ve heard many people saying that what’s unfolding in Minneapolis is a queer story. And I find that interesting. And I’m curious, do you guys agree with that?

JH: I want to push back a lot on the idea that this is a very queer thing that’s happening. As a transgender person, I’ve been a community activist for quite a while, especially in 2022 when the federal government, from my perspective, was failing to protect my trans siblings in states like Florida and Texas. There’s a lot of my activism that I do that is directly fueled by my queer identity. My neighbors, my friends, my colleagues, my clients even, are being attacked by a force that is an invasion to our city and our state. And it is on me as a human with human emotions and a personal connection to this place to protect my community, and that’s got nothing to do with me being gay. The motivation is, in this instance, for one of a very rare time in my experience, very disconnected from my queer identity. It’s got more to do with protecting Minnesotans. It’s got more to deal with protecting communities, immigrant communities and communities of color who people who look like me, as we’ve discussed here, famously just don’t even bat an eye at, and it’s wrong.

SA: I don’t think it’s an inherently queer thing, but I think that queer people and Black and Brown people are used to having to rely on our community, rather than our government and other people to get the things that we need and to get the support and to make things happen. We’re used to having to riot, and we’re used to having to scream and try and get people to listen to us and our stories. And so I think when this started. The first people that really knew what to do and how to do it and how to organize are those people. And so I think that it’s one part of the story.

SM: One thing we had mentioned earlier is what happened in Minnesota in 2020. Many have compared what’s happening now to the George Floyd protests of 2020. Um, how do you guys compare it? How is it different? How’s it similar?

AK: The big difference? We knew who the police were, we kind of know who these people are, but we don’t know who those people are. We know that they are some of the same people that were let out of the Jan. 6 stuff because of the pardon. And we know they’re likely a lot of the cops that left the profession because they couldn’t beat up on people so freely in Minneapolis anymore with some of the initiatives that have been trying to change the culture of our police forces.

Editor’s Note: While some government officials, including U.S. Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) have called for the DOJ to release information on any participants of the Jan. 6 insurrection employed by ICE, no details have been published. Additionally, several police chiefs and sheriffs have reported that ICE has tried to poach their officers for recruitment, but Uncloseted Media was unable to confirm any cases of this in Minneapolis.

TH: I think for me, I compare it to the longevity of support that’s gonna be happening. I think that after a year, after the protests, after the uprisings, it went back to business as normal, business as usual. I’m also a runner. And so when I’m gonna run a short distance, if I know I’m just trying to get a fast-ass time running a mile, I’m gonna run at that at full velocity. And I feel like people who are just getting activated, that’s what they’re doing. They’re running at it at full velocity and then they get exhausted. Y’all need to run this as if it’s gonna be a 50 mile race. I think for me, how I was activated during the uprisings, I’m really leaning on community. I am texting my group of white allies and being like, “Y’all, I need y’all to pick this up. I need you to help me here, dah dah dah.”

JH: It is unfortunate to me that many people, similar to in 2020 and 2021, will see the immediate aftermath of something and see Derek Chauvin got arrested or whatever it is, and they’re done. And that’s it. And we made the change. And now we can go back. It’s a joke in my community: We can go back to brunch. No we can’t. We’re not done. And they think once ICE is out of Minneapolis and the white people stop dying, then they can just go back to sipping their tea. And I’m worried about that. So it’s a push and pull, and I really want to remain optimistic, and I know there is a future worth fighting for. But I’m also worried that some people will see the short-term victories and give up.

SM: Trump has said that Minnesotan protesters are “left-wing agitators.” I want to know, maybe as a last question, I want to know, how important is protest and what else is getting you through right now?

AK: Well, protest is very important to me, but also understanding the multitude of ways that you can participate in protest. You don’t have to be out necessarily facing off with people that are on an opposing side. You are doing protest by maybe doing a Zoom concert because your concert got canceled and you’re still going to play. Or by delivering food for neighbors and other health and home needs, like laundry detergent is a huge one right now that people need as well as just things like shampoo and soap.

SA: All of the reactions that have happened are really logical when you think about it from an outside perspective. If you take out left and right and the political ideologies of it all, people are coming in and abducting people that are here, mostly not committing crimes. A lot of people, perfectly legal. In any other situation, I think the logical answer would be to fight back and to step up to your community and do what you can to prevent those kidnappings and to prevent that violence from happening.

TH: Protests were so important that it is the first amendment. And so when we get asked things like, “Why are we protesting?” The country was founded on that. I don’t want people to just only relate it to Black people or just to trans people. It was something that was laid at the foundation of this country. We do get to say what we want our government to do and protest is our way of being able to speak out about that. And if you weren’t comfortable with that, you shouldn’t have ran for president.

Continue Reading

Florida

AIDS Healthcare Foundation sues Fla. over ‘illegal’ HIV drug program cuts

Tens of thousands could lose access to medications

Published

4 days ago

on

January 30, 2026

By

(Photo by Catella via Bigstock)

Following the slashing of hundreds of thousands of dollars from Florida’s AIDS Drug Assistance Program, AIDS Healthcare Foundation filed a lawsuit against the Florida Department of Health over what it says was an illegal change to income eligibility thresholds for the lifesaving program.

The Florida Department of Health announced two weeks ago that it would make sweeping cuts to ADAP, dramatically changing how many Floridians qualify for the state-funded medical coverage — without using the formal process required to change eligibility rules. As a result, AHF filed a petition Tuesday in Tallahassee with the state’s Division of Administrative Hearings, seeking to prevent more than 16,000 Floridians from losing coverage.

The medications covered by ADAP work by suppressing HIV-positive people’s viral load — making the virus undetectable in blood tests and unable to be transmitted to others.

Prior to the eligibility change, the Florida Department of Health covered Floridians earning up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level — or $62,600 annually for an individual. Under the new policy, eligibility would be limited to those making no more than 130 percent of the federal poverty level, or $20,345 per year.

The National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors estimates that more than 16,000 patients in Florida will lose coverage under the state’s ADAP because of this illegal change in department policy. Florida’s eligibility changes would also eliminate access to biktarvy, a widely used once-daily medication for people living with HIV/AIDS.

Under Florida law, when a state agency seeks to make a major policy change, it must either follow a formal rule-making process under the Florida Administrative Procedure Act or obtain direct legislative authorization.

AHF alleges the Florida Department of Health did neither.

Typically, altering eligibility for a statewide program requires either legislative action or adherence to a multistep rule-making process, including: publishing a Notice of Proposed Rule; providing a statement of estimated regulatory costs; allowing public comment; holding hearings if requested; responding to challenges; and formally adopting the rule. According to AHF, none of these steps occurred.

“Rule-making is not a matter of agency discretion. Each statement that an agency like the Department of Health issues that meets the statutory definition of a rule must be adopted through legally mandated rule-making procedures. Florida has simply not done so here,” said Tom Myers, AHF’s chief of public affairs and general counsel. “The whole point of having to follow procedures and rules is to make sure any decisions made are deliberate, thought through, and minimize harm. Floridians living with HIV and the general public’s health are at stake here and jeopardized by these arbitrary and unlawful DOH rule changes.”

AHF has multiple Ryan White CARE Act contracts in Florida, including four under Part B, which covers ADAP. More than 50 percent of people diagnosed with HIV receive assistance from Ryan White programs annually.

According to an AHF advocacy leader who spoke with the Washington Blade, the move appears to have originated at the state level rather than being driven by the federal government — a claim that has circulated among some Democratic officials.

“As far as we can tell, Congress flat-funded the Ryan White and ADAP programs, and the proposed federal cuts were ignored,” the advocacy leader told the Blade on the condition of anonymity. “None of this appears to be coming from Washington — this was initiated in Florida. What we’re trying to understand is why the state is claiming a $120 million shortfall when the program already receives significant federal funding. That lack of transparency is deeply concerning.”

Florida had the third-highest rate of new HIV infections in the nation in 2022, accounting for 11 percent of new diagnoses nationwide, according to KFF, a nonprofit health policy research organization.

During a press conference on Wednesday, multiple AHF officials commented on the situation, and emphasized the need to use proper methods to change something as important as HIV/AIDS coverage availability in the sunshine state. 

“We are receiving dozens, hundreds of calls from patients who are terrified, who are confused, who are full of anxiety and fear,” said Esteban Wood, director of advocacy, legislative affairs, and community engagement at AHF. “These are working Floridians — 16,000 people — receiving letters saying they have weeks left of medication that keeps them alive and costs upwards of $45,000 a year. Patients are asking us, ‘What are we supposed to do? How are we supposed to survive?’ And right now, we don’t have a good answer.”

“This decision was not done in the correct manner. County health programs, community-based organizations, providers across the state — none of them were consulted,” Wood added. “Today is Jan. 28, and we have just 32 days until these proposed changes take effect. Nearly half of the 36,000 people currently on ADAP could be disenrolled in just over a month.”

“Without this medication, people with HIV get sicker,” Myers said during the conference. “They end up in emergency rooms, they lose time at work, and they’re unable to take care of their families. Treatment adherence is also the best way to prevent new HIV infections — people who are consistently on these medications are non-infectious. If these cuts go through, you will have sicker people, more HIV infections, and ultimately much higher costs for the state.”

“Patients receiving care through Ryan White and ADAP have a 91 percent viral suppression rate, compared to about 60 percent nationally,” the advocacy leader added. “That’s as close to a functional cure as we can get, and it allows people to live healthy lives, work, and contribute to their communities. Blowing a hole in a program this successful puts lives at risk and sets a dangerous precedent. If Florida gets away with this, other states facing budget pressure could follow.”

The lawsuit comes days after the Save HIV Funding campaign pressed Congress to build bipartisan support for critical funding for people living with or vulnerable to HIV. In May of last year, President Donald Trump appeared to walk back his 2019 pledge to end HIV as an epidemic, instead proposing the elimination of HIV prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and housing services in his budget request to Congress.

House appropriators, led by the Republican majority, went further, calling for an additional $2 billion in cuts — including $525 million for medical care and support services for people living with HIV. 

While Senate appropriators ultimately chose to maintain level funding in their version of the spending bills, advocates feared final negotiations could result in steep cuts that would reduce services, increase new HIV infections, and lead to more AIDS-related deaths. The final spending package reflected a best-case outcome, with funding levels largely mirroring the Senate’s proposed FY26 allocations.

“What the state has done in unilaterally announcing these changes is not following its own rules,” Myers added. “There is a required process — rule-making, notice and comment, taking evidence — and none of that happened here. Before you cut 16,000 people off from lifesaving medication, you have to study the harms, ask whether you even have the authority to do it, and explore other solutions. That’s what this lawsuit is about.”

Continue Reading

National

Federal authorities arrest Don Lemon

Former CNN anchor taken into custody two weeks after Minn. church protest

Published

4 days ago

on

January 30, 2026

By

Don Lemon (Screenshot via YouTube)

Federal authorities on Thursday arrested former CNN anchor Don Lemon in Los Angeles.

CNN reported authorities arrested Lemon after 11 p.m. PT while in the lobby of a hotel in Beverly Hills, Calif., while he “was leaving for an event.” Lemon’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, in a statement said his client was in Los Angeles to cover the Grammy Awards.

Authorities arrested Lemon less than two weeks after he entered Cities Church in St. Paul, Minn., with a group of protesters who confronted a pastor who works for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (An ICE agent on Jan. 7 shot and killed Renee Good, a 37-year-old Minneapolis woman who left behind her wife and three children. U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents on Jan. 24 shot and killed Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old nurse who worked for the Department of Veterans Affairs, in Minneapolis.)

Lemon insists he was simply covering the Cities Church protest that interrupted the service. A federal magistrate last week declined to charge the openly gay journalist in connection with the demonstration.

“Don Lemon was taken into custody by federal agents last night in Los Angeles, where he was covering the Grammy awards,” said Lowell in his statement. “Don has been a journalist for 30 years, and his constitutionally protected work in Minneapolis was no different than what he has always done. The First Amendment exists to protect journalists whose role it is to shine light on the truth and hold those in power accountable.”

“Instead of investigating the federal agents who killed two peaceful Minnesota protesters, the Trump Justice Department is devoting its time, attention and resources to this arrest, and that is the real indictment of wrongdoing in this case,” Lowell added. “This unprecedented attack on the First Amendment and transparent attempt to distract attention from the many crises facing this administration will not stand. Don will fight these charges vigorously and thoroughly in court.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi on X confirmed federal agents “at my direction” arrested Lemon and three others — Trahern Jeen Crews, Georgia Fort, and Jamael Lydell Lundy — “in connection with the coordinated attack on Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota.”

Fort is also a journalist.

Lemon, who CNN fired in 2023, is expected to appear in court in Los Angeles on Friday.

“Freedom of the press is a cornerstone of a free society; it is the tool by which Americans access the truth and hold power to account. But Donald Trump and Pam Bondi are at war with that freedom — and are threatening the fundamentals of our democracy,” said Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson on Friday in a statement. “Don Lemon and Georgia Fort were doing their jobs as reporters. Arresting them is not law enforcement it is an attack on the Constitution at a moment when truthful reporting on government power has never been more important. These are the actions of a despot, the tactics of a dictator in an authoritarian regime.”

Continue Reading

Popular