Javier Milei’s rise to power marked a sea change in Argentine politics that profoundly impacted the country’s LGBTQ community.

His first year in office has seen a combination of hostile rhetoric and concrete measures that have dismantled historic advances in human rights.

“Javier Milei’s administration is fighting a two-way battle,” Congressman Esteban Paulón, a long-time LGBTQ activist, pointed out to the Washington Blade. “On the one hand, symbolically, with an openly homo, lesbo and transodiant discourse, and on the other, in concrete facts, such as the closure of the Ministry of Women, Gender and Diversity, and INADI (the National Institute Against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism).”

The decision to eliminate these key institutions sent a clear message: Diversity policies are no longer a state priority. This dismantling left LGBTQ Argentines without national advocacy tools.

Some provinces have tried to fill this void, but many others have followed the national government’s lead. This trend, according to Paulón and other activists, has left LGBTQ Argentines even more vulnerable.

“What we are seeing is not only a setback in public policies, but also a direct attack on the dignity of thousands of people who, until recently, felt the support of the state,” said Paulón. 

One of Milei administration’s first acts was to close the Women, Gender and Diversity Ministry and INADI. These decisions, which Milei said was necessary to reduce “unnecessary public spending,” eliminated agencies that played an essential role in the promotion of human rights and the fight against discrimination.

“Without these institutions, the LGBTQ community has been left unprotected against violence and prejudice. Now, discrimination cases that used to be handled by INADI end up shelved or without follow-up,” Paulón warned. “The message this sends is that our lives don’t matter to this government.”

Paulón and other activists say one of the Milei government’s most alarming decisions is to allow employers to fire employees without legal consequences.

“Today, a person can be fired because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, without the possibility of recovering their job,” warned Paulón. 

The new policy has left many employees — especially transgender people — without legal recourse. Advocacy groups say companies have taken advantage of this regulation to carry out selective firings. The freezing of a trans-specific labor quota has deepened employment discrepancies for one of the country’s most vulnerable communities.

Paulón told the Blade that anti-LGBTQ rhetoric from Milei and several of his ministers has also had an effect on Argentine society.

“Today, anyone feels they can say anything without consequences,” said Paulón, who noted that ultraconservative and religious sectors view Milei’s government as an ally. 

This rhetoric, according to Paulón, has yet to translate into widespread violence.

“We are not yet in a situation of systematic violence as in other countries, but the risk is there,” he said. “Every word of hate from power legitimizes violent actions.”

Congress, civil society leads resistance

In the face of this adverse scenario, resistance has taken various forms.

Paulón and other opposition lawmakers have worked on bills to protect LGBTQ rights and reverse regressive measures.

“We will not stand idly by. We put forward concrete proposals to guarantee access to health care, inclusive education and labor protections,” said Paulón.

Activists have strengthened alliances with their counterparts in neighboring countries, such as Brazil and Chile, and Mexico. They are also working with international organizations that have expressed concern about the situation in Argentina.

Although the outlook is bleak, Paulón said he remains hopeful. 

“Milei is going to pass, like all processes in democracy,” he said. 

Paulón stressed that marriage equality and the transgender rights law are deeply rooted in Argentine society, and act as barriers to stop further setbacks. The challenge now, he says, is to maintain resistance, organize the community, and strengthen international ties.

“We have an organized movement, tools to defend ourselves and a mostly plural and diverse society. This process will also come to an end,” said Paulón. “In this context, the struggle for LGBTQ rights in Argentina is a reminder that social conquests are never definitive and that resistance is vital to preserve the achievements made.” 

Ugandan Foreign Affairs Minister Henry Oryem has revealed U.S. and EU sanctions over the country’s Anti-Homosexuality Act and other human rights violations have pushed Kampala to join the BRICS bloc.

Oryem noted Western powers’ decision to sanction other countries without U.N. input is against international norms, and Uganda needed to shield itself from such actions by aligning with the bloc that includes China, Russia, India, South Africa, Brazil, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, Iran, and Indonesia. (Consensual same-sex sexual relations remain criminalized in the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Ethiopia. Iran is among the countries in which consensual same-sex sexual relations remain punishable by death.)

Kampala officially became a BRICS member on Jan. 1, joining eight other countries whose applications for admission were approved last October during the bloc’s 16^th annual summit in Kazan, Russia.  

“The United States and European Union, whenever they impose sanctions, expect all those other countries to make sure they abide by those sanctions and if you don’t, you face penalties or even they sanction you,” Oryem said. 

Oryem spoke before parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday.

MPs asked him to explain the circumstances that led Uganda to join BRICS and the country’s financial obligation from the membership.      

“Now because of that and the recent events, you have realized that the United States and European Union have started freezing assets of countries in their nations without UN resolutions which is a breach of international world order,” Oryem said. “Uganda can’t just standby and look at these changes and not be part of these changes. It will not be right.”

Oryem also said President Yoweri Museveni’s Cabinet discussed and approved the matter before he directed the Foreign Affairs Ministry to write to the BRICS Secretariat about admitting Uganda into the bloc.

The U.S. and other Western governments condemned Museveni’s decision to sign the Anti-Homosexuality Act, and announced a series of sanctions against Kampala. 

Washington, for example, imposed visa restrictions on government officials who championed the Anti-Homosexuality Act, re-evaluated its foreign aid and investment engagement with Uganda, including the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), and reviewed Kampala’s duty-free trade with the U.S. under the African Growth and Opportunity Act for sub-Saharan African countries.

The U.S. in May 2024 imposed sanctions on House Speaker Anita Among and four other senior Ugandan government officials accused of corruption and significant human rights violations.

Although the EU criticized the enactment of the Anti-Homosexuality Act, the 27-member bloc did not sanction Kampala, despite pressure from queer rights activists. The state-funded Uganda Human Rights Commission and several other human rights groups and queer activists, meanwhile, continue to pressure the government to withdraw implementation of the law.

UHRC Chair Mariam Wangadya, who called on the government to decriminalize homosexuality last month, has said her commission has received reports that indicate security officers who enforce the Anti-Homosexuality Act have subjected marginalized communities to discrimination and inhuman and degrading treatment

“As a signatory to several international and regional human rights conventions, Uganda is committed to ensuring non-discrimination and equality before the law,” Wangadya said.  “At the domestic level, Uganda’s constitution, under Article 21, prohibits discrimination based on gender, ensuring equality before the law, regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, or social status.”

Museveni’s son comes out against Anti-Homosexuality Act

Museveni’s son, Army Chief General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, has also emerged as a critic of the Anti-Homosexuality Act.

“I was totally shocked and very hurt. Japanese are warriors like us. I respect them very much. I asked them how we were oppressing them. Then they told me about the AHA,” he said on X on Jan. 3 while talking about how the Japanese questioned him over Uganda’s persecution of queer people during his recent visit to Tokyo. “Compatriots, let’s get rid of that small law. Our friends around the world are misunderstanding us.”

Kainerugaba, who is positioning himself as Museveni’s successor, had already declared an interest in running for president in 2026 before he withdrew last September in favor of his 80-year-old father who has been in power for more than three decades.

In his X post, Kainerugaba also indicated that “we shall remove this Anti-Homosexuality Act in 2026.” He left the platform six days later after his posts threatened Uganda’s diplomatic relations.

“They (gays) are sick people, but since the Creator made them … what do we do? Even ‘kiboko’ (whips) might not work. We shall pray for them,” Kainerugaba said. 

The Supreme Court is currently considering a case that challenges the Anti-Homosexuality Act. The Constitutional Court last April upheld the law.

The Indian Supreme Court on Jan. 9 rejected a series of petitions that challenged its 2023 ruling against marriage equality

A 5-judge bench — Justices Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, Surya Kant, Bengaluru Venkataramiah Nagarathna, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, and Dipankar Datta — said there were no errors in the ruling that justified a review.

A five-judge Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, on Oct. 17, 2023, in a 3-2 decision ruled against recognizing the constitutional validity of same-sex marriages in India.

The court emphasized it is parliament’s rule to decide whether to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. It also acknowledged its function is limited to interpreting laws, not creating them.

The judges on Jan. 9 stated they had reviewed the original rulings.

“We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record,” they said. “We further find that the view expressed in both the judgments is in accordance with law and as such, no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the review petitions are dismissed.”

A new bench of judges formed on July 10, 2024, after Justice Sanjiv Khanna unexpectedly recused himself from hearing the appeals, citing personal reasons. The reconstituted bench included Narasimha, who was part of the original group of judges who delivered the ruling.

“The fact that we have lost is a comma and not a full stop for equality,” said Harish Iyer, a prominent LGBTQ rights activist in India and one of the plaintiffs of marriage equality case. “The admission of review petitions is a rarity, and while we will proceed with all legal recourses available this is not the only fight.”

Some of the plaintiffs in November 2023 appealed the Supreme Court’s original decision. Udit Sood and other lawyers who had represented them in the original marriage equality case filed the appeal.

The appeal argued the ruling contained “errors apparent on the face of the record,” and described the earlier ruling as “self-contradictory and manifestly unjust.” It criticized the court for acknowledging the plaintiffs face discrimination, but then dismissing their claims with “best wishes for the future,” contending this approach fails to fulfill the court’s constitutional obligations toward queer Indians and undermines the separation of powers envisioned in the constitution. The appeal also asserted the majority ruling warrants review because it summarily dismissed established legal precedents and made the “chilling declaration” that the constitution does not guarantee a fundamental right to marry, create a family, or form a civil union.

While speaking to the Washington Blade, Iyer said this setback is a reminder that our futures can be shaped by collaboration and numerous small victories along the way.

“We will have a multi-pronged approach,” he said. “We need to speak to parents groups, teachers, police personnel, doctors, and medical staff, news reporters, podcasters, grassroots activists, activists from allied movements, our local/state and national level elected representatives. We all need to do our bit in our circle of influence. These small waves will create a force that will help us propel toward marriage equality.”

Iyer told the Blade he is confident the community will achieve marriage equality within his lifetime, offering assurance to every queer individual.

“I just hope that I am not too old to find someone to marry with by then.”

As per the Supreme Court’s rules, a ruling is reviewed only if there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, the discovery of new evidence, or any reason equivalent to these two. Justices typically consider appeals without oral arguments, circulating them among themselves in chambers. The same set of justices who issued the original ruling typically rules on the appeal. In this case, however, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and S. Ravindra Bhat, and Chandrachud, who were part of the original bench, had retired.

Souvik Saha, founder of Jamshedpur Queer Circle, an LGBTQ organization that conducts sensitization workshops with law enforcement and local communities, described the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeal as not just a legal setback, but a significant blow to the hopes of millions of LGBTQ people across India. He said the decision perpetuates a sense of exclusion, denying the community the constitutional promise of equality under Article 14 and the right to live with dignity under Article 21.

“This decision comes at a time when global momentum on marriage equality is growing,” said Saha, noting Taiwan and more than 30 other countries around the world have extended marriage rights to same-sex couples. “The lack of recognition in India, despite the 2018 Navtej Johar judgement — decriminalizing homosexuality, leaves the LGBTQ community in a vulnerable position.”

Saha further noted in Jharkhand, a state in eastern India where socio-cultural stigmas run deep, the Supreme Court’s refusal highlights the fight for equality is far from over.

He shared the Jamshedpur Queer Circle recently supported a young lesbian couple who were disowned by their families and faced threats when attempting to formalize their relationship. Saha stressed that without legal safeguards, such couples are left without recourse, underscoring the urgent need for marriage equality to ensure protection and recognition for LGBTQ people.

“While the decision delays progress, it cannot halt the movement for equality,” said Saha. “Marriage equality is inevitable in a country where nearly 60 percent of Indians aged 18-34 believe that same-sex couples should have the right to marry (Ipsos LGBT+ Pride Survey, 2021.) This ruling highlights the need to shift our advocacy strategy towards building a stronger case for social and political change.”

Saha proposed several calls to action and strategies for moving forward.

He emphasized to the Blade the need for mobilizing the community through state-level consultations and storytelling campaigns to humanize the issue of marriage equality. Saha also highlighted the importance of developing stronger petitions, supported by case studies, international precedents, and data to effectively address judicial concerns.

Saha suggested working with allies in civil society and corporate India to push for incremental changes. He advocated for engaging policymakers in dialogue to promote legislative reforms, emphasizing the economic benefits of inclusion. Saha also called for campaigns to counter misinformation and prejudice, while establishing counseling and support groups for LGBTQ people and their families that provide guidance and support.

“Legal recognition of marriage is not just about ceremony; it is about the basic rights, dignity, and respect that every individual deserves,” said Saha. “Together, through collective action, we will ensure that the arc of justice bends in our favor.”

Indrani Chakraborty, an LGBTQ activist and mother of Amulya Gautam, a transgender student from Guwahati in Assam state, described the Supreme Court’s appeal denial as an “insensitive approach.”

“Love and commitment are emotions that can never be under boundaries. Rejection of same-sex marriage is an oppressive approach towards the LGBTQI+ community,” said Chakraborty. “This is discrimination. Marriage provides social and legal security to the couple and that should be irrespective of gender. Same-sex relationships will be there as always even with or without any constitutional recognition. The fight should go on, as I believe, this validates the intention. The community needs to stand bold, and equality be achieved.”