Politics
Floyd Abrams: GOP-backed Fla. bill targeting the press is ‘plainly inconsistent with’ First Amendment
LGBTQ groups have criticized measure
A bill by Florida Republicans that would relax the standards required for public officials to sue journalists and media organizations for libel is “plainly inconsistent with the First Amendment” according to the acclaimed attorney and constitutional law expert Floyd Abrams.
“The statute is a frontal attack” on the U.S. Supreme Court’s longstanding interpretation of the principles “governing First Amendment libel law as it currently exists,” Abrams told the Washington Blade by phone on Wednesday.
Abrams has represented parties in litigation before the Supreme Court more than a dozen times in some of the most important and high-profile First Amendment cases brought over the last 50 years, which has led to landmark rulings including on matters governing press freedoms.
Abrams is senior counsel at Cahill Gordon and Reindel, the multinational law firm where he has worked since 1963. He is widely considered among the country’s preeminent litigators and experts in constitutional law and was described by the late diplomat and U.S. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) as “the most significant First Amendment lawyer of our age.”
With this Florida statute, Abrams said it appears Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and his conservative allies in the legislature are making “an effort to come up with something which will lead the Supreme Court to take another look” at its 1964 ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan, which established that the First Amendment confers certain protections for the press against libel lawsuits by public figures.
The ruling, reaffirmed and developed in subsequent cases over the years, acts as a bulwark preventing powerful public figures including elected officials from weaponizing lawsuits or the threat of litigation to silence or censor reporters and news organizations.
DeSantis and Florida’s GOP legislators are hardly out of step with leaders in the Republican Party including former President Donald Trump, who repeatedly pledged to change the libel laws so he could more easily sue media companies.
When Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska and 2008 vice presidential candidate, sued the New York Times for libel in 2016, the paper wrote that advocates for weakening the press’ protections against libel lawsuits were “more emboldened now than at any point” since the Sullivan case. They have ideological allies in the right-wing legal establishment, too: In 2021, conservative Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch expressed an interest in revisiting the court’s ruling in Sullivan.
Supreme Court unlikely to revisit longstanding approach to First Amendment, libel law
Abrams said if the Florida bill is signed into law, given that “virtually any entity, which reports the news would be imperiled by this statute,” he can envision legal challenges from a variety of entities, from groups like the “ACLU to the Reporters’ Committee [for Freedom of the Press] to organizations of journalists to newspapers.” Litigation over the law’s constitutionality could, of course, reach the Supreme Court.
At the same time, Abrams said he doubts there is much appetite among the justices to abrogate or weaken the decades-old ruling in Sullivan, which stipulates that to bring a successful libel case against the press, public officials must first prove the offending material was defamatory and then show it was published with “actual malice,” either with the knowledge that it was false or with “reckless disregard” for whether it was true.
“I would be very surprised if Chief Justice Roberts is in favor of revisiting New York Times against Sullivan because he has been a strong First Amendment defender,” Abrams said, and based on “Justice Kavanaugh’s opinions when he was on the Court of Appeals, I would be surprised if he is prepared to challenge” Sullivan.
Abrams conceded “there may be more reasons to think that one or more conservative jurists” on the Supreme Court could be convinced to join Thomas and Gorsuch’s calls to reconsider libel protections for the press. Working against this effort, however, is the extent to which the Florida statute is inconsistent from the court’s analysis of the relevant legal questions, Abrams said.
Examples, he said, include: (1) the proposal’s narrowing of the parameters used to define certain plaintiffs as “public figures” for purposes of First Amendment libel law, a distinction that carries a higher burden of proof than that which is required of private citizens suing members of the press; (2) its treatment of information attributed to anonymous sources as presumably false, a finding that plaintiffs claiming defamation would otherwise be required to prove; and (3) its characterization as inherently defamatory any accusations published by the press of discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity.
The statute’s presumption that material attributed to anonymous sources is false would undermine the method by which the courts evaluate libel claims brought by public figures, Abrams said: “The Supreme Court has certainly made clear that the legal test requires the party suing to demonstrate the newspaper [or] journalist didn’t believe what he or she was saying.”
Put differently, Abrams said, the analysis turns on the defendant’s state of mind “as a basis for determining if the alleged libel of a public figure is actionable.”
Therefore, Abrams said, to “have a flat presumption that any use of confidential sources will be held against the journalist is inconsistent” with the type of claims that might “lead the Supreme Court to take another look at the law” established with Sullivan.
Censoring criticism of anti-LGBTQ discrimination
Likewise with the legislation’s provision that the press’s accusation of discrimination by a public official would constitute prima facie evidence of defamation, Abrams said “The Supreme Court has said more than once, and often in the voice of conservative jurists, that such speech is protected by the First Amendment.”
Florida’s statute goes even further, however. Per the substantial truth doctrine, a defendant accused of defamation can avoid legal liability by showing that the gist of the material at issue in the complaint was true. Under the proposed bill, a journalist who is sued for publishing accusations of discrimination (now considered inherently defamatory) may not cite as evidence of their truth (or substantial truth) the public official’s membership in any religious or scientific organization — even if that organization has a documented pattern and practice of discrimination, or well-known views that are unambiguously sexist, racist or anti-LGBTQ.
The bill’s apparent effort to censor media coverage of discrimination by public officials raised red flags with LGBTQ groups like GLAAD, whose president, Sarah Kate Ellis said, in a statement shared with the Blade on Wednesday: “Those spewing harmful and inaccurate words do not have the support for their dangerous rhetoric and policies, and they’re rightfully afraid they’ll be held accountable by voters and a free press that accurately reports on efforts to scapegoat and target vulnerable people.”
“This bill is another futile attack on LGBTQ Floridians, a sign of full-blown panic against a rising tide of acceptance for LGBTQ people and for the full equality of women, people of color and queer people of color,” Ellis said.
Jon Harris Maurer, an attorney who serves as public policy director for Equality Florida, the state’s largest LGBTQ advocacy organization, told the Blade by phone on Thursday that based on the alignment of DeSantis and Republicans in the legislature, chances are the bill will be signed into law.
Maurer said Florida’s Republican lawmakers, with supermajorities in both chambers, “have made clear they are prioritizing Gov. DeSantis’ legislative agenda.” At, or at least near, the top of that agenda is the state’s proposal to weaken libel protections for journalists, Maurer said, noting DeSantis’ decision to convene a recent roundtable discussion on the matter where speakers explained their reasons for wanting the Supreme Court to revisit Sullivan.
Other recent high-priority policy items for DeSantis and his allies have focused on using “the LGBTQ community to score political points with a far-right presidential primary base,” Maurer said. Florida’s governor, state lawmakers, or other officials might find the press coverage of these matters unflattering, Maurer said, but that hardly means the coverage is false or even defamatory.
So, the proposal to relax the standards required for public officials to sue reporters and media organizations for libel “is intended to have a chilling effect on media, particularly media that would be critical of Gov. DeSantis and those who share his positions,” Maurer said.
Maurer agreed with Abrams that the bill’s proponents likely have their sights set on the Supreme Court — and that the proposal, as currently written, is totally inconsistent with the court’s treatment of First Amendment libel law.
If the bill is signed into law and litigation over its constitutionality reaches the Supreme Court, Maurer declined to speculate what the outcome might be. The court’s conservative justices have scrapped longstanding precedent in other recent cases, he said, noting last year’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that revoked the constitutional right to abortion first established in 1973 with Roe v. Wade.
Removing protections for confidentiality of anonymous sources
Particularly in circumstances that raise national security concerns, the U.S. government has sometimes sought to prevent news organizations from publishing sensitive information in their possession or issued subpoenas demanding that journalists reveal the identities of the confidential sources who leaked it to them.
In 1971, Abrams successfully represented the Times before the Supreme Court in a landmark First Amendment case challenging the Nixon administration’s claims of executive authority to suppress the paper’s publication of confidential documents. The court’s ruling allowed the Times and other organizations to publish the material, known as the Pentagon Papers, which revealed the Johnson administration had “systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress” about America’s political and military involvement in Vietnam.
The government employee responsible for providing the documents to the Times was charged with espionage, though the charges were later dismissed.
The Supreme Court ruled in the 1972 case Branzburg v. Hayes that the First Amendment does not protect reporters from being called to testify before grand juries, but the government must “convincingly show a substantial relation between the information sought and a subject of overriding and compelling state interest.”
The decision was cited by Judge Thomas Hogan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in his 2004 memorandum opinion rejecting a motion to rescind grand jury subpoenas issued to two reporters, one represented by Abrams, in connection with criminal investigations of leaks that had revealed the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson (in what became known as the “Plame affair”).
Abrams’ client, who had not published a story about Plame but learned she was working as a covert CIA operative through a confidential government source, served several months in jail for her refusal to reveal his identity as demanded by the subpoena.
Some courts have upheld the concept that journalists have a constitutional right to conceal the identities of their sources, and some states and jurisdictions have codified these rulings with so-called “shield laws,” which vary in the extent of their protections afforded to members of the press.
Florida’s proposed statute, in addition to presuming that published information attributed to anonymous sources is false, would revoke the state’s shield laws that protect journalists’ right to keep their identities confidential.
Politics
Log Cabin Republicans to honor Scott Presler
Event to take place at Capitol Hill Club on Friday
The Log Cabin Republicans, a group representing LGBTQ conservatives and their allies within the Republican Party, is set to honor gay conservative commentator and activist Scott Presler on Friday.
Presler will receive the organization’s 2026 “Game Changer Award” during its Spring Forward Cocktail Reception at the Capitol Hill Club, a private club steps from the U.S. Capitol that regularly hosts Republican political events.
Presler has risen to prominence through a combination of pro-LGBTQ conservative activism, political organizing, and a series of controversial affiliations.
He first gained national attention in 2017 for organizing the “March Against Sharia” rallies across the country. The demonstrations came amid heightened tensions in Portland, Ore., following a deadly attack on a metro train, in which Jeremy Joseph Christian killed two people and injured others after harassing Muslim women for wearing a hijab.
The rallies were organized in partnership with ACT for America, which advocates against what it describes as “the threat of radical Islam” in the U.S. and has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Presler volunteered with the organization for three months.
He has said he was first motivated to “fight Muslim extremism” following the Pulse nightclub massacre, he told NPR, in which a gunman who pledged allegiance to ISIS killed 49 people at an LGBTQ nightclub in Orlando, Fla. The site now serves as a memorial to the victims of the attack.
Born May 15, 1988, in Jacksonville, Fla., Presler is the son of a U.S. Navy captain and was raised in both Florida and Fairfax County. He later attended George Mason University, where he earned a degree in criminal justice.
In addition to his anti-Islam activism, Presler has been involved in a number of other high-profile and controversial efforts. He co-founded “Gays for Trump” and attended their 2017 DeploraBall in Maryland for the first inauguration of Trump. According to a 2021 report from Media Matters for America, he also promoted the QAnon conspiracy movement through social media posts in 2018 and 2019.
He has also faced criticism tied to his early political work. According to a 2023 report from Politico Playbook, Presler’s work with the Republican Party of Virginia in 2016 ended after he allegedly engaged in sexual activity in a shared office space and posted explicit images online.
Beyond ideological activism, Presler has also organized community-focused initiatives. In 2019, he led a widely publicized cleanup effort in Baltimore that drew more than 100 volunteers and resulted in approximately 29 tons of trash being removed. The event was a result of criticism from President Donald Trump, calling the area, represented by then-U.S. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) a “rodent infested mess.”
Presler has also been active in election-related organizing, leading a two-day “Stop the Steal” demonstration at the Pennsylvania State Capitol following the 2020 presidential election. He has appeared on the “War Room” podcast hosted by former Trump strategist and well-known right-wing populist conspiracy theorist Steve Bannon.
He has also expressed a controversial stance within the LGBTQ community for supporting then-candidate Trump for President over Hillary Clinton. He told prioritizing Second Amendment rights over certain LGBTQ policy goals, saying he is more supportive of gun rights than efforts to codify same-sex marriage, and adding, “I 100 percent believe in the notion that armed gays don’t get bashed. It is our right to feel safe.”
Presler voiced his support for the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act, more commonly referred to as the “Don’t Say Gay” law, signed into law by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2022.
Congress
Top Democrats re-introduce trans bill of rights
Lawmakers spoke outside US Capitol on Wednesday
U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and U.S. Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), and Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) announced the reintroduction of a “Trans Bill of Rights” on Wednesday.
Despite chilling winds and snow on the ground, transgender activists, LGBTQ rights advocates, and trans-supporting lawmakers gathered outside the U.S. Capitol to announce the reintroduction of the “Transgender Bill of Rights” resolution to protect trans Americans, as the Trump-Vance administration continues to target LGBTQ Americans.
About 30 people gathered outside to hear from legislators and individuals impacted by recent White House policies.
“Today we say loud and clear that trans rights are human rights, and they must be protected every single day of every single year,” Markey told the crowd. “We stand together in solidarity with the trans community and with those who have too often been left behind by a system that refuses to recognize their humanity. We are here to ensure that every trans and gender-diverse person in America can live freely and safely and authentically. That’s what the Trans Bill of Rights is all about.”
Markey is leading the resolution on the Senate side, while Jayapal is pushing it forward in the House.
“With the Trans Bill of Rights, we are laying out a comprehensive vision to provide protections for transgender and nonbinary people — a vision that ensures every single person has a chance to thrive,” Jayapal said. “A vision that says: you are us, you belong, and you are worthy of the same rights as everyone else. This bill supports amending the Civil Rights Act to ensure that trans people have the same rights and protections as all other Americans. It creates a level playing field where trans people no longer have to fight tooth and nail to get the same treatment as their cisgender friends.”
The resolution for House and the Senate reads:
“Recognizing that it is the duty of the federal government to develop and implement a Transgender Bill of Rights to protect and codify the rights of transgender and nonbinary people under the law and ensure their access to medical care, shelter, safety, and economic security.”
Trans Legislation Tracker, an independent research organization that collects data on anti-trans legislation from the hyper-local level to the floor of the U.S. Senate, found that in 2025, 1,022 measures were proposed across the country to restrict the rights of trans Americans — from health care removals to bathroom bans.
Markey directly called out those lawmakers for what he described as discriminatory actions taken against trans Americans who, as he pointed out, are fighting for rights that everyone else is inherently given.
“Trump and MAGA Republicans have used the power of government to spread fear and hate across our country. They have tried to ban lifesaving and medically necessary health care, strip anti-discrimination protections, and turn trans lives into political talking points for their benefit. Well, we have a message for them: we are louder, we are stronger, and we are not going anywhere. We’re in this fight for the long term,” the Massachusetts senator said.
Jacobs, a co-chair of the Transgender Equality Task Force within the Congressional Equality Caucus, also spoke at the event.
“Trans Americans are being targeted just for being who they are — by laws and court decisions that try to erase them from classrooms, from courts and fields, from health care and public life. These attacks aren’t about safety or fairness,” Jacobs said. “They’re about hatred and instilling fear. And we know how quickly fear can warp into suspicion and violence with deadly consequences.”
In addition to lawmakers, trans Americans and supporters spoke.
Olivia Hunt from Advocates for Trans Equality, LaLa Zannell from the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as three additional people who have been actively harmed by the ongoing wave of anti-trans legislation, shared their stories.
Hunt emphasized the staggeringly high number of anti-trans bills being introduced in statehouses across the country — despite trans adults making up less than 1 percent of the population, according to the Williams Institute’s 2025 data.
“Since 2020, thousands of anti-LGBTQIA+ bills have been introduced in statehouses across the country,” Hunt said. “It’s a veritable tidal wave of political bullying disguised as legislation, and most of these bills specifically target transgender and nonbinary people — especially trans youth and their families. This is a moment that demands action.”
Hunt, who is trans, helps trans people in D.C. obtain legal documents that match their gender identity — something the Trump-Vance administration has stopped.
“Trans youth deserve to be protected by their government. They shouldn’t have to be protected from their government,” she said. “It’s long past time that our federal laws reflect and protect the reality and dignity of all people. Trans people have always existed — we are your neighbors, your family members, your community — and we belong.”
Zannell, who spoke proudly about her trans identity, explained why the bill is necessary and how it would protect trans people in all facets of their lives.
“I stand here as an unapologetic Black trans woman who has led this movement for over a decade to get us to moments like this. The reintroduction of the Trans Bill of Rights will aim to protect access to gender-affirming care, prevent discrimination in housing and public spaces, and preserve legal recognition,” Zannell said. “My hope is that this affirms our government’s duty to protect all trans and nonbinary people.”
The Transgender Bill of Rights is cosponsored in the Senate by U.S. Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.).
In the U.S. House of Representatives, the resolution is led by Jayapal, co-led by Jacobs and U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), with nearly 100 other representatives signing on as co-sponsors.
“To all trans people across the United States: you are seen, you are valued, and you are loved,” said Markey. “And I want you to know there are people who will fight for you every single day on the floor of the House and Senate to win those rights for you.”
2026 Midterm Elections
LGBTQ Victory Fund looks beyond Washington for change in 2026
Vice President of Political Programs Daniel Hernández spoke with Blade
As the Trump-Vance administration enters its second year, LGBTQ people from around the country are running for public office amid fears of the removal of federal civil rights laws that could lead to rollbacks in protections.
The Washington Blade sat down with Daniel Hernández Jr., the newly made vice president of political programs for the LGBTQ Victory Fund, a nonpartisan political action committee dedicated to electing openly LGBTQ individuals to all levels of government, to discuss why now is more important than ever to actualize LGBTQ political power.
Hernández is often credited with saving the life of then-U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) while working as her 20-year-old intern in Tucson, Ariz., in 2011. He served on the Pima County School Board and in the Arizona House of Representatives from 2017-2023, advocating for LGBTQ rights, healthcare access, and education.
Founded in 1991, the Victory Fund was created by a group of prominent LGBTQ political voices, including Dallas gay rights activist William Waybourn and former Human Rights Campaign Fund Executive Director Vic Basile, who were inspired by the success of EMILY’s List, a PAC that works to elect Democratic women to office.
Since its founding, the Victory Fund has worked with LGBTQ advocates and LGBTQ-supportive donors who recognized the need to prepare LGBTQ people to run for office nationwide.
When asked where LGBTQ people and allies need to focus looking ahead, Hernández emphasized that 2026 will be won or lost at the state and local level.
“One of the bigger things that people may not be paying as close attention to as we really should is the impact of state and local races. Federal races are crucial, obviously, but the folks who are actually able to have an impact in a meaningful way right now are not the people in the U.S. House or Senate,” Hernández said. “It can take years before a bill even moves through Congress. Meanwhile, state and local leaders are the ones standing up and fighting for our rights today. Especially during this Trump administration, that’s where the real action is happening.”
He expanded on that point, saying that at this moment in the U.S. political landscape, statewide races matter far more than they are often given credit for — particularly as 2026 is a midterm year under President Donald Trump. People who win elected office in midterm years, Hernández explained, are many times viewed as legislators pushing back against the administration at the top.
“Looking at 2026 in particular, because it’s a midterm year, people sometimes forget just how many critical statewide races are on the ballot. We have people like Chris Mayes in Arizona, who won by less than 300 votes in a battleground state and is now running for reelection,” he said. “These are the races that protect democracy and protect people’s rights in real time. If we ignore them, we’re doing so at our own peril. Statewide offices are where so much power actually lives.”
Hernández also urged LGBTQ voters and donors to think critically about where their time, money, and energy are going — particularly as resources remain limited heading into 2026 and not every race is winnable.
“I think one thing we don’t do enough as a community is pause and ask whether our resources are actually going where they can have an impact. If someone is running against a Republican in a plus-20 Republican state that hasn’t elected a Democrat in decades, do I really need to give my limited resources there? Or does it make more sense to support candidates in competitive states like Arizona or Wisconsin? In 2026, we have to be more strategic, because our resources are not unlimited. Winning matters.”
That calculation, Hernández said, also means moving away from what he described as emotionally driven donations and toward a more deliberate strategy.
“Our community is incredible at rallying when we’re angry, and I call that ‘rage giving.’ Someone awful is in office, a challenger pops up, and we all open our wallets. But what we really need to be doing is asking where that money will actually move the needle. In 2026, it’s not enough to feel good about donating — we have to make sure those donations help candidates who can realistically win. That’s how we protect LGBTQ rights long term.”
Asked how the Victory Fund determines which candidates receive endorsements — especially amid a growing field of openly LGBTQ contenders — Hernández emphasized that viability is central to the organization’s approach in 2026.
“One of the things we’re really focused on in 2026 is viability. We’re not endorsing people who have a zero-percent chance of winning. We’re looking at candidates who are running strong campaigns, who have plans, who are fundraising, and who are doing the work. That’s important because our community deserves guidance it can trust. When you see a Victory endorsement, it means we believe that candidate can actually win.”
Hernández also pushed back on the long-standing notion that being openly LGBTQ is a political liability — an argument that has resurfaced amid right-wing attacks on LGBTQ candidates.
“There’s been this long-standing perception that being LGBTQ is a liability and that it can cost Democrats elections. But when you actually look at the data, that just isn’t true. The reality is that being LGBTQ is not a risk — it’s often a strength. Voters care about roads, health care, affordability, and jobs, not fear-based caricatures. In 2026, we’re seeing more LGBTQ candidates than ever because people understand that now.”
That shift, he added, has helped reframe what LGBTQ candidates are actually campaigning on — despite efforts by conservatives to reduce them to culture-war issues.
“The so-called ‘gay agenda’ is not bathrooms. It’s making sure people have access to health care, that roads are safe, and that families can afford to live. LGBTQ candidates are talking about the same bread-and-butter issues as everyone else. That’s why the idea that LGBTQ candidates cost elections just doesn’t hold up. In fact, we’re seeing them lead on some of the most important issues facing voters right now.”
As misinformation and fear-based narratives continue to dominate right-wing messaging, Hernández said openly LGBTQ elected officials play a crucial role in countering those attacks — both through policy and presence.
“First and foremost, any elected official’s responsibility is to their constituents. That’s what we’re seeing from LGBTQ officials who are focused on affordability, health care access, and consumer protections while Republicans obsess over culture-war nonsense,” Hernández said. “But there’s also a responsibility to be authentic. Being honest about who you are and why you fight matters. That authenticity cuts through fear-based disinformation.”
Looking ahead to 2026, Hernández pointed to transgender elected officials as a particular source of momentum and optimism, even amid intensified political attacks.
“Our trans elected officials are honestly at the forefront of some of the biggest battles we’re facing right now. Despite relentless attacks and vilification, they are still delivering results for their communities. That tells me something incredibly powerful about where the country is headed. Even in this political climate, trans leaders are winning and governing. That gives me a lot of hope for 2026.”
Ultimately, Hernández said the stakes of the upcoming cycle extend far beyond a single election, shaping the future of LGBTQ political leadership nationwide.
“The leaders we elect at the state and local level today are the members of Congress and senators of tomorrow. People don’t just wake up one day and run for Congress — they come from city councils, state legislatures, and school boards. That’s why 2026 is so important. If we invest now, we’re not just defending our rights in the moment, we’re building the next generation of LGBTQ leadership.”
Victory Fund’s endorsed candidates
Incumbents Endorsed: January 2026
- Helen Grant (they/them) – Norman City Council, Ward 4, Okla.
- Louie Minor (he/him) – Bell County Commission, Precinct 4, Texas
- Jonathan West (he/him) – Manchester Selectboard, Vt.
- George Leach (he/him) – Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County Judge, Ohio
- John Fredrickson (he/him) – Nebraska State Senate, District 20
- Ben Bowman (he/him) – Oregon House of Representatives, District 25
- Jeffrey Prang (he/him) – Los Angeles County Assessor, Calif.
- Amie Carter (she/her) – Sonoma County Superintendent of Schools, Calif.
- Elinor Levin (she/her) – Iowa House of Representatives, District 89
- Ken Carlson (he/him) – Contra Costa County Supervisor, District 4, Calif.
- Emma Pinter (she/her) – Adams County Commission, District 3, at-large, Colo.
- Justin Chenette (he/him) – York County Commission, District 3, Maine
- Kris Fair (he/him) – Maryland House of Delegates, District 3
- Jennifer Cornell (she/her) – Ann Arbor City Council, Ward 5, Mich.
- Darlene Martinez (she/her) – Constable, El Centro – Downtown Phoenix, Ariz.
- Brian Garcia (he/him) – Arizona House of Representatives, District 8
- Christian Phelps (he/him) – Wisconsin State Assembly, District 93
- Jack Patrick Lewis (he/him) – Massachusetts House of Representatives, 7th Middlesex
- Will Brownsberger (he/him) – Massachusetts State Senate, Suffolk and Middlesex Counties
- Julian Cyr (he/him) – Massachusetts State Senate, Cape & Islands District
- CM Hall (she/they) – Newport City Council, Ore.
- Jimmy Mack (he/him) – Southampton Town Trustee, N.Y.
- Michael Vargas (he/him) – Elk Grove USD Board of Education, Area 2, Calif.
- Lisa Grafstein (she/her) – North Carolina State Senate
- Hector Bustos (he/him) – Trustee, Santa Ana Unified School District, Calif.
Newly Endorsed Candidates – January 2026
- Kirk McPike (he/him) – Virginia House of Delegates, District 5
- Winn Decker (he/him) – North Carolina House of Representatives, District 37
- Jonathan Lambert-Melton (he/him) – Wake Co. Board of Commissioners, At-Large, N.C.
- Karen Stegman (she/her) – Orange County Board of Commissioners, At-Large, N.C.
- Landon Campbell (he/him) – Hays County Criminal District Attorney, Texas
- Christine Castillo (she/her) – Bexar County District Clerk, Texas
- Nicholas “Nico” Costilla (he/him) – Hays County Clerk, Texas
- Davis Mendoza Darusman (he/him) – Harris Co. Justice of the Peace, Pct. 5, Pl. 2, Texas
- Nicholas Palmer (he/him) – Justice, Fifth Court of Appeals, Texas
- José “Che-Che” Wilson (he/him) – Cook County Board of Commissioners, District 12, Ill.
- Sarah Bury (she/her) – Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Board of Commissioners, Ill.
For more information of the LGBTQ Victory Fund’s endorsments, qualifications, or on how to register to receive an endorsement, visit the organization’s website at victoryfund.org
Report: Grenell wants Russian ambassadorship
Log Cabin Republicans to honor Scott Presler
Cuba bajo presión y sin respuestas
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
LGBTQ groups condemn Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian civilization
How Pepper the courthouse dog helps victims of abuse
Iconic Eddie Izzard takes on 23 characters in ‘Hamlet’
Surviving spring cleaning
Risking it all for love during World War II
