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.
Congress
House blocks effort to codify transgender servicemember ban into law
Lawmakers approved two anti-trans NDAA amendments
The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday rejected an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have codified a ban transgender servicemembers in the military.
The bipartisan vote was 212-217.
The NDAA is for the 2027 fiscal year and sets policies for the Defense Department programs and activities and the national security programs of the Department of Energy.
U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) proposed the amendment on July 21. It stated that all personnel are required to serve in accordance with their biological sex, citing military readiness and discipline.
Human Rights Campaign Senior Director of Government Affairs Jennifer Pike Bailey stated that she is grateful for the bipartisan vote that rejected President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s “dangerous and discriminatory policy that has kicked brave transgender servicemembers out of the military and weakened our national security.”
“Everyone who meets the same rigorous standards should be able to serve their country. We should honor that patriotism, particularly in this moment where we are witnessing brave servicemembers making the ultimate sacrifice for our country, instead of ending their careers and politicizing their existence. We’re grateful that a permanent extension of this ban failed, and we will keep fighting to reverse this senseless policy,” Bailey said.
Mark Takano, chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, stated that he and his members put in countless hours of work to kill the amendment.
“When Americans know they or their families are going to be targeted by or not supported by the military, that leads them to avoid signing up to serve or staying in the service — making it harder to keep the ranks of the armed services full and our nation safe. My colleagues in the Equality Caucus and I will continue working to prevent these attacks on our servicemembers and their families from becoming law,” Takano said.
According to the Congressional Equality Caucus, two other bills could potentially be passed that would also target the transgender community, both of which were proposed by U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.).
The first was a bill that would have prohibited gender-related medical care under TRICARE and to prevent TRICARE from covering certain gender-related medical procedures and treatments, which was approved in a vote of 219-208.
The second was a bill that would have prohibited male participation in female sports at DoDEA schools. DoDEA schools are Department of Defense Dependents Schools, which is a network of primary and secondary schools.
The amendment was approved in a vote of 221-203.
Congress
Lindsey Graham has passed away. Do LGBTQ people have a right to celebrate his death?
SC senator opposed marriage equality, despite speculation over sexual orientation
Uncloseted Media published this article on July 16.
By SPENCER MACNAUGHTON | On Sunday, the office of Lindsey Graham reported that the Republican senator and Trump ally from South Carolina died “from a brief and sudden illness.” The office said that the preliminary cause of death was a rupture of his aorta due to a hardening of his arteries.
Since then, many folks in the LGBTQ community, including a large number of Uncloseted followers, have — for better or worse — celebrated the senator’s death. When we posted the news on our Instagram page on Sunday, our followers commented:
- “Maybe he rest in hell”—this one got 194 likes.
- “She made sure to wait until Pride was over.”
- “And just like that the world is a better place.”
These responses are fueled by allegations that the senator lived as a closeted gay man while supporting policies that would roll back LGBTQ rights. In 2006, he voted in support of a constitutional amendment that would have restricted marriage to only being between one man and one woman. After gay marriage became legal across the U.S. in 2015, he said “I am a proud defender of traditional marriage.” And in 2022, he told CNN he would oppose the Respect for Marriage Act and later reiterated that states should decide the issue of marriage.
Outside the Washington rumor mill, there wasn’t much evidence that Graham could be gay until 2020, when adult video performer Sean Harding wrote on Twitter that “There is a homophobic republican senator who is no better than Trump who keeps passing legislation that is damaging to the lgbt and minority communities. Every sex worker I know has been hired by this man. Wondering if enough of us spoke out if that could get him out of office?”
Harding followed up with another post, writing “If you’d be willing to stand with me against LG please let me know,” and, “So far I have two individuals who would be willing to go public and support my claims. Anyone else?”
A few days later, another anonymous sex worker came forward and made similar allegations.
But after that, there was silence, with some believing these sex workers were slapped with non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). And while at least one lawyer took to Twitter saying that he’d “be more than happy to read the NDAs and look for loopholes. For free!” nobody else came forward.
That is until earlier this week, when author Jesse James Rose posted to her Instagram that Graham had paid her for sex work prior to her gender transition. Rose wrote that “Most of you know him as the homophobic senator from South Carolina but to me he will always be the man who paid a twinky pre-transition college student a fat stack of cash to do unspeakable things to him in a hotel room while he wore red lingerie.”
This dynamic has created a complicated question for LGBTQ people: Is it appropriate to posthumously celebrate the death of a man who railed against our community and used his position of power to make our lives less equitable and less safe? Is it even more fair to criticize him if he was living a secret queer life?
Or should we go high and give his track record on LGBTQ issues a positive spin now that he’s no longer with us?
In a time where social media feels like a breeding ground for angertainment, I’ll admit that the immediacy of the response to his death at first felt intense.
At the same time, I knew I didn’t want to send thoughts or prayers to a man who tried to rip my rights away.
If the alleged NDAs that Graham handed his sex workers were legitimate, they likely evaporated after his death. So now really may be the first time people can speak their truth and offer an accurate window into the absurd hypocrisy between Graham’s public and private life.
For that, I think it’s fair game to speak candidly about the story he may have worked hard to muzzle while he was here.
Congress
Political drama in Angie Craig’s Minn. Senate race heats up
Lesbian lawmaker running to succeed retiring U.S. Sen. Tina Smith
After an historic and expensive July 4th fireworks display capped Donald Trump’s self-indulgent commemoration of America’s 250th birthday, voters are now watching state races explode into political pyrotechnics as Democrats fight to win majorities in Congress and Republicans plan to keep buying power.
With the midterm elections just over three months away and several primary races still undecided, most pundits predict the decline in Trump’s approval ratings will result in Democrats winning the House, if infighting doesn’t turn off voters.
Democrats’ dream of taking the U.S. Senate, however, turned into a nightmare with the scandalous Graham Platner debacle in must-win Maine. Energized party leaders hope to put on a master class in democracy as they pick a new candidate before July 27.
The hike to Senate victory is still steep. Republicans have a 53-47 advantage — meaning Democrats must win eight of 11 competitive races, including defending seats currently held in Minnesota, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Georgia, for a net gain of four seats.
LGBTQ people intent on reversing Project 2025’s prolific erasure might focus on lesbian U.S. Rep. Angie Craig’s race in Minnesota.
With the retirement of Democratic U.S. Sen. Tina Smith, The Cook Political Report’s out guru Amy Walter labeled the open seat “likely” Democrat but with only a +3-point advantage.
New York Times Polling data reporter Alex Lemonides notes that “Trump lost Minnesota by four percentage points in 2024, and Minnesotans have not sent a Republican to the Senate since the 2002 midterms, so a Republican win in the general election would buck the trend.”
But this whole election cycle is about bucking trends. With so many Democratic Socialists defeating establishment candidates, “socialist” is no longer a slur, forcing Trump to switch to the old Cold War charge of Communist!
In Minnesota, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)-backed candidate Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan is out-polling Craig, a more centrist Democrat who flipped a battleground House seat in 2018. Their primary is on Aug. 11.
Republicans are salivating over challenging Flanagan for her administrative role in the scandal that forced Gov. Tim Walz to forgo a third term and deal with widespread fraud in social programs.
Former NBC’s Sunday Night Football sideline reporter and current political podcaster Michele Tafoya has a built-in “bro” audience. The announcement of her Republican candidacy was featured on ESPN.com.
“As Minnesota’s senator, I will clean up the system, fighting corruption, ending the fraud, and protecting your tax dollars,” Tafoya said. “I will protect what’s fair and safe, standing with our law enforcement officers, deporting dangerous criminals, and keeping female sports for female athletes.”
Craig responded quickly. “Trump’s hand-picked candidate just jumped in the race for U.S. Senate,” she said on social media. “Minnesota needs a Senator who will stand up and fight for our state – and we know it won’t be MAGA Michele.”
Craig tells LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters that she has been happy to represent Minnesota’s Second Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives since 2019. Now she wants to represent the entire state as a U.S. senator.
“The state of Minnesota has been so good to me and my family,” says Craig, who chose to move to the state because it would accept her family.
Craig grew up in a mobile home park in Arkansas, one of three children of a single mother. She worked her way through the University of Memphis, earning a degree in journalism, and became a reporter with the Memphis Commercial Appeal.
She has a long history of fighting for LGBTQ rights, including her own. In the late 1990s, while living in Tennessee, Craig and her then-partner, Debra Langston, adopted their first son, Joshua. Under Tennessee law at the time, only one of them could be recognized as an adoptive parent; Craig was listed as Langston’s roommate.
The birth mother wanted the couple to have Joshua, but her parents intervened, seeking to adopt him. The courts had to decide if Langston and Craig were “fit” parents. One appellate court judge objected to the boy being raised by “open, practicing lesbians,” but his two colleagues disagreed, and Langston and Craig won the precedent-setting case in 2000, albeit with lots of caveats.
“The issue in this case is not whether the members of this court approve the homosexual lifestyle or the adoption of children by homosexuals, but rather whether the adoption of this child by this prospective parent is in the child’s best interest. As in any adoption case, the determinative issue was and remains what is in the child’s best interest,” wrote Judge Alan E. Highers in his opinion concurring with the majority in ruling In re: ADOPTION OF M.J.S. in the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
By then, Craig was working in corporate communications for Smith & Nephew, a multinational maker of medical equipment, and the couple had another son, Jacob, born to Craig through alternative insemination. She and her family moved to London, where the company was based, in the early 2000s. They returned to the U.S. in 2005; Craig went to work for another medical equipment company, St. Jude Medical, in the suburbs of Minneapolis. She later said it was the least lucrative job offer she had, but she took it because she knew the area was welcoming to LGBTQ people.
Craig and Langston separated in 2006, and Craig married Cheryl Greene in California in 2008. They have four sons and three grandsons, with a fourth on the way. Greene is a former middle school teacher still involved with youth programming.
Craig worked for LGBTQ equality within her company and for statewide marriage equality in Minnesota. She also fought against an anti-marriage equality constitutional amendment in 2012, which voters rejected. The state legislature passed a marriage equality bill the following year that Gov. Mark Dayton signed into law.
In 2016, when she ran for Congress in Minnesota’s 2nd District, a Republican stronghold for more than a decade, she told the Twin Cities Pioneer Press that the fight for custody of Joshua gave her strength.
“Whether I win or lose on Election Day, I know that that won’t be the hardest thing or the biggest challenge that I’ve ever faced,” said Craig, then 44. “When you get up every day and wonder, ‘Am I going to (still) have my child the next day?’ you get pretty good at being focused on the big picture.”
“I’ve always talked about my family openly” on the campaign trail and in office, Craig, co-chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, tells LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters. Often at events in her district and around the state, she’ll meet someone who mentions they have an LGBTQ family member, she notes. She finds that if she listens to constituents and addresses what’s important to them, her identity isn’t an issue.
What Craig has addressed for constituents includes health care costs, such as capping the out-of-pocket cost of insulin and limiting overall out-of-pocket drug costs for people on Medicare. These came from a bill introduced by Craig and became provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law by President Joe Biden in 2022. She also wants a public option for health insurance, an increased child tax credit, and she introduced a bill to eliminate federal taxes on Social Security benefits.
In a June 19 SurveyUSA poll, Minnesotans say their single most important issue is inflation (39%) and cost of living, followed by health care, immigration, gas prices, and the war in Iran.
But immigration may soon jump to the front as more information leaks out about U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents shooting and killing Lorenzo Salgado Araujo during a traffic stop in Houston on Tuesday morning, July 9. Homeland Security says the father, with no criminal record, driving to work, ignored verbal instructions and tried to ram their vehicle. ICE shot him in self-defense — the same excuse ICE used on Jan. 7, 2026, when an ICE agent killed nonviolent protester Renee Good. In both instances, video footage proved ICE lied.
Also caught on tape was Craig’s angry confrontation with Republican Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) on the House floor the day Good was killed after Emmer supported ICE on social media. The story and her response went viral.
But Craig continues to be criticized for voting for the Laken Riley Act, named for a woman who was killed by an undocumented immigrant. It allows for undocumented immigrants to be detained or deported if they are simply accused of crimes, even nonviolent ones. Critics say she has never apologized — but she has.
In a commentary for The Minnesota Star Tribune in May, Craig wrote, in part:
“The text of the bill did not include the word deportation. I made the difficult decision to vote for it. Democrats like Sens. Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego, Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff — leaders I deeply respect — all came to the same conclusion.
But as I stood side by side with protesters on the streets of Minneapolis and opposite dozens of armed Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at the Whipple Federal Building after Renee Good’s killing — and again after the killing of Alex Pretti — I couldn’t help but question whether I made the right call last year … It’s also become clear that supporting any bill that gives ICE new authority in this administration was the wrong decision. And I regret my vote.”
“What happened under Operation Metro Surge was horrific,” Craig tells LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters. The U.S. can secure its borders in a humane fashion while providing a path to citizenship for undocumented people, those brought here as children, and others, she adds.
On LGBTQ rights, Craig says the Equality Act has been a huge priority of hers in the House and would remain so in the Senate.
Since 2019, Craig has introduced the John Lewis Every Child Deserves a Family Act that “would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or marital status in those programs, prohibit the use of federal funds for so-called ‘conversion therapy’ and create a resource center for LGBTQ+ foster and adoptive youth within the Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families,” according to a press release.
Another priority is passage of the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, named for the late civil rights activist and longtime congressman. “I was lucky enough to serve with John Lewis,” she says.
Additionally, Craig supports campaign finance reform. The recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that further loosened restrictions was “just another blow to our democracy,” she says. She supports limits on Supreme Court terms.
On foreign policy, she condemns Trump’s war of choice in Iran. “The administration has had zero strategic objectives,” she says, adding that the war has caused “tremendous economic damage,” such as the spike in gas prices.
And though Craig supports a two-state solution to the ongoing Israel-Palestinian conflict, with Palestinians having their own state, her campaign does not accept direct donations from AIPAC’s political action committee — the pro-Israel group held fundraisers for her before her Senate announcement — another point exploited by primary opponent Flanagan.
On gender-affirming care for transgender youth, Craig says politicians should not interfere with decisions made by young people and their parents. Regarding trans girls and women in sports, she says the matter is best handled locally — and that local conversations can foster understanding.
But Craig has had a strong public reaction to federal transphobia. After that, then-U.S. Reps. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) and Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) introduced the Protect Women’s Sports Act in December 2020. Craig released the following statement:
“As a lesbian woman, I am no stranger to prejudice and intolerance — but this legislation is beyond the pale. Plain and simple, the Protect Women’s Sports Act is transphobic — and this type of discrimination has no place in the halls of Congress. Especially at a time when the transgender community is suffering from a tragic rise in suicide rates and experiencing a surge of transphobic violence, such a bigoted and appalling effort is simply unacceptable. Queer and transgender women must stand together in the face of intolerance — and I am proud to do so today by emphatically denouncing this narrow-minded and hateful legislation, which is harmful not only to transgender women but to the LGBTQ community at-large.”
Craig has been endorsed by prominent LGBTQ groups, including the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, the Human Rights Campaign PAC, Equality PAC, and LPAC. She has also been endorsed by Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her, plus many nationally known political figures, such as former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.).
Flanagan has the endorsement of Smith and her predecessor, Al Franken, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, and, from outside the state, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sanders, among others. U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and the state’s governor, Tim Walz, so far haven’t made endorsements.
“I’m ready on day one” to serve in the Senate, says Craig, noting her four terms in the House, her substantial career before going into politics, and her two votes to impeach Trump. “If we can take the House and Senate, we can put a cap on this administration.”
This is a cross-post from Karen Ocamb’s LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters Substack.
2026 International AIDS Conference to take place in Rio
Summer in D.C. brings sports, Restaurant Week, festivals, and more
Trump tries to scare Americans into not voting
No Pride without Disability Pride
House blocks effort to codify transgender servicemember ban into law
DOJ seeks to dismiss some claims in gay FBI employee’s bias lawsuit
PHOTOS: Vitamin C at JR.’s
Hot hatchbacks: Honda Civic, Subaru Impreza
PHOTOS: Rehoboth Beach Pride Festival
