Politics
Unprecedented times for companies facing anti-LGBTQ backlash
Experts weigh in on how firms should respond during Pride month and beyond
The precipitous rise of anti-LGBTQ sentiment in America has increasingly put corporate allies in the crosshairs of fraught culture war battles, creating unprecedented challenges for firms as they navigate business decisions during Pride month.
Concerns follow recent cases in which Target Corp. and Anheuser-Busch InBev suffered financial and reputational damage – first, when their outreach to LGBTQ customers provoked backlash, and again when the companies backed down in response to their anti-LGBTQ critics.
How should firms approach Pride month promotions in a climate where even the most minor or anodyne move can inspire right-wing calls for boycotts, or even threats of violence? What obligations do companies have to their LGBTQ customers, many of whom have long objected to brands’ tendency to offer performative demonstrations of support for the community to boost their sales in June?
Three experts spoke to the Washington Blade to address these and other questions.
Andrew Isen is founder and president of WinMark Concepts, a firm that provides marketing services targeting LGBTQ audiences and customers, primarily for large publicly traded companies. Todd Evans is president and CEO of Rivendell Media, a firm that coordinates and manages advertising and marketing campaigns that are run in LGBTQ media. And Jack Mackinnon is senior director of cultural insights at Collage Group, a consumer research firm whose customers include many of the world’s biggest and best-known brands.
Anti-LGBTQ backlash is real and difficult to predict
False claims on social media that an item in Target’s seasonal Pride collection – a “tuck-friendly” swimsuit – was offered in children’s sizes led to in-store confrontations that prompted the retailer to respond by moving merchandise to the back of stores and off the floor in some rural southern locations.
The controversy illustrates the unpredictability and arbitrariness of online flare-ups targeting individual companies, often driven partially or entirely by misinformation, the sources agreed.
“We are literally jumping from crisis to crisis to crisis,” Isen said, adding “we are in uncharted territory” where companies are “unable to foretell on an hourly basis what will blow up on social media,” and responding effectively is made more difficult when the claims at issue are “patently untrue.”
As a result, “there is a real reticence to move forward” on outreach to the LGBTQ community “until things work themselves out,” Isen said. Companies are now struggling with balancing their obligations to LGBTQ customers and their corporate shareholders, he said.
Evans said part of the problem is proportionality. Pressures from a small and vocal contingent of anti-LGBTQ consumers are amplified by unregulated social media platforms, he noted.
For example, he said, “One Million Moms,” a division of the American Family Association that is known for demanding boycotts against companies that have embraced the LGBTQ community, only has a few thousand Twitter followers.
Isen and Evans said that while brands have long been attacked for publicly embracing the LGBTQ community, the controversy over Bud Light’s social media spot featuring transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney marked a tipping point because of the resulting harm to parent company Anheuser-Busch’s bottom line.
Negative ramifications would have been thwarted, Isen said, had the company not reacted with a defensive posture by issuing a statement that “we never intended to be part of a discussion that divides people.”
“There’s no PR professional that would have recommended” Anheuser-Busch respond in the way that it did, agreed Evans.
To the extent that firms can anticipate when they may encounter anti-LGBTQ backlash, the sources agreed it is generally directed at the transgender community and anything involving minors – as seen in the rise in attacks against all-ages drag performances, for instance, and legislation targeting the rights of trans Americans, especially youth.
Evans said transphobia is part of a broader reactionary moment in American politics that presents a threat to the entire LGBTQ community and “anybody else who is different.” Isen noted the political climate has been defined by a right-wing crusade against “wokeness” led by the likes of Florida’s Republican Gov. and 2024 presidential contender Ron DeSantis.
Mackinnon, however, said the anti-trans backlash is distinct. “Other LGBTQ+ issues like gay marriage are not very controversial” from a marketing and advertising perspective, but there has been a shift in recent years as “people starting to think about transgender issues on a higher level,” he said.
Misinformation can be weaponized and exploited to a greater extent when it concerns gender issues about which many Americans are still unfamiliar, Mackinnon said.
Brands can mitigate risks by engaging thoughtfully with their LGBTQ customers
As they approach any business decision concerning advertising or outreach to the LGBTQ community, the sources agreed the Bud Light dustup may offer important lessons for companies moving forward into Pride month and beyond.
When the beermaker approached Mulvaney, “the decision to engage her was done for business reasons,” Isen said, as the company saw a valuable opportunity to tap into a broader market of young potential customers. The influencer “has a demographic following that fit perfectly into a market expansion opportunity for the brand that was in double digit decline.”
The company’s response, he said, was a problem because Anheuser-Busch seemed to characterize its work with Mulvaney as, instead, a cultural outreach effort – which rang insincere and “alienated the entire LGBTQ community, bar owners in the trade, and consumers.”
“Had they stood firm and said, ‘we made a calculated business decision to engage this social influencer as we have thousands of other social influencers,’ it would have been a different story,” Isen said.
Anheuser-Busch’s major miscalculation was failing to build a relationship with its LGBTQ customers who might otherwise be inclined to forgive the company’s decision to back down to pressure from anti-trans extremists “with its delayed response and then a really unthoughtful response,” Evans said. Engendering goodwill with the community is crucial, he said.
“This is a brand that was not necessarily known for [LGBTQ] outreach in their marketing,” Mackinnon said, “so when they partnered – in a very small way, by the way – and dabbled in a partnership with [Mulvaney], that caught some people by surprise, potentially, and they put themselves in an awkward position to explain what it was that they were doing.”
As a result, he said, for many people Anheuser-Busch’s business decision to work with Mulvaney seemed insincere or opportunistic.
Mackinnon said consumer research indicates that young people, especially, are inclined to research individual companies to assess the extent to which their support for inclusivity is sincere and baked into their corporate governance, rather than performative and motivated entirely by profit chasing.
As an example, Mackinnon pointed to cases where, following the murder of George Floyd, firms expressed their support for the Black Lives Matter movement, only to face criticism when customers discovered the lack of diversity in their boards of directors.
“Brands should be thinking about not [just] what should my campaign be for this June, but where do we want to be in terms of building trust six months from now, a year from now, five years from now,” Mackinnon said.
“Most of that work is quiet and under the surface and behind the scenes, and it is essential for building a platform and a framework and a foundation to have any other effective types of campaigns,” he said.
Part of this strategy should also include clear and consistent messaging on online platforms, which Mackinnon said can act as an effective bulwark against the spread of misinformation targeting companies.
“A brand that is investing in transgender, LGBTQ+ consumers,” he said, must “be ready to know how to explain [those investments] and how to combat that misinformation” with quick, simple responses provided in real time.
Used properly, Mackinnon said, social media can be an effective tool for firms to build trust – allowing for opportunities to engage in discussions and storytelling in a conversational fashion not afforded by other forms of corporate communication.
The ascendency of transphobia and anti-LGBTQ sentiment comes as Americans’ faith in institutions – politics, traditional media, scientific and medical expertise – continues to plummet.
These conditions have primed consumers to “look to brands to speak to these issues,” Mackinnon said, “not to, like, heal the world, but to operate as influencers on the issues that are front-of-mind for people.”
Companies might, then, see not just a set of challenges but also valuable opportunities for LGBTQ outreach during Pride month. Acting thoughtfully, these firms might maximize their market caps for the month of June without alienating their LGBTQ customers while also, potentially, helping to facilitate a world in which more Americans might be down to have a beer with a trans neighbor or bring their kids to a drag performance.
Congress
Bill seeks to block global gag rule expansion
Policy now bans US foreign aid to groups promoting ‘gender ideology’
Lawmakers on Wednesday introduced a bill that would block the expansion of the global gag rule.
President Ronald Reagan in 1985 implemented the global gag rule, also known as the “Mexico City” policy, which bans U.S. foreign aid for groups that support abortion and/or offer abortion-related services.
Trump reinstated the rule during his first administration. The Biden-Harris administration shortly after it took office in 2021 rescinded it.
The Trump-Vance administration earlier this year expanded the global gag rule to ban U.S. foreign aid for groups that promote “gender ideology.” The expansion took effect on Feb. 26.
U.S. Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) introduced the Protecting Human Rights and Public Health in Foreign Assistance Act in the U.S. Senate. U.S. Reps. Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), Lois Frankel (D-Fla.), Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), and Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) introduced it in the U.S. House of Representatives.
“Using taxpayer money to export the Trump administration’s anti-trans, anti-science, and anti-abortion ideological agenda isn’t just immoral — it’s antithetical to efficient, effective, and rights-based foreign assistance,” said Council for Global Equality Senior Policy Fellow Beirne Roose-Snyder on Wednesday in a press release.
Meng added the Trump-Vance administration’s “crusade against healthcare and global aid is putting millions of lives at risk worldwide.”
“No one will flourish under the new expanded global gag rule,” said the New York Democrat. “These policies weaponize foreign aid and will result in greater harm, particularly for women and girls, marginalized communities, and LGBTQI+ individuals.”
“They should never have been implemented at all, let alone without even a basic public comment process,” she added. “This legislation will reverse these dangerous policies.”
The White House
From red carpet to chaos: A first-person narrative of the WHCD shooting
The Blade’s WH correspondent Joe Reberkenny recounts his night at the WHCD after a shooter attempted to gain entry.
It started as any White House Correspondents’ Dinner is supposed to go—I assume. I’ve never been to one before this, but based on other events I’ve attended at the Hilton, including an HRC gala, it all seemed fairly normal.
There was a lot of traffic. Police had blocked off streets encompassing a large portion of Adams Morgan—particularly around the hotel. The president was making his first appearance after boycotting the event during his first term, so there was a sense of anticipation. It took me about 45 minutes to go just under a mile from my apartment to about three blocks from the hotel in my Uber. I waited until the last possible second before I felt like I was going to be late—6:30—to get out of the car, because it was raining and I was wearing my green tux.
I walked up to a group of people checking tickets at the base of the hotel. They seemed to just be glancing at the tiny, index-card-sized tickets rather than conducting any kind of full security screening outside. As I walked from that first checkpoint to the drive-around drop-off area, I joined what was essentially one long line for the red carpet. It eventually split into people who wanted photos and those who didn’t—but again, there was no real need to show anything beyond that small ticket upon entering, and even that wasn’t being checked closely.
A light went off in my head; I felt that, given the speed at which security was checking tickets, they couldn’t fully see the foil logo and tiny table numbers from that distance. I remember thinking that if I had a similarly sized piece of paper, I could have gotten through up to that point.
I also noticed there was no real security checkpoint or metal detectors upon initially entering the hotel grounds—unlike what I had seen at the HRC gala the year before.
I waited about 35 minutes in line in the car drop-off area—without cars, since it had been repurposed to corral press and their guests before entering the building and heading onto the red carpet. I took my photo, then went up the escalator to meet my date, Jacob Bernard from Democracy Forward. They wouldn’t let him onto the red carpet without his ticket, so I gave him his, which I had been holding. He was already inside the venue despite not having his ticket on him and had been at one of the pre-parties.
That also struck me as odd—that you could access a pre-dinner party without a ticket or going through any visible security.
After I found him, we took a photo together at a step-and-repeat past the main red carpet area around 7:45. Oddly enough, a group of my friends—gays who I regularly see on the dance floors of the gay bars of Washington, who work in various government and media-adjacent fields—found me, and we took pictures together. None were White House correspondents or held a “hard pass” to the White House (security credentials that allow entry into the White House complex).
Another light went off in my head that indicated party crashers probably shouldn’t be getting inside to an event that is supposed to be one of the most secure rooms in the country.
After the photos, I could see groups of people being moved from pre-party spaces in various meeting rooms on other floors and directed toward the main floor where the red carpet had been.
My guest and I went back up to the main floor and walked through a small security checkpoint that included only a handful of metal detectors. From there, I went down the stairs from the lobby into the International Ballroom, where we took our seats at Table 200. I talked to a few people I knew—very traditional pre-event chit-chat. The vibes felt good. It was my first time attending, and I was genuinely excited.
Around 8:15, the Marine Corps Band played and “Commandant’s Four” color guard presented the flags. We were then told to take our seats.
They introduced the head table—the president, first lady, vice president, and members of the White House Correspondents’ Association board. Weijia Jiang, senior White House correspondent for CBS News and president of the WHCA, gave a brief speech, essentially saying we would eat first and then move into the main program, which was supposed to feature mentalist Oz Pearlman.
At this point my table, 200 which included members of the Wall Street Journal, the Blade, and a European outlet all started eating. About 15 minutes later, Washington Hilton staff began clearing plates and preparing to bring out the next course.
As they cleared the plates, I heard four loud bangs.
I saw hotel employees immediately start ducking. They seemed to understand the gravity of the situation much faster than most attendees, including myself. At first, it sounded like a tray might have fallen over (but I later found out that wasn’t the case).
After about 30 seconds of watching some people duck, others look around in confusion, and some continue eating and drinking, I got down. I kneeled with my chair in front of me as a kind of barrier. Being at Table 200, I felt somewhat removed from where the actual incident occurred.
Then I saw the president being whisked away quickly by Secret Service, along with the first lady and others at the head table.
My reporter instincts kicked in. I grabbed my phone and started filming. I saw SWAT team members rush into the ballroom and onto the stage, clearing the area. I captured a video of people looking around, confused about what had just happened.
A few minutes later, the room was told by the WHCA president to hold on—that they would provide more information and guidance on what would happen next. There was some indication that they might try to continue the event despite what had occurred.
Everyone started frantically checking X to see if any major outlets were reporting. I was receiving texts from family, friends, and colleagues about the rapidly unfolding situation.
I walked to the bathroom—twice, technically. I couldn’t find it initially because it was hidden behind black curtains. (Later, those curtains were removed, and the men’s room was in clearer view.)
During the first walk to the bathroom, I called my editor to tell him what was happening. He instructed me to start sending copy to another editor, who would get it online. The ballroom had almost no service—it’s in the basement of a 12-story hotel—so it was a challenge. I utilized SMS fallback (since iMessage wasn’t working) to send updates.
I returned to the table, where people were still hovering—calling editors, scrolling, texting, sending photos and copy. I was already drafting my story and sending it in chunks, adding details as I gathered more information.
I walked my guest toward the bathroom again, which was on the opposite side of the ballroom from our table, so I had to cross what felt like a sea of journalists, PR officials, guests, and others on their phones, talking and scrolling. My guest pointed out that the press pool was being held in an alcove away from the ballroom doors and escalator exit—not in the ballroom with everyone else.
“Alive” by the Bee Gees was playing over the speakers in the bathroom, which felt a little too on the nose.
On my way out, I heard someone speaking over a microphone and rushed to the ballroom entrance. WHCA President Weijia Jiang was speaking. She announced that the event was over and the space was being evacuated.
She also said that President Trump would hold a press conference at the White House in about 25 minutes.
That’s when I knew it was a race against the clock.
I called my editor a second time to update him and asked if I should head to the briefing (knowing the answer would be yes). He confirmed.
Then the crowd began to move. People grabbed purses, bottles—some left belongings behind. Even though it was technically becoming a crime scene, no one was actively forcing us out. It felt more like a collective understanding: It was time to go.
I texted my guest: “OK, I have to go to the White House. I’m so sorry to leave you.”
I made my way with the sea of people toward the one exit we were allowed to use and zipped between women in fancy gowns and men looking like penguins.
I put on my hard press pass, opened the Capital Bikeshare app, reserved the closest e-bike, and headed out.
I walked up Columbia Road to 20th and Wyoming, grabbed the bike, and rode down Wyoming, then 18th, cut over to U Street, and went straight down 16th to the White House. That ride was exhilarating. I also filmed an Instagram Reel updating my followers on what was going on. I could see tourists and D.C. residents alike looking at me from their cars and the sidewalk, obviously confused as to why a man dressed in a tux had hopped on a bike.
I got off the bike where 16th Street meets Lafayette Square and darted toward the first White House security checkpoint, where they were verifying press credentials. Luckily, I had mine. After that, it turned into a mad dash. Everyone who made it through started moving quickly.
The sound of heels on what I think was cobblestone—or maybe brick—sticks with me. My own shoes were clacking as I ran toward the White House alongside other journalists in heels and dress shoes.
At the Secret Service checkpoint, there was a separate line for hard pass holders. Having my hard pass let me skip much of the impeccably dressed line of journalists who didn’t think to bring their hard pass with them.
It was probably the most exquisitely dressed press crowd I’ve ever seen—tuxedos, gowns, full makeup. It felt like something out of “The Hunger Games.”
I went through security, put my belongings through the metal detector, entered my code, grabbed my things, and ran to the briefing room.

The White House
Grindr to host first-ever White House Correspondents’ Dinner party
App’s head of global government affairs a long-time GOP-aligned lobbyist
Gay dating and hookup app Grindr will host its first-ever White House Correspondents’ Weekend party on April 24.
The event is scheduled for the night before the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, an annual gathering meant to celebrate the First Amendment, honor journalism, and raise money for scholarships.
The White House Correspondents’ Dinner is organized by the White House Correspondents’ Association, a group of journalists who regularly cover the president and the administration.
An invitation obtained by the Washington Blade’s Joe Reberkenny and Michael K. Lavers reads:
“We’d be thrilled to have you join us at Grindr’s inaugural White House Correspondents’ Dinner Weekend Party, a Friday evening gathering to bring together policymakers, journalists, and LGBTQ community leaders as we toast the First Amendment.”
The Blade requested an interview with Joe Hack, Grindr’s head of global government affairs, but was unable to reach him via phone or Zoom. He did, however, provide a statement shared with other outlets, offering limited explanation for why the company decided 2026 was the year for the app to host this event.
“Grindr represents a global community with real stakes in Washington. The issues being debated here — HIV funding, digital privacy, LGBTQ+ human rights — are daily life for our community. Nobody does connections like Grindr, and WHCD weekend is the most iconic place in the country to make them. We figured it was time to host.”
Hack said the company has been “well received” by lawmakers in both parties and has found “common ground” on issues such as HIV funding and keeping minors off the app. He credited longstanding relationships in Washington and what he described as Grindr’s “respectful” approach to lobbying.
Hack, a longtime Republican-aligned lobbyist, previously worked for several GOP lawmakers, including U.S. Sens. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), George Voinovich (R-Ohio), Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), and U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.).
According to congressional disclosure forms compiled by OpenSecrets, Grindr spent $1.3 million on lobbying in 2025— more than Tinder and Hinge’s parent company Match Group.
“This is going to be elevated Grindr,” Hack told TheWrap when describing the invite-only party that has already generated buzz on social media. “This isn’t going to be a bunch of shirtless men walking around. This is going to be very elevated, elegant, but still us.”
He also pointed to the company’s work on HIV-related initiatives, including efforts to maintain federal funding for healthcare partners that distribute HIV self-testing kits through the app.
The event comes at a particularly notable moment for an LGBTQ-focused connection platform to enter the Washington social circuit at a high-profile political weekend, as LGBTQ rights remain under constant attack from conservative lawmakers, particularly around transgender healthcare, sports participation, and public accommodations.
