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 ā 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 brandsā 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 worldās biggest and best-known brands.
Anti-LGBTQ backlash is real and difficult to predict
False claims on social media that an item in Targetās seasonal Pride collection ā a ātuck-friendlyā swimsuit ā was offered in childrenās 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.
āWe are literally jumping from crisis to crisis to crisis,ā Isen said, adding āwe are in uncharted territoryā where companies are āunable to foretell on an hourly basis what will blow up on social media,ā and responding effectively is made more difficult when the claims at issue are āpatently untrue.ā
As a result, āthere is a real reticence to move forwardā on outreach to the LGBTQ community āuntil things work themselves out,ā 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, āOne Million Moms,ā 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 Lightās social media spot featuring transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney marked a tipping point because of the resulting harm to parent company Anheuser-Buschās 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.ā
āThereās no PR professional that would have recommendedā 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 ā 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 āanybody else who is different.ā Isen noted the political climate has been defined by a right-wing crusade against āwokenessā led by the likes of Floridaās Republican Gov. and 2024 presidential contender Ron DeSantis.
Mackinnon, however, said the anti-trans backlash is distinct. āOther LGBTQ+ issues like gay marriage are not very controversialā from a marketing and advertising perspective, but there has been a shift in recent years as āpeople starting to think about transgender issues on a higher level,ā 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, āthe decision to engage her was done for business reasons,ā Isen said, as the company saw a valuable opportunity to tap into a broader market of young potential customers. The influencer āhas a demographic following that fit perfectly into a market expansion opportunity for the brand that was in double digit decline.ā
The companyās response, he said, was a problem because Anheuser-Busch seemed to characterize its work with Mulvaney as, instead, a cultural outreach effort ā which rang insincere and āalienated the entire LGBTQ community, bar owners in the trade, and consumers.ā
āHad they stood firm and said, āwe made a calculated business decision to engage this social influencer as we have thousands of other social influencers,ā it would have been a different story,ā Isen said.
Anheuser-Buschās major miscalculation was failing to build a relationship with its LGBTQ customers who might otherwise be inclined to forgive the companyās decision to back down to pressure from anti-trans extremists āwith its delayed response and then a really unthoughtful response,ā Evans said. Engendering goodwill with the community is crucial, he said.
āThis is a brand that was not necessarily known for [LGBTQ] outreach in their marketing,ā Mackinnon said, āso when they partnered ā in a very small way, by the way ā 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.ā
As a result, he said, for many people Anheuser-Buschās 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.
āBrands 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,ā Mackinnon said.
āMost 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,ā 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.
āA brand that is investing in transgender, LGBTQ+ consumers,ā he said, must ābe ready to know how to explain [those investments] and how to combat that misinformationā with quick, simple responses provided in real time.
Used properly, Mackinnon said, social media can be an effective tool for firms to build trust ā 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 Americansā faith in institutions ā politics, traditional media, scientific and medical expertise ā continues to plummet.
These conditions have primed consumers to ālook to brands to speak to these issues,ā Mackinnon said, ānot to, like, heal the world, but to operate as influencers on the issues that are front-of-mind for people.ā
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
House Dems urge OPM not to implement anti-trans executive order
Authors were Dem. U.S. Reps. Mark Takano (Calif.), Jamie Raskin (Md.), and Gerald Connolly (Va.)

Three House Democrats including Congressional Equality Caucus Chair Mark Takano (Calif.) issued a letter on Wednesday urging the Office of Personnel Management to not implement President Donald Trump’s anti-trans executive order, “Defending women from gender ideology extremism and restoring biological truth to the federal government.”
Also signing the letter were U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (Md.), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, and U.S. Rep. Gerald Connolly (Va.), ranking member of the House Oversight Committee.
The lawmakers wrote the order “unlawfully attacks the civil rights of transgender Americans” while the White House’s corresponding memo and guidance “implements unlawful discrimination by the federal government against transgender people in the civil service and the provision of federal services.”
Specifically, they call unconstitutional the directive for agencies to “end all programs, contracts, grants, positions, documents, directives, orders, regulations, materials, forms,
communications, statements, plans, and training that ‘inculcate’ or ‘promote’ ‘gender
ideology’āwhich the Executive Order defines broadly to encompass acknowledging the simple
existence of transgender people and gender identity.”
āWe are deeply alarmed by these and other actions the Trump Administration has taken in its first few weeks to eliminate all government support for the transgender community, including efforts designed to enforcing the rights and support the health of transgender individuals,” the congressmen wrote.
They added, “We are also appalled by the Administrationās attempts to weaponize federal agencies to target the transgender community for discrimination and exclusion. These actions contradict federal law, Supreme Court precedent, and most importantly the Constitutionās guarantee of equal protection under the law.ā
Politics
Trump administration sued over gender affirming care ban
Plaintiffs represented by Lambda Legal, ACLU, PFLAG National, others

Lambda Legal, the ACLU, and the ACLU of Maryland, joined by the law firms Hogan Lovells and Jenner & Block, have sued the Trump-Vance administration over its issuance of an executive order banning gender affirming care nationwide for patients younger than 19.
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, seeks “preliminary and permanent injunction preventing the Agency Defendants, including any subagencies of Defendant HHS, from enforcing or implementing the Denial of Care and the Gender Identity Orders.”
PFLAG National and GMLA are also representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, seven families with transgender or nonbinary children.
Trump’s executive order last week prohibits health insurers run by the federal government, including Medicaid and TRICARE, from funding medical care for trans and gender diverse youth that is recommended by mainstream scientific and medical organizations like the American Medical Association.
Hospitals throughout the country subsequently suspended or shut down their gender affirming care programs. Those that have acknowledged the move publicly cited the administration’s order, which threatens federal funding and grants for noncompliance.
New York Attorney General Letitia James issued a letter on Monday, signed by a coalition of 22 state AGs, informing hundreds of recipients of federal funding, including healthcare providers, “who were informed that funding cannot be frozen or withdrawn on the basis of providing gender affirming care to minors.”
Likewise, the lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal and the ACLU argues the executive orders are āunlawful and unconstitutional,ā first because they seek to withhold federal funds previously authorized by Congress and second because they violate anti-discrimination laws.
Politics
Trump previews anti-trans executive orders in inaugural address
Unclear how or when they would be implemented

President Donald Trump, during his inaugural address on Monday, previewed some anti-trans executive orders he has pledged to sign, though it was not yet fully clear how and when they would be implemented.
“This week, I will also end the government policy of trying to socially engineer race and gender into every aspect of public and private life,” he said. “Today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government, that there are only two genders, male and female.”
The president added, “I will sign an order to stop our warriors from being subjected to radical political theories and social experiments, while on duty. It’s going to end immediately.”
After taking the oath of office inside the U.S. Capitol building, Trump was expected to sign as many as 200 executive orders.
On issues of gender identity and LGBTQ rights, the 47th president was reportedly considering a range of moves, including banning trans student athletes from competing and excluding trans people from the U.S. Armed Forces.
NBC News reported on Monday, however, that senior officials with the new administration pointed to two forthcoming executive orders ā the official recognition of only two genders, and “ending ‘radical and wasteful’ diversity, equity and inclusion programs inside federal agencies.”
With respect to the former, in practical terms it would mean walking back the Biden-Harris administration’s policy, beginning in 2022, of allowing U.S. citizens to select the “x” gender marker for their passports and other official documents.
“The order aims to require that the federal government use the term ‘sex’ instead of ‘gender,’ and directs the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security to ‘ensure that official government documents, including passports and visas, reflect sex accurately,'” according to NBC.
Additionally, though it was unclear what exactly this would mean, the first EO would take aim at the use of taxpayer funds for gender-transition healthcare, such as in correctional facilities.
The Human Rights Campaign in a press release Monday indicated that a “fulsome review of executive actions” is forthcoming, but the group’s President Kelley Robinson said, āToday, the Trump administration is expected to release a barrage of executive actions taking aim at the LGBTQ+ community instead of uniting our country and prioritizing the pressing issues the American people are facing.ā Ā
āBut make no mistake: these actions will not take effect immediately,” she said.
āEvery person deserves to be treated with dignity and respect in all areas of their lives,” Robinson said. “No one should be subjected to ongoing discrimination, harassment and humiliation where they work, go to school, or access healthcare. But todayās expected executive actions targeting the LGBTQ+ community serve no other purpose than to hurt our families and our communities.”
She continued, āOur community has fought for decades to ensure that our relationships are respected at work, that our identities are accepted at school, and that our service is honored in the military. Any attack on our rights threatens the rights of any person who doesnāt fit into the narrow view of how they should look and act. The incoming administration is trying to divide our communities in the hope that we forget what makes us strong. But we refuse to back down or be intimidated.”
āWe are not going anywhere. and we will fight back against these harmful provisions with everything weāve got,” Robinson said.
-
National5 days ago
Board members for LGBTQ foreign affairs group resign amid Trump attacks
-
Opinions2 days ago
Iām nervous about D.C.ās ability to stage WorldPride
-
Opinions3 days ago
My existence as an intersex American was finally acknowledged, then erased four days later
-
Argentina5 days ago
Millions march against Javier Milei in Argentina