Connect with us

Politics

Will Rollins campaign not just about gunning for anti-LGBTQ Congressman Ken Calvert

Gay prosecutor running in Calif. 41st Congressional District

Published

2 years ago

on

Two years ago, openly gay prosecutor Will Rollins launched his first bid for public office and nearly defeated incumbent Republican U.S. Rep. Ken Calvert, who has represented California in Congress since the presidential administration of George H.W. Bush.

In this election cycle, the Democratic challenger believes he is even better positioned to win the seat for the state’s 41st Congressional District, which could tip control of the U.S. House of Representatives to his party now that Republicans have only a feeble five-member majority in the chamber.

And if accurate proxies can be found in the results of recent polls, quarterly fundraising metrics, and extra muscle deployed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, it appears Rollins’s confidence is shared by critical masses of voters, donors, and party leaders.

Speaking with the Washington Blade by phone on June 13, Rollins explained why his candidacy is resonating so strongly with constituents from across the political spectrum, including key swaths of Republicans and the 90,000 Independents “who are going to decide this election.”

On the one hand, Rollins said he is buoyed by flagging support for his opponent. He argued that instead of working to deliver results for his constituents like “high paying jobs, better wages, and better benefits for workers,” Calvert has instead spent much of his time in Congress helping to fuel costly culture wars and embracing right-wing extremism while enriching himself through “legalized corruption” schemes and undermining the justice system and rule of law.

At the same time, Rollins said that his background in law enforcement, his political orientation as a moderate, and his policy agenda, which includes a focus on popular and often populist reforms, has proven to be a winning formula on the campaign trail from the westernmost parts of Southern California’s Inland Empire to the Colorado Desert town of Palm Springs.

The city, home to a thriving LGBTQ community, helped make the 41st District far purpler after congressional maps were redrawn to include the region in 2022. Rollins said the redistricting helps to explain “part of why people are so bullish on flipping the seat.”

He explained, “Calvert has historically [represented] deep red parts of southern California, and that used to include Murrieta and northern Temecula,” Rollins said. When the new maps were drawn, “he lost those two cities and he gained the Coachella Valley, Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, La Quinta, Indian Wells, all of which had previously been represented by a Democrat, Raul Ruiz.”

Rollins is well positioned at this point in the race

Reflecting on his performance in the midterm elections, Rollins noted that 2022 saw higher turnout among Republican voters and lower turnout among Democratic voters, a hurdle made more difficult by the advantages Calvert exercised by virtue of his 32-year incumbency.

By contrast, as a first-time candidate, “when you go from a job as a federal prosecutor, where it’s the antithesis of self-promotion, to suddenly needing to build an entire brand and raise your name I.D. and self promote and campaign, that’s a steep learning curve, and I had basically six months after a primary to do it,” Rollins said.

As November approaches, the presidential race is expected to even out the disparities in voter turnout, and by now Rollins has now spent nearly three years introducing his candidacy and his campaign to residents across CA-41.

For the first time in either cycle, Rollins was ahead of his opponent (by one point) in an internal poll last month that provided respondents with no additional information about the candidates, a sign that “more people are getting to know me, and our name I.D. is increasing, and more people are also hearing our message,” he said.

The Democratic hopeful also noted his campaign out-raised Calvert’s in the third consecutive quarter, Q1 2024, and by more than $1 million, thanks to “voters and our grassroots supporters [who] know that this seat is primed to flip.”

The DCCC seems to agree with their assessment. As one of the organization’s “Red to Blue” candidates, a highly competitive distinction awarded to those with the best odds of unseating Republicans in their districts, Rollins receives “strategic guidance, staff resources, training, and fundraising support” to ensure the best possible odds for his victory in November.

Additional help from the organization responsible for fundraising and organizing on behalf of Democratic House candidates could be decisive in a race as close as this one, but Rollins also stressed his appeal among center and center-right constituents.

Building coalitions in a purple district

For example, the campaign recently secured high-profile endorsements from the likes of Stan Sniff, retired Republican sheriff of Riverside County, and California State Assemblymember Chad Mays, who previously served as the elected Republican leader.

Additionally, last month, the Palm Springs Police Officers Association, which had supported Calvert in 2022, announced it would back Rollins this year. Asked how he managed to win over the organization, Rollins pointed to his ability to relate to law enforcement officers along with his tenacious approach to engaging with the group.

“For cops in Riverside County, having somebody represent them who has worked alongside them, prosecuting MS-13, the Sinaloa Cartel, murderers, rapists, terrorists, that’s really powerful for the line officers who want somebody that understands what it is like every single day to do an important job that they do, putting their lives on the line to keep us safe,” he said.

Rollins added that he was now cowed by the group’s endorsement of his opponent during the midterms and was persistent in reaching out to facilitate a dialogue. “I refuse to give up on trying to persuade people that I would do a better job of representing them in Congress than Ken Calvert,” as well as his ability to relate to law enforcement officers.

The campaign’s efforts to engage with the Log Cabin Republicans, the conservative LGBTQ group, were less successful. Rollins said that during both election cycles “we reached out to [chapters located in CA-41] repeatedly, and all of our outreach was ignored.”

It is easy to imagine areas in which the organization could find common ground with the Democratic candidate. Rollins would be the first LGBTQ member of Congress with a law enforcement background, a candidate who has worked for a Republican governor and deliberately engaged with and courted support from other individuals and groups that are right-of-center.

He also questioned why conservative LGBT Californians would ally themselves with his opponent. “What is Ken Calvert done for you? He’s voted against the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act. He’s voted against letting you serve in the military. It makes no sense to go out and support somebody like that.”

Rollins said it seems Log Cabin “is increasingly used by elected Republicans to try to maintain the appearance of support and to conceal some of their actual record on our rights” and their refusal to engage with him is likely a sign of the extent to which the GOP has become mired in partisanship.

Drawing the contrast

Rollins attributes much of his success in winning major endorsements and contributions to the many contrasts voters are seeing between his campaign and his opponent’s, perhaps starting with the professional backgrounds and records on which they are running.

In recent months, Calvert’s campaign has sought to portray Rollins as “soft on crime” because of his opposition to a criminal justice initiative, California’s Proposition 47, but the former prosecutor told the Blade he welcomes the chance to frame their race around these issues.

Rollins pointed out that while his career was spent “going after drug cartels, terrorists and violent criminals across southern California,” Calvert “is somebody who has voted to defund the FBI, who voted to defund Border Patrol, who said that the FBI has been infiltrated, [that] the Department of Justice has become a political weaponization tool,” and “called for dropping charges against people who assaulted the U.S. Capitol” on Jan. 6.

Further undermining Calvert’s effort to position himself as the “law and order” candidate is the encounter he had with police who found him consorting with a sex worker shortly into his first term in Congress, Rollins said.

He added the incident also shows the hypocrisy of his opponent’s legislative record, considering the Republican’s habit of “voting to get the government into our bedrooms and into our exam rooms, and to prevent gay people from getting married, from serving in the military.”

Rollins, who has prosecuted cases involving white collar crime, also accused his rival of exploiting “a system of legalized corruption” in Congress through which members from both parties have been allowed to exploit the powers and privileges of their office for personal financial gain with loopholes and loose oversight protecting them from consequences.

Specifically, he said Calvert has enriched himself to the tune of $20 million over his 17 terms in office “by using earmarks to benefit his own personal real estate investments,” Rollins said, “a form of insider trading in real estate.”

Rollins said that his opponent has earned a reputation for self-dealing and topped lists of the most corrupt members of Congress, with California’s 41st District taking notice. “When people have seen their own rent and gas and groceries skyrocket while their member of Congress makes $20 million since 1992, that is a major red flag for voters,” he said.

The corruption problem is bigger than Calvert, which is why Rollins said he has made reforms and policy solutions in this area a cornerstone of his campaign.

If elected, the Democrat said he will push for “a ban on members trading stock across the board” as well as “a ban on [members] using inside information to benefit their real estate investments” and “a ban on lobbying by former members of Congress.”

Rollins said he will also work to implement term limits for members of Congress and to fix the problems created by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Ruling in Citizens United v. FEC (2010), which allowed for unlimited spending by corporations and outside groups on political campaigns.

He said that even more modest reforms like establishing “disclosure rules for members” would go a long way toward mitigating concerns about the flow of dark money “into these competitive congressional races through independent expenditures.”

Each of these proposals “have been tied into our own theme of the campaign around public service and protecting our communities, and law enforcement service versus self-enrichment, self-dealing,” Rollins said. “There’s no movement to police ourselves, and yet that is what the public craves most,” he added.

Polls have long shown the overwhelming popularity of measures designed to improve the functioning of Congress along with mechanisms requiring more accountability and transparency from its members, which should perhaps come as little surprise considering that 66.7 percent of Americans disapprove of the institution according to FiveThirtyEight.

Rollins said audiences from across the political spectrum have responded enthusiastically whenever he has discussed his anti-corruption proposals, whether before a chamber of commerce or a meeting of the Stonewall Democratic Club.

Generally speaking, rather than “angertainment and click-bait politics,” most Americans want to see policy solutions aimed at addressing real problems, he said. “They want money out of politics. They want common sense solutions to traffic problems in their district. They want safer streets. They want clean energy. They want term limits.”

Likewise with their elected representatives, Rollins said. Voters “want people in the middle, not necessarily on the far left or the far right,” especially in purple districts where “you can run a successful campaign just being on what I call ‘team normal.'”

“The challenge for Democrats,” particularly those running for competitive seats, “is to make it really clear that the current MAGA majority [in the House] is different from the moderate, regular Republican voters in your district,” Rollins said.

Democrats should embrace populism

One way to reassure conservative-leaning voters is for Democrats to talk openly about the problems that helped facilitate the ascent of Donald Trump and the rise of right-wing populist movements, Rollins said.

Americans, regardless of their politics, are right when they say “government is broken,” or “The system is corrupt,” but solutions are not going to come from elected Republicans, least of all “the former host of Celebrity Apprentice,” Rollins said.

The more Democrats elected to the House who “are focused on those reforms, the better the party will do,” he said. “Because our brand can become an anti-corruption brand, and we should try to to cultivate that as much as possible, because certainly the GOP isn’t about that right now.”

Rollins added, “Right now, there’s only one political party that cares about getting money out of politics,” meaning that Democrats have the opportunity to campaign on an issue that “is supported by 90 percent of Americans.”

When it comes to more divisive matters, “a lot of it is tied to kitchen table issues, and I think that’s where we as a party are our strongest, where we’re talking about how it affects your wallet and why the far-right’s focus on culture wars is actually a massive waste of your tax dollars,” Rollins said.

Of course, it is important to call out the ways in which women, LGBTQ communities, and other groups are harmed when elected Republicans endeavor to restrict their rights, freedoms, and protections, but there is also an opportunity to explain why all Americans suffer as a result, he said.

For instance, after noting that Calvert and Congressional Republicans support “a national [abortion] ban with no exceptions,” along with restrictions on access to the abortion medication mifepristone and measures to make it more difficult for women in the military to access reproductive healthcare, Rollins stressed how these moves could damage the economy and threaten national security.

Likewise with LGBTQ rights. “I would be remiss if I didn’t also state the obvious,” Rollins said, “which is Calvert has one of the most horrible anti-LGBTQ rights voting records of any member in Congress, and started his political career by outing Mark Takano,” the gay congressman who ran against him in 1992 and now represents California’s 39th Congressional District.

Rollins said that when the subject comes up on the campaign trail, “I also talk about the way that his votes don’t just impact the LGBTQ community, because obviously they have hurt our community over the years, but they’ve actually hurt every American.”

For instance, he said, “when you try to make it harder for openly gay people to serve in the U.S. military, you deprive us of qualified pilots, snipers, Marines, Navy SEALs, Arabic linguists,” thereby weakening America’s military and security interests.

Rollins also noted the widely reported story last year about pediatric cardiologist Jake Kleinmahon, who ultimately decided to relocate out of Louisiana with his husband and daughter when conservative state lawmakers in Baton Rouge advanced a slate of anti-LGBTQ bills last year.

Following the family’s move to Long Island, Kleinmahon told CNN the only two remaining physicians in Louisiana who manage heart transplants would be expected to serve the same number of patients as they did before his departure.

“That is going to affect care,” he said, adding that “the absolute hardest part is me saying goodbye to my patients.”

“I believe the kids in Louisiana should have the same world class health care as any other part of the United States.”

Related Topics:
Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

2026 Midterm Elections

Ahead of the midterms, Meta has paid at least 29 anti-LGBTQ accounts for their posts

Invite-only Facebook Content Monetization program unveiled in 2024

Published

2 days ago

on

October 14, 2026

By

(Photo by Alessio Jacona. Design by Soph Holland)

Uncloseted Media published this article on Oct. 14.

This story was reported in partnership with The 19th, a nonprofit newsroom reporting on gender, politics, and policy.

By HOPE PISONI | On Sept. 14, far-right influencer Chaya Raichik, known online as Libs of TikTok, attacked a Washington state high school on Facebook for displaying a Pride flag. “Hey Mercer Island High School, why does your profile photo display a mutilation flag??” she wrote, tagging the school’s account in the post and attaching a photo of the entrance.

A few weeks before, on Aug. 27, neo-Nazi webcomic artist StoneToss posted a strip that used Tim Curry’s death to mock transgender suicide rates. And earlier this month, right-wing political commentator Benny Johnson shared claims that Democrats will “transition your kids while you’re at work” and “hand out gas cards to illegal aliens.”

Meta pays these creators for making posts like these. In 2024, the tech giant unveiled a new invite-only program called Facebook Content Monetization, designed to streamline earnings for creators. Many creators celebrated the move, with some reporting a major increase in their earnings through the program.

However, that program has recently come under scrutiny. In August, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported that Meta invited accounts promoting white supremacist and neo-Nazi ideologies.

And after reviewing Meta’s monetization data, Uncloseted Media identified 29 accounts with histories of anti-LGBTQ rhetoric that have been invited to the program. These include the three aforementioned accounts as well as podcaster Candace Owens, who has blamed gay men for child abuse in the Catholic church, and Turning Point USA, which has been connected to an assault on a queer Arizona State University professor. Meta did not respond to Uncloseted Media and The 19th’s requests for an interview or for comment.

With the midterm elections looming, some of the accounts Meta pays through the program have been spreading political misinformation. In the first week of October, for example, Benny Johnson made 14 separate Facebook posts connecting the Democratic Party to election fraud.

Courtney Radsch, director of the Center for Media and Digital Governance at Open Markets Institute, says that promoting hateful rhetoric and misinformation like this is especially dangerous during an election season where the increasingly authoritarian Trump-Vance administration, which Meta has courted since its inauguration, has openly discussed attempts to interfere.

“Amplifying and enabling harassment campaigns and centering fringe conspiracy theories through algorithmic curation and monetization opportunities has led to a dissolution of democracy in America,” Radsch told Uncloseted Media and The 19th. “This administration is dismantling democratic oversight and increasing authoritarian control. … You can’t look at your platform policies on monetization without looking at the context in which this is occurring in the U.S. with rising technofascism.”

What is the program?

Meta launched their Facebook Content Monetization program to incentivize more creators to post on Facebook, which has faced an aging user base and competition from newer apps. Those incentives can be substantial — within the program’s first year, content creators who accepted Meta’s invitation to join reported huge increases in their payouts, with some calling it their most lucrative platform. One creator told The Hollywood Reporter that she consistently earned $20,000 to $30,000 per month, while another said his monthly earnings often hit six figures.

While most accounts aren’t big enough to rake in that amount of money, Meta also motivates smaller accounts to join. Starting in 2025, they launched a side program called “breakthrough bonus” that advertises up to $5,000 and an automatic onboarding into Content Monetization for creators from other platforms if they start posting regularly on Facebook.

SK Smigiel, a content creator who posts about LGBTQ education and activism under the username justsaysk, joined the program through the breakthrough bonus initiative in April. They say Meta would offer them payouts for completing certain “missions.” For example, Smigiel says they earned $500 a month for posting 10 reels. They say other missions included using trending hashtags and audio or cross-posting to relevant groups. These incentives initially convinced them to post on Facebook due to their poor earnings on Instagram, but they didn’t stick around.

“When I post on Facebook, I don’t even open the post that I’ve made because I already know that … probably 99 percent of the engagement is negative towards me,” Smigiel told Uncloseted Media and The 19th.

Uncloseted Media identified accounts enrolled in the program via data compiled by What To Fix (WTF), a Dutch nonprofit focused on tech accountability. The Meta Monetization Archive is a searchable database of information collected from disclosures released by Meta.

Belén Luna Sanz, policy manager at WTF, says the program represents a broader shift in industry practices. While advertisers once paid content creators directly with companies like Meta taking a cut, platforms now collect all ad revenue and pay creators themselves.

“They’re only paying you royalties depending on how much engagement you are creating on your content,” Sanz told Uncloseted Media and The 19th.

Jason Hong, a professor of computer science at Carnegie Mellon University, says that while inflammatory and misleading content may go against Meta’s policies, both the company and the people posting it are financially incentivized to promote it.

“We know that things that get people really angry get a lot of engagement, we know that disinformation and misinformation … also gets lots of engagement,” Hong told Uncloseted Media and The 19th. “[Meta is] at a fork in the road, and one path is about the morals and ethics and well-being of society and democracy, and on the other path is a really big pile of money.”

‘A reckless rollout’

Since Meta launched the program two years ago, WTF has identified over 18 million accounts in the program. But Sanz says the selection process has been opaque and describes the program’s rollout as “reckless.”

“[The program requires] little to no verification of their identity, there are not enough safeguards and their monetization policies are enforced in a very non-transparent way, so it’s hard to tell whether they are enforcing it properly or not,” Sanz says.

Uncloseted Media found numerous posts that seemingly violate Facebook’s content monetization policies, which state that “content may be subject to reduced or disabled monetization if it depicts or discusses [debated social issues] in a polarizing or inflammatory manner.” Those issues include race, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation and more.

Libs of TikTok, for example, has called the organizers of an LGBTQ pride event “sick sick freaks,” accused pro-LGBTQ teachers of wanting to “indoctrinate your children” and decried the “lgbtq groomer cult.” Other posts may violate content monetization policies forbidding “derogatory words” and “hateful conduct,” including Raichik calling “sex assigned at birth” a “retarded term.”

Meta also states that misinformation, which they define as “content that has been rated false by a third-party fact checker,” is “ineligible to monetize,” even though the company ended their third-party fact-checking last year, leaving no clear mechanism to enforce the prohibition.

Meta states that “repeated violations of [content monetization policies] could lead to a temporary or permanent ban on your Page or profile’s ability to use our monetization tools.” However, as of the Monetization Archive’s most recent update on Sept. 15, all of the accounts discussed above are actively enrolled in the program.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated several individuals in Meta’s program as extremists. These include Tucker Carlson, who has agreed with claims that gender-affirming care allows adults to “basically molest and abuse children”; James Lindsay and Jack Posobiec, who helped popularize “groomer” rhetoric against LGBTQ people; and Alex Jones, whose infamous conspiracy show InfoWars received an invitation prior to its acquisition by The Onion. It also includes Libs of TikTok, which is known for stoking anti-LGBTQ harassment — 2024 reports by NBC News and The Washington Post cumulatively found over 80 instances of violent threats against institutions like schools and businesses connected to its posts.

“There does need to be discussion and diversity of opinion allowed in the public sphere,” Radsch says. “However, there is a difference between rational debate and harassment.”

Reports from WTF suggest that Meta doesn’t consistently uphold the program’s other rules either. Despite Meta’s policies stating that “political and government entities are ineligible for monetization,” including “current elected and appointed government officials” and “political parties,” WTF found hundreds enrolled. In addition, Uncloseted Media confirmed membership of at least eight official Republican Party pages, including the Republican Party of Georgia.

A danger to democracy

In recent years, Meta has courted the Trump-Vance administration and its far-right allies, including influencers. Last August, the company hired Robby Starbuck, an anti-DEI campaigner who has promoted conspiracy theories claiming that pesticides turn children gay, as an adviser on preventing “political bias” in their AI systems. And in April, Meta sponsored a party celebrating Isabel Brown, a Daily Wire host who has advocated for people to leave their LGBTQ “lifestyles.” Brown and Starbuck are both enrolled in the content monetization program.

Radsch says that being able to control who gets monetized grants Meta significant power over political narratives.

“That can be problematic because it means that they can pick winners and losers, they can pick ideologies, they can discriminate at will, and we have very little way to know whether that’s happening,” Radsch says.

The stakes are high given the upcoming midterms. Misinformation that the 2020 presidential election was rigged inspired the Jan. 6 insurrection. Still, Meta monetizes accounts which spread similar claims. Libs of TikTok has said, “Democrats want to cheat in the elections,” and Johnson responded to reports of new plague cases in Russia by implying that Democrats would use them to rig the election.

“There’s a level of commitment with trying to preserve electoral integrity that needs to be present, especially when there are very delicate elections coming up,” Sanz says. “Disinformation should not be rewarded financially — this is something that even they have in their own policies for monetization.”

What can be done?

Sanz has a “wish list” of new accountability policies that could push back against the anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and political disinformation being disseminated through this program. These include labeling monetized accounts and adding mechanisms for users to report monetization policy violations.

Hong adds that platforms should restructure their algorithms and monetization systems to consider factors other than engagement.

“I wish that Facebook would have more kinds of metrics, like societal or individual well-being,” Hong says. “These are kinds of things that would be far better for society, but it is a corporation and this is what they’re trying to do because this is the mandate from the top.”

While Meta is protected from many forms of legal action in the U.S., there may be a path to legal accountability in other jurisdictions. In 2022, the European Union passed the Digital Services Act (DSA), which, among other provisions, requires large online platforms like Facebook to mitigate the potential harms of content disseminated on their platforms. WTF filed a complaint against Meta in European courts last month arguing that by monetizing 11 accounts sanctioned by the E.U. for alleged involvement in pro-Russia propaganda campaigns, the company failed to meet the DSA’s risk mitigation obligations.

Perhaps most importantly, Sanz emphasizes that social media monetization needs more public attention.

“Creator monetization is a very ill-explored area,” she says. “Although there is a good amount of legislation here in the E.U. that gives us a playground to try to incorporate much more responsibility when it comes to monetization, I do think that globally this needs to be the case.”

Jones and Raichik did not respond to requests for comment.

Continue Reading

2026 Midterm Elections

JD Vance suggests James Talarico is gay during Texas rally

Homophobic joke made during Ken Paxton event

Published

2 days ago

on

October 14, 2026

By

Texas Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico (Screen capture via James Talarico/YouTube)

Vice President JD Vance joked that Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico is gay on Tuesday.

While campaigning for Ken Paxton, the Republican Senate candidate and current Texas attorney general, Vance made a joke that seemed to call into question Talarico’s sexuality during a stop in Tyler, Texas.

According to a video uploaded by C-SPAN, Vance responded to a man in the crowd who shouted, “I love you,” at the vice president.

“I love you, too, sir. In a totally platonic way, to be clear. I’m the vice president, not James Talarico,” Vance joked while standing in front of Air Force Two during the rally.

The joke has received negative press coverage and sparked backlash online against the second-in-command at a time when Republicans are struggling to win seats that, months earlier, were widely imagined to be all but entirely theirs.

Talarico, who confirmed he is in a long-term relationship of four years with Brianna Menard, a woman who served as his chief of staff during his time as a Texas state representative, has been an outspoken supporter of LGBTQ rights in the Lone Star State, often drawing criticism from right-wing personalities.

Billy Binion, a reporter for Reason, called out the homophobic joke made by the vice president on X, saying, “I remain amazed and mystified that some of the most powerful people in the world think ‘James Talarico seems gay!!’ is a compelling critique. It’s so desperate and small.”

Directly under a repost of the video, another person posted an old, widely circulated image of Vance in drag wearing a long blond wig, with the caption, “For the record James Talarico has never done this.” The post now has more than 62,000 views and more than 3,000 likes.

The comment is also drawing criticism of Vance over his past anti-LGBTQ actions while in the U.S. Senate. During his two years as a senator prior to Trump’s selection of him as vice president, Vance opposed the Respect for Marriage Act, which codified marriage rights for same-sex couples in federal law. He also co-authored the Protect Children’s Innocence Act, which would have made providing gender-affirming care to minors a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

Vance has also advocated for banning transgender troops from the military, which has become a defining characteristic of the current administration’s efforts to curb diversity and inclusion in the U.S. armed forces.

Additionally, Vance repeatedly referred to opponents of those actions as “groomers,” including in an April 2022 post on X.

“I’ll stop calling people ‘groomers’ when they stop freaking out about bills that prevent the sexualization of my children,” he wrote at the time.

These actions and the vice president’s homophobic rhetoric contrast with Talarico’s official stance on LGBTQ issues. Talarico has been a vocal supporter of LGBTQ rights but is facing recent criticism for backtracking on his support for trans girls and women participating in sports.

Under the “Freedom, Family, and Faith” section of his campaign website, Talarico states that one of his goals is to “protect the legality of gay marriage and defend our LGBTQ+ neighbors from government overreach.”

Paxton’s website, on the other hand, directly calls for Texans to vote for him so he can “defeat the radical transgender movement that’s desperate to put men in girls’ sports and woke indoctrination in our classrooms.”

The Washington Blade reached out to the White House, Talarico’s press office, and Paxton’s office for comment on the story but had not heard back by publication time.

Continue Reading

2026 Midterm Elections

Annie Andrews denounces trans athletes after Trump targets her

President used anti-trans slur to describe SC Senate candidate

Published

4 days ago

on

October 12, 2026

By

Annie Andrews, who is running for the U.S. Senate in South Carolina, has come out against transgender athletes on sports teams that correspond with their gender identity after President Donald Trump used a transphobic slur to describe her. (Bigstock photo)

Days after President Donald Trump called Annie Andrews, the cisgender Democratic nominee for South Carolina’s U.S. Senate seat, an anti-transgender slur on social media, Andrews came out against transgender girls and women participating in sports.

Trump called Andrews a “trannie” on Truth Social while attempting to garner support for her opponent, U.S. Sen. Darline Graham (R-S.C.), the incumbent seeking reelection in South Carolina.

After the president’s use of the slur was widely reported, the incident provided an opportunity for Andrews to explain her position on the ongoing trans debate that has shaped political discourse in the 2020s, despite trans people making up only 1 percent of the U.S. population, according to the Williams Institute.

She used the opportunity to denounce trans rights and pointed out that, as a physician, she had never performed gender-affirming surgery on minors.

“I want you to hear me loud and clear: I don’t support biological men playing women’s sports, and I don’t support and haven’t ever performed gender surgery for minors,” Andrews said in a political ad.

Despite these recent developments, Andrews has previously voiced support for trans South Carolinians. In 2022, she posted on her X account, criticizing the Save Women’s Sports Act, which was signed into law by Republican Gov. Henry McMaster and restricts trans girls from participating on girls’ sports teams.

“This is shameful legislation that does nothing to protect or support women or children in SC. In fact, it is actively harmful. I will always support trans youth,” Andrews wrote in after the legislation passed.

The Washington Blade reached out to Andrew’s campaign about the comments, and asked if she supports trans rights but did not receive a response.

Continue Reading

Popular