National
Project 2025’s ‘War on Porn’ threatens sex workers, LGBTQ community
Far-right plan for second Trump administration includes 32 anti-LGBTQ provisions

Civil liberties and LGBTQ rights advocates have expressed alarm that a proposal to criminalize pornography in a 920-page far-right blueprint for the first 180 days of a second Trump administration known as Project 2025 would have a far-reaching impact that threatens the rights of sex workers and the LGBTQ community, especially the transgender community.
Project 2025 was created by a coalition of several dozen conservative and religious-right organizations led by the D.C.-based Heritage Foundation, with most of them having opposed LGBTQ rights for many years and several having been designated as anti-LGBTQ hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
LGBTQ rights organizations, including the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBTQ rights group, and the LGBTQ advocacy group GLAAD, point out that Project 2025 includes at least 32 specific provisions that call for rolling back LGBTQ rights, including marriage equality and LGBTQ nondiscrimination protections in federal government agencies.
“Project 2025 demonstrates what four years of a Trump-Vance administration would look like,” HRC said in a statement. “It is a wrecking ball aimed at the very foundations of civil rights, LGBTQ+ rights, health care access, voting rights, and environmental protections,” the statement says.
GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis said in a statement that Project 2025 “would create an America where the freedoms that are a hallmark to our Democracy are replaced with authoritarianism and the progress we have made for LGBTQ people, people of color, women, and other marginalized communities is stripped away.”
Former President Donald Trump, who won the Republican presidential nomination last month at the GOP convention in Milwaukee, has disavowed Project 2025, saying he played no role in creating it and he does not agree with many of its provisions. But political observers point out that former Trump administration officials and many longtime Trump supporters played a lead role in developing Project 2025. Democratic Party leaders are predicting much of Project 2025’s content, including its anti-LGBTQ provisions, would likely be backed by a Trump administration.
With that as a backdrop, civil liberties advocates and representatives of the adult entertainment industry, including sex worker advocacy groups, are saying criminalization of pornography as proposed by Project 2025 would have far reaching negative consequences, including a negative impact on the LGBTQ community.
“The impact would be vast, and censorship of ‘pornography’ is central to this project,” according to a statement released by the Free Speech Coalition, which describes itself as a nonpartisan trade association for the adult entertainment industry. “The mandate calls for banning ‘pornography’ – broadly defined to include LGBTQ+ content – and imprisoning those who distribute it,” the statement says.
The Free Speech Coalition and other groups and activists opposing a ban on pornography point out that the text of Project 2025’s provision calling for a ban on porn seeks to create a link between what it calls harmful pornography and the transgender and LGBTQ communities.
Here is the full text of the Project 2025 provision for criminalizing pornography:
“Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.”
According to the Free Speech Coalition, “With new laws calling for the imprisonment of those who produce or distribute adult content, Project 2025 advocates for the arrest of millions of adult content creators – a War on Porn that might mimic the War on Drugs.”
The group adds in its statement, “This risk to anyone working in the sex industry is enormous but given the project’s twin concerns about LGBTQ+ content, would likely fall most heavily on LGBTQ+ sex workers, pushing them further into the margins, and increasing risk of violence and exploitation.”
Among those who share that concern is Cyndee Clay, executive director of the D.C.-based sex worker advocacy group HIPS. “Calls to outlaw pornography are problematic enough, but they also take one more legal option for sex work away from people who do sex work,” Clay told the Washington Blade. “What’s more concerning is this push from Project 2025 seems to be less about pornography itself and more about attacking trans rights and trans voices,” Clay said.
The Blade’s attempt to reach some of the largest online porn sites like Pornhub and the popular gay dating and sex meet-up site Grindr were unsuccessful. The ACLU, which has championed rights of sexual freedom for many years, didn’t respond to the Blade’s request for comment on Project 2025. But in a brief statement on its website, the ACLU criticizes Project 2025 as a plan to “dismantle policies put in place to protect our civil rights and liberties and establish a more authoritarian rule of law.”
The statement adds, “Along with our network of affiliates and coalition partners in all 50 states, we are armed with tools and tactics to protect against executive action that would take away our rights.”
Blair Hopkins, executive director of the Sex Worker Outreach Project Behind Bars, known as SWOP, said she believes the large adult industry companies like Pornhub, and others will be working behind the scenes to oppose Project 2025. Hopkins said the criminalization of porn would have a dramatic impact on the multi-million adult entertainment industry, which through its online sites and employment of sex workers as actors and support workers is an important segment of the nation’s economy.
According to its website, Pornhub alone has more than 100 million daily visits to its adult website and 36 billion visits per year. It says it has 20 million registered Pornhub users.
Hopkins said Pornhub has provided financial support for SWOP and other organizations that support sex workers.
“It’s been said that sex workers are the canary in the coal mine when it comes to any kind of civil rights,” Hopkins told the Blade. “And that is proven to be true over and over again,” she said. “So, what I think they’re talking about is not only will pornography be banned and criminalized, but also that anything can be categorized as pornography. And that is directly targeting the LGBTQ community.”
Todd Evans, executive director of the National LGBT Media Association, which represents LGBTQ news publications across the country, said a ban on pornography like what is being proposed by Project 2025 could have a negative impact on LGBTQ media outlets.
“Just think about it,” he said. “Who is defining pornography? What does that mean? Is Michelangelo’s ‘David’ pornography?”
Evans added, “It definitely has an effect on LGBT media because it goes back to what that definition of pornography is. And does it depend on who is delivering it? Like if it’s an LGBT publication, is that definition harsher than maybe a mainstream publication?”
Adult entertainment advocates have also pointed out that access to porn has already effectively been “banned” in several states that have passed laws calling for the adult sites to require anyone visiting the site to provide an identification document such as a driver’s license to show they are an adult. This has prompted some porn sites, including Pornhub, to discontinue operating in those states.
New York
Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced
One of the victims, John Umberger, was D.C. political consultant

A New York judge on Wednesday sentenced three men convicted of killing a D.C. political consultant and another man who they targeted at gay bars in Manhattan.
NBC New York notes a jury in February convicted Jayqwan Hamilton, Jacob Barroso, and Robert DeMaio of murder, robbery, and conspiracy in relation to druggings and robberies that targeted gay bars in Manhattan from March 2021 to June 2022.
John Umberger, a 33-year-old political consultant from D.C., and Julio Ramirez, a 25-year-old social worker, died. Prosecutors said Hamilton, Barroso, and DeMaio targeted three other men at gay bars.
The jury convicted Hamilton and DeMaio of murdering Umberger. State Supreme Court Judge Felicia Mennin sentenced Hamilton and DeMaio to 40 years to life in prison.
Barroso, who was convicted of killing Ramirez, received a 20 years to life sentence.
National
Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information
Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources

Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.
“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.
“These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.
It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”
The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question.
A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit.
While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management.
The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.
Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.
“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.
“Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says.
Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”
Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”
Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.
“As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from the Washington Blade.
“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said.
The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”
It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”
The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society.
The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.
While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”
“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.
The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.
Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.
-
District of Columbia4 days ago
Adams Morgan queer bar broken into and vandalized
-
Opinions5 days ago
New doc chronicles gay hero’s journey from rape to forgiveness
-
District of Columbia5 days ago
Murdered Israeli embassy officials were supporters of D.C.’s LGBTQ synagogue
-
Opinions5 days ago
US hate groups fuel anti-LGBTQ rights movement in Africa