Opinions
Trump administration is set to abandon LGBTQ Africans
Ugandan officials have applauded incoming U.S. president
As the results of the U.S. presidential election came in on Nov. 5, showing that former President Donald Trump had won a second term, homophobic political leaders celebrated 7,000 miles away, in Uganda’s capital of Kampala.
“The sanctions are gone,” Anita Among, the country’s parliamentary speaker, told members of parliament, referring to the fact that she had been barred from entering the U.S. by the Biden administration on June 16, 2023, after Uganda passed what was known as the “Kill The Gays” act on May 28, 2023.
The act, officially called the Anti-Homosexuality Act, was signed into law by President Yoweri Museveni on May 28, 2023. The new Ugandan law imposes life imprisonment for same-sex acts, up to 20 years in prison for “recruitment, promotion, and funding” of same-sex “activities,” and anyone convicted of “attempted aggravated homosexuality” faces the death penalty.
On May 8, Among proclaimed that the enactment of the law demonstrated that “the Western world will not come and rule Uganda.” And on May 9 Among tweeted: “The president … has assented to the Anti-Homosexuality Act. As the parliament of Uganda, we have answered the cries of our people. We have legislated to protect the sanctity of [the] family. We have stood strong to defend our culture and [the] aspirations of our people,” she said, thanking Museveni for his “steadfast action in the interest of Uganda.”
Among said in his tweet that Ugandan MPs had withstood pressure from “bullies and doomsday conspiracy theorists” and called for the country’s courts to begin enforcing the new law. The passage of the bill and that fact that Among and other African homophobes celebrated Trump’s re-election tells us what the next four years are going to be like for Africa’s LGBTQ+ people.
African political leaders and religious zealots (both Christian and Muslim) have used homophobia as a tool for political and religious power for many years. They say that same-sex relations and gay rights are imports from the West. They have used homophobia to portray themselves as nationalists and defenders of African and religious values. They have used homophobia to frighten and divide people to mobilize popular support and votes.
But it is homophobia, as others have said before me, that is the real import from the West. And the whole panoply of weapons employed by the homophobes in Uganda and elsewhere in Africa are themselves colonial imports, ranging from sodomy laws that were a legacy of colonial rule to the parliaments that pass these laws.
And homophobia is growing stronger in Africa.
In mid-March 2023, Museveni was quoted by the Monitor newspaper website as saying that the “Western countries should stop wasting the time of humanity by imposing their social practices on us.” And Kenyan President William Ruto declared the same month that “our culture and religion does not allow same-sex marriages.”
On April 2, 2023, Museveni called upon African leaders to reject “the promotion of homosexuality” and said homosexuality was “a big threat and danger to the procreation of human race.” According to Museveni, “Africa should provide the lead to save the world from this degeneration and decadence, which is really very dangerous for humanity. If people of opposite sex stop appreciating one another then how will the human race be propagated.”
On Dec. 29, 2023, Burundian President Evariste Ndayishimiye, speaking at an event in the country’s eastern Cankuzo province, where he answered questions from journalists and members of the public, defiantly proclaimed that powerful nations “should keep” their aid if it comes with an obligation to give rights to LGBTQ+ persons. “I think,” Ndayishimiye declared, “that if we find these people in Burundi they should be taken to stadiums and stoned, and doing so would not be a crime.”
In Ghana, legislators have been debating the Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill since it was introduced in August 2021. Same-sex relations are already punished by up to three years in jail under current law in Ghana, but this new bill will impose punishment for even identifying as LGBTQ+. It will also criminalize being transgender and includes jail sentences of up to 10 years for advocating for LGBTQ+ rights. It also imposes a legal obligation on all persons and entities to report any people perceived to be LGBTQ+ or any homosexual activity to the police or community leaders.
The bill was passed by the Ghanaian parliament on Feb. 28. President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo has not yet announced whether he will sign it, saying he will await the results of two Supreme Court cases challenging its constitutionality. And on July 17, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that delayed judgement on the bill until all related legal issues have been resolved.
John Dramani Mahama, the former president of Ghana and a leading presidential candidate in the country’s upcoming elections, standing for the National Democratic Congress, said during a meeting with members of the clergy in eastern Ghana that gay marriage and being transgender were against his Christian beliefs. “The faith I have will not allow me to accept a man marrying a man, and a woman marrying a woman,” Mahama said while responding to a church leader’s call against LBGTQ+ people. “I don’t believe that anyone can get up and say I feel like a man although I was born a woman and so I will change and become a man,” he added. Mahama did not say whether or not he would sign the anti-LGBTQI+ bill should he win the presidential election in December 2024.
In Kenya, opposition parliamentarian Peter Kaluma introduced the Family Protection Bill in February 2023. The bill mirrors many aspects of the Ugandan law and would punish gay sex with prison for up to ten years or even death in some cases. The new bill is “cut from the same cloth” as the Ugandan legislation, said Kevin Muiruri, a Nairobi-based lawyer. The bill is being vetted by a parliamentary committee, which is expected to refer it to the full chamber for a vote. And President William Ruto, an evangelical Christian, has already endorsed the legal repression of LGBTQI+ rights.
“We cannot travel down the road of women marrying their fellow women and men marrying their fellow men,” he declared in March 2023.
More recently, the National Transitional Council of Mali, which has effectively served as the country’s legislature since the military seized power in 2020, voted on Oct. 31 to approve a penal code that criminalizes same-sex relations by 132 votes to one. The media was not able to obtain a copy of the new penal code and the penalties imposed for same-sex acts are unknown. But, according to the Malian Justice and Human Rights Minister Mamadou Kasogue, “anyone who indulges in this practice, or promotes or condones it, will be prosecuted.” The bill still requires the signature of the country’s military junta, which is led by General of the Army Assimi Goita.
Trump’s foreign policy advisors have already drawn up an explicitly anti-LGBTQ+ rights foreign policy agenda for his second term in office. The Project 2025 report (prepared under the leadership of the Heritage Foundation, so the new administration can start implementing this agenda as soon as it comes into office in January 2025) states that the U.S. should “stop promoting policies birthed in the American culture wars” and stop pressing African governments to respect the rule of law, human rights/LGBT+ rights, political and civil rights, democracy, and women’s rights, especially abortion rights.
“African nations are particularly (and reasonably) non-receptive to the US social policies such as abortion and pro-LGBT initiatives being imposed on them,” by the U.S., the report declares. Therefore, “the United States should focus on core security, economic, and human rights engagement with African partners and reject the promotion of divisive policies that hurt the deepening of shared goals between the U.S. and its African partners.”
The principal responsibility for implementing this policy reversal on LGBTQ+ rights in Africa will fall on Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and whoever Trump chooses as his Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. It will be up to them to direct the activities and programs that Trump wants in order to endorse, encourage, promote, and fund homophobic groups and organizations in Africa, and there is no doubt that they will implement this agenda energetically and zealously.
African homophobes say they are standing up to the West and saving the continent and the world from homosexuality, but they are just serving their own selfish interests and the interests of right-wing Christian nationalists in the West. Gay communities in Africa and the West share a common interest in fighting back, and civil society groups and all genuine supporters of human rights are increasingly active. As Eric Gilari, an LGBTQ+ activist in Kenya said, “one day we shall defeat these assaults on our human rights and triumph in equality and inclusion for LGBTQ persons within African countries. This ideal must be our guiding light in this moment of darkness and tears.”
Daniel Volman is the director of the African Security Research Project in Washington, D.C. and a specialist on U.S. national security policy toward Africa and African security issues.
Opinions
A reminder that Jan. 6 was ‘textbook terrorism’
Capitol attack started an effort to make civic engagement feel dangerous
Jan. 6 taught us what it costs to defend our families and our communities.
Five years ago, Michael Fanone went to work as a Metropolitan Police Department officer and ended the day fighting for his life while defending the United States Capitol.
After Michael spoke publicly about what he witnessed on Jan. 6, the response was not disagreement or debate. It was intimidation. His mother was swatted in a targeted attack.
We are not immediate family, but we spend holidays together. Our lives overlap. And that was close enough.
Unpaid pizza deliveries were sent to our homes. Strangers showed up demanding payment. Threats followed, by phone and online. The message was unmistakable: Speaking out against Donald Trump would come at a cost, not only for you, but for your family.
As Mayor Muriel Bowser said at the time, Jan. 6 was “textbook terrorism.”
What made this harder was not only the intimidation itself, but the absence of any clear support once the headlines faded. One of us was a Metropolitan Police officer. The other served on the D.C. State Board of Education. If anyone should have known where to turn or had access to guidance or protection, it should have been us. Instead, there were no clear resources to help families deal with harassment, no guidance on what to do when threats followed us home, and no sense that anyone had our backs once the attention moved on. We were left to absorb it quietly and figure it out ourselves.
That experience changed how I understood Jan. 6, not as a single violent day, but as the start of a longer effort to make civic engagement feel dangerous and isolating. You do not have to silence everyone. You only have to make examples of a few.
I know many people in this city recognize that feeling now. The sense that speaking out carries risk. That you cannot afford to lose your job. That scrubbing your social media is safer than risking the consequences. In this context, silence is not necessarily apathy. It is self-preservation.
As a school board member and healthcare navigator, I hear it from families who decide to keep their children at home rather than send them to school. I hear it from families who decide not to re-certify their Medicaid, not because they are ineligible, but because they fear being targeted for using public benefits. These are not abstract concerns. They are everyday decisions shaped by fear of retaliation, fear learned by watching what happens to people who speak out.
More people in our city are now asking the same question my family was forced to confront on Jan. 6: Who will back you when the pressure does not stop, or when it follows you home after work?
This is where the city should step in and say clearly: We will have your back.
Yes, D.C. operates under real constraints. We lack statehood. We cannot deploy the National Guard without federal approval. Congress can overturn our laws.
But even within those limits, choices still matter. Across D.C., neighbors are walking children to school when families fear being targeted by ICE. Passersby are stopping to question why someone is being profiled or detained. These acts do not eliminate risk. They redistribute it, often making the difference between retreat and resistance.
This is not about asking everyone to be louder or braver on their own. It is about whether we are willing, as a city and a community, to make it safer for people to stand up to a bully. That means building real support around those who take risks, so they are not left isolated afterward. It means treating endurance as a shared responsibility, not an individual test.
Our city may not have all the powers it would have as a state, but we still have choices. Right now, residents and city workers who face threats are left to navigate a maze of agencies, hotlines, and informal advice on their own. That gap is a policy choice, and it does not have to remain one. There should be one clear place to go when harassment or threats occur, a single point of contact that helps document what’s happening, connects people to existing resources, and coordinates a response across agencies. Not a new bureaucracy, but a clear front door. The message it would send matters as much as the help itself. You are not on your own, and the city is paying attention beyond the news cycle.
Jan. 6 did not end at the Capitol. It moved into our neighborhoods, our families, and our daily choices. The work now is not to demand a single expression of courage, but to make it safer for all of us to stand up in our own way, together.
Allister Chang is a member of the D.C. State Board Of Education from Ward 2.
Opinions
A dangerous precedent on trans rights in Texas
State compiling list of those who have updated gender on driver’s licenses
Recent reporting from Texas Standard revealed what should alarm every American who values privacy, civil rights, and constitutional restraint: the state of Texas is compiling a list of transgender residents who have attempted to update the gender marker on their driver’s licenses.
Under a policy quietly implemented after August 2024, the Texas Department of Public Safety stopped accepting court orders or amended birth certificates as valid documentation for gender marker changes. Instead, DPS employees were instructed to forward the names and identifying information of applicants seeking such updates to a dedicated internal email channel labeled “Sex Change Court Order.” Those records, which include sensitive personal information, are now being collected internally by the state.
Texas officials have not offered a clear explanation for why this information is being gathered, how long it will be retained, or what it will ultimately be used for. That lack of transparency is deeply troubling on its own. But in the broader context of Texas’s recent legislative trajectory on transgender rights, the implications are far more serious. This is not merely a bureaucratic shift. It is the creation of a targeted registry of transgender people.
The discriminatory nature of this practice is difficult to ignore. Governments are generally prohibited from singling out individuals based on protected characteristics for special monitoring or record-keeping. Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, discrimination against transgender people has been understood as a form of sex discrimination under federal law. Compiling a list of people solely because they sought to align their identification documents with their gender identity runs directly counter to that principle.
Even states with restrictive policies around gender marker changes have historically focused on procedural barriers rather than surveillance. Texas has crossed a new threshold by moving from denial to documentation. The state is no longer just refusing recognition; it is actively cataloging those who seek it.
This practice also represents a profound violation of privacy. Driver’s license records contain some of the most sensitive personal data the government holds. Associating that data with a person’s transgender status without consent or statutory justification creates obvious risks, particularly in a political environment where transgender people are already subject to heightened hostility.
The chilling effect is unavoidable. Trans Texans will now have to weigh whether engaging with basic state services could land them on a government list. That fear will discourage people from updating identification, interacting with public agencies, or asserting their legal rights at all. When a government’s actions deter a specific population from participating in civic life, the harm extends well beyond administrative inconvenience.
What makes this development especially dangerous is how neatly it fits into a broader pattern. Texas lawmakers have spent years advancing legislation that narrows the legal definition of sex, restricts access to gender-affirming care, and limits the recognition of transgender people across public institutions. The creation of this list does not stand apart from those efforts; it complements them.
Once such a database exists, it becomes a tool. Data collected today for “administrative review” can be used tomorrow to justify new exclusions, enhanced scrutiny, or punitive enforcement. History shows that registries built around identity rarely remain benign. They become mechanisms of control.
Other states are watching. Texas has increasingly functioned as a testing ground for anti-trans policy, with lawmakers elsewhere ready to replicate measures that survive legal or political backlash. If compiling a list of transgender residents becomes normalized in Texas, it will not remain isolated. Red states searching for new ways to restrict trans lives will take notice.
The constitutional issues raised by this practice are significant. The Equal Protection Clause forbids states from treating similarly situated individuals differently without sufficient justification. Singling out transgender people for special tracking invites heightened scrutiny. There are also serious Fourth Amendment concerns when the government collects and retains sensitive personal information without a clear, lawful purpose.
At stake is not just the safety of transgender Texans, but the integrity of government itself. If states are permitted to quietly assemble lists of disfavored populations, the precedent does not stop with gender identity. It becomes easier to rationalize similar measures against other groups, under different political conditions.
This moment demands scrutiny and resistance. Texas must be compelled to explain why this data is being collected, how it will be protected, and whether it will be shared across agencies. Civil rights organizations and federal authorities should treat this practice as a serious warning sign, not a minor administrative quirk.
The United States has made meaningful progress toward recognizing the rights and dignity of transgender people, but that progress is fragile. It can be reversed not only through sweeping legislation, but through quiet bureaucratic maneuvers that evade public attention.
A list of transgender citizens is not a neutral administrative artifact. It is a signal. It tells a vulnerable population that their government is watching them differently, recording them differently, and preparing to treat them differently. That should concern everyone, regardless of where they live.
If we allow this to stand, Texas will not be the last state to do it.
Isaac Amend is a writer based in the D.C. area. He is a transgender man and was featured in National Geographic’s ‘Gender Revolution’ documentary. He serves on the board of the LGBT Democrats of Virginia. Contact him on Instagram at @isaacamend
One year gone, another just beginning. The best of all worlds would be no regrets about how you lived your life in 2025, and a positive outlook for 2026. I wish that for all of you, along with good health and happiness.
For me, 2025 was a good year. No new health issues as long as I don’t consider my recent root canal. Friends kidded if that was my worst, life is OK. But then they didn’t sit in the dentist chair for three hours. As you are aware, if reading this in the Blade, I write about politics. The felon in the White House ensures there is always something to write about. Unfortunately, it’s 99% bad. He recently said he will interfere in Europe, and support far-right parties. Not surprising for him, and his fascist leaning administration. Again, as you know, I usually refer to him as ‘The felon,’ my most polite name for him. He has a slew of scary incompetents around him, but truly frightening are the fascists like Russell Vought at OMB who wrote Project 2025, and his personal Goebbels, Stephen Miller. They are proposing policies that are destroying lives. While many don’t impact me, they create a certain amount of guilt in how I live my life. I am a white, privileged, cisgender, older, male and can escape the immediate repercussions of some of the worst things happening in the world today. Nearly all perpetrated, or supported, by the evil SOB in the White House. There, another name for him.
As long as my Social Security keeps coming, and Medicare still pays 80% of my doctor bills, I should be OK. In 2025, I continued to join friends every morning for coffee. In D.C. at Java House; in Rehoboth Beach, it’s The Coffee Mill, owned by my good friends Mel Damascena and Bob Cartwright.
My regular column allows me to vent and comment on the world. My second column is the Blade’s Comings & Goings column. It lets me share the successes of so many in the LGBTQ community. We have a truly amazing community, of which I am so proud to be a part. In 2025, I also began my second book, this one on politics, but don’t hold your breath for a publication date. I am also a theater reviewer for the Georgetown Dish. I get to see as many plays as I like, and share thoughts about them. Mind you, I call myself a reviewer, not a critic. I always try to find something nice to say about every production, even if I don’t recommend others see it. Maybe a good actor, great scenic designer, always something good even in a bad production.
I am fortunate to continue to travel. Now it’s on cruise ships. Great to unpack once, and know where the bathroom is. This past year I went on two cruises, and the Blade was kind enough to publish my blogs. One, a bucket list cruise, something I wanted to do for over 40 years, to the Norwegian Fjords, and the Arctic. Twelve days on Celebrity APEX out of Southampton. It was amazing, and met all my expectations. The second was my recent transatlantic cruise, something I do annually, with a large group of friends from around the country, and world. It was 13 nights from Rome to Ft. Lauderdale. I’ve already booked next October; 16 nights on Celebrity XCEL, Barcelona to Miami. I even have two cruises booked in 2027, one a transatlantic, the other a river cruise on the Douro, in Portugal. Feel free to join me if you like cruising, at least the kind done on the water.
All-in-all, 2025 was a good year. I look forward to the same in 2026. More travel, including a barge trip in June from Lyon to Paris, through the canals of Burgundy. I hope for good health, time with good friends, and more writing. In addition, I promise my friends, and community, I will continue to fight with, and for you, trying to make our lives better. I will demonstrate against the felon and his policies, work hard to elect Democrats, especially my friend Zach Wahls, running for United States Senate in Iowa. I will stand up, and speak out, for my trans friends, and friends who are immigrants, all threatened by the felon.
I ask you to join me and do everything we can to take back our country and look forward to maybe seeing many of you on a cruise, but definitely on the battle lines, here at home. Together, we can work in 2026 and beyond, to ensure everyone can live the life they want, and deserve; in what again must be the land of the free and home of the brave.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.
Imperial Court of Washington drag group has ‘dissolved’
What to watch for in 2026: midterms, Supreme Court, and more
A reminder that Jan. 6 was ‘textbook terrorism’
Claudia López criticizes Trump over threats against Colombian president
Tim Walz drops out of Minn. governor’s race
D.C.’s 10 best theater productions of 2025
A look back at the best books of 2025
The year in photos
Safer Ways to Pay for Online Performances and Queer Events
