National
Media missteps after Charlie Kirk shooting put trans community at risk: advocates
As false media narratives began to spread about the Kirk’s suspected shooter, they endanger the transgender community.
Charlie Kirk, one of the country’s most prominent right-wing political commentators and founder of Turning Point USA, was shot and killed last week while attending an event at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. Kirk, 31, had become a defining voice for a new generation of conservative activists—championing Trumpism, attacking LGBTQ rights, railing against immigration, and amplifying culture war rhetoric that earned him both loyal followers and passionate detractors.
Since his death, media outlets from all sides of the political spectrum began to look for any details that could speak to the killer’s motive. In that rush to be the first to cover unknown details about the alleged shooter, who we now know to be Tyler Robinson, 22, multiple outlets began publishing information that had not been vetted or checked by law enforcement.
Early reports incorrectly linked the suspected shooter to the transgender community, with several outlets citing unverified social media accounts, anonymous chatter, and suspected “antifascist” and “transgender ideology” inscribed onto bullets that had come from an early law enforcement bulletin. One outlet in particular — the Wall Street Journal — took a hardline approach to publishing this early, unvetted information. They went as far as to claim there was a direct link to the shooter and the transgender community in an article that has since been demanded to be taken down by the largest LGBTQ rights advocacy group, the Human Rights Campaign.
The National Association of LGBTQ+ Journalists (NLGJA), a professional organization advocating for LGBTQ journalists and issues in the media, responded to the Blade’s request for comment. President Ken Miguel said in an email:
“Whenever there is a terrible act of violence, newsrooms are faced with sorting rumor from fact. Unfortunately, the desire to be first sometimes gets in the way of being fair and accurate. In recent days, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Post reported ‘sources’ linking Charlie Kirk’s killing with ‘transgender and antifascist ideology.’ Many other outlets had access to similar sources but waited for confirmation from those closest to the investigation.
Sharing unsubstantiated claims breaks one of journalism’s core ethical principles: do no harm. NLGJA: The Association of LGBTQ+ Journalists is reaching out to the leadership of these papers to discuss the damage caused by this kind of coverage. Stories like these risk reinforcing harmful stereotypes and unfairly targeting a marginalized group that has already been the subject of politically motivated attacks. … Terms such as “transgender ideology” are rooted in political rhetoric, not neutral descriptions of identity, and should be handled with care, clear attribution, and context.”
In reality, investigators have confirmed that Robinson was raised in a staunchly MAGA household, with no indication he came from a “leftist” or progressive background, despite some outlets’ early claims. Law enforcement officials also confirmed that Robinson’s roommate — described by friends as a possible romantic partner — is transgender and has been cooperating fully with authorities since the shooting and knew nothing of Robinson’s alleged plan to kill Kirk.
The claim of connection to the transgender community was baseless, but it was amplified widely before any confirmation. By the time the outlet issued an editor’s note– and not removing the story like HRC had asked, the narrative had already taken root, reinforcing damaging stereotypes and giving far-right figures fresh ammunition to escalate their ongoing campaign of anti-trans rhetoric.
“This is another example of an incident where they should be focusing on gun violence, but instead they lean into scapegoating a community—this time not just without facts, but with bad facts. That does real harm to people who are already vulnerable,” said Cathy Renna, longtime communications director for the National LGBTQ Task Force.
Her frustration speaks to a broader pattern. In moments of crisis, particularly those involving mass violence, trans and queer people often become the subject of rumor, scapegoating, and speculative reporting — regardless of evidence. The Kirk shooting proved no different, exposing both the fragility of media responsibility in the digital age and the persistence of anti-trans narratives that continue to shape American discourse.
For Brandon Wolf, press secretary for the Human Rights Campaign and a survivor of the Pulse nightclub massacre, the media’s role in amplifying false connections between the Kirk shooter and “trans ideology” is not just bad reporting — it is life threatening.
“Words have consequences, and escalating dehumanizing and dangerous rhetoric against transgender people leads to physical harm,” Wolf said. “We’ve seen it over and over again. People in power can’t pretend they don’t know what their words unleash.”
Kirk’s killing, he argued, should have been a moment for the country to reckon with its epidemic of gun violence. Instead, it became another flashpoint in the culture wars, with the right exploiting misinformation to vilify an already marginalized community.
“The right wing is breathlessly obsessed with transgender people—using them as scapegoats for everything from the price of eggs to immigration policy. It’s not about policy, it’s about power, and they’re willing to sacrifice real lives in the process,” Wolf added.
That obsession, he noted, has consequences far beyond social media posts and podcasters pushing divisive language. From all levels of the country trans people are being legislated out of public life — targeted with bans on healthcare, sports participation, and restroom use. Each false narrative layered onto that environment increases the danger.
For both Wolf and Renna, the issue is not only political opportunism but also a profound failure of journalistic responsibility.
“Journalists have a responsibility to get it right, not just to get it first. When the wrong narrative takes off, it spreads like wildfire, and the truth never fully catches up. That puts people’s lives at risk,” Wolf said.
Renna agreed, stressing that the problem is systemic.
“Editors and producers make decisions every single day that impact us, and too often they’re choosing speed over accuracy, headlines over accountability,” Renna said. “That’s not just sloppy journalism—it’s irresponsible, and it costs people their safety.”
Her critique echoes years of advocacy work around media representation. As a veteran of LGBTQ communications strategy, Renna has worked directly with newsrooms to encourage fair and accurate coverage. She described the Kirk shooting coverage as a textbook example of what happens when fact-checking is abandoned for the sake of virality.
“The media is a powerful force in shaping public opinion and even people’s realities. When misused, it has a truly detrimental effect. A single inaccurate headline can reinforce stereotypes and feed dangerous narratives for years,” she said.
This disheartening example underlines a sad yet all too familiar truth– marginalized communities are often the first to be blamed when tragedy strikes.
“The most heinous part of scapegoating is that it usually targets those who are already the most vulnerable—trans folks, people of color, women. It’s punching down at people who already live under threat,” Renna said.
The impact of such scapegoating extends beyond headlines, both Wolf and Renna said. When false claims tie trans people to acts of violence, it fuels harassment online, increases the likelihood of physical violence, and deepens public misunderstanding.
“It’s unfair to the public not to fully inform them of all the parts of a story—and in this case, parts of the story weren’t just missing, they were flat-out wrong. That damages trust in the media at a time when trust is already fragile,” Renna added.
Wolf warned that this devolution of trust, and on the importance of facts in journalism feeds into broader democratic instability in America. “The never-ending livestream of gun violence in this country is really disturbing. Our brains were never meant to process that much violence and death on display at all times, and the desensitization is dangerous for democracy,” he said.
While much of the public debate after Kirk’s death centered on politics and identity, advocates stressed that the real crisis remains America’s gun epidemic.
“Gun violence should never be normal in this country. That’s not democracy. That’s not American freedom, and it’s certainly not safety,” Wolf said.
As a survivor of Pulse, Wolf’s perspective adds a unique and pointed weight. He has spent years urging lawmakers to enact reforms, all while seeing firsthand the trauma that survivors and communities endure long after headlines fade. For him, the fact that Kirk — a figure known for fanning the flame of divisiveness in the country – fell victim to the very violence he often downplayed should have been an opening for sober reflection on national priorities.
Instead, Wolf said, the narrative was taken over by people more interested in weaponizing mis- and disinformation than preventing the next tragedy.
“Political violence is never the answer. We don’t defeat hate by doubling down on it. If we want to end the cycle, we have to commit ourselves to building something better,” he said.
Renna said the Kirk shooting coverage should serve as a wake-up call for the media industry. The rush to link violence to marginalized groups, she said, reflects deeper biases that must be addressed.
“The immediate rush to report things without verifying them has become a huge problem across coverage of trans issues. It’s not just bad journalism—it actively puts people in danger,” she warned.
Advocates like Renna and Wolf are urging both media leaders and the public to demand better. For journalists, that means investing in fact-checking, slowing down when information is unverified, and considering the real-world consequences of framing choices. For the public, it means resisting the urge to amplify unconfirmed narratives and holding outlets accountable when they fail.
The stakes could not be higher, especially for transgender people. Anti-trans rhetoric has already been linked to rising violence against LGBTQ people nationwide.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk was a shocking moment in American politics, one that should have sparked urgent conversations about gun violence, political extremism, and the health of democracy. Instead, misinformation and scapegoating shifted the focus onto one of the nation’s most vulnerable communities and continues to dominate headlines.
For Wolf and Renna, the lesson is clear: until the media take its responsibility more seriously, trans people will continue to bear the brunt of careless reporting and opportunistic politics.
“Words have consequences,” Wolf reminded. And when those words are wielded recklessly in the wake of tragedy, the consequences can be deadly.
National
White House orders warning signs at Smithsonian over gender identity exhibits
Administration criticizes National Museum of American History
The Trump administration will install temporary warning signs outside the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History after releasing a report accusing the museum of promoting what it calls “radical” gender ideology and other politically biased content.
According to the Executive Order, “For purposes of policy formulation under EO 14253, this review of the National Museum of American History concludes that NMAH, by the intention and at the direction of current Museum and Smithsonian leadership, has become subject to institutional capture by a radical, activist ideology that is fundamentally opposed to telling the noble, honest story of the great country we know and love.”
Executive Order 14253 refers to what the White House has deemed the “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” order. Therefore, the Trump administration has said it will take all available steps to ensure that the issues in the report are addressed and rectified.
Without specifying, the White House has stated that warnings will be posted along NMAH to alert visitors to sections of the museum it has deemed are in violation according to the report.
“The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National Park Service (NPS) and in coordination with the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, shall install temporary signage along the NPS-maintained sidewalks and walkways used by the public to access the Museum, informing visitors of the findings of the Report and of the policy set forth in section 1 of this order,” the Executive Order states.
The warnings were raised in a 162-page report issued by the Domestic Policy Council. The report detailed ways in which the National Museum of American History (NMAH) has “poorly” portrayed American history and insufficiently highlighted the founding story during America 250th celebrations.
The report outlined key findings of the NMAH. One of these findings was the Center for Restorative History within the museum, which has stated its purpose is to “encourage systemic change” by highlighting diverse groups. However, the report states that it highlights every group of Americans except for straight and white Americans.
The Domestic Policy Council accused the museum of engaging in “transgender activism.” According to the report, examples include referring to “biological men” as women or girls, displaying what it describes as sexually suggestive content, and incorporating discussions of gender fluidity, gender identity, and gender nonconformity into the museum’s educational curriculum, “Becoming US.”
The report also criticizes the curriculum for using the term “transgender” when discussing gender-nonconforming people and encouraging individuals to ask a person’s pronouns when meeting them. It further objects to exhibits stating that “transgender, nonbinary, and cisgender female athletes” continue to struggle for and demand equality.
It also condemns what it refers to as explicit content in an exhibition, “Girlhood (It’s Complicated)”, such as chest binders, questioning gender testing in women’s sports, and referring to biological females as “people inhabiting female bodies.”
Additionally, the report accuses the museum of no longer participating in flag-celebrating ceremonies because it was “too busy” preparing for June Pride and WorldPride events. It states, “As Director Hartig explained in a June 2024 presentation, all her attention was focused on flying the Smithsonian Pride Alliance’s ‘intersexual pride flag during June’ in 2023 and 2024.”
On July 9, the American Historical Association issued a statement rejecting the report’s findings.
In regard to the report, it states, “Its anonymous authors overlook a central lesson of the nation’s founding: the United States was forged by finding common purpose amid intense divisions, conflicts, and disagreements.” They argue that only “honest history” can tell the true history of the nation.
House Republicans led a subcommittee hearing that questioned Smithsonian Director Hartig extensively. A main focus of the questions was on the exhibits related to gender identity and whether they were appropriate. In the hearing, Rep. Nancy Mace asked: “When was your gender revealed to you, Dr. Hartig?”
In response to questioning, Hartig stated that the institution is nonpartisan and does not push a specific agenda.
Hartig published a two-page statement ahead of her hearing outlining her thoughts on the situation. In the report, she states that the institution is always open to criticism and will continue to look for ways to improve, but she sees the report as misleading.
“I can attest that the report does not fairly characterize the full body of work at this museum. I am familiar with the depth and breadth of our collections, exhibits, and programming. And while I recognize there is always room for improvement, I also know the beauty, inspiration, and expertise that exists in our museum,” Hartig wrote.
Democrats created their own 16-page report as a rebuttal to the Domestic Policy Council’s report. It argued that the attacks by the current Trump administration are another example of its attempt to rewrite history. Additionally, the report states that no policy changes were included in the Executive Order, as that is beyond the President’s role. “The Report recommends nothing. That is no accident. To recommend an action, the Report would need to identify who is legally empowered to take it, and its own opening chapter concedes the President’s only power is to ‘urge’,” House Democrats wrote.
It is still unclear when the temporary warnings will be installed or what form they will take beyond the requirements outlined in the executive order.
An exhibit at the Smithsonian. (Washington Blade photo by Landon Shackelford)
National
Trump ends direct HIV prevention funding to community groups
Advocates say transfer of funds to states may disrupt local programs
A decision by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the request of the Trump administration to discontinue direct federal funding of community-based organizations and clinics that provide HIV prevention services has raised concern among community health advocates, including LGBTQ advocates.
News surfaced earlier this month that the OMB informed the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that it would not renew $46 million in funding for 96 community-based organizations that provide HIV testing, referrals to medical care, and arrangements for obtaining pre-exposure HIV prevention medication known as PrEP that has been shown to be 99 percent effective in preventing HIV infection.
Under the new policy arranged by OMB, the funds will be redirected to the states to be allocated to state and local health departments. The policy calls for states to encourage but not require their respective state and local health departments to allocate some of those funds for community-based organizations. Under the new policy, the funding is scheduled to last until May of 2027, before a renewal decision is made.
Some political observers have speculated that the decision to end direct federal funding to community-based organizations could be motivated by the Trump administration’s hostility to diversity, equity, and inclusion or DEI programs and organizations that promote those programs, with the belief that some of the groups receiving the federal HIV prevention funds are promoting DEI.
Carl Schmid, executive director of the D.C.-based HIV+ Hepatitis Policy Institute, is among the leaders of many AIDS advocacy organizations expressing strong opposition to the OMB action. Schmid said that in places like D.C. and some states, local officials will be willing to redirect the federal funds to local community-based organizations.
A list of the 96 community-based organizations across the country that are currently receiving the federal AIDS funds includes the D.C.-based Whitman-Walker Health, which has a long history of healthcare support for the LGBTQ community, and La Clinica del Pueblo, which reaches out to the Latino community.
Schmid said Whitman-Walker and La Clinica del Pueblo have longstanding good relationships with the local D.C. government.
“But other states and jurisdictions don’t have that relationship with the community-based organizations,” Schmid said. “It depends on the state,” he said, adding, “Not all states send their money to the communities that really need it most. And not all states are fast in getting money to the community-based organizations.”
Spokespersons for Whitman-Walker and La Clinica del Pueblo couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on whether they think the Trump administration’s latest action related to funding will adversely impact their respective organizations.
Schmid said under the current federal grant program slated to be discontinued, which has been in effect for at least five years, HIV-related health organizations receiving the federal grant funds were eligible for an existing federal policy enabling them to purchase HIV-related medication, including the PrEP prevention medication, at a significant discount from pharmaceutical companies. With the ending of the direct federal HIV funds to community-based organizations, Schmid said it was unclear whether problems may surface in obtaining drug discounts.
“They could still qualify as a sub-grantee from a state,” Schmid said. “But what if they don’t get that grant again? They would not be able to qualify to obtain the drugs” at the discounted price, he said.
Among the organizations expressing strong concern over the decision to discontinue the direct HIV prevention funding to community-based organizations has been the Federal AIDS Policy Institute and its subgroup called the HIV Prevention Action Coalition.
In a July 22 letter bearing the names of 71 community-based organizations from throughout the country sent to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Acting Director Jay Bhattacharya, the group called for the Trump administration to “reconsider” ending the current funding policy.
“Ending this program without a clear plan for what comes next would dismantle prevention infrastructure that has taken more than three decades of federal investment to build and do so just as that long record of measurable returns is accelerating,” the letter states.
It says the initiative by President Trump in his first term as president to end the HIV epidemic and reduce new HIV infections by 90 percent by 2030 was moving ahead by the funding program for community-based organizations that the administration now wants to end.
“Discontinuing this program would also cost far more than it saves,” the letter says. “Every HIV transmission prevented avoids an estimated lifetime treatment cost of roughly half a million dollars per person to the healthcare system – costs that fall heavily on taxpayer-funded programs, including Medicaid, Medicare, and the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program,” the letter continues.
“The choice before the administration is straightforward: a modest, targeted investment in prevention now, or far greater public expense for treatment later,” the letter concludes.
Spokespersons for the OMB and the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC, have not immediately responded to news media requests for comment on the opposition to the funding change policy.
National
At Alliance Defending Freedom’s summit, church and state are one
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) among speakers
Uncloseted Media published this article on July 23.
By SPENCER MACNAUGHTON | Earlier this month, hundreds of people filled a conference room in San Diego. These included Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, Assistant Secretary of Health Admiral Brian Christine, OpenAI executive Dean Ball, and the attorneys general of West Virginia and Idaho.
They all came together for Alliance Defending Freedom’s 2026 Summit. The Christian legal group, also a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated anti-LGBTQ hate group, described the event as a “gathering of leaders from many different spheres, including law, public policy, media, business, education, and Christian leadership.”
Johnson — who has said that “homosexual relationships are inherently unnatural and … society cannot give its stamp of approval to such a dangerous lifestyle” — was a featured speaker.
In his speech, he seemed unconcerned with the separation of church and state: “It is so encouraging to Kelly and I to be among friends and fellow warriors for this cause and people who understand that God is not done with America yet. … ADF’s on the very tip of the spear, front line, defending those very truths and keeping the door open for the spread of the Gospel. This is our moment. I’m telling you, I believe the next season … is going to be the greatest season of this ministry since its inception.”
That ministry is one that has espoused aggressively anti-LGBTQ views since its inception in the early 1990s. It was co-founded by a group of evangelical men, including Alan Sears, who co-authored a book called “The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today.” Since then, ADF has opposed gay marriage and supported bans on gay sex and on gender-affirming care for minors.
After helping overturn Roe v. Wade, ADF lawyers have led key victories at the Supreme Court. In 303 Creative v. Elenis, SCOTUS ruled that a website designer could refuse service to gay weddings. And this year they convinced the Court to overturn Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy and to uphold state laws in West Virginia and Idaho that ban trans girls from playing on girls’ sports teams.
At the summit, ADF President Kristen Waggoner, who has promoted conversion therapists and consistently misgenders trans people, interviewed these states’ attorneys general.
“The lawyers who were defending women’s sports were among the best I’ve ever seen in my entire life,” West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey told Waggoner.
Similar to Johnson, Trump’s Assistant Secretary of Health Christine showed his commitment to governing based on conservative Christianity. He gave a Bible-thumping speech against gender transition and trans healthcare, saying that it “contradicts … the deeper moral order that is woven into creation itself. For Genesis 1:27 informs us that God created man in his own image. … Male and female” He also said the “complementary relationship between man and woman is divine” and advocated for youth with gender dysphoria to receive care from a pastor.
All of these remarks from politicians made me think of the interview I published earlier this week with Pete Hegseth’s pastor, Doug Wilson. He wants a Christian theocracy in America and told me that: both the perpetrator and the victim should be disciplined in some cases of marital rape; that transgender people are “sad;” that execution is justifiable for certain homosexual acts; and that gay sex should be illegal.
The ADF Summit is glossy and polished. And while its messaging may be less explicit than Pastor Wilson’s, the track record of the organizations shows they have the exact same desires. They’re just deeply strategic in what they say and when and how they say it.
I believe the political power players who attended this year’s summit know this. They know they are endorsing an organization whose members have essentially called for the illegalization of most — if not all ‚ forms of queer behavior and presentation.
In the last few years, these perspectives have become increasingly embedded in the highest rooms of the federal government and they have been effective in stripping away LGBTQ rights. Wilson, who just installed a full-time pastor in Washington to lead services, says there are 10 to 20 government officials who align with his church’s ideology.
It is vital for Americans to keep their eyes wide open to the ultimate goal of groups like ADF: to create a United States that leaves LGBTQ people without rights and that pushes us back in the closet.
Reggie White relishing first season as artistic director of Woolly Mammoth
PHOTOS: Amsterdam Pride Canal Parade
Amsterdam Pride Canal Parade draws hundreds of thousands
Should I divorce my catty gay friend group?
Poland’s top court rejects recognition of same-sex marriages from other EU countries
Officials raise troubling concerns about Rehoboth mayoral candidate Suzanne Goode
US official protested at 2026 International AIDS Conference
Advocates for trans students urge Md. to fight White House threats
‘Heated Rivalry’ star takes it off in new ads for Under Armour
Blade participates in Dutch university course on international LGBTQ rights law
-
Rehoboth Beach4 days agoOfficials raise troubling concerns about Rehoboth mayoral candidate Suzanne Goode
-
Brazil5 days ago
US official protested at 2026 International AIDS Conference
-
Maryland5 days ago
Advocates for trans students urge Md. to fight White House threats
-
Arts & Entertainment5 days ago
‘Heated Rivalry’ star takes it off in new ads for Under Armour
