National
Corporate America caves to Trump, abandons Pride
Anti-DEI crusade scares off many sponsors, but organizers vow to carry on
Pride began as an uprising against a political system that told LGBTQ people they did not belong.
More than 50 years later, after what many believed was a lasting cultural shift toward acceptance, that progress now feels increasingly fragile. What once seemed like hard-won inclusion is being tested in a political environment in which LGBTQ rights have re-emerged as a central point of debate, from school boards to state legislatures to the highest levels of government. While today’s backlash does not resemble police batons on the streets of Greenwich Village in 1969, advocates say it is taking a new form—through policy fights, cultural rhetoric, and a quiet retreat by corporate America from Pride itself.
For many in the LGBTQ community, Pride remains the most important event of the year. It is a moment when cities and towns—large and small, urban and rural, blue and red—attempt to create space for those who were long treated as outsiders. What was once confined to secrecy, coded meeting places, and dingy bar backrooms has become visible and celebrated openly in streets filled with music, color, and community.
Over time, however, Pride has also evolved. With each passing year and each wave of corporate sponsorship, it has drifted further from its explicitly political roots. For many observers, it is now often perceived as a cultural celebration or festival rather than a protest born out of state violence and legal discrimination against LGBTQ people.
Now, as LGBTQ communities again face intensified political attacks—this time driven by Republican officials across multiple levels of government and policies emerging from the Trump administration—some advocates say corporate sponsors are quietly pulling back to avoid offending the government amid an unprecedented crackdown on DEI. In doing so, they argue, companies risk forgetting that Pride itself began as a refusal to stay silent or invisible—a movement that, in its earliest form, quite literally overturned the status quo.
That tension between political urgency, cultural visibility, and corporate participation is now being felt in very concrete ways inside the organizations that produce Pride events.
The Washington Blade spoke with Pride organizers, marketing experts, advocacy organizations, and reviewed national reporting and corporate data to understand what the decline in Pride sponsorships reveals about corporate America’s relationship with LGBTQ people—and whether that support was ever as durable as many believed.
Declining sponsorships
For organizers, the conversation begins with numbers.
Across the country, Pride groups report declining sponsorship revenue, fewer corporate partners, and increased difficulty securing the commitments that have helped fund modern Pride celebrations for decades.
Mike Alexander, director of development for Capital Pride Alliance, which organizes D.C.’s Pride events, said the shift became noticeable almost immediately after President Donald Trump’s return to the Oval Office.
“As soon as the inauguration happened and the immediate swift attacks on DEI began, we started seeing a downturn in sponsorships. We probably had close to $10 million in pledges, and that was pretty much cut in half last year. Even though WorldPride ended up being an overall success and we had incredible support from sponsors that were able to remain on, overall support has been down quite significantly from what we usually have. Between 2016 and 2024, we typically saw anywhere from 150 to 275 corporate sponsors. Now we’re looking at probably about half of that this year, so it’s quite a significant drop.”
Yet organizers say most companies are not explicitly citing politics when they walk away.
“I can’t recall any particular sponsor that actually cited DEI. A lot of them cited budget concerns, reorganizations, and restructuring. No one in particular says, ‘We’re not coming back because of this. We don’t want to support you.’ I think the overall sentiment is that a lot of companies still want to support.”
Alexander noted that uncertainty extends beyond DEI debates alone.
“There are a lot of things happening right now. The global conflicts, the economy, and the broader political climate all play a role. D.C. is uniquely impacted because there are a lot of organizations and companies here that are directly connected to government, federal contractors, public policy, and advocacy. There’s so much uncertainty.”
Even so, he acknowledged the reasons often go unsaid.
“Nobody really says that. They cite other reasons, or they don’t respond. Sometimes they simply say they can’t participate and don’t mention the exact reasons why. I think we can read between the lines.”
Political pressure, DEI, & corporate fear
For many observers, those lines point toward a rapidly changing political environment.
Andrew Isen, founder and president of WinMark Concepts, said the current moment differs from previous periods of anti-LGBTQ backlash because companies now believe there are tangible financial consequences for visible support.
“It’s 100 percent quantifiable and 100 percent relatable to the administration’s anti-trans and, more particularly, anti-DEI policies,” Isen said. “An administration that has threatened universities, law firms, corporations, and just about any entity that supports any iteration of DEI policies has had a profound effect on the behavior of these organizations.
“In the aftermath of the Bud Light situation, companies became very afraid to put their brands out there, and they continue to do so.”
He argues the roots of the current climate stretch back several years.
“Things have changed exponentially. What’s happened in the last two and a half years we’ve never seen before,” he continued. “This started several years ago with what I’ll call trans-bashing on the right, then the adoption of the word ‘woke’ as a pejorative. When you put those two together, there was an incendiary fire waiting to happen, and it happened with the Bud Light situation.”
National Pride leaders have reached similar conclusions.
“I think that’s why some of the corporations have pulled back, because they don’t want that government scrutiny,” Jordan Braxton, co-president of the United States Association of Prides, told NPR in May. “People sometimes look at Pride festivals just as a big party, which they are, but they’re also resource fairs, job fairs, and we also use it as a fundraising event.”
Advertising researcher E. Ciszek also told NPR the trend reveals something deeper about corporate support.
“It’s important to take a step back and see this more as a moment of risk, a moment of political pressure, and looking really at the limits of corporate allyship, particularly when LGBTQ visibility has become really politically costly.”
Corporate pullbacks
That pressure is increasingly visible in how corporations present themselves publicly.
Isen pointed to the ongoing Target boycott as one of the clearest examples.
“Target, which was a huge supporter of all things LGBTQ, began to pare back its visibility. The amount of Pride merchandise it carried went from roughly 3,500 products to about 500. Instead of putting those products at the front of stores, they moved them to the back.”
That continued to be scaled back as the most vocal and those in line with Trump were considered the ones to appease.
“Because of bomb threats and other concerns, Pride merchandise appeared in far fewer stores than it had previously.”
Yet retreating from LGBTQ visibility has not necessarily insulated companies from criticism.
In a letter to shareholders, investors wrote that “Target has repeatedly entangled itself in social controversy over the past several years, including its decision to pull back its Pride collection, the rollback of its DEI initiatives, and, most recently, its limited public response to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activities at certain store locations.”
The letter concluded that those actions may have alienated “Black, Latino, LGBTQ+, and progressive consumer segments.”
Beyond individual companies, Pride organizers describe a much broader pullback.
“We’re now in a vacuum where Pride and its sponsors have been eviscerated by fear and backlash from consumers and by retribution from the current administration through its DEI policies,” Isen said.
That said, some major brands continue to support Pride, including Absolut, Marriott, Coca-Cola, and others.
Pride’s economic reality
For organizers, the consequences of this Pride pullback extend far beyond symbolism.
Pride celebrations require significant financial resources, and corporate sponsorships have traditionally provided much of that support. This is the same game with new rules.
“It takes a lot of money to do this,” Pittsburgh Pride Director Dena Stanley told NPR. “Permitting costs, security costs, headliners costs, staging costs, cleaning crew costs, insurance costs, all of these are expenses.”
Former Tampa Pride organizer Carrie West described how quickly the situation can become unsustainable.
“All of a sudden, bingo. Here you have no money, no grant money, no supporting money, to make operations, to plan, to get any kind of anything.”
San Francisco Pride Executive Director Suzanne Ford told The Wall Street Journal that replacing lost sponsors is extraordinarily difficult.
“It’s hard to replace a $150,000 sponsor with individual donations,” Ford said. “I’ve just got to find some new corporate sponsors out there…I’m cautiously optimistic.”
Allyship under pressure
The sponsorship decline has also reignited a longstanding debate about whether corporate support for LGBTQ communities represents genuine allyship or merely marketing.
Isen argues fear—not economics—is driving much of the retreat.
“The LGBTQ community is more economically viable than it ever was.”
“The community is as economically viable as it has always been, but unfortunately the corporate fear factor has outweighed the economic viability and importance of the LGBTQ consumer community.”
He believes the Bud Light controversy fundamentally altered corporate calculations.
“Boycotts have never worked in my entire professional history. On either side, straight or gay, boycotts do not work. Until now.”
“This is the first time a boycott has ever worked as a demonstrative opposition to a brand supporting LGBTQ consumers.”
At the same time, national data suggests corporate support has not disappeared entirely.
According to the Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s 2026 Corporate Equality Index, 71% of surveyed companies still sponsor LGBTQ-inclusive events or run LGBTQ-focused marketing campaigns, 81% provide financial or in-kind support to LGBTQ organizations, and 97% maintain LGBTQ employee resource groups or diversity councils.
Still, HRC President Kelley Robinson warned that many LGBTQ employees are feeling the effects of corporate hesitation.
“Our latest community survey shows LGBTQ+ employees—especially transgender and gender-expansive people—are experiencing increased bias and heightened anxiety about job security, career advancement, and physical safety at work. And in too many workplaces, the response has been silence, retreat, or ambiguity.”
The future of Pride
Despite the uncertainty, organizers insist Pride will continue regardless of what corporations decide.
Alexander emphasized that sponsors have never been the entirety of Pride.
“There’s a misconception about corporate sponsorships. Sponsors have typically provided the majority of our funding, but they still make up only about one-third of our participants. The other two-thirds are community groups, nonprofits, small businesses, and service organizations.”
He also believes organizations must adapt.
“Because nothing is certain, it’s important to diversify funding. It’s important to create programming and partnerships that make sense, whether that’s grant funding, individual support, grassroots support, or other avenues.”
Most importantly, he said, Pride’s purpose remains unchanged.
“Pride is a protest, but it is also a celebration. Being joyful, being happy, and being who you are is in itself a protest. If you show up to Pride and celebrate yourself, you’re sending the message that you’re not living in fear.”
And regardless of sponsorship totals, he said the movement itself belongs to the people who show up.
“We’re going to keep moving forward no matter what. There’s important work to do, important voices to be heard, people who need support, and communities that are marginalized. We’re going to find a way to move forward.”
“We are not Pride. Pride is the community. It is the people who show up and participate. We provide the platform and the amplification, but Pride belongs to the community.”
National
HRC condemns DoE removal of LGBTQ bullying data from federal survey
Organization cites rise in homophobic, transphobic policies, worse mental health outcomes
The Human Rights Campaign is slamming the White House — and the Department of Education — following their removal of some LGBTQ bullying data from federal data collection.
The Civil Rights Data Collection is a mandated survey of all public school districts that collects figures on a wide variety of statistics about students — including demographics that include race, ethnicity, sex, disability status, and English learner status; course-level enrollment data, such as how many students are enrolled in advanced placement or honors classes; and school climate information, such as rates of bullying, harassment, suspensions, and expulsions.
That data collection has been ongoing since 1968 — nearly six decades — but now has a major change in what questions are being asked, or not asked, that advocates are largely attributing to the Trump-Vance administration’s culture war fight on LGBTQ children in the country.
Changes to the 2025-2026 survey questions — approved by the Office of Budget and Management in July — eliminated a space for schools to report how many students identify as nonbinary, how often those students are victims of harassment and bullying, and whether school districts have policies prohibiting gender identity-based incidents.
K-12 Dive, a publication that focuses its reporting on news related to K-12 education, first published a list of these data collection changes from 2024-2025 to 2025-2026.
These questions, as well as others that included LGBTQ student topics on treatment in schools, were added to the CRDC under the Biden-Harris administration. By including these questions, policymakers hoped this would lead to increased investigations into discrimination complaints, initiate compliance reviews, and provide policy guidance to districts, according to Education Department documents.
The CRDC also eliminated the mention of “gender identity” from the definition of rape and sexual assault. The prior collection of data (before the Trump-Vance administration changed it) defined rape as something that could be done to “all students, regardless of sex, or sexual orientation, or gender identity.” Now, the new data collection questions say, “All students, regardless of sex, or sexual orientation can be victims of rape,” removing “gender identity” from the new definition.
By removing and changing definitions, this could have a real-world impact on some of the school’s most vulnerable students. According to CRDC data from 2021-2022, more than 1,800 school districts reported enrolling one or more nonbinary students.
Additional data also shows that the changes to data collection is harming public school students. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee released a report in April finding that the Trump-Vance administration’s efforts to all but close the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights has left students facing discrimination and harassment throughout the country without the federal recourse they are entitled to under federal law.
The Williams Institute, a think tank that collects data and conducts research on issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity, has data indicating the true number of nonbinary and transgender children is much higher — they estimate that for children ages 13 to 17, nearly 724,000 identify as nonbinary or trans.
This is in line with a slew of policies pushed by the Trump-Vance administration since their federal takeover. Within his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” This directive attempts to make the federal definition of gender unchangeable, determined by sex assigned at birth alone.
Within his first month of his second term, Trump issued Executive Order 14187, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.” The order directs federal agencies to restrict gender-affirming medical care — including puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries — for individuals under the age of 19.
He also pushed multiple anti-trans executive orders, including Executive Order 14201, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” and Executive Order 14183, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” targeting trans athletes and military members, respectively.
These policies have a real-world impact on trans people.
The Trevor Project, a nonprofit dedicated to crisis and suicide prevention for LGBTQ people under 25, reported that, for the seventh year in a row, LGBTQ youth are at higher risk for suicide as a result of mistreatment and stigmatization.
Trevor Project data showed that nearly 60 percent of LGBTQ young people ages 13-17 said they were bullied in the past year, and that 36 percent of LGBTQ youth seriously considered suicide in the last year. The data shows a bigger discrepancy for trans youth, with that number hovering around 40 percent considering suicide.
HRC President Kelley Robinson issued a statement following the approval of the new data collection questions that leaves LGBTQ students’ bullying statistics under — if not completely unreported.
“If there was even a shadow of a doubt, this latest move by the Trump administration makes it abundantly clear they do not care about the safety of LGBTQ+ students, and trans students in particular,” Robinson said. “These are adults who should be protecting our kids. And instead, they are making sure bullying and harassment are not tracked. If they are not tracked, bullying and harassment cannot be prevented or stopped — which is exactly what the Trump administration wants. Parents deserve to know their kids are safe at school, and every single young person deserves dignity and safety at school. Anything less is plain evil.”
HRC has a “Welcoming Schools” initiative that they say is the “most comprehensive” bias-based bullying prevention program in the nation. The program includes LGBTQ and gender-inclusive resources for schools, help navigating special education and disability resources for LGBTQ-identifying students, and other tools to help schools become more inclusive.
This program has been in effect for nearly two decades and, according to HRC, reaches nearly 750,000 students.
The Washington Blade reached out to both the Department of Education and Office of Management and Budget for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.
Michigan
Progressives score victory as El-Sayed wins Mich. Senate primary
Democratic newcomer will face Rogers in November
Michigan held its primary on Tuesday, allowing the two major political parties to select their nominees to go head-to-head for the state’s U.S. Senate seat.
NBC News called the Democratic race early, giving the victory to physician Abdul El-Sayed over incumbent U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) in an extremely close primary. El-Sayed won 48.5 percent of the primary vote, with Stevens trailing by just one percentage point at 47.5 percent.
Both candidates have campagined on supporting the LGBTQ community through different avenues— for El-Sayed he focused on his past promoting HIV and PrEP funding and research. Stevens focused on her legislative history working to support transgender rights in the state.
This is a major win for progressive Democrats, who have been bearing the brunt of political attacks from President Donald Trump, the Republican Party, and centrist Democrats.
El-Sayed, a former health director in Detroit, ran his campaign largely on making life in the Great Lakes State more affordable amid rising costs. His policies include promoting “Medicare for All,” pushing health policy that targets the regressive efforts of the Trump-Vance administration that rolls back funding for both Women and LGBTQ people, minimizing the growing amount of money in politics, and he was very vocal in his criticism of Stevens for supporting aid to Israel. He was endorsed by two major progressives — U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-N.Y.).
Stevens, the four-term congresswoman, is much closer to establishment Democrats on policy than El-Sayed.
During her time in the federal government, she has consistently supported the Equality Act, which would add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She has also emphasized supporting local manufacturing and lowering housing costs in the state.
She was named to Advocates for Trans Equality’s 118th Congressional Champions list for her pro-trans policies and was endorsed by establishment heavy hitters Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
The contentious race boiled down not only to Michigan affairs but also extended to international conflicts — namely Palestine. (South Africa has filed a case in the International Court of Justice in The Hague that accuses Israel of committing genocide in the Gaza Strip after Oct. 7.) This primary also acted as one of the first major races that pushed back against AIPAC, a lobbying group that works to promote pro-Israel candidates in U.S. elections. The group has been involved in domestic politics since 1954.
AIPAC devoted a massive amount of money to this race.
The Associated Press reported that the pro-Israel lobbying group spent more than $30 million on ads against El-Sayed because of his vocal denunciation of Israel and his continued criticism of its policies towards Palestine.
Michigan has a large Muslim and Arab American population, which could, in part, explain how El-Sayed was able to win.
The Republican side was far less competitive. Former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) ran unopposed and clinched the GOP nomination. He has consistently held anti-LGBTQ positions, going as far as voting multiple times for a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, voting against repealing the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, and supporting efforts to directly target the attempted expansion of Title IX protections to include trans people.
El-Sayed will face off against Rogers in November for Michigan’s Senate seat — one that could have lasting impacts not only on the state’s politics but also on the Republicans’ narrow Senate majority and Trump’s political agenda.
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)
Don’t miss summer productions at Clear Space in Rehoboth Beach
New LGBTQ visitor center slated for Wilmington, Del.
PHOTOS: World Pride March
Tens of thousands take part in World Pride March
PHOTOS: Daddy Issues at Kiki
Continue to engage in community after Pride month
D.C.’s Mary’s House For Older Adults names new executive director
Suzanne Goode is not good for Rehoboth Beach
Calendar: August 7-13
