National
UPDATED: GLAAD’s communication breakdown; Barrios voted out
Media watchdog group dogged by allegations of dishonesty, incompetence
UPDATE: According to Politico, the Executive committee of GLAAD’s Board of Directors has voted to remove Jarrett Barrios as President of the organization.
UPDATE 2: According to both Michelangelo Signorile and the Bilerico Project, Rich Ferraro is confirming that Jarrett Barrios has stepped down as GLAAD’s President.
A former GLAAD board chair has called for the resignation of its president, Jarrett Barrios. (Photo courtesy GLAAD)
The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation raised eyebrows last week when the media watchdog group released a statement supporting the merger of telecom giants AT&T and T-Mobile. It marked the second time the organization, which was founded in 1985 as a grassroots action network, had weighed in on major business news. The prior statement had been released a year earlier objecting to the NBC-Comcast merger, due to concerns about negative portrayals of LGBT characters in the media.
The AT&T statement was curious, but attracted little media attention.
That changed on Tuesday, when former GLAAD board of directors co-chair Laurie Perper appeared on Michelangelo Signorile’s Sirius-XM OutQ show to sound the alarm on other alleged improprieties at the organization and questions facing its leader, Jarrett Barrios.
Since then, Barrios — who has been at the helm of GLAAD for 23 months — has granted a flurry of interviews to counter Perper’s claims. His responses, however, have only served to attract more scrutiny of the organization.
While speaking with Perper, Signorile pressed about why she left her position as board chair early. “You stepped down because you just thought he was not qualified. Obviously, as the months went on, others agreed with that assessment,” Signorile summarized. “I believe that over 14 board members have left, [since Barrios took over],” Perper relayed to the radio host.
Signorile continued, “Is it fair to say that most of these people stepped down because of the direction the organization was going, because of Jarrett Barrios?”
“Absolutely,” Perper said.
Reached by phone last week along with GLAAD director of communications Richard Ferraro and GLAAD board member and Florida PR consultant Gary Bitner, Barrios insisted that his short time working with Perper — only five weeks — was marked by a positive working relationship, and was focused on solving the organization’s financial problems.
“It’s perplexing and disappointing, considering that she worked for many years to help build this organization, but this happens sometimes,” Barrios told the Blade. “We form in our movement a circular firing squad, and we for whatever reason feel it’s necessary to hurt somebody else in the movement. [Laurie Perper and I] worked well together. Frankly the time we interacted was the time I was getting my feet wet, learning that the org at the time was running a rather large deficit.”
After booking Perper on the Signorile show, the producers reached out and arranged to have Barrios on the following day to respond to the statements that had been made. However, when GLAAD later attempted to arrange to have Bitner join him on the Signorile show, the show’s producers refused and the GLAAD team pulled out of the arrangement, opting to contact other media outlets and bloggers instead.
Barrios insists that the financial figures that Perper presented on the Signorile show were inaccurate and misleading, including a quote about a $14 million discrepancy after 2008, which Barrios says is the result of an IRS reporting requirement of a major multi-million dollar bequest by the late Ric Weiland of Microsoft that was dispersed over seven years. GLAAD insists that it has righted its financial footing thanks to cuts made early in Barrios’ term, though Ferraro also disputes Perper’s claim that six senior staff members left the organization since Jarrett’s start. GLAAD insists it was only three, with another just having left a few months ago.
“In 2009, there was a substantial deficit — I think it was like $1.2 million,” Barrios said. “Last year, we cut the operating deficit to $300,000 — shrunk it by about $900,000 — and this year, I’m happy to say, we’re running ahead of budget … most notably, our national presenting sponsor has already renewed for next year. That typically doesn’t happen until January. It’s already happened for next year. We’re very pleased. Our corporate revenues this year are substantially higher than last year, which were higher than the year before.”
Perper’s main purpose for appearing on Signorile’s show, however, was to question the reasoning behind GLAAD’s unexpected statement voicing support for the AT&T/T-Mobile merger. GLAAD joined unions, advocacy organizations and other LGBT-specific organizations like the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce and Out At Work in supporting the merger. These three organizations joined the NAACP, and the National Education Association in pushing the FCC for the merger.
Perper points to this as evidence that AT&T may have “bought influence with these” non-profits to advocate for the merger with the FCC.
Hours after his conversation with the Blade, Barrios appeared on Chicago’s “Feast of Fun” podcast with Marc Felion and Fausto Fernos. The issue of GLAAD’s curious support of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger and Perper’s statements regarding that merger soon came up, and Barrios seemed to change his story on a long-forgotten episode from more than a year ago when GLAAD released two letters regarding the principles of “net-neutrality” and expressed support for expanding Internet access. The second letter was later retracted.
At the time, Barrios wrote the FCC asking the letter to be removed from the public record, stating that he’d not given his permission for the letter to be submitted and that the signature is “not in my hand.” However, while speaking with “Feast of Fun,” his story seemed to change.
“It was like January of 2010. And it, it sort of supported the telecom industry’s position on net neutrality, which was not GLAAD’s position,” Barrios said. “In fact, GLAAD, at the time and still, doesn’t endorse bills and doesn’t endorse regulatory actions. So, it would have been impossible for us to do that.”
When reached by phone last week, Richard Ferraro explained why GLAAD cannot take a position on net neutrality.
“As a 501(c)3 there’s a question about whether or not we can,” Ferraro told the Blade. “It’s obvious where we stand [on universal access] … mergers are different.”
On “Feast of Fun,” Barrios shifted his story about the letter’s submission, after taking the position a year earlier that the organization had no knowledge of the letter prior to its submission.
“After an investigation, we determined that it was an administrative error, internally at GLAAD, and I’ll own that, and we withdrew the letter. At the time we withdrew the letter, we didn’t know that, so I was — you can imagine reading a letter in a public submission with your name on it that you had never seen, and it wasn’t your signature — after we did an internal investigation, we realized it was an internal error, an administrative error.”
“[The letter] was pulled, one, because it’s an anti-net-neutrality letter,” Ferraro clarified for the Blade. “Two, because at that point and currently, GLAAD does not take positions on legislation or regulation.”
In January, when the letter had been submitted and subsequently retracted, the narrative that emerged was that the letter had been forged. However, after the Feast of Fun statements, Bil Browning of Bilerico Project sought a clearer explanation about the letter.
In an interview last week with Browning, Barrios revealed his personal assistant — a woman Bilerico identified as Jeanne Christiano who has worked for Barrios consistently for seven years, and goes back to his days as a Massachusetts state senator — had called him while he was on the road, and in a hurry, he gave the letter his approval thinking that the two were discussing the previous letter with language Barrios had approved.
“We made a mistake. I authorized my assistant over the phone to sign and submit a letter that I understood to be a re-filing of the October letter in support of broadband proliferation,” Barrios told Browning. “When I realized she had inadvertently submitted an anti-net neutrality letter, I withdrew it … at the time, I had never seen the letter that was filed, and did not recognize the signature.”
Last week, after the story broke of the retracted letter to the FCC supporting the telecom’s position on net-neutrality, the Blade again spoke with Ferraro, this time about the new information emerging about the FCC letter.
“There’s an October letter that Jarrett wrote to the FCC that’s on the FCC site,” Ferraro told the Blade, “that very broadly talks about broadband proliferation, and speaks to our statement Friday about net-neutrality, which is that we don’t currently have a position, but we support universal access … we support the ideas behind, the principles behind net-neutrality – that we can do.”
According to Ferraro, GLAAD board member and communications law professor at American University, Anthony Varona, noticed the subtle pro-telecom messages in the letter after having served as a lawyer at the FCC in the past and immediately contacted the organization’s leadership asking why GLAAD was supporting the telecom industry’s anti-net-neutrality stance.
“When Tony Verona — who speaks FCC language — read this,” Ferraro explained, “he said ‘Why the heck did you send in a letter anti-net-neutrality?’ Jarrett of course said, ‘I never read that letter, I never said I’m against net-neutrality.’”
According to Ferraro, the suggested language is believed to have come directly from AT&T, and was copied verbatim by Barrios’ assistant, Jeanne Christiano.
Ferraro explained, “He was traveling, as he still does [a lot] … she’s more than an assistant — they’ve worked together for seven years. … I was not on the call, so can’t speak with certainty, but he said she called him and said something along the lines of ‘so I have the letter on broadband. They want the letter, do you want me to go forward with it?’ and he said, ‘yeah yeah,’ thinking it was the October letter.”
Ferraro agreed there must have been a major communication breakdown at GLAAD.
“He never saw the letter, and he said, ‘yeah, send it in.’ And obviously he didn’t mean to send it in, because as soon as the board member [questioned the letter], he said, ‘huh? I never saw that letter. I didn’t sign that letter. That’s not my signature.’ and he didn’t authorize it. The thing that he’s been trying to do is he doesn’t want to throw her under the bus. This was his mistake. He should have read the letter — he didn’t.”
The controversy raises the question: will GLAAD start weighting in on other FCC-related matters if a business has any ties to the LGBT community?
“One thing that has happened since Jarrett came on board, is that we’ve been more engaged with the FCC, which is a government agency that needs to hear more from the LGBT community … since then, you did hear us weigh in on the NBC merger, you did hear us weigh in on AT&T and we did file an FCC complaint about ‘Jose Luis Sin Censura,’ which is the most anti-gay program on television today,” Ferraro said.
Some activists argue there are larger issues at play than GLAAD’s support of the AT&T merger, or whether or not GLAAD can take a position on net-neutrality. Some leaders in the community are wondering if GLAAD is ready to unravel. Laurie Perper herself called for the dissolution of GLAAD, and discussed it with Signorile when she appeared on his show.
When the Blade asked Perper if GLAAD could survive this controversy, she said it would require a massive change in personnel and makeup of the board.
“One of the things that has come forward is GLAAD’s brand name has been heavily tied to the media awards and people feel that GLAAD is owned by the broadcasters,” Perper said. “The word transparency gets thrown around a lot and unfortunately I found in trying to manage Jarrett that he was far from transparent. So I was actually there for five months with him, and that was long enough for me to see that he was going to make decisions against the board, without consulting the board, the co-chairs and against their will.”
Perper also believes a narrower focus would help GLAAD recover.
“I think that they’ve expanded their programmatic work too much and therefore don’t have a solid impact in any one area, so I think they need to retract a little bit in this difficult economy, decide where they want to make an impact, and truly come out with thoughtful statements, rather than the flip-flopping I’ve seen them do with Adam Lambert, with the AT&T situation. … So they just need a consistent message and vision that they can put forth, that people can understand, and then they need to act on it as hard as they can.”
She continued, “I’ve had a lot of discussions with people who happen to be aware of a lot of the situation that’s going on with GLAAD and a lot of the controversy,” she continued, “and they all feel very strongly about the GLAAD brand name and that it still has tremendous value in the marketplace. So when I talk about the dissolution of it, I do it with a really heavy heart, not ‘how do you ever rebuild a brand name like that,’ but thinking ‘how do you get rid of a president and half of the board members who have helped enable him to bring such tarnish to the name?’”
Barrios, however, sees the organization heading in the right direction.
“We’ve enjoyed some of our highest profile victories ever in the last 18 months,” said Barrios. “So where we’re going is down that path … we’ve had some major victories with the ‘Today’ show, the marriage contest last year. A number of victories with our ‘no two sides’ campaign last year … Mostly that work is happening behind the scenes.”
When members of the media continued to pursue answers to the questions left unanswered at the onset of last weekend, GLAAD tried to shift attention to the Tracy Morgan scandal on Friday. GLAAD backed off from a promise to have Barrios chat on the phone with the Blade in regard to the new confusion brought about by the Friday morning Bilerico report and the Thursday morning Feast of Fun interview.
What’s still unclear is how the suggested language ended up in an official letter on GLAAD letterhead. GLAAD would not comment on whom from AT&T delivered the suggested language, noting only that “AT&T is the source.” However, with a former AT&T lobbyist on the board of directors, who now consults for telecom companies including AT&T, some wonder if Troupe Coronado was the conduit for this “suggested language” that turned GLAAD into an anti-net-neutrality advocate for the telecom industry.
Also unanswered is how unauthorized language was allowed to be submitted by an assistant to a government agency. If this specific language was not approved, why was there no protocol in place to prevent a scenario where an employee of the organization can sign the president’s name to an official document and send it as an agent of the entire group?
There are also nagging questions about Troupe Coronado’s influence and role in the controversy. In January 2006, the Washington Post’s Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Thomas B. Edsall investigated Coronado for allegedly exceeding the gift-giving limits on lobbyists when schmoozing lawmakers. He was still with BellSouth at the time. BellSouth is now part of AT&T. In addition, OpenSecrets.org lists him as a “revolving door personnel,” someone who has bounced from industry lobbying jobs, to government jobs and back again.
Coronado’s connections to the telecom industry and GLAAD’s subsequent misfires in the field of telecom regulation and corporate dealings is troubling for many activists, even if those connections are tenuous and possibly only coincidental.
Commentary
When a church fears the rainbow
Puerto Rico pastor objected to Pride symbols outside congregation
There are moments when an incident stops being merely a local story and begins to reveal something much deeper. What happened on June 28 outside One Church, in Comerío, Puerto Rico, belongs in that category.
I do not know who painted the rainbow colors on the asphalt and on a roadside guardrail. I do not know what motivated them, and it is not my place to justify their actions. If someone believes a law was broken, there are authorities and legal mechanisms to address that. That is not the point of this reflection.
The point is the words that followed.
Hours after those colors appeared, Pastor Jorge J. Santiago Reyes went live on social media. He said he felt threatened. He described what happened as a physical attack against his church. He appeared angry and disappointed. He called those who painted the rainbow “cowards” and “charlatans.” He expressed frustration with the support that, according to him, the municipal government of Comerío has shown toward the LGBTQ community, and with those who support posts related to that community. He repeated several times that the people responsible had “crossed the line.” He ended his message by saying, “These charlatans have to be stopped.”
As I listened to his words, I stopped thinking about the paint.
I began thinking about fear.
There is one phrase the pastor repeated again and again: “They crossed the line.” Yet he never explained what that line was. If he was referring to a possible violation of the law, that is for the authorities to determine. If he meant respect for property, there are also procedures to deal with that. But when that line remains undefined and the message begins to associate a rainbow with a threat, the question changes. It is no longer only about a guardrail or a road. It becomes a question about what boundary, in the pastor’s view, was actually crossed.
Paint can be erased.
A brush can cover the asphalt and return a guardrail to its original color.
What does not disappear so easily is the meaning of those colors.
And perhaps that is where the real conflict begins.
It is significant that this happened precisely on June 28, the day when the LGBTQ community remembers a history marked by exclusion, violence, and the struggle for dignity. What represents memory, hope, and the possibility of living without hiding for millions of people was presented by others as a threat.
I do not know why someone painted that rainbow. I do not need to know in order to ask whether those were the words society should expect from a pastor.
A religious leader may feel hurt, frustrated, or angry. What he cannot forget is the responsibility that comes with every public expression. His words do not end when a livestream ends. They move beyond the space of his church, reach people who may never share his faith, and help shape the way others see those who think differently. When a pastor calls other people “charlatans” and “cowards,” says they “have to be stopped,” and turns a rainbow into evidence of an attack, he is no longer speaking only from frustration. He begins to build a discourse that can feed rejection toward a community far larger than the people responsible for that act.
There was another moment in the livestream that caught my attention. The pastor reminded viewers how much he has served Comerío, how much he has accompanied his community, and how much he has worked for it. I have no reason to question that service. I am sure many people can testify to the good he has done.
That is precisely why it was difficult to hear.
Pastoral vocation is not about reminding a town of everything one has done for it when conflict appears. Service does not lose its value when it goes unrecognized; it loses something when it becomes an argument to claim a moral position from which to speak down to others. A person who serves does so because that is the nature of the calling, not because that service grants authority to discredit those who think differently.
As a pastor, that part of the message left me deeply uneasy. Not because I expect ministers of God to be perfect. We are not. But because our words carry weight, we are called to speak with greater responsibility. Some expressions build bridges. Others raise walls. Some words invite encounter. Others end up justifying rejection.
The paint will disappear. A brush will be enough to cover the asphalt and return the guardrail to its original color.
The words will not disappear as easily.
They will remain recorded in a video, shared again and again on social media, and remembered by those who heard them. They will remain long after the last trace of paint has been erased.
When this episode is remembered, it probably will not be because of the rainbow that appeared outside One Church, in Comerío, Puerto Rico.
It will be because of the words a pastor chose to use when speaking about it.
And that difference changes everything.
National
ACLU says trans athletes ruling is narrower than many believe
‘Narrow decision focused on the unique context of sports’
The Supreme Court’s decision Tuesday to uphold state laws barring transgender girls from competing on girls’ school sports teams represents a setback for transgender rights, but attorneys who argued the case say the ruling is considerably narrower than many initial reactions suggested.
Shortly after the decision was released, attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union — which represented the plaintiffs in the case — held a press call to explain what they described as the limited scope of the Court’s opinion. While the ruling allows states to exclude transgender girls from girls’ school sports teams, they said it stops well short of creating a nationwide ban or dismantling broader legal protections for transgender people.
Joshua Block, senior counsel with the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, said the majority intentionally confined its analysis to school athletics.
“[The majority] issued a narrow decision focused specifically on the unique context of sports. It didn’t issue a broader decision saying that Title IX in general didn’t protect transgender students. It didn’t say that other states couldn’t make a different policy choice and allow transgender girls to participate with cisgender girls, and it didn’t issue a sweeping ruling saying that under the Constitution it’s perfectly fine to discriminate based on transgender status.”
Block said one of the opinion’s most significant takeaways is that it leaves decisions about transgender participation in school sports largely in the hands of states.
“It leaves the rest of the legal rights of transgender people where the court found them.”
He stressed that the ruling authorizes states to adopt restrictions but does not require them to do so.
“It’s very important to emphasize that this isn’t a national mandate to ban trans athletes everywhere. It’s a fight that’s going to continue state by state, school by school … it really says that a state may discriminate, not that they must discriminate. States, schools, and athletic associations should be taking every step to ensure that athletic opportunities exist for transgender girls.”
Beyond athletics, Block said the opinion’s most important legal consequence may lie in its treatment of the Equal Protection Clause.
“What the court said is that even applying that heightened standard, we’re going to establish what’s effectively a new rule of the Equal Protection Clause, saying that you can’t bring this sort of as-applied challenge to a law that is valid for most people.”
Even so, he argued that the Court repeatedly framed transgender participation in sports as a policy issue for state governments rather than a constitutional mandate.
“Over and over and over again it talks about how states may exclude transgender girls, not that they must, and over and over and over again it says that this is a policy question that should be decided by the people in their different communities and their representatives.”
Block also rejected the idea that the ruling endorses the Trump administration’s broader efforts to restrict transgender rights.
“I have no doubt that the Trump administration will try to declare victory and say that this decision supports the lawless policies they’re pursuing, but I think anyone reading the decision can see otherwise.”
The White House nonetheless celebrated the decision, calling it a victory that would “protect women and girls.”
“The Court’s decision is a landmark victory for common sense, biological reality, and for the millions of women and girls who deserve a level playing field. By upholding laws protecting female athletic competition, the Court confirmed that states may preserve the fairness, safety, and equal opportunities that Title IX was enacted to guarantee.”
Medical researchers and LGBTQ advocates dispute the administration’s characterization of the evidence. A 2021 study published in the Journal of Sports Medicine found no scientific evidence for supporting these laws that categorically ban transgender women from participating in women’s sports.
Critics have also argued that enforcement of such laws could create new risks for athletes. Researchers have warned that sex-verification requirements may expose students to invasive examinations and discrimination.
A 2016 USA Today investigation found that at least 368 young gymnasts reported experiencing sexual abuse over a 20-year period. More than 100 coaches and gymnastics officials were accused of abuse, yet USA Gymnastics failed to track predatory coaches, allowing many to continue working with children. LGBTQ advocates argue that requiring athletes to undergo genital inspections or other forms of sex verification could place young athletes at even greater risk.
Advocacy organizations said the decision, while limited legally, will have significant real-world consequences for transgender youth.
Chris Mosier, a transgender athlete and board member of Point of Pride, said the ruling extends beyond sports.
“The Supreme Court’s decision today isn’t driven by fairness or dignity in sports. It’s an attack on our community’s right to live freely and authentically in every part of our lives. Young people, regardless of whether they’re cis or trans, deserve the joy of sports: to build friendships, to move their bodies and have fun on the field. To every trans athlete out there: you have a community standing behind you. No politician or law can take away your joy or power. We will get through this as our community has always done: together.”
Brian K. Bond, CEO of PFLAG National, emphasized that states remain free to adopt inclusive policies despite the Court’s decision.
“The Court rules best when it listens to the needs of marginalized people: trans people belong, on and off the field. While we celebrate the Court’s decision to uphold the Fourteenth Amendment and affirm that every person born in the United States is a citizen, the Court today added an asterisk to allow discrimination against transgender student athletes. Our country has been here before, and frankly, you would think this Court would have learned.”
“For PFLAG families, today’s decision in BPJ means that transgender athletes can continue to be affirmed for who they are in places where the law allows – and invigorates our LGBTQ+ and allied community to expand those protections. The parents, families, allies and LGBTQ+ people of PFLAG will continue to advocate for our trans loved ones to have the freedom to be themselves, everywhere. Trans people belong, and deserve to have access to the benefits of sport like everyone else.”
Allen Morris, policy director at the National LGBTQ Task Force, called the decision “devastating” but noted that it does not establish a nationwide sports ban.
“Today’s decision is devastating and the impact to clear. While this is not a nationwide ban on transgender participation in sports, the Court has given states a legal pathway to attempt to discriminate against trans individuals from full participation in school sports and all aspects of life.”
“This ruling is not just about sports: it’s about valuing and protecting the safety, security and constitutional rights of transgender people. By allowing states to draw a categorical line based on “biological sex,” the majority has chosen deference to exclusion and political beliefs over transgender students’ lived realities. There is already a dangerous rise in state-based violence growing across the country, and we’re overcoming this issue at each turn.”
Melanie Willingham-Jaggers, CEO of GLSEN, said the decision sends a broader message about transgender students’ place in schools.
“We are deeply disappointed by the outcome of this decision. This ruling represents another significant setback for transgender youth across the country, limiting their ability to fully engage in school life. Exclusion from these spaces shapes not only athletic access, but the broader message about who should be valued and included in our schools and societal ecosystem.”
“School sports are much more than competition. They are about belonging, forming a community, and the opportunity to grow and thrive alongside peers. Preventing youth from taking part in everyday activities undermines these fundamental values. We continue to see efforts to regulate discrimination under the guise of fairness, despite the lack of evidence that inclusive policies harm women’s sports. Access to these experiences is critical to students’ well-being and development.”
Massachusetts
EXCLUSIVE: Pressley rips State Department over LGBTQ rights rollbacks abroad
Massachusetts Democrat sent letter to Marco Rubio on Tuesday
Massachusetts Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley sent a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio urging the Trump-Vance administration to take urgent action to defend LGBTQ people across the globe, including in countries that are violating international human rights protections for LGBTQ individuals, putting at risk the safety of civilians and U.S. citizens working, living, and traveling abroad.
The letter, which the Washington Blade got an exclusive preview of prior to its sending, criticizes the Trump-Vance administration’s foreign policy direction at the State Department, arguing that it has moved to roll back LGBTQ protections that have long been part of the U.S.’s global human rights posture.
“Criminalizing LGBTQI+ individuals undermines democracy globally, as well as U.S. national security. Thus, we urge the State Department to take adequate measures to speak out against this criminalization and protect U.S. citizens abroad, including your staff, who may be detained or harmed under such laws, policies, and practices,” Pressley, a Democrat who represents roughly three-fourths of Boston and much of the city’s suburbs, said. “U.S. civilians, diplomatic personnel, military members, and nonprofit workers on the ground providing health care and disaster support will be affected and have their safety threatened if the U.S. does not take action. Even U.S. citizens perceived as being part of the LGBTQI+ community and traveling or living in those countries may be used as bargaining chips. This is a serious U.S. national security concern.”
In the letter, Pressley underscores what she describes as a global escalation in criminalization and violence against LGBTQ people, noting that one-third of countries still criminalize consensual same-sex sexual relationships and that 12 countries impose the death penalty. She argues that these conditions make LGBTQ travelers, diplomats, and aid workers particularly vulnerable, and calls on the State Department to reassert U.S. leadership in defending human rights abroad.
“Every person deserves to live authentically, yet several countries are violating international human rights laws that protect LGBTQI+ individuals,” she said. “One-third of countries around the world criminalize same-sex consensual acts between adults, and 12 countries allow LGBTQI+ people to be executed for being themselves.”
She also invokes the role the U.S. has played in promoting democratic values internationally, arguing that LGBTQ rights should remain central to that mission.
“Historically, the United States has played a critical diplomatic role in promoting democracy and freedom for all individuals, including LGBTQI+ persons. The U.S. should be a world leader promoting human rights domestically and globally.”
In a separate statement included in the letter, Pressley emphasized both the moral and national security implications of the issue, warning that anti-LGBTQ laws abroad are endangering lives and require a coordinated U.S. response.
“Every person deserves to show up as their true, authentic selves here in the United States and in countries across the globe — and that includes our LGBTQI+ community members,” she said.
“However, we are witnessing a deeply concerning rise in human rights violations and criminalization of LGBTQI+ individuals in other countries, endangering the lives of civilians and U.S. citizens. It is incumbent upon the United States to protect our LGBTQI+ siblings at home and abroad not only for our national security but for the safety and freedom of LGBTQI+ people everywhere.”
The letter goes on to press the State Department for concrete action, including a public reaffirmation of U.S. commitments to LGBTQ human rights, the restoration of LGBTQ analysis in annual country reports, and clearer guidance for Americans traveling abroad. It also seeks clarity on whether the department is tracking cases of U.S. citizens detained or harmed under anti-LGBTQ laws and what proactive steps are being taken to warn and protect LGBTQ travelers.
While she is not a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Pressley remains highly active in international affairs and global policy.
While the letter focuses on current policy, it also lands in the broader context of Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s long anti-LGBTQ record. Rubio, a former senator from Florida, has consistently opposed same-sex marriage, calling the federal Respect for Marriage Act, which he voted against, a “stupid waste of time.” He has also expressed support for efforts to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
During his time in the U.S. Senate and as a Florida political leader, Rubio has a long anti-LGBTQ track record. He defended state policies that LGBTQ advocates say target queer and transgender people, including Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law — commonly known by critics as “Don’t Say Gay” or “Don’t Say Trans” — which restricts classroom discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity.
He has also drawn criticism for his voting record, including a 0/100 score from the Human Rights Campaign’s Congressional Scorecard, reflecting opposition to expanding federal civil rights protections for LGBTQ people and for opposing adoption rights for same-sex couples.
Now serving as secretary of state, Rubio has overseen changes at the State Department that LGBTQ advocates say have reduced visibility and protections for transgender people, including the removal of trans-specific references from parts of the department’s public-facing materials and travel guidance. He has also been linked to broader restructuring efforts involving U.S. foreign assistance programs, including the U.S. Agency for International Development, which has historically supported global HIV prevention and LGBTQ rights initiatives in regions such as sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia, and Latin America.
Those cuts and shifts, critics argue, have weakened programs like PEPFAR — credited with saving millions of lives worldwide — and reduced U.S. support for LGBTQ communities facing persecution abroad. The program is credited with saving at least 25 million lives.
Pressley’s own record stands in contrast, with a 100/100 on HRC’s Congressional Scorecard and a long history of legislative and advocacy work centered on LGBTQ equality. In recent years, she has secured federal funding for The Pryde, an affordable housing development for LGBTQ seniors in Boston, and has repeatedly pushed for expanded civil rights protections, including support for the Equality Act and the Equal Rights Amendment.
She has also advanced policy efforts aimed at LGBTQ survivors of violence, trans, and nonbinary individuals navigating credit and legal systems, and broader protections under housing and civil rights law — framing her work as part of a sustained effort to ensure LGBTQ people are included in federal policy at every level.
Turkish authorities refuse to allow gay cruise to dock in country
PHOTOS: Crush Dance Bar
In Trump’s divided America, Michael Weinstein’s AHF responds
When a church fears the rainbow
Under-the-radar Delaware beach towns smart buyers are targeting
Democratic Socialists of America are not automatically Democrats
Queen Camilla meets with JK Rowling
D.C. queer faith leaders commit to exist, resist, persist
SMYAL receives $25,000 award for ‘courageous acts’
Ethereal ‘Camp’ a moody allegory for queer shame
-
Opinions4 days agoDemocratic Socialists of America are not automatically Democrats
-
United Kingdom4 days ago
Queen Camilla meets with JK Rowling
-
Opinions4 days ago
D.C. queer faith leaders commit to exist, resist, persist
-
District of Columbia4 days ago
SMYAL receives $25,000 award for ‘courageous acts’
