Connect with us

National

UPDATED: GLAAD’s communication breakdown; Barrios voted out

Media watchdog group dogged by allegations of dishonesty, incompetence

Published

on

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.

Jarrett Barrios

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.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

New York

Grace Meng sharply criticizes DOJ over hospital settlements

N.Y. congresswoman spoke with the Blade this week

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Grace Meng (D-N.Y.) (Photo public domain)

Few things have riled up Republicans in power like the ongoing fight to restrict gender-affirming care for minors.

The Trump-Vance administration has been clear in making the fight against transgender rights, healthcare, and visibility a priority as they enter their “lame duck” phase of the presidency.

With the midterms looming, they are hoping scapegoating trans children — as they did in 2020, only for it to grow into a core national party strategy in the following elections — will save them from a less-than-secure control of the federal government like they’ve had since Trump took office.

In the past year, numerous deals have been struck between hospitals that have provided gender-affirming care to minors and the Justice Department to halt any further care.
While Republican pundits and conservative voices continue to accuse these hospitals — like NYU Langone and Mount Sinai Health System — of committing what they contend are atrocities against these children, large portions of gender-affirming care for minors involve social transitions and puberty blockers, which are reversible.

The Washington Blade spoke with Congresswoman Grace Meng, who represents New York’s Sixth Congressional District and is the ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, to discuss whether these ongoing settlements between hospitals and the Trump-run Justice Department are legal.

In her role as the ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, Meng oversees funding for Justice Department and a slew of other federal agencies. The position gives her the power to look behind the coercion, examine how things are being done, and question the policies and actions of these federal powers in a way many other members of Congress cannot.

Meng said the Justice Department’s actions against hospitals providing gender-affirming care are part of what she sees as a broader pattern of institutions — under the control of this president — targeting LGBTQ people.

“Unfortunately this is not the first time that the DOJ is weaponizing the agency to target our communities, and our LGBTQ+ community, especially our young people, are unfortunately yet another victim of that,” Meng told the Blade. “The real victims are the actual patients and families who are losing a trusted provider.”

She argued that one prong of this ongoing situation is the way the DOJ is going about these “wins” — through pressure rather than through going to court to find actual wrongdoings.

“This DOJ knows that they can’t win in the courts based on the merit of these types of actions, so they are just working by bullying and using coercion to cheat their way through getting what they want,” she said.

She pointed to the use of litigation, subpoenas, and reputational damage against the hospitals as part of that pressure campaign.

“They know that they can’t prove any wrongdoing in court, so they’re just using the threat of prolonged litigation, subpoenas for patients’ records and trying to damage reputations of these institutions as they’ve been cutting funding for them.”

The hospitals involved so far include NYU Langone Hospitals in New York, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Pennsylvania, the Mount Sinai Health System in New York, the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio, Connecticut Children’s Hospital in Connecticut, and Texas Children’s Hospital in Texas.

Meng said the settlements are part of a broader strategy by the Justice Department.

“This is a part of their larger deliberate strategy across the country. They’ve obviously gone after NYU Langone. They’ve gone after Mount Sinai in my state, and they’re doing this in other states as well.”

When asked about the agreements being reached between the Justice Department and hospitals, Meng was direct.

“I think these are forced settlements. Absolutely,” Meng said.

Meng described the federal government’s involvement in individual trans healthcare decisions as an intrusion into private medical decisions.

“This is cruel. It’s a cruel form of coercion. It’s a form of cheating,” she went on, comparing this to the ongoing fight for reproductive freedom in the country. “Just like when we’re talking about reproductive rights, right? It’s an invasion of privacy. These are confidential patient records.”

Meng said the federal government should not be involved in decisions between families and their doctors.

“President Trump and the federal government do not belong in a hospital, helping to make decisions that are very personal and sensitive to every single family. They should not be involved in these decisions.”

She said the settlements could leave families without access to healthcare they need.

“Their way of forcing these settlements and leaving so many without the healthcare that they really need is really just devastating.”

Meng said the impact is already being felt by families in her district and across New York.

“The human impact, the impact on our families, on our constituents here in Queens and throughout New York, is really hurtful.”

Meng framed the issue as part of what she described as a larger pattern within the Trump-Vance administration of attacking the most vulnerable.

“If you ask me to sum up this administration in one word, it would be cruelty,” she said. “They feel like they have a right to decide who is American enough in this country, and who is good enough, and who is deserving enough.”

She went further, saying Trump is “literally acting as a dictator.”

She contrasted his leadership with that of a traditional public servant.

“Most public servants wake up every day thinking of ways that they can make people’s lives better, how they can help people. This administration and this action is no different. It wakes up and thinks of a new way to target a different community every day.”

As the ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, Meng said Congress has tools available to examine how the Justice Department operates and spends federal money.

“The purpose of our 12 subcommittees is to have direct oversight and leverage as Congress members, as the third branch of government, over how the Department of Justice spends our taxpayers’ money.”

One crucial thing Meng pointed out about being on this committee is the fact that much of the work of appropriations is bipartisan and is entirely within the power of Congress via the Constitution.

“We need the White House to respect the constitutional process that the Appropriations Committee goes through,” she said. “We write the Appropriations Law. It’s between Republican and Democratic Congress members.”

When asked about the funding from the settlements — and the continued funding for an increasingly looked-down-upon DOJ — she said she is seeking greater transparency into how federal money is being spent.

“I think that both sides will end up wanting more transparency into the money, how the money is spent.”

Meng said Congress has the legal authority to place requirements on the Justice Department through appropriations legislation.

“We have the legal authority to include language that helps write the DOJ and other agencies, but the DOJ’s budget, and so we will certainly exercise that authority whether or not we’re in the majority.”

She also pointed to the possibility of Democrats taking control of the U.S. House of Representatives after the midterms.

“Hopefully, as we’re in the majority after November, we will be able to have more teeth and more ability to apply that pressure and to write the bill in a way that is transparent and doesn’t harm our families.”

Despite the growing public agitation and disappointment over these settlements, Meng said there is not yet a specific schedule for congressional hearings on the issue, but that it may come after the midterms.

“We don’t have a timeline of hearings and specific topics, but CJS is everything under Commerce, Justice, and Science-related agencies,” she said. “Hopefully, when House Democrats control the House and maybe even the Senate, that we’ll be able to claw back some of their overreach.”

Meng also criticized what she described as a Justice Department operating outside the traditional boundaries of the agency.

“They can’t operate as a rogue agency or as a personal law firm of this president, in the way that they’re doing now. Using subpoenas, threatening prosecutions, these settlements — they are tools that are being used, I believe, unethically and illegally.”

Meng said trans children and their families could continue to face the consequences of the administration’s actions as the Justice Department expands its efforts.

“These are maybe low-hanging fruit or easy targets for the administration, but I can see them going after institutions in other states as they started to do as well.”

She said members of Congress have a responsibility to reassure affected families that they are not alone.

“Our job, whether it’s a representative for my Queens families, but for families across America too, is to let them know that I and my colleagues, many of my colleagues, are standing with them.”

“We are still with them, especially with the patients and the families affected by the NYU Langone deal, but any of these institutions and how they’re hurting them.”

Meng said she wants to achieve that through partnerships outside of government.

“We’re gonna do our best to expand partnership with organizations on the ground to make sure that they’re getting the support and the care that they need.”

While talking to the Blade, Meng also raised broader concerns about the relationship between Congress and the executive branch.

“This administration has definitely not followed the Constitution, and I know that there are pending lawsuits,” she said.

Just this week, the Trump-Vance administration was taken to court over what CNN, POLITICO and MS NOW alleged were violations of their First Amendment rights.

Meng said the administration has not treated Congress as an independent branch of government.

“They [the president] do not act as if Congress is a third branch of government. They think and act like Congress works for them, like they’re a part of their agencies that they’re weaponizing.”

Meng said she believes the public has become more aware of the administration’s actions, but that there is still work to do in explaining how those actions unfold.

“I think that the American people’s eyes have been opened a little more under this administration than in past ones … There’s definitely more room to continue to educate the public as to what this administration is doing.”

For Meng, the debate over trans healthcare ultimately comes down to the families affected by the decisions being made in Washington.

“What’s most important is not just the legalese that everyone’s debating these days when news like this comes out. We have to remember that there are real human beings, real families that are being impacted,” she said. “There are people crying behind closed doors in their homes, and they don’t know literally what they can do or where they will call next to get the care that they need and that they want.”

Meng said lawmakers have a responsibility to address the issue legislatively while also supporting families in their communities.

“It’s our job in Washington, in the capital, to fight these fights legislatively. But in our home districts and in our communities, it’s our job to reassure these families that we’re there for them, and that we’re going to be creative, and we’re going to find new partnerships and expand existing ones to make sure that our families have a path forward.”

She said local and state governments are also being forced to find ways to respond — and, in many cases, end up being some of the only places where protections can happen.

“Our local legislators and many of our communities, on the city level, municipal level, and the state level, they’re looking for more funding options, and a lot of them, including in New York, have had to step up in major ways.”

“Everyone has to step up in newer and more creative ways.”

Ultimately, Meng said the focus should remain on the families affected by the decisions.
“But at the end of the day, it’s the families that are impacted that we’re doing this for,” she said.

The Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy group in the U.S., issued a statement this week following the announcement of more settlements.

“This is nothing less than a crisis for families and transgender youth. Since day one, Trump and his callous administration have used the full force of the federal government to come after transgender young people, their families and their doctors — and far too many hospitals are complying and abandoning their patients. Now, even in states with policies that protect transgender people, the options for parents to get their children best-practice, and potentially life-saving healthcare, are dwindling day by day,” HRC President Kelley Robinson said.

“This is the exact outcome Trump wants to see — and this cruelty shouldn’t be lost on anyone who has ever had to make difficult decisions about how to safeguard their child’s health and well-being. Our thoughts are with the countless families across the country who feel scared and under siege. We will not stop fighting until everyone can have access to the healthcare they need.”

While the Blade had her, they also asked about House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), and his decision to send members of Congress home rather than hold a vote on impeaching Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, in part over his trans military ban, which has left thousands of highly skilled, ready and able workers sitting on the sidelines awaiting the courts to tell them if they are guaranteed the right to fight on behalf of the country.

“I can’t take credit for this, but someone called it the Hegseth holiday,” Meng said. “This speaker, every time there’s a tough vote, instead of acting as a leader and a speaker, he just calls it quits and he sends us home.”

“I believe — and I’m sure he does — that we had enough votes to impeach Hegseth, and he didn’t want to do it. So off we go.”

Continue Reading

National

Philadelphia event to launch 2026 LGBT History Month

Dr. Fauci to be honored as 31 LGBT ‘Icons’ are announced

Published

on

U.S. Rep. Chris Pappas is among this year’s Icon award recipients from the Equality Forum. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Equality Forum, the Philadelphia-based group that organizes the nation’s annual LGBT History Month in October, is scheduled to launch the 2026 LGBT History Month at a VIP Reception on Sept. 27.

The event, to be held at Philadelphia’s Independence Visitor Center, will honor Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases who is credited with playing a leading role in the fight against HIV/AIDS and COVID-19. Equality Forum was to present Fauci with its International Role Model Award.

The Equality Forum, which operates programs focusing on LGBT history and the people who play a leading role in historic undertakings, will also present its Frank Kameny Award to Erica Deuso, who in 2025 won election as the first openly transgender mayor in the state of Pennsylvania as mayor of the town of Downington, Pa. 

A statement released by the Equality Forum points out that LGBT History Month, held each year, celebrates the achievements of 31 lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender icons throughout the month of October. “Each day in October, a new LGBT icon is featured with a video, bio, bibliography, downloadable images, and other resources,” the statement says.

Although the statement releases the name and a short background description of each of this year’s 31 LGBT icons, the icons were scheduled to be officially announced and honored at the Sept. 27 event.

“The LGBT community is the only community worldwide that is not taught its history at home, in public schools or in religious institutions,” the statement says. “LGBT History Month provides role models, builds community and makes the civil rights statement about our extraordinary national and international contributions,” it says.

This year’s Icons include designer Calvin Klein, media mogul Barry Diller, U.S. Senate hopeful Chris Pappas, and perhaps most notably President Abe Lincoln.

Additional information about the event and a list of the 2026 LGBT Icons can be accessed at lgbthistorymonth.com.    

Continue Reading

Netherlands

Dutch prime minister visits Stonewall Inn

Rob Jetten is the Netherlands’ first openly gay prime minister

Published

on

Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten, on right, visits the Stonewall Inn in New York on Sept. 21, 2026. (Photo courtesy of Jetten's X account)

Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten on Monday visited the Stonewall Inn in New York.

“The Stonewall Inn is not just a gay bar in New York, but the place where in 1969 riots took place as a reaction to years of discrimination and police violence,” wrote Jetten on X. “This is seen as the starting point of the global LGBTIQ+ emancipation and activism. Nowadays, the bar is a national monument, dedicated to the LGBTIQ+ rights movement.”

“For me, it is impressive and moving to be here tonight. And also fitting, because the defense of human rights is an important part of our foreign policy,” he added. “The Netherlands stands alongside the Stonewall Inn community when it comes to everyone’s right to live openly, safely, and with pride, no matter who you are or who you love.”

Jetten in February became the Netherlands’s first openly gay prime minister.

He opened last month’s World Pride Human Rights Conference in Amsterdam. Jetten also participated in a panel with former Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar, former San Marino Captain Regent Paolo Rondelli, and other current and former heads of government who are gay or lesbian.

Jetten is scheduled to speak to the U.N. General Assembly on Thursday.

Continue Reading

Popular