Opinions
Victory Fund: Rethinking for the future
Amid historic election, some concerns about organization’s direction
There is no question that the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund had a great election cycle and the LGBT community had a fantastic night on Nov. 6. But as we build for the future and look to many more such cycles some would question whether the Victory Fund has retreated a little from what many believe was its initial mission. It was seen as the organization supporting and promoting LGBT candidates even when other organizations wouldn’t because they didn’t see the value in promoting them. The Victory Fund was building a strong bullpen of LGBT candidates — the future leaders at all levels of government.
Today the Victory Fund coordinates with and sometimes determines whether to support candidates partially based on what groups like the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) do. I would assume since they are non-partisan they look at what the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee thinks as well. It appears they may be more concerned with their percentage of winning candidates rather than building for the future. Many of our finest politicians lost their first campaigns and went on to have stellar political careers. First time potentially viable LGBT candidates need our support and most believe it is the Victory Fund’s mission to provide that support and encouragement.
A recent congressional race in Michigan’s 3rd District is a prime example of where the Victory Fund has gone astray. Trevor Thomas, a gay man running in the primary asked for a Victory Fund endorsement early in his campaign. The Victory Fund turned him down suggesting that if he could raise $100,000 on his own and prove he was a viable candidate it would reconsider. Trevor did that and the Victory Fund turned him down again. A Victory Fund board member recently told me that the group decided not to endorse Thomas because they thought even if he could win his primary he couldn’t win the election. That board member also told me that the Victory Fund looked at the DCCC and saw that it wasn’t supporting Trevor in the primary but instead supported a self-funded candidate.
Thomas raised a lot of money on his own in the primary. He received the endorsement of two current members of Congress early in his campaign. About a month before the primary, the DCCC realized that in the pre-primary reporting period his opponent raised a weak $4,000, while Thomas pulled in nearly $40,000 in less than 15 days without a single dollar coming from PACs. The DCCC then gave the green light for other sitting members of Congress to endorse, including Barney Frank. He received endorsements from two former members of Congress, including Patrick Murphy, the leader in repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Still, the Victory Fund wouldn’t endorse. Thomas found support from former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm; from the state’s former lieutenant governor who had just run for governor; a progressive PAC dedicated to veteran’s issues and Cecile Richards of National Planned Parenthood. The chair of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, Rep. Diana DeGette, along with Frank, started raising money for him. What he didn’t ever get was support from many big LGBT donors who told him they only contribute to candidates endorsed by the Victory Fund.
Trevor Thomas wasn’t an unknown quantity. He was deputy communications director at HRC and communications director for SLDN during the final fight for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The executive director of the SLDN was an active supporter and fundraiser for Thomas.
Thomas raised about $400,000 for his campaign and had an independent group backed by veterans chip in another $150,000. He got 45 percent of the vote against a competitor not particularly friendly to the LGBT community, who spent $700,000. If only Thomas had had the early support of the Victory Fund, he might have either kept his opponent out of the race or gone on TV earlier to get his message out. Democratic pollster Mark Mellman shared a poll early in the campaign with the Victory Fund showing if Thomas had the money to get his message out he could win big — with one test showing a win by as much as 20 percent. Thomas’s story was compelling, including the fact that he was a product of the auto-industry, both his parents working the line for more than 30 years.
In Trevor’s case it wasn’t the mere $5,000 the Victory Fund gives to endorsed candidates but rather making people aware of his candidacy so they would give. While the Victory Fund wasn’t even interested in listing him on its website, National Planned Parenthood and a national veterans group, along with Jennifer Granholm, didn’t blink. They knew Thomas, knew his talents, but then so did the silent Victory Fund.
The time has come for the Victory Fund to take a look in the mirror and perhaps rethink their mission. The Victory Fund is based on ground broken by EMILY’s list whose name stands for Early Money Is Like Yeast. Early money is often primary money for an LGBT candidate. It allows them the chance to grow and get their message out. I fully understand having a set of criteria for an endorsement but it is clear that if Trevor Thomas didn’t qualify there is a problem with the current criteria. In Michigan it was EMILY’s List that stood early with Jennifer Granholm when others stood with her primary opponent in her race for governor. The source and power of EMILY’s List is clear; they stand loyal in oftentimes divided primaries, going up against the DCCC if needed and they fight like hell and win. That’s a lesson to be learned.
Maybe it’s time to develop another organization so LGBT candidates can get their names out to the broader community; a place where every “out” candidate can list themselves, their bios, their positions and an analysis of how they see themselves winning. If the Victory Fund doesn’t feel it necessary to review its current criteria maybe they shouldn’t be the only gatekeeper to funding for LGBT candidates. We need the Victory Fund but if they don’t feel this is their role then we also need an organization dedicated to building that bullpen of LGBT candidates who will become the leaders of the future.
Africa
African leaders once again trade African family values for American family values
Anti-LGBTQ conference backed by US-based groups took place this month in Ghana
At the moment, some religious and political leaders in Africa are pushing for a charter on family values, lobbying lawmakers, African state institutions, and the African Union to formally adopt it. In the past number of years, they have been holding conferences across Africa with the support and funding of Western religious donors who, in their own countries, are definitely perceived as racist, hateful, and against women. Most recently, they convened the African Regional Interparliamentary Conference on Family Values and Sovereignty in Accra, Ghana. All this raises critical questions about foreign influence and agendas. At this critical time, when Africa faces so many problems, why do people insist on pushing an agenda that is neither ours nor relevant to our prosperity?
The African leaders who claim to protect African family values and sovereignty, unsurprisingly, exhibit traits similar to those of the historical enslavers and similar collaborators. Contrary to what they claim as “pushing back against foreign influence on the African family” and the infamous sovereignty claims, it has been proven that these leaders are directly linked and backed by the conservative “foreign” groups, including the U.S.-based hate organization, Family Watch International, which is closely linked to the anti-rights authors of Trump’s Project 2025, Heritage Foundation; and the Netherlands-based Christian nationalist organization, Christian Council International, another group closely linked to organizations supporting the Trump administration and its continued hate-based policies and atrocities. One might even argue that they serve these groups, their mandates, and their Western agenda, instead of what they want African people to believe: that they are doing this for the good and prosperity of Africa and its sovereignty. The truth, however, is that their so-called African values, culture, traditions, etcetera, could not be further removed from true African cultural values but instead mimic those outlined in America’s Project 2025. Meanwhile, the very same people who are pushing for these family values under Project 2025 are the very same people pushing for the exploitation of Africa’s natural resources, without any care for the impact their actions have on African people and their livelihoods. Adopting their policies verbatim in Africa and claiming them as our own could easily be seen as counterintuitive and self-betrayal.
Africa’s rich history of family, diversity, womanhood, and matriarchy is too beautiful to erase. Africans, especially women and girls, deserve to know about the likes of Queen Modjadji of the Balobedu people, a fierce leader who is traditionally believed to have rainmaking abilities and notably a distinctively matriarchal dynasty where the reign is passed down from woman to woman, from mother to daughter; or Queen Nzinga of modern-day Angola, who led an army that resisted and fought against the Portuguese colonizers. Queer folks and African spiritualists alike deserve to know how women and gender diverse persons held some of the highest spiritual positions in society, like Mbuya Nehanda of Zimbabwe, who was a deeply respected spirit medium and a leader of the resistance against early colonial rule in Zimbabwe, and the transgender priests, the respected agule and okule, female-to-male and male-to-female shamans of the Lugbara, now the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda, who led spiritual ceremonies. Even though the mudoko dako of the Langi people in Uganda were known to have been assigned male at birth, they were recognized as a distinct gender that was allowed to marry men. Africans must also know about woman-to-woman marriages that existed in pre-colonial Africa, which, according to research and oral histories, were recognised and served various purposes, from economic and social functions to lineage preservation. Similar practices include those from the Bapedi and Balobedu cultures, ngwetsi ya lapa, which still exists today, where a woman is married into a family or household to raise an heir for the family or to continue the family name, not necessarily the lineage.
As well-intentioned as it may appear, evidence suggests that the African leaders’ draft charter, because of its existing ties to Western ultraconservative partnerships, is neither original nor in good faith. The pace at which they have been moving and their true subsequent agenda should indisputably be questioned and criticised. Regardless of the inclusion of desirable language and terms such as minerals sovereignty and the Ubuntu philosophy, beneath the surface, the charter does not truly reflect these concepts. The charter, instead, does a disservice to African people by misrepresenting Africa’s diversity and disregarding its history as it relates to the diversity of families. The West has no business drafting or helping draft African legislation, especially if the whole of Africa is at risk of their negative impact. One would think the common goal would be to address bread-and-butter issues, such as poverty, unemployment, diseases, and health, to name but a few, instead of pushing the distractive agenda of those responsible for robbing Africa in the first place. No single group is the sole custodian of African knowledge. Africa belongs to all of us, with our diverse families and values, which cannot be defined through a single, narrow lens and are instead very individual issues that will differ from family to family.
Daniel Digashu is a consultant at the Southern Africa Litigation Center (SALC). SALC promotes and advances human rights and the rule of law in Southern Africa, primarily through strategic litigation and capacity-strengthening support to lawyers and grassroots organizations.
Opinions
US no longer refuge for LGBTQ refugees
More than 30 percent of Rainbow Railroad’s 2025 requests for help came from US
I have spent the past eight years leading programs at Rainbow Railroad that support LGBTQI+ people fleeing persecution and violence. What began as a small, volunteer-led effort has grown over the past two decades into an international organization that has supported more than 50,000 people around the world. That growth reflects what is possible when communities choose solidarity in the face of rising hate.
Yet the forces that make Rainbow Railroad’s work necessary have not diminished. In many places, they are accelerating, including in countries like the United States that have historically been viewed as places of refuge for LGBTQI+ people.
In 2025, Rainbow Railroad received a record 20,215 requests for help from people around the world. Over 30 percent of these requests came from people living in the U.S., making it the top country of origin for LGBTQI+ people seeking assistance for the second year in a row. It’s a trend that began following the 2024 presidential election, when 1,177 people reached out for support the day after the results were finalized. That single day generated more than twice the number of requests for help we had received from across the United States during the previous 10 months combined.
The fears reflected in the requests for help we received during those first hours were well-founded. With the stroke of a pen, on his first day in office, the president suspended the US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), upending the lives of refugees who were already processed and approved for resettlement in the U.S. Many of these individuals remain in limbo.
Months later, the president authorized a cap of just 7,500 refugees to resettle in the U.S. for fiscal year 2026 and ordered a review of refugees admitted under former President Joe Biden. At the same time, he cut asylum-related services and legal support, making it even harder for vulnerable migrants to navigate an increasingly complex system.
Despite these barriers and increasing hostility, LGBTQI+ individuals continue to seek safety in the United States, often relying on their own resources and determination to flee to the pockets of safety in cities and states that protect their rights.
It is in that spirit that I’ve witnessed the community stepping up to support LGBTQI+ migrants.
Following the collapse of federal programs such as Welcome Corps, which allowed Americans to sponsor refugees looking to resettle in the U.S. Rainbow Railroad launched Communities of Care, a volunteer-driven ecosystem of post-relocation services for LGBTQI+ migrants. Across
the country, volunteers are helping newcomers navigate unfamiliar systems, build social connections, and begin rebuilding their lives.
While volunteers’ commitment has been extraordinary, community-led efforts cannot replace the infrastructure governments have dismantled. Volunteers can offer community, guidance and practical support, but they cannot replace refugee resettlement programs, legal services, or a functioning asylum system. As need grows and public support shrinks, the gap between what communities can provide and what governments should provide continues to widen.
I think often about the LGBTQI+ people Rainbow Railroad helped reach safety in the U.S. over the years. For many, the United States represented possibility, a place where they could finally live openly and without fear. To now see the U.S. become the country generating more requests for help than any other is profoundly alarming.
The question on my mind this Pride month is whether we will collectively meet this moment with the urgency it demands. Governments must restore and strengthen refugee and asylum protections. Volunteers must step up to provide connections to care and community. Donors must support organizations in filling critical gaps. And all of us must recognize that welcoming LGBTQI+ people seeking safety is a responsibility we all share.
Devon Matthews is the chief programs officer for Rainbow Railroad.
Opinions
My trans daughter thrived in Chicago public schools
Washington wants to make that impossible
I am a Chicagoan whose daughter is transgender. But that is not the most important fact about her. My daughter loves fashion, sings in choir, is active at church, and is, by every measure, your classic American teenager.
Yet it is her gender identity that politicians in Washington have once again decided to make their business.
She’s had the benefit of attending school in a district that affirms her, with educators who have added protections for students like her to a contract, in a city that benefits from and believes in diversity.
If the Republican-led Congress that is subpoenaeing the CEO of Chicago Public Schools truly was interested in “inappropriate content” and its impact on students, they would start with the anti-trans state legislation that increases youth suicide attempts by 72%, not the school districts making them feel safe and welcomed. Protecting these kids in school is not a culture war talking point. It is suicide prevention.
But that is not what they are doing. Instead, they are calling to question the head of a school district where Chicago’s values have made our schools safer places for students of every gender, race, and nationality.
The same administration that has yet to investigate the Epstein files but is moving the FCC to put warning labels on television shows that portray inclusive families and characters of different sexualities, is telling on itself in what they think is permissible and what they think is harmful for school-age youth. They say this is about parental rights and children’s well-being, but the parental right I care most about is the right for my daughter and all children to walk into a school building and feel safe and affirmed instead of scared and threatened.
My daughter spent 13 years in Chicago public schools. Her teachers used her chosen name. Her classmates accepted her for who she is. She wore a formal dress at choir concerts, landed a female lead in the school musical, and used the women’s bathroom without anyone batting an eye. When she went to a school dance, her teachers celebrated her like any other student, gushing over her dress, cheering her on. Nobody treated her like a problem to be managed.
That is not luck. That is Chicago. It’s the result of educators who fought hard for these protections. While MAGA has moved other states to bar teachers from even acknowledging LGBTQ+ students, the Chicago Teachers Union ratified a contract that does the opposite. It puts gender support coordinators in every network, codifies protections for chosen names and pronouns, and incorporates CPS guidelines for transgender students into the collective bargaining agreement itself.
Those are not bureaucratic details. They are what stands between a child like mine and the bully who, without them, could decide she does not deserve dignity and hurt her without consequence.
Chicago believes every student, including LGBTQ+ children, belongs in school and deserves to feel safe there. Our city has grit and resolve and a deep sense of pride in the diversity that makes it what it is. I believe that is exactly why this administration has put us in its crosshairs. This is a city that shuts down its streets for the Pride parade, Puerto Rican Day Parade, St. Patrick’s Day, and the Bud Billiken Parade. This is the Chicago I am raising my daughter in. The Republicans in Congress have decided that belief is the problem.
They have already passed a bill to pull federal funding from any school that affirms a transgender student’s identity without first notifying parents. They’re attempting to withhold funds from Chicago and other districts for programs that reverse generations of discrimination and disinvestment. They want to dismantle the Department of Education and have already passed a law to fund private religious schools with public dollars. Putting our school district under the lights of their circus is just one tactic in their political agenda.
I wanted my daughter to read, to do math, to graduate ready for whatever comes next, and find her place in the world. Every parent I know wants that. My daughter recently graduated. She got there because she had good teachers, she applied herself, and she never had to walk into school ashamed of who she was or afraid of what might happen.
It matters to me that my daughter was in a district intentionally seeing to her safety, immigrant students’ sanctuary, and Black students’ success. What they see as a violation is really our city’s commitment to the dignity of all students
What they are running is not a parental rights agenda. It is a defunding agenda against parents, students, and educators who don’t subscribe to their beliefs, and Chicago is just the beginning.
Washington can hold all the hearings it wants, but they’ll never be able to erase children like my daughter. And I pray that our schools will never make children like her think twice before walking through those doors for the most formative years of their lives. Whether they attend a school district that supports them in holding their heads high or one that bends the knee to make them fearful instead is what this fight is actually all about.
Mary Kay Devine is a Chicago resident.
-
Sports4 days agoMinor league team in York, Pa., forfeits Pride Night game after some players refuse to wear special jersey
-
Delaware4 days agoDelaware guv signs bill to protect children born using assisted reproduction
-
Opinions4 days agoMy trans daughter thrived in Chicago public schools
-
Movies4 days ago‘Stop! That! Train!’ is made for fans, but fun for all
