National
Project 2025’s ‘War on Porn’ threatens sex workers, LGBTQ community
Far-right plan for second Trump administration includes 32 anti-LGBTQ provisions
Civil liberties and LGBTQ rights advocates have expressed alarm that a proposal to criminalize pornography in a 920-page far-right blueprint for the first 180 days of a second Trump administration known as Project 2025 would have a far-reaching impact that threatens the rights of sex workers and the LGBTQ community, especially the transgender community.
Project 2025 was created by a coalition of several dozen conservative and religious-right organizations led by the D.C.-based Heritage Foundation, with most of them having opposed LGBTQ rights for many years and several having been designated as anti-LGBTQ hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
LGBTQ rights organizations, including the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBTQ rights group, and the LGBTQ advocacy group GLAAD, point out that Project 2025 includes at least 32 specific provisions that call for rolling back LGBTQ rights, including marriage equality and LGBTQ nondiscrimination protections in federal government agencies.
“Project 2025 demonstrates what four years of a Trump-Vance administration would look like,” HRC said in a statement. “It is a wrecking ball aimed at the very foundations of civil rights, LGBTQ+ rights, health care access, voting rights, and environmental protections,” the statement says.
GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis said in a statement that Project 2025 “would create an America where the freedoms that are a hallmark to our Democracy are replaced with authoritarianism and the progress we have made for LGBTQ people, people of color, women, and other marginalized communities is stripped away.”
Former President Donald Trump, who won the Republican presidential nomination last month at the GOP convention in Milwaukee, has disavowed Project 2025, saying he played no role in creating it and he does not agree with many of its provisions. But political observers point out that former Trump administration officials and many longtime Trump supporters played a lead role in developing Project 2025. Democratic Party leaders are predicting much of Project 2025’s content, including its anti-LGBTQ provisions, would likely be backed by a Trump administration.
With that as a backdrop, civil liberties advocates and representatives of the adult entertainment industry, including sex worker advocacy groups, are saying criminalization of pornography as proposed by Project 2025 would have far reaching negative consequences, including a negative impact on the LGBTQ community.
“The impact would be vast, and censorship of ‘pornography’ is central to this project,” according to a statement released by the Free Speech Coalition, which describes itself as a nonpartisan trade association for the adult entertainment industry. “The mandate calls for banning ‘pornography’ – broadly defined to include LGBTQ+ content – and imprisoning those who distribute it,” the statement says.
The Free Speech Coalition and other groups and activists opposing a ban on pornography point out that the text of Project 2025’s provision calling for a ban on porn seeks to create a link between what it calls harmful pornography and the transgender and LGBTQ communities.
Here is the full text of the Project 2025 provision for criminalizing pornography:
“Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.”
According to the Free Speech Coalition, “With new laws calling for the imprisonment of those who produce or distribute adult content, Project 2025 advocates for the arrest of millions of adult content creators – a War on Porn that might mimic the War on Drugs.”
The group adds in its statement, “This risk to anyone working in the sex industry is enormous but given the project’s twin concerns about LGBTQ+ content, would likely fall most heavily on LGBTQ+ sex workers, pushing them further into the margins, and increasing risk of violence and exploitation.”
Among those who share that concern is Cyndee Clay, executive director of the D.C.-based sex worker advocacy group HIPS. “Calls to outlaw pornography are problematic enough, but they also take one more legal option for sex work away from people who do sex work,” Clay told the Washington Blade. “What’s more concerning is this push from Project 2025 seems to be less about pornography itself and more about attacking trans rights and trans voices,” Clay said.
The Blade’s attempt to reach some of the largest online porn sites like Pornhub and the popular gay dating and sex meet-up site Grindr were unsuccessful. The ACLU, which has championed rights of sexual freedom for many years, didn’t respond to the Blade’s request for comment on Project 2025. But in a brief statement on its website, the ACLU criticizes Project 2025 as a plan to “dismantle policies put in place to protect our civil rights and liberties and establish a more authoritarian rule of law.”
The statement adds, “Along with our network of affiliates and coalition partners in all 50 states, we are armed with tools and tactics to protect against executive action that would take away our rights.”
Blair Hopkins, executive director of the Sex Worker Outreach Project Behind Bars, known as SWOP, said she believes the large adult industry companies like Pornhub, and others will be working behind the scenes to oppose Project 2025. Hopkins said the criminalization of porn would have a dramatic impact on the multi-million adult entertainment industry, which through its online sites and employment of sex workers as actors and support workers is an important segment of the nation’s economy.
According to its website, Pornhub alone has more than 100 million daily visits to its adult website and 36 billion visits per year. It says it has 20 million registered Pornhub users.
Hopkins said Pornhub has provided financial support for SWOP and other organizations that support sex workers.
“It’s been said that sex workers are the canary in the coal mine when it comes to any kind of civil rights,” Hopkins told the Blade. “And that is proven to be true over and over again,” she said. “So, what I think they’re talking about is not only will pornography be banned and criminalized, but also that anything can be categorized as pornography. And that is directly targeting the LGBTQ community.”
Todd Evans, executive director of the National LGBT Media Association, which represents LGBTQ news publications across the country, said a ban on pornography like what is being proposed by Project 2025 could have a negative impact on LGBTQ media outlets.
“Just think about it,” he said. “Who is defining pornography? What does that mean? Is Michelangelo’s ‘David’ pornography?”
Evans added, “It definitely has an effect on LGBT media because it goes back to what that definition of pornography is. And does it depend on who is delivering it? Like if it’s an LGBT publication, is that definition harsher than maybe a mainstream publication?”
Adult entertainment advocates have also pointed out that access to porn has already effectively been “banned” in several states that have passed laws calling for the adult sites to require anyone visiting the site to provide an identification document such as a driver’s license to show they are an adult. This has prompted some porn sites, including Pornhub, to discontinue operating in those states.
Vice President JD Vance and his wife, second lady Usha Vance, will visit Hungary next week.
An announcement the White House released on Thursday said the Vances will be in Budapest, the Hungarian capital, from April 7-8.
JD Vance “will hold bilateral meetings with” Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. The announcement further indicates the vice president “will also deliver remarks on the rich partnership between the United States and Hungary.”
The Vances will travel to Hungary less than a week before the country’s parliamentary elections take place on April 12.
Orbán, who has been in office since 2010, and his Fidesz-KDNP coalition government have faced widespread criticism over its anti-LGBTQ crackdown.
The Associated Press notes polls indicate Orbán is trailing Péter Magyar and his center-right Tisza party.
President Donald Trump removed Attorney General Pam Bondi from her post Thursday, following growing criticism over how she and the Department of Justice handled a range of issues, including matters related to sex offender and Trump ally Jeffrey Epstein.
Trump announced Bondi’s removal on Truth Social, where he also said Todd Blanche will serve as acting head of the Justice Department.
“Pam Bondi is a great American patriot and a loyal friend, who faithfully served as my attorney general over the past year,” Trump wrote on the platform. “Pam did a tremendous job overseeing a massive crackdown on crime across our country, with murders plummeting to their lowest level since 1900.”
Trump was seen as recently as Wednesday with the now-former attorney general at a Supreme Court hearing on citizenship.
The decision contrasts with Trump’s previous public praise of Bondi, the 87th U.S. attorney general and former 37th attorney general of Florida, who served in that role from 2011-2019 before joining the Trump-Vance administration. He has frequently lauded her loyalty and said he speaks with her often. Bondi was also one of president’s defense lawyers during his first impeachment trial.
Privately, however, Trump had grown frustrated that Bondi was not “moving quickly enough” to prosecute critics and political adversaries he wanted to face criminal charges, according to multiple sources. The New York Times reported that her inability to charge former FBI Director James B. Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James with any crimes is a large factor in the president’s choice to fire her from the government’s primary law enforcement agency.
The move comes as Trump has sought to minimize public turmoil within his administration, avoiding the perception of a revolving-door Cabinet that defined his first term.
Lee Zeldin, a former Republican congressman from New York who unsuccessfully ran for governor, has emerged as a leading contender to lead the Justice Department. He has been one of Trump’s most reliable allies.
“He’s our secret weapon,” Trump said of Zeldin in February during a White House event promoting the coal industry, adding, “He’s getting those approvals done in record-setting time.”
Bondi has also growing faced scrutiny from Congress.
The House Oversight Committee recently subpoenaed her to testify about the department’s handling of certain files, where she declined to answer key questions during a contentious House Judiciary Committee hearing in February.
The Tampa native has a long history of opposing LGBTQ rights through her roles in government. As Florida attorney general, she fought against the legalization of same-sex marriage, arguing it would cause “serious public harm,” pushing forward a legal battle that cost taxpayers nearly half a million dollars. She also asked the Florida Supreme Court to overturn a lower court ruling that found the state’s same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional.
More recently, Bondi established a “Title IX Special Investigations Team” within the Justice Department focused on restricting transgender women and girls from participating in women’s and girls’ sports teams and accessing facilities aligned with their gender identity. She also told Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia to turn over the medical records of anyone under 19 who received gender-affirming care.
Her removal follows Trump’s decision last month to oust another controversial female Cabinet figure, Kristi Noem.
The White House
VIDEO: Gay journalist detained for booing Trumps at ‘Chicago’ opening night
Eugene Ramirez booed first family at Kennedy Center
President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump attended the opening night of “Chicago” at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on Tuesday. They were greeted by a mix of cheers, applause, and some audible boos.
Among them was Eugene Ramirez, a gay Washington resident, who later shared his account of the night after being briefly detained by security for booing the president and giving a thumbs-down gesture — an expression of what many would call a textbook definition of constitutionally protected speech to criticize the government.
Ramirez attended the opening night performance with a group of friends, hoping to catch a final show before the center undergoes two years of major changes under Trump oversight. The musical, based on a 1926 play of the same name, has become synonymous with Broadway success.
With music by John Kander, lyrics by Fred Ebb, and a book by Ebb and Bob Fosse, “Chicago” has cemented itself as a cultural staple — known for its signature Fosse choreography, stripped-down staging, and sleek, campy aesthetic. The story follows Roxie Hart and Velma Kelly, women who murder their husbands but — with the help of the manipulative, charismatic, and narcissistic attorney Billy Flynn — walk away scot-free.
It remains the longest-running American musical in Broadway history, and its 2002 film adaptation famously won the Academy Award for Best Picture. On this night, however, the production also became the backdrop for a very modern moment of political protest.
“I accompanied five friends to opening night of ‘Chicago’, as a way to enjoy a final performance in the Kennedy Center as we know it,” Ramirez began to recount to the Washington Blade, describing the moment his group settled into their seats inside the ornate Opera House theater.
Just before the performance began, the twice impeached president and first lady appeared in the balcony box, drawing immediate attention from the audience below. Theatergoers stood, cheered, clapped, and waved, while Ramirez made a different choice.
While accounts of the crowd’s reaction have varied, Ramirez said his response was intentional, immediate, and within his rights. Moments after booing and giving a thumbs-down while recording on his iPhone, security intervened.
The video of Ramirez booing the Trump’s is here:
“Within moments, the director [of security] and another guard approached and escorted me to a side area where several other security guards were waiting,” he said. “I was detained until everyone was seated and the lights dimmed.”
As he was escorted away, Ramirez said his instincts as a journalist kicked in. A former lead anchor for Sinclair’s national evening news broadcast, he said the situation immediately felt off — or more aptly put — as if he could see the strings being pulled from someone attempting to control the narrative.
“Journalism is a vocation, not just a job. I immediately knew there wasn’t just an uncomfortable interaction with security,” he said. “The Kennedy Center is a federally funded cultural institution, and being questioned about speech related to the president in that setting felt like something the public should know about.”
Ramirez explained the difference between a standard visit by a public official and this performance: the president’s appearance wasn’t just ceremonial; it was very clearly a media moment.
“The White House press pool was there, and it was clear this was an effort to manage the president’s image in the media,” Ramirez continued. “The irony was not lost on me that this was happening on opening night of ‘Chicago’, a musical about manipulating the press to shape public perception.”
According to Ramirez, the explanation he received from Kennedy Center Director of Safety and Security Karles C. Jackson Sr., was brief, but illuminating.
“He said, ‘they don’t want booing,’ and even called out my thumbs-down gesture. He never clarified who ‘they’ were, but whether it was the administration or the Kennedy Center, the distinction felt meaningless,” he explained. “Mr. Jackson ultimately told me he was just trying to do his job, shook my hand, and allowed me to return to my seat once the lights dimmed and the overture started playing.”
Ramirez said he didn’t blame the guard individually, noting the broader context of the Kennedy Center’s uncertain future and the pressures staff were under.
“With the center closing in the coming months, some of these security guards being pressured to restrict our freedom of speech may only have a few weeks of work left.”
He believes the decision to remove him was driven less by disruption than optics, particularly given the presence of the press.
“It was very clearly about protection — whether protecting the president from visible dissent, or his image before the media present. There was no disruption as almost everyone was standing and reacting loudly to the arrival of the president and first lady, with cheers, applause, and hand gestures. The difference was that my reaction, unlike most, was negative.”
Drawing on his experience covering public officials, Ramirez said the incident felt more about controlling perception than security.
“Usually, law enforcement may monitor or intervene if there’s a disruption, but here there was no disruption at all. Simply expressing dissent in a public, cultural space drew the attention of security. It made it feel less like a matter of decorum and more like an effort to control the narrative around the president,” he said. “It’s about what happens when dissent is treated as disruption rather than a right.”
“The show hadn’t started. I threatened no one. Billy Flynn would have approved of the optics. The rest of us should be paying attention.”
Ramirez framed the incident as part of a broader constitutional concern, one that is plaguing the Trump-Vance administration as they continue to reject rules and normalcy set forth by other reserved presidents.
“Being singled out by security at a federally funded institution for expressing dissent shouldn’t be brushed off; it undermines the First Amendment,” he said, looking at it slightly distanced from it now. “Being of Cuban heritage, and a journalist, it’s a right I’m not willing to give up readily.”
“Publicly funded cultural institutions should allow visible dissent, even in politically charged moments,” he added. “Of course, I understand the need to manage disruptions during a performance, but that was not the case here.”
The themes of “Chicago”, a long-running satire about media manipulation and public perception, added another layer of irony to the experience, Ramirez explained.
“The satire truly leapt off the stage! A show about controlling the narrative, manipulating the press, and covering up truths by leaning on showmanship and distractions. The show is decades old, but could’ve been written today. We’re being razzle-dazzled daily and it’s getting harder to tell fact from fiction, no matter where you get your news.”
He, being gay, also acknowledged how hard it must have been for the performers on stage, assuming that at least some in the cast were also members of the LGBTQ community — and artists — two things Trump doesn’t always get along with.
“It was not lost on me that many of the actors on that stage, that the president and first lady presumably applauded, are members of the LGBTQ community which this administration has rolled back protections for under the guise of religious liberty and free speech, resulting in blatant discrimination.”
He pointed to a particular number that felt surreal given the circumstances.
“Its ‘Razzle Dazzle’ number celebrates keeping audiences off balance; at its climax, a massive American flag descends as the song celebrates blinding audiences to what is real. Watching that scene after being detained for a thumbs-down was surreal.”
Ramirez said the show’s closing lines were especially sharp given the presidential audience and what he just experienced.
“At the end of the show,
Velma says: ‘You know, a lot of people have lost faith in America.’
Roxie replies: ‘And for what America stands for.’
Velma: ‘But we are the living examples of what a wonderful country this is.’
Roxie: ‘So we’d just like to say thank you and God bless you.’
They had both just gotten away with murder!”
His closing lines, however, were a bit more pointed than “scintillating sinners” Roxie Hart and Velma Kelly’s were in the show.
“Democracy only works when citizens are allowed to boo,” he said. “Tuesday night at the Kennedy Center, ‘Chicago’ made that point better than I ever could.”
The Blade reached out to the Kennedy Center but did not receive a comment back.
Mayor Bowser signs bill requiring insurers to cover PrEP
JD Vance to travel to Hungary next week
Pam Bondi ousted as attorney general
VIDEO: Gay journalist detained for booing Trumps at ‘Chicago’ opening night
Idaho Gov. signs harshest anti-trans bathroom bill in the country
‘Out for McDuffie’ event held at D.C. gay bar
‘Jonah’ an undeniably compelling but unusual memory play
The Oscar-losing performance that’s too good to miss
Thousands attend ‘No Kings’ protests in D.C.
