Democratic U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres of New York told the Washington Blade during an interview Thursday that his party erred in focusing so much attention on demands for the Trump-Vance administration to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the U.S. when the wrongful deportation of Andry Hernández Romero “was much more egregious.”

Hernández is a gay Venezuelan national who was deported to El Salvador in March and imprisoned in the country’s notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, a maximum-security prison known by the Spanish acronym CECOT.

“In the case of Andry, the government admits that it has no evidence of gang membership, but he was deported without due process, without a notification to his attorney, without a court hearing to contest the allegations against him, without a court order authorizing his deportation,” the congressman said.

“He had not even the slightest semblance of due process,” Torres said. “And even though he had a court hearing scheduled for March 17, the Trump administration proceeded to deport him on March 15, in violation of a court order.”

“I think we as a party should have held up Andry as the poster child for the abuses against due process, because his case is much more sympathetic,” Torres said. “There’s no one who thinks that Andry is a gang member.”

“Also,” the congressman added, “he’s not a quote-unquote illegal immigrant. He was a lawful asylum seeker. He sought asylum lawfully under the statutes of the United States, but he was deported unlawfully at the hands of the Trump administration.”

Torres was among the 49 members of Congress who joined with Democratic U.S. Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff of California in writing to Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday demanding information about Romero, including proof of life.

The lawmakers urged the State Department to facilitate his access to legal counsel and take steps to return him, expressing fear for his safety — concerns that Torres reiterated on Thursday.

“Jails and prisons can be dangerous places for gay men, and that is especially true of a place like CECOT,” the congressman said. “He fled Latin America to escape violent homophobia. There are a few places on earth that have as much institutionalized homophobia as jails and prisons, and so I do fear for his safety.”

“I released a video telling the story of Andry,” Torres noted, adding, “I feel like we have to do more to raise awareness and the video is only the beginning … And you know, the fact that Abrego Garcia is returning to the United States shows that the administration has the ability to bring back the migrants who were unlawfully deported.”

ICE deported the wrong guy. Now they're trying to hide it.

Free Andry. pic.twitter.com/G4hK33oJpw

— Ritchie Torres (@RitchieTorresNY) June 11, 2025

Torres spoke with the Blade just after Padilla was forcibly removed from a federal building in Los Angeles after attempting to question U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a press conference on immigration Thursday.

Footage of the senator being pushed out of the room, onto the floor, and handcuffed by officers wearing FBI identifying vests drew outrage from top Democrats in California and beyond.

“It’s the latest reminder that Donald Trump and his administration have no respect for anything or anyone but himself,” Torres told the Blade. “And every bit as outrageous as Donald Trump himself has been the enabling on the part of the congressional Republicans who are aiding and abetting his authoritarian abuses.”

“We have to be vigilant in resisting Donald Trump,” the congressman said. “We have to resist him on the streets through grassroots mobilization. We have to resist him in the courtrooms through litigation. We have to resist him in the halls of Congress through legislation.”

Torres added that “we have to win back the majority in 2026” and “if Republicans have no interest in holding Donald Trump accountable, then those Republicans should be fired from public office” because “we need a Congress that is able and willing to hold Donald Trump accountable, to stand up to his authoritarian assault on our democracy.”

Resisting is “a matter of free speech,” he said, noting that the president’s aim is to “create a reign of terror that intimidates people into silence,” but “we cannot remain silent. We have to unapologetically and courageously exercise our right to free speech, our right to assemble peacefully, and our right to resist an authoritarian president like Donald Trump.”

Michael,

My husband is great, but he’s a pushover. It happens at work a lot. For example: His colleague, who came back from maternity leave about four months ago, is always leaving early. And Jeremy is always staying late to finish the jobs that they should be doing together.

But the most galling to me is that he doesn’t speak up for himself in his family. His parents (in my opinion) overtly favor his brother (who is straight) and his brother’s family. I could give a lot of examples. The latest: They’re treating the brother and the family to a cruise.

We’ve been together for 15 years, married for 12, and never get any such treatment.

Jeremy says his brother is strapped for cash (four kids, one income) and the family needs a break, whereas Jeremy doesn’t need his parents to pay for his (or our) vacation. I don’t really want to go on a cruise but it’s the principle of the thing.

Again, this is just one example. I feel bad for Jeremy being walked on, over and over, and I want him to start standing up for himself. Despite my repeated entreaties, he won’t.

When I push him on this, he tells me I’m not seeing the whole picture, or he sees it differently, or it’s not a big deal, or he’s fine with things as they are.

I can’t see how he could be fine with being taken advantage of, or not being appreciated.  I think he’d have a much better life if he actually set some boundaries with people.

How do I persuade Jeremy to listen to me and be more assertive?

Michael replies:

Do you see the irony in complaining that you can’t get your husband to listen to you about being more assertive and setting a boundary?

You’ve made your point to Jeremy, repeatedly, and Jeremy is telling you to back off. In other words, he’s assertively setting a boundary with you. 

You can’t get someone else to behave in the way you want, even when you’re certain that your way is best. Jeremy gets to decide how he wants to conduct himself.

Here’s a pattern I have noticed over and over again through my years of working with couples: When you try to do something for someone that is their own job to do, both you and the person you are trying to “help” wind up being resentful. You get annoyed that the other person won’t listen to your wonderful advice, and the other person gets annoyed because they don’t want someone else telling them what to do or how to live their life.

In this case, you’re trying to get Jeremy to stand up for himself more than he does, and he’s not interested in changing how he operates.

A great rule for relationships: You can advocate for what you want, but you have to let go of the result. (And advocate sparingly, or you risk being a nag).

You are continuing to argue the same point to Jeremy, and Jeremy isn’t interested in listening to you. As you asked for my advice, here it is: Cut it out before he gets into the resentment stage, if he’s not already there, as you apparently are.

Also, please consider that your repeatedly criticizing Jeremy’s parents where Jeremy sees no problem could damage not only your relationship with Jeremy, but also his and your relationship with his family.

We get to marry the person we marry. We don’t get to insist that they upgrade to a better (at least in our opinion) version. Trying to do so is not just disrespectful and a waste of time, it poisons the relationship.

So find a way to live with Jeremy as he is, or — if you find his acquiescent nature unbearable — leave. But don’t spend the rest of your marriage, or even another day, haranguing him about how you think he should behave.

Michael Radkowsky, Psy.D. is a licensed psychologist who works with couples and individuals in D.C. He can be found online at michaelradkowsky.com. All identifying information has been changed for reasons of confidentiality. Have a question? Send it to [email protected].

In an era marked by escalating political hostility, targeted legislative rollbacks, and surging hate-fueled violence, LGBTQ+ individuals face an urgent and sobering imperative: self-defense. Across the United States, queer lives are increasingly endangered not just by interpersonal bigotry, but by systems that fail, or outright refuse to protect them. In this climate, the act of owning a firearm is not a political stunt. It is, for many queer people, an existential necessity.

Although gun ownership is often stereotyped as a conservative domain, a growing number of queer and trans individuals are reclaiming the right to bear arms; not to dominate, but to defend. The mainstream debate too often casts the federal Second Amendment and state gun rights as synonymous with reactionary politics. But for marginalized communities, especially those historically abandoned by police, the right to self-defense is not just constitutional, it is life-saving.

The numbers reinforce this stark reality. Data from the Williams Institute at UCLA reveals that queer people are more than five times more likely to experience violent victimization than their non-queer peers. Transgender individuals are at even greater risk, facing a staggering victimization rate of 93.7 per 1,000 people, compared to 21.1 per 1,000 among non-queer individuals. Black LGBTQ+ people in particular face some of the highest rates of hate-motivated violence, revealing the dangerous convergence of racism, queerphobia, and transphobia in American society.

The 2016 massacre at Pulse nightclub in Orlando, where 49 predominantly Latinx/Latino queer people were murdered remains one of the most horrific reminders of how queer spaces are often the targets of deadly hate. Yet the violence has not abated. According to Them. magazine, 75% of transgender homicides in 2020 involved firearms used against them, with Black trans women disproportionately affected. Despite these facts, federal protections remain weak, and police responses are often indifferent, hostile, or retraumatizing.

In response, a growing network of queer and trans people have turned to community-based defense organizations that reject both right-wing extremism and state neglect. The Socialist Rifle Association (SRA), founded in 2018, promotes the idea that working-class and marginalized people deserve the tools and training to protect themselves. It is explicitly anti-fascist, anti-racist, and inclusive. As of mid-2019, roughly one-third of the SRA’s 2,000 members identified as queer, with specifically 8% identifying as transgender. Since the 2024 election cycle and the resurgence of far-right organizing, that number has more than tripled. The John Brown Gun Club (JBGC), another leftist formation, provides armed community defense at Pride marches, drag events, and anti-racist demonstrations, filling a critical gap left by state institutions that often fail to protect queer bodies.

These organizations don’t glorify violence. They promote harm reduction. They offer firearm safety classes, de-escalation training, and mutual aid, not paramilitary cosplay. Their existence serves a purpose more essential than politics: ensuring that no one is left defenseless against fascist aggression or hate-driven attacks. When institutions fail, the community must provide its own shield.

The rise in queer firearm ownership reflects a broader cultural shift. One that rejects the monopolization of armed protection by conservatives, law enforcement, and the military. It is a reclaiming of autonomy, of bodily sovereignty, of the right to survive. It says plainly: queer and trans lives are not expendable. They are not negotiable. They are worth defending.

In a world where systemic violence targets us at every intersection, queer and trans firearm ownership is not a fringe movement, it is a moral response to lived danger. This is not about glorifying guns. It is about refusing to die quietly. It is about the fundamental human right to safety, dignity, and resistance. As Malcolm X said, “Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you’re a human, you take it.”

So, too, must queer and trans people, especially those left behind by both government and mainstream queer institutions, and assert that their lives will not be bargained for, but protected. The people must not beg for safety. They must be ready to defend it.

Max Micallef is an activist and writer based in Upstate New York.