The Heritage Foundation and similar groups wrongly believe that transgender people are inherently more likely to commit violence. Conservative conspiracy theorists deny the objective reality that transgender people make up less than one percent of mass shooters. When it was uncovered that Tyler Robinson is not transgender, and simply knows a transgender person, TIVE pivoted to argue that both transgender people and our allies are violent – ignoring the reality that non-allied cisgender men commit the vast majority of violent crime, and Charlie Kirk himself advocated violence against transgender people.
“They are cynically targeting trans people because the shooter’s lover was trans. The administration has convinced itself that the Charlie Kirk murder exposes some dark conspiracy.” – Anonymous US senior intelligence official to Ken Klippenstein
TIVE is proposed to be a subcategory of Nihilistic Violent Extremists (NVE), a new domestic terrorism category created by the FBI early this year to replace Biden’s Anti-Authority and Anti-Government Violent Extremists (AGAAVE) – which was created to classify those who participated in the January 6th coup. In support of TIVE, The Heritage Foundation wrote, “TIVE is based on the belief that violence is justified against those who do not share radical views of transgender ideology. It has led to an increasing trend of TIVE domestic terrorist events across the country.”
Transgender advocates and human rights allies have criticized the proposal. Alejandra Caraballo, a Harvard law instructor and trans legal expert, wrote, “Heritage Foundation has released an absolutely insane policy proposal to label all trans people as domestic terrorists. It uses completely made-up instances of terrorism and made-up statistics but facts don’t matter to them.”
People are alarmed because this classification would give broad and overbearing authority for the FBI to target transgender people based on identity alone. Even though transgender identity is factually uncorrelated with violence, the United States government could use TIVE to monitor transgender people without the additional evidence traditionally required for such cases. Additionally, people are opposed to most of what The Heritage Foundation proposes due to their fundamental role in anti-equality proposals like Project 2025.
“The bottom line is that this is another example of escalating attacks targeting trans people,” said Cathy Renna of the National LGBTQ Task Force to The Advocate. “It’s another use of lies and misinformation to justify [the right’s] actions. I think this degree of targeting and surveillance and scapegoating is just continuing to erode our sense of safety in this country. And that’s a tremendous concern; that’s something we all need to be engaged in, speaking out about when what their goal is to silence us. But at the end of the day, those of us who can need to be speaking out as much and as loudly as we can.”
“If adopted by the FBI, that would brand a wide range of arguments common among progressive activists and writers as “extremist” rhetoric,” wrote The Independent. The Heritage Foundation gave a comprehensive list of terms “used by TIVEs” to help the FBI identify such individuals. These terms include “cisgender,” “deadnaming, and “misgendering,” amongst others. This logic is also entirely hypocritical: the GOP has actively verbalized its intent to “eradicate transgender people from public life,” advocating for government-sanctioned violence against an entire community of people based on identity alone.
On the other hand, this news should be taken with a grain of salt. The Heritage Foundation and related Oversight Project explicitly stated that not all transgender people or their allies should be treated as terrorists and “individuals are free to identify as transgender, or support… transgenderism in a non-violent way.” It’s also *just* a proposal – The Heritage Foundation’s presentation of it does not mean the Trump administration or FBI will approve it, similar to Trump’s previous consideration of removing all firearm access from transgender Americans.
In a jarring turn of events, Charlie Kirk is dead. Kirk was shot with a single bullet to the neck at 12:23 PM on Wednesday, September 10, 2025, while engaged in a Q&A at Utah Valley University. Between law enforcement’s delay in presenting evidence, misreporting by the Wall Street Journal, and propaganda-fueled bots, there is an immense amount of misinformation regarding Kirk’s assassination. Beyond the facts, do far-right individuals like Kirk deserve empathy, especially when their agendas actively promote violence against others?
Charlie Kirk, as an individual, was not a remarkable person. What did Kirk contribute to the world? Like his peers, Kirk provided nothing meaningful to society and actively worked to make the world a hateful place. But since so many people are persuaded by hate alone, Kirk rose as a prominent voice within MAGA.
On the 10th, Kirk was in the midst of a very mediocre rally. Like all conservative events, there was hardly any security – as Kirk himself said, “I think [gun casualties are] worth it. It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect other God given rights. That’s a prudent deal. It is rational.”
A spectator in the crowd asked Kirk about recent comments Kirk had made that transgender people are more likely to commit mass violence than their cisgender peers. Just as that spectator began to point out the flaws in Kirk’s baseless lies, Kirk was shot by a sniper round from a nearby rooftop. The crowd started freaking out, and Utah Valley University’s campus went on lockdown. By 2:40 PM, Kirk had died from his injuries.
It wasn’t until September 12th that Kirk’s assumed assassin, Tyler Robinson, was taken into custody, coordinated by the FBI and local law enforcement. Everything after that gets… fuzzy.
Almost immediately, The Wall Street Journal reported on a bulletin released by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regarding the bolt-action rifle and ammunition conveniently left in the woods after the shooting. Despite explicit guidance by the Bureau to read the bulletin with caution due to the lack of substantial evidence, the WSJ wrote that Robinson’s bullet casings had engravings of “expressions of transgender and antifascist ideology.” The WSJ has come under fire due to this journalistic negligence, being forced to amend the article when Utah Governor Cox publicly stated the casings made zero mention of “transgender ideology.” One of the casings does make mention of fascism, but more on that later.
Currently, mainstream media is hyperfixated on whether Tyler Robinson was an ANTIFA leftist. He wasn’t, and the media’s inability to understand that is part of the problem.
The reason mainstream media is so befuddled by Robinson is that the bullet casings, notes, and online presence he’s left look anti-fascist and left on the surface. Some of the bullet engravings included statements like:
*Notices bulges* OwO What’s this? (This is actually the bullet that shot and killed Kirk.)
Hey fascist! Catch this! ↑ → ↓ ↓ ↓ (Game maneuver used in Helldivers 2, a multiplayer shooter with its own problematic fanbase.)
Oh Bella, ciao, bella, ciao Bella ciao ciao ciao. (An Italian anti-fascist song that has been co-opted by the alt-right.)
If you read this, you are gay LMAO.
Traditional journalists who have reported thus far lack deep knowledge of the internet and its subcultures. Tyler Robinson was not a leftist, liberal, nor an ANTIFA. He was a groyper.
Groypers are most noted by their use of “ironic meme culture.” Pepe the Frog, toxic gaming culture, and using racial slurs for “comedic shock value” – groypers encapsulate everything terrible about middle school boys before they grow a conscience. At some point Robinson was a huge Nick Fuente fan. But groypers are conservative. They are exceedingly far right and use meme culture to disguise their values, similar to how the KKK did (they called their leaders “imperial wizards” and “exalted cyclops”). And groypers intentionally use anti-fascist and leftist slogans to confuse onlookers.
A select few media outlets are covering this reality, but it’s not the common story being told.
US Representative Nancy Mace immediately after reading the WSJ’s comments about Kirk’s killer allegedly being transgender.
And a few days later when Mace found out Robinson was, in fact, not transgender.
The long answer is that conservatives have created an empathy paradox. Conservatives condemn liberals, leftists, and anyone else who fails to offer heartfelt condolences to Kirk, but Kirk and his peers are empathy black holes. Kirk regularly advocated for violence against minorities, especially transgender people. Conservatives weaponize the ideas behind empathy to throw in our faces, trying to paint themselves as more humane, kind, and righteous than leftists. After all, if the left is supposed to embody human rights, social justice, and solidarity, isn’t it hypocritical for us to celebrate any human’s death?
Extending empathy for those who cause great harm to others is not a rational or ethical choice. Honestly, Republicans today make me think they would condemn a Jewish person in 1945 for celebrating the death of Adolf Hitler. Terrible people who deny the humanity of others do not deserve empathy.
As a general rule, American conservatives are unable to recognize their own hypocrisy. They aren’t able to look past their own noses – I currently work in social services, and the overwhelming majority of individuals I see are hard Trump followers and express disgust at welfare, minorities, or anything akin to a “handout.” They lack the capacity to realize they’re using welfare services that only exist because of liberals and leftists.
One answer for why conservatives act this way is their latest “empathy is a sin” ideology, which was pushed by JD Vance and Elon Musk. Everything about the Republican Party goes against human nature to be kind and contradicts the New Testament’s fundamental teachings by Jesus to be compassionate. They don’t want to be compassionate or Christians; American conservatives want to be Spanish Crusaders under the delusional guise of religion – they want blood, not God.
Equating leftist ideals (ex. universal healthcare, affordable housing, no hate crimes, etc.) to conservative ideals (ex. race-based detainment, death penalties, corporate tax cuts, etc.) is misleading. In a previous article, I wrote how “moderate” isn’t always better: not too long ago, one extreme advocated for race-based lynching while the other wanted integration, equal civil rights, and the capacity to live freely. Only one of those is humane.
There is a separate conversation about having grief for those around Kirk. Yes, he was a father, a son, a “someone” to people. The majority of unempathetic leftists lack empathy for Kirk directly, not his wife or children.
Conservatives like Charlie Kirk campaign for the deaths and torment of those unlike them. Kirk and his followers advocate for a world where gender-affirming care is entirely impossible and gender-diverse individuals are imprisoned or killed. A world where young girls are forced to carry the babies of their abusers, regardless of whether they can physically, emotionally, or financially survive. A world where queer people are stoned for expressing same-sex attraction. A world where the disabled are murdered for the simple act of living, a world where only “pure-blooded” white Americans live contentedly and undeveloped countries with people of color are left to be exploited. We are already expected to be civil with those who do us harm. We lack empathy for Charlie Kirk and those like him because his agenda lacks empathy for us.
Refusing to hold empathy for a powerful figure like Kirk is not cruelty; it’s a refusal to normalize his harm. Charlie Kirk was a terrible person and will be forgotten one day as the hateful person he was.
Do conservatives and the far right deserve empathy? People have the right to offer and withhold empathy, BUT expecting empathy for those who built careers on hatred and denying empathy to others is hypocritical and manipulative. Empathy is not a shield that protects oppressive ideologies from critique. Empathy centers on those most harmed, not those who caused harm.
Next month will begin the new Supreme Court term, which will bring a variety of cases. Given the right swing of the Supreme Court, LGBTQIA+ folks are likely dreading October 7th since it’ll focus on Chiles v. Salazar. The case pertains to the legality of conversion therapy bans – but what is conversion therapy, and why is banning it such a big deal?
By the 1950s, conversion therapy began to model its current form as aversion therapy took root. Individuals were given chemicals to induce vomiting or electric shocks to their genitals when they engaged with same-sex desire or gender ambiguity. When identities like queer and transgender are labeled as illnesses, the medical consensus is then to cure that illness.
When the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality as a disorder in the 1973 DSM, self-proclaimed conversion experts took over the field and offered varied methods ranging from talk therapy to actual exorcisms through their ex-gay ministries. Popularized conversion camps isolated individuals from friends and family for weeks while they were forced to pray, beat effigies of their parents, mocked, and told their identity was unnatural.
In 2023, The Trevor Project released the research publication It’s Still Happening, detailing the effects of conversion therapy as well as intentional moves by conversion therapists to avoid detection.
Most of the above techniques, including aversion shock therapy, are still used in modern conversion therapy. The “success rates” of these organizations have never been verified, and the entire practice has been denounced for decades as unscientific and inhumane. Instead, conversion therapy has been proven to have no actual benefit and poses a detriment since, quite frankly, it is physical, verbal, and emotional abuse disguised as “helpful” religion. There have been countless horror stories about conversion therapy’s accompanying psychological and sexual abuse – it’s even led individuals to commit suicide.
Chiles v. Salazar centers on a 2019 Colorado law that bans the use of conversion therapy on minors. Kaley Chiles filed a lawsuit against the state under the argument that her First Amendment freedom of speech entitles her to perform conversion therapy as a mental health professional. Colorado’s law does not apply to non-licensed religious counselors; professions like pastors are allowed to perform conversion therapy even on minors as long as they do not claim their practice is certified by the state.
Regarding the case, Advocate explains, “If the Court strikes Colorado’s law, the impact would be immediate. States from California to New York could see their bans fall. Parents desperate for answers might once again be funneled to providers offering false promises of ‘cures.’ Survivors worry it would also send a cultural message that the nation’s highest court has blessed a practice they know to be abuse. On the other hand, if the Court affirms Colorado’s authority, it could solidify the legality of conversion therapy bans nationwide and shore up states’ ability to regulate professional treatment even in a polarized political climate.”
Colorado has argued that conversion therapy is a treatment, not a protected opinion – thus, it has the broad authority to regulate medicine and mental health, as determined during United States v. Skrmetti. Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, stated, “If the Court misunderstands these laws and strikes them down, it would be devastating. But after seeing the breadth of amicus briefs, especially from unexpected allies, I feel encouraged. If the Court does its job and reads them carefully, we have a very significant chance of winning.”
When nations transition out of “developing” status, there is always a common thread that conservatives hate: They embrace some aspect of ‘socialism.’ Of course, international political scientists are quick to point out that these countries aren’t actually socialist, but that doesn’t change the stilted way American media represent them.
Through the Canada Health Act of 1984, all Canadian citizens and permanent residents have had access to universal public healthcare. ‘Universal healthcare‘ refers to countries where federal taxes are used to pay for healthcare services rather than requiring individuals to pay private insurance companies – it dates back to the late 1800s and is considered one of the most visible markers as to whether a country is doing well. On the global stage, any country that can afford to use tax revenue to offset healthcare must be doing okay compared to countries that utilize capitalism to bar healthcare services to only those who can pay premiums.
As of 2024, the average life expectancy is 79.5 years, which is more comparable with countries like Cuba (78.3), Saudi Arabia (79.0), and Panama (79.8) rather than ‘similar’ global powers like Japan (84.4), Germany (81.5), Canada (82.7), and Australia (84.1).
In the United States, it is extremely difficult to obtain unemployment funds. Our program is intentionally designed to help as few people as possible. To qualify, you have to prove you’ve lost your previous job through no fault of your own (meaning you weren’t fired and you didn’t quit on your own) and must regularly prove you are applying for new work at the risk of being audited and forced to pay unemployment funds back. The US’s strict definition of “unemployment” is purposely misleading.
This system promotes individuals to work all the time. Labor rights are weighted for corporations and supervisors – employees who reside in at-will states can be fired at any moment, resulting in them being out of work and unable to pay bills while still not qualifying for unemployment because their job loss was “their fault.” This isn’t a system that moves people out of poverty; it incentivizes it.
In 1971, 61% of adults were classified as middle class, whereas just 50% of American adults met that criteria in 2021. The median income for the middle class has also declined over the past half-century – which affirms the fact that the US isn’t built to uplift citizens and the American Dream is a fantasy.
When compared to the rest of the world, why is the United States so unwilling to continue moving forward? It’s a fundamental question that both Republicans and Democrats fail to answer. Corporate profit has kept the US from moving economically forward for the last 50 years. Why are American workers so resistant to rebelling?
The explanation is two-fold. America’s anti-commie can be traced to the Red Scare when senators like Joseph McCarthy used moral panic to accelerate Americans’ anxieties over the rise of left-wing ideologies in the 1940s and 1950s. McCarthy and the right cemented the underlying belief that to be American, one must be against left-wing ideologies like communism; to favor systems like communism and socialism is to be un-American. McCarthyism was a hard time that led to civil liberties being squashed in the name of patriotism and national security.
By the 1980s, there was a massive media push to convince Americans that their wealth was the byproduct of pure hard work and good moral character. Propaganda was produced to persuade workers that anyone can become unfathomably wealthy with enough work ethic, obscuring the reality that nepotism, family status, luck, and other uncontrollable factors play parts in our life stories. The ultra-wealthy are of an inherently better moral character because they “worked” for their money; the best route to financial success is not through labor laws that restrict corporate wealth but by licking the boots of one’s supervisors in hopes you will be rewarded. Once one generation had taken the bait set by corporations who bribed Congress and Reagan with lobbying, the rest was history.
Beyond the United States, these “leftist” institutions, like universal healthcare and affordable college, aren’t socialism. They’re common sense. While most British citizens will moan at the imperfect nature of the NHS, they’ll also be quick to point out that universal healthcare is a fundamental right to them. Japan isn’t any less capitalist because it enforces a livable minimum wage. Germans are more likely to believe programs like Bürgergeld are a right paid for by working citizens rather than extreme leftism – and they’d probably be offended if you insinuated they were communist. These welfare programs are moderate, centrist. They aren’t “socialist” to anyone outside of the United States.
Fundamentally, the second aspect of America’s issues is the Overton Window. It’s a large reason why the US is so different from its peers. The theory suggests that regular folks find moderate ideas reasonable based on the furthest left and right extremes. The realm of reasonable ideas is the “Overton Window,” where politicians can easily advocate for policies without worrying about major pushback. Yet the Window isn’t static; it moves because society changes.
Take an issue like the Israel-Palestine conflict. One side of the spectrum pledges full support to Israel (the US right), the other side pledges support to Palestine (the US left). The “reasonable” in-between is to either support both or neither (Democrats). Or, consider the status of marijuana in the United States – one side advocates for harsher prison sentencing and criminalization, while the other argues for recreational legalization. The moderate approach falls somewhere between decriminalization and age restrictions.
The issue with the Overton Window is that moderate isn’t always better, especially regarding civil rights. Going back to the 1960s, one side argued for the enslavement and dehumanization of all people of color, while the other advocated for equal rights. The moderate solution between the KKK and equality was segregation. When human rights are at the focus, moderate solutions are never reasonable or humane. Both sides of the political spectrum play a metaphorical tug-of-war with the Overton Window. For equal civil rights for Black Americans to be the reasonable solution, people had to keep pushing against the window. But then, Donald Trump entered the political stage.
Trump doesn’t play by the rules; he plays by what suits him best. Trump has normalized far-right ideas throughout his presidential campaigns, both directly through comments like demeaning Latino Americans and transgender people, as well as indirectly by giving a voice to extremists like Elon Musk’s Nazi salute. He’s quick to call everything he despises socialist to stir up American anxieties, and he’s just as quick to fume when opposition calls him a fascist or neonazi.
And this time around, Democrats are trying to play moderates rather than rebel against Trump’s status quo – but that led to their failure in 2024 because they failed to appeal to the working class of real moderates.
Top row, from left: Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and former Vice President Kamala Harris. Bottom row, from left: Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. AP/Getty Images/Reuters
Gavin Newsom
If there’s one trend among 2028 candidates, it’s governors. They’re the most frequent faces we’re seeing in early campaign stops like Iowa, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Gavin Newsom is one of them.
In other news, Newsom has taken an open stance on the ongoing gerrymandering happening across the country. Texas Republicans jumped at the chance to redistrict their votes when asked by Trump, which has resulted in Newsom stating California will perform its own redistricting ahead of schedule if pushed. In a letter to Trump by Newsom and reported by Politico, he explained, “If you will not stand down, I will be forced to lead an effort to redraw the maps in California to offset the rigging of maps in red states. But if the other states call off their redistricting efforts, we will happily do the same. And American democracy will be better for it.”
Unfortunately, Newsom suffers from the same condition as other Democrats on this list. He believes Democrats keep losing because they aren’t pandering enough to moderates and conservatives – rather than accepting the reality that they’re losing votes due to betraying their core party and the left. While Newsom has a decent track record supporting LGBTQIA+ rights, he vocalized conservative talking points recently regarding transgender inclusion in sports under the assumption that siding against trans rights might earn him meager votes for 2028.
There’s time between now and the official 2028 campaign season. California voters are angry with Newsom for his anti-transgender comments, and he still has time to cement faith with the general public and the LGBTQIA+ community.If he manages to do so, he’s an ideal candidate – but only if he overcomes the Democrats’ centrist hurdle.
Kamala Harris
After months of complete radio silence, Kamala Harrisinterviewed with Stephen Colbert at the end of July. Admittedly, she did the impossible – she came close to securing the presidency as a Black woman, despite being given just 107 days to campaign after Biden dropped out. In her interview with Colbert, Harris publicly stated that she will not be running for California governor in 2026 despite her high polling numbers amongst California voters. At the same time, Harris and her allies have refused to confirm or deny whether she will run for president again in 2028.
In any other timeline, Harris wouldn’t run again – she’d follow Hilary Clinton’s example and perhaps go for the governor position instead. But we live in strange times, where Donald Trump can continue a second nonconsecutive term with cabinet members like Dr. Oz, RFK Jr., and a short but passionate relationship with Elon Musk. If given the privilege to have her own campaign, Kamala Harris has a fighting chance. In 2028, Harris wouldn’t even be going up against Trump, whom she beat despite the odds in the limited debates Trump allowed her. And to Harris’s credit, she demolished Trump when they publicly debated.
The other major advantage Harris holds is her exposure. Americans still remember her 2024 run, which she can market well during a future presidential campaign since voters became familiar with her name.
However, the only way Harris will win is if she is able to unite the left. Donald Trump did not win the 2024 presidency because so many people voted for him over Harris; he won because enough voters boycotted Harris to cause her to fail (as well as numerous other reasons). Harris was overwhelmingly predicted to win despite her short campaign because she just had to maintain the same votes as Biden in 2020. But Americans were already frustrated with Biden failing to enact real change – Biden and the Democrats are edging more and more to the center, disenfranchising their fundamental left voter base. The media keeps flipping its stance on this fact because it’s difficult to digest. The few votes Harris and similar Democrats got from moderates in 2024 shot them in the foot because they lacked votes from their core left and failed to appeal to working-class moderates.
Democrats barely got Biden into office under the marketing strategy of “he’s not Trump” in 2020. Americans want change. They’re already unhappy with the changes Trump is forcing through policy and executive action. But can Democrats offer meaningful solutions? Harris holds the potential to win, but only if she can convince Democrats to stop pandering to conservative voters who will never switch sides. Harris can win if she can prove she’s more than Biden.
Gretchen Whitmer
Michigan is one of the remaining swing states of relative importance, headed by Governor Gretchen Whitmer. She’s a strong Democrat in a state that has flipped back and forth across the political spectrum over the past several elections. She’s also one of the predominant figures who have rebelled against Trump earlier during this administration – which is why people are waiting for Whitmer to announce a presidential campaign for 2028.
During 2020, Whitmer managed to be one of Joe Biden’s finalists when he was considering his VP running mate. Compared to other candidates, she positioned herself as Trump’s foil and centered her campaign on Trump’s mismanagement of the COVID-19 pandemic. On the other hand, Whitmer has gone out of her way to make public amends with Trump since he returned to office, which has annoyed and upset some of her Democrat colleagues. She was one of the first to meet with Trump when he arrived in Michigan earlier this year, according to the BBC. In their article elaborating on her recent decisions, they said, “Whitmer, however, has made the calculation that it’s better for her – and her state – if she finds a way to work with [Trump].”
Does Whitmer stand strong enough to take on the presidency? Realistically, she will fail to convince the left to vote for her unless she makes major changes leading up to 2028. As mentioned with other Democrats considering the presidency, it’s worth remembering that Harris lost because she failed to gain the loyalty of left voters who voted for Biden in 2020.
Wes Moore
Earlier this summer, Maryland Governor Wes Moore publicly stated that he does not plan to run for president in 2028 – but nobody really believes him. Why?
Well, in short, because Moore is pulling out many of the pre-campaign moves Barack Obama did leading up to 2008. Around the same time, Obama stated very firmly that he did not intend to run for either president or vice president in 2008. Moore just visited South Carolina, sparking interest due to his likable personality, military background, and a proven track record on racial justice issues. His campaign for governor was founded on the belief that Democrats need to return to serving the middle-class – voters have lost faith in Dems as the workers’ party, which is why independent voters have been leaning right when Trump promises to “fix the economy.” On the other hand, Moore will come under fire if he decides to run due to his strong defense of Israel despite their ongoing genocide of Palestine.
Pete Buttigieg
Out of all the Democrat candidates assumed to be running for 2028, Pete Buttigieg is at the top of the list. He’s made a point to be the most visible, touring in places like Iowa earlier than his colleagues. As of now, Buttigieg is the primary contender to run against Vance for the next presidency – assuming Vance manages to take Trump’s mantle.
As Biden’s former Secretary of Transportation, Buttigieg has an extensive political history despite being so young. He’s also a phenomenal speaker with military experience and served in the US Navy in Afghanistan. He still has pitfalls that will ruin his chances for 2028 if he doesn’t overcome Harris’s 2024 failure.
Like Kamala Harris, progressives don’t favor Buttigieg. His policies benefit the upper middle class and elites, cementing the public’s view that the Democrats are no longer the party for the working class. For Buttigieg to win, he will have to unite progressives and present the opportunity for real society change – Harris could have won, but she failed to secure those votes by repeatedly pandering to conservatives and the upper middle class rather than the left. Buttigieg will face similar obstacles in addition to making his own identity separate from Biden if Harris runs as a competitor.
Buttigieg is already hitting roadblocks – one of the key policies that pushed the core left from voting for Kamala was her refusal to take a hard stance for Palestine. She had hoped the position (or lack thereof) would garner votes from the center, and came up embarrassingly short. Calling the Palestine-Israel situation a ‘litmus test’ for Democrats, Politico explained, “Across the party’s still-inchoate 2028 presidential field, ambitious Democrats like Buttigieg are reevaluating their positions and staking out their territory… The Democratic National Committee is weighing two different resolutions on the matter, with progressives pushing for elected Democrats to endorse an arms embargo on Israel and recognize a Palestinian state.” While Buttigieg has a clearer stance than Kamala and isn’t an avid Israel endorser like Wes Moore and Josh Shapiro, can he convince the left to support him?
Lastly, Buttigieg will have to weaponize his identity as a gay man in some fashion. It’s the truth. On one hand, large corporations will rally behind the chance to donate to a man who may potentially become “the first gay president.” We can rest easy knowing Pete won’t pass laws that undermine key issues like gay marriage, abortion access, and discrimination laws. But on the other hand, Pete has already upset some folks in the community for giving lukewarm answers in defense of greater restrictions on transgender athletes.
Pete Buttigieg has a shot to become the first queer president of the United States, similar to Kamala Harris’s chances of becoming the first female president – but only if he can overcome Harris’s hurdles.
In reality, AOC only seems extremely left when compared to Trump. She’s a better political foil than self-proclaimed ones like Whitmer, and she’s even a populist like Trump since she centers on the struggles of everyday people. Her politics are considered mild in comparison to the greater established world – US politics don’t make much sense to others overseas because our understanding of conservative versus liberal is so warped by the Overton window.
Could AOC pursue the presidency? Yes. Will she? For 2028, it’s unlikely unless she is supported directly by Bernie Sanders. Democrats need to lean harder left to regain the support of the working class, but the working class still misunderstands AOC’s brand of socialism to rally nationally behind her. Bernie has tried twice and fallen short because the Democrats refuse to allow him to become their primary candidate, since they benefit heavily from corporate donations.
Andy Beshear
He’s the underdog for 2028, but he recently got wider attention after appearing in South Carolina in July. Andy Beshear is the Democratic governor of Kentucky, a hard red state that supports his working-class policies despite voting for another Trump presidency. Beshear’s success is what Democrats like Harris and Newsom want to accomplish by appealing to the center and moderate right – but they come across as disingenuous and fall short.
In his own words, Beshear said to the crowd in South Carolina, “If you don’t know me… I’m the guy who beat Donald Trump’s hand-picked candidate by five points in 2023.” He barely registered in national polls behind bigger names like Harris, Newsom, and Buttigieg. In a comment reported by Politico, Michael Morley from Tim Ryan’s 2020 campaign stated, “Nobody knew who the governor of Arkansas [Bill Clinton] was either, but it’s certainly a more challenging media environment now. He has the time to introduce himself, and my informed assumption is that’s part of what he’s doing here [in South Carolina].”
Bernie Sanders has currently stated he does not intend to run for the presidency in 2028 due to his increasing age. At some point, the man has to retire – which is why some theorize one underlying reason for the 2025 Fight Oligarchy tour with AOC was to metaphorically hand off the torch to AOC when they traveled across the country in rebellion of Trump and Musk’s anti-American policies.
Like AOC, Bernie is a left-wing populist. He favors policies and ideas that benefit regular people rather than the ruling class. Even though his platform is tied to FDR’s New Deal and Nordic socialism, upper-class Democrats despise Sanders’s politics for being “too radically left.” He encapsulates the core left of the Democrats’ voting base, those who refused to vote for Kamala Harris in 2024 due to her lukewarm takes on foreign policy, police reform, healthcare, labor rights, and inflation.
J.B. Pritzker
A couple of months ago, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker said he wasn’t intending to run for the 2028 presidency. As of this week, that’s changed – Pritzker make a public statement during NBC’s ‘Meet the Press,’ “I can’t rule anything out, but what I can rule in is that no matter what decisions I make, and I mean in particular about what I do here in the state of Illinois, is about the people of Illinois.”
If JB Pritzker is planning to run in 2028, he’s doing all the right moves. He’s playing it safe by keeping his cards close and not announcing his public intention to run, but he’ll have to publicly declare his intent eventually. Compared to Harris and Buttigieg, he has less name recognition – but he’s a fresher face and not associated with the last failed election. Yet Pritzker is exceedingly wealthy and considered out of touch with the working class – and Illinois has a difficult history with corruption, so he’ll have to manage his own reputation and Illinois’ baggage to succeed.
Josh Shapiro
As governor of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro has been tapped as a potential 2028 candidate – largely due to his standing as the governor of a contended swing state. Due to the broken electoral college system, Pennsylvania is disproportionately important. Compared to other contenders on this list, he has an extensive political background before serving as governor, including his term as a State Representative, County Commissioner, and Attorney General.
Like Michigan’s Whitmer, Shapiro has appeal because he manages to appeal in a politically divided state. This makes him lucrative to the Democratic Party since they’re likely still hoping to garner moderate votes like they failed to in 2024. But like Prikzer in Illinois, Shapiro has officially declined to state whether he plans to run for the presidency due to his strong focus on remaining governor. Of course, the question remains: Could Josh Shapiro secure the presidency if he chose to run? Possibly, but he’s not currently a strong contender with folks like Buttigieg, Harris, and even Pritzker in the race.
Jill Stein
Okay, Jill Stein isn’t a Democrat – but she’s worth mentioning. Beyond the two major parties, it’s difficult to make educated guesses on what third-party candidates will run in 2028. The electoral system the United States uses pushes third-party candidates out of the way, incentivizing just two options through our “all or nothing” electoral college. While I can’t make any legitimate guesses on who might run for the Libertarian Party, we know who will run for the Green Party.
Jill Stein has run as the Green Party’s candidate in 2012, 2016, and 2024. She’s considered a perennial candidate and has verbalized considering running in 2028 immediately after her loss in 2024. Stein and the Green Party offer solutions that many Americans want to see implemented, ideas that are “too far left” for centrist Democrats to consider. And unlike the Democratic Socialist of America, the Green Party has a longer, more stable history in minor politics.
Of course, Jill Stein will not win the 2028 election. The Green Party may surprise us and nominate another candidate, but Stein has run so many times that she’s become more of a joke than an authentic choice. And the Green Party still has to overcome the US’s broken political system that pits them as impossible.
America is nearing its one-year anniversary of the 2024 presidential elections, which means midterms are a popular topic. The current political climate can feel tough, like every single day is a challenge to survive – but it can feel more doable when breaking up Trump’s second presidential term. We are now exiting the grace period that accompanied his return to office, and we are returning to a political reality that offers hope. This is also the time when potential presidential candidates begin making moves, giving us insight into what 2028 will bring.
In normal presidential cycles, presidents are judged greatly based on what they accomplish within their first 100 days of office. All presidents make huge moves in this period – more than they will throughout the rest of their term. After that, presidents traditionally make very little progress on their campaign promises until they reach their second consecutive term. Political historians point to the second consecutive term as a major milestone since that is the minimum amount of time presidents need to see policy and economic change, since most of these aspects are slow-changing. It’s widely agreed that Trump inherited Obama’s economy for the entirety of his first presidency, Trump constantly misattributing his own influence on the growing economy that he eventually ruined and handed off to Biden.
The first 100 days of office bring the most changes. Trump dismissed the notion as being a milestone when he entered his second term (likely because he failed to make his second term consecutive), but it’s easy to see the change in pacing between today and March. Those early months were accompanied by a barrage of executive orders, proclamations, and press releases from the administration. Today, we’re seeing remarkably fewer policy changes as Trump tries to manage foreign affairs with Russia, Ukraine, Israel, and Palestine while avoiding the growing Epstein problem at home.
Trump just finished his 200th day in office this past week. This November brings minor elections to the ballot – like mayoral elections, city councils, and county boards. November also marks the midterm campaign season since every seat in the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate will be on the ballot in 2026. Midterms present the opportunity for Republicans to continue their reign of oppression and terror or for Democrats to re-seize the legislature, barring Trump from any significant advancements. Trump’s self-proclaimed Red Wave was a midterm failure in 2022 when the GOP failed to turn the Democrat-controlled Congress over. Since elections take more than one day to campaign over, politicians begin hitting the trails and speaking at events around now in preparation for midterms.
Despite the next presidential election being three years away, this is the period when political scientists start predicting who will toss their name in the ring for the presidency. Unlike other electoral races, there are no official deadlines for official campaign submissions – but it is generally agreed that officially running as soon as possible boosts your chances of securing votes since it cements your presence. The following is a list of high-profile individuals being watched right now because they’re performing many of the hallmark moves presidential candidates do before officially campaigning for the presidency.
First: An Author’s Note
Candidates running with the GOP have several disadvantages compared to Democrats and third-party candidates. First, they absolutely do not want to upset Donald Trump.
This hinders GOP presidential candidates since publicly campaigning while Trump is still in office would cause an upset.Trump finally stated he believes JD Vance should be the next GOP candidate – but Vance and all other potentials haven’t come forward since doing so would take away from Trump’s glorious spotlight.
He was originally elected as an outsider, a businessman in a world of politicians who promised to bring the economy back in line. Of course, Donald Trump is more of a career con man than a successful business owner, and he’s no longer an outsider to politics.
Historical Context: The 22nd Amendment was created in the 1950s as a direct result of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s four terms. While nearly all presidents before FDR had followed George Washington’s two-term policy, it wasn’t an official rule. Congress created the 22nd Amendment in 1951, shortly after FDR’s death, since even though the public loved FDR enough to legitimately vote him into office four times, an extensive reign felt too similar to monarchies and dictatorships, holding the potential for presidential power to become too concentrated in one administration.
Can Donald Trump legally and legitimately serve a third presidential term? No. The only way for Trump to legitimately serve a third term would require Congress to propose, pass, and ratify a new amendment to the Constitution – and the US House and Senate are far too polarized to accomplish any amendment, much less one in direct service to Trump.
Do Republicans want to pass a new amendment to allow Trump to serve continuously? Yeah. It’s somewhere on their list of ways to lick Trump’s boots, BUT there is zero chance for this to become reality since the GOP lacks the votes to force amendment-level changes… for now.
Political scientists theorize two other ways Donald Trump could serve a third term, but neither is legitimate. One is undeniably worse, but both spell a devastating end to democracy in the United States.
The “less bad” route would require a candidate aligned with Trump (which is most, although not all, of the GOP) to be elected officially as president. The 22nd Amendment bars Trump from ever serving again as president – but it doesn’t prevent him from being Vice President or holding other roles in the White House.
In this instance, Trump would serve unofficially through a puppet, which we have already seen as possible through Elon Musk’s short reign, using Trump as a puppet to serve in the Oval Office until their public breakup. Trump has already vocalized he’d like to explore this route with someone like JD Vance as the presidential candidate, but most GOP candidates would most likely allow Trump to rule through them to appeal to their frenzied base. The other side of this route is that Trump is an egomaniac and a reality television star at his core. This route requires Trump to share the spotlight with the official president – which might work for weak-willed and mild candidates like Vance, but is capable of blowing up with strong personalities like Musk.
Donald Trump appearing on the cover of TIME for 2024.
And Elon Musk appearing mere months later for blatantly using Trump as a puppet.
This route is “less bad” because it’s technically legal. The Constitution only states Trump can’t serve again as president, but there are no restrictions on other roles he can serve in. However, it still labels America as no longer a democracy to the greater world – even if Trump shared the spotlight and kept to a reserved role, having a puppet president serving on Trump’s behalf looks like a dictatorship.
The AI picture of Trump wearing a crown title “Long Live the King” on official White House social media.
The other route that leads to an extended Trump regime would entail Trump using military force to hold the presidency hostage. There are protocols that require the previous president to leave office once a new one has been elected and sworn in – but how could that be enforced if Trump refuses to comply? Trump is already doing many of the same actions traditional dictators do, like getting rid of military personnel who aren’t fully loyal to him. The president controls the military, and Trump hasn’t thrown out the idea of using the US military to protect his position if voted out.
A military coup by Trump is the “worst” option since doing so will label the United States as a dictatorship in black-and-white. And while dictatorships are never forever, they can hold power for extensive periods of time and cause insurmountable damage.
JD Vance
Officially, Vance hasn’t said whether he will be running for president in 2028. That being said, it’s assumed he will: Vance is currently Donald Trump’s favorite, and Trump has given Vance his endorsement to be the GOP runner. Despite this, Vance has told the media it is “way too early” to consider a 2028 bid – likely out of fear that openly accepting the endorsement or affirming the rumors would come across as lacking devotion to Trump.
With Trump’s endorsement and his current position as Vice President, Vance is poised to become heir to the MAGA movement. Trump has stated he believes Vance should fill his shoes, but it’s worth remembering that Trump’s favor is volatile since just a few months ago, Elon Musk would have had Trump’s endorsement as the next president.
Note: Elon Musk is NOT on this list. He cannot serve as President, no matter how badly he wants to. While Elon is technically a US citizen, only US-born citizens are eligible to run. Due to Elon being naturalized and originally from South Africa, he is barred from becoming president beyond befriending a legitimate president to use as a puppet.
The attention from Trump giving Vance his stamp of approval has been great for Vance’s image. Out of all the predicted 2028 candidates, Vance is polling the highest. But those numbers don’t equate to anything meaningful yet – in contrast to the Democrats, Vance is really the only projected candidate. He has had the most media attention from the last election cycle, putting him in a better position than other GOP candidates. On the other end of the political spectrum, Democrats won’t have comparable candidates until we approach the election season and candidates are in the thick of their campaigning. Vance is getting widespread attention at Trump’s side, speaking at events and ensuring he stays relevant. Democrats and other GOP candidates won’t be given this exposure for at least another year (if not longer).
However, JD Vance has downsides the GOP will have to consider if they choose to make him their 2028 candidate. Trump picked Vance as his VP because he was timid, mild-mannered, and able to sit in his shadow as a yes-man when Pence failed to do so during the January 6th coup. Even now, Vance fails to make good impressions amongst the public – he’s been clowned on for his looks, values, and politics ever since he was named for the VP ticket. He won’t be able to handle the MAGA movement’s need for a strong personality, and he won’t be able to fill Trump’s shoes. At his core, Vance isn’t likable. He isn’t someone people want to root for, he’s too timid to express his actual platform, and he somehow comes across as faker than Trump. Without Trump in front of him, Vance will not be able to keep the GOP together. He isn’t a leader.
Ron DeSantis
The Florida Governor, most known for his “Don’t Say Gay” anti-LGBTQIA+ laws, was forced to drop out of the 2024 election when Trump picked Vance to be his VP. There was never any public gossip on what happened between Trump and DeSantis, but DeSantis didn’t take well to being turned down for Vance.
After dropping out of the 2024 race, DeSantis made moves signaling his desire to run again, speaking at conventions and events to remain in the public eye even if he’s overshadowed by Vance’s office. Compared to other GOP candidates, DeSantis is the most outwardly anti-LGBTQIA+ and uses his forced successes of conservative legislation in a gerrymandered Florida as evidence that homophobia is in. The GOP has put tons of money into anti-transgender propaganda – but the American public still doesn’t agree with DeSantis’ core policies. His other “grand” policies are all related to banning abortion, but polls clearly show that isn’t popular with American voters either.
If he relies on his current policies to act as his primary motivator for voters, he has no chance of winning the presidency. When DeSantis got sidelined by Trump for Vance, his political career was considered over – even if he goes down fighting.
Nikki Haley
She was the only other major Republican candidate that survived the Iowa caucuses alongside Trump in 2024. In 2017, Haley left her office as South Carolina Governor to serve as the US Ambassador to the United Nations during Trump’s first term. As an Indian American, she ruffled feathers and became the GOP’s first female presidential candidate to win a primary – although she was forced to drop out after losing nearly all of the Super Tuesday contests to Trump.
Haley encompasses the traditional GOP, which is why she performed better in 2024 than Vivek Ramaswamy. She’s more white-passing, and she identifies as Christian despite her immigrant parents’ Sikh upbringing. She positions herself as a Reagan-aligned conservative in a political climate filled with Trump yes-men.
But can Nikki Haley win the 2028 presidency? While possible, it’s unlikely. She doesn’t have Trump’s endorsement like Vance, and she’s even more removed from current politicians than DeSantis since she hasn’t held any official offices since she resigned as ambassador in 2018.
Glenn Youngkin
Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin is both a longtime member of the GOP and a businessman. He’s garnered attention from the media due to headlining in Iowa last month, which is the traditional launch point for presidential campaigns. Candidates measure their audiences and begin campaigns in Iowa due to its caucuses.
Youngkin’s term as governor has focused on Trump’s war on DEI, causing Youngkin to spend considerable effort purging “divisive concepts” from both K-12 classrooms and higher education. He is allied with the GOP’s insiders, like the Heritage Foundation (and co-writers of Project 2025).
Unlike many other Republican candidates, Youngkin lacks baggage. He doesn’t have Vance, DeSantis, or even Haley’s exposure, so Youngkin can better position himself as a new face amongst many others who are running after failed campaigns for the presidency. Of course, that lack of exposure also harms Youngkin since voters may pass him for well-known names or candidates whose platforms they know well.
Tucker Carlson
Most known for the Tucker Carlson Show, Carlson has been described as “the most influential voice in right-wing media, without a close second.” He has touted Trumpism for years, pushing white grievance politics on Fox News while feeding manosphere influencers like Andrew Tate and Joe Rogan scraps to publish. Like Trump, Carlson is a face the American public knows well – and he’s never even entered politics.
In 2023, Carlson came under fire when his text messages leaked during Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News Network that led to a $787 million settlement. In the messages, Carlson shows his true colors as an entertainer first and not a true Trump supporter. In regard to what he thought of Trump’s first term, Carlson wrote, “We’re all pretending we’ve got a lot to show for it, because admitting what a disaster it’s been is too tough to digest. But come on. There really isn’t an upside to Trump.” He’s an entertainment journalist that Fox viewers take too seriously – which is what led to the eventual lawsuit that Fox settled and fired Carlson over. Carlson knew the stories he told on air were false, purposely riling up misinformed viewers based around Trump’s far-right agenda because it sold. He lamented in leaked texts how much he despised Trump despite publicly endorsing him on Fox – Fox News thrives on grifting, and Trump is the best grifter in modern history. In other words, Trump forced an unofficial marriage between his legacy and Fox News. When news on Trump sells so well, Carlson had no choice but to devote his nightly coverage to Trump.
Could Carlson grab the presidency? Since his removal from Fox News, Carlson has attempted to relaunch his show on Twitter/X and managed to rework his weekly commentary podcast – and he’s used the space to fester the same conspiracy stories as Alex Jones, interviewing “amateur historians” to endorse Holocaust denial on air. Compared to other candidates, Carlson has a strong personality that MAGA devotees obsess over, which is why his show on Fox News did so well. If Trump gives up his throne, Carlson is perhaps the closest fit.
Despite this, Carlson will face challenges. If he decides to campaign for 2028, he will most definitely butt heads with Trump and traditionalists within the GOP. Trump has already named Vance as his successor, and there’s no way for Trump to rule from behind Carlson like he would Vance. And while Carlson may be able to dish out conspiracy theories and insults great on air, he’s not Trump.
Tim Scott
Before entering politics in 1995, Scott worked in financial services – but he was given the spotlight when then-Governor Nikki Haley appointed Scott as South Carolina’s senator after Jim DeMint’s resignation. He had a short campaign for the 2024 presidency, but dropped out due to exceptionally low polling numbers.
In 2019, Tim Scott signaled that he plans to retire from politics soon since he’s tired of Congress, stating that his 2022 election was his final campaign. Since Senators serve six-year terms, his seat won’t be available for reelection until 2029. That doesn’t mean Scott won’t consider running in 2028 – he has the option to vacate his seat if he were to win the presidency, similar to Barack Obama vacating Illinois’ Senate seat in 2008. Overall, though, a second presidential campaign wouldn’t work in Scott’s favor since he wouldn’t be bringing anything new despite facing many of the same opponents.
Vivek Ramaswamy
Elon Musk might not be able to run for president, but Vivek Ramaswamy can. He’s been compared to Musk due to being a biotech pharma CEO and writing a flurry of books like Woke Inc, Nation of Victims: Identity Politics, the Death of Merit, and the Path Back to Excellence, Capitalist Punishment, and Truths: The Future of America First.
Similar to Nikki Haley, Ramaswamy is an American-born son of Indian immigrants. He touts himself as an American nationalist, BUT unlike Haley, he still identifies as non-Christian and adheres to his family’s Hindu faith. Some political scientists theorize Ramaswamy’s failed 2024 campaign was due to his populist ideals being too similar to Trump’s, failing to offer anything new like Haley did as a GOP traditionalist. Others argue Ramaswamy lost followers due to being less digestible for the American public as a darker-skinned Indian American man. Had he succeeded in 2024, Ramaswamy could have been the United States’ first non-Christian president.
Like DeSantis, Marco Rubio originally came from Florida as a Senator until he was picked by Donald Trump to serve as Secretary of State. Rubio has campaigned for the presidency since 2016, when he originally lost to Trump during the Republican primaries. As a Cuban American, Rubio was described by many as an unofficial secretary of state for Latin Americans during Trump’s first term – although his support amongst Latino Americans will waver under continued attacks by ICE.
Marco Rubio is the alternative heir to the MAGA movement. Trump is keeping Rubio close like Vance, purposely pitting them against each other to compete for his endorsement. According to White House insiders quoted by the Wall Street Journal, Trump told both Rubio and Vance, “Which one of you is going to be at the top of the ticket? I used to think it would be Vance-Rubio, but maybe it will be Rubio-Vance.”
Currently, Rubio isn’t polling as well as Vance – Trump recently stated he approved of Vance running in 2028, putting Rubio in the backseat. However, both Vance and Rubio have more of Trump’s support than folks like DeSantis. Rubio has a better grasp on foreign affairs, but he doesn’t have a remarkably better personality than Vance. These qualities were exemplified during the 2016 election, which Donald Trump brought to the public’s attention when he barraged Rubio with insults like all his other competitors on stage.
Abbott has served as Texas Governor since 2015, making him the longest-serving incumbent governor in the United States. He’s more of a traditional conservative, focused mostly on immigration issues, followed by law enforcement budgets, gun laws, and abortion access. In a state that is progressively becoming less conservative, Abbott has tried to remain in the background compared to louder names like Ted Cruz. Unlike other candidates on this list, Abbott hasn’t actually tried to run for the presidency, which is why he would be a natural fit to try in 2028.
Make no mistake, Republicans are angry because the Democrats’ actions worked as intended. Texas might be edging closer to becoming a swing state, but it’s still overwhelmingly controlled by the GOP. Typically, Texas Democrats have virtually no power – they make up 62 of the 150 total members of the House, so they have very little say regarding legislation when Texas Republicans stand united. Despite this, Republicans still need the Democrats to conduct business since Congressional rules require the House to meet a quorum of 100 total House members in the room. With all Texas Democrats gone, there are only 88 Republicans left – failing to meet the quorum requirement.
“It needs Democrats in the room, even if it doesn’t need their votes, in order to enact the new map,” reported NPR. In an interview with Mark P. Jones, a Rice University political science professor, explains, “If you’re the minority party, and you can’t block any legislation, one nuclear option you always have is to walk out, thereby preventing the legislature from engaging in any activity and particularly passing legislation.”
The vast majority of Texas Democrats have fled to Illinois, where Governor JB Pritzker has pledged support. Despite Texas Governor Greg Abbott demanding the arrest of the vacant Democrats, he and Texas Republicans have zero authority beyond their state lines. Pritzker has officially stated that Illinois will not comply with Texas orders to arrest the vacant representatives. In a press conference reported by The Guardian, Pritzker elaborated, “We’re going to do everything we can to protect every single one of them and make sure that – ‘cause we know they’re doing the right thing, we know that they’re following the law.”
This has resulted in most Texas Democrats arriving in Illinois, with a small number in New York and Massachusetts. The primary goal of Republicans, as cited by the Associated Press, is [to add] five more GOP seats in Texas in the midterm elections to boost [Trump’s] party’s chance of preserving its slim U.S. House majority.” In the midst of discussing the Texas situation, New York Governor Kathy Hochul said, “I have a news flash for Republicans in Texas: This is no longer the Wild West. We’re not going to tolerate our democracy being stolen in a modern-day stagecoach heist by a bunch of law-breaking cowboys.”
The Associated Press has generally condemned the move. The AP and other media outlets have been quick to point out that this tactic hasn’t worked in the past. From a purely legal standpoint, Republicans aren’t violating any laws by redistricting the maps – and since the districts are already weighted conservative, it might not seem like a big deal. However, Texas has been on course to become a swing state due to its growing population, directly sourced by California and Texas’s own increasing Latino population, both of which don’t align with traditional conservative values.
Yes, Texas Democrats will eventually have to return to the House. Yes, Texas Republicans will eventually redistrict and further gerrymander the state. In that sense, the move will fail – but there’s more going on. It is important to remember that Democrats are given no other option: In ultra-conservative states like Texas, minority party members are silenced, demeaned, and even kicked out for voicing opposing opinions. Their votes (as well as the votes of the Americans they represent) are meaningless because of the way their state is structured. While their move only delays the redistricting plan and other bills, it can be empowering – it’s easy to feel hopeless and like we have zero power in the current political climate, but even small acts can make big impacts while showing how polarized the nation is.
Conservatives use the exact same tactics preaching against transgender identities as they have against gay and lesbian individuals, interracial relationships, women’s equality, and every other issue they’ve lost against society’s slow march towards progress. Transgender individuals are characterized as sexual perverts and mentally deranged – which is exactly how gay men and lesbian women were depicted just twenty years ago. Understanding this is crucial in social justice movements when discussing the dangers of the anti-transgender movement with folks unaligned, independent, or just “not into politics.” Religion-based politics never go well. Attacks on transgender lives immediately turn into attacks on drag performers, intersex folks, lesbian women, gay men, independent women, disabled individuals, non-Christian faiths, and people of color. Their movement relies on the masses being uneducated and unsympathetic. The GOP argued for years that legalizing same-sex marriage would create a slippery slope that never happened – but this slippery slope against human rights WILL occur unless it is stopped.
Speaking of which, just how many Olympic competitors identify as transgender? Recent media obsession would imply it’s a huge problem where transgender athletes are taking over the events and depriving cisgender competitors of wins – but that’s the furthest from the truth. Taking just the 2024 Summer Olympics hosted in France, only 193 of the total 10,714 competitors identified as LGBTQIA+ (which equates to 0.018% of competitors). An even smaller margin of those individuals are transgender, estimated at 0.001%. Due to the stigma and hostility, transgender individuals aren’t as inclined to perform in competitive sports – no one wants to be the next media spotlight being roasted online. Additionally, sports have historically been unkind to LGBTQIA+ individuals due to inherent sexism and homophobia instilled in athletic spaces.
Scientifically, there are ASSUMED advantages for transgender individuals who have undergone any of their biological puberty. The limited research compiled since 2020 proclaims that transgender women are faster runners than cisgender women up to two years after beginning hormone replacement therapy and can complete more sit-ups and push-ups up to four years. But using this research to make these arguments is severely flawed.
First, these arguments advocate for complete and permanent bans on transgender athletes. Ignoring how nonsensical it is to ban those who transitioned before puberty, it isn’t logical with adults either. The used studies claim HRT does not significantly affect muscle mass, bone density, and strength – but this is factually bogus. All of these have been proven over and over again as primary side effects of HRT, BUT they are not overnight changes. Medical transition takes time, and it never truly “ends.” Two years on HRT is a VERY early benchmark – for many trans women, this is when they start to notice many of the collective changes they’ve experienced on HRT since it can be such a slow process. Five years and onward is a more acceptable comparison of when transgender bodies fully mimic their cisgender counterparts, but the research ends before this. Had those studies continued for much longer, evidence would have backfired on them.
Secondly, athletes are not typical. To be an Olympian, you must be exceptional. To go pro, you have to be dedicated to your sport. These people are not casual hobbyists. The individuals selected for the studies used to fuel current rules weren’t random. Upon being asked by NPR Michel Martin about the “fairness of transgender bans,” Dr. Bradley Anawalt at the University of Washington replied, “There’s always been inequalities in sports. Somebody who’s born taller than someone who is shorter and plays basketball, we really don’t have this conversation about the potential competitive advantage for people participating in ballet or theater. Peter Pan is almost always played by an adult woman because an adult can act with greater artistry and maturity based on age and experience.” In other words, professional athletes and Olympians have always been insanely exceptional competitors – research pushed out in just a few years is worthless when considering these questions. Further, this doesn’t even begin to unpack sports where biological sex and HRT have nonsignificant impacts, like chess and fencing.
Combining these issues, remember that very few Olympians are transgender. Out of the 0.001% of athletes competing that ARE transgender, they are going to be beyond exceptional. Due to discrimination, harassment, and bias, they have had to fight every step of the way to compete, which is beyond comprehension for their cisgender counterparts. They must absolutely astound their qualifying judges. They’ve got to have a thick skin to survive insults from other competitors, the media, and the general public. This is the case for every successful transgender athlete – due to how hostile the climate is, we must be nearly supernatural at our sport to be accepted.
The policy instilled by the United States Olympic Committee and Paralympic Committee has already been denounced by non-transgender organizations, such as the National Women’s Law Center. The GOP uses transgender identities to proclaim they are protecting women’s lives – but they are the true party of sexual predators and have proven countless times they are against women’s rights.An attack on transgender rights will inevitably become an attack on all rights.
In the context of sports, representation forces the public to become aware and normalize marginalized identities. Before Jackie Robinson was signed with the Brooklyn Dodgers, Americans struggled with the concept of desegregation. Robinson’s legacy added to the same as those of Black servicemen in the US military in pushing America forward. Less than 1 in 3 Americans claim to know a transgender person, which is the same amount of Americans who argue healthcare providers should not be allowed to provide gender-affirming care to minors, according to Data for Social Good: “There is a positive correlation across the survey results between someone personally knowing a transgender person and expressing greater support for transgender-inclusive policies.” Or, seeing and knowing transgender people makes cisgender people empathetic to our rights.
Transgender people aren’t new to sports. Just like how transgender people have been around for centuries, we have also been participating in competitive sports for a substantial amount of time. The first high-profile case was Renée Richards, whose fight to compete as a woman in the 1976 US Open gained international attention and ended up winning at the New York Supreme Court. Before Renée, there were Zdeněk Koubek and Willy De Bruyn – two transgender and intersex individuals who competed in the 1934 Olympics.
Beginning in the 1940s (likely in response to Koubek and De Bruyn), professional sports began requiring “femininity certificates” provided by athletes by physicians with the central purpose of excluding intersex and transgender competitors. These early tests consisted of visual inspections and physical examinations – but they morphed into chromosome testing by the 1960s due to anti-communist suspicions that the best female athletes coming from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe must be men. Today, sex verification heavily relies on hormone testing – much to the detriment of cisgender and transgender athletes alike. Now, sports sex verification excludes many cisgender women from competing due to naturally high testosterone levels that give them “unfair advantages.”
From Renée’s time in the 1970s until 2003, transgender participation in sports was mixed. Generally, trans individuals were barred from playing, but some were able to successfully compete, such as Roberta Cowell, Parinya Charoenphol, and Michelle Dumaresq. In late 2003, the International Olympic Committee published its first official policy regarding transgender competitors in preparation for the 2004 games in Athens. These policies have become known as the “Stockholm Consensus,” becoming the international standard for sports, although domestic leagues such as the NFL and MLB have never subscribed to IOC guidelines.
The Stockholm Consensus clearly stated that transgender athletes were allowed to compete as their chosen gender rather than their gender assigned at birth, IF they met certain criteria. The Consensus required completed bottom or genital surgery, sexual sterilization, legal recognition of one’s gender in their home country, and long-term verified hormone replacement treatment.
At the end of 2015, the IOC met again to review the Stockholm Consensus and came to the conclusion that its requirements were unhelpful and far too strict. In the ten years it had been put in place, two concerns had come up: first, genital surgery and sterilization showed zero impact on performance and requiring it was an unnecessary and invasive barrier compared to other aspects of transition like HRT; and secondly, one’s ability to be legally recognized as their chosen gender varies drastically based on where they live since the majority of countries don’t allow individuals to do so. The IOC created the 2015 Consensus, which stated transmasculine individuals had zero restrictions for competing (as long as they pass anti-doping tests), and transfeminine athletes must prove they are currently on HRT throughout competition AND show they have been on HRT for at least one full year.
The most recent change came in 2021 when the IOC updated the policy again. Regardless of Trump’s executive orders, laws passed in the US Congress, or any personal policy instated by the US Olympic Committee, this policy is the international standard that the rest of the world abides by. The 2021 Consensus established the precedent that individual sports can create their own requirements regarding transgender competitors – but these requirements are agreed on the international level. Most Olympic sports elected to use the 2015 Consensus as their requirements and called it a day, although some did make their own in pursuit of balancing “fairness” with “inclusion.”
In reality, the US Olympic Committee and Paralympic Committee are likely breaking the IOC rules since it will place a blanket ban on all transgender competitors who failed to medically transition before puberty regardless of transition status – despite the 2021 Consensus stating, “Eligibility criteria should be established and implemented fairly and in a manner that does not systematically exclude athletes from competition based upon their gender identity, physical appearance and/or sex variations. Provided they meet eligibility criteria that are consistent with principle 4 [Fairness], athletes should be allowed to compete in the category that best aligns with their self-determined gender identity.”
In a devastating update, the United States Supreme Court voted along party lines to uphold Tennessee’s unethical blanket ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors. United States v. Skrmetti was decided 6-3 and has potentially severe consequences for adult care as well.
Their logic is derived from stating that the current ban on gender-affirming care for minors is based on gender dysphoria and not sex, so it cannot be classified as sex-based discrimination – the same logic used by the Trump administration when removing LGBTQIA+ protections under Title IX. Of course, this logic is flawed: at this moment, the Court views transgender identity as a mental health issue, but they are choosing to ignore that other aspects of Tennessee’s laws (as well as other states across the country) wish to prosecute transgender people for sex crimes based on sex assigned at birth. In her coverage of the topic, Erin Reed wrote, “The Tennessee law, Justice Sotomayor and the dissent argue, explicitly classifies on the basis of sex—so overtly that the majority’s attempt to sidestep that reality reads as disingenuous. The statute itself declares that one purpose of the ban is to ‘encourage minors to appreciate their sex,’ and yet the majority still concludes it does not constitute sex-based classification.” This argument also fails to consider that while gender dysphoria is currently classified as a mental disorder, it is the required diagnosis for medically necessary treatment for transgender individuals. The World Health Organization and other experts on mental and physical health have declassified transgender identity itself as a mental illness since our distress is caused by the dysphoria or disconnect between internal gender and outward expression. As NPR wrote, “[The] Supreme Court decision was a big win for Tennessee and 24 other states, but there are many questions that remain unanswered.”
Permitting states to ban gender-affirming care, the medically necessary and most effective treatment for gender dysphoria, to treat transgender people in distress is as nonsensical and inhumane as banning other medications like insulin for the treatment of diabetes or banning the prescription of albuterol for asthma.
The current ruling is also dangerous, since it seems to permit states to ban transgender healthcare entirely – not just for minors. The conservative Court is not arguing that states have a right to ‘protect children from medical treatments’ like gender-affirming care; they are arguing that states have a right to ban gender-affirming care entirely.
“Today’s Supreme Court decision is a devastating blow to transgender youth and the families who love them, but it will not break our resolve. Families may now have to make the heartbreaking choice to leave their state or split their families, or take on extensive financial burdens, to ensure that their kids can access medically necessary care.
“This Court chose to allow politicians to interfere in medical decisions that should be made by doctors, patients, and families—a cruel betrayal of the children who needed them to stand up for justice when it mattered most.
“As parents, advocates, and community leaders, we know that our fight doesn’t end in courtrooms—it lives in our communities, our hearts, and our unwavering commitment to each other. Still, we will not be deterred. We will support families forced to make impossible choices, fund legal challenges, and build a movement so powerful that no politician can ignore us. Together, we will turn this pain into power and keep fighting until every transgender person in America can live with dignity, safety, and the freedom to be who they are.”
Erin Reed also reported that “Though the majority avoided that outcome, three justices—Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Amy Coney Barrett—wrote separately to express that they would have gone further, explicitly denying transgender people equal protection under the law.” While the Court’s decision does not affect transgender individuals living in states that protect gender-affirming care, it further divides the country. Gleeful legislators are banning the most effective treatment for transgender people, the most proven deterrent that lowers the suicide rate amongst the trans community – depending on where you live, you may not be able to legally obtain medically necessary healthcare that has been the gold standard throughout the world for decades and you can be prosecuted for traveling elsewhere to receive such care.
While the decision is terrifying, the war for transgender rights isn’t over. United States v. Skrmetti specifically targets gender-affirming care for minors, and while legislators have talked about expanding healthcare bans to adults, no laws have actually been written. It also isn’t the end for transgender minors either – social justice advocates will continue to fight the Supreme Court for equal rights, despite this loss. If the GOP can stack the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, there is always hope for a better future. Chase Strangio from the ACLU stated, “Though this is a painful setback, it does not mean that transgender people and our allies are left with no options to defend our freedom, our health care, or our lives. The Court left undisturbed Supreme Court and lower court precedent that other examples of discrimination against transgender people are unlawful. We are as determined as ever to fight for the dignity and equality of every transgender person, and we will continue to do so with defiant strength, a restless resolve, and a lasting commitment to our families, our communities, and the freedom we all deserve.”
In addition to this news, I wanted to give context that other news sources aren’t covering. United States v. Skrmetti rose to the Supreme Court on whether gender-affirming care bans on transgender minors are constitutional – Tennessee lawmakers defended the law by citing bogus claims that gender-affirming care is unsafe and experimental.
Secondly, these legislators have not met actual transgender youth who have experienced the supposed woes of being forced into medical procedures. If you are under the age of 18, it is incredibly difficult to access gender-affirming medical care due to the international requirements established by WPATH. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health is just as legitimate as a health institution as the World Health Organization, and has produced credible research for decades supporting gender-affirming care. The recent accusations that scientific bodies like WPATH and WHO are untrustworthy because they do not side with GOP pseudoscience are created solely to bring harm. The WPATH itself has made an official statement denouncing Trump’s pseudo-research.
Even in the most liberal states, it is a grueling process for minors to get gender-affirming medical care.
After coming out, that transgender minor must socially transition – this means they have picked another name they are going by, pronouns, hairstyle, clothing, hobbies, and other aspects of gender. They have gone through the trouble of picking a name that fits their gender identity and have told others, likely begun outwardly expressing their gender without medical intervention, and have changed minor forms that don’t require legal orders, like email addresses, school assignment rosters, and social media accounts.
That transgender minor must now engage with regular counseling and get a diagnosis for gender dysphoria – which they can only do after establishing their transgender identity is long-standing and not a phase for that provider. It is at this point that the minor must have the full support of all their legal guardians, since minors cannot easily access therapy, and definitely cannot engage with medical care without their parents’ explicit consent.
Assuming the minor has completed every step above completely and has identified as transgender for an extended time, they MIGHT be eligible for medical care. WPATH only allows puberty blockers to be prescribed to minors who have reached Tanner stage two, or in other words, shown visible signs of puberty beginning as their sex assigned at birth. The minor must also prove that they are capable of making informed decisions, further establish that their gender identity is not a phase, and not the consequence of a mental disorder other than gender dysphoria.
After the youth has been on puberty blockers for a sufficient amount of time, they may be moved to hormone replacement therapy – which means estrogen or testosterone will be prescribed instead of puberty blockers to commence puberty.
If the transgender minor is unsure whether they may want biological children one day, they MIGHT be eligible for reproductive services such as sperm or egg freezing. However, these reproductive services aren’t common since most transgender people are told from the beginning that transition will likely make them unable to have biological children.
If the minor is assigned female at birth, they MIGHT be eligible for top surgery if they did not engage with puberty blockers fast enough to prevent breast growth and have been on HRT for a minimum of twelve months. However, this itself is even more rare than minors accessing medical gender-affirming care entirely, and the vast majority of surgeons will require their patients to wait until age eighteen.
Transgender minors are not able to freely access other surgical procedures. While technically possible, medical providers are not willing to perform these procedures before the age of eighteen. If someone tries to argue about whatever conspiracy they believe, force them to pull details like their office number and credentials. If they are unable or unwilling to call that provider’s office and obtain at least verbal proof, they are lying.
As mentioned before, the Supreme Court ruling affects more than just minors – the logic embraced paves a route for states to ban gender-affirming care entirely because they deem it as ‘experimental.’ The reason gender-affirming care for minors is seen as so experimental is because research is more mixed regarding puberty blockers compared to HRT, but puberty blockers are never intended as the end result for gender-affirming care. Puberty blockers are used as a means to pause natal puberty and give minors time to establish their gender identity as more than a phase before continuing with non-reversible side effects of HRT. While hormone replacement therapy has non-reversible side effects, it is extremely effective and has exceedingly low regret rates, and thus has substantial positive results compared to puberty blockers. Yet again, for minors, puberty blockers are an integral part of the process for them to receive care.
The SBC is the world’s largest Protestant organization, but Protestantism works differently from Catholicism. Unlike the Vatican Church, there is no singular doctrine or set of beliefs among Protestant groups – and the SBC isn’t legally binding. Instead, it acts as a loose agreement by its 47,000 member churches to work towards their shared mission, but individual churches remain autonomous and are allowed to govern their own decisions. In essence, this means the SBC vote is both important and insignificant: by endorsing a ban on same-sex marriage, the SBC is advising all Americans who attend one of its many affiliated churches to fight against equality, BUT the SBC cannot force individual churches to do anything and marriage equality has strong support by the general public.
The resolution manages to not use the word ‘ban’ explicitly, stating instead for its members to call for the “overturning of laws and court rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges, that defy God’s design for marriage and family” and “for laws that affirm marriage between one man and one woman.” Of course, I feel it is worth mentioning that ‘Biblical marriage’ is nothing like what the conservative right and tradwives propose it as – actual Biblical marriage was a business transaction between families, arranged by parents with sufficient dowries, and allowed polygamy, even though those factors would be morally reprehensible to religious conservatives.
A graphic showing the legal status of marriage equality prior to Obergefell by ABC News versus the current state as documented by the Movement Advancement Project.
An overturn of Obergefell v. Hodges also wouldn’t do much. When decided in 2015, 36 states had already legalized same-sex marriage and many other states had legal provisions to accept queer marriages performed out-of-state or arrangement for legally binding civil unions. There was a spurt where states were updating outdated bans on marriage equality – but churches have a lot of money, and they have purposely paid for legislators to slowly create more bans on queer marriage to enforce if Obergefell is reversed. However, the SBC’s resolution calls for ALL laws and court decisions affirming marriage equality to be overturned – but that notion shows how out-of-touch most of the religious right is. Christians have lamented how church attendance rates have plummeted over the last couple of decades, since about three in ten self-identified Christians attend services weekly, according to Gallup. That doesn’t include the number of Americans who do not self-identify as Christian, since the Pew Research Center has charted the steady decline of Americans identifying as Christian and instead as spiritually unaffiliated, ‘spiritual but not religious,’ or even atheist/agnostic.
Percent of Church-Goers
Change from 2000
Total US Adults
30%
-12%
Mormon/Latter Day saints
67%
-1%
Protestant
44%
-1%
Islam
38%
+4%
Catholic
33%
-12%
Judaism
22%
+7%
Orthodox
26%
+9%
Buddhism
14%
-2%
Hinduism
13%
-8%
None/Atheist/Agnostic
3%
-3%
Other
21%
-24%
At the same time, roughly 70% of Americans support marriage equality and believe same-sex couples should be recognized by law as equally valid as traditional marriages. The religious right has only been effective at weaponizing transgender lives as a moral issue, but even that has caveats since the American public generally supports rights for transgender adults and also believes trans issues have no place in current politics. This framework also extends to other political issues Christian groups are involved with, such as the widespread support for abortion. The SBC and religious right believe the destruction of LGBTQIA+ rights will supercharge their attendance, but the opposite is incredibly more likely – especially when considering current civil unrest. “This is a very visible example of how attacks on the LGBTQ+ community as a whole have intensified, even as politicians aim at transgender people as a tactic to divide us,” said Laurel Powell of the Human Rights Campaign to the BBC. “We will never stop fighting to love who we love and be who we are.”
The resolution also touched on other issues, like gender identity and fertility laws. Overall, the SBC is asking legislators to “pass laws that reflect the truth of creation and natural law – about marriage, sex, human life, and family,” oppose “any law or policy that compels people to speak falsehoods about sex and gender,” and see children “as blessings rather than burdens.” It’s a large resolution that covers many topics, from Americans’ lack of commitment to having more children to banning all forms of sports betting and pornography. The SBC seeks to return to an era of history where religion-mandated laws and “renewed moral clarity in public discourse regarding the crisis of declining fertility and for policies that support the bearing and raising of children with intact, married families.”
The Associated Press wrote, “it also frames that issue as one of public policy… It laments that modern culture is ‘pursuing willful childlessness which contributes to a declining fertility rate,’ and Andrew Walker, chair of the Committee on Resolutions, said at a news conference that the marriage resolution shows that Southern Baptists aren’t going along with the widespread social acceptance of same-sex marriage.” It also noted that 10,541 total church representatives (referred to as ‘messengers’) attended the event, which is less than a quarter of what the SBC once was 40 years ago. In a statement to the New York Times, Denny Burk said, “We know that we’re in a minority in the culture right now, but we want to be a prophetic minority.”
As church rates plummet, is this the hill the Christian right wants to die on? Time will tell, as well as the results of the upcoming midterm elections.
