Formally known as the Insurrection Act of 1807, the Insurrection Act was a federal law signed by President Thomas Jefferson to empower future presidents to deploy the Armed Forces and National Guard to suppress “civil disorder, insurrection, and armed rebellion against the federal government.”
What power does the Insurrection Act grant?
Normally, the Posse Comitatus Act forbids the United States military from coordinating with civilian law enforcement. Military interference in civilian government is considered inherently dangerous to liberty.
The Insurrection Act temporarily suspends the Posse Comitatus Act, allowing the President to deploy the military to assist civil law enforcement. This can be for a variety of reasons, such as the enforcement of federal court orders (such as during desegregation) or suppressing government uprisings.
The Insurrection Act was created only to be used in crises that are truly beyond the capacity of civilian authorities to manage.
However, the Act doesn’t limit when it can be used and is still entirely too vague – which is why Trump has leaned into threatening it so much.
Are there thresholds before the Insurrection Act can be implemented?
Yes. However, these thresholds aren’t infallible. The Department of Justice 1964 Memorandum identifies three thresholds:
A state legislature or governor must request federal assistance to put down an insurrection against their state.
A federal court must rule that national deployment is necessary to enforce a federal court order.
Federal deployment is necessary and unavoidable due to “state and local law enforcement completely breaking down.”
Additionally, all uses of the Insurrection Act are not allowed to override the Constitution. Federal deployment of troops is not allowed to violate citizens’ constitutional rights.
What are historical examples of the Insurrection Act?
During his first term, Donald Trump only threatened the use of the Insurrection Act once. Following the murder of George Floyd, Trump stated he would invoke the Insurrection Act in response to protests to “re-establish civil law and order.”
Federal officials eventually talked Trump out of invoking the Act. And although the National Guard was called in response to the January 6th coup, the Insurrection Act wasn’t invoked.
By Trump’s second term, he had become accustomed to waving the Insurrection Act around. Beginning January 20th, 2025, Trump ordered the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue a joint report determining whether use of the Insurrection Act was advisable regarding the US-Mexico border. Months later, Trump threatened the use of the Insurrection Act against targeted cities like LA, Portland, Chicago, and Memphis in response to protests.
A handful of reforms to the Insurrection Act have been proposed throughout history. Due to the vague language of the Act, it provides a relatively simple path towards martial law.
Under normal circumstances, this couldn’t be a possibility since the Insurrection Act would only be used under extreme circumstances – but Trump repeatedly threatens to invoke the Act in response to civilian protests.
He alone determines what a “crisis” must look like to overrule civil law enforcement to deploy national soldiers, and we have to trust that determination will be just.
Three years ago, West Virginia banned transgender girls from participating in all student sports. The law barred Becky Pepper-Jackson from playing cross-country or track with her friends in middle school.
Like B.P.J., Lindsay Hecox sued with the ACLU, Lambda Legal, and Cooley LLC due to Idaho’s decision to completely bar transgender students from participating in all sports under any circumstances under the guise of protecting women’s sports.
What Makes These Cases Different
Compared to previous court cases regarding transgender athletes, these cases focus on whether it is constitutional to completely bar transgender individuals.
States have previously been allowed to regulate transgender participation. For example, Idaho once required transgender women to present documentation of at least one year of hormone replacement therapy to participate in sports. These newer laws go further by banning transgender people entirely, without allowing participation even as their sex assigned at birth.
That doesn’t mean the Supreme Court will rule rationally. West Virginia and Idaho are backed by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian organization also responsible for the overturn of abortion rights in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
ADF has framed both cases as protecting women’s sports and athletic fairness. However, fairness would involve regulations that allow transgender athletes to participate in some fashion, not banning them entirely.
The 19th has reported that neither B.P.J. nor Hecox fit the conservative narrative of “scary transgender athletes.”
Lindsay Hecox failed to make the cut for her track and field team at Boise State University before Idaho law removed her eligibility entirely. Becky Pepper-Jackson never experienced male puberty and is physically no different from her cisgender classmates.
Transgender Participation in Sports Is Rare It is worth noting that transgender people rarely participate in sports due to stigma and discrimination. NCAA President Charlie Baker stated that out of 500,000 college athletes in the United States, fewer than 10 were openly transgender.
Assuming the Supreme Court rules in favor of ADF, this decision would not create a national ban on transgender students in sports.
Students in equality-driven states like California, Washington, and New York would not be impacted.
Transgender individuals participating in competitive sports beyond school wouldn’t be affected either, regardless of state. Those regulations are determined by their professional leagues.
Transgender individuals in non-competitive sports outside of educational settings also won’t be affected, such as community sport leagues.
States’ individual ability to ban transgender students would be cemented for the time being, unless a better case is presented..
For the time being, we just have to wait to see what exactly the Supreme Court decides. It is expected that the Supreme Court will formally announce the ruling before June 2026.
With the return of anti-transgender figures like Donald Trump to power, 2025 has been a turbulent year for transgender rights. The constant onslaught of stories has been heartbreaking and overwhelming. These are the top ten transgender news stories from 2025.
Trump’s Return to Power and the Implementation of Project 2025
With the signing of Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports, transgender individuals are banned from participating in sex-segregated competitive sports. Alongside this order, the Trump administration released biased and unscientific research demonstrating sex-based advantages to support their claims by manipulating the data to cut off right before previous research established a lack of significant athletic differences between transgender and cisgender competitors.
The change requires all transgender individuals to compete in male divisions, regardless of scientific precedent. Additionally, the new protocol only applies to American competitors since the US Olympic and Paralympic Committees do not override international regulations already guiding how transgender athletes participate.
Assassination of Charlie Kirk and the Resulting Anti-Trans Panic
Anti-transgender speaker and professional grifter Charlie Kirk was publicly assassinated during a Utah Valley University rally. Immediately after speaking to an audience member’s question regarding transgender mass shooting conspiracies, a sniper round was fired from a nearby rooftop that quickly led to his unavoidable death.
A minimal amount of attention is still focused on Tyler Robinson, the accused party, assumed to be Kirk’s killer. Initial rumors stated Robinson was transgender, aligning with mass panic and conspiracy theories that transgender individuals are inherently more dangerous and mentally volatile. Later evidence proved that Robinson is a straight cisgender male from a traditional, conservative family and was dating a transgender individual during the events, who cooperated in the arrest and compilation of evidence against Robinson.
The Act was overwhelmingly supported, passing in the House 400 to 10 and 130 to 4 in the Senate. While public opinion supported the legalization of same-sex marriage in Thailand, the country did not previously recognize any form of same-sex union before the Act.
Other countries, like Vietnam, are expected to follow Thailand’s example in legalizing marriage equality due to growing support for LGBTQIA+ people in Southeast Asia.
With the additions of NSW and South Australia, only the states of Western Australia and Tasmania remain without bans on conversion therapy – which is expected to change soon since both states have already introduced legislation similar to the rest of the country.
While Australia does not have a nationwide ban on conversion therapy, its conversion therapy laws are remarkably different from American bans. US conversion therapy bans only apply to minors; there is no state where conversion therapy is banned against adults, and only the jurisdiction of Washington DC bans both minor and adult-based conversion therapy. All conversion therapy bans in Australia have included adults.
Record Number of Anti-Transgender Bills Passed in the United States
1,020 anti-trans bills were introduced throughout the year, reaching a historic high compared to the 701 in 2024, 615 in 2023 and 174 in 2022. The only state not to introduce an anti-transgender bill this year was Vermont. Out of the 1,020 total bills, 382 failed to pass – but 513 are still actively being considered.
New Zealand Halts New Puberty Blocker Prescriptions for Minors
The ban does not target other forms of transgender-related gender affirming care or discontinue existing prescriptions of puberty blockers like puberty blocker bans in the United States. However, the ban is still problematic since it puts transgender minors in a double-bind – without access to puberty blockers, there can’t be high-quality evidence.
Kim Davis garnered national attention in 2015 as a Kentucky county clerk when she refused to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Davis intentionally and repeatedly denied marriage certificates to same-sex couples within Rowan County, landing her in jail for six days for contempt.
The case continued after 2015 when Davis refused to pay $360,000 in damages to the queer couple she had denied since her original gripe was resolved with Governor Matt Bevin’s executive order to remove county clerk names from marriage certificates. Davis’s legal team argued that the State of Kentucky should be required to pay the $360,000; Matt Bevin and the State of Kentucky argued that it was Davis’s responsibility since she intentionally refused to comply with the law and her responsibility as county clerk.
For now, marriage equality will stand firm as a protected right for all Americans – and Kim Davis is now required to pay the outstanding $360,000.
This week saw a flurry of important cases regarding LGBTQIA+ rights, ranging from same-sex marriage to bullying. Here are the most important highlights regarding recent federal decisions on marriage equality, transgender passports, and anti-transgender bullying at school.
Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Kim Davis Case, Protecting Same-Sex Marriage Rights – for Now
Kim Davis was a Kentucky county clerk elected in 2014 and originally achieved notoriety in 2015. Davis had intentionally denied marriage certificates to queer couples within Rowan County in the aftermath of Obergefell v. Hodges, citing her religious beliefs allowed her to act “under God’s authority.” Quickly after, Davis refused to follow federal orders by the Court of the Eastern District of Kentucky and was held for contempt in jail for six days – which she believed made her a martyr.
After being the laughingstock of the nation in 2015, Davis largely disappeared; she was defeated by Democrat challenger Elwood Caudill Jr. in 2018 and forced to pay $360,000 to the queer couple she had denied. Yet, in her mind, Davis was always the victim, and the Supreme Court’s decision to federally legalize same-sex marriage was a direct attack on the Christian faith.
“I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage. To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience.”
In 2015, newly elected Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin issued an executive order that eliminated the names of county clerks on marriage certificates. Bevin had hoped the decision would ease the concerns of individuals like Davis, who believed their documented name indicated approval of same-sex marriage. It had worked – Davis and her attorneys immediately dismissed their appeals.
Issues followed when Davis refused to pay legal fees to the same-sex couples who had filed lawsuits against her. Davis and her legal team asserted that they had won in a legislative victory via the executive order and therefore were not required to pay damages; Rowan County stated the local government could not pay for the legal damages accrued by a single county clerk. The federal appeals court determined in 2017 that the couples were entitled to compensation.
By 2019, Governor Bevin had made a public statement that the State of Kentucky would not pay Davis’s legal fees, “Only Davis refused to comply with the law. [Taxpayers] should not have to collectively bear the financial responsibility for Davis’s intransigence.” These back-and-forth actions continued for several years until this July. Emboldened by the Supreme Court’s decision to overturnRoe v. Wade and national abortion access, Davis petitioned the Court to consider her case.
Renewed Challenge to Marriage Equality
However, the Supreme Court denied Davis’s petition. For Davis, this means she is now required to pay $360,000 to the same-sex couples affected by her decisions as county clerk without assistance from the State of Kentucky. For the rest of America, this decision preserves the integrity of marriage equality – at least temporarily.
Out of the nine Supreme Court Justices, only Clarence Thomas has vocalized a desire to revisit Obergefell v. Hodges. Immediately after the overturn of Roe v. Wade in 2022, Thomas stated he believed the Court should revisit Obergefell since both cases were decided on similar grounds. Beyond Thomas, the other Justices have not indicated any plans to reconsider marriage equality – and even hard conservative justices like Alito have stated that the Court is not amenable to overturning marriage equality.
Beyond the Supreme Court, nine states have proposed legislation that would create limitations on marriage equality within the last year. Since their victory on abortion, conservatives have rallied against marriage equality as one of their next targets. While same-sex marriage would continue to be federally protected under the Respect for Marriage Act of 2022, an overturn of Obergefell v. Hodges would allow many states to stop recognizing same-sex marriages as equal to their heterosexual counterparts.
Supreme Court Reverses Pause on Trump’s Transgender Passport Order
What the Supreme Court’s Passport Ruling Really Means
The Trump administration had made the decision via executive order extremely early in his second term, which was immediately received with backlash. Kobick and dozens of legal advocates argued that mismatching identity documents unfairly outs transgender people when traveling abroad, putting them in unnecessary danger. Executive Order 14160 (Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship) was faced with several lawsuits, including by the ACLU in Orr v. Trump, and Judge Kobick stated a temporary pause to the executive order was necessary while the lawsuit was settled.
This news is rightfully scary, but these are the key facts to keep in mind:
The Supreme Court reversed Judge Julia Kobick’s pause. The Supreme Court did NOT determine the executive order’s constitutionality nor make any determination regarding the active lawsuits it is battling. Lawsuits via the ACLU and other legal powerhouses are still active and pending.
This decision does NOT prevent transgender people from obtaining passports.Transgender people are still entitled to obtain and renew passports even under the executive order, although these passports will be flawed with inaccurate information based on one’s sex at birth.
All passports submitted or renewed will be documented with the sex one was assigned at birth, regardless of legal, social, or medical transition status. All passports will continue to be issued this way until either the executive order is deemed unconstitutional or revoked by a succeeding President.
Executive Order 14160 impacts more than just transgender Americans. Before Kobick’s pause, federal workers within the Department of State lamented that the order caused excessive bloat to their workload during a time when Elon Musk had taken over the White House to supposedly eliminate bloat. The order requires thorough research into every single passport applicant to determine their sex assigned at birth – including presumably cisgender applicants.
Many legal experts expected Trump to revoke the Biden executive order that allowed Americans to self-identify as nonbinary via an “X” marker on passports. It was unexpected that Trump would immediately revoke transgender Americans’ access to updated passports entirely – the Department of State has allowed transgender people to update their passports since 1992 under George H. W. Bush, when submitted with sufficient documentation of medical transition. Since 1992, the process has evolved as each state has created rules and regulations on updating gender information on birth certificates.
The Supreme Court issued the reversal on the basis that biological sex information does not put transgender people at higher risk – which is why media outlets like Bloomberg have stated the Supreme Court is fundamentally illogical. Flawed gender information limits transgender individuals from moving freely throughout the world and inherently puts us at risk.
In mild-mannered and relatively safe travel destinations, Executive Order 14160 means border agents will be unable to quickly verify the authenticity of transgender visitors. A transgender American visiting the European Union will have sex information that does not make sense based on their current gender expression, which makes a very real passport seem fake or stolen.
In hostile regions, Executive Order 14160 automatically outs individuals as transgender.The Supreme Court, believing that sex information does not put us at risk, does not make it a reality. There are dozens of countries that treat transgender identity as a jailable or killable offense. While transgender travelers are supposed to be safe in internationally designated spaces such as airports, we are not always safe in those spaces.
“Such senseless sidestepping of the obvious equitable outcome has become an unfortunate pattern. So, too, has my own refusal to look the other way when basic principles are selectively discarded. This court has once again paved the way for the immediate infliction of injury without adequate (or, really, any) justification.”
– Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her dissent of the Supreme Court’s decision to reverse Kobick’s pause.
Domestically, ICE agents have been able to deport alleged illegal immigrants without due process. Similarly, there is little way to determine whether a foreign country is truly abiding by international standards when transgender travelers pass through during a layover. Each time an individual flies abroad, they must go through security at each location – even if it’s not their final stop.
From personal experience, it is fully within reason to believe transgender people will be victimized. I’ve been harassed numerous times by TSA agents in large-scale airports like O’Hare, Kennedy, and Hartsfield simply because my crotch did not align correctly with their 3D imaging software – even though my documentation is fully updated.
What Comes Next for Transgender Americans
The decision by the Supreme Court is disheartening, but not all is lost.The ACLU will continue to advance against the Trump administration in Orr v. Trump. It is predicted that the Supreme Court will likely hear the case in January 2026 to determine the fundamental question of whether the executive branch has the overreaching power to make decisions that can easily put citizens at harm.
I advise readers to use caution when applying for passports at this current moment.
If you currently have a passport and are looking to renew,wait until Executive Order 14160 ends unless you absolutely need to leave the United States.
Once Executive Order 14160 ends,immediately renew or obtain a passport if you have the financial means to do so.
If you currently do not have a passport,use the following resources to consider whether contingency plans are needed. Moving is never an easy choice, but having access to a passport, even if inaccurate, allows you to seek refuge if things become dire.
Olentangy Local School District replied, stating such actions would likely be considered bullying, but alternative accommodations could be made to prevent students from interacting with transgender classmates. Parents Defending Education was dissatisfied with this outcome and sought legal action.
Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District lost in the lower courts twice before reaching the Sixth Court of Appeals. At that point, Parents Defending Education misleadingly reframed transgender identity as a purely political issue, and the use of “biological pronouns” did not lead to emotional harm.
This news is upsetting and frustrating. It encapsulates centrist misunderstandings regarding misgendering. Transgender people are fully aware of our “biological truth,” just as we are aware of the complex nature of biology after middle school. Yet, humans are more than mere biology. There has never been any singular individual who has truly fit into every single gender role assigned to their biological sex. The pursuit of fitting into those roles is illogical and a prison – toxic masculinity and toxic femininity create emotionally unhealthy humans and generations of harm.
Conservatives love playing the Devil’s advocate when they state they are simply being objective to biological reality when dismissing transgender identity. Very little of the world is actually objective – society is filled with subjective and relative thinking. After all, money is just pieces of paper that we’ve agreed have meaning; we agree to refer to a woman by a new last name as soon as she’s married, regardless of the name she was born with. Saying “Happy Holidays” on December 23rd is objectively more correct than “Merry Christmas,” but conservatives are the first to put up a fight about hurt feelings.
What is the purpose of harming others? Most transgender people won’t take great offense to be occasionally misgendered or deadnamed while in the early part of their transition. It hurts, but it’s to be expected when others are adjusting to their new identity. It hurts every time we are misgendered, but we internalize it and move on with our lives under the assumption that the misgendering was NOT intentional.
Intentional misgendering is its own distinct problem. From that moment, it is a purposeful act of harming others since we are intentionally using language we know will hurt. What is the point of reminding transgender people of our “biological realities,” if it is not to belittle and demean us? Do you expect us to believe you’re making such comments in kindness and good faith?
It is these same individuals who purposefully misgender transgender people and use pejorative slurs and call us less than human. These acts do not make you appear superior because you are quoting biological truths; they make you morally repulsive because you’re presenting a complete lack of empathy as superiority. These individuals are malicious, not kind, nor truthful.
In another time, several decades ago, these same individuals would have easily argued that certain slurs, such as the n-word, were not necessarily violent when used against Black Americans. Yet, at the end of the day, they are purposefully using a word that they know will cause emotional damage because it is soaked in generations of hate.
The Sixth Circuit Court’s logic regarding Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District is troubling. When releasing their statement, the Court stated the Olentangy Local School District was performing a form of “thought control” by not allowing students to purposely misgender peers. According to the presiding judges, the school district is not allowed to take any “side” regarding the “transgender issue,” and creating any policy limiting students in this capacity is taking a side. As mentioned earlier, Parents Defending Education chose to frame the lawsuit as a freedom of speech issue – and they succeeded, making the outcome significantly darker.
This centrist logic is malicious. There are correct and incorrect sides when people debate human rights; the moderate answer is not inherently the right one. A centrist in the 1960s would have advocated segregation as the morally superior answer to Black Americans requesting equal rights versus enslavement and genocide. When Nazis asked whether Jewish individuals deserved to live in the 1940s, there was a right answer – and it wasn’t a centrist one.
The decision by the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court will NOT affect the majority of Americans. As a circuit court, its decision will only affect states within its jurisdiction (Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Michigan). All schools and universities within those states will have to abide by this ruling unless it is appealed and heard by the Supreme Court.
For the majority of Americans, this post-Halloween week was uneventful and insignificant. Yet, for individuals in New York and Virginia, Tuesday was notable; millions of voters submitted ballots after a long first year of a second Trump presidency. These are the key takeaways to consider regarding the 2025 election.
Wait, There were 2025 Elections? Understanding Off-Year Elections
Regardless of the outcomes, most Americans will see little direct change from the off-year elections unless they live in one of the selected states overseeing a race. Yet, the public is paying attention since 2025’s result will give context for the future of Republicans, Democrats, and third parties.
For individuals living between states of fear and anxiety due to Donald Trump’s second term, use these key takeaways to inspire hope and faith that life will move forward.
Zohran Mamdani officially ran with the Democratic Party, although he self-identifies with the Democratic Socialists of America. Mamdani’s win proves that Democrats need to shift left rather than continue to push the center.
The 2024 presidential election was filled with lukewarm Democrats like Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Nancy Pelosi, who could not sway voters exhausted of the status quo. Until now, Democrats have pushed away self-aligned socialists like Bernie Sanders and AOC because they’re “too radical” – but 2025 might be the proof needed to push them into being the working class’s party again.
While Mamdani’s win is overall good, it is worth appreciating that Cuomo managed to achieve 41.6% of the vote as an Independent. Cuomo lacked the backing of either major party, but collected over 800,000 votes across the city. In the American electoral system, near-wins by third-party candidates like Cuomo are virtually impossible.
Spanberger and Sherrill Lead a Blue Wave for Governorships
As mentioned previously, Tuesday was considered the first test for the GOP after the 2024 election. With Democrats winning in key elections, Donald Trump has even admitted that the GOP failed Tuesday. The GOP must reassess strategies to sway voters by the midterms next year; if they continue on their current trajectory, the GOP will lose both Congress during the midterm elections and the next presidency.
California’s Prop 50: Gerrymandering or Strategic Countermove?
On the other side of the country, California voters cast ballots regarding Proposition 50. Propositions refer to California referendums or initiatives decided entirely by the direct vote of the public. Prop 50, specifically, centers on the temporary suspension of district maps previously drawn by independent parties to use gerrymandered districts for Democratic favor.
Californian voters have sided with Prop 50, to the dismay of CA Republicans. It is critical to remember that Prop 50’s redistricting is temporary; it has a set expiration date when districting will return to nonpartisan groups. Voters also signed up for this – unlike other states undergoing redistricting, California voters were allowed to decline Prop 50 in favor of fair voting practices.
California Republicans have already stated they plan to sue Prop 50 for violating the 14th and 15th Amendments. Yet, in reality, Democrats likely agree with this sentiment and welcome such lawsuits – since those very lawsuits would also tear down the unconstitutional redistricting occurring in conservative states.
Currently, California is the only Democratic state to propose redistricting. While most voters believe gerrymandering is wrong and undemocratic, the GOP has used party loyalty to blur their values. On its own, California cannot fully counteract Republican redistricting by 2026 – but they don’t necessarily need to. With the 2025 election completed, the rigging by the GOP may not be enough to keep their advantage during midterms.
Mississippi Election Breaks a 13-Year GOP Supermajority
Similar to Georgia, Mississippi is assumed to be a strong Republican state where Democrats have zero chance of creating meaningful change. Yet, Georgia surprised the world in 2020 by voting for Joe Biden over Donald Trump – causing a spark of outrage amongst conservatives who cried fake news and voter fraud since it was so unbelievable that Georgia could vote left.
Mississippi still maintains a conservative majority, but the recent election allowed Democrats to flip three GOP seats. While most bills are passed with a simple majority vote, there are some circumstances that require a two-thirds vote that the Georgia GOP can no longer force without Democrat support. Overall, Americans want change – which should give us faith that we can survive.
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.
