Trans Solidarity Project

Category: News

  • Astonishing Court Decisions Threaten the Future of LGBTQ Freedom

    Astonishing Court Decisions Threaten the Future of LGBTQ Freedom

    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

    In an unforeseen turn of events, the Supreme Court declined to review Kim Davis v. David Ermold et al. The case held the potential to overturn Americans’ right to marriage equality since it centered around the ability of court officials to deny marriage certificates to same-sex couples based on religious belief. 

    Who Is Kim Davis and Why Her Case Still Matters

    Davis and conservative allies were hopeful that the Supreme Court would oversee the case, paving the way to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges and the Respect for Marriage Act. In her petition to the Court, Davis’s legal team cited the previous 2010 decision in Snyder v. Phelps to defend the Westboro Baptist Church’s ability to picket a military funeral under the First Amendment.

    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.”

    – Kim Davis regarding her position as an elected county clerk post-Obergefell.

    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 overturn Roe 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

    The Supreme Court has officially reversed the decision by federal Judge Julia Kobick of Massachusetts, which had paused the Trump administration’s requirement that transgender Americans use passports based on the sex assigned at birth, regardless of current legal or medical documentation.

    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.

    Did you know?

    It wasn’t until 1976 that US passports even obtained sex or gender information. That’s nearly two hundred years!

    Why This Ruling Endangers Transgender Travelers

    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.
    TransLash
    Trans Solidarity Project
    Rainbow Railroad
    Help Me Leave
    On Fleeing

    Federal Appeals Court Rules Intentional Misgendering Isn’t Bullying

    The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that purposeful and repeated misgendering of transgender students by peers does not constitute bullying or harassment. The case was brought by the far-right conservative group Parents Defending Education, which contacted the Olentangy Local School District in 2023 to ask whether purposeful misgendering was allowed since they viewed it as integral to their religious practices.

    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.

    Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District’s current outcome is similar to the Supreme Court’s decision to end the pause on Executive Order 14160. To these judges, stating “objective biological reality” does not constitute genuine 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.

    Most people are aware that words can hurt immensely. In reality, harsh words can lead people to suicide and mass violence. Transgender youth attempt suicide at a disproportionately high rate compared to their cisgender peers when they lack family and community support – and the decision by the Sixth Court of Appeals will directly contribute towards those rates. How many lives will have been taken in anguish before the Court regrets this decision?

    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.

  • 2025 Elections Explained: Key Wins and Why It Matters Now

    2025 Elections Explained: Key Wins and Why It Matters Now

    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

    2024 was a presidential election, given monumental importance as the world watched to find out who would be America’s next leader. 2026 will be midterms – the decisive midpoint between presidential elections, when Congress has the opportunity to flip party control. 2025 is neither.

    As an off-year election year, 2025 only had a handful of races. Most elections will occur next year during the midterm cycle; off-year elections are traditionally forgettable since their outcomes affect few people. Despite this, these off-year races proved to be especially important: after a full year of Donald Trump’s second term, it is the first litmus test to predict the 2026 and 2028 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 Becomes NYC Mayor

    Donald Trump has spent months insulting Zohran Mamdani, threatening to illegally arrest and deport him if he successfully won the New York City mayorship. In the midst of Trump’s undemocratic military actions against American cities, Trump has sworn to defund NYC upon Mamdani’s victory.

    Compared to every other race in this election, Mamdani’s was the most visible. In part, Trump’s ire gave Mamdani media attention he may not have otherwise achieved – when the majority of Americans disapprove of Trump, being Trump’s enemy can win voters over. 

    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.

    Notably, Mamdani will also become New York City’s first Muslim and South Asian mayor. At the time of this article’s publication, Mamdani has achieved 50.4% of the votes – which totals to 1,036,000 votes. He decisively beat the previous New York governor, Andrew Cuomo, who left office in 2021 following numerous sexual misconduct allegations. Cuomo is a traditional Democrat centrist, forced to run Independent when he lost party favor to Mamdani.

    There are two key points regarding Mamdani’s mayoral victory:

    • Firstly, Zohran Mamdani’s ascent to mayor of NYC is a strong step towards a left Democratic Party. Media outlets like NPR, Politico, and Time Magazine are already calling Cuomo’s defeat the end of the previous era due to the signaled lack of support his peers now have amongst the public. New York City voted for a self-identified socialist; America is finally ready for a change that old-school Democrats like Cuomo can’t provide.
    • 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

    Abigail Spanberger achieved 57.2% of the vote in Virginia’s gubernatorial race, becoming the state’s first female governor. Along with Mamdani’s win in NYC and Mikie Sherrill’s victory for New Jersey governor, Democrats made a clean sweep along the East Coast.

    Most would assume Virginia is a strong conservative state – but Spanberger won with a larger gap than Mamdani and Cuomo. She is set to succeed Glenn Youngkin, the previous Republican governor who is considered a possible contender for the 2028 presidency. Nearly single Virginia county shifted left compared to last year’s elections.

    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.

    While Republicans bellyache over the undemocratic and unconstitutional nature of gerrymandering, Prop 50 is the direct response to states like Texas, which began redistricting before California at Donald Trump’s request to rig the 2026 election by flipping additional seats towards the GOP. 

    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

    The final takeaway from the 2025 off-year elections centers in the Deep South, where Mississippi managed to break a 13-year-long 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.

    Want to learn more? Check out these sources.

    NPR
    New York Times
    PBS
    CBS
  • Heritage Foundation uses disinformation to Label Transgender People Terrorists

    Heritage Foundation uses disinformation to Label Transgender People Terrorists

    Last week, The Heritage Foundation released advice urging the United States government to classify all transgender individuals as domestic terrorists. On September 18th, independent journalist Ken Klippenstein stated that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is considering a proposal to categorize transgender people as under “Transgender Ideology-Inspired Violent Extremism (TIVE).” This comes in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s public assassination, the FCC censoring media outlets like Jimmy Kimmel, and Donald Trump using Kirk to further divide the nation.

    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.

    What exactly is The Heritage Foundation?

    “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.”

    Despite overwhelming evidence that transgender people do not correlate with violent behaviors, the Trump administration seeks to use TIVE to further escalate their war against transgender people – especially in the aftermath of Kirk. Regarding the matter, California state senator Scott Wiener stated, “The obsession with tying trans people to shootings is vile and dangerous. First they try to say the shooter might be trans, and WSJ amplifies that lie. Once that fell apart, they pivot to ‘he lived with a trans person.’ Even if true, who cares? It’s McCarthyism and truly disgusting.”

    “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.

  • Do Conservatives Actually Deserve Empathy? Kirk, Exposed.

    Do Conservatives Actually Deserve Empathy? Kirk, Exposed.

    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?

    Kirk: What Happened?

    As a media personality, Charlie Kirk is grouped with similar far-right types such as Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, Nick Fuentes, and Steven Crowder. He was a professional grifter, using rage-bait content to increase views – like all conservative personalities, Kirk capitalized on outrage culture since angry viewers boost views regardless of journalism quality or facts.

    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.

    Conservative conspiracy theorists have been pushing their latest favorite narrative: transgender people are mentally unstable, emotionally dysregulated, and present an unprecedented risk to violence. This narrative was largely disregarded until last month when transgender woman Robin Westman committed a shooting in a Minneapolis Catholic school, which the Trump administration has used to consider an illegal ban to bar all transgender people from owning firearms.

    Kirk himself had been a fan of the theory – this conversation was essentially his final words before Robinson fired. Kirk and conservative personalities don’t care about reality, purposely ignoring established research that proves cisgender men exactly like Kirk make up the overwhelming majority of mass shooters compared to the fraction of a percent that transgender people have committed.

    Tyler Robinson is NOT transgender. He is a straight cisgender male who grew up in a very traditional, conservative family. It is currently believed that Robinson’s partner IS transgender, but they had zero part in Robinson’s crime and were horrified by Robinson’s actions. …And even if they hadn’t, who cares, and why does it matter? Everyone knows a transgender person (whether you’re aware of it or not), but it doesn’t make you more likely to be a murderer.

    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.

    Instead, Trump and his allies hope to use mass confusion to tighten their grip on a crumbling democracy. Matt Forney, in response to Kirk’s assassination, called it America’s “Reichstag moment.” For readers unaware of the Reichstag, it’s attributed as the crucial moment when the Nazi Party took control of Germany by utilizing the recent crisis to their advantage.  Every American, regardless of political affiliation, has an opinion on Charlie Kirk’s murder – but conservatives are outraged that the American left lacks empathy, some of whom are even celebrating Kirk’s demise. Workers of various fields have been fired for anti-Kirk statements, and tourists have been denied entry into the United States for expressing negative views of Kirk.

    Do Fascists Deserve Empathy?

    Short answer, no.

    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.

    Kirk’s death is hardly the first time that conservatives have pulled this charade. The same song and dance was performed when Americans failed to feel sorry for Trump’s so-called assassination attempt. At the same time, conservatives were publicly gleeful when someone broke into Nancy Pelosi’s home to batter her husband; they’ve expressed adoration of actual mass murderers like Kyle Rittenhouse; and mere months ago, conservatives were ecstatic about the idea of Latinos being fed to wild alligators at their latest detention center. In response to others lacking sympathy for Kirk, conservatives send death threats and hateful rhetoric.

    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.

  • Conversion Therapy Nationwide: A Frightening Possibility

    Conversion Therapy Nationwide: A Frightening Possibility

    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?

    Conversion therapy is a pseudoscientific practice of changing one’s sexual orientation or gender identity through aversion therapy, shock therapy, guilt, shame, and other techniques to convince their patients they are “cured” into being cisgender heterosexual. It has existed in some fashion since Sigmund Freud used his personal brand of psychoanalysis to argue queerness was the result of arrested development and childhood trauma – in its earliest years, conversion therapy used lobotomies and even testicular surgery.

    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. 

    In 2013, Exodus International (a massive umbrella group for conversion therapy organizations) shut down after 40 years of operation when its president, Alan Chambers, admitted to being queer and stated it was impossible to actually change one’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

    Learn more about the history of conversion therapy

    History Channel
    Human Rights Campaign
    National Museum of American History

    There are zero jurisdictions in the United States that ban conversion therapy entirely. In every state, from California to Florida, consenting adults can undergo conversion therapy – although the practice isn’t recommended since conversion therapy is denounced by all major medical and mental health agencies. 27 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and over 100 separate cities have banned the use of conversion therapy and related use of government funding on minors.

    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.

    Until this point, lower courts have held Colorado’s law to be a constitutional regulation of professional conduct. But on the other side of the country, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit created a split regarding local conversion therapy bans in Florida.

    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.”

    Earlier this year, the Supreme Court decided in United States v. Skrmetti that individual states have the right to ban gender-affirming healthcare access to minors just as states have the right to ban abortion access. By that logic, states should wholly have the right to ban conversion therapy against minors – after all, these laws do not pertain to conversion therapy on adults or unlicensed religious counselors or clergy. Based on the logic behind United States v. Skrmetti, states should overwhelmingly have the right to regulate this practice. 

    That doesn’t mean the Supreme Court will side with Colorado, though, since the GOP cares little for being seen as hypocrites. Kaley Chiles is backed by the Alliance Defending Freedom, the far-right legal group behind many high-profile cases, arguing that conversion therapy bans violate one’s freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services is attempting to rebrand conversion therapy as “exploration therapy” amidst the administration’s countless attacks on LGBTQIA+ rights.

    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.”

  • Is America Actually Becoming More Conservative?

    Is America Actually Becoming More Conservative?

    Compared to other world powers like Europe, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Japan, the United States falls short of several indicators of success. These failings are why many are reconsidering the United States’ status as a “first world” country or world power, since these aspects place American society more closely with developing nations with severe inequalities. But why? And why does it feel like the US is becoming more conservative?

    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.

    In reality, it’s America that has changed; Fox News would blow a gasket if politicians proposed massive liberal reforms like the New Deal today. Around the time of the Reagan administration, America changed its perspective on the government’s role in helping its citizens – rather than the government actively creating programs to uplift those in poverty and other unfortunate circumstances, these programs were labeled as ‘handouts’ that the undeserving poor didn’t earn, compared to the new tax cuts corporations and the wealthy were receiving.

    At some point in the last 100 years, Americans warped their sense of welfare. As unbelievable as it may sound, there was a time when the majority of Americans believed the government had a duty to provide welfare because there was a moral duty to help those in need. Welfare and charity weren’t always deemed hand-outs; folks weren’t seen as failures for using the system, and welfare was a right that every American could feel confident in. Poverty and struggle were not the failing of the individual, but the result of a greater society and the government failing. For the larger world, this reality still exists.

    Case Study: Canada & Universal Healthcare

    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.

    According to the Commonwealth Fund, 73 out of 195 countries have universal healthcare – which comes out to 69% of the world’s population. These countries range from Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Singapore, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Armenia.

    Capitalist conservatives are quick to point out that universal healthcare isn’t perfect, commonly bogged down with long wait times to receive specialized care. These are the same folks who argue the United States has better doctors, service options, and general wellness due to capitalism forcing providers to compete – but these are all false. The United States has possibly the worst healthcare and overall health in the global north, evidenced by high disease rates, infant and maternal mortality, low life expectancy, and poor pollution.

    NOT SO FUN FACTS:

    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).

    Heart disease makes up 20% of all deaths in the United States!

    5.4 infants die per 1,000 live births in the United States, which is double compared to countries such as Canada (3.8) and Japan (2.6).

    Case Study: Germany & Bürgergeld

    Since 2023, Germany has provided Bürgergeld (translated as Citizen’s Benefit), which provides a basic income to replace previous unemployment programs. All job-seeking adults in Germany are eligible as long as they maintain job-seeking requirements and coordinate with Jobcenter, providing them with €502 per month in addition to rent and energy help. At their core, all unemployment programs are meant to keep working adults afloat while in-between jobs so that they do not sink into crisis.

    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.

    REALITY CHECK:

    Politicians hammer on the reality that the American middle class is shrinking. And it’s true – the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. According to the Pew Research Center, this has been occurring for the past five decades… which is ironically the same amount of time since Ronald Reagan and his “revolutionary” economics changed America.

    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.

    Case STudy: India & Gurdwaras

    Technically, Indian gurdwaras aren’t government programs – they’re nonprofit charities that serve all Indians regardless of faith, although they’re operated out of the Sikh tenet of kindness. These temples can overwhelmingly serve their communities through donations and volunteers. Gurdwaras offer food, shelter, and meeting spaces, no matter sex, age, religion, or sexuality. They’re what we wish US homeless shelters could be.

    In the US, homeless shelters rely on government funding because Americans aren’t willing to donate money to these agencies. For most, donating would be akin to enabling the homeless. If one’s wealth and life circumstances are determined by morality, then the homeless are being punished. We struggle with empathy, a basic aspect of humanity that some individuals want to present as radical and wrong. If American shelters are unable to obtain enough government funding, they’re forced to shut down – even if there are still homeless individuals in the area that are then pushed onto the streets. In comparison, Indian gurdwaras use donations and volunteers because they have a surplus; they don’t need government assistance to provide care.

    To add on top of this, the United States is becoming increasingly hostile to homeless populations. Americans feel entitled to not see those in poverty, laws and orders are being pushed to arrest homeless individuals for existing as homeless in public, even when there are no places for them to go.

    Why are Americans content with mediocrity?

    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.

  • The Most Popular Democrats to Consider the 2028 Presidency

    The Most Popular Democrats to Consider the 2028 Presidency

    Last week, I covered the most popular Republicans eyeing the 2028 presidency as well as the barriers they’ll likely face on the campaign trail. These are the top Democrats being considered, with additional input on their chances against candidates like JD Vance and Marco Rubio. As mentioned previously, it may seem early to be thinking about the next presidential election – but this is exactly the time when potential candidates start hitting hot states to measure their ability to compete. Thinking about the 2028 election now also inspires hope for the future.

    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.

    California Governor Newsom originally came from San Francisco during the COVID-19 pandemic, which he was criticized for, leading to a recall election that he barely won in 2021. In 2023, Newsom launched his own PAC (titled “Campaign for Democracy”) to take on “authoritarian leaders,” which led the Associated Press to believe he’s likely to run for president in 2028.

    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 Harris interviewed 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.

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

    Sitting next to Bernie Sanders, AOC is one of the most left-leaning Democratic candidates for 2028. And unlike previous elections, 2028 will be the first time AOC will be eligible to run due to her young age. She embodies many of the ideals that the working class of America actually wants, which is why young people love her so much alongside Bernie. They’re against mega-corporation tax cuts, advocating for equality, universal healthcare coverage, affordable college, greater labor rights, and other topics the average American takes great interest in.

    So why is there so much hate for AOC and Bernie Sanders? After all, Bernie has tried to run for the presidency twice and fallen short. The short answer (as conspiratorial as it sounds) is that capitalism motivates companies and media reporters to demonize AOC and Sanders since they directly benefit from infringing on the working class. The United States has a long history condemning all forms of socialism and communism out of patriotic fervor – and while AOC and Sanders are quick to point out their form of socialism is aligned with the democratic version present in Europe rather than Cuba, Russia, and North Korea, there’s a lot of funding put into labeling them as lunatic socialists and misrepresenting the ideas behind the Democratic Socialist Party of America.

    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].”

    Unlike other Democrats, Beshear can appeal to working-class Americans across the political spectrum. He’s offered advice in the past to his colleagues leading up to the 2024 election, but they ignored him. Beshear is a hard advocate for LGBTQIA+ rights, condemning Democrats who have tossed aside transgender issues as “too controversial” because it’s that mentality that cost them both the presidency and Congress. Appealing to moderates and sticking up for LGBTQIA+ rights aren’t an “either-or” situation. He uses Biblical scripture to defend his vetoes against discriminatory laws created by the Kentucky legislature, coming across as genuinely for the working class in a time when Democrats are their furthest allies.

    Bernie Sanders

    In 2016, Sanders came second to Hilary Clinton before she ultimately lost to Donald Trump; in 2020, Sanders came up in second against Joe Biden. He identifies as an independent and not quite a Democrat, but his beef with the Democratic Party is what helped him get to second place. Sanders’s campaign was fueled by grassroots donations rather than megacorporate donors, allowing him to rally against capitalism’s many tyrannies that prevent working-class policies like universal healthcare and affordable college. In the end, the Democrats still refused to support Bernie in favor of centrist candidates like Clinton, Biden, and Harris.

    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.”

    He announced his reelection campaign for a third term as governor back in June, but folks don’t believe his claim that he’s not eyeing the presidency. The last president to serve from Illinois was Barack Obama, and Pritzker has used Trump’s second term to garner attention as one of his main opponents. He gave harbor to Texas Democrats who sought to defend their state from biased redistricting. Pritzker has signed numerous bills into law that establish Illinois as a sanctuary state for anyone to come seeking abortion, gender-affirming care, and protection from ICE deportation. Back in 2024, Pritzker was considered as one of the finalists for Harris’s running mate before she went with Tim Walz of Minnesota.

    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.

    Honorable Mentions

    Josh Green

    Ro Khanna

    Mark Kelly

    Cory Booker

    Ruben Gallego

    Andrew Cuomo

    Jon Ossoff

    Raphael Warnock

  • 2028: The Most Popular Republicans to Consider the Presidency

    2028: The Most Popular Republicans to Consider the Presidency

    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.

    Trump is notoriously a poor-tempered man, obsessed with his public image, and is infamous for how quickly he is to throw out demeaning insults when he feels he has been slighted. The Republican Party has devoted itself to him, for better and worse, and there are visible inner-party lines between MAGA devotees, traditional Republicans, Elon-affiliated corpos, the far-right, and moderates. Altogether, the GOP is exceedingly fractured. However, Trump’s official stamp of approval on a candidate still holds massive weight because politicians fear facing his disapproval.

    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.

    Secondly, the next GOP candidate has to commit to cleaning up Trump’s mess. Trump is following the prophecy given by political scientists who warned that every other president to serve a second non-consecutive term ruined their legacy. Trump’s approval rate is already plummeting just 200 days in office, sitting currently at 53%. Inflation continues to rise, and stocks and trade are suffering due to economic instability caused by Trump’s tariff threats. The Latino population that voted for him is prosecuted by ICE, regardless of whether they are US citizens, as they watch MAGA create Alligator Alcatraz. Trump threatens land war with long-time allies and fails to bring about the peace he promised between Russia and Ukraine, as well as Israel and Palestine. He refuses to publish the Epstein files that he campaigned for years on. Regret is seizing the general population as moderates remember how much they hated Trump’s first term. Trump’s image deteriorates as the world remembers his increasing age and health issues, despite how much Trump pointed out that Biden’s age made him unable to lead the country. And all of these will exponentially worsen – we are only 200 days into Trump’s term.

    Donald Trump (Again)

    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.

    The 22nd Amendment came about in 1951, adding explicit limitations on the amount of time a president can serve in office to the United States Constitution. It’s a hard rule: No one can serve more than two full terms as president. No person of sound mind or clean conscience would even consider testing it. Donald Trump is not a traditional president. His career has thrived off negative attention – and he’s openly considered breaking the Constitution to serve a third term. 

    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.

    Ramaswamy also has a strong personality, but voters disliked his debate style and viewed him as too aggressive during the last campaign cycle. He’s vocal about his positions against “COVIDism,” critical race theory, abortion, and “gender ideology” – and he lost major points when he declared he would raise the voting age to 25 and sought to end birthright citizenship. Due to similar business ventures, Ramaswamy benefits from the same exploitative work visa programs as Musk, which is why their politics get along so well. However, Ramaswamy and Musk’s politics seek to bring in as much cheap foreign labor as possible irk traditional conservatives against immigration.

    Marco Rubio

    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.

    Greg Abbott

    Texas Governor Greg Abbott constantly hits national headlines due to Texas’s constant troubles – like natural disasters, poor energy systems, immigration, abortion laws, and restrictions on gender-affirming care. Most recently, Abbott has gained attention from Texas Democrats leaving the House to prevent deep partisan gerrymandering.

    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.

    Honorable Mentions

    Donald Trump Jr.

    Steve Bannon

    Ted Cruz

    Tulsi Gabbard

    Matt Gaetz

    Rand Paul

    Brian Kemp

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

    Kristi Noem

    Sarah Huckabee Sanders

  • Texas Dems Flee State in Unusual Move… Is Democracy in Jeopardy?

    Texas Dems Flee State in Unusual Move… Is Democracy in Jeopardy?

    In the midst of Trump-aligned Republicans trying to forcibly redistrict Texas congressional lines early to influence the 2026 midterm elections, Texas Democrats have deserted the state House of Representatives. Republicans are furious, levying daily fines and ordering the arrest of all the vacant representatives. From the outside, it all seems surreal – what’s the point of all this?

    Trump’s Redistricting Gambit Is Poison for Blue State Republicans

    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.

  • The Olympic Transgender Ban Is Political, Not Scientific

    The Olympic Transgender Ban Is Political, Not Scientific

    In order to comply in advance to Donald Trump’s anti-transgender agenda, the United States Olympic Committee and United States Paralympic Committee officially updated their rules to ban transgender athletes from competing in upcoming events. More to the point, the committees have required all sports to force all transgender individuals to compete in men’s divisions, regardless of international standards and nearly a century of science. Despite their anti-transgender reporting streak, even the New York Times has stated the committees’ statements are rough at best, stating the entire ban is one single “short, vaguely worded paragraph.”

    Interested in the current legal landscape of sports? Check this post and scroll to the sports section.

    Republicans have centered transgender issues as core to their political platform throughout Trump’s regime. Before the 2016 election, Americans were unconcerned about trans issues, bathroom politics, and “fairness in sports” – but the GOP has invested millions of dollars into propaganda, paying for biased political science, running constant campaigns, and positioning transgender existence as morally wrong. Now, Americans are divided. 

    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.

    The decision by the US Olympic and Paralympic Committees ONLY affects prospective Americans. Despite what Donald Trump claims, the United States has zero authority regarding the rules of these international events. The US can attempt to complicate the process for international transgender competitors entering the country for the upcoming games, but they have already been met with domestic roadblocks and international scorn.

    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.

    What does science say? Honestly, not much. Until 2020, there was very little research on the subject – and then, a flood of research began coming out as the GOP invested money into pushing their agenda. We know for a fact that before the start of puberty (approximately ages 11 to 12), there are zero competitive advantages based on biological sex. There aren’t enough sex hormones or bodily differences to make significant impacts on performance. Complete bans on transgender athletes, including those who transitioned in childhood, don’t make sense – until you account for the fact that the GOP is forcing transgender minors to go through biological puberty by banning gender-affirming care like puberty blockers. It should also be noted that research still shows “biological advantages” obtained during natal puberty are still contested by non-GOP research publishers.

    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.

    It is worth mentioning that inclusion in sports is important. Alongside the military, professional sports represent societal acceptance. For the Armed Forces, inclusion (and exclusion) of varying identities, religions, and political beliefs melds us together. Conservatives are ironically quite wrong and misunderstand the impact military service has in opening closed minds, similar to college education, which is why the race-based desegregation of the United States military was so important in desegregating everything later, and why the transgender ban on service members is devastating. 

    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.”