Trans Solidarity Project

Category: News

Stay informed on the latest developments affecting transgender communities across the United States and around the world. This section covers legislation, healthcare policy, court rulings, education, and community news with context and analysis centered on trans voices and lived experiences.

  • The 2026 Iran War: Escalation, Ceasefire, and Public Backlash

    The 2026 Iran War: Escalation, Ceasefire, and Public Backlash

    A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about the 2026 Iran War while visiting Vietnam. Conflict erupted after the United States and Israel attacked Iran via wide-ranging missile strikes to kill Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei on February 28.

    Conflict escalated, Iran pushing back by launching missile strikes on Israel and in the Gulf. Human Rights Activists in Iran report that at least 3,530 people have been killed in Iran so far, including 1,606 civilians. The United States has targeted nuclear, oil, and gas sites as well as a girls’ school in southern Iran.

    Don’t Fall Behind on Current Events

    Being informed about the latest news makes for better activists. Check our catalogue and subscribe for updates.

    US-Israeli strikes have purposely targeted schools, residential homes, commercial buildings, medical centers, and humanitarian buildings. Further, UNESCO has stated concern regarding ongoing war damage to World Heritage sites such as Golestan Palace, Azadi Sport Complex, Falak-ol-Aflak, Naqsh-e Jahan Square, Chehel Sotoun, Ali Qapu, the Shah Mosque, Jameh Mosque, and Teymouri Hall.

    It is believed that the US and Israeli regimes chose to attack Iran now since it has been weakened from the Israel-Hamas War and the 12-Day War. While Trump claims Operation Epic Fury is to resolve tensions in the Middle East, the American public strongly views the conflict unfavorably, and similar to previous US involvement to promote corporate interests.

    Trump previously stated he wanted to personally choose Iran’s next Supreme Leader after the assassination of Ali Hosseini Khamenei. Unfortunately for Trump, Mojtaba Hosseini Khamenei, Ali’s second son, has assumed the position as Iran’s third Supreme Leader. Majtaba holds aggressive anti-Western stances and has prioritized Iranian retaliation for US-Israeli aggression and the murder of his father.

    Leading up to Easter, Trump made numerous threats and set a 48-hour deadline for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz – which accounts for 20% of the world’s oil shipping.

    Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP.

    – @realDonaldTrump, April 05, 2026 8:03 AM

    A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will. However, now that we have Complete and Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less radicalized minds prevail, maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen, WHO KNOWS? We will find out tonight, one of the most important moments in the long and complex history of the World. 47 years of extortion, corruption, and death, will finally end. God Bless the Great People of Iran!

    – @realDonaldTrump, April 07, 2026 8:06 AM

    On April 7, Trump announced that a two-week ceasefire agreement had been made between the United States and Iran. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has corroborated these claims.

    Trump stated the strike suspension is contingent on Iran allowing for the “complete, immediate, and safe opening” of the Strait. Iran has agreed to a ceasefire under the condition that “attacks against Iran are halted.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has supported Trump’s ceasefire, but elaborated that a “ceasefire does not include Lebanon.”

    A nation that once styled itself as a force for stability around the globe is now shaking the foundations of the international order. A president who has seemingly relished shattering norms and traditions in domestic politics is now doing the same on the world stage.

    – Anthony Zurcher, BBC

    Both the United States and Iran have claimed “total and complete victory.” Trump asserts an American-based victory due to the reopening of the Strait, which Iran had targeted and closed amid US aggression since February. Iran argues they are victorious due to the US agreeing to its 10-point plan and halting current attacks.

    After the initial announcement, stock prices finally plummeted 15%, and oil fell below $95 per barrel after hitting its previous high. However, political analysts have been wary of the proposed ceasefire and warn that the conflict is likely not over due to Trump’s volatile personality.

    Can a President Declare War? Understanding US War Powers

    Officially, the President of the United States cannot formally declare war and cannot initiate war without explicit congressional approval. That authority is under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which states the authority to declare war is explicitly vested in Congress.

    However, the President serves as Commander-in-Chief, granting him use of the United States military “to respond to direct threats or emergencies.” That has a loose interpretation, and most presidents have used it to incite war without Congressional approval.

    Congress has only officially declared war 11 times throughout all of US history: 

    • War of 1812
    • Mexican-American War [1846]
    • Spanish-American War [1898]
    • World War 1, against Germany [1917]
    • World War 1, against Austria-Hungary [1917]
    • World War 2, against Japan [1941]
    • World War 2, against Germany [1941]
    • World War 2, against Italy [1941]
    • World War 2, against Bulgaria [1942]
    • World War 2, against Hungary [1942]
    • World War 2, against Romania [1942]

    While the last time the United States officially declared war was in 1942, Congress has frequently “authorized” (AUMF) military actions to collaborate with the Commander-in-Chief. Authorization has been required since the passage of the War Powers Act of 1973, mandating that all deployed troops be withdrawn within 60 to 90 days unless approved by Congress.

    In plain terms, the President cannot deploy troops for more than 90 days without Congressional approval. Military actions that do not require troop deployment, such as missile strikes, do not fall under this restriction. 

    It’s not exactly clear when Trump began troop deployment in Iran, although troops have certainly been deployed and are subject to the War Powers Act. Robert Marzan, Nicole Amor, Noah Tietjens, Declan Coady, Jeffrey O’Brien, and Cody Khork were killed on March 1, 2026, at the Port of Shuaiba, following a massive military build-up of air, naval, and missile defense assets in the Middle East in late January. Thus, the clock is ticking – troops won’t be withdrawn, and deployment will still be considered active regardless of the ceasefire.

    Genocide Rhetoric and International Law Violations

    The United Nations has already begun characterizing US attacks on Iran as war crimes under the Rome Statute. Trump’s Easter-weekend tirade took many by surprise due to how openly genocidal his comments were. Regardless of partisan divide, the public views mass killings of civilians unfavorably.

    Many Congressional representatives have vocalized dissent, such as Sarah McBride. McBride made a statement that Trump’s remarks were “horrifying, illegal, and genocidal,” continuing that “a president cannot be allowed to threaten genocide with the United States military.”

    Old-school politicians usually gripe that Trump uses far too much dirty language – prior to 2016, constant name-calling wasn’t the norm for presidential candidates. But everyone has been taken aback at how brutal Trump’s remarks have been. “A whole civilization” implies the suffering and murder of innocent civilians – which is what turned the American public against the government during the Vietnam War once Americans became aware of ongoing campaigns. 

    Trump isn’t just threatening trained military personnel, he is threatening innocent men, women, and children.

    The 25th Amendment: Could Trump Be Removed?

    The 25th Amendment was ratified in 1967 to allow a forcible transfer of power if the vice president and majority of the Cabinet declare the sitting president unfit. It was created due to concerns that future presidents would be unwilling or unable to step down due to health issues, a rising concern that comes with elderly politicians.

    The 25th Amendment has never been used to remove a president against their will, although its language clearly allows it. More importantly, the 25th Amendment requires approval from Vice President JD Vance and Trump’s personally selected Congressional Cabinet – who are far too loyal to use the 25th Amendment. Trump chose Vance over Pence, amongst many in his cabinet, based on personal loyalty.

    Donald Trump has lost his mind and his threats to wipe out the Iranian people should be taken seriously. He’s out of control and his cabinet and those around him must be loyal to the constitution and invoke the 25 amendment. He must be removed.

    – Representative Robert Garcia

    It’s unlikely (i.e. nearly impossible) that the 25th Amendment will be enacted. It is likely that Trump will face another impeachment, which he has already declared will happen if Democrats overturn the upcoming midterms.

    Republican leadership is currently silent and refuses to give any worthwhile remarks regarding Trump’s comments. The White House has dismissed humanitarian concerns as purely partisan and Trump’s rhetoric is necessary as part of his negotiating strategy.

    Still, Republicans barely hold a majority in Congress. The GOP has struggled to remain unified even under Trump, as evidenced by their difficulties establishing a Speaker of the House. Just a few dissenting Republicans are all that is currently needed to throw things into disarray, which is why Congress is struggling to pass budgets despite a GOP majority.

    Republican politicians refuse to hold accountability. Even in my congressional district, my representative has made numerous statements that the sole reason DHS and other programs are not being funded is because of Democrats – but his comment section is always ratioed with people frustrated that he won’t address the elephant in the room: he’s a Republican, and Republicans control both the Senate and House. He and his party hold the power but want to point fingers.

    Of course, it’s also (frustratingly) hypocritical. Politicians rant that they can’t get anything done because the other side is blocking them. It’s not new and I’ve seen both Democrats and Republicans do this my entire life – it’s part of US politics. 

    Are Trump’s remarks illegal? Maybe, but it’s unlikely anything will come out of it for now. Previously, George W. Bush faced a serious lawsuit over the use of military personnel to invade Iraq in 2003, but the US Court of Appeals dismissed the case under the basis that there was not enough evidence that it was purposely genocidal on Bush’s part. That can’t be said here, especially since Trump openly published very clearly genocidal language on his official social media. 

    What Does a Ceasefire Actually Mean?

    Ceasefires are agreements between multiple opposing sides to suspend aggressive actions. They’re meant to be binding, but they’re still only temporary.

    According to the United Nations, ceasefires traditionally apply to an entire geographical area within a conflict – despite what Israel says about Lebanon. In fact, Pakistan has explicitly said Lebanon IS part of the ceasefire.

    Pakistan invited Iran and the United States for a mediation delegation. Trump states reopening the Strait of Hormuz is the key condition for the United States; Iran has stated their key requirement is an end of hostilities by the United States.

    Both the United States and Iran have claimed victory, but how? In reality, they’re both “tied” – Iran responded to aggression and it makes sense that their sense of “winning” is tied to an end of current aggression. However, Trump’s requirement and the Strait being reopened… doesn’t make sense. Prior to the February US-Israeli strikes, the Strait was open and functioning as intended; Iran responded by occupying and restricting the Strait. 

    It’s a pretty defunct “victory” requirement. The only thing Trump has accomplished was killing Ali Hosseini Khamenei, but the new Supreme Leader is even more opposed to the United States.

    What Do Americans Actually Think About the Iran War?

    CNN previously released a poll in early March to visualize Americans’ approval of the Iran War. Just 32% of Americans approved of US missile strikes on Iran compared to 59% that vocalized disapproval. Reuters and Ipsos recently released a new poll illustrating current views.

    56% of Americans believe US military involvement in Iran will negatively impact their own financial security. 86% stated they are worried that the risk to American military personnel will worsen. Just 21% of Americans believe Trump’s military action will improve Iranian quality of life or stability in the Middle East.

    Reuters/Ipsos concluded that Americans currently have bleak views on the Iran War. The poll was conducted at the end of March and released prior to the current ceasefire, but it is important to note it is uncertain whether the ceasefire will hold.

    Similarly, Donald Trump’s polls continue to plummet. As of April 4, Trump holds a 57% disapproval rate and 39% approval rate. Trump has held a negative net approval rating since March 10, 2025, right before he announced his massive tariff plan.

    Taking Action: What You Can Do Right Now

    Everyone can do something. Not everyone needs to be a full-time activist to promote large-scale change. Here are some small actions to take.

    Stay Informed and Think Critically About Media

    All media outlets have political bias. Even if they’re not pro-Democrat or pro-Republican, mainstream media is still often warped by corporate sponsors.

    Don’t simply trust CNN, Fox News, or the White House to give complete stories. This online tool allows you to compare major media outlets for bias and reliability, but consider less objective sources based on the real lives of Iranian people right now. Never spread misinformation, but remember the value in real stories.

    Normalize Your Language to Build Consensus

    Most Americans want similar things if they’re able to get past triggering partisan language. If you simplify it, nearly all Americans are frustrated with the private healthcare system and want something better – even if they’re scared of “socialist” ideas like universal healthcare.

    We don’t exist in a bubble. America is full of leftists, liberals, conservatives, centrists, and apathetics. Use language that doesn’t alienate people and makes them equally frustrated.

    Call Your Representatives (It Matters)

    You’re entitled to be heard by your elected representative. They work for you – even if you voted against them.

    Emails, written letters, and petitions get thrown in the trash unread. A minority of officials read these, but written notes are disregarded unless they’re presented in a remarkable way.

    Representatives HAVE to listen to phone calls. Officials assign lower staff to listen to callers and create reports on top issues. When issues receive enough attention, representatives are pushed to take a stance based on their callers’ views – even if it contradicts their party platform.

    Republican activists excel here. On an average day, right-wingers call their elected officials four times more than other demographics. When specific issues come up, like LGBTQIA+ rights or abortion access, Republicans call 11:1.

    Phone numbers to all elected officials in Congress must be publicly available. If you don’t know who represents you in Congress, use usa.gov/elected-officials to be directed based on your current address.

    From there, insert your officials’ information into house.gov and senate.gov to get contact information. You will likely be directed to their personal website, which you’ll need to navigate to find their PHONE NUMBER. Most contact forms will force you to email them – look for something like “offices.”When calling, have a script. It’s easy to stumble or get overwhelmed, especially over issues that you’re passionate about. This is a practice script I previously wrote over DOGE, but it’s not hard to write one. Keep it simple.

    Support Humanitarian Organizations

    Not everyone can attend protests. That’s life. But you can still do something. Financial support goes a long way.

    As mentioned previously, the United States is purposely targeting civilian institutions crucial to their communities, like hospitals and schools. These are a few organizations that support regular civilians in Iran, regardless of partisan lines.

    A War the American Public Doesn’t Want

    While conflict is currently on hold due to ceasefire, Trump’s volatile personality makes peace difficult to imagine. The American public does not war war with Iran. This conflict is for private wealth and corporations, not world peace or humanity’s benefit.

  • Supreme Court Rules Against Conversion Therapy Ban for Minors: Free Speech vs. Medical Ethics

    Supreme Court Rules Against Conversion Therapy Ban for Minors: Free Speech vs. Medical Ethics

    This International Transgender Day of Visibility, the United States Supreme Court ruled 8-1 against a Colorado law that banned the practice of conversion therapy on minors. This ruling has far-reaching effects and raises the question of whether pseudoscientific practices such as conversion therapy should be regulated as medical treatments or protected under free speech.

    Don’t Fall Behind on Current Events

    Being informed about the latest news makes for better activists. Check our catalogue and subscribe for updates.

    The Supreme Court’s Decision in Chiles v. Salazar

    Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion in Chiles v. Salazar, stating that Colorado law “censors speech based on viewpoint” and violated the First Amendment. This outcome is aligned with recent decisions in favor of “religious discrimination” and skepticism of LGBTQIA+ rights.

    Christian counselor Kaley Chiles petitioned the Court, stating, as “a practicing Christian, [she] believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex” and hopes to “reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors or grow in the experience of harmony with one’s physical body.”

    Ultimately, Chiles and the Alliance Defending Freedom argued that the Minor Conversion Therapy Law violated her First Amendment rights to religion and free speech.

    Chiles argued that MCTL barred any professional discussion with minors regarding LGBTQIA+ topics unless it was explicitly affirming or positive, making it impossible for parents to find therapists with “alternative viewpoints.”

    Colorado disagreed, arguing that MCTL simply barred therapy that only tried to convert LGBTQIA+ people and allowed for therapists to fully explore identity with patients – and that religious ministers are explicitly exempt from MCTL to interact with minors as long as it is marketed as religious counseling.

    Free Speech, Religious Rights, and Legal Contradictions

    I want to point out that there is something deeply hypocritical and ironic about the basis for this decision, although Republicans have become inept at digesting hypocrisy in recent years.

    Rights granted under the First Amendment are important. Freedom of speech includes protecting speech you don’t necessarily like – this is a viewpoint that even the ACLU has historically backed. I believe that Colorado should NOT ban conversion therapy purely because of free speech, but they should be allowed to ban and regulate medical practices based on scientific evidence.

    That being said, it is hypocritical of the Supreme Court to rule that states cannot ban conversion therapy due to one’s First Amendment rights but also rule that states have the authority to fully ban abortion and gender-affirming care.

    Forcing individuals to give birth regardless of circumstance, including rape, can be seen as unethical and immoral – a violation against one’s personal religion or spirituality, even if it is not part of any official doctrine. Allowing states to fully ban gender-affirming practices that had been previously supported by medical research for decades, like puberty blockers, seems contradictory to this decision.

    What Is Conversion Therapy?

    Conversion therapy is defined as a pseudoscientific practice of changing someone’s sexual orientation, romantic orientation, gender identity, or gender expression – especially to align with heterosexual cisgender norms. Conversion therapy has been proven to be ineffective and causes significant long-term psychological harm.

    Conversion therapy includes a range of practices, such as talk therapy, aversion therapy (also known as electric shock therapy or emetic therapy), chemical and surgical castration, hypnosis, brain surgery, prayer, exorcism, and “corrective” rape.

    Conversion therapy is considered pseudoscience because it has been proven to be ineffective. Psychology, like many sciences, has had plenty of pseudosciences within its history – like hypnosis, phrenology, and polygraphs. 

    Use of conversion therapy is associated with higher rates of depression, substance use, and other mental health issues compared to individuals not exposed to conversion therapy. Despite this, religious advocates argue they have an innate right to practice conversion therapy as part of their mission to save the world from queerness.

    Want to learn more about conversion therapy? Here are some films I recommend:

    • Pray Away (2021)
    • Boy Erased (2018)
    • But I’m a Cheerleader (1999)
    • The Miseducation of Cameron Post (2018)

    Research About Conversion Therapy:

    What This Ruling Means for LGBTQ+ Youth

    The Supreme Court’s ruling potentially affects LGBTQIA+ minors across the nation. Zero states have restricted conversion therapy use on adults, although 23 states have minor-related laws that may be impacted by Chiles v. Salazar.

    This is a dangerous practice that has been condemned by every major medical association in the country. Today’s decision does not change the science, and it does not change the fact that conversion therapists who harm patients will still face legal consequences

    – Polly Crozier, GLAD Director of Family Law

    Today’s reckless decision means more American kids will suffer. The Court has weaponized free-speech to prioritize anti-LGBTQ+ bias over the safety, health, and well-being of children. So-called ‘conversion therapy’ is pseudoscience, not real therapy. It has been condemned by every mainstream medical and mental health association and harms families, traumatizes children and robs people of their faith communities. It is cruel and should never be offered under the guise of legitimate mental healthcare.

    – Kelley Robinson, HRC President

    What Happens Next?

    Laws such as MCTL are not entirely defunct, and conversion therapy is still able to be banned and regulated, despite this decision. The Supreme Court’s ruling states that MCTL relied too heavily on ‘non-neutral viewpoints.’

    MCTL and similar laws will need to be revised to focus on regulation as medical practice rather than restriction of individual rights. However, this still puts minors in jeopardy during this in-between period while state legislatures work to revise their laws.

  • Kansas SB 244: What the New Anti-Transgender Law Means for IDs, Voting, and Safety

    Kansas SB 244: What the New Anti-Transgender Law Means for IDs, Voting, and Safety

    Kansas has reentered national headlines after the passage and implementation of SB 244, which expanded on SB 180 to restrict transgender rights further. Kansas has created numerous anti-transgender laws since 2020 via its Republican supermajority, repeatedly overruling Governor Laura Kelly’s veto power. Here are the basics on what exactly is going on.

    Don’t Fall Behind on Current Events

    Being informed about the latest news makes for better activists. Check our catalogue and subscribe for updates.

    What Is SB 244?

    SB 244 requires legal documents, such as birth certificates and driver’s licenses, to be based on sex assigned at birth and automatically invalidates all previously issued documents.

    Kansas residents received official letters from the Kansas Department of Revenue stating their documents are immediately considered invalid and must be resubmitted following new guidelines.

    It is estimated that SB 244 will affect up to 1,700 licenses and 1,800 birth certificates. Still, transgender residents have already reported online not being included in those numbers despite having an affected document.

    Why Forced Document Changes Put Transgender People at Risk

    Legal documents that do not reflect one’s gender identity and expression are dangerous because they automatically out one as transgender. Although gender identity is technically included in Kansas’s discrimination laws, it will be harder to enforce when you’re forced to be out. 

    Every employment contract, rental agreement, and police interaction requires disclosure. Something as simple as buying beer or cigarettes poses a potential safety risk – it’s not like American police are known for being patient or understanding, and mismatched documents can escalate violent situations.

    Does SB 244 affect people outside of Kansas?

    Not really. SB 244 only applies to Kansas residents. However, other anti-transgender laws, including bathroom restrictions, may still be applied regardless of state residency or citizenship.

    Technically, SB 244 DOES affect anyone BORN in Kansas since you must comply with state law to update your birth certificate. Since Kansas does not allow transgender people to update this document, this means you are unable to amend your birth certificate if you were originally born in Kansas, although you may be able to update your driver’s license in your state of residence.

    These restrictions also apply to passports, since proof of a birth certificate is required for obtaining a U.S. passport – although currently, transgender people are unable to get passports consistent with their gender identity.

    Until individuals obtain “corrected” documents, they face criminal and civil penalties equal to those for driving without a license. People have been quick to point out how unfair this is, since there was no grace period typical of document laws.

    Will affected Kansas residents automatically get a corrected ID?

    No. Obtaining a “valid” birth certificate or driver’s license affected by SB 244 is not free; individuals must pay state fees. Some affected residents will receive an official notice in the mail stating that their documents have been invalidated, but not everyone will get one.

    How SB 244 Affects Voting Rights

    Additionally, SB 244 invalidates transgender Kansans’ ability to vote. Kansas has required voters to present a photo ID when voting since 2012, so SB 244 means transgender people will be unable to vote until they obtain a new license or a related accepted ID.

    How did SB 180 lead to SB 244?

    In 2023, Kansas passed SB 180 to create a legal definition of biological sex – Attorney General Kris Kobach attempted to immediately require all updated legal documents to be based on “original sex at birth.”

    Governor Kelly stated that the Kansas Department of Revenue would continue to process gender marker changes despite Kobach, prompting Kobach to sue. Kobach eventually lost this legal battle after the Kansas Supreme Court rejected his appeal, agreeing with the Kansas Court of Appeals that he failed to provide any evidence that the updated gender markers substantiated a “public safety concern.”

    In the end, despite Kobach’s efforts, transgender Kansans could update their gender marker until SB 244 last month.

    The law also now penalizes transgender people with a misdemeanor for using sex-segregated facilities not aligned with their biological sex. This includes restrooms, changing rooms, locker rooms, and shower rooms in all spaces meant for more than one person.

    Like mismatched documents, this policy forcibly outs transgender people of all ages and puts them in unsafe situations in sex-segregated spaces that make everyone uncomfortable.

    Do Bathroom Bills Make Anyone Safer?

    No. There has been zero evidence that enforced bathroom laws have improved any aspect of public safety. If anything, bathroom bills make everyone less safe by creating an anti-transgender witch hunt that cisgender people can’t pass.

    When bathroom bills first started to come around in 2016, I pointed out to people the reality of how ineffective they were. Sexual assault is illegal no matter what. Transgender people are NOT a high-risk population for committing sex-based crimes, but bathroom bills do nothing other than make people anxious about who is in the stall next to them.

    SB 244 does NOT give individuals the right to demand ID or physical proof of one’s gender while using a sex-segregated facility, although police officers may. You always have the right to remain silent, even when questioned by law enforcement. The ACLU of Kansas has guidelines for transgender individuals who are unsure how to navigate SB 244.

    Instead of meeting the needs of their constituents, Kansas lawmakers have prioritized cruelty… Forcing people into the wrong bathrooms, stripping them of accurate IDs, and allowing government-sanctioned harassment doesn’t make anyone safer — it targets transgender Kansans for no reason and will undoubtedly impact many others who are targeted with animus whether or not they are transgender.

    – Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson

    SB 244 also created a “bounty hunter” provision to allow individuals to sue suspected transgender individuals up to $1,000 for using a facility not aligned with their sex assigned at birth.

    Since its implementation, two transgender Kansans have already filed a lawsuit to block SB 244. Daniel Dow and Matthew Moe (pseudonyms for the case) have requested that the court declare SB 244 unconstitutional and block its enforcement. 

    In theory, Kansas courts previously sided with transgender rights leading up to SB 244 – but if Kansas takes the case to the United States Supreme Court, the Court will likely side with “states’ rights” similar to banning gender-affirming care and abortion. On the other hand, transgender men have purposely taken the lawsuit to force the Court to understand the consequences of forcing men into women’s restrooms despite their vilification of transgender women.

    Are you transgender and have been affected negatively by SB 244? The ACLU of Kansas is currently seeking stories to help build its case.

    Resources for Transgender People Affected by SB 244

    LGBTQIA+ Crisis Lines

    Trans Solidarity Project

    ACLU of Kansas

    Lawyers for Good Government

    Advocates for Trans Equality

    Trans Legal Services Network

    Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders

    Lambda Legal

    Equality Kansas

    National Center for Lesbian Rights

    Transgender Law Center

    OutList Provider Directory

    Trans Health Project

    Erin in the Morning Informed Consent HRT Map

  • Supreme Court Hears Student Cases to Change Transgender Rights

    Supreme Court Hears Student Cases to Change Transgender Rights

    The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments retarding West Virginia v. BPJ and Little v. Hecox on January 13th, 2026. Both cases center on the legality of student sport bans and transgender rights, meaning the Court’s decision can have far-reaching consequences similar to Roe v. Wade. 

    Don’t Fall Behind on Current Events

    Being informed about the latest news makes for better activists. Check our catalogue and subscribe for updates.

    West Virginia v. B.P.J.

    Three years ago, West Virginia banned transgender girls from participating in all student sports. The law barred Becky Pepper-Jackson from playing cross-country or track with her friends in middle school.

    With the support of the ACLU, Lambda Legal, and Cooley LLP, Becky took the West Virginia law to court and argued it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. She was completely barred despite exhibiting zero physiological changes associated with male puberty due to taking puberty blockers.

    Little v. Hecox

    In Idaho, HB 500 was signed into law by Governor Brad Little to replace the state’s already existing restrictions on transgender students participating in organized sports. HB 500 established Idaho as the first state to outright ban transgender student athletes, which other states like West Virginia later followed.

    Like B.P.J., Lindsay Hecox sued with the ACLU, Lambda Legal, and Cooley LLC due to Idaho’s decision to completely bar transgender students from participating in all sports under any circumstances under the guise of protecting women’s sports.

    What Makes These Cases Different

    Compared to previous court cases regarding transgender athletes, these cases focus on whether it is constitutional to completely bar transgender individuals.

    States have previously been allowed to regulate transgender participation. For example, Idaho once required transgender women to present documentation of at least one year of hormone replacement therapy to participate in sports. These newer laws go further by banning transgender people entirely, without allowing participation even as their sex assigned at birth.

    In consideration of other civil rights cases, the notion seems laughable. It should not be constitutional to bar an entire demographic from an activity without caveats.

    That doesn’t mean the Supreme Court will rule rationally. West Virginia and Idaho are backed by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian organization also responsible for the overturn of abortion rights in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

    ADF has framed both cases as protecting women’s sports and athletic fairness. However, fairness would involve regulations that allow transgender athletes to participate in some fashion, not banning them entirely.

    It is expected that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Alliance Defending Freedom due to the Court’s recent pattern of backing conservative parties regardless of outlying factors. This mirrors the Trump administration’s executive order “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports” and new restrictions imposed by the NCAA and U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committees.

    The 19th has reported that neither B.P.J. nor Hecox fit the conservative narrative of “scary transgender athletes.”

    Lindsay Hecox failed to make the cut for her track and field team at Boise State University before Idaho law removed her eligibility entirely. Becky Pepper-Jackson never experienced male puberty and is physically no different from her cisgender classmates.

    Transgender Participation in Sports Is Rare
    It is worth noting that transgender people rarely participate in sports due to stigma and discrimination. NCAA President Charlie Baker stated that out of 500,000 college athletes in the United States, fewer than 10 were openly transgender.

    Assuming the Supreme Court rules in favor of ADF, this decision would not create a national ban on transgender students in sports.

    • Students in equality-driven states like California, Washington, and New York would not be impacted.
    • Transgender individuals participating in competitive sports beyond school wouldn’t be affected either, regardless of state. Those regulations are determined by their professional leagues.
    • Transgender individuals in non-competitive sports outside of educational settings also won’t be affected, such as community sport leagues.
    • States’ individual ability to ban transgender students would be cemented for the time being, unless a better case is presented..

    For the time being, we just have to wait to see what exactly the Supreme Court decides. It is expected that the Supreme Court will formally announce the ruling before June 2026.

  • The 10 Most Important Transgender News Stories of 2025

    The 10 Most Important Transgender News Stories of 2025

    With the return of anti-transgender figures like Donald Trump to power, 2025 has been a turbulent year for transgender rights. The constant onslaught of stories has been heartbreaking and overwhelming. These are the top ten transgender news stories from 2025.

    Don’t Fall Behind on Current Events

    Being informed about the latest news makes for better activists. Check our catalogue and subscribe for updates.

    Trump’s Return to Power and the Implementation of Project 2025

    After the 2024 presidential election, Donald Trump was sworn into office on January 20th. Despite campaign claims denying any knowledge of Project 2025, Trump has managed to implement between 40% and 50% of the proposal, following the Heritage Foundation’s plan to dismantle freedom for all.

    As soon as Trump returned to the Oval Office, he signed a slew of pre-written executive orders.

    UK Supreme Court Ruling Redefines Legal Womanhood

    The United Kingdom Supreme Court ruled in favor of For Women Scotland in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers in April, stating that the legal definition of womanhood was based on biological sex. The case centered around the Equality Act of 2010 and the guidance issued by the Scottish government to include gender transitions recognized under the Gender Recognition Act of 2004.

    Transgender individuals in the UK still have broad protections under federal law, although the decision induced anxiety since it paves the way for other laws to exclude transgender individuals based on biological sex.For Women Scotland is a Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist (TERF) organization that was founded in 2018 to explicitly campaign against the Gender Recognition Act of 2004. FWS has spent seven years attacking transgender equality and celebrated its Supreme Court win.

    The victory by FWS also presents moral questions regarding media. For years, people have defended JK Rowling and the Harry Potter franchise out of nostalgia. – Rowling’s individual reputation has crashed due to her vocal anti-transgender views published online. Fans of her series have attempted to separate the art from the artist after the release of Hogwarts Legacy and HBO’s new television show, scheduled to release in 2027. However, Rowling donated £70,000 to FWS’s crowdfunder for For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers, proving a direct connection between supporting Rowling’s works and her profits being used to attack transgender rights.

    US Olympic and Paralympic Committees Ban Transgender Athletes

    In July, the United States Olympic Committee and Paralympic Committee officially updated their rules to ban transgender athletes from competing in upcoming events, regardless of international standards.

    The change requires all transgender individuals to compete in male divisions, regardless of scientific precedent. Additionally, the new protocol only applies to American competitors since the US Olympic and Paralympic Committees do not override international regulations already guiding how transgender athletes participate.

    Assassination of Charlie Kirk and the Resulting Anti-Trans Panic

    Anti-transgender speaker and professional grifter Charlie Kirk was publicly assassinated during a Utah Valley University rally. Immediately after speaking to an audience member’s question regarding transgender mass shooting conspiracies, a sniper round was fired from a nearby rooftop that quickly led to his unavoidable death.

    Conservatives tried to make Kirk a martyr with mixed results. While newly widowed Erika Kirk has risen to fill Charlie’s shoes, most Americans have forgotten about Kirk’s assassination. Charlie was a divisive man devoid of empathy and advocated for the unrestricted gun access that made his death likely.

    A minimal amount of attention is still focused on Tyler Robinson, the accused party, assumed to be Kirk’s killer. Initial rumors stated Robinson was transgender, aligning with mass panic and conspiracy theories that transgender individuals are inherently more dangerous and mentally volatile. Later evidence proved that Robinson is a straight cisgender male from a traditional, conservative family and was dating a transgender individual during the events, who cooperated in the arrest and compilation of evidence against Robinson.

    Thailand Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage

    The Marriage Equality Act was passed by the Thai House of Representatives and Senate in January, establishing Thailand as the next Southeast Asian country to legalize same-sex marriage and recognize same-sex couples with equal rights to parenthood and adoption.

    The Act was overwhelmingly supported, passing in the House 400 to 10 and 130 to 4 in the Senate. While public opinion supported the legalization of same-sex marriage in Thailand, the country did not previously recognize any form of same-sex union before the Act.

    Other countries, like Vietnam, are expected to follow Thailand’s example in legalizing marriage equality due to growing support for LGBTQIA+ people in Southeast Asia.

    Australian States Expand Conversion Therapy Bans

    New South Wales and South Australia joined other Australian territories in banning conversion therapy. Previously, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), Victoria, and Queensland had already banned conversion therapy as a criminal offense beginning in 2020.

    With the additions of NSW and South Australia, only the states of Western Australia and Tasmania remain without bans on conversion therapy – which is expected to change soon since both states have already introduced legislation similar to the rest of the country.

    While Australia does not have a nationwide ban on conversion therapy, its conversion therapy laws are remarkably different from American bans. US conversion therapy bans only apply to minors; there is no state where conversion therapy is banned against adults, and only the jurisdiction of Washington DC bans both minor and adult-based conversion therapy. All conversion therapy bans in Australia have included adults.

    Record Number of Anti-Transgender Bills Passed in the United States

    The Trans Legislation Tracker reports that 125 anti-transgender bills were passed across the United States in 2025 across 28 states. The majority of bills involve healthcare access, education, and the legal definition of gender. 

    1,020 anti-trans bills were introduced throughout the year, reaching a historic high compared to the 701 in 2024, 615 in 2023 and 174 in 2022. The only state not to introduce an anti-transgender bill this year was Vermont. Out of the 1,020 total bills, 382 failed to pass – but 513 are still actively being considered.

    New Zealand Halts New Puberty Blocker Prescriptions for Minors

    The High Court of New Zealand has temporarily halted all new prescriptions of puberty blockers for transgender minors, citing a “lack of high-quality evidence that demonstrates the benefits or risks” similar to the UK National Health Service restrictions against clinical trials.

    The ban does not target other forms of transgender-related gender affirming care or discontinue existing prescriptions of puberty blockers like puberty blocker bans in the United States. However, the ban is still problematic since it puts transgender minors in a double-bind – without access to puberty blockers, there can’t be high-quality evidence.

    Zohran Mamdani Elected Mayor of New York City

    /header

    Self-identified democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani was elected as New York City’s newest mayor during the 2025 elections, one of several key wins during the off-year campaign. Mamdani tallied 1,114,184 votes, making up 50.78% of the popular vote to beat previous NYC mayor Andrew Cuomo.

    Mamdani’s win signals a strong step towards a left Democratic Party for the working class. Lukewarm Democrats like Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Nancy Pelosi have filled the stage for several years, leading to the rise of conservative populism. Additionally, Mamdani is a stern advocate for transgender rights despite moves by other Democrats to exclude transgender equality from the party platform.

    Supreme Court Declines to Hear Kim Davis Case, Marriage Equality Stands

    In an unforeseen sequence of events, the United States Supreme Court declined to review Kim Davis v. David Ermold et al. Davis and conservative allies were hoping the Supreme Court would oversee the case and overturn Obergefell v. Hodges and the Respect for Marriage Act to reverse marriage equality. 

    Kim Davis garnered national attention in 2015 as a Kentucky county clerk when she refused to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Davis intentionally and repeatedly denied marriage certificates to same-sex couples within Rowan County, landing her in jail for six days for contempt. 

    The case continued after 2015 when Davis refused to pay $360,000 in damages to the queer couple she had denied since her original gripe was resolved with Governor Matt Bevin’s executive order to remove county clerk names from marriage certificates. Davis’s legal team argued that the State of Kentucky should be required to pay the $360,000; Matt Bevin and the State of Kentucky argued that it was Davis’s responsibility since she intentionally refused to comply with the law and her responsibility as county clerk.

    For now, marriage equality will stand firm as a protected right for all Americans – and Kim Davis is now required to pay the outstanding $360,000. 

  • 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.

    Don’t Fall Behind on Current Events

    Being informed about the latest news makes for better activists. Check our catalogue and subscribe for updates.

  • 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.

    Don’t Fall Behind on Current Events

    Being informed about the latest news makes for better activists. Check our catalogue and subscribe for updates.

    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.

  • 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.”

    Don’t Fall Behind on Current Events

    Being informed about the latest news makes for better activists. Check our catalogue and subscribe for updates.

  • 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.

    Don’t Fall Behind on Current Events

    Being informed about the latest news makes for better activists. Check our catalogue and subscribe for updates.

    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.

    Don’t Fall Behind on Current Events

    Being informed about the latest news makes for better activists. Check our catalogue and subscribe for updates.

    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.

    https://youtu.be/Qn7C_ukNaB0

    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