Trans Solidarity Project

Category: News

  • 2028: The Most Popular Republicans to Consider the Presidency

    2028: The Most Popular Republicans to Consider the Presidency

    America is nearing its one-year anniversary of the 2024 presidential elections, which means midterms are a popular topic. The current political climate can feel tough, like every single day is a challenge to survive – but it can feel more doable when breaking up Trump’s second presidential term. We are now exiting the grace period that accompanied his return to office, and we are returning to a political reality that offers hope. This is also the time when potential presidential candidates begin making moves, giving us insight into what 2028 will bring.

    In normal presidential cycles, presidents are judged greatly based on what they accomplish within their first 100 days of office. All presidents make huge moves in this period – more than they will throughout the rest of their term. After that, presidents traditionally make very little progress on their campaign promises until they reach their second consecutive term. Political historians point to the second consecutive term as a major milestone since that is the minimum amount of time presidents need to see policy and economic change, since most of these aspects are slow-changing. It’s widely agreed that Trump inherited Obama’s economy for the entirety of his first presidency, Trump constantly misattributing his own influence on the growing economy that he eventually ruined and handed off to Biden.

    The first 100 days of office bring the most changes. Trump dismissed the notion as being a milestone when he entered his second term (likely because he failed to make his second term consecutive), but it’s easy to see the change in pacing between today and March. Those early months were accompanied by a barrage of executive orders, proclamations, and press releases from the administration. Today, we’re seeing remarkably fewer policy changes as Trump tries to manage foreign affairs with Russia, Ukraine, Israel, and Palestine while avoiding the growing Epstein problem at home.

    Trump just finished his 200th day in office this past week. This November brings minor elections to the ballot – like mayoral elections, city councils, and county boards. November also marks the midterm campaign season since every seat in the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate will be on the ballot in 2026. Midterms present the opportunity for Republicans to continue their reign of oppression and terror or for Democrats to re-seize the legislature, barring Trump from any significant advancements. Trump’s self-proclaimed Red Wave was a midterm failure in 2022 when the GOP failed to turn the Democrat-controlled Congress over. Since elections take more than one day to campaign over, politicians begin hitting the trails and speaking at events around now in preparation for midterms.

    Despite the next presidential election being three years away, this is the period when political scientists start predicting who will toss their name in the ring for the presidency. Unlike other electoral races, there are no official deadlines for official campaign submissions – but it is generally agreed that officially running as soon as possible boosts your chances of securing votes since it cements your presence. The following is a list of high-profile individuals being watched right now because they’re performing many of the hallmark moves presidential candidates do before officially campaigning for the presidency.

    First: An Author’s Note

    Candidates running with the GOP have several disadvantages compared to Democrats and third-party candidates. First, they absolutely do not want to upset Donald Trump.

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

    This hinders GOP presidential candidates since publicly campaigning while Trump is still in office would cause an upset. Trump finally stated he believes JD Vance should be the next GOP candidate – but Vance and all other potentials haven’t come forward since doing so would take away from Trump’s glorious spotlight.

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

    Donald Trump (Again)

    He was originally elected as an outsider, a businessman in a world of politicians who promised to bring the economy back in line. Of course, Donald Trump is more of a career con man than a successful business owner, and he’s no longer an outsider to politics.

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

    Historical Context: The 22nd Amendment was created in the 1950s as a direct result of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s four terms. While nearly all presidents before FDR had followed George Washington’s two-term policy, it wasn’t an official rule. Congress created the 22nd Amendment in 1951, shortly after FDR’s death, since even though the public loved FDR enough to legitimately vote him into office four times, an extensive reign felt too similar to monarchies and dictatorships, holding the potential for presidential power to become too concentrated in one administration.

    Can Donald Trump legally and legitimately serve a third presidential term? No. The only way for Trump to legitimately serve a third term would require Congress to propose, pass, and ratify a new amendment to the Constitution – and the US House and Senate are far too polarized to accomplish any amendment, much less one in direct service to Trump.

    Do Republicans want to pass a new amendment to allow Trump to serve continuously? Yeah. It’s somewhere on their list of ways to lick Trump’s boots, BUT there is zero chance for this to become reality since the GOP lacks the votes to force amendment-level changes… for now.

    Political scientists theorize two other ways Donald Trump could serve a third term, but neither is legitimate. One is undeniably worse, but both spell a devastating end to democracy in the United States.

    The “less bad” route would require a candidate aligned with Trump (which is most, although not all, of the GOP) to be elected officially as president. The 22nd Amendment bars Trump from ever serving again as president – but it doesn’t prevent him from being Vice President or holding other roles in the White House.

    In this instance, Trump would serve unofficially through a puppet, which we have already seen as possible through Elon Musk’s short reign, using Trump as a puppet to serve in the Oval Office until their public breakup. Trump has already vocalized he’d like to explore this route with someone like JD Vance as the presidential candidate, but most GOP candidates would most likely allow Trump to rule through them to appeal to their frenzied base. The other side of this route is that Trump is an egomaniac and a reality television star at his core. This route requires Trump to share the spotlight with the official president – which might work for weak-willed and mild candidates like Vance, but is capable of blowing up with strong personalities like Musk.

    Donald Trump appearing on the cover of TIME for 2024.
    And Elon Musk appearing mere months later for blatantly using Trump as a puppet.

    This route is “less bad” because it’s technically legal. The Constitution only states Trump can’t serve again as president, but there are no restrictions on other roles he can serve in. However, it still labels America as no longer a democracy to the greater world – even if Trump shared the spotlight and kept to a reserved role, having a puppet president serving on Trump’s behalf looks like a dictatorship.

    The AI picture of Trump wearing a crown title “Long Live the King” on official White House social media.

    The other route that leads to an extended Trump regime would entail Trump using military force to hold the presidency hostage. There are protocols that require the previous president to leave office once a new one has been elected and sworn in – but how could that be enforced if Trump refuses to comply? Trump is already doing many of the same actions traditional dictators do, like getting rid of military personnel who aren’t fully loyal to him. The president controls the military, and Trump hasn’t thrown out the idea of using the US military to protect his position if voted out.

    A military coup by Trump is the “worst” option since doing so will label the United States as a dictatorship in black-and-white. And while dictatorships are never forever, they can hold power for extensive periods of time and cause insurmountable damage.

    JD Vance

    Officially, Vance hasn’t said whether he will be running for president in 2028. That being said, it’s assumed he will: Vance is currently Donald Trump’s favorite, and Trump has given Vance his endorsement to be the GOP runner. Despite this, Vance has told the media it is “way too early” to consider a 2028 bid – likely out of fear that openly accepting the endorsement or affirming the rumors would come across as lacking devotion to Trump.

    With Trump’s endorsement and his current position as Vice President, Vance is poised to become heir to the MAGA movement. Trump has stated he believes Vance should fill his shoes, but it’s worth remembering that Trump’s favor is volatile since just a few months ago, Elon Musk would have had Trump’s endorsement as the next president.

    Note: Elon Musk is NOT on this list. He cannot serve as President, no matter how badly he wants to. While Elon is technically a US citizen, only US-born citizens are eligible to run. Due to Elon being naturalized and originally from South Africa, he is barred from becoming president beyond befriending a legitimate president to use as a puppet.

    The attention from Trump giving Vance his stamp of approval has been great for Vance’s image. Out of all the predicted 2028 candidates, Vance is polling the highest. But those numbers don’t equate to anything meaningful yet – in contrast to the Democrats, Vance is really the only projected candidate. He has had the most media attention from the last election cycle, putting him in a better position than other GOP candidates. On the other end of the political spectrum, Democrats won’t have comparable candidates until we approach the election season and candidates are in the thick of their campaigning. Vance is getting widespread attention at Trump’s side, speaking at events and ensuring he stays relevant. Democrats and other GOP candidates won’t be given this exposure for at least another year (if not longer).

    However, JD Vance has downsides the GOP will have to consider if they choose to make him their 2028 candidate. Trump picked Vance as his VP because he was timid, mild-mannered, and able to sit in his shadow as a yes-man when Pence failed to do so during the January 6th coup. Even now, Vance fails to make good impressions amongst the public – he’s been clowned on for his looks, values, and politics ever since he was named for the VP ticket. He won’t be able to handle the MAGA movement’s need for a strong personality, and he won’t be able to fill Trump’s shoes. At his core, Vance isn’t likable. He isn’t someone people want to root for, he’s too timid to express his actual platform, and he somehow comes across as faker than Trump. Without Trump in front of him, Vance will not be able to keep the GOP together. He isn’t a leader.

    Ron DeSantis

    The Florida Governor, most known for his “Don’t Say Gay” anti-LGBTQIA+ laws, was forced to drop out of the 2024 election when Trump picked Vance to be his VP. There was never any public gossip on what happened between Trump and DeSantis, but DeSantis didn’t take well to being turned down for Vance.

    After dropping out of the 2024 race, DeSantis made moves signaling his desire to run again, speaking at conventions and events to remain in the public eye even if he’s overshadowed by Vance’s office. Compared to other GOP candidates, DeSantis is the most outwardly anti-LGBTQIA+ and uses his forced successes of conservative legislation in a gerrymandered Florida as evidence that homophobia is in. The GOP has put tons of money into anti-transgender propaganda – but the American public still doesn’t agree with DeSantis’ core policies. His other “grand” policies are all related to banning abortion, but polls clearly show that isn’t popular with American voters either.

    If he relies on his current policies to act as his primary motivator for voters, he has no chance of winning the presidency. When DeSantis got sidelined by Trump for Vance, his political career was considered over – even if he goes down fighting.

    Nikki Haley

    She was the only other major Republican candidate that survived the Iowa caucuses alongside Trump in 2024. In 2017, Haley left her office as South Carolina Governor to serve as the US Ambassador to the United Nations during Trump’s first term. As an Indian American, she ruffled feathers and became the GOP’s first female presidential candidate to win a primary – although she was forced to drop out after losing nearly all of the Super Tuesday contests to Trump. 

    Haley encompasses the traditional GOP, which is why she performed better in 2024 than Vivek Ramaswamy. She’s more white-passing, and she identifies as Christian despite her immigrant parents’ Sikh upbringing. She positions herself as a Reagan-aligned conservative in a political climate filled with Trump yes-men.

    But can Nikki Haley win the 2028 presidency? While possible, it’s unlikely. She doesn’t have Trump’s endorsement like Vance, and she’s even more removed from current politicians than DeSantis since she hasn’t held any official offices since she resigned as ambassador in 2018.

    Glenn Youngkin

    Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin is both a longtime member of the GOP and a businessman. He’s garnered attention from the media due to headlining in Iowa last month, which is the traditional launch point for presidential campaigns. Candidates measure their audiences and begin campaigns in Iowa due to its caucuses.

    Youngkin’s term as governor has focused on Trump’s war on DEI, causing Youngkin to spend considerable effort purging “divisive concepts” from both K-12 classrooms and higher education. He is allied with the GOP’s insiders, like the Heritage Foundation (and co-writers of Project 2025).

    Unlike many other Republican candidates, Youngkin lacks baggage. He doesn’t have Vance, DeSantis, or even Haley’s exposure, so Youngkin can better position himself as a new face amongst many others who are running after failed campaigns for the presidency. Of course, that lack of exposure also harms Youngkin since voters may pass him for well-known names or candidates whose platforms they know well.

    Tucker Carlson

    Most known for the Tucker Carlson Show, Carlson has been described as “the most influential voice in right-wing media, without a close second.” He has touted Trumpism for years, pushing white grievance politics on Fox News while feeding manosphere influencers like Andrew Tate and Joe Rogan scraps to publish. Like Trump, Carlson is a face the American public knows well – and he’s never even entered politics.

    In 2023, Carlson came under fire when his text messages leaked during Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News Network that led to a $787 million settlement. In the messages, Carlson shows his true colors as an entertainer first and not a true Trump supporter. In regard to what he thought of Trump’s first term, Carlson wrote, “We’re all pretending we’ve got a lot to show for it, because admitting what a disaster it’s been is too tough to digest. But come on. There really isn’t an upside to Trump.” He’s an entertainment journalist that Fox viewers take too seriously – which is what led to the eventual lawsuit that Fox settled and fired Carlson over. Carlson knew the stories he told on air were false, purposely riling up misinformed viewers based around Trump’s far-right agenda because it sold. He lamented in leaked texts how much he despised Trump despite publicly endorsing him on Fox – Fox News thrives on grifting, and Trump is the best grifter in modern history. In other words, Trump forced an unofficial marriage between his legacy and Fox News. When news on Trump sells so well, Carlson had no choice but to devote his nightly coverage to Trump.

    Could Carlson grab the presidency? Since his removal from Fox News, Carlson has attempted to relaunch his show on Twitter/X and managed to rework his weekly commentary podcast – and he’s used the space to fester the same conspiracy stories as Alex Jones, interviewing “amateur historians” to endorse Holocaust denial on air. Compared to other candidates, Carlson has a strong personality that MAGA devotees obsess over, which is why his show on Fox News did so well. If Trump gives up his throne, Carlson is perhaps the closest fit.

    Despite this, Carlson will face challenges. If he decides to campaign for 2028, he will most definitely butt heads with Trump and traditionalists within the GOP. Trump has already named Vance as his successor, and there’s no way for Trump to rule from behind Carlson like he would Vance. And while Carlson may be able to dish out conspiracy theories and insults great on air, he’s not Trump.

    Tim Scott

    Before entering politics in 1995, Scott worked in financial services – but he was given the spotlight when then-Governor Nikki Haley appointed Scott as South Carolina’s senator after Jim DeMint’s resignation. He had a short campaign for the 2024 presidency, but dropped out due to exceptionally low polling numbers.

    In 2019, Tim Scott signaled that he plans to retire from politics soon since he’s tired of Congress, stating that his 2022 election was his final campaign. Since Senators serve six-year terms, his seat won’t be available for reelection until 2029. That doesn’t mean Scott won’t consider running in 2028 – he has the option to vacate his seat if he were to win the presidency, similar to Barack Obama vacating Illinois’ Senate seat in 2008. Overall, though, a second presidential campaign wouldn’t work in Scott’s favor since he wouldn’t be bringing anything new despite facing many of the same opponents.

    Vivek Ramaswamy

    Elon Musk might not be able to run for president, but Vivek Ramaswamy can. He’s been compared to Musk due to being a biotech pharma CEO and writing a flurry of books like Woke Inc, Nation of Victims: Identity Politics, the Death of Merit, and the Path Back to Excellence, Capitalist Punishment, and Truths: The Future of America First.

    Similar to Nikki Haley, Ramaswamy is an American-born son of Indian immigrants. He touts himself as an American nationalist, BUT unlike Haley, he still identifies as non-Christian and adheres to his family’s Hindu faith. Some political scientists theorize Ramaswamy’s failed 2024 campaign was due to his populist ideals being too similar to Trump’s, failing to offer anything new like Haley did as a GOP traditionalist. Others argue Ramaswamy lost followers due to being less digestible for the American public as a darker-skinned Indian American man. Had he succeeded in 2024, Ramaswamy could have been the United States’ first non-Christian president.

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

    Marco Rubio

    Like DeSantis, Marco Rubio originally came from Florida as a Senator until he was picked by Donald Trump to serve as Secretary of State. Rubio has campaigned for the presidency since 2016, when he originally lost to Trump during the Republican primaries. As a Cuban American, Rubio was described by many as an unofficial secretary of state for Latin Americans during Trump’s first term – although his support amongst Latino Americans will waver under continued attacks by ICE.

    Marco Rubio is the alternative heir to the MAGA movement. Trump is keeping Rubio close like Vance, purposely pitting them against each other to compete for his endorsement. According to White House insiders quoted by the Wall Street Journal, Trump told both Rubio and Vance, “Which one of you is going to be at the top of the ticket? I used to think it would be Vance-Rubio, but maybe it will be Rubio-Vance.”

    Currently, Rubio isn’t polling as well as Vance – Trump recently stated he approved of Vance running in 2028, putting Rubio in the backseat. However, both Vance and Rubio have more of Trump’s support than folks like DeSantis. Rubio has a better grasp on foreign affairs, but he doesn’t have a remarkably better personality than Vance. These qualities were exemplified during the 2016 election, which Donald Trump brought to the public’s attention when he barraged Rubio with insults like all his other competitors on stage.

    Greg Abbott

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

    Abbott has served as Texas Governor since 2015, making him the longest-serving incumbent governor in the United States. He’s more of a traditional conservative, focused mostly on immigration issues, followed by law enforcement budgets, gun laws, and abortion access. In a state that is progressively becoming less conservative, Abbott has tried to remain in the background compared to louder names like Ted Cruz. Unlike other candidates on this list, Abbott hasn’t actually tried to run for the presidency, which is why he would be a natural fit to try in 2028.

    Honorable Mentions

    Donald Trump Jr.

    Steve Bannon

    Ted Cruz

    Tulsi Gabbard

    Matt Gaetz

    Rand Paul

    Brian Kemp

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

    Kristi Noem

    Sarah Huckabee Sanders

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

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

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

    Trump’s Redistricting Gambit Is Poison for Blue State Republicans

    Make no mistake, Republicans are angry because the Democrats’ actions worked as intended. Texas might be edging closer to becoming a swing state, but it’s still overwhelmingly controlled by the GOP. Typically, Texas Democrats have virtually no power – they make up 62 of the 150 total members of the House, so they have very little say regarding legislation when Texas Republicans stand united. Despite this, Republicans still need the Democrats to conduct business since Congressional rules require the House to meet a quorum of 100 total House members in the room. With all Texas Democrats gone, there are only 88 Republicans left – failing to meet the quorum requirement.

    “It needs Democrats in the room, even if it doesn’t need their votes, in order to enact the new map,” reported NPR. In an interview with Mark P. Jones, a Rice University political science professor, explains, “If you’re the minority party, and you can’t block any legislation, one nuclear option you always have is to walk out, thereby preventing the legislature from engaging in any activity and particularly passing legislation.”

    The vast majority of Texas Democrats have fled to Illinois, where Governor JB Pritzker has pledged support. Despite Texas Governor Greg Abbott demanding the arrest of the vacant Democrats, he and Texas Republicans have zero authority beyond their state lines. Pritzker has officially stated that Illinois will not comply with Texas orders to arrest the vacant representatives. In a press conference reported by The Guardian, Pritzker elaborated, “We’re going to do everything we can to protect every single one of them and make sure that – ‘cause we know they’re doing the right thing, we know that they’re following the law.”

    This has resulted in most Texas Democrats arriving in Illinois, with a small number in New York and Massachusetts. The primary goal of Republicans, as cited by the Associated Press, is [to add] five more GOP seats in Texas in the midterm elections to boost [Trump’s] party’s chance of preserving its slim U.S. House majority.” In the midst of discussing the Texas situation, New York Governor Kathy Hochul said, “I have a news flash for Republicans in Texas: This is no longer the Wild West. We’re not going to tolerate our democracy being stolen in a modern-day stagecoach heist by a bunch of law-breaking cowboys.” 

    The Associated Press has generally condemned the move. The AP and other media outlets have been quick to point out that this tactic hasn’t worked in the past. From a purely legal standpoint, Republicans aren’t violating any laws by redistricting the maps – and since the districts are already weighted conservative, it might not seem like a big deal. However, Texas has been on course to become a swing state due to its growing population, directly sourced by California and Texas’s own increasing Latino population, both of which don’t align with traditional conservative values.

    Yes, Texas Democrats will eventually have to return to the House. Yes, Texas Republicans will eventually redistrict and further gerrymander the state. In that sense, the move will fail – but there’s more going on. It is important to remember that Democrats are given no other option: In ultra-conservative states like Texas, minority party members are silenced, demeaned, and even kicked out for voicing opposing opinions. Their votes (as well as the votes of the Americans they represent) are meaningless because of the way their state is structured. While their move only delays the redistricting plan and other bills, it can be empowering – it’s easy to feel hopeless and like we have zero power in the current political climate, but even small acts can make big impacts while showing how polarized the nation is.

  • The Olympic Transgender Ban Is Political, Not Scientific

    The Olympic Transgender Ban Is Political, Not Scientific

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

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

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

    Conservatives use the exact same tactics preaching against transgender identities as they have against gay and lesbian individuals, interracial relationships, women’s equality, and every other issue they’ve lost against society’s slow march towards progress. Transgender individuals are characterized as sexual perverts and mentally deranged – which is exactly how gay men and lesbian women were depicted just twenty years ago. Understanding this is crucial in social justice movements when discussing the dangers of the anti-transgender movement with folks unaligned, independent, or just “not into politics.” Religion-based politics never go well. Attacks on transgender lives immediately turn into attacks on drag performers, intersex folks, lesbian women, gay men, independent women, disabled individuals, non-Christian faiths, and people of color. Their movement relies on the masses being uneducated and unsympathetic. The GOP argued for years that legalizing same-sex marriage would create a slippery slope that never happened – but this slippery slope against human rights WILL occur unless it is stopped.

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

    Speaking of which, just how many Olympic competitors identify as transgender? Recent media obsession would imply it’s a huge problem where transgender athletes are taking over the events and depriving cisgender competitors of wins – but that’s the furthest from the truth. Taking just the 2024 Summer Olympics hosted in France, only 193 of the total 10,714 competitors identified as LGBTQIA+ (which equates to 0.018% of competitors). An even smaller margin of those individuals are transgender, estimated at 0.001%. Due to the stigma and hostility, transgender individuals aren’t as inclined to perform in competitive sports – no one wants to be the next media spotlight being roasted online. Additionally, sports have historically been unkind to LGBTQIA+ individuals due to inherent sexism and homophobia instilled in athletic spaces.

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

    Scientifically, there are ASSUMED advantages for transgender individuals who have undergone any of their biological puberty. The limited research compiled since 2020 proclaims that transgender women are faster runners than cisgender women up to two years after beginning hormone replacement therapy and can complete more sit-ups and push-ups up to four years.  But using this research to make these arguments is severely flawed.

    First, these arguments advocate for complete and permanent bans on transgender athletes. Ignoring how nonsensical it is to ban those who transitioned before puberty, it isn’t logical with adults either. The used studies claim HRT does not significantly affect muscle mass, bone density, and strength – but this is factually bogus. All of these have been proven over and over again as primary side effects of HRT, BUT they are not overnight changes. Medical transition takes time, and it never truly “ends.” Two years on HRT is a VERY early benchmark – for many trans women, this is when they start to notice many of the collective changes they’ve experienced on HRT since it can be such a slow process. Five years and onward is a more acceptable comparison of when transgender bodies fully mimic their cisgender counterparts, but the research ends before this. Had those studies continued for much longer, evidence would have backfired on them.

    Secondly, athletes are not typical. To be an Olympian, you must be exceptional. To go pro, you have to be dedicated to your sport. These people are not casual hobbyists. The individuals selected for the studies used to fuel current rules weren’t random. Upon being asked by NPR Michel Martin about the “fairness of transgender bans,” Dr. Bradley Anawalt at the University of Washington replied, “There’s always been inequalities in sports. Somebody who’s born taller than someone who is shorter and plays basketball, we really don’t have this conversation about the potential competitive advantage for people participating in ballet or theater. Peter Pan is almost always played by an adult woman because an adult can act with greater artistry and maturity based on age and experience.” In other words, professional athletes and Olympians have always been insanely exceptional competitors – research pushed out in just a few years is worthless when considering these questions. Further, this doesn’t even begin to unpack sports where biological sex and HRT have nonsignificant impacts, like chess and fencing.

    Combining these issues, remember that very few Olympians are transgender. Out of the 0.001% of athletes competing that ARE transgender, they are going to be beyond exceptional. Due to discrimination, harassment, and bias, they have had to fight every step of the way to compete, which is beyond comprehension for their cisgender counterparts. They must absolutely astound their qualifying judges. They’ve got to have a thick skin to survive insults from other competitors, the media, and the general public. This is the case for every successful transgender athlete – due to how hostile the climate is, we must be nearly supernatural at our sport to be accepted.

    The policy instilled by the United States Olympic Committee and Paralympic Committee has already been denounced by non-transgender organizations, such as the National Women’s Law Center. The GOP uses transgender identities to proclaim they are protecting women’s lives – but they are the true party of sexual predators and have proven countless times they are against women’s rights. An attack on transgender rights will inevitably become an attack on all rights.

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

    In the context of sports, representation forces the public to become aware and normalize marginalized identities. Before Jackie Robinson was signed with the Brooklyn Dodgers, Americans struggled with the concept of desegregation. Robinson’s legacy added to the same as those of Black servicemen in the US military in pushing America forward. Less than 1 in 3 Americans claim to know a transgender person, which is the same amount of Americans who argue healthcare providers should not be allowed to provide gender-affirming care to minors, according to Data for Social Good: “There is a positive correlation across the survey results between someone personally knowing a transgender person and expressing greater support for transgender-inclusive policies.” Or, seeing and knowing transgender people makes cisgender people empathetic to our rights.

    Transgender people aren’t new to sports. Just like how transgender people have been around for centuries, we have also been participating in competitive sports for a substantial amount of time. The first high-profile case was Renée Richards, whose fight to compete as a woman in the 1976 US Open gained international attention and ended up winning at the New York Supreme Court. Before Renée, there were Zdeněk Koubek and Willy De Bruyn – two transgender and intersex individuals who competed in the 1934 Olympics.

    Beginning in the 1940s (likely in response to Koubek and De Bruyn), professional sports began requiring “femininity certificates” provided by athletes by physicians with the central purpose of excluding intersex and transgender competitors. These early tests consisted of visual inspections and physical examinations – but they morphed into chromosome testing by the 1960s due to anti-communist suspicions that the best female athletes coming from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe must be men. Today, sex verification heavily relies on hormone testing – much to the detriment of cisgender and transgender athletes alike. Now, sports sex verification excludes many cisgender women from competing due to naturally high testosterone levels that give them “unfair advantages.”

    From Renée’s time in the 1970s until 2003, transgender participation in sports was mixed. Generally, trans individuals were barred from playing, but some were able to successfully compete, such as Roberta Cowell, Parinya Charoenphol, and Michelle Dumaresq. In late 2003, the International Olympic Committee published its first official policy regarding transgender competitors in preparation for the 2004 games in Athens. These policies have become known as the “Stockholm Consensus,” becoming the international standard for sports, although domestic leagues such as the NFL and MLB have never subscribed to IOC guidelines.

    The Stockholm Consensus clearly stated that transgender athletes were allowed to compete as their chosen gender rather than their gender assigned at birth, IF they met certain criteria. The Consensus required completed bottom or genital surgery, sexual sterilization, legal recognition of one’s gender in their home country, and long-term verified hormone replacement treatment.

    At the end of 2015, the IOC met again to review the Stockholm Consensus and came to the conclusion that its requirements were unhelpful and far too strict. In the ten years it had been put in place, two concerns had come up: first, genital surgery and sterilization showed zero impact on performance and requiring it was an unnecessary and invasive barrier compared to other aspects of transition like HRT; and secondly, one’s ability to be legally recognized as their chosen gender varies drastically based on where they live since the majority of countries don’t allow individuals to do so. The IOC created the 2015 Consensus, which stated transmasculine individuals had zero restrictions for competing (as long as they pass anti-doping tests), and transfeminine athletes must prove they are currently on HRT throughout competition AND show they have been on HRT for at least one full year.

    The most recent change came in 2021 when the IOC updated the policy again. Regardless of Trump’s executive orders, laws passed in the US Congress, or any personal policy instated by the US Olympic Committee, this policy is the international standard that the rest of the world abides by. The 2021 Consensus established the precedent that individual sports can create their own requirements regarding transgender competitors – but these requirements are agreed on the international level. Most Olympic sports elected to use the 2015 Consensus as their requirements and called it a day, although some did make their own in pursuit of balancing “fairness” with “inclusion.”

    In reality, the US Olympic Committee and Paralympic Committee are likely breaking the IOC rules since it will place a blanket ban on all transgender competitors who failed to medically transition before puberty regardless of transition status – despite the 2021 Consensus stating, “Eligibility criteria should be established and implemented fairly and in a manner that does not systematically exclude athletes from competition based upon their gender identity, physical appearance and/or sex variations. Provided they meet eligibility criteria that are consistent with principle 4 [Fairness], athletes should be allowed to compete in the category that best aligns with their self-determined gender identity.”

  • Supreme Court Rules Against Trans Minors

    Supreme Court Rules Against Trans Minors

    In a devastating update, the United States Supreme Court voted along party lines to uphold Tennessee’s unethical blanket ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors. United States v. Skrmetti was decided 6-3 and has potentially severe consequences for adult care as well.

    The case asked the Court to consider whether transgender individuals constitute as a class, since we are united and targeted based on identity, and whether blanket bans as previously determined to be unconstitutional were similar when targeting transgender healthcare. After all, other populations are guaranteed the equal right to medically necessary care since previous decisions established that medical discrimination was illegal. However, the Court ignored all of those questions when presenting their argument for siding with the state of Tennessee and stated gender dysphoria was an exception to previous rulings on blanket bans, and thus, medical providers and legislators were allowed to discriminate against transgender people.

    Their logic is derived from stating that the current ban on gender-affirming care for minors is based on gender dysphoria and not sex, so it cannot be classified as sex-based discrimination – the same logic used by the Trump administration when removing LGBTQIA+ protections under Title IX. Of course, this logic is flawed: at this moment, the Court views transgender identity as a mental health issue, but they are choosing to ignore that other aspects of Tennessee’s laws (as well as other states across the country) wish to prosecute transgender people for sex crimes based on sex assigned at birth. In her coverage of the topic, Erin Reed wrote, “The Tennessee law, Justice Sotomayor and the dissent argue, explicitly classifies on the basis of sex—so overtly that the majority’s attempt to sidestep that reality reads as disingenuous. The statute itself declares that one purpose of the ban is to ‘encourage minors to appreciate their sex,’ and yet the majority still concludes it does not constitute sex-based classification.” This argument also fails to consider that while gender dysphoria is currently classified as a mental disorder, it is the required diagnosis for medically necessary treatment for transgender individuals. The World Health Organization and other experts on mental and physical health have declassified transgender identity itself as a mental illness since our distress is caused by the dysphoria or disconnect between internal gender and outward expression. As NPR wrote, “[The] Supreme Court decision was a big win for Tennessee and 24 other states, but there are many questions that remain unanswered.”

    “Bans on Best Practice Medical Care for Transgender Youth” by the Movement Advancement Project

    Permitting states to ban gender-affirming care, the medically necessary and most effective treatment for gender dysphoria, to treat transgender people in distress is as nonsensical and inhumane as banning other medications like insulin for the treatment of diabetes or banning the prescription of albuterol for asthma.

    The current ruling is also dangerous, since it seems to permit states to ban transgender healthcare entirely – not just for minors. The conservative Court is not arguing that states have a right to ‘protect children from medical treatments’ like gender-affirming care; they are arguing that states have a right to ban gender-affirming care entirely.

    Regarding the Supreme Court’s decision, Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson released the following statement:

    “Today’s Supreme Court decision is a devastating blow to transgender youth and the families who love them, but it will not break our resolve. Families may now have to make the heartbreaking choice to leave their state or split their families, or take on extensive financial burdens, to ensure that their kids can access medically necessary care.

    “This Court chose to allow politicians to interfere in medical decisions that should be made by doctors, patients, and families—a cruel betrayal of the children who needed them to stand up for justice when it mattered most.

    “As parents, advocates, and community leaders, we know that our fight doesn’t end in courtrooms—it lives in our communities, our hearts, and our unwavering commitment to each other. Still, we will not be deterred. We will support families forced to make impossible choices, fund legal challenges, and build a movement so powerful that no politician can ignore us. Together, we will turn this pain into power and keep fighting until every transgender person in America can live with dignity, safety, and the freedom to be who they are.”

    Erin Reed also reported that “Though the majority avoided that outcome, three justices—Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Amy Coney Barrett—wrote separately to express that they would have gone further, explicitly denying transgender people equal protection under the law.” While the Court’s decision does not affect transgender individuals living in states that protect gender-affirming care, it further divides the country. Gleeful legislators are banning the most effective treatment for transgender people, the most proven deterrent that lowers the suicide rate amongst the trans community – depending on where you live, you may not be able to legally obtain medically necessary healthcare that has been the gold standard throughout the world for decades and you can be prosecuted for traveling elsewhere to receive such care.

    While the decision is terrifying, the war for transgender rights isn’t over. United States v. Skrmetti specifically targets gender-affirming care for minors, and while legislators have talked about expanding healthcare bans to adults, no laws have actually been written. It also isn’t the end for transgender minors either – social justice advocates will continue to fight the Supreme Court for equal rights, despite this loss. If the GOP can stack the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, there is always hope for a better future. Chase Strangio from the ACLU stated, “Though this is a painful setback, it does not mean that transgender people and our allies are left with no options to defend our freedom, our health care, or our lives. The Court left undisturbed Supreme Court and lower court precedent that other examples of discrimination against transgender people are unlawful. We are as determined as ever to fight for the dignity and equality of every transgender person, and we will continue to do so with defiant strength, a restless resolve, and a lasting commitment to our families, our communities, and the freedom we all deserve.”

    In addition to this news, I wanted to give context that other news sources aren’t covering. United States v. Skrmetti rose to the Supreme Court on whether gender-affirming care bans on transgender minors are constitutional – Tennessee lawmakers defended the law by citing bogus claims that gender-affirming care is unsafe and experimental.

    It is not hard to make up research, and I’ve talked about this at length. It has been proven via various leaks that the GOP is writing laws based on astroturf organizations and the pseudoscience they publish as legitimate research – but these organizations never have actual backing, and you won’t find real-life members because they’re fabricated to lobby. While Trump and the GOP love to accuse the left of doing so, they are actually the only ones who use paid activists in this manner. Anyone can produce research and you can make your ‘research’ prove your hypothesis if you are willing to tamper with data and the research process – which is why ‘research’ organizations like the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine are never acclaimed or published by legitimate agencies like American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, World Health Organization, and American Public Health Association. The reality is gender-affirming care, including care for minors, is overwhelmingly supported by research. Research being conducted and published under the current political regime is purposely misleading, inaccurate, and propagandistic.

    Secondly, these legislators have not met actual transgender youth who have experienced the supposed woes of being forced into medical procedures. If you are under the age of 18, it is incredibly difficult to access gender-affirming medical care due to the international requirements established by WPATH. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health is just as legitimate as a health institution as the World Health Organization, and has produced credible research for decades supporting gender-affirming care. The recent accusations that scientific bodies like WPATH and WHO are untrustworthy because they do not side with GOP pseudoscience are created solely to bring harm. The WPATH itself has made an official statement denouncing Trump’s pseudo-research.

    Even in the most liberal states, it is a grueling process for minors to get gender-affirming medical care.

    First, a young person must be fully out as transgender – including their parents and guardians, family members, school, and community. For them to be fully out, that minor has identified as transgender for an extended period, since no, people do not just wake up and decide to be trans.

    After coming out, that transgender minor must socially transition – this means they have picked another name they are going by, pronouns, hairstyle, clothing, hobbies, and other aspects of gender. They have gone through the trouble of picking a name that fits their gender identity and have told others, likely begun outwardly expressing their gender without medical intervention, and have changed minor forms that don’t require legal orders, like email addresses, school assignment rosters, and social media accounts.

    That transgender minor must now engage with regular counseling and get a diagnosis for gender dysphoria – which they can only do after establishing their transgender identity is long-standing and not a phase for that provider. It is at this point that the minor must have the full support of all their legal guardians, since minors cannot easily access therapy, and definitely cannot engage with medical care without their parents’ explicit consent.

    Assuming the minor has completed every step above completely and has identified as transgender for an extended time, they MIGHT be eligible for medical care. WPATH only allows puberty blockers to be prescribed to minors who have reached Tanner stage two, or in other words, shown visible signs of puberty beginning as their sex assigned at birth. The minor must also prove that they are capable of making informed decisions, further establish that their gender identity is not a phase, and not the consequence of a mental disorder other than gender dysphoria.

    The minor and their guardians must locate a doctor who is trained to provide such care and show proof of their gender dysphoria diagnosis and ongoing mental health treatment. Depending on the provider, they might be required to have two letters from qualified mental health professionals stating that medical treatment has been deemed medically necessary. Most doctors require transgender minors to engage in puberty blockers before hormone replacement therapy, even if they’re sixteen, and they will not move to HRT until the minor has been on puberty blockers for a minimum amount of time.

    After the youth has been on puberty blockers for a sufficient amount of time, they may be moved to hormone replacement therapy – which means estrogen or testosterone will be prescribed instead of puberty blockers to commence puberty.

    If the transgender minor is unsure whether they may want biological children one day, they MIGHT be eligible for reproductive services such as sperm or egg freezing. However, these reproductive services aren’t common since most transgender people are told from the beginning that transition will likely make them unable to have biological children.

    If the minor is assigned female at birth, they MIGHT be eligible for top surgery if they did not engage with puberty blockers fast enough to prevent breast growth and have been on HRT for a minimum of twelve months. However, this itself is even more rare than minors accessing medical gender-affirming care entirely, and the vast majority of surgeons will require their patients to wait until age eighteen.

    Transgender minors are not able to freely access other surgical procedures. While technically possible, medical providers are not willing to perform these procedures before the age of eighteen. If someone tries to argue about whatever conspiracy they believe, force them to pull details like their office number and credentials. If they are unable or unwilling to call that provider’s office and obtain at least verbal proof, they are lying.

    As mentioned before, the Supreme Court ruling affects more than just minors – the logic embraced paves a route for states to ban gender-affirming care entirely because they deem it as ‘experimental.’ The reason gender-affirming care for minors is seen as so experimental is because research is more mixed regarding puberty blockers compared to HRT, but puberty blockers are never intended as the end result for gender-affirming care. Puberty blockers are used as a means to pause natal puberty and give minors time to establish their gender identity as more than a phase before continuing with non-reversible side effects of HRT. While hormone replacement therapy has non-reversible side effects, it is extremely effective and has exceedingly low regret rates, and thus has substantial positive results compared to puberty blockers. Yet again, for minors, puberty blockers are an integral part of the process for them to receive care.

  • Baptists Vote Against Marriage Equality, What’s the Big Deal?

    Baptists Vote Against Marriage Equality, What’s the Big Deal?

    Pride month is here, but the Southern Baptists didn’t get the memo and continue to wage a culture war on LGBTQIA+ equality. Just over 10,000 members voted for the denomination to oppose marriage equality at the annual Southern Baptist Convention hosted in Texas, but the move has been overshadowed by the immense No Kings Protests the following week.

    The SBC is the world’s largest Protestant organization, but Protestantism works differently from Catholicism. Unlike the Vatican Church, there is no singular doctrine or set of beliefs among Protestant groups – and the SBC isn’t legally binding. Instead, it acts as a loose agreement by its 47,000 member churches to work towards their shared mission, but individual churches remain autonomous and are allowed to govern their own decisions. In essence, this means the SBC vote is both important and insignificant: by endorsing a ban on same-sex marriage, the SBC is advising all Americans who attend one of its many affiliated churches to fight against equality, BUT the SBC cannot force individual churches to do anything and marriage equality has strong support by the general public.

    The resolution manages to not use the word ‘ban’ explicitly, stating instead for its members to call for the “overturning of laws and court rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges, that defy God’s design for marriage and family” and “for laws that affirm marriage between one man and one woman.” Of course, I feel it is worth mentioning that ‘Biblical marriage’ is nothing like what the conservative right and tradwives propose it as – actual Biblical marriage was a business transaction between families, arranged by parents with sufficient dowries, and allowed polygamy, even though those factors would be morally reprehensible to religious conservatives.

    A graphic showing the legal status of marriage equality prior to Obergefell by ABC News versus the current state as documented by the Movement Advancement Project.

    An overturn of Obergefell v. Hodges also wouldn’t do much. When decided in 2015, 36 states had already legalized same-sex marriage and many other states had legal provisions to accept queer marriages performed out-of-state or arrangement for legally binding civil unions. There was a spurt where states were updating outdated bans on marriage equality – but churches have a lot of money, and they have purposely paid for legislators to slowly create more bans on queer marriage to enforce if Obergefell is reversed. However, the SBC’s resolution calls for ALL laws and court decisions affirming marriage equality to be overturned – but that notion shows how out-of-touch most of the religious right is. Christians have lamented how church attendance rates have plummeted over the last couple of decades, since about three in ten self-identified Christians attend services weekly, according to Gallup. That doesn’t include the number of Americans who do not self-identify as Christian, since the Pew Research Center has charted the steady decline of Americans identifying as Christian and instead as spiritually unaffiliated, ‘spiritual but not religious,’ or even atheist/agnostic.

    Percent of Church-GoersChange from 2000
    Total US Adults30%-12%
    Mormon/Latter Day saints67%-1%
    Protestant44%-1%
    Islam38%+4%
    Catholic33%-12%
    Judaism22%+7%
    Orthodox26%+9%
    Buddhism14%-2%
    Hinduism13%-8%
    None/Atheist/Agnostic3%-3%
    Other21%-24%

    At the same time, roughly 70% of Americans support marriage equality and believe same-sex couples should be recognized by law as equally valid as traditional marriages. The religious right has only been effective at weaponizing transgender lives as a moral issue, but even that has caveats since the American public generally supports rights for transgender adults and also believes trans issues have no place in current politics. This framework also extends to other political issues Christian groups are involved with, such as the widespread support for abortion. The SBC and religious right believe the destruction of LGBTQIA+ rights will supercharge their attendance, but the opposite is incredibly more likely – especially when considering current civil unrest. “This is a very visible example of how attacks on the LGBTQ+ community as a whole have intensified, even as politicians aim at transgender people as a tactic to divide us,” said Laurel Powell of the Human Rights Campaign to the BBC. “We will never stop fighting to love who we love and be who we are.”

    The resolution also touched on other issues, like gender identity and fertility laws. Overall, the SBC is asking legislators to “pass laws that reflect the truth of creation and natural law – about marriage, sex, human life, and family,” oppose “any law or policy that compels people to speak falsehoods about sex and gender,” and see children “as blessings rather than burdens.” It’s a large resolution that covers many topics, from Americans’ lack of commitment to having more children to banning all forms of sports betting and pornography. The SBC seeks to return to an era of history where religion-mandated laws and “renewed moral clarity in public discourse regarding the crisis of declining fertility and for policies that support the bearing and raising of children with intact, married families.”

    The Associated Press wrote, “it also frames that issue as one of public policy… It laments that modern culture is ‘pursuing willful childlessness which contributes to a declining fertility rate,’ and Andrew Walker, chair of the Committee on Resolutions, said at a news conference that the marriage resolution shows that Southern Baptists aren’t going along with the widespread social acceptance of same-sex marriage.” It also noted that 10,541 total church representatives (referred to as ‘messengers’) attended the event, which is less than a quarter of what the SBC once was 40 years ago. In a statement to the New York Times, Denny Burk said, “We know that we’re in a minority in the culture right now, but we want to be a prophetic minority.”

    As church rates plummet, is this the hill the Christian right wants to die on? Time will tell, as well as the results of the upcoming midterm elections.

  • Pink, White, and Blue: What’s the current status of trans troops?

    Pink, White, and Blue: What’s the current status of trans troops?

    On January 27, 2025, Donald Trump reinstated the transgender military ban from his first presidential term, although the reasoning for each ban differed. Both are remarkably harmful and give room for anti-transgender sentiment to fester.

    Trump’s original ban in 2017 affected me directly: at the time, I had just graduated from high school and was struggling to survive living with my anti-transgender parents. When my ideal college plans fell through due to financial constraints, I turned to the military. Before that first ban, transgender people were allowed to openly serve due to the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and were given medical coverage through guaranteed health benefits for all soldiers. But for some reason, I kept feeling something was wrong in my gut, so I never signed the dotted line, and I lived with relatives that summer with the plan that I would enlist in the fall. Three days before my 18th birthday, Donald Trump made his infamous tweets stating transgender people would be banned from service. I ended up attending community college and getting involved with my local queer scene, pursuing higher education through FAFSA.

    The original ban hinged on the premise that transgender soldiers were too costly for the military. Trump and his cronies lamented that gender-affirming care, like hormone replacement therapy and surgery, was causing the budget to skyrocket and was a massive burden for the military to handle – but people were quick to point out how flawed that logic was.

    Very few individuals want to serve in the United States military just for the joy of it. No, the armed forces are notoriously known for their campaigns in American high schools, convincing teenagers that enlistment is their best way to pay for college. The military has always relied on using its benefits as a means to drive enlistment – transgender people seeking healthcare coverage isn’t much different than other young people joining to pay for college. That’s why the military has the insane budget it’s been given by Congress; the armed forces continue to take up most of the federal budget. Further, it’s been well proven that gender-affirming care was overall insignificant to the military budget and absolutely not worth banning potentially combat-ready soldiers from service. If money were that much of an issue, Donald Trump wouldn’t be having a personal parade for his birthday to “honor” the Army’s coinciding 250th anniversary.

    Since both bans are enforced via executive order, the current ban will inevitably be erased once Donald Trump is removed from power. Executive orders are incredibly flimsy, but they’re a favorite tool amongst unpopular presidents to enforce rules that can’t be made into laws through Congress.

    Trump’s second ban is darker. Rather than arguing that transgender service members are too expensive to keep, Trump argued that transgender individuals are simply just dishonorable by nature and thus unfit to serve. In his own words, “the Armed Forces have been afflicted with radical gender ideology to appease activists unconcerned with the requirements of military service like physical and mental health, selflessness, and unit cohesion… Consistent with the military mission and longstanding DoD policy, expressing a false ‘gender identity’ divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service.  Beyond the hormonal and surgical medical interventions involved, adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.  A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.”

    The current ban on transgender service members is based on the understanding that transgender identity alone makes us dishonorable, untruthful, undisciplined, and otherwise unfit to adhere to the military’s moral code. That’s terrifying logic meant to dehumanize transgender people – but the good news is that it’s easier to fight in court. Sarah Warbelow stated in a Human Rights Campaign press release, “This discriminatory ban is a threat to our national security, wastes years of training and financial investments, and is unconstitutional.”

    “The assertion that transgender service members like myself are inherently untrustworthy or lack honor is an insult to all who have dedicated their lives to defending this country,” said Commander Emily Shilling. “…I have been selected for promotion and ranked number one in my community for merit. Not because of my identity, our boards are deliberately blind to such things, but because my performance and leadership set me apart. What greater proof of merit is required? This ban is not about readiness or cohesion, and it is certainly not about merit. It is about exclusion and betrayal, purposely targeting those of us who volunteered to serve, simply for having the courage and integrity to live our truth.”

    It’s already been sued by multiple agencies, but it has not made its way to the Supreme Court. Depending on how it is worded to the Court, it could be an easy win or a devastating lost – assuming they take the approach that gender identity is no more fair to discriminate against than other identity markers like biological sex, race, or ethnicity, it would be easy to argue that the current ban segregates transgender people from the rest of society.

    Currently, transgender people are not allowed to serve in the armed forces if they have ever had a diagnosis identifying them as transgender or having gender dysphoria – which is a prerequisite requirement for health insurance to cover gender-affirming care like hormone replacement therapy or surgery, and it’s required in some states to legally change one’s gender marker on official documents. Anyone who has any form of “gender-affirming care,” as determined by the Trump administration, is barred from service – so like under his first ban, transgender soldiers are being dishonorably discharged in droves based on his political agenda. Further, the new ban is also requiring the military to screen both incoming recruits and trained members for ‘signs’ of gender dysphoria – which means the current transgender military ban also invites an anti-trans witch hunt similar to the days during the Lavender Scare. It took years for Biden to reverse the previous dishonorable discharges accrued from the first ban, and thus former service members were given a black mark for employment, education, healthcare, etc.

    Military service can be controversial, especially in activist circles. It’s ultimately its own industry, and it thrives off how American capitalism forces marginalized youth to join in order to protect their futures, even if it means going to war overseas for political interests. Regardless, it cannot be overstated how important access to military service is to general human rights: the armed forces were among the first places desegregated, and it was exposure to others that began to change the public’s mindset on civil rights. Even today, the military serves as an eye-opener – most conservatives who love the idea of the military have never served, but the military has served an integral role in mixing the most closed-minded with other perspectives.

    Last week was the final deadline for transgender service members to identify themselves and voluntarily leave – now, the Trump administration will begin enforcing involuntary separations. Similar to Trump’s previous attempts to force federal workers to quit, there are still a large number of individuals refusing to leave their posts. It’s a calculated move – if they’re dishonorably discharged, they have a much better court case. However, it’s not always feasible since refusing to leave now means they could potentially have to pay thousands of dollars back to the United States government if they’re involuntarily separated.

    Last month, the Supreme Court suspended the pause enforced by a federal judge in Washington that had been barring the order from going into effect. U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle agreed originally that Trump’s order clearly violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause by enforcing a blanket ban. This decision does not mean the Court will necessarily side in Trump’s favor – it means that the order will go into effect, causing many service members to be discharged and be easily able to bring the case to sue.

    The decision thus far by the Supreme Court also doesn’t eliminate the lawsuit already progressing that incited Settle’s pause. The battle isn’t lost yet. The GOP changed their attack from financial to ‘ethics,’ but that doesn’t mean they have a better chance of defending it in court. Previously, the argument that transgender people were too expensive to keep didn’t make sense, considering the United States has the most over-budget military in the world and specifically uses advertised benefits to attract recruits. The claim that transgender people are unfit to serve because we lack honor is a moral-based argument – it makes just as little sense as banning atheists or Muslims because they lack the same religious ‘moral code’ as traditional Christians, to ban women from service because they’re ‘less rational’ than men, or to ban Black and Brown Americans because they’re ‘morally inferior.’

    These arguments never hold up in court. It’s easy to feel defeated, but we have to persist.

  • What does Pope Leo mean for American politics?

    What does Pope Leo mean for American politics?

    May 8th brought a new pope to lead the Roman Catholic Church and over a billion Catholics worldwide – originally born as Robert Francis Prevost, Pope Leo XIV was elected to fill Pope Francis’ role. While the Catholic Church does not maintain real power outside of the Vatican, the Pope does influence world politics due to its large following. Like those before him, Pope Leo will shape Catholic beliefs as he serves as the head of Catholicism. Between the wealth of Catholic organizations and powerful Catholics elected to political office, like Vice President JD Vance, Pope Leo holds a great deal of unwritten power beyond the Vatican’s borders.

    Leo is now the 267th Bishop of Rome, and billions of individuals are researching his previous beliefs, statements, and history to grasp better what his reign may look like. He is taking the position at 69 years old after serving his life within the Church, but mainstream news has drawn attention to how Leo is the first American pope in history. Leo is from Chicago, Illinois, and is the second pope from the Americas, following former Pope Francis, and was only recently made a Cardinal by Francis in 2024. Ultimately, there is no true way to know how Pope Leo will lead the Catholic faith in upcoming years: Francis was considered “progressive” by media outlets, but held both conservative and liberal views that he used to bridge the Catholic Church to the world public. As he aged, Francis became more vocally progressive through the belief it was his duty to be a symbol of the modern Church rather than espouse personal politics. Leo was a close confidant of Francis, and while most are predicting he will be more conservative than Francis, that future is not written in stone since Leo may choose to handle his responsibility in a number of ways.

    It is also imperative to note that Pope Leo and the Church try to stay out of politics when possible. Leo isn’t going to give statements on budget reform, college debt, taxes, or social security. The Church only speaks on politics that they believe directly impact human life, like refugees, the death penalty, abortion, and euthanasia. It is only a recent development within the Church to have a stance on climate change, tied to the potential great loss of human life and society’s responsibility to tend to God’s creation. Yet, the above subjects are hot topics – especially when one of America’s two political parties has very hard values on their platform, regardless of the cost of life. 

    Lastly, before continuing, Pope Leo’s voting record has allegedly been made public. As an Illinoian, there are no records kept on who Leo has voted for in the past: the only records kept show that Leo has historically voted both in Republican and Democrat primaries and that he regularly votes in most elections. Since there are no “official” records of how Leo really feels on politics, media outlets throughout the world are trying to guess where he might stand.

    Leo on… MAGA

    Remember: Leo was a confidant and ally of Francis, and Francis was no friend to the Trump administration. Just before Pope Francis died, the former pope scolded JD Vance for using his Catholic faith to harm others. While the Trump administration may try to cozy up to the Vatican, Pope Leo has already made a public point that he is not in favor of MAGA, especially concerning issues of immigration, poverty, and war.

    Trump is quick to announce how proud he is that the US now has its first ever pope, but that love will quickly fade: Trump ally Laura Loomer has already taken to make an official statement online, “[Pope Leo] is anti-Trump, anti-MAGA, pro-open Borders, and a total Marxist like Pope Francist. Catholics don’t have anything good to look forward to. Just another Marxist puppet in the Vatican.” Of course, Francis was definitely not a Marxist nor actually liberal – but MAGA doesn’t actually care about the truth.

    Most knowledge of this subject comes from Pope Leo’s social media account on X/Twitter. Leo is currently regarded as a centrist on the world stage, but this is bad news for MAGA since “centrist” equates to far-left communism due to their Overton window shift of American politics. In February 2025, Leo shared an article on his account: “JD Vance is wrong: Jesus doesn’t ask us to rank our love for others,” in reference to Vance’s stance that faith commands us to love ourselves before our neighbors and the world at large. Months later, Leo shared a link to an article condemning the Trump administration for not facilitating the return of wrongly deported man Kilmar Abrego Garcia and MAGA’s path towards deportation without due process or humanity. In Leo’s own words, “Do you [Trump, Vance, and MAGA] not see the suffering? Is your conscience not disturbed? How can you stay quiet?”

    These critiques are not new, and the Associated Press has found similar statements by Leo dating back to 2015. During Trump’s first presidential campaign, Leo posted an article titled, “Why Donald Trump’s anti-immigration rhetoric is so problematic.” In short, Leo is already considered a foil or opposite to Trump’s administration, so it’s only a matter of time before it boils to a head.

    Leo on… Immigration

    Immigration is one of Leo’s key issues and will likely fuel any potential rivalry between him and the Trump administration. Leo holds dual citizenship in Peru, where he has spent most of his life on missions, and identifies as a child of immigrants. Pope Leo has made it clear that he is against MAGA immigration and deportations, so we are likely to see the most news related to Leo and his responses to Trump on immigration and refugees.

    Leo on… Climate Change

    Pope Leo actually deeply cares about climate change and the current state of the environment, similar to former Pope Francis’ stance. In 2024, Leo called on the Church to move “from words to action,” and affirmed the Vatican’s commitment to protecting the environment.

    Leo on… LGBTQIA+ Rights

    Most media organizations reporting Leo as conservative compared to Francis focus on his stances on LGBTQIA+ people – although I believe they should be doing so with more nuance. Back in 2012, Leo made a statement disapproving of positive depictions of LGBTQIA+ families in media, claiming it was at odds with the Church’s stance. However, nuance is needed – in 2012, Francis himself was not necessarily supportive of queer people either. In 2015, Francis compared transgender identity to genetic manipulation and nuclear war and made a couple of statements condemning marriage equality. Francis was “progressive” in his numerous statements that queer people should be included in the Church, which Leo will more than likely follow, but Francis never believed in true marriage equality.

    In 2024, Leo commented that more conversations needed to happen regarding blessing same-sex couples: Leo did not object to such blessings, but rather stated variance needed to exist within the Church to handle blessings internationally since blessings are sanctioned within North America and Europe but not in African countries still enforcing the death penalty against same-sex activity. Then, in a public appearance in May 2025, Leo stated that the Church affirms notions of ‘family’ as the “stable union between a man and a woman” – before walking slightly back to ensure LGBTQIA+ Catholics “are welcome in the church,” according to the Associated Press. Leo is unlikely to sanction queer marriage within the Church, similar to Francis, but he will probably push to include more queer individuals in the Church – especially if conservative comments and positions by himself and the Church continue to drive people away.

    Leo on… Women’s Rights

    Like most Catholics, Leo is most conservative here: much like his predecessor Francis and other leaders of the Church. Leo generally opposes expanded reproductive care like abortions, viewing the issue as similar to euthanasia. In 2019, Leo stated we “cannot build a just society if we discard the weakest – whether the child in the womb or the elderly in their frailty.” The Associated Press reported that Leo recently affirmed this statement: “No one is exempt from striving to ensure respect for the dignity of every person, especially the most frail and vulnerable, from the unborn to the elderly, from the sick to the unemployed, citizens and immigrants alike.” Other topics like contraception and IVF are unclear, and Leo will likely avoid such topics like Francis.

    While Leo supported some of Francis’ decisions on expanding women’s involvement within the Church, he disapproved of discussions on women’s ability to hold official positions like deacons. “It isn’t as simple as saying that, ‘You know, at this stage we’re going to change the tradition of the Church after 2,000 years on any one of those points,” Leo stated back in 2023 to The Catholic News Agency.

    Leo on… Church Reform

    Francis opened dialogue within the Church through “Synod on Synodality,” where priests, bishops, and regular folks were summoned by the pope to engage in debate. It was considered radical and forced the most conservative bishops to listen and engage in debate with “outsiders” across the religious and political spectrum. Leo has indicated he plans to carry out Francis’ synodal reforms, so his Church legacy will continue these open discussions on world social issues.

    Unfortunately, Francis was conservative on women’s roles within the Church, as mentioned above. Leo shares Francis’ opinions on opening women’s involvement within leadership roles, and we’re unlikely to see any extreme changes.

    Pope Leo is inheriting Francis’s attempts to end sexual abuse in the Church. Francis became the pope during the height of systematic cover-up, constantly barraged with scandals from former Pope Benedict’s reign. In 2019, Francis went on the record as stating he had been part of the problem in dismissing accusations made against Catholic bishops. The Church has barely acknowledged its sexual abuse and continues to cover up most ongoing scandals. Leo himself was accused by the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests for covering up abuse while he was leading the Diocese of Chiclayo. It is now Leo’s turn to steer the Church – while we can hope Leo will choose to fight against sexual abuse, he’s likely to keep to the Church’s self-interests.

  • Courts Protect Draggieland: What’s Drag Got to do with Trans Rights?

    Courts Protect Draggieland: What’s Drag Got to do with Trans Rights?

    This March brings good news in the war on drag: federal Judge Lee H. Rosenthal from Houston’s Southern District ruled with the Texas A&M Queer Empowerment Council on an upcoming drag performance titled “Draggieland” that the show was safely protected under the First Amendment as theatrical expression. But why has drag been targeted so often in recent years? Does it affect transgender rights?

    A Short History on Drag

    “Drag” is the common term used regarding cross-dressing performances, where talented (and occasionally untalented) individuals use a combination of clothing, gender roles, makeup, wigs, and other items to exaggerate gender as entertainment. Despite the recent legislative war on drag, it has a long history both within the United States and abroad.

    The concept behind gender impersonation dates centuries – it was common for cisgender men to act as women in ancient Greece until Shakespeare’s time when women were prohibited from performing themselves. Similar performances spanned the globe, as exhibited by kabuki theater in ancient Japan. It wasn’t until the 19th century that drag was reintroduced in the United States through increasingly popular minstrel shows (a racist form of theater where white actors would impersonate Black Americans for entertainment). In these early days, both cisgender heterosexual men and closeted queer men took to the stage to mock Black women. Like minstrelsy itself, these impersonations were done in bad faith and used negative stereotypes to demean – which is vastly different from the lip-synching competitions put on national television today.

    “King Lear” by Edwin Austin Abbey (1898), depicting performers in drag.

    After the Civil War, minstrel shows began incorporating Black Americans into their shows, and by the early 1900s, female impersonation was influenced by French vaudeville shows that used a broader form of comedy compared to the narrow forms used in blackface minstrelsy. New roles were added and more female impersonators became popular for their work, leading performers like George W. Munroe to star on Broadway. As the art form drifted away from minstrelsy, it became more legitimized through vaudeville, burlesque, and traditional theatre. Around this time, ballroom culture was forming too – the other key component that gave birth to the modern drag scene.

    Gay balls were special social events among queer individuals where they were encouraged to show off their costumes while partaking in gender impersonation accompanied by music – and were especially popular with the queer Black and Latine communities of Harlem, although they took place elsewhere in the country. The Masquerade and Civic Ball began in 1869 in Upper Manhattan, and exclusive balls occurred in queer Black communities in major cities. It’s theorized that these balls, and the queer culture that surrounded them, had the most impact on modern drag since it established houses, competition, and many of the performances utilized now. Ballroom and house culture still exists today – “Paris Is Burning” was produced in 1990 as an insight into the performers still competing despite social pressure.

    Lastly, some historians point to the Western frontier as another influence on drag culture. Women were uncommon out west, so men were left to their own devices while pursuing work as cowboys, miners, loggers, and railroad workers – naturally forming intimate bonds that occasionally led to romance. Such environments prompted stag dances where men would dance with other men due to the lack of available women and prejudice. These dances were also common in the United States military – which is why drag shows weren’t obscene when they were sanctioned by the Army to entertain their World War II soldiers.

    In the 1920s, America experienced the Pansy Craze – a decade and a half of increased queer visibility in the underground scenes of New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, etc. These “pansy performers” were invited in cabarets and speakeasies popular with cisgender straight audiences that began to normalize crossdressing performances until the restrictions of the Hays Code in 1934 and police crackdowns on LGBTQIA+ individuals. These attacks would hold for decades, pushing queer performers back into the shadows.

    Years later, queer folks were frustrated with how they were treated by the police, the government, and the general public. Queer respectability politics, or the idea that being a “good gay” will protect you from discrimination, divided the community as traditionalists argued that queer people should continue to pay dues to the mafia blackmailing them for protection against law enforcement. Gender-diverse individuals advocated for greater visibility that would lead to acceptance – and these politics may be why so many folks identified as drag performers and impersonators rather than transgender at the time. Until recently, it was significantly safer to identify as a cisgender person who impersonated the other gender than as an actual transgender person – which is why we associate figures like Marsha P. Johnson as transgender even though they identified as impersonators while alive. In this growing turmoil, transgender and gender-expressive individuals were targeted most frequently by police when gay bars were raided – including the night the Stonewall Riots began. In the greater queer liberation movement, drag performers and crossdressing were seen as a form of deviance and kink since it was so subversive to the cisgender heterosexual public – and one reason why kink has had a tied history to queer culture.

    I’d like to note that the above is a short summary – as I mentioned previously, drag has a long history. Here are some resources for learning more:

    Struthers Library Theatre
    BBC
    National Geographic

    Why do Drag Bans Matter?

    Today, drag is popular among queer and straight audiences, and shows like “RuPaul’s Drag Race” further increase its visibility. It took a long time for us to get here – but that doesn’t mean it’s safe. Like near the end of the Pansy Craze, religious conservatives are attacking gender impersonation as morally wrong and another item that needs to be criminalized. These entities view drag as inherently sexual, arguing that children must be kept away from drag at all costs as a result. Drag bans range from banning drag story hours, where drag performers simply to young children in attire considered extremely conventional and appropriate for public audiences, to criminalizing drag shows altogether since minors may come into contact with performers – and using the same logic as “Don’t Say Gay/No Promo Homo” bills, be turned queer.

    Not all drag performers are transgender – in fact, most of them are not. Yet we have a united history as marginalized communities and anti-drag laws can have profound effects on transgender rights. When these bills are written and passed into law, conservatives often argue they will have zero impact on transgender people trying to get through everyday life – but that’s not necessarily true. Most of the politicians who write these bills do not see a distinction between drag performers who dress up as another gender once a week and real-life transgender people who live and identify as their gender identity. To these officials and the organizations that help fund and write their bills, we are the same – transgender people are gender impersonators. Without us asking for clarification on these anti-drag laws, they are purposely written vaguely so they can be later used to criminalize transgender people for being ‘gender impersonators’ in public spaces – similar to how Jewish individuals and transgender people themselves were persecuted by Nazi Germany leading up to the Holocaust.

    The good news is that federal courts overwhelmingly see drag as protected by the Constitution’s First Amendment. Every single person in the United States has the right to express themselves, even if others around them dislike it – the First Amendment only stops when that speech can be proven to incite harm onto others, and that’s usually a pretty high bar set by previous cases determined by the Supreme Court. 

    In response, many anti-drag bills instead try to designate drag performances as adult-only events. These laws have two main impacts: firstly, they negatively harm pride festivals since most use drag performers as entertainment throughout their events – but pride festivals are almost always held outside due to their sheer size, and they’re almost always all-ages since anyone can be LGBTQIA+ and should have the right to meet other queer folks outside of reserved alcohol tents. Secondly, these types of bills can still harm transgender folks since if transgender people are designated as gender impersonators, we would not be legally allowed to present as transgender in public if minors are present – which is pretty much always, since “public” refers to city streets, businesses, libraries, community centers, gyms, restaurants, and any other setting outside the home. 

    These laws have not been tested and rebuked as much compared to the first set that attempted to ban drag entirely – but there’s still hope and reason for the law to strike them down as unconstitutional. For performances and material to be censored due to being sexual, they must adhere to the Miller Test. The Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that for material to be considered obscene and liable to be censored, it must fit three criteria: 1. The average person, using contemporary community standards, must find it sexually explicit, 2. The work must be considered patently offensive, and 3. The work must lack any serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The Miller test has been historically used to determine whether things like porn and erotica are allowed to be legally sold in the United States, but it can also extend to whether typical non-sexual drag performances are too ‘offensive’ for youth to potentially see.

    Wondering about the current state of drag bans in the United States? The Movement Advancement Project maintains a national map based on legislation in effect – it does not include possible bills that circulate through state legislatures. At the time of this article’s publication, these states currently include: Montana, Texas, Arkansas, Florida, North Dakota, and Tennessee. Only North Dakota and Arkansas’s laws have not been blocked by federal courts.

  • SAVE Our Votes: Congress on Track to Restrict Voting Access

    SAVE Our Votes: Congress on Track to Restrict Voting Access

    At the beginning of 2025, Representative Roy Chip of Texas reintroduced the “Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act” – a misleading name, like most GOP bills. It has garnered media attention since it has a real chance of becoming federal law due to Republicans controlling the entirety of Congress in addition to the Presidency. Back in 2024, the SAVE Act managed to pass the House 211-198 but fell after being blocked by the then-Democratic Senate and threats by President Joe Biden to veto it as soon as it landed in the Oval Office. To become law, the SAVE Act merely needs a 51% majority in Congress before it will be signed by Donald Trump.

    What is the SAVE Act?

    In its own words, the SAVE Act “requires individuals to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections.” But what exactly does that mean?

    If passed, the SAVE Act will require all citizens to show physical proof of their American citizenship in one of three ways to get their ballot: a valid US passport, a REAL ID, or a birth certificate proving their American birth – and that option must match their current legal name on their other documents, like Driver’s License, military ID, bills, etc. Currently, only two of those options work since REAL IDs do not indicate citizenship status. The real harm and intent of the SAVE Act is aimed at American women, although it disproportionally affects anyone in rural areas. According to Statistics in 2022, 68.9% of American women have been married, widowed, or divorced – but very few women get their birth certificate amended after changing their legal name via marriage. It’s burdensome and unnecessary since it’s not been required for any other legal process where an amended Driver’s License or similar ID could be used. USA Today reports that 51% of Americans have a valid passport – a number that has steadily increased throughout the decades but remains disproportionate based on communities with access to income or transportation. Ultimately, the SAVE Act will require all voters to present either a birth certificate or passport that matches their current legal name. These requirements directly target all women, but especially women in rural communities, and bar their ability to vote in future elections.

    How common is voter fraud? Donald Trump and his allies would have you believe that fraud is rampant, breaking the systems that American democracy is founded on. These claims have been repeatedly debunked – but Trump is an accomplished propagandist, immediately circling back to argue mainstream media and whistleblowers must be in cahoots with his opponents if they refuse to side with him despite his lack of evidence. The facts are relatively simple: voter fraud is rare, and intentionally doing so leads to felony charges and deportation that noncitizens do not believe is worth the risk. Still, election fraud is a viable tactic in employing fascism – Trump asserted for months leading up to the 2020 election that fraud could be the only reason he lost, encouraging his fanbase to attack the national capital in his defense.

    To this point, elections have always been a state issue – with certain national protections in place to streamline the process, individual states have the authority to determine requirements for elections. These laws are why “red” states are largely just suppressed rather than genuinely conservative – the surprise 2020 outcome in Georgia occurred because grassroots organizers worked for months to help Black voters get registered to legally vote despite the strict laws Georgia set to deter voters. Depending on the state you live in, you may not be able to register online, vote by mail, vote early or overseas, or use drop boxes. Many suppressive states intentionally purge voter registration records without notice to require voters to reapply for each election – which catches would-be voters off-guard on election day since they’ve been deleted from the records and it’s passed the deadline to re-register.

    Read More About the SAVE Act

    Given the changes the SAVE Act would make, states on both sides of the political spectrum have made statements about the act being an overreach by the federal government and not possible without additional funding. Democratic Michigan Secretary of State Joselyn Benson told the Associated Press, “If you talk to the vast majority of election officials, they will tell you that federal investment in our elections is sorely needed, especially if folks in Congress are going to be talking about things like the SAVE Act, which will only increase costs of running elections and increase federal oversight and involvement in our elections.” Republican Lieutenant Governor Deirdre Henderson elaborated that “it definitely shouldn’t be on throwing election workers or secretaries of state or county clerks in jail for accidentally registering a noncitizen to vote when we don’t have adequate tools to even verify citizenship.” When confronted about whether these changes would impact women, Representative Roy deflected, pointing out a provision in the SAVE Act that would allow for individual states to accept additional documents to prove one’s citizenship if there is a discrepancy on their birth certificate. However, this provision is vague and does not outline what documents would be permissible in its current form. More importantly, the SAVE Act causes more burden than it can claim to solve, given that voter fraud does not regularly happen – which is exactly why major nonpartisan groups such as the League of Women Voters denounce the bill.

    “The House and Senate introduced the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which would require citizenship documentation to register to vote even though voters in every state are already required to affirm or verify their citizenship status when registering.

    The SAVE Act would create one more barrier to the voting process, as many eligible voters do not have easy access to the necessary documents.”

    – League of Women Voters, 3/4/2025

    Will the SAVE Act Impact Trans Voters?

    Most likely, yes – at least in some form. However, the SAVE Act will largely impact married women over any other demographic. I would argue that any legislation that aims to create barriers to voting is generally bad, and the SAVE Act creates that barrier by exploiting possible discrepancies between one’s legal and current name.

    That being said, nearly any adult can legally change their name in the United States – you don’t need a specific reason to do so.* Married women typically don’t change their birth certificates because they don’t need to when updating their other documents – but for transgender folks, birth certificates are often the very first thing that gets updated after a legal name change since it’s an integral part of updating other forms like Social Security, passports, state IDs, Driver’s Licenses, school documents, bank statements, voter registration, etc. For non-married-related changes, it’s just a matter of paperwork to file with your local county court with a filing fee and possible newspaper publication. Since birth certificates are one of the first documents updated, transgender voters shouldn’t have much trouble with these steps.

    The only way that the SAVE Act would further impact transgender Americans would be if another law was implemented to ban legal name changes for trans-related purposes. While possible, this type of law is unlikely and would only occur if the United States has reached a genocidal stage where transgender people are fleeing for refuge elsewhere. Federal laws and previous court precedents have established that laws must be applied equally to all citizens – so a law that purposely discriminates against one’s transgender status would violate our understanding of democracy.

    *The only people completely barred from changing their legal name are those committed to identity fraud. Many states have higher restrictions and time limits for individuals with non-fraud felonies, but it’s still possible. Some states have laws that allow folks with identity fraud charges to change their legal name if it’s for transition purposes.

    What Happens if the SAVE Act is Passed?

    If the SAVE Act is passed and signed into law by President Trump, it can still be deemed unconstitutional in court. The Constitution was created with intentional checks and balances to allow the three branches of government to co-run the country – the Supreme Court has the authority to strike down any law passed by Congress if they believe it violates the Constitution.

    The issue with these checks and balances is that the Supreme Court has been stacked with personal picks by President Trump in his previous term, tilting a court that is supposed to be nonpartisan with a conservative supermajority. However, this doesn’t mean the Court would necessarily rule in favor of Trump and the GOP – the Court has cautioned that Trump’s recent actions in his 2024 term to ignore court rulings against his executive orders will lead the Supreme Court to side against him in favor of democracy and the sanctity of the Constitution.

    If passed, individuals negatively impacted by the SAVE Act’s restrictions would likely sue on the basis that it violates their constitutional rights. Convincing the Supreme Court that the SAVE Act is unconstitutional is difficult, but not impossible – especially if legal organizations taking up the case lean into arguments about the act infringing on women’s equal right to vote, existing precedents by the Court that separate is not equal, or that the act creates unnecessary and purposely discriminatory barriers like Jim Crow laws before the civil rights movement.