These are the safest places in America for gay and transgender people
One of 18,900 trans adults in Oklahoma, Eaves has received death threats as has his wife of 10 years and their two children.
'All the hatred and political stuff going on' are driving this Oklahoma lifer from the place he was born and raised, Eaves, 35, said. He has only crossed the state line three times in his life, but in recent weeks, he made the difficult decision to move his family to North Carolina to be closer to friends and allies.
'I am just trying to stay alive and keep my marriage,' Eaves said.
Oklahoma ranks 44th in the nation on a list released Monday of the most and least welcoming states for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer Americans.
More and more, the question of where LGBTQ+ people feel safe is one of blue vs. red, according to advocacy group Out Leadership.
LGBTQ+ equality fell across the board for the third straight year, according to Out Leadership's State LGBTQ+ Business Climate Index shared exclusively with USA TODAY. But the sharpest declines came in Republican-led states.
While progressive strongholds championed supportive policies and protections, conservative states elected a slate of leaders who openly oppose gay and trans rights and sponsored an unprecedented wave of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, Out Leadership CEO and founder Todd Sears said.
So-called 'Don't Say Gay' bills, religious exemptions and other legislation tanked the rankings of 19 red states in the Out Leadership index, according to Sears.
Today, the divide between states that roll out the welcome mat and less hospitable parts of the country is wider than ever, he said.
Each year for the last seven, Out Leadership has released the State LGBTQ+ Business Climate Index to gauge the overall climate for gay and transgender people state by state, mapping out where they will face the most and the least discrimination and hardship.
Out Leadership's index measures the impact of state government policies and prevalent attitudes about the LGBTQ+ community, weighing factors such as support for young people and families, health access and safety, political and religious attitudes, work environment and employment and nondiscrimination protections.
The Northeast had six of the 10 highest-ranked states, while the Southeast had six of the lowest-ranked.
Massachusetts, led by the nation's first openly lesbian governor, Democrat Maura Healey and New York, which guaranteed gender-affirming care and LGBTQ+ refugee protections, tied for first place in this year's index, with Connecticut and New Jersey close behind.
The least LGBTQ+ friendly state was Arkansas, which ranked last for the third straight year. South Carolina, Louisiana, South Dakota and Alabama also received low scores.
The states that had the largest gains in the index were Kentucky and Michigan, which Out Leadership attributed to 'pro-equality' leadership from governors Andy Beshear and Gretchen Whitmer, both Democrats. The steepest declines were in Ohio, Florida and Utah, all led by Republican governors.
The Out Leadership index was created as a LGBTQ+ inclusion reference guide for business leaders. But gay and trans people soon began using it to figure out where they should – and should not – live and work, never more so than now as rights rollbacks from the Trump administration and red statehouses hit close to home.
Opposition to transgender rights was a central plank in Trump's presidential campaign and since taking office he has signed a series of executive orders recognizing only male and female genders, keeping trans athletes out of women's sports, banning trans people from serving in the military and restricting federal funding for gender-affirming care for trans people under age 19.
Even states seen as safer for LGBTQ+ people have been navigating these edicts around trans athletes. Trump threatened to cut federal funding to California if a trans girl competed in a state track and field event held Saturday.
AB Hernandez, a junior from Jurupa Valley High School in Riverside County, shared first place in the high jump and triple jump and second in the long jump. She shared the awards podium with her cisgender competitors under a new rule drafted by state athletics officials days before the event to mollify critics.
Republican-led states have been in the vanguard of anti-trans legislation, causing greater geographic polarization and prompting fears among LGBTQ+ residents, even those who live in liberal cities.
Jordan McGuire, a 27-year-old gay man in North Dakota, said the years he spent living in the Deep South taught him about the repressive discrimination routinely faced by gay and genderqueer people.
At the same time, socially progressive cities in conservative states like Fargo and Grand Forks are no longer the safe havens they once were, he said.
Now that his fiancee is transitioning to female, the couple is exploring a move to a 'sanctuary' state that will be safer for them.
'It feels like five or 10 years ago, trans people were not under the same microscope they are now and that has definitely influenced our move,' McGuire said. 'Yeah, people were prejudiced but it wasn't a witch hunt. They weren't looking for people in bathrooms and schools. But now things are so polarized.'
That rising anxiety was captured in a post-election survey from UCLA's Williams Institute which found that nearly half of transgender people had already fled unsupportive communities and nearly 1 in 4 were considering uprooting their lives.
The most frequently cited reasons for wanting to move were concerns about LGBTQ+ rights – 76% – the sociopolitical climate – 71% – anti-trans rhetoric and climate – 60% – and anti-trans laws and policies – 47%.
Interest in relocating to friendlier states is even higher today than it was after Trump's reelection, say nonprofit workers who aid trans and gender-diverse people relocate to more liberal states with broader protections.
So far in 2025, Rainbow Railroad in Canada has received more than 3,000 requests from LGBTQ+ people living in the United States, up more than 1,000% from the same time last year, according to communications director Timothy Chan.
Nearly all requested international relocation support. For now, Rainbow Railroad can't aid Americans with resettlement services because of immigration restrictions, Chan said.
TRACTION has heard from a record number of people from states as far away as Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas with many of them reporting being threatened or feeling unsafe in their homes and neighborhoods, said Michael Woodward, the executive director of the trans-led organization in Washington state.
Trans and gender-diverse people historically face financial hardship due to systemic oppression and discrimination, and need assistance finding jobs and housing as well as with interstate moving expenses that can run tens of thousands, Woodward said.
TRACTION used to get a few applications a week until Trump won a second term. In the two weeks following the election, 'we received as many requests for assistance as we'd received in the entire life of the project thus far,' he said.
After the inauguration, TRACTION started getting three to five applications every day. With one employee and a handful of volunteers, his organization is struggling to keep up with demand, Woodward said.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: These are the safest states for gay and trans people
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Axios
15 minutes ago
- Axios
Voting Rights Act's 60th anniversary comes amid uncertainty
Barriers that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 aimed to eliminate have reappeared in modern forms as the country marks its 60th anniversary. The big picture: A backlash to the 2020 racial reckoning has made it almost impossible for any bipartisan effort to renew the Voting Rights Act — even though the country is more racially and ethnically diverse than ever. The big picture: President Trump continues to push baseless claims about voter fraud while pressuring states like Texas to redraw congressional district boundaries with little consideration to historic racial discrimination. In March, Trump signed an executive order to tighten voting restrictions — including calls for proof of citizenship to vote. The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE), a Republican-led bill that would codify those requirements into law, passed the House in April but stalled in the Senate. Meanwhile, GOP-leaning states also have passed bills in recent years that critics argue impose new restrictions on Black and Indigenous voters. The latest: Earlier this week, Sen. Raphael Warnock reintroduced the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, backed by Senate leaders and civil rights groups. The bill would restore federal oversight of voting changes in states with histories of discrimination — and ban voter roll purges for missed elections. Multiple groups promoted its introduction to Congress, but it's unlikely to pass either of the GOP-controlled chambers. What they're saying:"We're going to continue to fight for that bill, even though it's an uphill climb — particularly because of the Senate filibuster," National Urban League president Marc Morial told Axios. Morial says every Republican president since its passage has signed every extension, but now it's a partisan issue fueled by far-right movements. "This is a modern-day power grab." The other side: Some Republicans contend that the voting changes are "common sense" reforms to require ID and prevent noncitizens from voting — which is exceptionally rare and illegal. U.S. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) told Axios earlier this year that voting rights groups' concerns about such changes were "absurd armchair speculation." Yes, but: Older Black Americans, especially in the South, are being disproportionately targeted by new documentation requirements, Color Of Change PAC national director Jamarr Brown told Axios. That's because rural, poor areas like the "Black Belt" of Alabama and Mississippi lack the infrastructure to get voters the required documents in a timely and easy fashion. Arizona and Montana have passed new laws barring ballot collection important to Native American voters living in isolated regions, since they lack reliable mail service. "This isn't about proof of citizenship. This is about eliminating people from the electorate… to get a desired political outcome," Brown said. Between the lines: Since taking office, Trump has attempted to reverse many of the gains made during the Civil Rights Movement and unravel the late President Lyndon B. Johnson's civil rights legacy from six decades ago. The clawback on voting rights comes as the Trump administration also pulls back on civil rights enforcement and focuses on " anti-white racism" rather than discrimination against people of color. The U.S. Department of Justice on Wednesday released new guidelines for recipients of federal funding and directed them not to be involved in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion ("DEI") programs. Flashback: Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act on Aug. 6, 1965, after the attack on unarmed peaceful demonstrators in Selma, Ala. Johnson had encouraged the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. to march for voting rights to sway the public. Stunning stat: Since the passage of the Voting Rights Act, the number of Black Americans elected in the U.S. has shot up from just a few in 1964 to about 9,000. Most Black Americans are aligned with the Democratic Party, but Black and Latino Republicans have won high-profile races in Kentucky, Texas, New Mexico and California. The bottom line: Voter suppression efforts now target Latinos, Asian Americans, and young voters, alongside Black communities.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge blocks Trump rapid-fire deportations for immigrants with parole status
A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from rapidly deporting hundreds of thousands of immigrants who had previously been paroled into the United States to flee violence and oppression in their home countries. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb said in a ruling Friday that the Department of Homeland Security's tactics — rapid-fire deportation proceedings with little to no chance to lodge challenges — amounted to changing the rules in the middle of the game for people previously welcomed into the country on a temporary basis. Cobb barred foreigners with immigration parole, typically a short-term status that allows foreigners to live and work in the U.S. legally, from being subjected to a controversial maneuver the administration has adopted in recent months: dismissing immigrants' pending proceedings in immigration court — only to immediately arrest them outside the courtroom and put them into a sped-up deportation process known as expedited removal. 'In a world of bad options, they played by the rules,' Cobb, a Biden appointee, wrote. 'Now, the Government has not only closed off those pathways for new arrivals but changed the game for parolees already here.' That new tactic arrived amid pressure within the Trump administration to ramp up arrests in support of President Donald Trump's mass deportation agenda, a detail Cobb cited in her ruling. But she said the basis for the expansion of 'expedited removal' and for targeting those previously granted parole exceeded the administration's legal authority and was arbitrary. The White House has put intense pressure on Immigration and Customs Enforcement to increase arrest numbers, with the aim of 3,000 a day. Trump officials view the immigration courts as one of the biggest roadblocks in reaching its goal of 1 million annual deportations and have used the immigration court arrests to increase its numbers. Immigration attorneys have scrambled to adapt to the tactic in recent months, preparing their clients for the possibility of being detained at ICE check-ins and immigration courts. The arrests have spurred fear in immigrant communities across the country, with attorneys warning of a chilling effect among immigrants who have long followed the rules. 'This case's underlying question, then, asks whether parolees who escaped oppression will have the chance to plead their case within a system of rules. Or, alternatively, will they be summarily removed from a country that — as they are swept up at checkpoints and outside courtrooms, often by plainclothes officers without explanation or charges, may look to them more and more like the countries from which they tried to escape?' It's unclear how many immigrants are impacted by Cobb's ruling. She estimated the number as 'hundreds of thousands,' but statistics compiled by Republican lawmakers and immigration opponents suggest the figure could be 1 million or more. "Judge Cobb is flagrantly ignoring the United States Supreme Court which upheld expedited removals of illegal aliens by a 7-2 majority," DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said. "This ruling is lawless and won't stand." As illegal crossings at the border with Mexico mushroomed into a political crisis during the Biden administration, officials increasingly turned to immigration parole as a means to limit chaotic scenes at the border by allowing immigrants from Central America to enter the U.S. legally. A report presented at a House hearing in April by a group favoring greater restrictions on immigration, the Center for Immigration Studies, estimated that the Biden administration granted immigration parole to 2.8 million people. However, only some of those people would be impacted by the judge's ruling Friday since federal law bars the use of expedited removal against immigrants who have been living in the U.S. for more than two years. The new ruling specifically blocks three Trump administration directives: a Jan. 23 memo authorizing the use of 'expedited removal' as broadly as possible; a Feb. 18 Immigration and Customs Enforcement directive authorizing expedited removal for 'paroled arriving aliens'; and a March 25 notice canceling parole status for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans. Solve the daily Crossword


American Military News
an hour ago
- American Military News
Video/Pic: Trump demands drug companies lower prices
President Donald Trump sent 17 pharmaceutical companies letters on Thursday and demanded that the companies lower prices for Americans. The president warned that the 'unacceptable burden' of prescription drug prices will 'end' with his administration. During a press briefing on Thursday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, 'The president signed an executive order earlier this year to solve the problem of exorbitant pharmaceutical pricing.' 'According to recent data, the prices that Americans have been paying for brand-name drugs are more than three times the price other similarly developed nations pay,' Leavitt added. 'The president is determined to solve this problem and took further action today. He has signed 17 letters to pharmaceutical companies' CEOs.' .@PressSec reads one of the letters sent by @POTUS today to the CEOs of pharmaceutical companies: "Moving forward, the only thing I will accept from drug manufacturers is a commitment that provides American families immediate relief from the vastly inflated drug prices…" — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) July 31, 2025 Leavitt also shared the letter Trump wrote to the CEO of Eli Lilly and Company. In the letter, Trump warned Eli Lilly and 16 other pharmaceutical companies that the 'unacceptable burden' of brand-name drugs costing 'up to three times higher on average' for Americans than for citizens of other countries 'ends with my administration.' Trump told the pharmaceutical companies, 'Most proposals the Trump administration has received to resolve this critical issue promised more of the same shifting blame and requesting policy changes that would result in billions of dollars in handouts to industry.' The president added, 'Moving forward, the only thing I will accept from drug manufacturers is a commitment that provides American families immediate relief from the vastly inflated drug prices and an end to the free ride of American innovation by European and other developed nations.' READ MORE: Video: Trump order against 'Big Pharma' aims to reduce drug prices While Trump explained that a collaborative effort to reach 'global pricing parity' would be most effective for pharmaceutical companies, the U.S. government, and U.S. patients, he warned that his administration will 'deploy every tool in our arsenal to protect American families' if pharmaceutical companies refuse to take action. In addition to the letter sent to Eli Lilly and Company, Trump sent letters to AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GSK, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi. In the letters, Trump gave the companies 60 days to extend 'Most-Favored-Nation' pricing to Medicaid and provide 'full portfolios' of drugs for Medicaid patients, guarantee Most-Favored-Nation pricing for new drugs, negotiate with 'foreign freeloading nations' and return 'increased revenues abroad' to patients in the United States, and allow Americans to directly purchase drugs at Most-Favored-Nation prices. Today, @POTUS sent letters to 17 drug manufacturers outlining steps they must take to bring down prescription drug prices. If they refuse to step up, the Administration will use every tool to protect Americans from continued abusive drug pricing practices. Letter to Eli Lilly: — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) July 31, 2025