Opinion: What does Pride month mean to the LGBTQ+ community in 2025?
On a special episode (first released on June 9, 2025) of The Excerpt podcast: As Pride Month 2025 gets underway across the country (albeit with fewer corporate sponsors), we asked what pride means to you – not just the parades, protests and community, but also your feelings, fears and hopes – and whether it can continue to exist in its current form. Here's what you told us.
Forum is a series from USA TODAY's Opinion team that is dedicated to showcasing views from across the political spectrum on issues that Americans are starkly divided on. If you'd like to weigh in on a different topic, you can find more questions at usatoday.com/forum. And if your submission is selected for print, we might invite you to add your voice to a future special bonus episode like this one. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending an email to podcasts@usatoday.com.
Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text.
Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here
Michael McCarter:
Hello and welcome to The Excerpt. LGBTQ+ rights are back in the spotlight as President Donald Trump issues executive orders banning transgender military service members and rescinding funding from educational institutions that allow trans athletes to compete in sports. So far, in 2025, more than 500 bills targeting the LGBTQ+ community have been introduced across America. As Pride Month 2025 gets underway across the country, we asked what Pride means to you, not just the parades, protests, and community, but also your feelings, fears, hopes, and whether it can continue to exist in its current form.
I'm Michael McCarter. I lead the opinion sections of Gannett, the parent company of USA TODAY. This is a bonus episode of The Excerpt highlighting a series from USA TODAY's opinion team called Forum. Here's what readers told us.
Gillian Gurney is 26 and lives in New York. She shared that current events have made Pride more important and that Pride must be seen through the lens of revolution and protest.
Gillian Gurney:
Pride is beyond important though in the current climate we are seeing people try to consistently attack this month in a way that hasn't been seen in several decades. And to me, Pride means so much more than just the joy and courage that we exude as a community year round. But I think this time specifically is a time to acknowledge the revolution that it took to get us here. This is my second Pride being publicly out at age 26, and I think back to people like my grandfather, who is an out gay man, but wasn't able to actually be out until the 1980s when at the same time, the AIDS crisis was rampant throughout his community and he lost several friends to AIDS unknowing as to why, and was treated like a national pariah. So not only is Pride about joy, but Pride is also about honoring those who came before us to make things like this possible.
Trump has never been shy about his direct homophobia, transphobia, and attacks against the queer community amidst at least every other minority community in this country. His hateful rhetoric and quite frankly, unconstitutional directives that he's issued since his first day in office that are purporting baseless attacks on our community that doesn't affect him in any way are deeply concerning. So if corporations, organizations, communities, lawmakers and individuals at every single level of both government and public sector and private sector don't stand up and mobilize and advocate in ways that we need, we could see our country fall back into a time where being yourself could be punishable by law. And we're already starting to see that.
This highlights the responsibility that we have both as queer people and both as allies to stand up and not allow that to happen because the second that we curtail to being silenced, that's when the other side wins. The queer community is both a very diverse community in and of itself, and I think my question would be how can we unite together and not allow other communities to split us up into further factions and band together to make sure that we're able to help everyone?
Michael McCarter:
Sixty-four-year-old David Thibodeau lives in Washington D.C. He's concerned about the threat of violence at Pride events across the country.
David Thibodeau:
I mean, I've worked corporate for a long time and they were strong supporters of Pride and I hate to see corporations and their support for Pride, I hate to see that atrophy. I think it is important. I probably won't be going to Pride this year, even though [inaudible 00:03:55] is holding World Pride. Last year during Pride, there were a lot of warnings from the previous administration about credible terrorist threats to Prides across the country, and this year there have been none, and it gives me pause because I don't think those groups that were issuing the threats last year have stopped issuing threats. I think that this administration is not paying attention to those groups anymore, so it's a matter of safety.
I actually had invited family to come down because it was World Pride this year, and I've kind of uninvited them. I don't want them to be in the middle of anything that might be unsafe. Kind of goes back to when I was a lot younger. Maybe I feel like we've gone 30 years back in time, maybe 40 years. I don't know. I think that anti-LGBTQ voices, their groups are being given a voice and I'm not sure that they represent the greater sentiment of the population. I'm pretty sure that they don't. I think we need to recognize more the root of these events and where they come from and that they are form of protest. There should be more room for a somber recollection of why these events are important.
Michael McCarter:
Houston, Texas native Jazz Paz told us she sees Pride as one way to honor elders in the LGBTQ+ community. She's 73.
Jazz Paz:
I think Pride month is very important and to me it means the celebration of our survivorship. It means that we recognize and are grateful to our elders who made Pride happen. What I'm seeing, especially this year, is big corporations wanting to participate anonymously, which doesn't seem very Pride-ful to me. There are also, of course, the ones that only come out for the Pride events and we never hear or see from them again. That makes me kind of mad. Ones like Target that used to be supportive are now almost like against us, and I think it is a lot of the DEI pushback that we're seeing from this prevailing political environment. I suspect the federal government might continue to honor Pride Month with lip service, but I don't think they're proud of us and I don't think they like us, and I don't think they're going to be enthusiastically endorsing us for the next several years.
I'm a little bit sad that Pride Month has sort of devolved into just partying. There's no sense of, at least in Houston, there didn't seemed to be any recognition of what made all this necessary or possible. It was a political and very serious, it was joyful, but it was taken seriously. In the beginning, in Pride in Houston all the bars closed, all the stores closed. Everybody was in the street watching the parade. There was a band. There was very creative floats. But it was just for our community, nobody else even knew about it. And now there's people with babies in strollers and their grandparents are there, and it's a spectacle. It's no longer, in Houston at least to me, it's no longer an honoring holiday. I think too many of the elders that suffered and really, really worked hard to make this possible have passed on.
I think the more younger generations don't have any idea how hard it was just to survive as a gay person. It was against the law to be gay. It was against the law for women to wear front zipping pants in Houston years ago, maybe like 50 or 60 years ago. And all the people that went to jail and a lot of them committed suicide when they were going to be outed in the newspapers, I don't think young people realize any of that. I think there's a lot of difference between reading about it or hearing about it and knowing the people that separate these things and knowing them personally as your friend.
Michael McCarter:
KJ Novoa is 27 and he's from Douglas, Arizona. He shared that Pride can't be erased even if corporations and politics stand against it.
KJ Novoa:
I think Pride means a lot of things to me, but first and foremost, it means visibility. I think I associate Pride with being out not just in terms of social media or in the media sphere, but also just in the world, being authentic, being ourselves. It's a reminder that we're free to be ourselves in this day and age no matter where the political winds may swing. I do think corporations play some role in Pride, and I do think that could be a positive thing and also to our detriment. Corporations obviously provide a lot of visibility whether we like it or not, and they are sort of a gateway to exposure for whatever cause that we may want to put out there. I think that in the same way, corporations pulling out based on a political direction being inconvenient for them can also be to our detriment, because then that means less visibility for us.
We shouldn't have to depend on corporations or big companies for this type of exposure and visibility for any type of marginalized community, but unfortunately we do. I think within the LGBTQ community, we have to ask ourselves regarding Pride, are we going to hinge so much on corporate support? Are we going to hinge so much on whether a certain president supports us or not? Are we going to hinge so much on public opinion that we let that decide whether we want to be visible or not? Whether we want to be out and about free and showing who we are without embarrassment or without any type of reservation?
I feel like even though I'm only 27 years old, I have learned a lot about LGBTQ history, and I know there's been many cases throughout history where there was times where the politics at the time were even more hostile towards LGBTQ people, whether it was during the Reagan years and when the AIDS crisis started to emerge, or the Lavender Scare when people were afraid of being associated even with certain colors or walking or acting a certain way because they thought it would get them labeled as gay and thrown out of their jobs.
So I think we need to remember that above all, we're resilient, and regardless of whether political winds swing right or left, I think that at the end of the day, we have to remember we're not going to be erased.
Michael McCarter:
That's all we have for today's episode. This is a co-production with the Forum team at USA TODAY, where we invite our readers to weigh in writing on a national topic of interest. If your submission is selected for print, we might invite you to add your voice to a future special bonus episode like this one. There's a link to Forum in the show description. Let us know what you think about this episode by sending an email to podcasts@usatoday.com. Thanks for listening. I'm Michael McCarter, vice president of the Gannett Opinion Group. Taylor Wilson will be back tomorrow morning with another episode of The Excerpt.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Note to critics of the Trump tariffs: This is not the 1930s
You could practically hear the cheering on Thursday as critics of President Trump finally got what they've waited months for — some indication that tariffs might (finally!) drive prices higher. Yesterday's Producer Price Index report showed wholesale prices jumped 0.9 percent over the last month, the biggest gain since June 2022. It followed another benign Consumer Price Index report published earlier in the week, making it all the more surprising. But, more than three-quarters of the gain was driven by services price escalation; there was some rise in the cost of machinery and other end goods, but the impact from tariffs was inconclusive. Here's a fact: No one — not Fed Chairman Jay Powell, not Goldman Sachs' CEO David Solomon, not Paul Krugman, who predicted markets would collapse if Trump were elected in 2016, nor all the talking heads on Bloomberg and elsewhere who have blasted Trump's tariff regimen — has any idea how his upending of global trade terms will turn out. There has never been a country that dominated the global economy as the U.S. now does, nor has there ever been a president like Trump determined to take advantage of that clout. Many have compared his tariffs with the stiff duties imposed by the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930, but there are huge differences between then and now, which may account for some of the unrelenting negativity about the president's program. Today, unlike then, the U.S. is the essential nation for producers of consumer goods. Americans spent $20 trillion last year, compared to $10 trillion by residents of the European Union and $8 trillion by Chinese citizens. Though the U.S. accounted for a larger share of global GDP in 1930 than it does today (35 percent vs. 26 percent), we were not the primary buyer of other countries' goods. In fact, in 1930, the U.S. enjoyed a trade surplus; last year, the U.S. had a net goods trade deficit of $1.2 trillion and an overall (including services) trade deficit of $918 billion — a record. Consequently, we have not seen countries retaliate against the tariffs imposed by the president as they did in the 1930s. The Smoot-Hawley tariffs averaged 59.1 percent on some 20,000 different categories of goods. In response, as the Foundation for Economic Education recalls, 'An outraged Canada slammed tariffs on goods that accounted for 30 per cent of American exports. France, Germany and the British Empire followed suit, either turning to alternative markets or developing substitute manufacturing that would replace goods previously acquired from America — or elsewhere, since many other countries were erecting wall-of-death tariffs.' This time, at least so far, there has been remarkably little of that retaliatory tit-for-tat. Some countries best positioned to punch back, like Canada, whose economy is inextricably integrated with that of its southern neighbor, have backed off threats to do so. Three-quarters of Canada's exports are to the U.S., and exports account for a hefty 34 percent of the country's GDP. A recent threat to slap U.S. tech companies with a heavy new tax vanished as Canadian officials tread carefully, hoping to eliminate the 35 percent tariff on Canadian imports not covered by the USMCA trade agreement, as well as a 50 percent tax on aluminum and steel imported from Canada. Otherwise, China is the most obvious hold-out to Trump's tariff regimen. Because of its grip on rare earths that are essential to U.S. manufacturers, and because it supplies a huge amount of cheap goods to American consumers, Beijing has serious leverage over the United States. Like Trump, they are willing to use it. Still, China's economy is struggling and President Xi Jinping must know that playing hardball with Trump will eventually be a losing game. 'Between 1929 and 1933,' the Foundation for Economic Education continues, 'U.S. imports collapsed by 66 per cent. Exports plummeted by 61 per cent. Total global trade fell by a similar amount.' Some consider the global depression responsible for much of the drop; others blame tariffs. Many economists and analysts today say that history should serve as a warning against the measures being enacted by Trump. The critics have relied too much on that historical comparison. In addition, political animus has driven liberal pundits to take (and promote) the darkest view imaginable about Trump's program. So far, most have been wrong. For months they predicted that tariffs placed on imports would drive inflation higher; they haven't. They predicted that the duties placed on imports would crush growth and lead to a recession. With consumer spending steadily advancing, according to credit card data, those dark days have yet to appear. Democrats are positively hoping for disaster. Trump ran on a platform of wrestling down Joe Biden's inflation; his adversaries are hoping he will fail, and they see tariffs as the likely agent of his failure. Bloomberg, MSNBC et the others have enthusiastically promoted the direst of predictions month after month, anticipating each new release of inflation data with the eagerness of kids waiting for Santa Claus. While glumly reporting month after month of weaker than expected inflation, the merchants of gloom inevitably add a '… yet.' They are positive that any minute now the tariff damage will blossom. They may be right; tariffs will almost surely boost prices, but the impact should be modest (after all, imports are only about 11 percent of our economy). At some point the pontificators will have to reassess their assumptions about how businesses and consumers will adapt to the higher duties. Many companies are scrambling to change their sourcing to avoid tariffs, and Americans are navigating around the price increases where possible. The end game for Trump is bringing more manufacturing to the U.S., beefing up industries essential to our security — like steel — and earning significant revenues as a valuable byproduct. How this all plays out is uncertain, but that Trump is committed to all three goals is not.
Los Angeles Times
20 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: Is anyone surprised that oil refineries are leaving California?
To the editor: With regard to your article ('Newsom's push to reduce fossil fuels is clashing with California's thirst for gasoline,' Aug. 11), why are Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic members of the state Legislature surprised? The Legislature passes bills that primarily are intended to score points and do more to harass oil companies than they do to reduce air pollution. Newsom applauds these political bills and urges them to pass more. Many years ago, Democrats in the Legislature pretended to be petroleum engineers and designed a funky political kind of gasoline not used by the other 49 states. This political gasoline is the only kind allowed to be sold in California. It is more costly to make and can only be made by oil refineries modified at great expense. When oil companies charge more for this extra-cost gasoline, Newsom accuses them of price gouging. If California cannot find oil refiners outside the U.S. who are willing to modify their refineries to make 'California-only' gasoline, and who are willing to put up with the state government's false acquisitions and harassment, some owners of gasoline-powered cars will have to relearn their childhood skills at riding bicycles. Gordon Binder, Pasadena ... To the editor: All this Sturm und Drang over the closing of two refineries in California is misplaced. Any serious study of market trends would conclude that the end of internal combustion will be as soon as 2035, a mere decade from now. Instead of telling readers that a reduction in oil refining is going to cause price increases because of a scarcity of gasoline, point them in the direction of getting off of gas entirely by switching to an electric vehicle. Americans buy more than 40,000 new cars — about 3,300 of them are EVs — every single day on average. The cheapest gas car is a basic econobox from Nissan for about $17,000. That much money will buy you an excellent used EV that will serve you better without polluting the air or supporting oil companies. And since you aren't buying gas, demand goes down, reducing the need to raise prices. I'd like to see California use the talents of our film industry to produce commercials that dissuade folks from buying new gas cars. Reduce demand for gas cars and we'll get to the end of internal combustion sooner than later. Paul Scott, Santa Monica
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Top Trump official vows to end 'cycle of government dependency' in homeless crackdown
EXCLUSIVE: Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Scott Turner wants to stop "the cycle of government dependency" for homelessness following President Donald Trump's order for a federal takeover of Washington, D.C. "President Trump is the law-and-order President and now he is taking necessary action to restore law and order to our nation's capital," Turner said in an exclusive statement to Fox News Digital. "Americans who live and work in D.C., and families touring the district, should be able to walk the streets without fear of getting mugged or gunned down." "Years of failed policies and weak leadership in the district have led to chaos, crime, violence, and homelessness. President Trump is bringing back peace and stability for hardworking, law-abiding Americans," the secretary continued. "As part of this vision, HUD is committed to bringing back order by ending the cycle of government dependency that has enabled perpetual homelessness. Helping our nation's most vulnerable starts with giving them the tools they need to achieve self-sufficiency, not endless government handouts," he added. In a post earlier this week, Turner noted that "crime halts revitalization in its tracks." A major part of the federal government's crackdown in the city is clearing out homeless encampments on land throughout Washington, D.C., that falls under the National Park Service's purview. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt explained in a briefing on Tuesday that the options are for people to agree to get assistance, or face time behind bars. "Seventy homeless encampments have been removed by the U.S. Park Police," Leavitt said. "There are only two homeless encampments remaining in D.C. federal parks under the National Park Service's jurisdiction, and the removal of those two remaining camps is scheduled for this week," she added. Meanwhile, there's been a noticeable increase in federal officers around the capital city in recent days amid the hotly debated effort to curb crime in the area. While many Republicans and others have praised the move, many Democrats have said it's an overstep in authority. Mayor Muriel Bowser has said that juvenile disorder has been an issue, but has also criticized the federal takeover method. "This is a time where community needs to jump in. We all need to, to do what we can in our space, in our lane, to protect our city and to protect our autonomy, to protect our home rule, and get to the other side of this guy, and make sure we elect a Democratic House so that we have a backstop to this authoritarian push," Bowser said during town hall on Tuesday, which was livestreamed on X. "You've heard me talking about youth a lot in the last several months, especially youth who are participating in really destructive, disruptive behavior with these kind of youth takeovers," the mayor also said this week. "Some of them are our kids. Some of them are coming across the region to descend on places like the Navy Yard. So parents — this is not the first time you've heard me say this — so parents, you really need to know where your kids are. I think we really have some kids that are, you know, not criminals, but they are getting together in big groups and causing some really — they're causing destruction." The D.C. Police Union backed the Trump administration's latest actions, saying it could serve as a critical turning point for the city on crime. "Last night, DC suffered the grave milestone of its 100th homicide for 2025. Let's hope this federal intervention leads to real change to the laws in DC that allow this to happen year after year," the group posted on August 12.
