Pedro Pascal, Dua Lipa, Daniel Radcliffe among celebs calling on Trump to preserve funding for LGBTQ suicide hotline
More than 100 celebrities across the entertainment industry are calling on President Trump's administration to protect an LGBTQ youth crisis service's funding amid broader spending cuts.
An internal budget document first reported by The Washington Post would eliminate specialized services for LGBTQ youth who contact 988, the National Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, a proposal that would have 'devastating, life-threatening consequences for young people across the country,' reads an open letter organized and published Monday by the Trevor Project, a nonprofit group that responds to roughly half of 988's calls and texts from LGBTQ youth.
'As artists, creators, and public figures, our platforms come with responsibility. And today, that responsibility is clear: we must speak out to protect the mental health and lives of LGBTQ+ youth. We will not stay silent,' states the letter, with signatures from actors Pedro Pascal, Daniel Radcliffe, Margaret Cho and Sarah Paulson.
Musicians, including Ariana Grande, Sabrina Carpenter, Diplo and Dua Lipa also signed, alongside notable figures including influencer Dylan Mulvaney, celebrity chef Amanda Freitag and Carl Nassib, a former defensive lineman and the first NFL player to publicly come out as gay.
'This is about people, not politics,' the letter states. 'At a time of deep division, let this be something we as people can all agree on: no young person should be left without help in their darkest moment. Stripping away this lifeline leaves LGBTQ+ youth with the message that their lives are not worth saving. We refuse to accept that message. We call on the administration and Congress to do the right thing: restore and protect funding for the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline's LGBTQ+ Youth Specialized Services in the Fiscal Year 2026 budget.'
'We rise together — loudly and determined — for hope, for dignity, and for every LGBTQ+ young person to know that their lives are worthy and that there will always be someone on the other end of the line,' the letter states.
The White House did not immediately return a request for comment.
The service for LGBTQ youth has received nearly 1.3 million calls, texts and online chat messages since its launch in 2022, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). In February, the program received an average of 2,100 crisis contacts daily.
More than 100 House Democrats — and two Republicans, in a separate letter — have also urged the Trump administration to spare 988's specialized services for LGBTQ youth from funding cuts, arguing that such a move would have 'lethal consequences if enacted.'
The proposed cuts, which need approval from Congress, would not take effect until October.
Trump signed the bipartisan National Suicide Hotline Designation Act in October 2020, and the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline officially launched in 2022 under former President Biden's administration. Congress increased funding for the hotline's LGBTQ youth specialized services last year on a bipartisan basis.
'I am deeply grateful to the influential voices in entertainment who are speaking out and reminding the public that suicide prevention is about people – not politics,' Jaymes Black, the Trevor Project's CEO, said in a statement on Monday.
'LGBTQ+ young people disproportionately experience rejection, stigma, and discrimination, and are navigating a world that too often tells them they don't belong. We must send a louder message back: millions of people are fighting for you to lead the happy, healthy lives you deserve,' Black said.
A report released by the group last year found that 39 percent of LGBTQ 13- to 24-year-olds in the U.S. considered suicide over the past year, including 46 percent of transgender and nonbinary youth. Half of LGBTQ young people who wanted mental health care said they were unable to access it.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
5 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump says Putin told him in phone call he will respond to Ukraine's weekend drone attacks
President Donald Trump said he spoke by phone with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday, but that the conversation would not yield an immediate end to the war in Ukraine. The call came after an audacious Ukrainian drone attack on Russian airfields over the weekend. Trump said he discussed the matter with Putin in their 75-minute phone call. 'We discussed the attack on Russia's docked airplanes, by Ukraine, and also various other attacks that have been taking place by both sides,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. 'It was a good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate Peace.' 'President Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields,' he went on. Trump said he also discussed Iran with Putin as he works to complete a nuclear agreement with Tehran. 'We also discussed Iran, and the fact that time is running out on Iran's decision pertaining to nuclear weapons, which must be made quickly!' he wrote. 'I stated to President Putin that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and, on this, I believe that we were in agreement.' He said Putin would likely join discussions with Iran. 'President Putin suggested that he will participate in the discussions with Iran and that he could, perhaps, be helpful in getting this brought to a rapid conclusion. It is my opinion that Iran has been slowwalking their decision on this very important matter, and we will need a definitive answer in a very short period of time!' Trump wrote. This is a breaking story and will be updated.
CNBC
5 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump says he spoke to Putin, predicts no 'immediate' peace for Russia and Ukraine
President Donald Trump on Wednesday said he spoke with Russian leader Vladimir Putin for well over an hour about Ukraine's latest attack on Russian airplanes and nuclear talks with Iran. Putin in that call vowed retaliation against Ukraine for the stunning surprise attack, which Kyiv said resulted in strikes on more than 40 Russian bombers, Trump said. "It was a good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate Peace," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "President Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields," the president added. Trump's post did not say if he discouraged Putin from taking that action. The call with Putin lasted about 75 minutes, Trump said. This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.
Vox
19 minutes ago
- Vox
Big government is still good, even with Trump in power
is a correspondent at Vox, where he covers the impacts of social and economic policies. He is the author of 'Within Our Means,' a biweekly newsletter on ending poverty in America. It's easy to look at Donald Trump's second term and conclude that the less power and reach the federal government has, the better. After all, a smaller government might provide Trump or someone like him with fewer opportunities to disrupt people's lives, leaving America less vulnerable to the whims of an aspiring autocrat. Weaker law-enforcement agencies could lack the capacity to enforce draconian policies. The president would have less say in how universities like Columbia conduct their business if they weren't so dependent on federal funding. And he would have fewer resources to fundamentally change the American way of life. Trump's presidency has the potential to reshape an age-old debate between the left and the right: Is it better to have a big government or a small one? The left, which has long advocated for bigger government as a solution to society's problems, might be inclined to think that in the age of Trump, a strong government may be too risky. Say the United States had a single-payer universal health care system, for example. As my colleague Kelsey Piper pointed out, the government would have a lot of power to decide what sorts of medical treatments should and shouldn't be covered, and certain forms of care that the right doesn't support — like abortion or transgender health — would likely get cut when they're in power. That's certainly a valid concern. But the dangers Trump poses do not ultimately make the case for a small or weak government because the principal problem with the Trump presidency is not that he or the federal government has too much power. It's that there's not enough oversight. Reducing the power of the government wouldn't necessarily protect us. In fact, 'making government smaller' is one of the ways that Trump might be consolidating power. First things first: What is 'big government'? When Americans are polled about how they feel about 'big government' programs — policies like universal health care, social security, welfare for the poor — the majority of people tend to support them. Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the government should be responsible for ensuring everyone has health coverage. But when you ask Americans whether they support 'big government' in the abstract, a solid majority say they view it as a threat. That might sound like a story of contradictions. But it also makes sense because 'big government' can have many different meanings. It can be a police state that surveils its citizens, an expansive regulatory state that establishes and enforces rules for the private sector, a social welfare state that directly provides a decent standard of living for everyone, or some combination of the three. In the United States, the debate over 'big government' can also include arguments about federalism, or how much power the federal government should have over states. All these distinctions complicate the debate over the size of government: Because while someone might support a robust welfare system, they might simultaneously be opposed to being governed by a surveillance state or having the federal government involved in state and local affairs. As much as Americans like to fantasize about small government, the reality is that the wealthiest economies in the world have all been a product of big government, and the United States is no exception. That form of government includes providing a baseline social safety net, funding basic services, and regulating commerce. It also includes a government that has the capacity to enforce its rules and regulations. A robust state that caters to the needs of its people, that is able to respond quickly in times of crisis, is essential. Take the Covid-19 pandemic. The US government, under both the Trump and Biden administrations, was able to inject trillions of dollars into the economy to avert a sustained economic downturn. As a result, people were able to withstand the economic shocks, and poverty actually declined. Stripping the state of the basic powers it needs to improve the lives of its citizens will only make it less effective and erode people's faith in it as a central institution, making people less likely to participate in the democratic process, comply with government policies, or even accept election outcomes. A constrained government does not mean a small government But what happens when the people in power have no respect for democracy? The argument for a weaker and smaller government often suggests that a smaller government would be more constrained in the harm it can cause, while big government is more unrestrained. In this case, the argument is that if the US had a smaller government, then Trump could not effectively use the power of the state — by, say, deploying federal law enforcement agencies or withholding federal funds — to deport thousands of immigrants, bully universities, and assault fundamental rights like the freedom of speech. But advocating for bigger government does not mean you believe in handing the state unlimited power to do as it pleases. Ultimately, the most important way to constrain government has less to do with its size and scope and more to do with its checks and balances. Related Three reasons why American democracy will likely withstand Trump In fact, one of the biggest checks on Trump's power so far has been the structure of the US government, not its size. Trump's most dangerous examples of overreach — his attempts to conduct mass deportations, eliminate birthright citizenship, and revoke student visas and green cards based on political views — have been an example of how proper oversight has the potential to limit government overreach. To be sure, Trump's policies have already upended people's lives, chilled speech, and undermined the principle of due process. But while Trump has pushed through some of his agenda, he hasn't been able to deliver at the scale he promised. But that's not because the federal government lacks the capacity to do those things. It's because we have three equal branches of government, and the judicial branch, for all of its shortcomings in the Trump era, is still doing its most basic job to keep the executive branch in check. Reforms should include more oversight, not shrinking government The biggest lesson from Trump's first term was that America's system of checks and balances — rules and regulations, norms, and the separate branches of government — wasn't strong enough. As it turned out, a lot of potential oversight mechanisms did not have enough teeth to meaningfully restrain the president from abusing his power. Trump incited an assault on the US Capitol in an effort to overturn the 2020 election, and Congress ultimately failed in its duty to convict him for his actions. Twice, impeachment was shown to be a useless tool to keep a president in check. But again that's a problem of oversight, not of the size and power of government. Still, oversight mechanisms need to be baked into big government programs to insulate them from petty politics or volatile changes from one administration to the next. Take the example of the hypothetical single-payer universal health care system. Laws dictating which treatments should be covered should be designed to ensure that changes to them aren't dictated by the president alone, but through some degree of consensus that involves regulatory boards, Congress, and the courts. Ultimately, social programs should have mechanisms that allow for change so that laws don't become outdated, as they do now. And while it's impossible to guarantee that those changes will always be good, the current system of employer-sponsored health insurance is hardly a stable alternative. By contrast, shrinking government in the way that Republicans often talk about only makes people more vulnerable. Bigger governments — and more bureaucracy — can also insulate public institutions from the whims of an erratic president. For instance, Trump has tried to shutter the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a regulatory agency that gets in the way of his and his allies' business. This assault allows Trump to serve his own interests by pleasing his donors. In other words, Trump is currently trying to make government smaller — by shrinking or eliminating agencies that get in his way — to consolidate power. 'Despite Donald Trump's rhetoric about the size or inefficiency of government, what he has done is eradicate agencies that directly served people,' said Julie Margetta Morgan, president of The Century Foundation who previously served as an associate director at the CFPB. 'He may use the language of 'government inefficiency' to accomplish his goals, but I think what we're seeing is that the goals are in fact to open up more lanes for big businesses to run roughshod over the American people.' The problem for small-government advocates is that the alternative to big government is not just small government. It's also big business because fewer services, rules, and regulations open up the door to privatization and monopolization. And while the government, however big, has to answer to the public, businesses are far less accountable. One example of how business can replace government programs is the Republicans' effort to overhaul student loan programs in the latest reconciliation bill the House passed, which includes eliminating subsidized loans and limiting the amount of aid students receive. The idea is that if students can't get enough federal loans to cover the cost of school, they'll turn to private lenders instead. 'It's not only cutting Pell Grants and the affordability of student loan programs in order to fund tax cuts to the wealthy, but it's also creating a gap where [private lenders] are all too happy to come in,' Margetta Morgan said. 'This is the small government alternative: It's cutting back on programs that provided direct services for people — that made their lives better and more affordable — and replacing it with companies that will use that gap as an opportunity for extraction and, in some cases, for predatory services.' Even with flawed oversight, a bigger and more powerful government is still preferable because it can address people's most basic needs, whereas small government and the privatization of public services often lead to worse outcomes. So while small government might sound like a nice alternative when would-be tyrants rise to power, the alternative to big government would only be more corrosive to democracy, consolidating power in the hands of even fewer people (and businesses). And ultimately, there's one big way for Trump to succeed at destroying democracy, and that's not by expanding government but by eliminating the parts of government that get in his way.
