It's time to build a sustainable future for LGBTQ+ advocacy work. Here's why
With the return of the Trump presidency, companies abandoning DEI, and the onslaught of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, the sociocultural wars in the U.S. are having many LGBTQ+-led nonprofits gasping for air. I see this moment as an opportunity, as hopeful as I am.
It's time to rethink how our community interacts with the nonprofit industrial complex (NPIC). The relationship between governments and private philanthropy has gradually transformed nonprofit organizations into intermediaries that manage rather than solve social issues. Far too often, this structure has created a dependency on external funding, limiting the scope of radical change and prioritizing funders' interests over the needs of the communities being served.
For years, we've been told that our liberation was best served on a silver platter at the annual fundraising banquet, where high-level donors in designer suits and gowns clinked glasses as slideshows showcasing LGBTQ+ youth smiling or serious faces at organized group meetings. We built an entire infrastructure around the generosity of those who could afford to fund our fight. And yet, in a moment where queer and trans rights are under attack, when book bans and bathroom bills flood state legislatures, and when even our safest spaces feel precarious, we find ourselves facing a harsh reality.
The money is drying up.
Guests attend the Human Rights Campaign 2025 Greater New York Dinner on February 1, 2025.for Human Rights Campaign
This week, two of the nation's leading LGBTQ+ advocacy groups announced layoffs: Human Rights Campaign, expected to lay off 20% of its staff; and GLSEN, planning to "resize" as it restructures and rebrands the organization—and it's only February. These changes at a pivotal moment signal a systemic problem. We placed too many of our eggs in the baskets of benevolent benefactors and seasonal corporate allies, some of whom have pledged allegiance to the flag of Trump's anti-DEI policies, instead of building sustainable models that center our own socioeconomic power. As companies scale back their commitments and nonprofits struggle to keep the lights on, we must ask ourselves a vital question.
Did we invest too much faith in a system never meant to last?
For the last decade, we saw major brands wrap themselves in rainbows every June, eager to prove their LGBTQ+ bona fides with splashy campaigns, donations, and limited-edition merchandise. But behind the scenes, these same companies were donating to the campaign of anti-LGBTQ+ politicians and treating corporate diversity programs like PR stunts—and sometimes, we have to call out a stunt queen. Now that right-wing pressure has made "wokeness" and "DEI" a dirty word in corporate boardrooms, the pendulum is swinging back with a vengeance. The dollars and support that once flowed so freely are being reallocated, redirected, or outright cut as they pull the plug on their initiatives.
Meanwhile, the nonprofits meant to be our safety net have been caught in the cycle of dependence on these fleeting resources. Grants, sponsorships, and major donations & gifts shape the priorities of LGBTQ+ advocacy, sometimes more than the needs of the communities these organizations serve. Some grassroots leaders have long argued these leading queer groups prioritized palatable, fundable issues over the less marketable realities of queer survival: sex work decriminalization, empowering organizing, or direct cash assistance for the most vulnerable in our increasingly vulnerable community. But now, as the purse string tightens, we're seeing just how fragile this queer nonprofit industrial complex is.
When budgets get cut, it's the most marginalized members of our community who feel the brunt of it. Programs serving Black and Brown trans individuals, unhoused LGBTQ+ youth, and low-income queer families may be on the chopping block. These organizations hire those historically facing financial uncertainty, and layoffs come with the dire concerns of having to navigate a country that is increasingly looking at them through cross-hairs.
So, where does that leave us? If nonprofits, as they currently stand, continue to downsize and restructure with limited resources, what comes next?
First, we must shift our focus from charity to mutual aid and cooperative economic models. The pandemic showed us the power of direct giving, community-driven and community-led support networks, and redistributive models that cut out the middlemen and got resources directly into the hands of those who needed them. We saw trans-led funds distribute relief, mutual aid groups provide food and medical supplies without bureaucratic red tape, and community members offer resources in ways that were faster and more effective than traditional nonprofits.
Instead of waiting for a savior in the form of a Fortune 500 company or a millionaire donor, we should invest in systems that allow us to care for each other.
Some grassroots initiatives include community fridge to provide free food for neighbors in need. Nikki Aye
Second, we need to reclaim the means of production. Economic empowerment has to be at the forefront of the next wave of LGBTQ+ activism. Queer co-ops, businesses, and community land trusts can create stability where philanthropy falls short. (Yes, economic empowerment also means reminding brands who turn their backs on the power of our purse through boycotts.) We should seek to channel queer labor into structures that don't depend heavily on generosity from those who show up like an estranged parent with presents. Let's build institutions that belong to us and serve us without any strings attached.
This leads me to my final thought: redefining what success looks like regarding LGBTQ+ advocacy work. Is the measurement solely based on a glossy report, or is it showcasing how an organization has changed lives outside the traditional nonprofit framework? Is it by ensuring big-named donors get the shiny press release and top billing at an event, or is it by thanking the many who contributed to the cause without asking for a tax write-off receipt? If the past few years have taught us anything, it's that the quest for queer liberation has never been rooted in institutions alone.
It has thrived in underground networks, chosen families, and the radical act of caring for one another when no one else would.
The collapse of the queer nonprofit industrial complex is not a tragedy but a wake-up call. It's time to build a system that cannot be dismantled by shifting political tides or corporate support. Our future must be built on our own terms, with our own resources, and for our own people. Because true liberation has never been granted from above.
It has always been forged from within.
Marie-Adélina de la Ferrière is the Community Editor at equalpride, the publisher of The Advocate, and holds a Master's degree in History and a Master's Certificate in Public & Arts Administration from SUNY Brockport. With nearly two decades in the nonprofit sector, she has worked with organizations ranging from childhood development agencies to arts and cultural institutions. This year, she joined the Board of Rainbow Seniors Roc, a local nonprofit that serves as an advocacy and social group for LGBTQ+ individuals aged 50 and over.
is dedicated to featuring a wide range of inspiring personal stories and impactful opinions from the LGBTQ+ and Allied community. Visit advocate.com/submit to learn more about submission guidelines. We welcome your thoughts and feedback on any of our stories. Email us at voices@equalpride.com. Views expressed in Voices stories are those of the guest writers, columnists and editors, and do not directly represent the views of The Advocate or our parent company, equalpride.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
13 minutes ago
- The Hill
On gerrymandering, Democrats should fight fire with fire
If you want to understand how Congress became so polarized, look no further than Texas. Egged on by President Trump, Gov. Greg Abbot (R) and Republican leaders in the state are trying to engage in mid-decade redistricting, bucking the norm of waiting until the conclusion of the census every 10 years to redraw congressional maps to accommodate population changes. Both Democrats and Republicans have weaponized gerrymandering over the years. But only Texas Republicans have tried twice — in 2003 and now — to exercise the nuclear option of mid-decade redrawing of districts twice. I understand the motivations of these Republicans — and the desire of Democrats to take revenge. In 2012, I chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and we had a score to settle with Republicans for eliminating six Democratic seats in Texas in their 2003 mid-decade assault. We might have tried to persuade Democratic governors and legislators to strike earlier than the typical redrawing of maps after the 2010 census, but we decided not to retaliate against Republican rule-breaking with rule-breaking of our own. Instead, we waited for the regular process to take place ahead of the 2012 election. Once the decennial census concluded, we quickly realized that our best opportunity to pick up more seats was in Illinois, where the House delegation had eight Democrats and 11 Republicans. Gov. Pat Quinn and Democratic leaders in the statehouse became political Picassos, redrawing districts to create three more Democratic seats after the 2012 elections. That was not a one-off. Both parties have regularly engaged in designing their own abstract district art. Pennsylvania's old Seventh District — designed in 2011 to protect Republican incumbent Rep. Patrick Meehan — was famously called ' Goofy kicking Donald Duck ' for its bizarre resemblance to the Disney characters. In 2000, Arizona created a district that snaked oddly along the Colorado River so as to include the Hopi Reservation but not the surrounding Navajo Reservation, circumventing longstanding tensions between the two tribes. In 2022, a plan favored by Democrats in New York extended my former Third Congressional District across several bridges and the Long Island Sound, into the Bronx. But that gerrymandering plan backfired, as a state judge struck it down. The result of this map madness is that the moderate, competitive districts have shriveled, while the number of highly partisan districts has skyrocketed. When I first entered Congress in 2001, there were 29 districts with a partisan voting index within a range of four points, reliably swinging between a two-point Republican or Democratic advantage, depending on national trends. In other words, they were toss-ups, and the incumbents needed crossover voters to win reelection. Bipartisanship wasn't a fuzzy goal — it was an urgent strategic imperative. Today, the number of those districts is just 16. Most of the other districts have been drawn to be more red or blue. That means that many House members don't lay awake at night fretting about being defeated in the general election by someone in the other party. Instead, they lay awake thinking about being defeated by a fringe, extreme candidate in their next primary. The political gravity of Congress has shifted. Our system forces legislators to the ideological extremes, when most Americans fall closer to the center. That's without even accounting for the trend of partisan residential sorting, as Americans increasingly live with ideologically likeminded neighbors. We've divided ourselves into Fox News and MSNBC districts, where contradicting views are rarely found on any given block. Of course, some states have attempted redistricting reforms. California and Arizona adopted independent commissions. New York has a bipartisan redistricting commission that places guardrails on just how much Democrats can gerrymander. And that's part of the problem Democrats face: Republicans in Texas and elsewhere play to win by breaking the rules, while in Democratic controlled states, leaders often play to protect the rules, even when it costs them. Over the years, many have argued that Democrats need to fight fire with fire. Instead, Democrats have historically focused on writing a fair fire code even as arson consumes American bipartisanship. But this new Texas mid-decade redistricting push seems to have finally changed the Democratic mindset. Govs. Gavin Newsom of California, Kathy Hochul of New York and JB Pritzker of Illinois are teasing mutual assured gerrymandering destruction by threatening mid-decade redistricting in their own states if Texas Republicans go through with their plan. Each of these efforts faces an uphill legal climb, however, given that voters in two of those three states outlawed such practices. Democrats have realized that patiently waiting until the next redistricting cycle is not an option. Congressional majorities aren't won on a moral high ground but on the streets. Only when Republican members of Congress from New York, California and Illinois see their seats turn blue will national GOP leaders recognize that, in gerrymandering, 'an eye for an eye' makes the whole political system blind. And so to restore bipartisanship in the long run, Democrats may need to play by Texas Republican rules.
American Military News
13 minutes ago
- American Military News
Pentagon plans ‘reaction force' for ‘domestic civil disturbance: Report
A new report claims that President Donald Trump's administration is developing plans to potentially create a 'Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force' of 600 U.S. National Guard troops that could be quickly deployed in the event of civil unrest. According to internal Pentagon documents obtained by The Washington Post, the Trump administration's 'Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force' plan would involve roughly 600 National Guard troops being ready to deploy at all times. The outlet noted that the National Guard troops would be separated into two groups of 300 troops at military bases in Arizona and Alabama and would be ready to deploy in as little as one hour. The Washington Post reported that while the Pentagon documents have been marked as predecisional, the documents contain comprehensive plans and discussions regarding the potential implications of the creation of a National Guard 'reaction force.' According to The Washington Post, the plans have been compiled by the National Guard and have time stamps from late July and early August. READ MORE: Trump deploys Nat'l Guard in DC, takes federal control of DC police Fox News reported that the Trump administration's reported plans for a National Guard 'reaction force' would require the president to use Title 32, which would allow Trump to bypass normal restrictions regarding the use of the military for domestic purposes and would authorize National Guard troops to use certain law enforcement powers. The Washington Post reported that it is not yet clear whether the plans for the 'Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force' have been reviewed by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. In a statement obtained by The Washington Post, Kingsley Wilson, a Pentagon spokesperson, said, 'The Department of Defense is a planning organization and routinely reviews how the department would respond to a variety of contingencies across the globe. We will not discuss these plans through leaked documents, pre-decisional or otherwise.' The Pentagon's potential plans for a 'reaction force' come after Trump has deployed the National Guard multiple times in response to domestic issues. In response to June's anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) riots in Los Angeles, the president deployed thousands of National Guard members and U.S. Marines to maintain order in the city and provide protection for ICE officials and government property. According to Fox News, Trump also deployed 800 D.C. National Guard troops on Monday as part of his plan to federalize Washington, D.C., and crack down on surging crime in the nation's capital.
New York Post
13 minutes ago
- New York Post
US national debt soars past record $37 trillion — years sooner than expected
The US national debt has climbed past $37 trillion — a record sum that shows how quickly the federal government's borrowing has accelerated and how rising interest costs are rippling through the economy. The new figure appears in a Treasury Department report released Tuesday that tracks the government's daily finances and shows the nation reaching the staggering threshold years sooner than previously expected. In January 2020, the Congressional Budget Office projected that gross federal debt would not exceed $37 trillion until after fiscal 2030. Instead, the milestone arrived far earlier as deficits piled up faster than anticipated. 4 The US national debt has climbed to a record $37 trillion, years ahead of earlier projections. The soaring debt is forecast to be exacerbated in the coming years after President Donald Trump signed into law his 'Big Beautiful Bill' which extends and enhances many tax cuts that he initially codified back in 2017. After Trump signed Republicans' tax cut and spending package into law earlier this year, the CBO estimated the measure would increase the national debt by $4.1 trillion over the next decade. The rapid run-up reflects emergency spending during the multi-year COVID-19 crisis, when the government borrowed heavily under Trump and his successor, Joe Biden, to prop up a shuttered economy. The combination of prior pandemic borrowing and new legislation has intensified concerns about the pace of red ink and the government's growing interest payments. Fiscal watchdogs warn the trend is creating tangible costs. Michael Peterson, chair and CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, told Fortune that government borrowing pushes interest rates higher, 'adding costs for everyone and reducing private sector investment.' 'Within the federal budget, the debt crowds out important priorities and creates a damaging cycle of more borrowing, more interest costs, and even more borrowing,' Peterson told Fortune. 4 Rising federal debt is seen by economists as a looming danger for the American economy. trekandphoto – He noted that trillion-dollar milestones are 'piling up at a rapid rate.' The recent cadence is stark. Federal ledgers show the US hit $34 trillion in January of last year, $35 trillion in July 2024 and $36 trillion in November 2024. 'We are now adding a trillion more to the national debt every 5 months,' Peterson said. 'That's more than twice as fast as the average rate over the last 25 years.' At the current average daily pace, the Joint Economic Committee estimates another $1 trillion could be added in roughly 173 days. Economists say the borrowing path is largely set by legislative decisions on taxes and spending. 4 The US national debt continues to weigh on taxpayers and future government budgets. AFP via Getty Images Wendy Edelberg, a senior fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution, said Congress's latest actions mean deficits will remain elevated. The Republicans' tax law, she said, 'means that we're going to borrow a lot over the course of 2026, we're going to borrow a lot over the course of 2027, and it's just going to keep going.' The Government Accountability Office has outlined how sustained federal borrowing can filter through to households and businesses. As debt swells and interest rates reflect greater Treasury issuance, consumers can face higher costs to finance mortgages and car loans. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! Businesses may invest less when capital is more expensive, a drag that can translate into slower wage growth. Prices for goods and services can also feel pressure from higher financing costs embedded in supply chains, the GAO notes. Underlying forces have made the budget picture more challenging over time. The federal government has run chronic annual deficits — when spending exceeds tax revenue — adding to the debt year after year. Demographic trends intensify that mismatch: as the baby-boom generation retires, spending on Social Security and Medicare rises steadily. 4 The growing debt burden reflects decades of borrowing to cover persistent budget deficits. freshidea – Health-care costs, which have historically grown faster than general inflation, further swell outlays for Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs. On the other side of the ledger, tax revenues have not kept pace with these commitments, particularly following recent tax cuts and through economic cycles that depress receipts during downturns. As debt compounds, interest payments consume a larger share of the budget, leaving less room for other priorities and creating a feedback loop in which more borrowing is required simply to service prior obligations. Major shocks — wars, the 2008 financial crisis, and the COVID-19 pandemic — have added large chunks to the total through emergency measures. The Post has sought comment from the Treasury Department.
