These are the safest places in America for gay and transgender people
Show Caption
Hide Caption
See as rock climbers hang Transgender Pride flag in Yosemite
Rock climbers unfurled a large Transgender Pride flag on El Capitan in Yosemite National Park. The National Park Service has since removed it.
As Oklahoman legislators push to restrict trans rights and overturn the 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage, Zane Eaves says his identity as a transgender man has put a target on his back in his home state.
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.
The least and most welcoming LGBTQ+ states
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.
Where are the safest places to live?
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%.
LGBTQ+ Americans on the move
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
5 minutes ago
- New York Post
Little Sisters of the Poor are still fighting ObamaCare— as states force nuns to violate their faith
It's enraging. More than a decade after the Obama administration first tried to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to buy contraception including abortifacient drugs for employees, states are still hounding the nuns in court. At its heart, ObamaCare was a massive welfare program meant to redistribute health-care costs to the middle class. But it was also a social engineering project aimed at coercing religious organizations and businesses to adopt progressive values. The Affordable Care Act mandated employers, including nonprofits such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, to pay for contraceptives in their worker-provided health insurance as an 'essential health benefit' under the euphemistic category of 'preventative and wellness services.' There was no 'religious exemption.' It's worth taking a step back and thinking about that term: The very idea that an American citizen should be impelled to ask the state for an 'exemption' to practice their faith is an assault on the fundamental idea of liberty. Imagine having to ask the state for an exemption to exercise your free speech? What makes the case even more unsettling, of course, is that the state is demanding citizens engage in activity that is explicitly against their faith. Now, there may well be numerous theological disputes within the Catholic Church. The use of contraception and abortion aren't among them. There is absolutely no question that nuns hold genuine, long-standing religious convictions. And there is no question that liberals want to smash them. Nevertheless, the Little Sisters spent years in court, working their way up to the Supreme Court and winning protections against the federal government (twice). In 2017, the Trump administration exempted religious groups like the Little Sisters from the ObamaCare mandate entirely. The government, however, bolstered with unlimited taxpayer funds, can hunt its prey in perpetuity. So states such as New Jersey and Pennsylvania began their own lawsuits against the Little Sisters. This week, in a nationwide ruling, Judge Wendy Beetlestone, chief judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, found that the Trump administration's expansion of religious exemptions from the contraception mandate was 'arbitrary and capricious.' Religious nonprofit groups and businesses will again have to ask for special accommodations from the Department of Health and Human Services to avoid buying abortifacients. Even if the Trump administration grants every one of them, one day there will be authoritarians in charge who won't — and nonprofit employees will still be guaranteed contraception through health plans paid for by employers. Beetlestone, incidentally, was the same judge who issued a nationwide injunction against the contraception exemption back in 2017, arguing it was 'difficult' to think of any rule that 'intrudes more into the lives of women.' The Supreme Court overturned it in 2020 by a 7-2 majority. Because no one has a right to free condoms. Indeed, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act holds that the state must have a 'compelling interest' and use the least restrictive means when burdening religious practice. Free birth control isn't a compelling interest. And fining religious organizations millions of dollars to pressure them into abandoning their beliefs is perhaps the most restrictive means of action, short of throwing nuns in prison. You'd think attacking a group of nuns who offer end-of-life care for the elderly would be a public relations nightmare for Democrats. Yet they've never really shied away from it. Because the point is to intimidate others. In many ways, the Little Sisters' struggle is reminiscent of the travails of Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker who refuses to create unique message cakes for gay weddings. Phillips is now embroiled in his umpteenth court case over his crimes. The message: Dissent from those who practice their faith will be punished. Take the Catholic Charities adoption agencies, which shuttered in numerous states due to laws and policies compelling them to place children with same-sex couples. The attacks will continue until the Supreme Court upholds the clear language and intent of the First Amendment and religious liberty. It's already punted once: In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a 7-2 Supreme Court decision in favor of Jack Phillips, the court barred the state's attacks only if state officials openly demeaned their target's faith — a ruling so narrow as to be largely useless. But it shouldn't matter why the state is steamrolling the religious liberty of nuns, or anyone else for that matter. The problem is that the ObamaCare mandate is authoritarian and unconstitutional. And the only way to fix that problem is to overturn it. David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner. Twitter @davidharsanyi
Chicago Tribune
5 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
California pushes partisan plan for new Democratic districts to counter Texas in fight for US House
LOS ANGELES — California Gov. Gavin Newsom said Thursday his state will hold a Nov. 4 special election to seek approval of redrawn districts intended to give Democrats five more U.S. House seats in the fight for control of Congress. The move is a direct response to a similar Republican-led effort in Texas, pushed by President Donald Trump as his party seeks to maintain its slim House majority in the midterm elections. The nation's two most populous states have emerged as the center of a partisan turf war in the House that could spiral into other states — as well as the courts — in what amounts to a proxy war ahead of the 2026 elections. Texas lawmakers are considering a new map that could help them send five more Republicans to Washington. Democrats who so far have halted a vote by leaving the state announced Thursday that they will return home if Texas Republicans end their current special session and California releases its own recast map proposal. Both were expected to happen Friday. However, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is expected to call another special session to push through new maps. Texas House Democrats planning their departure from Illinois and back to AustinIn Los Angeles, Newsom staged what amounted to a campaign kickoff rally for the as-yet unreleased new maps with the state's Democratic leadership in a downtown auditorium packed with union members, legislators and abortion rights supporters. Newsom and other speakers veered from discussing the technical grist of reshaping districts — known as redistricting — and instead depicted the looming battle as a conflict with all things Trump, tying it explicitly to the fate of American democracy. 'We can't stand back and watch this democracy disappear district by district all across the country,' Newsom said. 'We are not bystanders in this world. We can shape the future.' An overarching theme was the willingness to stand up to Trump, a cheer-inducing line for Democrats as the party looks to regroup from its 2024 losses. 'Donald Trump, you have poked the bear and we will punch back,' said Newsom, a possible 2028 presidential contender. Thursday's announcement marks the first time any state beyond Texas has officially waded into the mid-decade redistricting fight. The Texas plan was stalled when minority Democrats fled to Illinois, New York and Massachusetts on Aug. 3 to stop the Legislature from passing any bills. Elsewhere, leaders from red Florida to blue New York are threatening to write new maps. In Missouri, a document obtained by The Associated Press shows the state Senate received a $46,000 invoice to activate six redistricting software licenses and provide training for up to 10 staff members. In California, lawmakers must officially declare the special election, which they plan to do next week after voting on the new maps. Democrats hold supermajorities in both chambers — enough to act without any Republican votes — and Newsom said he's not worried about winning the required support from two-thirds of lawmakers to advance the maps. Newsom encouraged other Democratic-led states to get involved. 'We need to stand up — not just California. Other blue states need to stand up,' Newsom said. Republicans hold a 219-212 majority in the U.S. House, with four vacancies. New maps are typically drawn once a decade after the census is conducted. Many states, including Texas, give legislators the power to draw maps. California is among states that rely on an independent commission that is supposed to be nonpartisan. The California map would take effect only if a Republican state moves forward, and it would remain through the 2030 elections. After that, Democrats say they would return mapmaking power to the independent commission approved by voters more than a decade ago. Some people already have said they would sue to block the effort, and influential voices including former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger may campaign against it. 'Gavin Newsom's latest stunt has nothing to do with Californians and everything to do with consolidating radical Democrat power, silencing California voters, and propping up his pathetic 2028 presidential pipe dream,' National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson Christian Martinez said in a statement. 'Newsom's made it clear: he'll shred California's Constitution and trample over democracy — running a cynical, self-serving playbook where Californians are an afterthought and power is the only priority.' California Democrats hold 43 of the state's 52 House seats, and the state has some of the most competitive House seats. Outside Newsom's news conference Thursday, U.S. Border Patrol agents conducted patrols, drawing condemnation from the governor and others. 'We're here making Los Angeles a safer place since we don't have politicians that will do that,' Gregory Bovino, chief of the patrol's El Centro, California, sector, told a reporter with KTTV in Los Angeles. He said he didn't know Newsom was inside nearby.
USA Today
5 minutes ago
- USA Today
Texas judge rules that Alex Jones' Infowars will be put up for sale once again
Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones faced another setback in court as a Texas district judge ruled that his Infowars platform could be put up for sale again. The decision follows a 2024 ruling to halt an earlier sale due to concerns about the auction process. Judge Maya Guerra Gamble ruled on Wednesday, Aug. 13, that Infowars' parent company, Free Speech Systems, was to be placed in the hands of a court-appointed receiver and that the company's assets would be used to pay the $1.3 billion in legal judgments. In 2022, the courts ruled that Jones defamed the families of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting, in which six adults and 20 children were killed. He made repeated false claims that the massacre was a 'hoax' staged as part of a government plot to confiscate guns from Americans. Gamble's order paves the way for The Onion to try yet again to purchase Infowars and its assets. In December 2024, the satirical news site initially won the court-ordered auction for Infowars, but a U.S. bankruptcy judge blocked the sale, stating that the bankruptcy auction did not result in the best possible the court's latest ruling, The Onion's CEO Ben Collins posted on the social media platform Bluesky on Wednesday, Aug. 13, 'We're working on it. That's all I can say for now.' Reuters and USA TODAY's Jeanine Santucci contributed to this report. Fernando Cervantes Jr. is a trending news reporter for USA TODAY. Reach him at and follow him on X @fern_cerv_.
