These are the safest places in America for gay and transgender people
These are the safest places in America for gay and transgender people Which states are the best and worst for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer Americans to live and work? More and more, it's a question of partisan politics. Here's why.
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
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk Calls Trump's Bill 'Abomination,' Emboldening GOP Critics
Elon Musk speaks alongside President Donald Trump to reporters in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on May 30, 2025. Credit - Kevin Dietsch—Getty Images Former White House adviser Elon Musk on Tuesday issued a blistering criticism of President Donald Trump's tax and spending package, calling it a 'disgusting abomination' as the Senate seeks to quickly pass the measure and send it to Trump's desk before July 4. 'Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it,' Musk said in a post on X, the social media platform he owns. He added that the package is a 'massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill.' The comments marked Musk's most public break yet with the President, and landed just days after he officially stepped down from his role as head of the Department of Government Efficiency, an advisory office created by Trump to identify and eliminate waste across the federal government. But it's not the first time Musk has criticized the bill. Last month he gave cover to Republican critics, saying that the measure failed to reduce the federal deficit and undermined his DOGE efforts. In a separate post Tuesday, Musk added that the bill would 'massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to $2.5 trillion (!!!) and burden [American] citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt.' He appeared to be referencing projections from budget analysts who estimate the legislation could add more than $2.5 trillion over the next decade to the national deficit, which has grown to $1.3 trillion. 'Congress is making America bankrupt,' Musk wrote. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has likewise concluded that while the bill includes cuts to Medicaid, food stamps and other safety net programs, those reductions would be overwhelmed by the tax cuts and other provisions projected to increase the deficit by between $2.3 trillion and $5 trillion over the same period. The House narrowly passed the GOP tax and spending bill last month by just one vote after weeks of tense negotiations between the White House and Republican lawmakers concerned about ballooning deficits. The package, dubbed by Trump as 'One Big, Beautiful Bill,' extends his 2017 tax cuts, creates new tax breaks on tips and overtime, and raises the federal debt ceiling by $4 trillion. Musk posted his latest criticisms as White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was defending the bill to reporters during a press briefing. She quickly found herself responding to Musk's view. 'The President already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill,' Leavitt said. 'It doesn't change the President's opinion.' House Speaker Mike Johnson also pushed back on Musk's criticism, which he called "disappointing" and "surprising." 'With all due respect, my friend Elon is terribly wrong about the one big, beautiful bill,' Johnson told reporters. But Musk's rebuke has energized fiscal hawks in the Senate who were already uneasy with the legislation's scope. Sen. Mike Lee, a Republican of Utah, responded directly to Musk's post on Tuesday: 'The Senate must make this bill better.' Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican of Kentucky, added: 'I agree with Elon. We have both seen the massive waste in government spending and we know another $5 trillion in debt is a huge mistake. We can and must do better.' In the House, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, one of the few Republicans to vote against the measure in the House, also responded to Musk: 'He's right.' In the upper chamber, several Senate Republicans including Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Rick Scott of Florida, and Rand Paul of Kentucky, have called for deeper spending cuts before they will support the bill. If the Senate amends the legislation, it would be sent back to the House for another vote. The bill also includes provisions that have surprised and alarmed some of the President's staunchest allies. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, posted on X that she regretted voting for the bill after discovering a section—buried on pages 278 and 279—that she says strips states of the authority to regulate artificial intelligence for a decade. 'I am adamantly OPPOSED to this and it is a violation of state rights,' she wrote. 'I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there.' While Trump repeatedly praised Musk during his time in the Administration, reports of internal clashes and disagreements occasionally spilled into public view. Musk previously criticized Trump's protectionist trade policies and tariffs, and his time working for the government was met with uneven results as he came up well short of his goal of slashing $2 trillion from the federal budget. Write to Nik Popli at
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
House Judiciary panel approves controversial concealed weapons bill
(Photo by Aristide Economopoulos/NJ Monitor) The North Carolina House Judiciary 2 Committee voted 6-5 along party lines Tuesday to pass a bill to allow the permitless carry of concealed firearms, one of the most controversial topics of the current legislative session. Senate Bill 50, 'Freedom to Carry NC,' would allow individuals who are U.S. citizens, at least 18 years of age, and not otherwise prohibited by law, to carry concealed weapons without applying for a permit. It's backed by Republican leadership and would make North Carolina the 30th state to approve of so-called 'constitutional carry.' Having previously cleared the Senate, the bill now proceeds to the House Rules Committee for further consideration. Though the Judiciary 2 Committee has only 10 members — six Republicans and four Democrats — House Minority Leader Robert Reives II (D-Chatham, Randolph) took the unusual step of using his position as a committee 'floater' to attend the meeting and narrow the margin. 'Nine states have allowed constitutional carry at age 18, North Carolina would be the 10th that this bill became law,' primary sponsor Rep. Danny Britt (R-Hoke, Robeson, Scotland) said. One amendment to the legislation increases the public safety employee death benefit to $150,000. Another calls for the University of North Carolina Board of Governors to develop a scholarship program for any child of a law enforcement officer, correctional officer, or first responder who is permanently and totally disabled as a result of a traumatic injury sustained in the line of duty. These scholarships would be available for children between the ages of 17 and 28. The bill received opposition from a several lawmakers and members of the public. No one other than Britt spoke in favor of the measure. Rep. Ya Liu (D-Wake) is the mother of two teenagers. She said there's a huge difference between individuals at the age of 18 and 21. At schools, students like Liu's son conduct drills for active shooter and lockdown situations. 'Our children are scared,' Liu said. 'We shouldn't accept it as a way of life, that they have to live with this.' Rep. Laura Budd (D-Mecklenburg) said this morning she told her 15-year-old son on the way to school that SB 50 was on the committee hearing docket today. He was shocked that an 18-year-old at his high school, potentially his classmate, would be allowed to buy a gun, according to Budd. She added that 18-year-olds in the United States can't drink a beer or rent a car. 'But yet, when it comes to something as a lethal as a gun… we want to lower the age and remove more restrictions,' Budd said, pointing out the irony. Anne Enberg, a local legislative leader for Moms Demand Action, said bills like SB 50 won't make communities safer. Enberg brought up a poll conducted by Everytown for Gun Safety in September that found 77% percent of likely North Carolina voters were against removing permit requirements from concealed carry laws. 'We should be looking for solutions that make us safer, not bills that would push crime and public safety's staff in the wrong direction,' she said. John Vanmeter-Kirk is a rising second-year student at North Carolina State University, a volunteer with Students Demand Action, and a lifelong Raleigh resident. He said he was speaking in front of the committee because SB 50 would put his home and community in danger. On Sunday, Vanmeter-Kirk noted, two North Carolina communities experienced mass shootings: one in Hickory and one in Asheville. 'Two innocent North Carolinians are dead, numerous injured, my community torn apart by senseless gun violence that could've been prevented,' Vanmeter-Kirk said. 'Even after two North Carolinians are dead, you're considering this incredibly dangerous bill that will only lead to the loss of more North Carolinians, dishonoring the memory of those we lost two days ago.'
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Factbox-Legal challenges facing South Korea's incoming President Lee Jae-myung
SEOUL (Reuters) -South Koreans voted in Lee Jae-myung as their next president in the country's June 3 snap election to heal the wounds of a shock martial law declaration in December, but the liberal leader comes with his own legal baggage in the form of five different criminal trials. Democratic Party leader Lee has denied wrongdoing and while a president has immunity from most crimes, legal experts are unclear whether this applies to cases that started before they took office. Here are some aspects of the trials the president is involved in. ELECTION LAW South Korea's Supreme Court ruled in May that Lee had violated election law by publicly making "false statements" during his 2022 presidential bid, and sent the case back to an appeals court after overturning an earlier ruling clearing him. The Seoul High Court decided to schedule its reconsideration of the case for June 18, pushing back a ruling that could determine his eligibility to run until after the election. Violation of election law had been in the spotlight because if the appeals court finalises a guilty verdict in line with the Supreme Court's decision, Lee would be barred from contesting elections for at least five years. The Supreme Court ruling sparked criticism from Lee's Democratic Party, which controls parliament, leading to bills being introduced that suggested the court and its chief justice engaged in abuse of jurisdiction and interference in the presidential election. ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION This trial combines allegations of corruption such as bribery from four separate cases related to property development projects and licensing, during Lee's 2010-2018 stint as mayor of Seongnam City bordering Seoul's wealthy Gangnam district. A major portion of the trial involves Lee allegedly colluding with a group of private property developers to help them rake in money from a 1.5 trillion won ($1.08 billion) project, while inflicting losses on the city. The trial at Seoul Central District Court began in 2023 with around 200,000 pages of records submitted to the court, according to the Yonhap News Agency. A hearing planned in May was postponed to June 24, after the election. MISUSE OF PUBLIC FUNDS, SENDING MONEY TO NORTH KOREA These two trials are ongoing at Suwon District Court, south of Seoul. In one, prosecutors alleged that Lee committed breach of trust by using public funds for personal expenses when he was governor of Gyeonggi province in 2018-2021, including parking an official car at his home and letting his wife use it regardless of the errand, plus purchases of food and payment for personal laundry with provincial funds. In another, prosecutors alleged that Lee was an accomplice in a former Gyeonggi province vice governor's involvement in handing over money to North Korea in 2018, and indicted him for violations of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act, as well as bribery of a third party. ALLEGED SUBORNATION OF PERJURY A case is also before the Seoul High Court, in which prosecutors alleged Lee induced a witness to lie under oath in court concerning another case in 2019 in which he was cleared. A lower court had cleared Lee of the charge, before prosecutors appealed. A hearing set for May 20 was postponed, court records showed. WHAT'S NEXT? The fate of the trials is unclear. South Korea's Constitution, Article 84, says a sitting president is "not subject to criminal prosecution while in office" for most crimes. However, legal experts are divided on whether that applies to ongoing trials that were already prosecuted before a president was elected. The Democratic Party introduced to committee in May a bill which suspends ongoing trials if the defendant is elected president. However, some legal experts have noted the Constitutional Court may be asked to rule whether the bill is unconstitutional, which would increase political uncertainties. The National Court Administration under the Supreme Court gave as its opinion that judges of each court where the trials are being held will have to decide whether to stop or proceed, according to its statement to a lawmaker in May. "The court in charge of hearing the case will determine whether Article 84 of the Constitution should be applied to a criminal defendant who was elected in the presidential election," the statement said. ($1 = 1,382.6800 won)