logo
How this Democrat fights Marjorie Taylor Greene's transphobia in Congress with smart preparation

How this Democrat fights Marjorie Taylor Greene's transphobia in Congress with smart preparation

Yahooa day ago

New Mexico Democratic U.S. Rep. Melanie Stansbury wasn't planning to go viral. But when she spoke up during a congressional hearing last month and calmly held aloft an uncropped photo that debunked a Republican smear — while Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Georgia Republican and subcommittee chairwoman, slammed her gavel in exasperation — the moment captured something larger than one procedural dispute.
Keep up with the latest in + news and politics.
In a single act of preparation and truth-telling, Stansbury had exposed the hearing as political theater. The doctored image, which Greene's team presented in an effort to humiliate USA Fencing Chair Damien Lehfeldt, appeared to show him flipping off the committee. But as Stansbury revealed, he was actually flashing a peace sign.
'The document you have up behind you is a misrepresentation of the actual post,' she said as Greene tried to continue speaking.
Greene responded with a furious, uncontrolled banging of the gavel — a scene that quickly became the viral centerpiece of the May 8 Department of Government Efficiency Subcommittee hearing and a late-night comedy segment on Jimmy Kimmel Live!
But Stansbury wasn't trying to be funny. She was trying to expose a lie.
In a Tuesday interview with The Advocate, Stansbury explained that the viral moment was the result of weeks of planning — and a decision to reject silence.
'When we saw that the chairwoman was going to call a hearing on transgender athletes, actually my initial response was, we're not participating in that at all,' she said. 'Because clearly, it really is wholly outside of the scope of anything that the Oversight Committee has anything to do with. And it's just a blatant political attack on the trans community.'
Related: Jasmine Crockett shreds GOP's obsession with trans people over American problems with 'Trump or trans' game
Ultimately, she and her fellow Democrats chose to engage strategically. 'We were prepared to shut them down,' she said. 'We were ready to use every procedural motion we could. We were ready for any shenanigans they would pull.'
The plan worked. Early in the hearing, Stansbury called a motion to adjourn, and when Republicans didn't have enough members in the room to stop her, the delay bought critical time.
'They had to sit there for about 10 or 15 minutes,' she recalled. 'And so during that time, some of our staff saw the poster they were planning on presenting.'
That gave Stansbury the upper hand. When Greene unveiled the image, Stansbury called it out immediately. The gavel slammed. Greene shouted. The internet noticed.
For Stansbury, who has been representing New Mexico's First District since 2021, the hearing was just the latest installment in what she calls a disturbing trend.
'In my personal opinion, I think that the Republican fixation on trans lives is weird,' she said. 'It's just weird. I almost cannot explain it.'
Related: Nancy Mace sits silently as Robert Garcia roasts her anti-trans record in House Oversight hearing
She singled out GOP members like South Carolina U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace, saying, 'Who once purported to stand with [the] LGBTQ+ community and now are just so obsessed in a way that is unhealthy — even personally.'
Stansbury made the same point even more bluntly during the hearing itself: 'It's just weird. Your obsession with this is weird.' Greene's retort — 'We'll let the American people decide who the weirdos are' — backfired spectacularly, becoming meme fodder within hours.
'I could tell that it got under the skin of the chairwoman when I said that,' Stansbury told The Advocate.
Stansbury made clear that the GOP's culture war is not organic. 'This was a completely manufactured issue,' she said. 'You know, the Republicans are obsessed with less than 1 percent of the population.'
And she knows exactly where it's coming from.
'If you rewind the tape and look at where it originated from, the same groups that have Heritage Foundation affiliation are the same as those who brought before the Supreme Court for the Dobbs case," she said, referring to the case that led the court to strike down Roe v. Wade, which protected abortion rights nationally. "They are all being funded by dark money behind the scenes. And it is a Christian nationalist agenda that is very explicitly going after the trans community.'
That targeting, she warned, has real consequences. 'I have trans kids in my life, and people are scared. People are afraid just to be themselves. I have a veteran in my district who has shared her story, and she's afraid to leave her house.'
Despite Republicans' fixation, Stansbury said the issue around taking away trans rights is nowhere near the top of mind for her constituents.
'It doesn't come up. It has never once come up. Ever. Once. Never,' she said. 'I don't get asked about it in town halls. I don't get asked about it when I'm on the campaign trail. I don't get asked about it at the doors.'
Instead, she said, New Mexicans take pride in their state's record, which includes gender-affirming care protections, legal safeguards for providers, and some of the most progressive LGBTQ+ rights laws in the country.
As the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico outlines, those seeking gender-affirming care in the state are protected by confidentiality laws and can assert their rights through legal channels if they face discrimination. The law explicitly shields the privacy of patients from out of state, and conversion therapy remains banned.
'One of the biggest applause lines that I get when I do town halls is when I list all of the things that New Mexico did under progressive leadership, including protecting LGBTQ civil rights and transgender care,' she said.
But on taking rights away from trans people in the state? 'It is not a motivating issue for any constituent that I have ever talked to,' Stansbury said.
Amid whispers from some Democrats that the party should tone down its public support for transgender rights to avoid alienating moderate voters, Stansbury offered a sharp rebuttal.
'What I make of the kind of political retreat that I see some people making around this issue is, like, the American people right now — no matter what their ideological affiliation is — they want to see strong leadership,' she said.
'Trump is trying to take us back a half-century, whether that's civil rights, LGBTQ rights, women's rights, whatever it is,' she continued. 'And so we have to be as bold and as fierce in our fight as Democrats in standing up and saying no — and punching back — as they are in attacking people.'
Asked how Democrats should respond to the tidal wave of false narratives, Stansbury was unequivocal: 'Allyship doesn't mean anything if it doesn't come with action.'
'To me, that means saying something when you see something, fighting back in a full-throttled way, speaking up, speaking out, reaching out to the communities that we work with and partnering with them.'
And when it comes to Trump's broader agenda?
'They're trying to rewrite the Civil Rights Act. They're trying to undo all of these things that are not the result of policy and politics — they're the result of culture changing, of people's movements for generations,' she said. 'They think they can just go and write a few executive orders and undo generations of social struggles. They're crazy. That's not going to happen.'
Stansbury finds hope in younger generations. 'I look at people in my life who are Gen Z and Alpha ... this younger generation doesn't even think about these issues the same way the older generation does,' she said. 'There's not only going not to be a demand for this, there's not going to be any tolerance for this.'
But until that future arrives, Stansbury isn't waiting for permission to lead.
'We see you. We're fighting for you,' she said of her message to transgender Americans. 'You're loved, you're cared for, and we see what's happening — and we're going to continue to fight back.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Is a $5,000 DOGE stimulus check a real thing? What we know
Is a $5,000 DOGE stimulus check a real thing? What we know

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Is a $5,000 DOGE stimulus check a real thing? What we know

In February, President Donald Trump said he was considering a plan to pay out $5,000 stimulus checks to American taxpayers from the savings identified by billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Are they happening? No official plan or schedule for such a payout has been released, and a decision on the checks would have to come from Congress, which has so far been cool to the idea. And there have been questions as to how much DOGE has actually saved. The idea was floated by Azoria investment firm CEO James Fishback, who suggested on Musk's social media platform X that Trump and Musk should "should announce a 'DOGE Dividend'" from the money saved from reductions in government waste and workforce since it was American taxpayer money in the first place. He even submitted a proposal for how it would work, with a timeline for after the expiration of DOGE in July 2026. "At $2 trillion in DOGE savings and 78 million tax-paying households, this is a $5,000 refund per household, with the remaining used to pay down the national debt," he said in a separate post. Musk replied, "Will check with the President." "We're considering giving 20% of the DOGE savings to American citizens and 20% to paying down the debt," Trump said in a during the Saudi-sponsored FII PRIORITY Summit in Miami Beach the same month. DOGE has dismantled entire federal agencies, wiped out government contracts and led the firings of tens of thousands of federal workers, leaving many agencies struggling to continue operations. DOGE checks? Elon Musk dodges DOGE stimulus check question during Wisconsin rally: Here's what he said. Fishbeck suggested that the potential refund go only to households that are net-income taxpayers, or households that pay more in taxes than they get back. The Pew Research Center said that most Americans with an adjusted gross income of under $40,000 effectively pay no federal income tax. They would not be eligible. If DOGE achieves Musk's initial goal of stripping $2 trillion from U.S. government spending by 2026, Fishback's plan was for $5,000 per household, or 20% of the savings divided by the number of eligible households. If DOGE doesn't hit the goal, Fishback said the amount should be adjusted accordingly. 'So again, if the savings are only $1 trillion, which I think is awfully low, the check goes from $5,000 to $2,500,' Fishback said during a podcast appearance. 'If the savings are only $500 billion, which, again, is really, really low, then the [checks] are only $1,250.' However, while Musk talked about saving $2 trillion in federal spending during Trump's campaign, he lowered the goal to $1 trillion after Trump assumed office and said in March he was on pace to hit that goal by the end of May. At a Cabinet meeting in April, Musk lowered the projected savings further to $150 billion in fiscal year 2026. Musk left the White House at the end of May when his designation as a "special government employee" ended. DOGE, the advisory group he created, is expected to continue without him. That depends on who you ask. On its website, DOGE claims to have saved an estimated $175 billion as of May 30, "a combination of asset sales, contract and lease cancellations and renegotiations, fraud and improper payment deletions, grant cancellations, interest savings, programmatic changes, regulatory savings, and workforce reductions." The site says that works out to $1,086.96 saved per taxpayer. However, many of DOGE's claims have been exaggerated and several of the initiatives to slash agency workforces have been challenged in court. DOGE has been accused of taking credit for contracts that were canceled before DOGE was created, failing to factor in funds the government is required to pay even if a contract is canceled, and tallying every contract by the most that could possibly be spent on it even when nothing near that amount had been obligated. The website list has been changed as the media pointed out errors, such as a claim that an $8 million savings was actually $8 billion. On May 30, CNN reported that one of its reporters found that less than half the $175 billion figure was backed up with even basic documentation, making verification difficult if not impossible. Some of the changes may also end up costing taxpayers more, such as proposed slashes to the Internal Revenue Service that experts say would mean less tax revenue generated, resulting in a net cost of about $6.8 billion. Over the next 10 years, if IRS staffing stays low, the cumulative cost in uncollected taxes would hit $159 billion, according to the nonpartisan Budget Lab at Yale University. The per-taxpayer claim on the website is also inflated, CNN said, as it's based on '161 million individual federal taxpayers' and doesn't seem to include married people filing jointly. This article originally appeared on Florida Times-Union: DOGE dividends: Will American taxpayers get a $5,000 check?

Primary election 2025: Berks officials certify election results
Primary election 2025: Berks officials certify election results

Yahoo

time27 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Primary election 2025: Berks officials certify election results

Berks County election officials have finalized the tally of results from the primary election. During a special meeting Friday, the elections board voted unanimously to certify the vote totals and authorize the submission of the results to the secretary of the commonwealth. There is now a clear picture of which Democratic and Republican candidates will be on the November ballot for municipal, school, county and judicial races. In addition to those candidates who appeared on the primary ballot, nearly 100 candidates were added to the fall election through successful write-in campaigns. Independent and third-party candidates still have a chance to petition to be on the ballot before the lineup is finalized. Elections Director Anne Norton told the elections board that her term performed the required reviews and audits of the May 20 primary, finding no variations or discrepancies with the official tally. The official results of the election will be posted on the county elections website. Overall, just over 21% of registered Democrats and Republicans voted. Voter turnout was slightly lower than recent, similar elections. In the 2023 municipal primary, for example, turnout was about 24%. The elections board thanked the election services team as well as those who worked the polls and handled mail ballots for the hard work and long hours they put into making sure every vote was counted. 'A huge thank you to everyone involved,' Commissioner Michael Rivera said. Commissioner Dante Santoni Jr. also commended those who ran to represent their fellow residents in local positions. 'When you run for office it takes time away from other things,' he said. 'You stick your neck out for your community at all levels of government and I give kudos to everyone who participated in the democratic process.'

Berks officials send 2 alleged election violations to DA to investigate
Berks officials send 2 alleged election violations to DA to investigate

Yahoo

time27 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Berks officials send 2 alleged election violations to DA to investigate

Two allegations of potential campaign law violations in Berks County have been forwarded to law enforcement for investigation. At a special meeting of the board of elections Friday, members of the county legal team presented two complaints stemming from the May 20 primary election. One involved a candidate who failed to indicate who paid for campaign materials and the other involved a text message from an unknown sender. The first complaint involved Matthew McCluskey, a Republican candidate running to represent Washington Township on the board of supervisors, who failed to include a disclaimer on campaign material sent to voters about who paid for its distribution. While the board decided last month that they would not be sending the complaint to authorities for further review because they believed the candidate had taken the necessary action to fix the situation, Assistant County Solicitor Alexa Antanavage told the board Friday that the issue is still unresolved. They said upon closer examination of financial campaign documents filed by McCluskey and a committee acting on his behalf, the source of the money used to send mailers to Republican voters in the township ahead of the primary remains unclear. 'Given the totality of everything that's going on here and the discrepancies that we have seen, along with the failure to include disclaimers, I think it's appropriate to recommend referral to the district attorney's office for further investigation,' Antanavage said. The board agreed, voting unanimously to forward the issue to law enforcement. Contacted by the Reading Eagle, McCluskey said Friday afternoon that he believes further investigation of the latest campaign finance documents he filed will accurately show who was responsible for funding his materials. 'I made a mistake filling out the paperwork,' he said. 'There's not even a question about that because I misunderstood the instructions. Listen, I'm a rookie and I've never done this before.' McCluskey said he recently met with an attorney and financial adviser familiar with campaign finance filings to fix the mistakes that were made. 'I truly believe that everything is as it should be now,' he said. The second complaint involved an anonymous text message sent a day before the primary to Republican voters in the Oley Valley School District advocating for the election of several candidates. First Assistant County Solicitor Cody Kauffman said the message may have violated the silence period that prohibits candidates, committees and parties acting on their behalf from placing an advertisement in the 120 hours before an election without giving sufficient notice to opposing candidates. He noted the message is also problematic because it did not state who paid for its distribution to voters. Kauffman recommended the matter be sent to law enforcement for further review. The board voted unanimously to forward the issue to the district attorney. The two referrals to the district attorney's office bring to five the total number of potential violations regarding the handling of campaign material that the county has handed over for investigation this election season. Commissioner Michael Rivera, chairman of the elections board, said it appears this is a growing issue that needs to be addressed. He suggested the board put in place guidelines about how candidates should respond to complaints when they are brought to their attention. 'The remedy has to be equal to or greater than the infraction,' he said. 'So, in the case of the mailer sent out without a disclaimer, the candidate must send another mailer to the same people with the disclaimer. If you are sending a text message without a disclaimer, then another text message should be sent to the same people with the disclaimer.' Rivera said adopting that guideline would help the elections team more easily determine if the candidate has taken the appropriate action to address the complaint. His fellow board members agreed that adopting guidelines would be beneficial for the elections team and candidates who may be unfamiliar with the requirements. They asked Kauffman to work with Elections Director Anne Norton to craft guidelines for the board to approve.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store