AIDS Foundation Chicago sues Trump administration over executive orders involving equity, gender
The AIDS Foundation Chicago and two other nonprofits filed a lawsuit Wednesday against President Donald Trump and his administration, challenging executive orders related to diversity, equity and gender.
The AIDS Foundation Chicago, the National Urban League and the National Fair Housing Alliance filed the lawsuit in federal court in Washington, D.C., seeking to halt three recent executive orders.
They're challenging orders that seek to end 'diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility' (DEIA) programs in the federal government and equity-related grants and contracts, and that direct federal agencies to combat DEI in the private sector. They're also suing over an order that said it would be the policy of the U.S. to recognize only two sexes.
The executive order recognizing only two sexes says that its purpose is to stop 'ideologues who deny the biological reality of sex' allowing 'men to self-identify as women and gain access to intimate single-sex spaces and activities designed for women.' Another one of the orders referred to DEI programs as 'illegal and immoral discrimination programs.'
The lawsuit filed Wednesday, however, alleges that the order recognizing two only sexes, 'seeks to erase transgender people from public life and poses an existential threat to transgender people themselves, as well as to the federally funded organizations that seek to support them and advance their civil rights.'
And the lawsuit argues that 'the United States' longstanding and entrenched race and sex inequalities require proactive efforts, including DEIA, to break down barriers to opportunity and resources to both remedy and prevent discrimination.'
The orders are forcing the AIDS Foundation of Chicago and the other nonprofits to either violate their missions or risk losing federal funding, the lawsuit alleges.
The AIDS Foundation Chicago is a not-for-profit that receives most of its funding from the federal government – $34.8 million annually, according to the complaint. The loss of that funding would force the foundation to cease operations, eliminating services for nearly 7,000 people a year, according to the lawsuit, including 1,300 people receiving housing assistance through the foundation. Stable housing is vital for people living with HIV, so they can take their medication and prevent more serious problem, like an AIDS diagnosis, said John Peller, president and CEO of AIDS Foundation Chicago.
The foundation also provides case management services to people living with HIV and helps connect them with health care and mental health and substance use disorder services, Peller said.
'What I think is so problematic about the executive orders that the Trump administration has put out is that they're really trying to ban us from doing the work that is so vital to addressing the HIV epidemic,' Peller said. 'They don't want us to mention trans people. They don't want us to talk about the fact that there are racial health disparities. … They don't want us to train our staff on cultural competency, so that the staff know the best ways to build relationships with clients who are part of the groups who are most impacted.'
The lawsuit alleges that the administration is violating the nonprofit organizations' rights to free speech and due process and is engaging in unlawful discrimination.
Other groups have also filed lawsuits challenging the executive orders.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
9 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
AP PHOTOS: Trump's new travel ban takes effect, and some protest
President Donald Trump's ban on travel to the United States took effect Monday. Demonstrators outside Los Angeles International Airport held signs protesting the ban affecting citizens from 12 mainly African and Middle Eastern countries. At Miami International Airport, passengers moved steadily through an area for international arrivals. Tensions are escalating over the Trump administration's campaign of immigration enforcement. The new ban applies to citizens of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It also imposes heightened restrictions on people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela who are outside the U.S. and don't hold a valid visa. This is a photo gallery curated by AP photo editors.
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ampere Analysis Breaks Down The Threat U.S. Tariffs Would Pose To European Film & TV
Speaking at NEM in Croatia, Ampere Analysis Co-Founder Guy Bisson ran the rule over the so-called plan to save Hollywood from Jon Voight and associates, and assessed the potential impact on the European film and TV biz. 'A 120% tariff on incentives to cancel out global schemes is patently ridiculous and obviously very damaging, potentially, to the European industry,' he said. 'Tax treaties, local tax treaties in the U.S., and incentive schemes, just like we use in Europe, clearly, are the way to go if you want to re-enliven your industries.' More from Deadline Donald Trump's Tariffs Deemed Unlawful & Blocked By Trade Court; White House Appeals Instantly Life After Peak TV: "It's A New World Order... There's A Rethink Required" - Berlin Streamer Content Spend To Top Commercial Broadcasters For First Time In 2025 - Report A draft of Voight's Make Hollywood Great Again plan, obtained by Deadline, included a mixture of production incentives and a 120% tariff on the value of a foreign incentive received. After he presented the plan to Donald Trump, the President public proposed a 100% tariff on all U.S. film imports, including productions that shoot in other countries. The NEM confab and sales market is held annually in Dubrovnik. The latest edition kicked off, Monday, with Bisson's session, which was entitled: 'Content Trends in the Era of Trump: Protectionism, Production and International Markets'. The Ampere executive set the scene by showing how the European content business has benefitted from the U.S. studios widening their production bases and streamers setting up shop in several parts of the continent, resulting in orders for thousands of hours of first-run programming. He also said international markets are key to those same U.S. giants monetizing their series and movies with, for example, 54% of the total box office for U.S. films coming from international markets, according to Ampere. Getting into the weeds on the suggested measures, he said a 120% tariff on any incentive received overseas is 'one of the most concerning aspects of the proposal, effectively closing the door on U.S. producers making use of any overseas incentive.' He went on to break down what might happen if the proposed measure were introduced with a slide that pinpointed the UK and Spain as the two biggest potential losers in Europe, given the volumes of U.S. production in both countries. 'Obviously the big European markets – the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Germany – are on that list, but so is Poland, for example, and Turkey, and the Scandinavian markets. They have been the [among] biggest beneficiaries of that 'runaway' production.' Speaking about the notion of tax treaties with certain countries for films substantially produced in U.S., Bisson said the idea is interesting: 'While you still have to make a majority, or spend a majority of the budget, in the U.S., you can effectively stack or double dip incentive schemes through those treaties.' He also said any re-introduction of rules that prohibit networks (and now, SVODs) fully owning shows 'would remove one of the things that's annoyed producers so much, which is streamers taking all rights in perpetuity.' Trump has said that he would meet with industry officials, and the White House said no final decisions have been made regarding the plan. Voight, Sylvester Stallone and a group that included studios and unions later wrote a letter to Trump emphasizing the need for production incentives While punchy, the NEM presentation was, thusly, analyzing what are currently theoretical scenarios. Bisson said that the best hope for the European biz is that theory never becomes practice. 'None of this is actually happening or being put in place yet, it's just a suggestion,' he said. 'Who can predict what Trump will do next. You may have heard the nickname that Trump has been given: TACO; Trump, Always Chickens Out on tariffs. That's what we can hope will happen again when it comes to our industry and the suggested protectionism being placed on film and TV.' Ted Johnson contributed to this report. Best of Deadline 2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery Tony Awards: Every Best Musical Winner Since 1949 Tony Awards: Every Best Play Winner Since 1947
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's broad definition of ‘insurrection' looms over Los Angeles
In September 2020, President Donald Trump suggested he was hamstrung to crack down on at-times-violent racial justice demonstrations in cities like Portland, Oregon. 'Look, we have laws. We have to go by the laws,' Trump said at an ABC News town hall, adding: 'We can't call in the National Guard unless we're requested by a governor.' Trump noted there was one way he could do that – by invoking the Insurrection Act – but added that 'there's no reason to ever do that, even in a Portland case.' Something has clearly changed since then. Trump this weekend became the first president in about 60 years to call in the National Guard without a request from a governor – to help quell protests in Los Angeles against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. He did so without invoking the Insurrection Act – the 1807 law that allows the president to deploy American soldiers to police US streets in extreme circumstances. That means the guard has limited authorities that don't include law enforcement, as CNN legal analyst Steve Vladeck noted. Even that more limited decision, though, has been criticized as overzealous and heavy-handed by some experts, given fears it could inflame the situation. unknown content item - But Trump has clearly left open the possibility of ratcheting things up and possibly even doing what he said five years ago there was 'no reason to ever do': invoking the Insurrection Act to deal with demonstrators. Northern Command said Sunday that 500 US Marines were on 'prepared to deploy' status. Trump was asked Sunday whether the situation was an insurrection, and he said no. But just after 10 p.m. ET, he posted on Truth Social: 'Paid insurrectionists!' The president again used the term on Monday, telling reporters upon his return to the White House that the 'people that are causing the problem are professional agitators' before going on to call them 'insurrectionists.' Top White House adviser Stephen Miller has been calling the situation in Los Angeles an insurrection for days. And indeed, for Trump, Miller and their allies, the bar for 'insurrection' appears quite different than it was five years ago. After many labeled the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol an insurrection, Trump and MAGA have spent years applying that label extremely broadly to other things. The idea seems to have been to 'whatabout' the term and water it down by suggesting other events are the 'real' insurrections – like the protests after George Floyd's murder. But Trump's broad definition of that term looms large as the administration considers something he's long entertained: dispatching the military on US soil. It has almost seemed like Trump and Co. see themselves surrounded by insurrections. Among the situations Trump has previously attached the 'insurrection' label to: Antifa ('they're causing insurrection') His baseless claims of a 'stolen' 2020 election ('the real insurrection happened on November 3rd') Unspecified enemies within the United States ('insurrectionists roam free') A border influx ('when you talk about insurrection, what they're doing, that's the real deal') Then-President Joe Biden ('I'm not an Insurrectionist … Crooked Joe Biden is!!!') Miller – a key figure in the White House on such matters – has appended that label to many of these things and more. He's most often used it in relation to the border under Biden. But he's also repeatedly accused judges who ruled against Trump of a 'legal insurrection.' He's called pro-Palestinian demonstrators a 'pro-Hamas insurrection.' And he accused those who protested the Supreme Court in 2022 – including in some cases apparently illegally at justices' homes – of waging an 'open insurrection.' It's worth emphasizing that many of these things don't qualify as insurrections. While Trump and his allies balked at people labeling January 6 an insurrection, there's little doubt that it met the definition. That word is generally defined as a violent revolt or rebellion against the government. The attack on the US Capitol was a violent attempt to effectively change the makeup of that government by overturning the election result – and by attacking an actual seat of power. In other words, an insurrection isn't about the level of violence; it's about the target and purpose of it. Merely protesting or even engaging in violence while doing so doesn't automatically make something an insurrection. Nor do adverse court rulings and an influx of undocumented immigrants constitute a rebellion. Of course, Trump has shown he's more than happy to stretch the bounds of words and the law in his quest to expand his power and go after perceived enemies. The question from here is why Trump hasn't gone there on invoking the Insurrection Act. He and Miller have now invoked that specific word multiple times in reference to the situation in Los Angeles, and preparing the Marines to possibly come in suggests this is very much on the table. Perhaps the White House has some qualms about the politics of what could come from the more in-your-face federal presence Trump has spent years entertaining. Or perhaps, as Vladeck wagers, the initial deployment of the National Guard could be a precursor. 'In other words, it's possible that this step is meant to both be and look modest,' Vladeck wrote in his newsletter Saturday, 'so that, if and when it 'fails,' the government can invoke its failure as a basis for a more aggressive domestic deployment of troops.' Only time will tell. But we're clearly operating in a very different political world than we were five years ago. Trump seems to have developed a very broad sense of what constitutes an insurrection and plenty of reasons to potentially do what he said 'there's no reason to ever do.' Indeed, he's already gone further than he did before.
