Some global LGBTQ travelers are skipping America this Pride season
As usual, there were soaring highlights and scandalous lowlights among the competing Eurovision nations at the 2025 edition of the contest in Basel, Switzerland, this month. But another country was on the lips of many queer jet-setters this year: the United States, with its spate of new anti-trans and anti-immigrant policies that are causing some LGBTQ travelers to reconsider their upcoming American itineraries.
Several European countries, including Denmark, Finland and Germany, have issued official cautions for LGBTQ travelers visiting the U.S., particularly those with an 'X' gender listed on their passport. Meanwhile, out of concerns for participant safety, Canada's leading LGBTQ rights group, Egale Canada, pulled out of participation in WorldPride DC, and the African Human Rights Coalition has called for a boycott of this edition of the international Pride event, coordinated by InterPride and usually held every two years.
'It doesn't feel right to at the moment,' Karl Krause told NBC News at Eurovision in Basel, referring to travel to the U.S. Krause, who is German by birth, lives in Amsterdam with his Dutch partner, Daan Colijn, and together they are travel-focused content creators known to their followers as Couple of Men. In 2021, Lonely Planet awarded them its first Best in Travel LGBTIQ Storyteller Award, a nod to their work for the LGBTQ community.
'As gay men traveling to the U.S., we are probably still the more privileged part of the community,' Krause said. 'But we had some interesting conversations recently in Bilbao with a trans person who was like, 'I cannot, I literally cannot travel to the U.S., because I have no idea how they would receive my diverse passport, if I would be put in detention or whatever. I have my little daughter — I'm not going to risk any of this.''
Krause said that was the moment he realized that while he and Colijn as gay men may not yet be feeling the full effects of the Trump administration's policies, they were already having an impact on other travelers within the LGBTQ community.
'So how can we in good feeling promote this destination?' he asked. 'How can I send a trans friend or nonbinary friend and try to inspire them to go to the U.S. when they are in what's supposed to be the best time of their year, to spend in a country where they don't feel safe?'
Colijn added that he and Krause want to send their followers 'somewhere where they are safe, where they feel welcome.'
'At the moment, of course a lot of people will still feel very, very welcome in the majority of America — a lot of places are still the same, or maybe even trying to do better. But we just want to be careful in what we are supporting,' Colijn said.
John Tanzella, president and CEO of the International LGBTQ+ Travel Association, or IGLTA, told NBC News that such concerns are commonplace this year.
'We've heard from travelers feeling uncertain about visiting the U.S., especially trans and gender-diverse individuals,' he said. 'These decisions are often driven by concerns about safety, treatment at the border and access to affirming health care. Some have canceled their trips. Many others are still coming, but they're being more selective about where they go.'
Nicoló Manfredini, an Italian trans man living in Valencia, Spain, said he was recently able to enter the U.S. without incident thanks to having an 'M' marker on his passport, but the government's anti-trans policies currently make America a place he would rather not visit again.
'Originally I had planned to go to WorldPride, but not now,' he said.
Given the current environment in the U.S., Manfredini added, he said he would only travel to the U.S. if he had to do so for work.
Even American gender-diverse people are adjusting their travel plans because of Trump administration policies, according to a study released earlier this month by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law. Of the more than 300 transgender, nonbinary and other gender-diverse people surveyed, 70% said they are less likely to go on vacation to U.S. states they view as less trans-affirming.
Krause said that despite usually attending at least one and sometimes several U.S. Pride events every year, this year will be different.
'We were actually planning to go to Washington, D.C., for WorldPride, but this is off the table for us … How safe can we be in Washington? Just saying that scares me a little bit,' he said, noting the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol was particularly concerning. 'I don't know what is going on there now and who is coming, and I don't feel safe with the idea that I'm going there and I'm walking and maybe there is a mob [coming] from whatever direction.'
Capital Pride Alliance, the organizers behind WorldPride DC, which started earlier this month and continues through June 8, did not respond to requests for comment from NBC News, but the event's website details security protocols and includes a passport advisory for transgender and nonbinary travelers.
Sahand Miraminy, director of operations for Capital Pride Alliance, told The Washington Post this week that security measures at WorldPride DC will include weapons screening at the entrance to the street festival June 7 and 8, which will also be fenced in.
In addition to the local and federal "agency support that we have, we also hire private security and have many forms of safety measures and surveillance that we may not share at all times with the public,' he said, 'but there are certainly conversations that we're having with those agencies on a weekly basis.'
Organizers at NYC Pride, arguably the most globally popular of U.S. Pride events each year and held like most big cities during Pride Month in June, are also stepping up security plans for 2025.
'NYC Pride has contracted a private firm with vast experience managing LGBTQIA+ events to lead on-site security,' spokesperson Kevin Kilbride said. 'Given the size and visibility of our events, NYC Pride is monitored and secured by municipal agencies at every level of government to protect our freedom of expression and ensure a safe space for our community.'
Tanzella said that since safety is unfortunately never guaranteed for the LGBTQ community, careful planning is more essential than ever for LGBTQ travelers coming to the U.S. this year.
'Research destinations with strong reputations for inclusion and visible LGBTQ+ support,' he advised. 'Connect with local LGBTQ+ organizations for on-the-ground insights, stay informed about local laws and current events, and have a plan for accessing affirming health care if needed. Most importantly, prioritize places where you feel respected and supported.'
Cities and states with long-standing reputations for LGBTQ inclusivity are getting more attention, Tanzella added.
'In this climate, a destination's visible commitment to inclusion through its policies, community engagement, and public support truly matters,' he said.
In October, the IGLTA will host its annual global convention in Palm Springs, California, a destination Colijn said he and Krause can and will enthusiastically visit.
'We were there just last year, and we felt how amazing and welcome and how much old queer culture is there,' he said. 'So of course we want to go there, and we can fully tell people to go there. Unless of course we might get in trouble at the border.'
Krause, however, noted that he and Colijn still haven't booked their Palm Springs trip just yet, because they fear that under the Trump administration 'everything can change overnight.'
'There is no long-term planning,' he said.
Kilbride said he understands the need global queer travelers feel to exhibit caution this year, but he said he believes Pride remains one of the most powerful tools in the collective struggle for equality.
'We stand with the international LGBTIA+ community, particularly our trans and nonbinary siblings,' he said. 'But we also believe the fight for our community is more important now than ever. We need to show up big to make it clear: We're here, we're queer, and we're not going anywhere.'
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Ukraine left scrambling as Trump shifts toward Putin after Alaska summit
LONDON — Ukraine and its allies were scrambling Sunday to respond to President Donald Trump's apparent shift toward Vladimir Putin's hardline position after their summit in Alaska. Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy, set to visit Washington on Monday, warned that the Russian leader was complicating efforts to end the war by refusing to halt the brutal fighting before holding further talks. "Russia rebuffs numerous calls for a ceasefire and has not yet determined when it will stop the killing. This complicates the situation," Zelenskyy said in a post on X late Saturday. He added that he would have calls with allies in the day ahead as he prepares for his meeting with Trump. His remarks came as Trump signaled he was reversing his insistence on a ceasefire and instead pursuing a permanent peace deal — aligning the United States with the Kremlin rather than Kyiv and its European backers. Zelenskyy's message was accompanied by a joint statement from the leaders of eight Nordic and Baltic countries, stressing that a lasting peace 'requires a ceasefire,' while calling for 'credible security guarantees for Ukraine.' That is one area where Trump appears to have taken a step toward a position more aligned with the wishes of Ukraine and Europe. Trump directly engaged with Zelenskyy and European leaders by phone early Saturday morning about the U.S. taking part in a potential NATO-like security guarantee for Ukraine as part of a deal with Russia, two senior administration officials and three sources familiar with the discussions told NBC News. 'European and American security guarantees were discussed,' one source familiar with the discussions said. 'U.S. troops on the ground was not discussed or entertained by [Trump].' The security guarantees would be made in the scenario that Russia were to invade Ukraine, again, after a would-be peace deal, the sources said. The sources said that those protections, as discussed by the White House, would not include NATO membership — despite European leaders saying in a joint statement Saturday that Ukraine should be given the right to seek NATO membership. As Ukraine and Europe work out how to navigate these dramatic shifts from Trump, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer will Sunday jointly chair a virtual meeting of the so-called 'coalition of the willing,' which includes more than 30 countries working together to support Ukraine. For civilians on the ground, still under Russian attack even as the diplomatic maneuvering played out, it was not just the substance but the optics of the Alaska summit that caused frustration. 'I was hoping that the U.S. wouldn't roll out the red carpet to the enemy,' Kyiv resident Natalya Lypei said Saturday. 'How can you welcome a tyrant like this?'
4 hours ago
Trump runs into the difficulty of Putin diplomacy and ending a long war
NEW YORK -- President Donald Trump walked into a summit with Russia's Vladimir Putin pressing for a ceasefire deal and threatening 'severe consequences' and tough new sanctions if the Kremlin leader failed to agree to halt the fighting in Ukraine. Instead, Trump was the one who stood down, dropping his demand for a ceasefire in favor of pursuing a full peace accord — a position that aligns with Putin's. After calls with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders, Trump wrote as he flew home from Friday's meeting in Alaska that it had been 'determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up.' It was a dramatic reversal that laid bare the challenges of dealing with Putin, a cunning adversary, as well as the complexities of a conflict that Trump had repeatedly boasted during his campaign that he could solve within 24 hours. Few details have emerged about what the two leaders discussed or what constituted the progress they both touted. The White House did not respond to messages seeking comment Saturday. While European leaders were relieved that Trump did not agree to a deal that ceded territory or otherwise favored Moscow, the summit allowed Putin to reclaim his place on the world stage and may have bought Russia more time to push forward with its offensive in Ukraine. 'We're back to where we were before without him having gone to Alaska,' said Fiona Hill, who served as Trump's senior adviser on Russia at the National Security Council during his first term, including when he last met Putin in Helsinki in 2018. In an interview, Hill argued that Trump had emerged from the meeting in a weaker position on the world stage because of his reversal. Other leaders, she said, might now look at the U.S. president and think he's 'not the big guy that he thinks he is and certainly not the dealmaking genius.' 'All the way along, Trump was convinced he has incredible forces of persuasion,' she said, but he came out of the meeting without a ceasefire — the 'one thing' he had been pushing for, even after he gave the Russian leader the 'red carpet treatment." Trump has 'run up against a rock in the form of Putin, who doesn't want anything from him apart from Ukraine," she said. At home, Democrats expressed alarm at what at times seemed like a day of deference, with Trump clapping for Putin as he walked down a red carpet during an elaborate ceremony welcoming him to U.S. soil for the first time in a decade. The two rode together in the presidential limousine and exchanged compliments. Trump seemed to revel in particular in Putin echoing his oft-repeated assertion that Russia never would have invaded Ukraine if Trump had been in office instead of Democrat Joe Biden at the time. Before news cameras, Trump did not use the opportunity to castigate Putin for launching the largest ground invasion in Europe since World War II or human rights abuses he's been accused of committing. Instead, Putin was the one who spoke first, and invited Trump to join him in Moscow next. 'President Trump appears to have been played yet again by Vladimir Putin," said Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 'The President rolled out a red carpet and warmly greeted a murderous dictator on American soil and reports indicate he got nothing concrete in return.' 'Enough is enough," she went on. 'If President Trump won't act, Congress must do so decisively by passing crushing sanctions when we return in the coming weeks.' Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat who is the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he supports diplomacy but 'peacemaking must be done responsibly.' 'Instead of caving to Putin, the U.S. should join our allies in levying tough, targeted new sanctions on Russia to intensify the economic pressure,' he said. Trump has tried to cast himself as a peacemaker, taking credit for helping deescalate conflicts between India and Pakistan as well as Thailand and Cambodia. He proudly mediated a peace agreement between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo and another between the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan to end decades of fighting. Trump has set his eye on the Nobel Peace Prize, with numerous allies offering nominations. But Trump has struggled to made headway on the world's two most vexing conflicts: the Russia-Ukraine war and Israel's offensive in Gaza against Hamas. In Washington, the summit was met by little response from Trump's allies. Republican lawmakers who spoke out were largely reserved and generally called for continued talks and constructive actions from the Trump administration. 'President Trump brought Rwanda and the DRC to terms, India and Pakistan to terms, Armenia and Azerbaijan to terms. I believe in our President, and believe he will do what he always does — rise to the challenge,' Rep. Brian Mast, a Florida Republican who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement to The Associated Press. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, wrote on social media after the summit that 'while the press conference offered few details about their meeting" she was "cautiously optimistic about the signals that some level of progress was made." Murkowski said it 'was also encouraging to hear both presidents reference future meetings" but that Ukraine 'must be part of any negotiated settlement and must freely agree to its terms.' Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and close Trump ally, offered that he was 'very proud' of Trump for having had the face-to-face meeting and was 'cautiously optimistic' that the war might end 'well before Christmas' if a trilateral meeting between Trump, Zelenskyy and Putin transpires. 'I have all the confidence in the world that Donald Trump will make it clear to Putin this war will never start again. If it does, you're going to pay a heavy price,' he said on Fox News. For some Trump allies, the very act of him meeting with Putin was success enough: conservative activist and podcaster Charlie Kirk called it 'a great thing.' But in Europe, the summit was seen as a major diplomatic coup for Putin, who has been eager to emerge from geopolitical isolation. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, deputy head of Russia's Security Council, praised the summit as a breakthrough in restoring high-level dialogue between Moscow and Washington, describing the talks as 'calm, without ultimatums and threats.' Former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt said the summit was 'a distinct win for Putin. He didn't yield an inch' but was also 'a distinct setback for Trump. No ceasefire in sight.' 'What the world sees is a weak and wobbling America,' Bildt posted on X.
4 hours ago
The Trump administration wants to end the UN peacekeeping in Lebanon. Europe is pushing back
WASHINGTON -- The future of U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon has split the United States and its European allies, raising implications for security in the Middle East and becoming the latest snag to vex relations between the U.S. and key partners like France, Britain and Italy. At issue is the peacekeeping operation known as UNIFIL, whose mandate expires at the end of August and will need to be renewed by the U.N. Security Council to continue. It was created to oversee the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon after Israel's 1978 invasion, and its mission was expanded following the monthlong 2006 war between Israel and the militant group Hezbollah. The multinational force has played a significant role in monitoring the security situation in southern Lebanon for decades, including during the Israel-Hezbollah war last year, but has drawn criticism from both sides and numerous U.S. lawmakers, some of whom now hold prominent roles in President Donald Trump's administration or wield new influence with the White House. Trump administration political appointees came into office this year with the aim of shutting down UNIFIL as soon as possible. They regard the operation as an ineffectual waste of money that is merely delaying the goal of eliminating Hezbollah's influence and restoring full security control to the Lebanese Armed Forces that the government says it is not yet capable of doing. After securing major cuts in U.S. funding to the peacekeeping force, Secretary of State Marco Rubio signed off early last week on a plan that would wind down and end UNIFIL in the next six months, according to Trump administration officials and congressional aides familiar with the discussions. It's another step as the Trump administration drastically pares back its foreign affairs priorities and budget, including expressing skepticism of international alliances and cutting funding to U.N. agencies and missions. The transatlantic divide also has been apparent on issues ranging from Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza and the Russia-Ukraine conflict to trade, technology and free speech issues. Israel has for years sought an end to UNIFIL's mandate, and renewal votes have often come after weeks of political wrangling. Now, the stakes are particularly high after last year's war and more vigorous opposition in Washington. European nations, notably France and Italy, have objected to winding down UNIFIL. With the support of Tom Barrack, U.S. ambassador to Turkey and envoy to Lebanon, they successfully lobbied Rubio and others to support a one-year extension of the peacekeeping mandate followed by a time-certain wind-down period of six months, according to the administration officials and congressional aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private diplomatic negotiations. Israel also reluctantly agreed to an extension, they said. The European argument was that prematurely ending UNIFIL before the Lebanese army is able to fully secure the border area would create a vacuum that Hezbollah could easily exploit. The French noted that when a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Mali was terminated before government troops were ready to deal with security threats, Islamic extremists moved in. With the U.S. easing off, the issue ahead of the U.N. vote expected at the end of August now appears to be resistance by France and others to setting a firm deadline for the operation to end after the one-year extension, according to the officials and congressional aides. French officials did not respond to requests for comment. The final French draft resolution, obtained by The Associated Press, does not include a date for UNIFIL's withdrawal, which U.S. officials say is required for their support. Instead, it would extend the peacekeeping mission for one year and indicates the U.N. Security Council's 'intention to work on a withdrawal.' But even if the mandate is renewed, the peacekeeping mission might be scaled down for financial reasons, with the U.N. system likely facing drastic budget cuts, said a U.N. official, who was not authorized to comment to the media and spoke on condition of anonymity. One of the U.S. officials said an option being considered was reducing UNIFIL's numbers while boosting its technological means to monitor the situation on the ground. There are about 10,000 peacekeepers in southern Lebanon, while the Lebanese army has around 6,000 soldiers, a number that is supposed to increase to 10,000. Hezbollah supporters in Lebanon have frequently accused the U.N. mission of collusion with Israel and sometimes attacked peacekeepers on patrol. Israel, meanwhile, has accused the peacekeepers of turning a blind eye to Hezbollah's military activities in southern Lebanon and lobbied for its mandate to end. Sarit Zehavi, a former Israeli military intelligence analyst and founder of the Israeli think tank Alma Research and Education Center, said UNIFIL has played a 'damaging role with regard to the mission of disarming Hezbollah in south Lebanon.' She pointed to the discovery of Hezbollah tunnels and weapons caches close to UNIFIL facilities during and after last year's Israel-Hezbollah war, when much of the militant group's senior leadership was killed and much of its arsenal destroyed. Hezbollah is now under increasing pressure to give up the rest of its weapons. U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said UNIFIL continues to discover unauthorized weapons, including rocket launchers, mortar rounds and bomb fuses, this week, which it reported to the Lebanese army. Under the U.S.- and France-brokered ceasefire, Israel and Hezbollah were to withdraw from southern Lebanon, with the Lebanese army taking control in conjunction with UNIFIL. Israel has continued to occupy five strategic points on the Lebanese side and carry out near-daily airstrikes that it says aim to stop Hezbollah from regrouping. Lebanese officials have called for UNIFIL to remain, saying the country's cash-strapped and overstretched army is not yet able to patrol the full area on its own until it. Retired Lebanese Army Gen. Khalil Helou said that if UNIFIL's mandate were to abruptly end, soldiers would need to be pulled away from the porous border with Syria, where smuggling is rife, or from other areas inside of Lebanon — 'and this could have consequences for the stability' of the country. UNIFIL 'is maybe not fulfilling 100% what the Western powers or Israel desire. But for Lebanon, their presence is important,' he said. The United Nations also calls the peacekeepers critical to regional stability, Dujarric said. UNIFIL spokesperson Andrea Tenenti said deciding on the renewal of the mandate is the prerogative of the U.N. Security Council. 'We are here to assist the parties in implementation of the mission's mandate and we're waiting for the final decision,' he said.
