Latest news with #LGBTQ-focused
Los Angeles Times
29-07-2025
- Health
- Los Angeles Times
Ending LGBTQ+ health research will leave science in the dark
In recent months, the Trump administration has terminated thousands of federally funded medical research grants, gutting $9.5 billion in critical health science efforts. More than half of those cuts — 1,246 grants worth $5.5 billion — targeted studies focused on LGBTQ+ health. These cuts don't just reflect shifting policy priorities. They also risk limiting the scientific insights that inform clinical care and support the health of all Americans. Beginning in February, thousands of scientists received abrupt notices terminating funding for vital research involving LGBTQ+ populations. The justification? Their research was deemed 'based primarily on artificial and nonscientific categories, including amorphous equity objectives.' One letter even claimed that 'research programs based on gender identity are often unscientific, have little identifiable return on investment, and do nothing to enhance the health of many Americans.' The grants that were terminated underwent stringent peer review prior to funding and covered a wide range of important issues — from Alzheimer's disease and breast cancer to caregiver well-being and school safety. In many cases, the common factor cited in their termination was simply the inclusion of LGBTQ+ populations within the research scope. When groups of people are excluded from research, it sends a message about whose health is prioritized. The disproportionate elimination of LGBTQ-focused research is more than a policy decision or political maneuver. It weakens the foundation of evidence-based care. Research is essential to understanding health risks, evaluating treatments and improving care for people who need it most. When research funding is withdrawn, medical care falls behind, and collectively we all suffer. LGBTQ+ people make up nearly 10% of the U.S. population, and long-standing research shows they face significant health disparities. Many of these gaps remain poorly understood because of limited studies. For example, lesbian, gay and bisexual populations experience higher rates of substance use disorders, often beginning in adolescence. LGBTQ+ adults are three to six times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual, cisgender counterparts. The incidence of several cancers is also higher, but we don't have a comprehensive understanding of why. Crucial studies investigating possible causes and risk factors were among those recently terminated. We've seen the consequences of neglecting health disparities before. For decades, medical problems unique to Black Americans were understudied and unsolved. For example, the false assumptions that hypertension can be managed the same across racial groups delayed important insights and limited the development of tailored treatment. These delays resulted in worse cardiovascular outcomes for Black patients compared with their white counterparts. Another historical example of the dangers of excluding subpopulations from research is the Food and Drug Administration's 1977 decision to ban women of childbearing age from clinical drug trials. This guideline created a selection bias against women across the research world and slowed progress in understanding their unique health needs. Though the ban was lifted 16 years later, we remain behind in our understanding of cardiovascular disease management in women, and closing that gap will require decades of focused research. And now the Trump administration is repeating this pattern by deliberately excluding a subgroup of the population from research. The neglect of health disparities among LGBTQ+ patients will continue, to their great detriment. The withdrawal of grant funding specific to this group risks condemning millions of people to dangerous health disadvantages for years to come. This move diminishes the pool of researchers dedicated to solving health problems that affect the LGBTQ+ community, as they are forced to follow other funding lines. Lack of research attention to communities with unique needs, such as the LGBTQ+ population, risks increased marginalization and exacerbates stigma. Stigma has long shaped how public health crises are recognized and addressed. In 1981, U.S. health officials became aware of an emerging disease they called Gay-Related Immune Deficiency. Contracting this disease came with both a death sentence and the stigma of having the 'gay plague.' The condition was eventually understood to be a serious public health issue affecting a broad range of people and was renamed HIV/AIDS. Yet it took nearly five years before President Reagan made major funding available for HIV/AIDS research. Delays in funding, in part because of stigma, slowed scientific progress and contributed to the spread of the epidemic. To ignore the issues facing any one population is to risk potential harm to all of society. All people deserve quality, evidence-based healthcare that addresses their unique physical, psychological and social needs. That is precisely why medical research is a foundational pillar of a functioning healthcare system. Without it, our understanding of diseases and treatments is dependent on outdated, extrapolated or incomplete evidence — which causes harm. By withholding funding for research that includes LGBTQ+ participants, the Trump administration is sending a message that the health of nearly 32 million Americans simply isn't worth the investment of federal dollars. The cost of that decision will be measured in suffering, inequity and lives lost — not just within the LGBTQ+ community, but across the entire healthcare system. Haley Stepp is the research program manager at the George Washington University School of Nursing. Kathleen Griffith is a professor at the George Washington University School of Nursing and School of Medicine and Health Sciences.
Time Business News
16-07-2025
- Health
- Time Business News
Finding Affirmation: How LGBTQ Counseling Can Support Your Mental Health Journey
Have you ever wondered what it would feel like to open up to a counselor who truly understands your identity, your experiences, and the unique challenges you face as an LGBTQ person? If you have, you're not alone. For many LGBTQ individuals, seeking help for mental health can feel like a leap of faith. You may have questions like: Will this counselor respect my pronouns? Will they understand my relationship dynamics? Will I have to explain what it means to be non-binary or bisexual before I can even talk about why I'm here? These concerns are real, and they're valid. That's exactly why affirming, culturally competent LGBTQ counseling is so essential. Whether you're coping with anxiety, processing trauma, navigating family relationships, or simply exploring your identity, working with a counselor who sees and respects all of who you are can make an enormous difference. Let's talk about why LGBTQ-focused counseling matters, how it can help you, and what to look for when you decide you're ready to reach out for support. It's no secret that LGBTQ people face higher rates of mental health challenges than the general population. According to research from the National Alliance on Mental Illness, LGBTQ adults are more than twice as likely as heterosexual adults to experience a mental health condition. Factors like discrimination, stigma, family rejection, and social isolation can contribute to depression, anxiety, and substance use. Yet simply being LGBTQ is never the problem. It's the world around us—misunderstandings, prejudice, and lack of acceptance—that creates stress and pain. This is where LGBTQ-affirming counseling steps in. It offers a safe place where you don't have to defend or justify your existence. You don't have to brace yourself for judgment or educate someone about your identity. Instead, you get to focus on what matters most: your healing, your self-acceptance, and your personal growth. You might be wondering what makes LGBTQ counseling different from general therapy. The biggest difference is that LGBTQ-affirming counselors are trained to understand and honor the lived experiences of LGBTQ individuals. Here are some qualities you can expect from an affirming counselor: Cultural Competency: They are knowledgeable about LGBTQ identities, terminology, and experiences. They won't expect you to teach them what it means to be transgender, gender-fluid, or polyamorous. They are knowledgeable about LGBTQ identities, terminology, and experiences. They won't expect you to teach them what it means to be transgender, gender-fluid, or polyamorous. Nonjudgmental Support: They recognize that sexuality and gender are not problems to 'fix.' Instead, they support you in embracing who you are. They recognize that sexuality and gender are not problems to 'fix.' Instead, they support you in embracing who you are. Awareness of Intersectionality: They understand that sexuality and gender intersect with race, culture, religion, and socioeconomic background, which can all impact your experiences. They understand that sexuality and gender intersect with race, culture, religion, and socioeconomic background, which can all impact your experiences. Trauma-Informed Care: They are sensitive to the fact that many LGBTQ people have histories of trauma, whether from bullying, family rejection, or societal discrimination. They are sensitive to the fact that many LGBTQ people have histories of trauma, whether from bullying, family rejection, or societal discrimination. Advocacy and Empowerment: They help you build resilience, assert your needs, and navigate systems that can feel hostile or invalidating. While everyone's reasons for seeking counseling are unique, here are some areas where LGBTQ-focused therapy can offer particular support: Coming out is a personal process that can be liberating but also frightening. You may be unsure how friends or family will react or whether it's safe to share your truth in certain environments. A counselor can help you explore your readiness, practice conversations, and create a plan that feels authentic and safe for you. Maybe you're questioning your sexual orientation or gender identity. Maybe you've always known but are just beginning to embrace it fully. An affirming counselor provides a nonjudgmental space to explore these questions without pressure or labels. From dating to marriage to parenting, LGBTQ relationships can face unique challenges. You might be navigating chosen family relationships, polyamorous structures, or cultural expectations that don't align with your identity. Counseling can help you build communication skills, set boundaries, and strengthen connections. Being LGBTQ can mean carrying chronic stress from societal stigma or microaggressions. This 'minority stress' can take a real toll on mental and physical health. Counseling can help you process these experiences and develop coping strategies to protect your well-being. Anxiety and depression are common among LGBTQ people, often linked to isolation, rejection, or trauma. An affirming therapist can help you address these conditions with evidence-based approaches, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, mindfulness, and self-compassion practices. If you're considering or undergoing gender transition, counseling can be a crucial part of your journey. From exploring your feelings about medical or social transition to working on self-acceptance, an affirming counselor can guide you through every step. Many LGBTQ individuals share that the most valuable part of therapy is simply having someone who 'gets it.' That sense of being seen and validated can be life-changing. Here are a few ways LGBTQ-focused counseling can help: Reduce Feelings of Shame: Affirming therapy can help you unlearn internalized stigma and replace it with pride and self-respect. Affirming therapy can help you unlearn internalized stigma and replace it with pride and self-respect. Improve Mental Health: Counseling can lower anxiety, depression, and loneliness, while increasing resilience and self-esteem. Counseling can lower anxiety, depression, and loneliness, while increasing resilience and self-esteem. Enhance Relationships: Learning to communicate your needs clearly and confidently can strengthen bonds with partners, family, and friends. Learning to communicate your needs clearly and confidently can strengthen bonds with partners, family, and friends. Develop Coping Skills: You'll learn healthy strategies for managing stress, discrimination, and difficult emotions. You'll learn healthy strategies for managing stress, discrimination, and difficult emotions. Increase Self-Acceptance: You deserve to live authentically and joyfully. Counseling supports you in claiming that right. If you've decided you're ready to reach out for help, you might feel overwhelmed by where to start. Here are some tips to help you find a counselor who feels like the right fit: Look for Specialized Training Search for counselors who explicitly state that they have experience working with LGBTQ clients. Many therapists list LGBTQ-affirming credentials or continuing education on their websites. Check Directories Resources like Psychology Today, TherapyDen, and The Trevor Project have searchable directories where you can filter for LGBTQ-specialized providers. Ask About Their Approach Don't be afraid to schedule a phone consultation and ask questions. How do they define affirming care? How do they support clients with your specific concerns? Trust Your Instincts You deserve a therapist who feels safe, respectful, and supportive. If something feels off, it's okay to keep looking. Consider Accessibility Many counselors now offer virtual sessions, which can be especially helpful if you live in an area without many LGBTQ-affirming providers. If you're in the Midwest, there are excellent resources for LGBTQ Counseling Chicago therapists who understand the local community and the unique challenges faced here. It's normal to feel nervous about starting therapy. Your first session is usually focused on getting to know you and your goals. Here's what you can expect: Your counselor will ask about your background, what brings you to therapy, and what you hope to accomplish. You'll discuss confidentiality, boundaries, and how sessions will work. You'll have the opportunity to share as much or as little as you feel comfortable. You won't be pressured to label yourself or rush into difficult topics. Remember, therapy is your space. You are always in control of how you use it. Many LGBTQ people have had negative experiences with health care or mental health services in the past. If you've been dismissed, misgendered, or misunderstood, it's understandable to be cautious. Healing that mistrust takes time. Here are a few ways to empower yourself as you seek support: Know Your Rights: You have the right to respectful, non-discriminatory care. You have the right to respectful, non-discriminatory care. Bring a Support Person: If it helps, invite a friend or loved one to your first appointment. If it helps, invite a friend or loved one to your first appointment. Set Boundaries: You can decline to answer any questions that feel intrusive. You can decline to answer any questions that feel intrusive. Practice Self-Compassion: Seeking help is a brave step. Be gentle with yourself. You deserve to be heard, affirmed, and respected. Your story matters. Your identity is valid. And your mental health is worth prioritizing. Whether you're exploring who you are, processing past trauma, or simply seeking a safe space to talk, LGBTQ counseling can be a powerful ally in your journey. It's about finding someone who sees your whole self without judgment, someone who helps you build resilience and create a life that feels authentic and fulfilling. If you've been wondering whether therapy could help, consider this your invitation to take the next step. You don't have to do it alone. There are compassionate professionals ready to walk alongside you, offering tools, understanding, and hope. Your mental health matters. Your happiness matters. And you deserve care that honors every part of who you are. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Boston Globe
17-04-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
LGBTQ visibility? Not in classrooms, if religious challengers have their way at the SCOTUS.
But not everyone agrees. Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Advertisement The parents — who are Muslim, Roman Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox — claim that inclusion of those books, without the ability to opt their children out of the curriculum, burdens their ability to exercise their religions. They argue that most states, including Maryland, offer opt-outs to classroom instruction about sex education and seek to enjoin the state from including the LGBTQ-focused books without a similar provision. Advertisement So far, no court has sided with them. Most recently, the Given those losses, and with no disagreement between circuit courts on what legal standard to apply, or any other compelling reason for the Supreme Court to step in, this would have been an easy case to simply decline to hear. But in January, the court put it on its docket anyway. That is unsurprising to anyone who has paid attention to the justices in the court's majority, who earlier this term signaled that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment should be read so broadly as to This court allowed out of our government. It was meant to protect people from having religion foisted upon them, particularly by the government. That has been all but written out of the Constitution's text by the court's recent rulings. Advertisement So what should you expect in Tuesday's argument? I expect the parents in the Maryland court to get their first sign of being on the winning side of a court case. Others, like the The argument will take place Tuesday at 10 a.m. EDT. You can listen live This is an excerpt from , a newsletter about the Supreme Court from columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Kimberly Atkins Stohr is a columnist for the Globe. She may be reached at
NBC News
03-04-2025
- Health
- NBC News
Trump administration axes more than $125m in LGBTQ health funding, upending research field
The nation's LGBTQ research field is collapsing. In recent weeks, academics who focus on improving the health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer Americans have been subjected to waves of grant cancellations from the National Institutes of Health. More than 270 grants totaling at least $125 million of unspent funds have been eliminated, though the true sum is likely much greater, researchers told NBC News. Cancellation letters obtained by NBC News often vaguely state that the research in question no longer suits NIH priorities. Some allude to executive orders issued by President Donald Trump, including one that effectively bars recognition of transgender identities and another forbidding diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives. Other LGBTQ-focused grants have been swept up in the Trump administration's broadsides against Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania. Academics fear more cancellations as the administration targets Harvard University. Hundreds of researchers, many of them panicked, have watched as the system that supports their life's work — to address the myriad health disparities faced by sexual and gender minorities — has been upended. Many of them suddenly face potential unemployment and a job market rendered bleak by the Trump administration's efforts to downsize funding for academic research. On Tuesday, mass layoffs across the Department of Health and Human Services included the gutting of programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that surveil the HIV epidemic among gay men in particular, according to a CDC official who asked to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. The Trump administration also eliminated a lab that conducts specialized testing of and assessment for drug resistance among bacterial sexually transmitted infections, including syphilis, gonorrhea and chlamydia, which are especially prevalent in gay men, according to another CDC official who similarly asked to remain anonymous. 'This has been a devastating experience,' said Brian Mustanski, a psychologist and director of the Institute for Sexual and Gender Minority Health and Wellbeing at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago. Mustanski, a pioneer in LGBTQ health research, built his program into a powerhouse, with his team cultivating some of the most robust data on gay and trans Americans in history. Now, he's seen much of the institute topple in weeks and has been desperately seeking other positions for many of the half of his 120-person team who were supported by the grants. The NIH's new director, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, said in an emailed statement Wednesday that the agency remains 'committed to supporting research aimed at improving the health and well-being of every American' but noted that it would be shifting its priorities 'away from politicized DEI and gender ideology studies' in accordance with the president's executive orders. The White House did not respond to a request for comment. The CDC had no comment. ' An incredible lack of transparency' Transgender people face clear erasure from the national research agenda. As for gay people, the White House's initial, narrow attention on trans populations in its executive orders suggested it might leave gays untouched. But the Trump administration's justification of NIH grant rejections based on what it perceives as the employment of DEI principles in academia has ensnared many research grants focused on gay populations as well. This includes research into reducing rates of HIV and other STIs. Such studies have also been canceled if they include trans people as an additional risk group. Last month, Mustanski said, the NIH canceled two major grants for his team. One supported its long-running study of the drivers of HIV acquisition, substance use and other negative health outcomes in young gay men. Last year, the study, which accrued almost 20 years of data from some participants, received a glowing assessment from the NIH. The grant was canceled for ostensibly engaging in DEI, according to the termination letter, which Mustanski shared with NBC News. 'It's unclear how DEI is even defined,' he said. 'That's a big problem for scientists, because science is all about precision.' Mustanski said his second grant supported implementing effective means of preventing and treating HIV as part of the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative that the first Trump administration launched. 'There's an incredible lack of transparency behind this process and who's behind it,' Musanski said of the grant rejections. 'That is not the condition that's going to produce the best science.' Amid the prospect of both gay and trans people's erasure from the nation's research priorities, 30 editors of leading journals that focus on sex and gender research published an editorial last month in The Journal of Sex Research on this work's importance. 'Research into sexuality and gender is vital for identifying social, cultural, and medical needs of populations, and addressing inequalities across populations,' they stated. 'Any limiting of research and forcing specific research agendas is an infringement on academic freedom and integrity.' Indeed, a clear chill has descended over many of the LGBTQ-focused researchers subjected to — or fearing — grant cancellations. NBC News reached out to more than 80 of them, but few responded and just seven were willing to speak on the record; the others said they were too scared of reprisals from the Trump administration. 'Most of my colleagues are afraid to speak out, or they're being muzzled by their institutions,' said Julia Marcus, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School. 'This is what authoritarianism looks like. Fear keeps people silent,' said Marcus, who lost all her NIH grant funding for a trio of HIV and STI prevention studies, and shared the rejection letters with NBC News. With the hope for future grant opportunities appearing grim, she said, she faces the end of a 20-year career spent fighting HIV and promoting LGBTQ health. Any available private funding, from pharmaceutical companies, nonprofits and foundations, could not possibly rescue this overall field, she said. A quarter-century effort Virtually all of the nation's LGBTQ-focused research apparatus has been built over the past quarter century. A notable catalyst was a 2011 Institute of Medicine report that called for greater research into documenting and addressing health disparities among LGBTQ people. The report cited their poorer mental health and higher rates of smoking, substance use disorders, STIs, certain cancers and suicidality. 'Decades of evidence-based LGBTQ+ research has demonstrated the need for specific approaches to improve health outcomes in this community,' said Dr. Philip Chan, an associate professor of medicine at Brown University, who noted he was not speaking on behalf of his employer. The Biden administration placed particular emphasis on addressing the needs of sexual and gender minorities, and NIH research funds flourished accordingly. Such prioritization, researchers told NBC News, opened increasing avenues for what is known as precision public health or precision medicine, in which research identifies the specific needs of subpopulations and develops evidence-based, targeted interventions accordingly. This, researchers such as Marcus asserted, is the efficient use of public resources at its finest. NIH-funded research recently scored a landmark win by proving that taking the antibiotic doxycycline following sex slashed STI rates among gay men and trans women — an intervention believed to have driven a remarkable recent turnaround in such cases. But now $7.4 million in NIH support for two follow-up studies, including one on safety monitoring for drug-resistant pathogens, has been eliminated, according to the studies' lead investigators. The Adolescent Medicine Trials Network, terminated last month, was in the third year of a seven-year pair of grants — totaling more than $70 million in lost funds — to improve prevention, diagnosis and treatment of HIV among adolescents and young adults, most centrally young gay men. 'As we talk about government waste and being more efficient, one thing that just really doesn't make sense is to cut studies that have already invested millions and millions of dollars in their final years,' Chan said. Chan said he lost two NIH grants last month, totaling about $3 million in unspent funds, and he shared those termination letters with NBC News. One focused on improving the mental health of LGBTQ people negatively affected by the Covid pandemic. The second concerned a program to boost adherence to the HIV-prevention pill, called PrEP, among Black gay and bisexual men. 'Given the overall goal of LGBTQ+ research of not just improving, but extending the lives of LGBTQ+ Americans, the effective dissolution of this research threatens to widen health disparities related to HIV, mental health, substance use, and chronic disease, which will eventually affect everyone in our society,' he said. Potential elimination from vital government surveys Ilan Meyer, a professor at the Williams Institute at UCLA's School of Law, has sounded the alarm that LGBTQ people also face potential elimination from major, ongoing federal surveys regarding health and crime victimization, as well as the census. 'We are about to lose knowledge about the LGBT population that has been essential for understanding policy, for providing advice to litigation, for providing evidence for courts. And to inform the public,' he said. The inclusion of questions regarding sexuality and gender identity on these surveys has been a hard-fought win for LGBTQ advocates. The resulting data has been the basis of hundreds of academic papers — including some, Meyer noted, that helped persuade a judge to overturn California's ban on same-sex marriage in 2010. A new Williams Institute report Meyer co-authored asserted that it 'seems likely,' to appease the Trump administration, that future cycles of federal health surveys would eliminate questions on gender identity, and possibly sexual orientation as well. The CDC, for one, announced in February that it would cease collecting data on gender identity in its surveys. 'The removal of such data from the public record and the loss of future data would set the United States decades backward to a time when little was known about the current demography, health, and well-being of the 14 million LGBT people in the United States,' the report warns. Inside NIH: A department in turmoil Sources inside the NIH, who requested anonymity because they said they are forbidden to speak to the press and fear reprisals, described an agency thrown into turmoil. In 2015, the NIH formed the Sexual and Gender Minority Research Office to coordinate LGBTQ research across the agency and, for example, to establish uniform language about sex, gender and sexual orientation across research projects. The office has been a particular target of conservatives, who allege that it infuses ideological, unscientific perspectives into research. Consequently, Trump's election in November ignited fears within the NIH that the new administration would gut the office. So in December, the office was effectively dissolved, and its seven staffers were dispersed into open positions where they hoped to continue working quietly in the background, according to two NIH employees familiar with the matter. On March 4, all seven employees were placed on administrative leave. By that time, the Trump administration had already instituted sweeping layoffs of federal employees who were focused on what it characterized as DEI initiatives. NIH grantees, meanwhile, told NBC News that their designated agency program officers had been cut out of the loop from their grant cancellations. 'It's a bloodbath,' one NIH source said of the cancellations. On Wednesday, the American Public Health Association and others sued the NIH in federal court over canceled grants, including those backing HIV-prevention research. Evidence suggests, the suit asserts, that the cancellation letters were originally developed by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, and not within the HHS or the NIH. The suit states: 'For example, metadata associated with at least one such notice shows it was authored by 'JoshuaAHanley.' An attorney named Joshua A. Hanley, a 2021 law school graduate, works at DOGE.' Hanley did not immediately respond to an email from NBC News seeking comment. Internal guidance issued to NIH grant management staff last week was cited by the lawsuit as evidence of the agency using 'boilerplate notices to terminate hundreds of grants.' The document provided language for communicating with grantees, including: 'It is the policy of the NIH not to prioritize [select one of the following: diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) research programs, gender identity, vaccine hesitancy, climate change or countries of concern, e.g., China or South Africa.]' Multiple cancellation letters reviewed by NBC News have stated: 'Research programs based on gender identity are often unscientific, have little identifiable return on investment, and do nothing to enhance the health of many Americans. Many such studies ignore, rather than seriously examine, biological realities. It is the policy of NIH not to prioritize these research programs.' Researchers noted to NBC News that only a few of the canceled grants pertain to gender transition treatments for minors, which has become a political flashpoint. Even prominent right-wing critics of the agency's approach to research related to gender identity have taken issue with the Trump administration's tack of canceling grants. Leor Sapir, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, has advocated for NIH reforms that align with Trump's orders on DEI and trans issues. However, he criticized the administration for its overly broad 'search-term-based cancellation' of NIH grants. 'It's quintessential bull in a china shop — Trumpesque,' he said in an interview. 'A much more fine-tuned approach needs to happen.' The prevailing question facing NIH-funded researchers is whether such a recalibration will occur now that Bhattacharya was sworn in as director Tuesday. During his confirmation hearing early last month, Bhattacharya, a health economist formerly of Stanford, was asked repeatedly whether he would return the NIH to something resembling normal functioning. 'I will follow the laws,' he said — a refrain he relied on for such questions. He added that he would 'make sure' that researchers within and funded by the NIH, 'have the resources they need to make sure that they do their research.' In response to questions about the grant cancellations — including one about the Trump administration's intentions regarding research specific to transgender people — Bhattacharya's statement Wednesday said the agency would be committed to research that improves the health of all Americans, 'regardless of their sexual identity,' though it notably did not mention gender identity. It then noted that the agency would shift its priorities toward 'research aimed at preventing, treating, and curing chronic conditions like cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity and many others that cause so much suffering and deaths among all Americans, LGBTQ individuals included.' The statement made no specific mention of HIV, a chronic health condition that disproportionately affects gay men and trans women. Also not mentioned was that at least 16 of the LGBTQ-focused grants that were terminated concerned cancer, diabetes or heart disease. The hard work begins Looking toward an uncertain future, Northwestern's Mustanski, for one, said he hopes for success in appealing his grant rejections. Dr. Kenneth Mayer, medical director of Fenway Health, a leading LGBTQ-focused health center in Boston, expressed hope for 'some victories in the courts' over the grant cancellations. Noting he was not speaking on behalf of his employer, he added: 'But I am not in denial, so the field could collapse.' Mayer and other LGBTQ-health researchers expressed concern that their field would lose a generation of academics focused on these populations — through layoffs, hiring freezes and the likelihood that bright young people would eschew a newly uncertain career in academia and public health. Many veterans of this field reported suffering from what they characterize as foreboding déjà vu under the Trump regime. Dr. Chris Beyrer, director of the Duke Global Health Institute, said the past few weeks have reminded him of the horrors he witnessed in the 1980s. 'When I started my career in HIV research, there were really no dedicated funds' for LGBTQ-specific research, he said. Recently, he added, he's been haunted by that period in his career, four decades ago, when he cared for babies dying of AIDS. This was a time when gay men perished of the disease by the tens of thousands while then-President Ronald Reagan remained largely, and notoriously, impassive. UCLA's Mayer, however, struck an optimistic tone when he said that lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans Americans are nothing if not tenacious in the face of political adversity. 'One thing that I tell students is LGBT people have been fighting for more than 100 years for our rights,' he said. 'So, I think this just reminds us that we need to continue doing that.'
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Groups that combat sexual violence clash over how to handle Trump's LGBTQ orders
For the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, the choice was impossible: erase mentions of transgender people from its website or risk the ire of the Trump administration, which has required that groups receiving federal funding end diversity, equity and inclusion programs and recognize only two sexes. So the group reluctantly took down references to transgender people from its website, including mentions of services for transgender veterans and LGBTQ-focused book recommendations. It did so just as the nation's largest group fighting sexual violence, the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN), also pulled down pages referring to transgender people. The backlash was swift. Local and national organizations that support women and sexual assault victims issued rare public criticisms of their allies, accusing them of abandoning trans victims, who face high rates of sexual violence, and urged other groups to 'hold the line.' The conflict exposed a sharp divide in the ecosystem of nonprofit groups that work to address sexual violence, many of which rely heavily on government funding to operate. Leaders of such groups say they feel pressured to choose between protecting grants they need to serve people in crisis and taking a stand for vulnerable members of their constituency. 'It's thrown a lot of chaos into a sector that's already — let's face it — grossly underfunded,' said Emily Miles, executive director of the NYC Alliance Against Sexual Assault. 'I can have empathy for difficult decisions organizations are having to make right now while also holding them to account for survivors who need their assistance.' Shortly after the executive orders were signed, the Office of Management and Budget instructed the Justice Department, among other agencies, to review its programs for compliance. A spreadsheet provided by the OMB included roughly two dozen Justice Department programs that dole out more than half a billion dollars combined to combat sexual violence. That, along with reports that the Trump administration is using keywords that include 'sex,' 'trauma' and 'gender' to identify science grants to cut, worried many nonprofit groups. White House deputy press secretary Harrison Fields did not address questions about how the groups were responding to the executive orders but reiterated the administration's commitment to same-sex services for victims of sexual violence. In recent weeks, the Justice Department's Office on Violence Against Women has removed all grant applications and has not explained why. The department did not respond to a request for comment. 'On the horizon, that's the big question mark about what's going to happen to those funding opportunities,' Miles said. Yolanda Edrington, CEO of Respect Together, the umbrella organization of the National Sexual Violence Resource Center and the Pennsylvania Coalition to Advance Respect, said more than 90% of the National Sexual Violence Resource Center's funding comes from state and federal government grants. Losing it could mean laying off staff members and not being able to provide services like legal counseling for victims. But after it removed references to LGBTQ victims, the organization quickly reversed course, restored them and issued a public apology Feb. 20, calling it 'a fear-based decision to the executive orders.' In an interview, Edrington said the group was wrong to cave in to the administration so quickly. 'We know exactly who we are and who we should represent, and we failed at that. I don't want to mince words with that at all,' she said. Edrington said she recently participated in a call with nearly two dozen other nonprofit anti-violence groups in which they discussed 'which one of us can take the heat and be the loudest' while withstanding a potential loss of federal funding. They did not come to a decision. Emily May, a co-founder and the president of Right To Be, a nonprofit anti-harassment organization, said her group relies on the federal government for at least 10% of its funding. It provides workplace culture training to several federal agencies and has already received word that two of them are unlikely to renew their contracts. 'Everybody is incredibly aware everything you say or do can put a target on your back, and that can be incredibly scary,' May said. 'But the target is already on our back.' Feeling that pressure, RAINN — which runs federally funded sexual assault hotlines, among other programs — removed its inclusion policy and pages expressing support for LGBTQ survivors. It also sent an email to everyone in its speakers bureau Feb. 7 saying it had unpublished victims' stories, along with videos and social posts, in part to comply with federal guidance. The organization would be in touch with victims, it added, to see whether they 'would like to update and republish' their stories. Jennifer Simmons Kaleba, a RAINN spokeswoman, said federal agencies instructed the organization to change its website. She declined to offer specifics or identify which government offices advised it to remove LGBTQ-related content. For Ethan Levine, an activist and member of RAINN's speakers bureau, who is transgender, RAINN's removal of the survivors' stories was insulting. 'I felt cast aside,' he said. He felt the group was asking him to update his story 'to make it more palatable in this moment' and hoped that RAINN would follow the National Sexual Violence Resource Center's lead and reverse its decision — or at least explain it further. 'If the biggest sexual assault organization in the U.S. is not willing to stand up, then what message does that send to smaller organizations?' he asked. Simmons Kaleba said RAINN's mission has not changed. 'Any survivor can come to us as their authentic selves, and they'll be safely received — so we do support every survivor of sexual assault,' she said. 'That said, not everyone will support what we've had to do to continue our crisis services, and that's a very reasonable reaction.' On Feb. 20, as backlash mounted, the group sent an email saying that 'RAINN stands with ALL survivors' and that it remains 'steadfast in this mission,' urging supporters to sign a petition of support. It did not explain its decision to remove language from its site. Sexual Violence Center, a Minnesota-based organization supporting rape victims, condemned RAINN in a statement last week and urged it to use its 'considerable influence' to push back. The post was shared by Christian Nunes, president of the National Organization for Women, who warned the groups not to become 'complicit' with the administration. For Miles, of the NYC Alliance, RAINN's decision to quickly comply with the Trump administration's guidance put pressure on smaller groups to follow suit. 'Now is the time we have to show a little bravery, and we need to be banding together,' Miles said. 'That's the only way we are going to sustain this.' This article was originally published on
