
A decade on from Obergefell, setbacks prompt a reckoning among LGBTQ+ groups
But that wasn't the only response.
Opponents of LGBTQ+ rights immediately began implementing new strategies to limit the decision's reach and reverse the broader momentum toward LGBTQ+ acceptance, including by casting a small, less understood subset of the queer community — transgender people — as a growing threat to American families and values.
'Right after Obergefell, every effort to advance any equality measure was met with an anti-trans backlash,' said Chase Strangio, a transgender attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union and one of the nation's leading voices on LGBTQ+ legal rights.
In statehouses and governors' mansions across the country, the number of bills targeting LGBTQ+ rights have increased year after year, with 800 being introduced this year alone. The Trump administration also has embraced the shift, with federal agencies aggressively investigating California and threatening its funding over its trans-inclusive policies. Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that states may ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors.
The strategy has delighted many conservatives. But it has also frightened a community that had seen itself as being on a path toward progress, reviving discussions about the legacy of the Obergefell decision and igniting a fierce debate within the community about the wisdom of its political strategy over the past decade.
Some have questioned whether the efforts since Obergefell to broaden transgender rights were pursued too fast, too soon, playing into the hands of the movement's political foes. Others say those concerns sound strikingly similar to ones raised during the fight for marriage equality, when some argued that same-sex couples should settle for civil unions to avoid alienating religious moderates.
The conversation is not a comfortable one. Nerves are raw and fear is palpable. Some worry that pointing the finger will further embolden those working to dismantle LGBTQ+ rights. But others argue that a strategic reassessment is necessary after years of setbacks.
'This can be an inflection point for how we move forward — whether we galvanize resources in [an] aligned effort to push back, [or] continue to let ourselves be divided by campaigns and movements and strategies that seek to divide us,' Strangio said. 'That's the real question for this moment.'
Strangio, now co-director of the ACLU's LGBT & HIV Project, had worked on the Obergefell case and was outside the Supreme Court the day the decision came down. He thought about his younger self, and how impossible such a ruling would have seemed just years before — when state marriage bans were sweeping the country.
But he didn't have much time to dwell on the victory, he said, as it became clear 'within minutes' that anti-LGBTQ+ forces were already regrouping and preparing for the next fight.
One of their first targets was transgender people's use of public bathrooms. Within months of the Obergefell decision, voters in Houston rejected an anti-discrimination measure after opponents falsely claimed that the ordinance's gender-identity protections would allow sexual predators to enter women's bathrooms.
In 2016, North Carolina passed the nation's first law barring transgender people from using bathrooms aligned with their identities. The measure sparked huge backlash and statewide boycotts, led in part by corporate America — and the bill was rolled back in 2017.
LGBTQ+ activists were jubilant, viewing North Carolina's embarrassment as a clear sign that history was on their side and that expanded transgender rights and protections were inevitable. And there would be big wins to come — including the 2020 Supreme Court ruling that the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects LGBTQ+ employees from workplace discrimination nationwide.
However, the tide was already beginning to shift, including as right-wing groups began to identify specific transgender issues that resonated with voters more than bathrooms, and as Trump — in his first term — began taking aim at transgender rights.
Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project, said his organization 'poll tested all of these issues, the bathrooms, the showers, the locker rooms,' and found that many were 'incredibly unpopular to voters' — but some more than others.
One of the issues that resonated the most, Schilling said, was kids' healthcare and competition in girls sports. So his group ran with that, including in the 2019 race for governor in Kentucky, when it ran an ad suggesting the Democratic candidate and ultimate victor — Andy Beshear — supported boys competing in girls' wrestling competitions, when in fact Beshear supported policies barring discrimination based on kids' gender identity.
Schilling said it was 'the left's insistence that we need to start trans'ing kids' that made the issue a political one. But his group's strategy in Kentucky helped wake conservatives up to the political value of highlighting it.
'We're really just tapping into a real vulnerability that Democrats started for themselves,' Schilling said.
Trump had pursued various anti-transgender policies during his first term, including a ban on transgender service members. But during his campaign for reelection, he centered transgender issues like never before, dumping millions of dollars into anti-transgender ads that cast his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, as an extreme progressive on such issues.
'Kamala is for they/them; President Trump is for you,' one ad said.
Once in office, Trump moved even more aggressively against transgender rights than the community had feared — prompting various lawsuits from LGBTQ+ organizations that are still pending.
He issued an executive order declaring there are only two genders, and suggesting transgender people don't actually exist. He again banned transgender people from serving in the military. He threatened the funding of states such as California with trans-inclusive school policies. He ordered transgender athletes out of youth sports. He said federal law enforcement would target those who provide gender-affirming care to minors. And his administration said it would stop providing transgender people with passports reflecting their identities.
Harrison Fields, a White House spokesman, said the American people 'voted for a return to common sense,' and Trump was 'delivering on every campaign promise.'
'President Trump's historic reelection and the overall MAGA movement is a big tent welcome for all and home to a large swath of the American people,' Fields said.
Reggie Greer, who served as a senior advisor on LGBTQI+ Persons at the State Department in the Biden administration, remembers being in North Carolina during the 2016 bathroom bill fight. While local Democrats were pleased with how it had backfired on Republicans, it was clear to him that 'hate is lucrative,' Greer said — with the anti-rights groups raising hundreds of millions of dollars.
He now sees the episode as an early warning of what was to come.
Nick Hutchins handled public affairs around the Obergefell case before joining the Human Rights Campaign, where he worked on state affairs and communications. Traveling through conservative states, he watched as more Republicans began seizing on LGBTQ+ issues after Trump's 2016 victory.
'It was a moment when Republicans saw an opening and wanted to chip away at LGBTQ rights in any way they could,' Hutchins said. 'That's where you began to see a spaghetti-against-the-wall approach from their end, pursuing the bathroom bills that evolved into various education-focused bills, and healthcare.'
Inside the HRC during Trump's first term, leadership felt confident that public opinion remained on their side. LGBTQ+ rights organizations had secured victories in statehouses on bathroom and healthcare issues, and were buoyed by Trump's electoral defeat in 2020.
Yet, several warning signs emerged. Internal state polling by the HRC found large majorities of Americans supported trans rights, but a plurality opposed allowing transgender athletes to compete in sports.
One former HRC staffer, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said the organization had not paid much attention to the issue until a series of political attacks in conservative states. The governor's race in Kentucky was one, followed by a statehouse push in Louisiana.
Still, other battles — including 'confronting whiteness in the movement' — took precedent, the former staffer recalled.
'There were significant generational divides within the organization between the older teams and their younger staff that were more diverse on these issues,' the staffer said. 'It was a distraction.'
Hutchins said LGBTQ+ organizations today are having 'autopsy conversations' to take stock of how things have played out in recent years and identify lessons to be learned.
Among the most prominent leaders of the modern LGBTQ+ movement, there is consensus on many things.
It's a scary time for LGBTQ+ people and other vulnerable groups, including immigrants and women. Trump represents an existential threat to American democracy. The LGBTQ+ rights movement needs more resources to continue fighting back. Nobody is going to throw transgender people under the bus just because some Democrats have suggested it would help them rebound politically.
'No one person, no one community, is expendable. End of story,' said Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the marriage case.
The actor Laverne Cox, one of the most recognizable transgender women in the country, said the marriage victory in 2015 left the right in need of 'a new boogeyman,' and they picked transgender people — a tiny portion of the U.S. population, at around 1%.
They further picked on transgender people in sports — an even tinier group — in order to focus the conversation on 'hormones and physical ability,' which is 'a great way to objectify trans people, to reduce us to our bodies, and thus dehumanize us,' Cox said.
The best way to fight back, she said, is to refocus the conversation on transgender people's humanity by allowing them to tell their own stories — rather than allowing their narratives to be 'hijacked by propaganda.'
'We're just like everybody else in terms of what we want, need, desire, our hopes and fears,' she said. 'Living authentically and being able to be oneself is where the focus should be.'
Evan Wolfson, an attorney and founder of the advocacy group Freedom to Marry, which is widely credited with securing the 2015 victory in the Obergefell case, said there are 'three significant factors' that got the country to where it is today on transgender issues.
The 'most important factor by far,' he said, 'is the right-wing attack machine and the political agenda of some who are trying to attack and scapegoat and divide' the country around transgender issues.
A second factor, he said, is that transgender identities are still a 'relatively new' concept for many Americans, and 'that conversation is just not as far along as the very long conversation about who gay people are.'
A third and far less significant factor, he said, are the 'missteps' by LGBTQ+ advocates in the last decade, including some vocally renouncing anyone who is not 100% supportive of trans rights.
'We worked hard in the Freedom to Marry campaign to bring people along and to distinguish between those who were our true opponents, those who were really anti-gay, anti-rights, anti-inclusion on the one hand, and those who I called the 'reachable but not yet reached' — people who weren't with us, but weren't our true opponents, people who were still wrestling with the question,' Wolfson said.
Allowing people a bit more time and space to be brought along on transgender issues will be necessary moving forward, he said — though he stressed that does not mean that advocates should slow down or pull back.
Wolfson rejected the idea that the LGBTQ+ community is moving too fast on transgender rights, which was also argued about marriage, and the idea that transgender rights should be abandoned as a political liability. 'There is no reason to believe that we would profit from selling out our principles and doing the wrong thing just to avoid this tough moment,' Wolfson said.
Strangio said the fight for LGBTQ+ rights today cannot be viewed in a vacuum, and that zooming out, 'there are a lot of reasons to be concerned about basic constitutional principles and civil rights protections' for all sorts of vulnerable people under the Trump administration.
Still, he said, he believes in the queer community's 'ability to move through setbacks' and come out on ahead of the 'billion-dollar global campaigns to undermine equality protections' that began after the Obergefell decision.
'Fighting back was the right course,' he said, 'and continuing to assess how we can effectively build support for the entire community is going to be a critical part of this next decade.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Judge blocks DHS from stripping protections for 60K from Nepal, Honduras, Nicaragua
A federal judge ruled against Trump administration plans to end protections from deportation for citizens of Nepal, Nicaragua and Honduras, barring their removal while the case continues. San Francisco-based U.S. District Court Judge Trina Thompson agreed the plaintiffs had shown there was sufficient racial animus behind the decision and that the Trump administration had failed to undertake an 'objective review of the country conditions' before ending protections. 'The freedom to live fearlessly, the opportunity of liberty, and the American dream. That is all Plaintiffs seek. Instead, they are told to atone for their race, leave because of their names, and purify their blood,' Thompson wrote. 'The Court disagrees.' The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ended Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Nepal in June and for Nicaragua and Honduras in July. Each country initially was initially designated after natural disasters, but the protections can also be offered to those unable to be deported to their home country due to civil unrest. The moves would require 51,000 Hondurans and nearly 3,000 Nicaraguans who have been in the country for roughly 25 years to leave the county by September. Some 7,000 Nepalese citizens were also set to lose protections in just days. Thompson reviewed a number of prior comments from President Trump as well as Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem, including comments from the secretary referring to migrants as criminals and gang members while the president has stated that migrants were 'poisoning the blood of our country.' 'Indeeed, code words may demonstrate discriminatory intent,' she wrote. 'Color is neither a poison nor a crime.' Thompson said DHS failed to do the fulsome review required to end TPS, determining that the Trump administration did not consider conditions beyond recovery from the hurricanes that rocked the Central American countries and the earthquake that sparked the designation for Nepal. 'Unlike previous iterations of DHS notices on Honduras, the Honduras notice does not mention political violence or crime,' the judge wrote. 'The new notice also omits the anti-democratic human rights violations and the humanitarian crisis which has led to 108,000 people fleeing the country,' Thompson said of Nicaragua. She added, 'The notice concedes that 'Nepal has continued to experience subsequent regional environmental events, including flooding and landslides' and that 'Nepal remains one of the poorest countries in the world' but nevertheless finds that modest economic growth (two percent) and reconstruction efforts support a termination of Nepal's TPS designation.' The Trump administration has argued citizens of all three nations have remained in the country well beyond the natural disasters that ignited TPS and that past administrations have abused a protection that is designed to be temporary. But Thompson determined that administration failed to rebut arguments that citizens of the three countries should be allowed to remain in the U.S. while the trial continues. 'Although Defendants argue that a delay in the Secretary's decisions would undermine United States foreign policy and national interests, Defendants have failed to identify the exact foreign policy or national interest at stake,' she wrote.


Newsweek
21 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Trump Fixed NATO. He Can Fix Prescription Drug Prices Too
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump just succeeded where Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush all failed. Last month, European leaders finally agreed to the president's persistent demand that they significantly increase defense spending. For nearly two decades, they'd been resisting major spending hikes—despite Presidents Bush, Obama, and Biden all publicly or privately pressuring European allies to contribute more toward the West's collective defense. President Donald Trump reacts as he meets British Prime Minister Keir Starmer for bilateral talks at Trump Turnberry golf club on July 28, 2025, in Turnberry, Scotland. President Donald Trump reacts as he meets British Prime Minister Keir Starmer for bilateral talks at Trump Turnberry golf club on July 28, 2025, in Turnberry, President Trump refused to take no for an answer. He used ongoing trade talks—and the threat of economic consequences—to force European NATO members into ending their freeloading and agreeing to a new defense spending target of 5 percent of members' GDPs by 2035. That's more than double the current 2 percent spending goal. The deal is a historic victory for American taxpayers, who have shouldered the cost of Europe's security for too long. It's a validation of President Trump's hard-charging approach to foreign relations. And it's a roadmap for how President Trump could succeed in another area where his predecessors failed: ending the foreign freeloading on America's biotech industry. Foreign countries use price controls, rationing, and bureaucratic delays to artificially suppress spending on cutting-edge medicines. As a result, biopharmaceutical companies rely disproportionately on the U.S. market—which accounts for over 70 percent of global biopharmaceutical profits—to fund the research and development needed for new innovative medicines. President Trump rightly wants to end this freeloading. But his recent proposal to implement most favored nation (MFN) pricing—which would cap U.S. drug prices at the lowest levels paid by other developed nations—won't fix the problem. Implementing MFN pricing would be akin to the United States seeking to equalize defense spending with other NATO members by cutting our own defense budget—rather than forcing them to raise theirs. It would slash biopharmaceutical companies' revenues in their most critical market, thus crippling the development of new innovative medicines, threatening countless American jobs, and handing China the global lead in scientific progress. Instead, President Trump would be wise to pressure the freeloaders to start paying their fair share—just as he did with NATO—and tear down the trade barriers they've erected to avoid doing so. European nations impose a variety of non-tariff trade barriers to suppress drug spending. Many wealthier Western European countries use external reference pricing, in which they set prices based on what poorer, Eastern European nations pay. Some countries, such as the United Kingdom, use oversimplified and inherently biased cost-benefit analyses, called health technology assessments, to justify setting low prices on new medicines. And even after a medicine is approved, some countries impose mandatory rebates and clawbacks to take money from drug manufacturers. Rebates in France alone exceeded $8 billion in 2024. Similarly, these countries delay decisions on which medicines to cover for months or years after the EU's statutory deadline—in order to run out the clock on companies' patents. They have also considered legislation to decrease regulatory data protection for new medicines. Together, these non-tariff barriers deprive companies of revenue that could otherwise fund research and development. And until U.S. leaders knock down these barriers, the cost of global drug development will continue to fall disproportionately on Americans. President Trump could use America's economic leverage to demand that America's wealthy allies match our share of investment in new medicines. If European countries like Germany and France—not to mention other allies like Japan, Canada, and Australia—each committed to spend the same share of per-capita GDP on innovative medicines as the United States, it would result in tens of billions of additional dollars flowing into the drug development pipeline each year. That would accelerate the development of new medicines while distributing their costs more fairly—causing drug prices to fall at home as they gradually increase abroad. MFN pricing would let foreign freeloaders dictate America's health care policy. President Trump's recent NATO negotiations provide the blueprint for a better deal. By forcing our allies to pay their fair share for cutting-edge drugs, he would reduce the burden on American patients and taxpayers while maintaining American leadership of the global biopharmaceutical industry. Ambassador Jeffrey Gerrish served as the deputy U.S. trade representative for Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Industrial Competitiveness from 2018 to 2020. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Major Boycott Planned for McDonald's and Walmart Nationwide
People's Union USA to spearhead boycott over tax avoidance, diversity program cuts, and worker exploitation A growing storm of consumer activism is set to hit two of America's biggest names: McDonald's and Walmart. From August 1 through the entire month, The People's Union USA will spearhead a nationwide boycott targeting the three companies over alleged corporate tax avoidance, cuts to diversity programs, and systemic worker exploitation. Will this collective action force a change in corporate practices, or will it simply be a blip on the radar? Only time will tell. In the meantime, here's everything you need to know about just how big these boycotts really are. National Boycott Calls on Consumers to Support Independent Businesses Over Corporate Giants A major consumer boycott targeting McDonald's and Walmart, as well as Lowe's, is set to happen for the entirety of next month. The action is organized by The People's Union USA, a grassroots economic justice movement founded by activist John Schwarz. The campaign aims to pressure corporate giants over issues including tax avoidance, the rollback of diversity hiring programs, and alleged exploitation of workers. Boasting over 360,000 TikTok followers and more than half a million on Instagram, Schwarz announced the initiative on social media, serving as a key voice in rallying support for coordinated economic resistance. This isn't the first time Schwarz's grassroots campaign has mobilized public sentiment. Previously, The People's Union USA has orchestrated impactful 24-hour 'economic blackouts' and strategic boycotts against major corporations like Amazon and Target, demonstrating their capacity to rally consumers for collective action. For the entirety of August, the campaign's ambitious objective is clear: deter consumers from spending their money at McDonald's. Similar disruptive measures are also planned against Walmart and Lowe's, aiming to significantly impact their monthly revenue. Beginning precisely on August 1st, this nationwide initiative calls upon every American to halt spending at these retail behemoths. Beyond simply withholding funds, The People's Union USA actively encourages a conscious shift in consumer behavior. Their guidance suggests postponing non-essential purchases during the boycott period or, more significantly, rerouting that spending directly to small, independent businesses. As The People's Union USA unequivocally states in their mission: 'We are not a political party. We are not a protest. We are a movement of people, organizing to take back control of our economy, government and future of our country.' Why McDonald's Is Facing Renewed Boycott Pressure McDonald's, the world's largest fast-food chain with an estimated 68 million daily customers, has increasingly found itself in the crosshairs of multiple boycott campaigns. While the global giant is no stranger to controversy, the intensity of recent backlash has placed the company under renewed scrutiny from both international and domestic critics. Since 2023, McDonald's has been targeted by the pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement for its alleged business ties to Israel, sparking waves of protest across social media and at restaurant locations in various regions. On the home front, the brand has also come under fire for its corporate decisions. In 2024, McDonald's quietly rolled back many of its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives—a move that drew swift criticism from progressive advocacy groups who accused the company of retreating from its public commitments to equitable hiring and representation. This year, The People's Union USA published a list of corporations it deems harmful to economic and social equity. McDonald's was named for what the group described as 'known lobbying against wage increases,' as well as alleged tax avoidance and anti-worker policies. With criticism mounting on several fronts, McDonald's now finds itself facing a rare alignment of global and domestic opposition, potentially threatening both its reputation and customer loyalty. What's Driving the Push to Boycott Walmart In April, Walmart became the focus of an aggressive boycott campaign launched by The People's Union USA, which accuses the retail giant of representing 'everything that's wrong with corporate power in this country.' According to Schwarz, the campaign is about more than just shopping habits—it's about shifting the national conversation on who really pays for America's public services. 'Our mission is simple,' he said. 'We want these corporations to start paying their fair share of taxes so the American people can finally be relieved of the burden of federal income tax.' The group claims that massive corporations, such as Walmart, utilize tax loopholes and employ aggressive financial strategies to avoid paying their fair share, all while generating enormous profits. For The People's Union USA, the Walmart boycott is a clear line in the sand: if corporations won't contribute to the system fairly, consumers will hit them where it hurts—at the cash register. The People's Union USA Prepares for Next Phase of Economic Pushback The economic resistance isn't slowing down anytime soon. As The People's Union USA continues its campaign against corporate power, the group has announced its next targets: Amazon, Uber, and PepsiCo. Starting in September, the movement plans to launch a new wave of boycotts aimed at holding these companies accountable for what it describes as exploitative labor practices, unfair taxation, and monopolistic behavior. Source: Hindustan Times Read the original article on GEEKSPIN. Affiliate links on GEEKSPIN may earn us and our partners a commission. Solve the daily Crossword