Under financial and political pressure, the LGBTQ+ community is ‘putting the protest back in Pride' celebrations
Back in June of 1984, she says, Pride was more protest than parade.
As the years went on, the LGBTQ+ community earned hard fought rights, and that small gathering in the park evolved into a brigade of 30,000-plus people marching down Market Street, with floats, glitter and performers, said Braxton, who now sits on the board of St. Louis Pride.
Annual Pride celebrations across the country have become a staple of their communities, and nearly 10% of American adults now identify as LGBTQ+. With big corporations eager to provide visible financial support to the LGBTQ+ community, these celebrations have become bigger, flashier and emblazoned with company logos.
But this year, amid the Trump administration's crackdown on diversity and equity efforts and a torrent of legislative attacks on the LGBTQ+ community, Pride organizers around the nation are facing a decline in sponsorships and visible corporate support.
Scrambling to fill the gap in funding, these groups are leaning on grassroots fundraising efforts and returning to that original spirit of resistance. This year, the organizers say, simply showing up will send an important message.
'We're putting the protest back in Pride,' Braxton says.
Pride organizers in California, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, New York, Ohio and Texas told CNN they have seen corporate sponsors withdrawing from this year's Pride celebrations or reducing their contribution amounts. Some say longtime sponsors have asked to quietly contribute this year, minimizing their brand visibility at public events.
In addition to financing the flashy decorations and entertainment for Pride parades, organizers say the funding is essential for security and free entry at many events – and the community services many Pride organizations provide year-round.
St. Louis Pride is about $150,000 under its fundraising goal after losing a major sponsorship from beer giant Anheuser-Busch after a 30-year partnership, St. Louis Pride president Marty Zuniga told CNN. CNN has reached out to Anheuser-Busch for comment.
'That one was a stab in the heart,' Zuniga said.
Bud Light, which is owned by Anheuser-Busch, faced intense right-wing backlash and calls for a boycott in 2023, after a partnership with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney, who said she faced violent threats after posting an Instagram video sponsored by the brand.
San Francisco Pride organizers say they were initially down $300,000 after losing Anheuser-Busch and other major corporate sponsors. After news of the sponsorship withdrawals went public, two of those sponsors indicated they would return this year, after all, San Francisco Pride president Suzanne Ford told CNN.
The timing also complicated matters, Ford said, as budget conversations typically happen long before the event is approaching. The celebration is held annually in June.
'I think we all know what's going on, and we all know that corporations had to respond to the present circumstances with the federal government and public sentiment,' Ford said.
Luke Hartig, president of Gravity Research, advises major corporations on navigating social issues. He says the pressure companies have been under when it comes to LGBTQ+ issues has been building in recent years, citing a particularly contentious period in 2023.
There was the partnership Bud Light launched with Mulvaney that spring that resulted in a sharp decline in sales. Then Target was forced to remove some of its Pride-themed merchandise after threats were leveled at staff members in part of a volatile anti-LGBTQ+ campaign. And the Los Angeles Dodgers faced a wave of conservative backlash after hosting the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a drag group that leads charity and activism efforts in the city.
Companies see enough of those high-profile setbacks and they start to take notice, Hartig told CNN, citing his group's research showing a 60% decrease in Pride engagement across major companies between 2023 and 2024.
'We were already seeing kind of a downward trend. Now, I think that has been accelerated because of the current administration's crackdown on DEI, its broader movement against LGBTQ rights and its seeming willingness to go after companies that might be opposed to some of its policies,' Hartig said.
He says a group of corporate executives that his group recently surveyed are particularly wary of the threat of federal DEI investigations.
Afra Afsharipour, a professor at the UC Davis School of Law, says the Trump administration may not have a legal basis to go after companies it says aren't complying with its relatively vague executive order threatening investigations for 'illegal' diversity, equity and inclusion activity. That will likely play out in the courts, she told CNN.
The Trump administration has also threatened to block mergers among companies with DEI policies.
But even if they come out of it clean, corporations likely don't want to endure a federal investigation or potential legal battle, Afsharipour noted.
'Executive orders don't have the force of law,' she said. 'At the same time, I think the calculus by the Trump administration is – and they've done this with the way that they have targeted lots of different institutions – they're just trying to scare companies.'
Whatever the reason for the decline in corporate support, one thing organizers across the country agree on: canceling Pride celebrations this year is not an option.
'I'll knock on every door in this city. We are going to find the money,' said Ford, the president of San Francisco Pride.
That may not be necessary. Meeting the more than $3 million cost of putting on the city's Pride weekend won't be easy, but Ford said she's already seen an increase in individual donations.
In fact, organizers from multiple states say they plan to make up the difference in funding with small business partnerships and grassroots funding efforts. Some of these grassroots campaigns have already raked in tens of thousands of dollars.
In Cincinnati, organizers are relying on community funding to bridge the gap created from the money they've turned down – from organizations that don't align with their mission of equality, including companies that have rolled back their DEI programs.
Cincinnati Pride chairperson Jeremy Phillippi told CNN his organization is taking a stance: 'We do not want to be associated with you, because you do not stand with our community.'
While corporate support may be waning, organizers say they aren't worried about attendance dropping. And they say it will mean that much more when their communities show up for them this Pride season.
'This is the year to show up for Pride,' Ford said. 'This year, just to come is a revolutionary act.'
CNN's Joe Sutton contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
30 minutes ago
American bombs in Iran also reverberate in China and North Korea
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates -- President Donald Trump campaigned on keeping the United States out of foreign wars, but it didn't take long to convince him to come to the direct aid of Israel, hitting Iranian nuclear targets with bunker-buster bombs dropped by B-2 stealth bombers and Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from a submarine. Beyond the attack's immediate impact on helping bring the 12-day war to a close, experts say Trump's decision to use force against another country also will certainly be reverberating in the Asia-Pacific, Washington's priority theater. 'Trump's strikes on Iran show that he's not afraid to use military force — this would send a clear message to North Korea, and even to China and Russia, about Trump's style,' said Duyeon Kim, a senior analyst at the Center for a New American Security based in Seoul, South Korea. 'Before the strikes, Pyongyang and Beijing might have assumed that Trump is risk averse, particularly based on his behavior his first presidency despite some tough talk," Kim said. Ten days into the war between Israel and Iran, Trump made the risky decision to step in, hitting three nuclear sites with American firepower on June 22 in a bid to destroy the country's nuclear program at a time while negotiations between Washington and Tehran were still ongoing. The attacks prompted a pro forma Iranian retaliatory strike the following day on a U.S. base in nearby Qatar, which caused no casualties, and both Iran and Israel then agreed to a ceasefire on June 24. North Korea, China and Russia all were quick to condemn the American attack, with Russian President Vladimir Putin calling it 'unprovoked aggression,' China's Foreign Ministry saying it violated international law and 'exacerbated tensions in the Middle East,' and North Korea's Foreign Ministry maintaining it 'trampled down the territorial integrity and security interests of a sovereign state.' While the strikes were a clear tactical success, the jury is still out on whether they will have a more broad strategic benefit to Washington's goals in the Middle East or convince Iran it needs to work harder than ever to develop a nuclear deterrent, possibly pulling the U.S. back into a longer-term conflict. If the attack remains a one-off strike, U.S. allies in the Asia-Pacific region likely will see the decision to become involved as a positive sign from Trump's administration, said Euan Graham, a senior defense analyst with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. 'The U.S. strike on Iran will be regarded as net plus by Pacific allies if it is seen to reinforce red lines, restore deterrence and is of limited duration, so as not to pull the administration off-course from its stated priorities in the Indo-Pacific,' he said. 'China will take note that Trump is prepared to use force, at least opportunistically.' In China, many who have seen Trump as having a 'no-war mentality' will reassess that in the wake of the attacks, which were partially aimed at forcing Iran's hand in nuclear program negotiations, said Zhao Minghao, an international relations professor at China's Fudan University in Shanghai. 'The way the U.S. used power with its air attacks against Iran is something China needs to pay attention to,' he said. 'How Trump used power to force negotiations has a significance for how China and the U.S. will interact in the future.' But, he said, Washington should not think it can employ the same strategy with Beijing. 'If a conflict breaks out between China and the U.S., it may be difficult for the U.S. to withdraw as soon as possible, let alone withdraw unscathed,' he said. Indeed, China and North Korea present very different challenges than Iran. First and foremost, both already have nuclear weapons, raising the stakes of possible retaliation considerably in the event of any attack. There also is no Asian equivalent of Israel, whose relentless attacks on Iranian missile defenses in the opening days of the war paved the way for the B-2 bombers to fly in and out without a shot being fired at them. Still, the possibility of the U.S. becoming involved in a conflict involving either China or North Korea is a very real one, and Beijing and Pyongyang will almost certainly try to assess what the notoriously unpredictable Trump would do. North Korea will likely be 'quite alarmed' at what Israel, with a relatively small but high-quality force, has been able to achieve over Iran, said Joseph Dempsey, a defense expert with the International Institute for Strategic Studies. At the same time, it likely will be seen internally as justification for its own nuclear weapons program, 'If Iran did have deployable nuclear weapons would this have occurred?' Dempsey said. 'Probably not.' The U.S. decision to attack while still in talks with Iran will also not go unnoticed, said Hong Min, a senior analyst at South Korea's Institute for National Unification. 'North Korea may conclude that dialogue, if done carelessly, could backfire by giving the United States a pretext for possible aggression,' he said. 'Instead of provoking the Trump administration, North Korea is more likely to take an even more passive stance toward negotiations with Washington, instead focusing on strengthening its internal military buildup and pursuing closer ties with Russia, narrowing the prospects for future talks," he said. China will look at the attacks through the visor of Taiwan, the self-governing democratic island off its coast that China claims as its own territory and President Xi Jinping has not ruled out taking by force. The U.S. supplies Taiwan with weapons and is one of its most important allies, though Washington's official policy on whether it would come to Taiwan's aid in the case of a conflict with China is known as 'strategic ambiguity," meaning not committing to how it would respond. Militarily, the strike on Iran raises the question of whether the U.S. might show less restraint than has been expected by China in its response and hit targets on the Chinese mainland in the event of an invasion of Taiwan, said Drew Thompson, senior fellow with the Singapore-based think tank RSIS Rajaratnam School of International Studies. It will also certainly underscore for Beijing the 'difficulty of predicting Trump's actions,' he said. "The U.S. airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities caught many by surprise," Thompson said. "I think it demonstrated a tolerance and acceptance of risk in the Trump administration that is perhaps surprising.' It also gives rise to a concern that Taiwan's President Lai Ching-te, who in recent speeches has increased warnings about the threat from China, may be further emboldened in his rhetoric, said Lyle Goldstein, director of the Asia Program at the Washington-based foreign policy think tank Defense Priorities. Already, Lai's words have prompted China to accuse him of pursuing Taiwanese independence, which is a red line for Beijing. Goldstein said he worried Taiwan may try to take advantage of the American 'use of force against Iran to increase its deterrent situation versus the mainland.' 'President Lai's series of recent speeches appear almost designed to set up a new cross-strait crisis, perhaps in the hopes of building more support in Washington and elsewhere around the Pacific,' said Goldstein, who also is director of the China Initiative at Brown University's Watson Institute. 'I think that is an exceedingly risky gambit, to put it mildly," he said.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
What US Arms Export Review Means for Its Allies
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The United States is reviewing the sending of military gear not just to Ukraine, but to countries across the world, the Pentagon has said, a fresh doubling down on the Trump administration's "America First" agenda, which appears to focus more on U.S. aid rather than lucrative arms deals. However, the move highlights the strain exerted even on the world's largest defense exporter, as demand for military hardware in key areas, such as air defense and artillery, far outstrips supply, analysts say. The U.S.'s vast military-industrial complex accounted for 43 percent of global arms exports between 2020 and 2024, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) said in March. But with the global uptick in demand for equipment, "there's too little to go around," said Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, a senior fellow at the Belgian think tank, Bruegel. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/AP The Pentagon review is a prudent stock-take, and one a long time coming for certain types of missiles and munitions, said Ed Arnold, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute think tank. Yet it does pile pressure on countries actively at war in receipt of U.S. supplies, and could prompt swathes of Europe, which have not yet established their own production lines to pump out enough defense gear, to sit up a little straighter. "We can't give weapons to everybody all around the world," the Department of Defense's chief spokesperson, Sean Parnell, said on Wednesday. "We have to look out for America and defending our homeland," he told reporters. Ukraine Taken By Surprise Ukraine is the country most obviously impacted, and the Pentagon has not yet confirmed whether the U.S. has paused weapons shipments to other countries, according to The New York Times. Although Kyiv is no longer as reliant on the United States as it was during the early stages of the war with Russia, U.S. donations continue to be important. The U.S. has provided about $67 billion in military aid to Ukraine since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of its neighbor in February 2022, the State Department said in March. Officials on Tuesday confirmed that the U.S. was holding back deliveries of military supplies to Ukraine after reports indicated that an evaluation of American munitions stockpiles had raised concerns over shortages. Kyiv's Defense Ministry publicly said it had not been officially told by the U.S. that deliveries of military aid would be stopped, and had "requested a telephone conversation" with American officials. "We're always assessing our munitions and where we're sending them," Parnell said, adding that under the Biden administration, the U.S. was "giving away weapons and munitions without really thinking about how many we have." Parnell said that the Pentagon would not provide any updates on the quantity or types of military supplies to Ukraine, nor any timelines for delivery. The delayed weapons reportedly include rounds for 155 mm howitzers, more than 100 Hellfire missiles and precision-guided rounds known as GMLRS, as well as dozens of Patriot missiles. Air defense missiles, in particular the expensive interceptors for the vaunted U.S.-made Patriot systems, have always been at the top of Kyiv's wish list. Ukrainian officials and analysts told Newsweek on Wednesday they were above all concerned about supplies of Patriot missiles. While U.S. shelves are likely still brimming with equipment, the air defense missiles and artillery ammunition that have dominated aid packages will be running in shorter supply, said Pieter Wezeman, a senior researcher in SIPRI's arms transfers team. It is also a question of how full U.S. planners believe their shelves should be, Wezeman told Newsweek. There has always been an understanding that the U.S. is "thin" on Patriot supplies, former Pentagon official Jim Townsend told Newsweek on Wednesday. However, for Ukraine, there's "no alternative" against Russia's advanced ballistic missiles, Lesia Orobets, a former Ukrainian lawmaker deeply involved in Ukraine's air defense, told Newsweek. Observers say Ukraine must now turn to its own industry, further boosting its ability to produce equipment, as well as rely on European partners who have supported Kyiv for years. "Currently, Ukraine can compensate the lack of the U.S. supply by European sources," said Andrii Ziuz, a former chief executive of Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council and current head of technology at London-based company Prevail. Europe Facing 'Real Constraints' Europe itself is at a major evaluation point. The Pentagon's wording is ambiguous, and the review is unlikely to target the foreign military sales that keep America's industry afloat, experts say. However, the U.S. feeling the bite of shortages would not be a good sign for the rest of NATO. Countries on the continent have been major customers of U.S. weapons and platforms for decades. Patriot, and more importantly, its interceptor missiles, are in high demand in Europe as well, Arnold said. "This is going to put a real constraints on European air defense requirements," Arnold told Newsweek. Senior Trump officials had pushed for European NATO members and Canada to dedicate 5 percent of their GDP to defense, a target that had seemed entirely unrealistic until the alliance pledged to meet this threshold in the coming years at NATO's summit last week. Separately, the European Commission, the European Union's executive arm, announced in early March that it would mobilize €800 billion, or roughly $900 billion, in defense funding for member states under a plan dubbed "ReArm Europe." It's a "nearly historical re-armament," said Kirkegaard. The U.S. has also been quite clear that it expects Europe and Canada to continue purchasing American weapons, while still investing in their own defense. This was greeted with somewhat mixed reactions from Europe, although there is a broad consensus that U.S. exports to the continent will dip as Europe builds up its own industries. "It's very clear that the U.S. exports will go down very significantly," Kirkegaard said. However, expanding industrial capacity in Europe is still in the early stages and may be unable to meet demand within the timeframe when key capabilities, such as air defense, could be needed. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said last week that the alliance will invest in a "five-fold increase" in air defense capabilities, as well as "thousands more tanks and armoured vehicles" and millions of artillery rounds. "Europe and Ukraine needs to double—or triple down—not only on domestic production in Ukraine, but very much on improving air defense capability across Europe and in a way that is not dependent on the United States," Kirkegaard said. Israel as 'Top Priority' Patriot missiles, among other types of American-made equipment, are also very much sought after in Israel, particularly after waves of Iranian ballistic missile strikes during what has been termed the "12 day war" last month. Israel also utilizes other systems, such as the American Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) batteries, to intercept ballistic missiles. The U.S. is far more involved in Israel's air defense compared to Ukraine. U.S. troops have repeatedly been involved in shooting down Iranian missiles heading for Israel, and the Trump administration has been far more staunchly supportive of Israel compared to Ukraine. "It's very clear that Israel is the top priority for critical U.S. military supplies of high-end air defense," said Kirkegaard. Israel also has a very strong domestic industry, a major exporter in its own right. Israel's Defense Ministry said last month that it had increased its defense exports for a fourth consecutive year in 2024, with significant jumps in sales to Europe. There was "significant growth" in contracts signed off with European nations, which accounted for 54 percent of the deals closed last year, Israel said in early June. This figure stood at 35 percent in 2023, according to the Israeli government. Missiles, rockets and air defense systems accounted for almost half of all deals, a surge from 36 percent in the previous year, the defense ministry said. Yet Israel, too, needs to build up its stocks of ballistic missile interceptors, Kirkegaard said. "Everyone needs to produce more of these things because of the scale of the ballistic threats," he said. While Iran and Russia have fired high numbers of ballistic missiles at Israel and Ukraine, North Korea has sent its own ballistic missiles for battlefield use and testing by Russian forces. Pyongyang's missiles have since become far more accurate, according to Ukrainian intelligence.
NBC Sports
an hour ago
- NBC Sports
Final big, beautiful bill includes ugly provision for gamblers
Professional gamblers may need to find a new profession. The final version of the big, beautiful bill that will be signed into law by President Trump on Friday contains the tax provision that limits deductions for losses to 90 percent. It has caused widespread consternation among those who make their living by gambling. And by those who make their living by getting people to gamble. Representative Dina Titus (D-Nevada), whose district includes Las Vegas, believes that the new law will nudge people away from legal gambling to illegal operations. 'It pushes people into the black market if they don't do regulated gaming because they have a tax disadvantage,' Titus said on News Nation. 'The black market doesn't pay taxes, isn't regulated, doesn't help with problem gaming, so it's bad for the industry, as well as for the player.' Titus may be introducing legislation to change the law back to the way it was. While the gambling industry would seem to benefit from scaring away those who consistently beat the house, not every professional gambler takes away more money than they lose. By wiping out all or most of them, the gambling industry loses the opportunity to take the money of the professional gamblers who lose more than they win. So, yes, it will push gamblers to a system of gambling that doesn't report wins and losses to the IRS. That said, anyone who has read all or (like me) most of Losing Big knows that the legal gambling industry in America isn't really doing enough to prevent problem gambling before problems arise. By potentially wiping out professional gambling, the purveyors of odds and not-breaking0evens will have even less incentive to come up with ways to keep people from pumping more money into the business than they should. This is, frankly, one of the specific consequences of a bill that overwhelms the system to the point where the specific problems can't be identified until it's too late. And it's a primary facet of the current administration: There's always something else that's happening to prevent a proper counter to the things that have already happened. Basically, they've come up with a way to game the political system. And it could be taking a chunk out of the American gaming industry. For those gamblers who didn't vote for the current administration, we're sorry. For those gamblers who did, what's that saying about elections and consequences?
