Trump will end crisis hotline for LGBTQ+ youth. But L.A. has options for those in need
A national hotline will no longer provide services specifically for LGBTQ+ youths in crisis. The Trump administration is ending that support next month.
The 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline has counselors for anyone in emotional distress or contemplating suicide but also has connected LGBTQ+ youth with specially trained counselors. Research has shown this population experiences significantly higher rates of suicidal ideation. But that specialized service will end July 17.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which funds the 988 hotline, said in a statement that callers would no longer have the option to 'press 3' for LGBTQ+-specific services. The agency said it would not 'silo LGB+ youth services' but rather focus on serving all who are seeking help.
For members of the LGBTQ+ community in Los Angeles, there are other options, with specifically trained mental health counselors. But advocates for the 988 service say its loss will leave a hole in crisis intervention.
This is one more way that people are going to feel like they're not seen, aren't sure of where to reach out for help or don't feel safe enough to seek support, said Terra Russell-Slavin, chief impact officer with the Los Angeles LGBT Center.
They noted that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration announcement used the acronym 'LGB+.' Despite trans youth being a group vulnerable to suicidal ideation, they said, 'they literally ... removed the word 'trans' from the purpose of the hotline.'
In less than 30 days, the program that 'has provided life-saving services to more than 1.3 million LGBTQ+ young people' nationwide will no longer be available for those who need it,' said Jaymes Black in a statement. Black is chief executive of the Trevor Project, which has been providing counseling targeted at LGBTQ+ youth through the 988 hotline since 2022.
'The administration's decision to remove a bipartisan, evidence-based service that has effectively supported a high-risk group of young people through their darkest moments is incomprehensible,' Black said.
Linda Yoon, founder of Yellow Chair Collective, said the Trevor Project has been a lifesaving resource for many queer youth, including some of the collective's clients. The group provides LGBTQ+ affirming counseling among other services and focuses on providing mental health support for Asian American and multicultural populations.
'Losing that federally funded support is incredibly concerning,' Yoon told The Times. 'These specialized services exist for a reason — they meet needs that general services often overlook or are unequipped to address.'
Queer youth experience significantly higher rates of suicidal ideation than their non-LGBTQ+ peers, experts say.
More than 1.8 million LGBTQ+ young people in the United States seriously consider suicide each year, and at least one attempts suicide every 45 seconds, according to the Trevor Project.
Yoon and her team see youths in crisis in their clinical work.
'Many of our LGBTQ+ youth clients come in with more complex, high-risk cases,' she said, 'especially when they come from unsupportive or unsafe family environments — which, unfortunately, still happens far too often.'
More than 50 queer youths seek services from Yellow Chair Collective per year, and many are looking for support after a crisis or when they've struggled to access the care they need elsewhere.
The 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline was a resource that the collective made known to clients. Going forward, the group will refer them to the Trevor Project, which Yoon said would continue to offer crisis support independently, 24/7.
The Trevor Project can be reached at (866) 488-7386. You can also text or chat.
In 2022, about 17 years after the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline was launched with a federal grant from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 988 began the pilot phase of its specialized services for LGBTQ+ youth. At the time, the Trevor Project served as the sole provider of the services. Eventually it was one of seven centers providing help.
Last year, according to the Trevor Project, its counselors helped an estimated 500,000 people — nearly half of whom came through the 988 hotline.
At the local level, the Los Angeles County Mental Health Department offers a crisis helpline that's staffed 24/7 to connect residents with resources including mental health professionals with specific training and programs designed for LGBTQ+ individuals and families.
Yoon still fears the consequences of losing the 988 service for high-risk queer youth. Its help has been not only tailored but also prompt.
'We know in a crisis being able to respond within a timely manner is very important,' she said.
As for Russell-Salvin, they worry about the moment of crisis, when the right contact can make all the difference. They fear that having to find a new, appropriate number to call could be one obstacle too many.
'All of those things are just going to create more barriers,' they said, 'and those barriers are part of what's contributing to the harm.'
Los Angeles County's Alternative Crisis Response: Through this program, you can access the county's 24/7 helpline at (800) 854-7771 to connect with culturally responsive services and resources, including mental health professionals specifically trained and programs that are specially designed for LGBTQ+ individuals.
The Trevor Project: The project provides crisis services and peer support nationwide. You can access services by texting 'START' to 678-678, calling the hotline at (866)-488-7386 or by live chatting with a professional online.
Trans Lifeline: The grassroots hotline and nonprofit organization offers direct emotional and financial support to trans people in crisis. You can call the hotline, (877) 565-8860, Monday through Friday for assistance between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. Pacific. There are certain holidays that the hotline is closed; a complete list can be found online.
Desi LGBTQ+ Helpline: DEQH offers free, confidential, culturally sensitive peer support, information and resources for LGBTQ+ South Asian individuals and families. You can get in touch with trained volunteers by filling out an online form or by calling (908) 367-3374 on Thursday and Sunday from 5 to 7 p.m. Pacific.
Los Angeles LGBT Center: At its 10 locations, the center offers housing, legal aid, healthcare and mental health services to youth and adults who identify as part of the queer and trans communities. A full list of services can be found online or by calling (323) 993-7400.
APLAHealth: At eight locations in Los Angeles and Long Beach, the provider offers healthcare, mental health, food, housing and other support services to the LGBTQ+ community. You can make an appointment for a specific service online.
Yellow Chair Collective: The team is trained in and practices culturally responsive, trauma-informed, LGBTQ+ affirming counseling and psychotherapy services. The practice specializes in serving Asian American and multicultural clients. You can learn more about their services or schedule an appointment online.
Planned Parenthood: Participating locations provide mental and physical health resources for LGBTQ+ community members. Resources include support groups for queer youth ages 14 to 21 and gender-affirming healthcare. You can view all services and make an appointment at a local healthcare facility online.
CalHOPE: California offers online mental health support for youth and young adults through CalHOPE at (833) 317-4673; callers can also find guides to queer specific mental health services.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
14 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Letters: The federal government once stood up for what was right. What's changed?
As a Black teenager growing up in Detroit in the 1960s, I was horrified after seeing news coverage of the peaceful demonstrators, marchers and children being attacked and brutalized. The demonstrators, mostly Black Americans, were simply asking for the same rights that were afforded to the majority of Americans. Today's demonstrations against the Trump administration's immigration roundups in Los Angeles and elsewhere remind me of the Civil Rights Movement. The National Guard is deployed in Los Angeles, purportedly to protect federal property. The last time the guard was used in a disputed manner was 1957. Nine Black high school students attempted to enroll at the all-white Little Rock Central High School in 1957. The Democratic Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus called in the National Guard to prevent it. In response, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard and sent the Army to protect the students. The irony is self-evident. The cause of the peaceful demonstrators in Los Angeles and beyond is righteous. It is a shame that the federal government under President Donald Trump no longer protects the disenfranchised and marginalized. Clarence Boyd, Oakland Maintain health care I was relieved when Sen. John McCain voted against repealing the Affordable Care Act in 2017. As a breast cancer survivor with two pre-existing conditions, the thought of losing my health care was terrifying. I recently overcame another bout of breast cancer, and I'm grateful a second mastectomy was avoided. Medicare's follow-up care has been superb. Now we're facing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025, which threatens the health care coverage of 16 million Americans by 2034. The proposed bill includes substantial cuts to Medicaid and changes to the Affordable Care Act that will affect low-income individuals and families. What kind of society are we if we fail to support our sick, elderly and disabled? We need to pressure Congress to refuse a huge deficit increase while simultaneously denying health care to vulnerable populations. It's not crazy You might think that I am a Republican. I believe in fiscal responsibility. I support a balanced federal budget. I support a strong immigration policy. I support a strong national defense. I support a rational and fair tariff policy. I believe in fair and honest elections. But I am not a Republican. I am a Democrat. And just because I have empathy for the most vulnerable and defenseless among us, that also does not make me 'a radical left lunatic.' Bill Schrupp, Lafayette
Politico
14 hours ago
- Politico
Trump Is Wrong About Birthright Citizenship. History Proves It.
'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' That's the opening line of the Fourteenth Amendment. The vast majority of legal scholars have long understood the clause to confer citizenship on immigrant children born in the United States. But not President Donald Trump. 'This had to do with the babies of slaves,' the president asserted yesterday, at a press conference celebrating a Supreme Court decision that partially clears the way for the administration to end the practice of birthright citizenship, though the attempt will face further legal hurdles. (The court has not ruled on the challenge to birthright citizenship itself, only the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions against it.) According to Trump and his supporters, Congress never intended the amendment to grant citizenship to immigrant children — only to formerly enslaved people and their children. As legal experts have explained, the text of the amendment itself disproves Trump's claim, which the court's conservatives — who so often extoll the virtues of originalism, interpreting the Constitution based on its meaning at the time it was written — should well know. So does the historical record. We do not have to guess what members of Congress intended with the Fourteenth Amendment and the children of immigrants. We know, because they told us themselves. And Trump won't like what they had to say. The president is correct on one point: The Fourteenth Amendment's framers intended its primary beneficiaries to be formerly enslaved Black people. In the months immediately following the Civil War, ex-Confederate states began forming new governments and passing laws that sharply curtailed the rights of freedmen who had been liberated under the terms of the Emancipation Proclamation and Thirteenth Amendment. The so-called Black Codes varied by state but shared common features. In Mississippi, for example, Black people were required to sign annual labor contracts, and those who left their jobs could be arrested for vagrancy. In South Carolina, African Americans were barred from any occupation other than farming or domestic work unless they paid a special tax. Many codes also limited Black people's rights to own property, bear arms, serve on juries or testify against white people in court. These laws effectively criminalized Black life and sought to reimpose slavery in all but name. In response, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 over President Andrew Johnson's veto, conferring rights and citizenship on Black Southerners. Recognizing that they might not enjoy congressional supermajorities in perpetuity, they also sought to enshrine these rights permanently in the Constitution, via the Fourteenth Amendment. But today, Trump contends that the amendment does not apply to immigrants. His argument rests on two conceits: First, that the text of the amendment specifically limits birthright citizenship to 'persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' — which, conservatives argue, does not include immigrant children, as they owe allegiance to a foreign power and are not fully subject to U.S. sovereign authority. Second, as the president explained on Friday, he believes the framers intended only to confer citizenship on freedmen (retroactively) and their children (prospectively). In effect, they were attempting a constitutional repudiation of the infamous Dred Scott decision, in which the Court in 1857 denied that Black persons could be citizens. We know both of these arguments are shambolic, because the framers told us so. Senator Jacob Howard, a Republican from Michigan, drafted the birthright citizenship language and was clear in his intent. 'This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States,' he explained. But Howard qualified his explanation. 'This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.' At first blush, it would seem that meant to exclude the children of foreign-born immigrants from enjoying birthright citizenship. But the Senate debate makes clear he and his colleagues meant only to exclude the children of foreign diplomats and officials in the United States on business. In a key exchange, Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania fretted that the amendment would expose the United States to mass demographic upheaval, specifically by making immigrant children citizens. He worried particularly about 'Gypsie' (or Roma) immigrants in his home state and a small but growing population of Chinese immigrants in California. In response, John Conness, a senator from California, who supported the bill, agreed with Howard that the citizenship clause applied to immigrants, affirming that the amendment 'relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. … I am in favor of doing so. … We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.' Setting aside their crude racial determinism, the exchange makes clear that Howard and other Republicans intended the amendment to apply to all persons born in the U.S., not just freedmen. Cowan was the only Republican senator to vote against the amendment, specifically because of his concerns over birthright citizenship and immigration. In other words, even the amendment's opponents understood its meaning and intent. In debating who was subject to the 'jurisdiction' of the amendment, the Senate focused almost entirely on the question of whether Native Americans, who had treaty rights and sovereignty, enjoyed its provisions. Most Republican supporters believed at the time they did not. But there was essentially no disagreement about the children of immigrants, who were understood to qualify for citizenship. And the Supreme Court agreed in a landmark 1898 decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents who were barred from naturalization under the Chinese Exclusion Act. After a trip abroad, he was denied re-entry to the U.S., prompting a legal battle over whether he was a citizen. In a 6–2 decision, the court ruled that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' nationality or immigration status — establishing a foundational precedent for birthright citizenship that remains in place today In last week's decision, the court didn't specifically uphold Trump's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, it significantly limited the power of lower courts to issue nationwide (or 'universal') injunctions blocking policy implementation, including Trump's executive order denying passports and Social Security cards to immigrant children. The court signaled it would likely take up the more specific question of birthright citizenship down the line. For the time being, the decision opens the door to a patchwork legal landscape, where birthright citizenship protections can vary dramatically depending on which states or judges are involved, leaving families in some jurisdictions shielded while others face the executive order's full force. Legal experts warn that curtailing nationwide injunctions could let parts of Trump's order go into effect unevenly — forcing challenges through slower and more localized litigation — and thereby sow confusion, fear and unequal citizenship rights across the country. Trump's argument about the Fourteenth Amendment also calls into question the process by which tens of millions of American families of European descent became citizens. At the time of the amendment's adoption, its framers worried primarily about whether it would make citizens of Asian immigrants. European immigrants — Italians, Irish, Germans, Jews and, later, Eastern and Southern Europeans — were broadly understood to fall under the protections of the original 1790 Naturalization Act, which made all 'free white persons' of 'good character' eligible for citizenship. Many of those 'free white persons' never bothered to become citizens, particularly in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when a large number of immigrants were 'birds of flight' who immigrated and re-emigrated multiple times, mostly to work seasonally and bring wages back home. Many ultimately remained in the United States, but if Trump's reading of the Fourteenth Amendment were in effect, many of their American-born children would not have been citizens if their parents were unnaturalized at the time of their births. Since 1868, birthright citizenship has been central to our understanding of who is legally an American. Take it away, and that understanding gets murky. All eight of my great grandparents were foreign-born Jews from Eastern Europe. A few naturalized. Others didn't. Their children — my grandparents — were born on American soil, well before their parents became citizens. By Trump's reading, my grandparents and parents would not have been entitled to birthright citizenship. Neither, for that matter, would I. The same logic applies to tens of millions of Americans. Lucky for me, the history is clear on this point. If the Supreme Court's conservative majority actually believes in originalism, that means the legality of birthright citizenship is a matter of history — and the history is undeniable. Lawmakers on both sides of the issue acknowledged that the Fourteenth Amendment would extend birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants.
Hamilton Spectator
15 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Black Canadians have highest avoidable hospitalization rates: StatCan data
TORONTO - New data from Statistics Canada shows Black Canadians have had the highest rates of avoidable hospitalizations in the country — something experts say underscores the need for more equitable health services for the Black community. A report released June 18 shows that over an eight-year period, Black Canadians were admitted to hospital for treatable health conditions such as asthma, diabetes and hypertension at higher rates than other racial groups and non-racialized people. In the most recent data collected in 2023/2024, Black men and boys were admitted at a rate of 272 hospitalizations per 100,000 people while Black women and girls saw a rate of 253 per 100,000 people. Other racialized people including South Asian, Chinese and Filipino Canadians had significantly lower rates. The lowest was among the Chinese population, in which men and boys had 65 hospitalizations per 100,000 people, and women and girls recorded 52 per 100,000 people. Non-racialized people had the second-highest rate of avoidable hospital admissions in 2023, reaching 257 per 100,000 among men and 226 per 100,000 among women, the report states. Notisha Massaquoi, an assistant professor of health education and promotion at the University of Toronto, says the data shines a light on the health equity crisis for Black Canadians who face significant barriers to primary care. '(This is) a population that has experienced an enormous amount of racism in the health-care system,' said Massaquoi, who studies access to health-care services for Black Canadians in the Greater Toronto Area. 'There's a lack of trust in terms of going to a primary health-care setting or going to see a primary health-care provider, and when a community has experienced a lot of marginalization in the health-care system, what they do is avoid going until it's too late.' Black Canadians might avoid seeking routine care because there is also a lack of Black health-care providers, said Massaquoi, noting better survival rates and health outcomes when a Black patient has a Black primary caregiver. StatCan data shows that in 2023, the most updated information available, 72 per cent of Black Canadians had access to a primary health care provider. That's compared to 84 per cent of non-racialized Canadians. The Canadian Medical Association says it doesn't keep track of the number of Black physicians in the country, but data published in 2020 by the Academic Medicine Journal — the peer-reviewed journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges — estimated that 2.3 per cent of practising physicians in Ontario were Black in 2018. StatCan's report doesn't provide the specific reasons for hospitalizations, but a member of the senior leadership team at Women's College Hospital in Toronto says Black populations are disproportionately affected by chronic illnesses. The reasons for that are complicated, said Dr. Cynthia Maxwell, a past-president of the Black Physicians Association of Ontario. Maxwell said chronic illnesses can sometimes be traced to hurdles navigating the health-care system. Some Black communities also have fewer grocery store options, making access to nutritious food difficult, or are in areas more exposed to environmental toxins, which can lead to higher rates of respiratory problems. Massaquoi and Maxwell both stressed the need for more Black health-care providers and Black-oriented clinics, saying many patients feel more comfortable visiting environments where there's less risk of racism. Such an increase could also help train other doctors on the specific needs of Black patients. 'We will likely never have enough Black health-care providers to provide access to all Black community members, so it is important for all allies in the health system to engage in and learn about cultural safety and competencies that will help drive better health-care outcomes,' Maxwell said. Maxwell linked less access to primary care to higher mortality rates of serious diseases, such as among Black women with breast and cervical cancer. 'We know Black women have less access to screening for conditions such as breast cancer and cervical cancer, which are major issues and have high morbidity and mortality in Black communities,' she said. 'A condition is identified typically in the primary care setting,' she said, noting that's where a patient is referred to a specialist for serious conditions. Maxwell said it was important to collect better race-based patient data in order to identify issues unique to each community. 'Without the … race-specific data, you can't really get to the nuances of what the particular issues are within a community and what it means for a community to be disproportionately affected, either by a health condition or by the outcome of treatment for a health condition,' Maxwell said. Massaquoi said Black health-care advocates have 'constantly' begged for better race-based data collection. 'What we want to see as members of the Black community are the interventions that are going to be developed and designed so we're no longer just getting this trauma type of data that keeps telling us over and over in every manner how badly we're doing.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 29, 2025.
