Transgender Americans say they're traveling less out of fear since the election, research shows
Rosenblum is transgender. After President Trump's election in November to a second term, she said, she rushed to get her identity documents in order as a matter of safety.
Rosenblum updated her California birth certificate to show she had transitioned. And she renewed her passport. She applied as a female but was stunned to receive a letter from the U.S. Department of State saying her application had to be changed 'to correct your information to show your biological sex at birth.'
As she prepares to fly, Rosenblum fears the discrepancy between her California Real ID — which says female — and her passport will create problems with the Transportation Security Administration.
In an email to The Times, Lorie Dankers, a TSA spokesperson, said the agency 'accepts documents for identity verification with an 'X' marker. There is no change to this policy.'
In California, residents have had the option to choose 'X' for nonbinary since 2019. But not all states allow this. And for transgender people who have transitioned from one gender to the other and do not fall under the 'X' category, discrepancies can remain.
Rosenblum is debating bringing a stack of documents to the airport that she would rather keep safe at home, such as her birth certificate, Social Security card, and a court order showing her change in gender.
'In the 10 years that I've been transitioned, I have never felt like, 'Whoa, I need to get all my papers together,'' said Rosenblum, who works in marketing. 'I was never concerned about traveling.'
In a newly released survey of transgender Americans by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, nearly a third of respondents said they were traveling less frequently as a result of the 2024 election.
Nearly 70% said they were less likely to go on vacation to states they viewed as more hostile to transgender people, particularly politically conservative states in the South and Midwest.
The survey, published this month, also showed that 48% of respondents were considering moving or had already moved to places in the U.S. they viewed as safer— notably, blue states such as California, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York and Washington.
Forty-five percent of respondents said they wanted to move out of the country because of the current political climate.
'When you feel that you need to consider moving, you've been pushed to a certain point,' said Abbie Goldberg, the lead author of the survey and an affiliated scholar at the Williams Institute, which researches public policy surrounding sexual orientation and gender identity.
'If you're a trans person living in the U.S., particularly in a state with not a lot of protections and some explicitly anti-trans legislation, you're thinking about your physical safety, your children's safety at school, the possibility you could be fired from your job and no way to push back.'
However, most respondents who wanted to move said they face barriers, including the high cost of living, in places such as California.
The survey of 302 transgender, nonbinary and gender-diverse adults was conducted in December, before Trump's inauguration. Goldberg said the percentages of trans people wanting to move and declining to travel are probably higher now.
In his first 100 days, Trump issued executive orders banning trans women from women's sports and barring the federal government from recognizing genders other than male or female.
Trump also is pushing to ban transgender Americans from the U.S. military, writing in an executive order that transgender identity is a 'falsehood' inconsistent with the 'humility and selflessness required of a service member.' The Supreme Court cleared the way this month for that ban to take effect.
In California, Democrats are divided on some LGBTQ+ issues, such as trans athletes competing in women's sports. But progressive leaders have cast the state as a bulwark against Trump's opposition to transgender rights, which will probably be a big issue in the state's 2026 campaign for governor.
Rosenblum said she is grateful to live in California, where she feels protected by the state's antidiscrimination laws. But as she gets ready for vacation, she said, 'it feels like people are trying to shove me back into the closet.'
Email us at essentialcalifornia@latimes.com, and your response might appear in the newsletter this week.
Today's great photo is from contributor Gioncarlo Valentine in the studio of artist Diego Cardoso, who is painting L.A. as it really moves, one street at a time.
Kevinisha Walker, multiplatform editorAndrew Campa, Sunday writerKarim Doumar, head of newsletters
How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to essentialcalifornia@latimes.com. Check our top stories, topics and the latest articles on latimes.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
16 minutes ago
- Fox News
Violent criminal gangs have 'near-total control' of world nation's capital, UN says
Haiti's criminal gangs have exerted "near-total control" over the capital, as escalating violence pushes the Caribbean nation "closer to the brink," senior U.N. officials warned Wednesday. Gangs control an estimated 90% of Port-au-Prince, Ghada Fathy Waly, executive director of the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, told the U.N. Security Council. Waly noted that gangs are expanding into previously peaceful areas. "Southern Haiti, which until recently was insulated from the violence, has seen a sharp increase in gang-related incidents," she said. "And in the east, criminal groups are exploiting land routes, including key crossings like Belladere and Malpasse, where attacks against police and customs officials have been reported." U.N. Assistant Secretary-General Miroslav Jenca informed the council that "the ongoing gang encirclement of Port-au-Prince" and their strengthened foothold in the capital and beyond is "pushing the situation closer to the brink." "Without increased action by the international community, the total collapse of state presence in the capital could become a very real scenario," he warned. Gangs have gained power since President Jovenel Moïse's assassination in July 2021, previously controlling 85% of the capital. Haiti has not had a president since the assassination. A new U.N. report covering last October through February highlights that gangs have exploited political turmoil and Haiti's disorganized security response, saying competing political ambitions and corruption allegations within transitional governing bodies have hindered action. "While the expansion of territorial control brings gangs additional sources of revenue and bargaining power," the U.N. experts said in the report, "these attacks are also backed by individuals trying to destabilize the political transition for their own political goals." The U.S. State Department issued a travel advisory for Haiti in September 2024, warning Americans against visiting due to kidnapping, crime, civil unrest and limited healthcare. In May, the Trump administration designated two of Haiti's most powerful gang networks, Viv Ansanm and Gran Grif, as foreign terrorist organizations and specially designated global terrorists.
Vox
39 minutes ago
- Vox
Why Trump's big legislative win could be short-lived
is a senior politics reporter at Vox, where he covers the Democratic Party. He joined Vox in 2022 after reporting on national and international politics for the Atlantic's politics, global, and ideas teams, including the role of Latino voters in the 2020 election. President Donald Trump speaks during an address to a joint session of Congress at the US Capitol on March 4, 2025. Allison Robbert/AFP via Getty Images President Donald Trump is about to achieve his biggest legislative victory yet: His 'big, beautiful bill' — the massive tax- and Medicaid-cutting, immigration and border spending bill passed the Senate on Tuesday — is on the verge of passing the House of Representatives. It's a massive piece of legislation, likely to increase the national debt by at least $3 trillion, mostly through tax cuts, and leave 17 million Americans without health coverage — and it's really unpopular. Majorities in nearly every reputable poll taken this month disapprove of the bill, ranging from 42 percent who oppose the bill in an Ipsos poll (compared to 23 percent who support) to 64 percent who oppose it in a KFF poll. Today, Explained Understand the world with a daily explainer, plus the most compelling stories of the day. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. And if history is any indication, it's not going to get any better for Trump and the Republicans from here on out. In modern American politics, few things are more unpopular with the public than big, messy bills forged under a bright spotlight. That's especially true of bills passed through a Senate mechanism called 'budget reconciliation,' a Senate procedure that allows the governing party to bypass filibuster rules with a simple majority vote. They tend to have a negative effect on presidents and their political parties in the following months as policies are implemented and campaign seasons begin. Part of that effect is due to the public's general tendency to dislike any kind of legislation as it gets more publicity and becomes better understood. But reconciliation bills in the modern era seem to create a self-fulfilling prophecy: forcing presidents to be maximally ambitious at the outset, before they lose popular support for the legislation and eventually lose the congressional majorities that delivered passage. Presidents and their parties tend to be punished after passing big spending bills The budget reconciliation process, created in 1974, has gradually been used to accomplish broader and bigger policy goals. Because it offers a workaround for a Senate filibuster, which requires 60 votes to break, it has become the primary way that presidents and their parties implement their economic and social welfare visions. The public, however, doesn't tend to reward the governing party after these bills are passed. As political writer and analyst Ron Brownstein recently pointed out, presidents who successfully pass a major reconciliation bill in the first year of their presidency lose control of Congress, usually the House, the following year. In 1982, Ronald Reagan lost his governing majority in the House after using reconciliation to pass large spending cuts as part of his Reaganomics vision (the original 'big, beautiful' bill). And the pattern would repeat itself for George H.W. Bush (whose reconciliation bill contradicted his campaign promise not to raise taxes), for Bill Clinton in 1994 (deficit reductions and tax reform), for Barack Obama in 2010 (after the passage of the Affordable Care Act), for Trump in 2018 (tax cuts), and for Biden in 2022 (the American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act). The exception in this list of modern presidents is George W. Bush, who did pass a set of tax cuts in a reconciliation bill, but whose approval rating rose after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Increasing polarization, and the general anti-incumbent party energy that tends to run through midterm elections, of course, explains part of this overall popular and electoral backlash. But reconciliation bills themselves seem to intensify this effect. Why reconciliation bills do so much political damage First, there's the actual substance of these bills, which has been growing in scope over time. Because they tend to be the first, and likely only, major piece of domestic legislation that can execute a president's agenda, they are often highly ideological, partisan projects that try to implement as much of a governing party's vision as possible. These highly ideological pieces of legislation, Matt Grossman, the director of Michigan State University's Institute for Public Policy and Social Research, and his partners have found, tend to kick into gear a 'thermostatic' response from the public — that is, that public opinion moves in the opposite direction of policymaking when the public perceives one side is going too far to the right or left. Because these bills have actually been growing in reach, from mere tax code adjustments to massive tax-and-spend, program-creating bills, and becoming more ideological projects, the public, in turn, seems to be reacting more harshly. These big reconciliation bills also run into an issue that afflicts all kinds of legislation: It has a PR problem. Media coverage of proposed legislation tends to emphasize its partisanship, portraying the party in power as pursuing its domestic agenda at all costs and emphasizing that parties are fighting against each other. This elevates process over policy substance. Political scientist Mary Layton Atkinson has found that just like campaign reporting is inclined to focus on the horse race, coverage of legislation in Congress and policy debates often focuses on conflict and procedure, adding to a sense in the public mind that Congress is extreme, dysfunctional, and hyperpartisan. Adding to this dynamic is a quirk of public opinion toward legislation and referenda: Proposals tend to get less popular, and lose public support, between proposal and passage, as the public learns more about the actual content of initiatives and as they hear more about the political negotiations and struggles taking place behind the scenes as these bills are ironed out. Lawmakers and key political figures also 'tend to highlight the benefits less than the things that they are upset about in the course of negotiations,' Grossman told me. 'That [also] occurs when a bill passes: You have the people who are against it saying all the terrible things about it, and actually the people who are for it are often saying, 'I didn't get all that I wanted, I would have liked it to be slightly different.' So the message that comes out of it is actually pretty negative on the whole, because no one is out there saying this is the greatest thing and exactly what they wanted.' Even with the current One Big Beautiful Bill, polling analysis shows that the public tends not to be very knowledgeable about what is in the legislative package, but gets even more hostile to it once they learn or are provided more information about specific policy details. Big reconciliation bills exist at the intersection of all three of these public image problems: They tend to be the first major legislative challenge a new president and Congress take on, they suck up all the media's attention, they direct the public's attention to one major piece of legislation, and they take a pretty long time to iron out — further extending the timeline in which the bill can get more unpopular.
Newsweek
39 minutes ago
- Newsweek
AOC Turns Up Pressure on Senator Murkowski Over Trump Bill
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. Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has called out Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican who has at times bucked her party, for siding with Senate Republicans to advance President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful" spending bill. Three Republicans broke with their party earlier this week, forcing Vice President JD Vance to cast the tiebreaking vote and underscoring the weight of Murkowski's decision. Newsweek has contacted Murkowski's press team for comment via email on Thursday. Why It Matters Ocasio-Cortez has been a pillar of the Democratic Party's left wing since her 2018 election. She shook the party's establishment when she defeated longtime incumbent Representative Joe Crowley in New York's 14th Congressional District. Her brand of progressive politics has gained traction as she and others speak out against Trump and Republicans, but many Democratic establishment figures remain less outspoken as they catch their bearings following widespread 2024 election losses. Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani's victory over former Governor Andrew Cuomo in the New York City mayoral primary offers evidence of the growing left flank. Murkowski, an Alaskan Republican, has at times broken with her party. In 2021, she voted against Trump during his second impeachment. In 2022, she backed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's Supreme Court nomination, and she has voted against some of Trump's recent nominees. A composite image showing Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York on Capitol Hill on June 10 and Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska at the U.S. Capitol on June 3. A composite image showing Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York on Capitol Hill on June 10 and Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska at the U.S. Capitol on June 3. Francis Chung/POLITICO via AP Images What To Know On Tuesday, Murkowski wrote a long post on X, formerly Twitter, outlining why she ultimately voted for Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act. After voting in favor of the spending bill, she told reporters, "My hope is that the House is gonna look at this and recognize that we're not there yet." On Thursday, Ocasio-Cortez responded to the senator's post, writing: "This isn't about you. This is about the 17 million Americans whose health insurance you're taking away." The congresswoman added, "And after you turned your back on them to vote 'YES', you said your fellow House GOP should vote NO." This isn't about you. This is about the 17 million Americans whose health insurance you're taking away. And after you turned your back on them to vote "YES", you said your fellow House GOP should vote NO. Americans are going to suffer. YOU admit that. And YOU supported it. — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) July 3, 2025 A report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that 11.8 million more Americans would be uninsured by 2034 if the bill became law. Murkowski was one of the final holdouts in the Senate, citing concerns about the bill's effects on Alaska's vulnerable populations. GOP leaders spent hours negotiating with her, offering carve-outs for Alaska on Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funding. While some provisions passed parliamentary review, others—such as enhanced Medicaid payments—were ruled noncompliant with Senate budget rules. Trump's massive budget proposal, while backed by many of the president's supporters, has drawn sharp criticism from some lawmakers and health experts over its proposed Medicaid cuts. The CBO estimated that the bill would slash the program by about $790 billion over the next decade to help offset about $4.5 trillion in tax breaks. Medicaid provides health coverage to tens of millions of low-income Americans, with about 71 million people enrolled in the program. Other provisions include permanently extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts while exempting overtime pay, tips and some Social Security income from taxation; repealing most clean‑energy tax credits created under President Joe Biden; authorizing a $40 billion border security surge and funding a nationwide deportation initiative; and raising the federal debt ceiling. Ocasio-Cortez wrote in her post: "Americans are going to suffer. YOU admit that. And YOU supported it." Murkowski, who took office in 2002, said in her July 1 post that her decision to support the bill was "one of the hardest votes" she's had to cast. "My goal throughout the reconciliation process has been to make a bad bill better for Alaska, and in many ways, we have done that," she added. "While we have worked to improve the present bill for Alaska, it is not good enough for the rest of our nation—and we all know it," she continued, adding, "This bill needs more work across chambers and is not ready for the President's desk." What People Are Saying House Speaker Mike Johnson wrote on X on July 3: "The time is now! President Trump is waiting with his pen. Today, we will deliver the One Big Beautiful Bill to the President's desk—and the American people will FINALLY get the relief they demand and deserve." House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries wrote on X on July 3: "Just took to the House Floor to speak in support of a country where everyone can afford to live the good life. And in strong opposition to Trump's One Big Ugly Bill that is devastating to everyday Americans. We will not be silenced." Senate Majority Leader John Thune wrote on X on July 1: "Since we regained the majority in January, our Republican team has been laser-focused on achieving the mission before us today. Now we're here—passing legislation that will make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous." Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wrote on X on July 1: "Today's vote will haunt Senate Republicans for years to come. Americans will see the damage done as hospitals close, as people are laid off, as costs go up, and as the debt increases. Democrats will make sure Americans remember the betrayal that took place today." Elon Musk wrote on X on June 30: "Every member of Congress who campaigned on reducing government spending and then immediately voted for the biggest debt increase in history should hang their head in shame! And they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth." Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky wrote on X on June 29: "There's no such thing as a tax relief without spending cuts. Gov't can reduce the tax rate, but the spending still must be paid for. Gov't must borrow money (which raises interest rates & requires more taxes later) or print money (which causes inflation). Both hurt Americans." What Happens Next Both chambers must agree on the final version of the bill for it to advance to the president's desk to be signed into law. The House minority leader is holding the House floor in a speech that has already run for more than six hours, delaying what Republican leaders hoped would be a quick march to the final vote on Thursday.
