Tag: political institutions

When Pride Stopped Protesting

On June 21, 2026

A split-scene illustration contrasts an early LGBTQ+ protest march filled with activists carrying liberation signs and demanding equal rights against a modern Pride parade featuring rainbow flags, corporate sponsorships, and celebratory crowds, highlighting the movement’s evolution from political resistance to mainstream cultural celebration while emphasizing the continuing struggle for transgender equality. (Image generated by ChatGPT using DALL·E, 2026.)

Every June, millions of people gather for Pride celebrations across the United States. Streets are filled with rainbow flags, corporate logos, political candidates, and festival-like atmospheres. For many participants, Pride is a joyful affirmation of LGBTQ+ identity and a celebration of the progress that has been achieved over the past half century.

Yet Pride was not created as a celebration.

Pride was born from protest.

The first Pride marches emerged in the aftermath of the Stonewall uprising of 1969, when LGBTQ+ people fought back against routine police harassment and discrimination. Early Pride events were acts of political resistance. Participants marched because they faced criminalization, employment discrimination, housing discrimination, family rejection, and social exclusion. Pride was a demand for change, not a celebration of acceptance (TIME, 2020).

Over time, however, Pride changed.

By the late 1990s and early 2000s, LGBTQ+ organizations were increasingly integrated into mainstream political and corporate institutions. Large corporations began sponsoring Pride events. Politicians who once avoided association with LGBTQ+ causes now sought visibility in Pride parades. Pride organizations became larger, more professionalized, and increasingly dependent upon corporate sponsorship and institutional partnerships.

This transformation brought benefits. Greater visibility helped normalize LGBTQ+ identities, and corporate sponsorships provided resources that allowed Pride events to grow dramatically. Yet there was also a cost.

As Pride became more institutionalized, its activist character began to fade. Events that once centered political demands increasingly emphasized entertainment, marketing, and celebration. What had begun as a protest movement gradually evolved into a cultural festival. Many activists have argued that the commercialization of Pride diluted its political message and encouraged the public to believe that the struggle for LGBTQ+ equality had largely been won (Cornell University, 2022).

That perception grew even stronger after marriage equality became law nationwide. For many Americans, the legalization of same-sex marriage represented the culmination of the modern LGBTQ+ civil rights movement. The dominant narrative became one of victory rather than continued struggle.

But for many transgender people, the struggle was far from over.

The tensions between mainstream LGBTQ+ organizations and transgender activists became particularly visible during the debate surrounding the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, transgender activists fought for legislation that would prohibit workplace discrimination based on both sexual orientation and gender identity. However, many political leaders and advocacy organizations believed that including gender identity protections would make the legislation more difficult to pass.

In 2007, a version of ENDA was advanced that prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation but excluded gender identity protections. Supporters of the strategy argued that political realities required compromise. They believed Congress was not prepared to pass a fully inclusive bill and that securing protections for gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers was better than securing no protections at all (Washington Blade, 2017; HRC, 2007).

For many transgender activists, however, this was not a strategic compromise. It was a betrayal.

The message they received was that transgender equality could be postponed because it was politically inconvenient. As a result, transgender activists increasingly relied upon their own organizations and advocacy networks rather than established LGBTQ+ institutions. These groups spent years educating the public, documenting discrimination, challenging exclusionary policies, and building a movement focused specifically on transgender rights.

Over the following decade, public awareness of transgender people increased dramatically. Media coverage expanded. Public opinion shifted. Gender identity became a more visible topic in American political discourse. As transgender rights gained national attention, major LGBTQ+ organizations—including the Human Rights Campaign—became increasingly active advocates for transgender equality.

Many welcomed this support. Additional resources and national visibility strengthened the fight against discrimination. Yet for some transgender activists, the shift was difficult to forget.

From their perspective, transgender organizations had spent years fighting battles that larger LGBTQ+ organizations had either ignored or treated as secondary concerns. Only after transgender rights became more politically visible and socially recognized did many of those larger organizations fully embrace transgender advocacy. The criticism was not that these organizations eventually supported transgender rights. The criticism was that they had not shown the same commitment when doing so carried greater political risk.

This history reflects a broader problem within modern Pride and LGBTQ+ politics. As movements become institutionalized, they often shift from challenging power to managing relationships with power. Organizations become concerned with political access, public relations, donor relationships, and legislative strategy. The result can be a form of respectability politics that prioritizes achievable victories while leaving more controversial or vulnerable communities behind.

Today, transgender people remain the primary targets of legislative attacks on LGBTQ+ rights in the United States. Hundreds of bills have been introduced in recent years targeting transgender healthcare, participation in public life, and legal recognition (Human Rights Campaign, 2026). Yet many Pride events continue to project an image of completed victory rather than ongoing struggle.

Celebration has an important place. LGBTQ+ people deserve joy. They deserve visibility. They deserve to recognize how far the movement has come.

But Pride should never forget why it exists.

Pride was created because LGBTQ+ people were denied equal rights. It was created because marginalized communities demanded justice from institutions that refused to recognize their humanity. If Pride becomes only a celebration, it risks forgetting the very activism that made those celebrations possible.

The history of transgender activism during the ENDA era serves as a reminder that progress is rarely as complete as it appears. Rights can be delayed. Communities can be sidelined. Movements can become comfortable.

The challenge for Pride today is not whether it should celebrate victories.

The challenge is whether it still remembers how to fight.

References

Cornell University. (2022, June 15). Is Pride too commercialized? https://lgbt.cornell.edu/news/pride-too-commercialized-0

Human Rights Campaign. (2007, November 7). U.S. House takes historic step by passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/u-s-house-takes-historic-step-by-passing-the-employment-non-discrimination

Human Rights Campaign. (2026). Fighting anti-trans politics. https://www.hrc.org/our-work/stories/fighting-anti-trans-politics

TIME. (2020, June 18). What’s changed—and what hasn’t—in 50 years of Pride parades. https://time.com/5858086/pride-parades-history/

Washington Blade. (2017, November 6). 10 years later, firestorm over gay-only ENDA vote still remembered. https://www.washingtonblade.com/2017/11/06/10-years-later-firestorm-over-gay-only-enda-vote-still-remembered/

The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism in America Under Trump’s Second Term

By Katherine Walter

On April 23, 2025

In Donald Trump

WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES – 2024/04/25: An activist holding a sign with Save Our Democracy written on it stands outside the US Supreme Court, as the court prepares to hear arguments on the immunity of former US President Donald Trump in Washington, DC. (Photo by Probal Rashid/LightRocket via Getty Images)

The erosion of democratic norms in the United States has become increasingly evident during President Donald Trump’s second term in office. While formal democratic institutions still exist—elections are held, opposition parties campaign, and courts operate—the substance of democratic governance is steadily being hollowed out. This phenomenon, known as “competitive authoritarianism,” describes a regime type where democratic structures are maintained in name but systematically subverted in practice. The United States, once a model liberal democracy, is beginning to exhibit the core traits of such regimes, and political scientists are issuing increasingly urgent warnings.

Competitive authoritarianism, as defined by political scientists Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way, is a hybrid regime that blends formal democratic institutions with authoritarian behavior. It allows for elections and political opposition but ensures that incumbents enjoy unfair advantages and engage in systematic efforts to undercut political competition (Levitsky & Way, 2010). What sets these regimes apart from outright dictatorships is the preservation of the outward trappings of democracy. What distinguishes them from genuine democracies, however, is the deliberate weakening of institutions meant to ensure accountability, transparency, and fairness.

Recent surveys reveal that political scientists overwhelmingly believe the U.S. is moving in the wrong direction. Bright Line Watch, a nonpartisan organization that assesses the health of American democracy through surveys of political science scholars, found a sharp drop in expert evaluations of the nation’s democratic functioning following Trump’s re-election in 2024. Their Democracy Rating, which scored the U.S. at 67 out of 100 just prior to the November election, plunged to 55 within weeks after the new administration took office (Carey, 2025). John Carey, one of the project’s co-directors, remarked that the decline is unparalleled in the project’s history and reflects deepening concerns among scholars that the country is transitioning away from liberal democratic norms.

Indeed, many of the mechanisms of democratic backsliding are now visible. There has been a notable decline in the independence of the judiciary. Courts are increasingly seen as obstacles to be circumvented or delegitimized rather than respected. The administration’s open hostility toward judges who rule against its interests, and its efforts to ignore or delay implementation of adverse rulings, weakens the judiciary’s role as a check on executive overreach (Davies, 2025). In authoritarian regimes, the erosion of judicial independence is a common step toward consolidating power, and the United States appears to be following this well-worn path.

Control over information is another hallmark of competitive authoritarianism, and here, too, the Trump administration has made significant inroads. Efforts to delegitimize critical media, restrict press access, and promote alternative narratives through state-aligned media channels have intensified. Rather than treating journalists as watchdogs of democracy, the administration has cast them as enemies of the state, a tactic historically used by authoritarian leaders to erode public trust in independent reporting (Vanity Fair, 2025). Meanwhile, whistleblowers and dissenting voices within federal agencies face unprecedented retaliation, creating a chilling effect on those who might speak out against abuses of power.

Perhaps most telling is the administration’s brazen politicization of independent institutions. Agencies like the Department of Justice, which are meant to operate without partisan interference, have been systematically filled with loyalists. These appointees often demonstrate an unwavering allegiance to Trump himself rather than to the rule of law or democratic principles. The result is an executive branch that no longer merely implements policy but acts as an instrument of partisan enforcement and retribution (AP News, 2025). In such an environment, the rule of law becomes a weapon wielded selectively rather than a standard applied equally.

The ideological framework behind this shift is equally alarming. Influential figures within Trump’s inner circle, including J.D. Vance and Stephen Miller, advocate for what they term “post-liberal” governance. This philosophy openly rejects pluralism and treats democratic norms as expendable if they stand in the way of achieving right-wing political dominance. Rather than being embarrassed by authoritarian tactics, these actors embrace them as tools to achieve what they view as a higher cultural or political mission. The executive power grab is not accidental but rather a deliberate effort to reshape the United States into a regime that structurally favors one ideological faction (The Atlantic, 2025).

Even academia is under assault. Universities that have resisted administration pressure to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives have faced funding threats. Harvard University, for example, had $2.2 billion in federal grants frozen in retaliation for refusing to remove certain DEI programs (The Guardian, 2025). This effort to discipline institutions of higher learning is not merely symbolic. It signals an authoritarian desire to exert control over the production of knowledge and stifle ideological diversity.

Political scientists like Steven Levitsky, who have long studied democratic erosion in other parts of the world, now assert that the United States itself is no longer a full democracy. As Levitsky told NPR, “We are no longer living in a democratic regime” (Davies, 2025). Such a statement, unthinkable even a few years ago, now feels tragically plausible.

The descent into competitive authoritarianism is not inevitable, but it is advancing. If Americans—citizens, scholars, journalists, and public servants alike—fail to defend democratic principles with vigilance and moral clarity, they may soon find that the institutions they took for granted no longer offer any protection. Competitive authoritarianism thrives not in moments of crisis alone, but in the slow, grinding normalization of anti-democratic practices. The United States must wake up to the danger it now faces. The time for complacency has long passed.

References

Carey, J. (2025, April 22). Hundreds of scholars say U.S. is swiftly heading toward authoritarianism. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/nx-s1-5340753/trump-democracy-authoritarianism-competive-survey-political-scientist

Davies, D. (2025, April 22). America’s path to ‘competitive authoritarianism’: Political scientist warns U.S. democracy is unraveling. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/1246322283/levitsky-harvard-democracy

Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2010). Competitive authoritarianism: Hybrid regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge University Press.

The Atlantic. (2025, April 17). A loophole that would swallow the Constitution. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/04/trump-constitution-abrego-garcia/682487/

The Guardian. (2025, April 20). The Trump-Harvard showdown is the latest front in a long conservative war against academia. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/20/harvard-trump-conservative-history-academia

Vanity Fair. (2025, April 23). Trump’s attacks on press freedom are paving the way for authoritarianism. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/trump-press-freedom-authoritarianism

AP News. (2025, March 15). Trump’s moves test the limits of presidential power and the resilience of US democracy. https://apnews.com/article/542ac437a58880e81c052f8f2df1643f

Trump’s Rejection of Judicial Authority

By Katherine Walter

On April 17, 2025

In Donald Trump

GREENBELT, MARYLAND – APRIL 15: Protesters show support for Jennifer Vasquez Sura, the wife of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, outside Federal Court on April 15, 2025 in Greenbelt, Maryland. The Trump administration admits Abrego Garcia was deported accidentally but has not yet acted on a judge’s order to facilitate his return to the U.S. (Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

The ongoing refusal of the Trump administration to comply with a United States Supreme Court order to assist in the return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia marks a chilling affront to the American legal system and the principle of judicial supremacy. Garcia, a lawful permanent resident of the United States and father of a disabled child, was wrongly deported to El Salvador on March 15, 2025, in direct violation of an existing court order. The administration later acknowledged that his removal was an “administrative error”—yet, despite this admission, it has failed to take any substantial action to correct it (Kirchgaessner, 2025). This failure is not simply a bureaucratic misstep. It represents a dangerous consolidation of executive power at the expense of the judiciary and the rule of law.

Upon his arrival in El Salvador, Garcia was detained in the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT), a mega-prison that has gained international notoriety for its brutal conditions and widespread human rights violations (D’Onfro, 2025). His detention there was not based on any criminal wrongdoing, but rather on the Salvadoran government’s agreement to hold him after his improper deportation from the United States. Legal advocates, human rights observers, and lawmakers have described his treatment as an egregious miscarriage of justice, compounded by the U.S. government’s refusal to seek his repatriation.

On April 4, 2025, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis issued a ruling ordering the federal government to “facilitate” Garcia’s return. This was not merely a suggestion—it was a binding judicial order grounded in well-established principles of due process and the right to legal redress (Van Hollen, 2025). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling, affirming that Garcia’s deportation was unconstitutional and that the executive branch was obligated to act. When the matter reached the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices unanimously upheld the lower courts’ findings. Though the Court did not mandate Garcia’s immediate return—citing the limitations of compelling action from a foreign sovereign—it left no ambiguity regarding the federal government’s duty to actively work toward his release (Reeves, 2025).

The Trump administration’s response to this unanimous rebuke by the judiciary has been marked not by compliance but by continued defiance. President Trump has claimed that the administration lacks the authority to retrieve Garcia from El Salvador, despite the fact that it was the United States that deported him in the first place. In a joint statement with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, Trump asserted that the situation is now out of his hands, a position contradicted by constitutional scholars and the federal courts alike (D’Onfro, 2025; Kirchgaessner, 2025). This abdication of responsibility undermines the judiciary’s role as a co-equal branch of government and sets a precedent in which executive officials may disregard lawful court orders without consequence.

The implications of this case extend far beyond the personal suffering of Kilmar Abrego Garcia and his family. They cut to the heart of American constitutional democracy. When a president refuses to obey a lawful order from the Supreme Court, he does not merely flout protocol—he challenges the very structure of governance. The U.S. legal system depends on the principle that no individual, including the president, is above the law. By ignoring the Court’s decision, the Trump administration has placed itself outside this principle, signaling that judicial mandates are subject to executive convenience rather than constitutional obligation.

Senator Chris Van Hollen, who has taken the unusual step of traveling to El Salvador to personally advocate for Garcia’s release, has characterized the administration’s inaction as a “constitutional crisis” (Van Hollen, 2025). Legal experts and political observers have warned that this incident could erode public confidence in the judiciary and embolden future administrations to disregard unfavorable rulings. Edward Luce (2025), writing for Reuters, noted that “defying the Supreme Court is not just a political gambit—it is a direct assault on the legitimacy of the courts themselves.” If this approach is allowed to stand unchallenged, it risks normalizing a pattern of executive overreach that may be far more damaging to American democracy than any single deportation.

This episode also raises serious questions about the role of international diplomacy in protecting human rights. By deporting a lawful resident into the custody of a foreign prison system with a documented history of abuse, and then refusing to advocate for his return, the U.S. government has abandoned not only Garcia but also its commitment to due process and basic human dignity. The fact that the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision has been effectively ignored should alarm anyone who values the rule of law.

The crisis surrounding Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s wrongful deportation is more than a legal dispute; it is a moral reckoning. It confronts Americans with the question of whether the constitutional checks and balances that have long defined our system of government still hold in practice. The judiciary must not be reduced to a symbolic institution whose rulings can be disregarded at will by the executive branch. Upholding the Court’s authority is not optional—it is essential to preserving the democratic fabric of the nation. If the president is permitted to ignore the courts with impunity, the consequences will reverberate through every aspect of American governance, weakening the very foundations of justice and accountability.

References

D’Onfro, J. (2025, April 10). Trump escalates fight over deportees in El Salvador, weighs sending Americans there next. TIME. https://time.com/7277797/trump-escalates-fight-over-deportees-in-el-salvador-weighs-sending-americans-there-next/

Kirchgaessner, S. (2025, April 8). Judges threaten to prosecute Trump officials over deportation of migrants. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/08/kilmar-abrego-garcia-deportation-trump-court

Luce, E. (2025, April 17). Defiance of U.S. Supreme Court poses tricky price. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/defiance-us-supreme-court-is-tricky-price-2025-04-17/

Reeves, R. (2025, April 12). Supreme Court rebukes Trump over deportation case, calls for Garcia’s return. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/12/us/politics/supreme-court-garcia-deportation.html

Van Hollen, C. (2025, April 14). Statement on efforts to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia. U.S. Senate Press Release. https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/statement-on-efforts-to-return-kilmar-abrego-garcia

The Federalist Society: Expanding Influence Beyond the Courts

By Katherine Walter

On November 28, 2024

In Federalist Society

The Federalist Society has long been a powerful player in shaping the U.S. judiciary, particularly with its substantial impact on the Supreme Court. With six of the nine justices currently linked to the Society, its influence is undeniable. However, its ambitions reach far beyond the courts. The group is now actively working to extend its conservative vision into other influential sectors, including business, media, and technology. This broadening of influence is part of a larger conservative agenda to reshape American society through a multi-pronged strategy.

The Federalist Society’s Influence in Business and Wall Street

The Federalist Society’s efforts to influence corporate America are significant. The organization has built ties with major businesses and financial sectors, advocating for a deregulatory approach that benefits corporate interests. This alignment with Wall Street promotes a conservative free-market ideology that favors limited government intervention in business practices, environmental regulations, and corporate governance. From a liberal standpoint, this is troubling because it threatens to undermine progressive policies focused on regulating industries, addressing climate change, and protecting consumers. As the influence of the Federalist Society grows, it becomes clear that conservative ideals about capitalism are increasingly dictating the direction of American business practices (Feldman, 2024; Hawley, 2024).

In Silicon Valley, the Federalist Society’s concerns about tech regulation, including issues like censorship, privacy, and antitrust laws, highlight its opposition to progressive regulatory frameworks. As technology companies continue to face scrutiny over their role in political discourse, the Federalist Society’s push for a lighter touch from regulators clashes with calls for stricter oversight. This divide is emblematic of the ongoing debate over the role of government in regulating powerful tech firms, with the Society advocating for fewer restrictions that align with its conservative values (Feldman, 2024).

Hollywood and the Cultural Battle

The Federalist Society’s influence extends into the cultural realm as well, particularly in Hollywood. Conservative leaders within the Society are pushing to counter what they see as a liberal bias in the entertainment industry. They aim to ensure that films, TV shows, and other media reflect conservative values, contributing to the ongoing cultural battle over issues such as gender, race, and the role of government. This effort is part of a broader movement to reshape public discourse and challenge what conservatives perceive as an ideological monopoly in cultural production (Feldman, 2024).

Leonard Leo: The Architect Behind the Movement

At the heart of the Federalist Society’s judicial and cultural influence is Leonard Leo. As one of the Society’s leading figures, Leo has been instrumental in shaping the judicial appointments that have cemented the conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Beyond the courts, Leo has deep ties to conservative donors and business figures, including the Koch brothers, further amplifying his influence across various sectors. His connections to corporate and political elites highlight the interconnectedness of the Federalist Society’s ambitions in reshaping not just the judiciary, but also business, media, and policy at large (Hawley, 2024; NPR, 2024).

Leo’s efforts to reshape American society go beyond simply nominating judges; they reflect a broader strategy to create a network of like-minded individuals and organizations that can influence policy in ways that favor conservative economic and social values. His role in promoting these connections underscores the Federalist Society’s growing power and its ambition to reshape all aspects of American governance and culture (Hawley, 2024).

A Liberal Critique: Undermining Democracy and Progress

From a liberal perspective, the Federalist Society’s expansion into business, media, and other influential sectors is deeply concerning. The group’s push for deregulation and limited government intervention in both the economy and tech industry poses a direct challenge to progressive efforts to protect workers, consumers, and the environment. By aligning itself with powerful corporate interests, the Federalist Society is seen as prioritizing elite, conservative agendas over the needs of the broader public.

The organization’s focus on judicial activism is also problematic. While the Federalist Society claims to be promoting neutral legal philosophy, its alignment with conservative political movements and business elites reveals its true goal: to advance a right-wing agenda that undermines democratic processes and curtails civil rights. The increasing power of the Supreme Court, as shaped by the Federalist Society, raises alarms about the erosion of democracy and the rule of law in favor of a conservative agenda that ignores the will of the people (NPR, 2024; Hawley, 2024).

Conclusion

The Federalist Society’s growing influence beyond the judiciary is a significant shift in the conservative movement’s strategy to reshape American society. Through its efforts to infiltrate business, media, and tech industries, the Society is pushing a right-wing agenda that threatens to undermine progressive policies and democratic values. With figures like Leonard Leo at the helm, the Federalist Society is well-positioned to continue its efforts to shape not only the law but also the cultural and economic fabric of the nation. For liberals, this marks a troubling expansion of conservative power that requires a strong, coordinated response to ensure that democratic values and public welfare are not sidelined in favor of corporate and ideological interests.