ACLU: For Undocumented Immigrants, Being ‘Good’ Is Not Good Enough

For Undocumented Immigrants, Being ‘Good’ Is Not Good Enough

*Name has been changed to protect identities

Just days after Donald Trump’s first inauguration, Sarah* and Matt* rushed to City Hall to get married, not because of romance or tradition, but because they were terrified. A recently-signed executive order that came to be known as the “Muslim Ban” signaled to them that the administration would wage war on immigrants. In fact, that war had already begun.

“I never thought about marriage as a necessity,” Sarah explains. “But once Trump was elected, my knee-jerk reaction was to protect [Matt.] I thought marriage might give me some power. At least I could ask where he was if he got detained.”

Sarah, a U.S. citizen, and Matt, who is undocumented, met in the early 2000s. Their friendship grew over shared experiences and conversations, especially during a stretch when Sarah left the country to visit relatives and realized that, before coming to America, Matt had lived in a similar area as her relatives. Their connection, forged long before Matt’s immigration status became a threat, turned into a committed partnership.

After Trump took office, the stakes changed.

Being married to a U.S. citizen does not protect an undocumented person from being deported or detained. Even attempting to pursue legal status involves navigating a punishing and expensive bureaucracy.

“You have to qualify for a [hardship] waiver and then you have to leave the country for an interview. [Nothing is] guaranteed. It’s all a gamble—and a very costly one,” Sarah says. “We didn’t realize how high the bar was, or how many roadblocks were ahead.”

Matt has lived in the U.S. for more than 20 years. He pays taxes with an IRS-issued Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN). “Since day one,” he says, “I’ve done what’s right. But none of that matters. With Trump [there’s now a] target on my back. It’s no longer about whether I’m ‘good’—it’s about when [the immigration agents] come for me.”

Reality for Sarah and Matt is a constant, grinding anxiety. The threat isn’t just deportation, but unlawful detention. “Our worst fear is being separated,” Sarah says. “The detention system is designed to exploit people. Bodies are now a commodity.”

After they were married, Sarah and Matt applied for what’s known as a hardship waiver, which allows an individual who is otherwise inadmissible to the U.S. to pursue legal citizenship if they can prove that their removal would cause extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen family member. To qualify, they were forced to submit extensive documentation, go through biometric screenings and provide Sarah’s medical records. Giving the U.S. government this much information on them without the guarantee their waiver may be granted has only deepened their vulnerability.

“You give them everything—bank accounts, personal history—and in the end, all it does is make you easier to find if they decide to take you,” Sarah says.

Their plans—going back to school, building a future—are suspended. Every ounce of energy goes into staying safe, navigating bureaucracy, and advocating for others in similar situations.

“There’s no plan,” Matt says. “We just take it day by day. If I leave the house, I wonder if I’ll come back.”

Even basic employment is now difficult. Without a work permit, Matt can’t get a stable job, even though he’s worked multiple jobs for years to support his family.

“People don’t understand,” Sarah says. “There is no visa for a dishwasher. There’s no path for the people doing the essential work that keeps this country running.”

Sarah tried to secure “parole in place” status for Matt—a policy that allowed undocumented spouses of citizens to apply for work permits without risk of raids. It was swiftly shut down after political opposition.

“It makes me resentful when people claim immigrants are here to steal jobs,” Matt says. “I didn’t come here to take anything. I came here because it was my last choice. Either I migrate somewhere or I end up dead or jailed in my home country.”

Sarah adds that, in her experience not just with Matt, but with others in their community, it’s become clear that the “system is designed to exploit. You’re good enough to pay taxes and into social security, but not good enough to be protected or have rights. That’s the trap.”

"You’re good enough to pay taxes and into social security, but not good enough to be protected or have rights. That’s the trap.”

Sarah and Matt’s story is a reminder that the immigration system in the U.S. is more punitive than probative. Matt has consistently attempted to find legal paths to citizenship and has been consistently denied. Sarah has consistently advocated for her partner but, in a political climate where immigration is a wedge issue, she fears that scapegoating, racism and discrimination now defines U.S. policy.

“All we want now is peace,” Sarah says. “We just don’t want to be terrorized by our government. They’re stealing our time, our quality of life. It’s hideous."

Published May 23, 2025 at 09:47PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/ElpSUWT

ACLU: For Undocumented Immigrants, Being ‘Good’ Is Not Good Enough

For Undocumented Immigrants, Being ‘Good’ Is Not Good Enough

*Name has been changed to protect identities

Just days after Donald Trump’s first inauguration, Sarah* and Matt* rushed to City Hall to get married, not because of romance or tradition, but because they were terrified. A recently-signed executive order that came to be known as the “Muslim Ban” signaled to them that the administration would wage war on immigrants. In fact, that war had already begun.

“I never thought about marriage as a necessity,” Sarah explains. “But once Trump was elected, my knee-jerk reaction was to protect [Matt.] I thought marriage might give me some power. At least I could ask where he was if he got detained.”

Sarah, a U.S. citizen, and Matt, who is undocumented, met in the early 2000s. Their friendship grew over shared experiences and conversations, especially during a stretch when Sarah left the country to visit relatives and realized that, before coming to America, Matt had lived in a similar area as her relatives. Their connection, forged long before Matt’s immigration status became a threat, turned into a committed partnership.

After Trump took office, the stakes changed.

Being married to a U.S. citizen does not protect an undocumented person from being deported or detained. Even attempting to pursue legal status involves navigating a punishing and expensive bureaucracy.

“You have to qualify for a [hardship] waiver and then you have to leave the country for an interview. [Nothing is] guaranteed. It’s all a gamble—and a very costly one,” Sarah says. “We didn’t realize how high the bar was, or how many roadblocks were ahead.”

Matt has lived in the U.S. for more than 20 years. He pays taxes with an IRS-issued Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN). “Since day one,” he says, “I’ve done what’s right. But none of that matters. With Trump [there’s now a] target on my back. It’s no longer about whether I’m ‘good’—it’s about when [the immigration agents] come for me.”

Reality for Sarah and Matt is a constant, grinding anxiety. The threat isn’t just deportation, but unlawful detention. “Our worst fear is being separated,” Sarah says. “The detention system is designed to exploit people. Bodies are now a commodity.”

After they were married, Sarah and Matt applied for what’s known as a hardship waiver, which allows an individual who is otherwise inadmissible to the U.S. to pursue legal citizenship if they can prove that their removal would cause extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen family member. To qualify, they were forced to submit extensive documentation, go through biometric screenings and provide Sarah’s medical records. Giving the U.S. government this much information on them without the guarantee their waiver may be granted has only deepened their vulnerability.

“You give them everything—bank accounts, personal history—and in the end, all it does is make you easier to find if they decide to take you,” Sarah says.

Their plans—going back to school, building a future—are suspended. Every ounce of energy goes into staying safe, navigating bureaucracy, and advocating for others in similar situations.

“There’s no plan,” Matt says. “We just take it day by day. If I leave the house, I wonder if I’ll come back.”

Even basic employment is now difficult. Without a work permit, Matt can’t get a stable job, even though he’s worked multiple jobs for years to support his family.

“People don’t understand,” Sarah says. “There is no visa for a dishwasher. There’s no path for the people doing the essential work that keeps this country running.”

Sarah tried to secure “parole in place” status for Matt—a policy that allowed undocumented spouses of citizens to apply for work permits without risk of raids. It was swiftly shut down after political opposition.

“It makes me resentful when people claim immigrants are here to steal jobs,” Matt says. “I didn’t come here to take anything. I came here because it was my last choice. Either I migrate somewhere or I end up dead or jailed in my home country.”

Sarah adds that, in her experience not just with Matt, but with others in their community, it’s become clear that the “system is designed to exploit. You’re good enough to pay taxes and into social security, but not good enough to be protected or have rights. That’s the trap.”

"You’re good enough to pay taxes and into social security, but not good enough to be protected or have rights. That’s the trap.”

Sarah and Matt’s story is a reminder that the immigration system in the U.S. is more punitive than probative. Matt has consistently attempted to find legal paths to citizenship and has been consistently denied. Sarah has consistently advocated for her partner but, in a political climate where immigration is a wedge issue, she fears that scapegoating, racism and discrimination now defines U.S. policy.

“All we want now is peace,” Sarah says. “We just don’t want to be terrorized by our government. They’re stealing our time, our quality of life. It’s hideous."

Published May 23, 2025 at 05:17PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/9roaU2I

ACLU: ‘Devastated’ and ‘Hopeless.’ Researchers Speak Out on Funding Cuts

‘Devastated’ and ‘Hopeless.’ Researchers Speak Out on Funding Cuts

In February, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) — the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research — began an ideological purge of its grants. Without warning, hundreds of research projects — many of which had been underway for years, representing thousands of hours of work and billions of dollars in investment — were abruptly cancelled without a scientifically valid explanation. The NIH cited only vague connections to “gender identity” and “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI), or other now-forbidden topics such as vaccine hesitancy and COVID, as justification, claiming these projects no longer aligned with “agency priorities.”

These funding cuts raise serious ethical concerns for study participants and risk many life-saving findings going unpublished. The NIH has undermined research on life-threatening diseases that affect us all like cancer, HIV, and Alzheimer’s — and dangerously implies that some patients are more worthy of care than others. These actions stifle scientific progress and put lives at risk.

Importantly, under long-standing law and practice, NIH does not have the authority to arbitrarily terminate grants. Its funding decisions must be guided by congressional mandates, regulatory requirements, and scientific expertise, not vague and undefined criteria.

The ACLU won’t let political ideology dictate public health. So we sued.

On behalf of researchers, the American Public Health Association (APHA), the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), and Ibis Reproductive Health, the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging this sweeping cancellation of grants. Joining us are our ACLU of Massachusetts affiliate, and our partners at Protect Democracy and the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Behind each cancelled grant was a team of scientists who had spent months — often years — crafting applications that ran over 200 pages, marshaling data and community partnerships to explain why the scientific gap they aimed to fill was urgent and nationally significant. Beyond funding, securing a grant was a vote of confidence in the scientific merit and public health importance of their work.

As part of our lawsuit, we collected statements from affected scientists as they lay off staff, prematurely end interventions, and dismantle years of work. Below, they describe the real consequences — on science, communities, and the future of public health — when research is erased for political reasons.

Peter Lurie

In my decades of research on HIV prevention and drug regulation, I have seen science meaningfully advance public health. Before NIH abruptly terminated our grant, I was advising a project with the potential to significantly expand access to urgently needed HIV prevention.

The NIH-funded OFFSCRIPT grant was the first study to evaluate the impact of making PrEP, a medication that significantly reduces the risk of HIV transmission, available over the counter. Although PrEP is highly effective, it remains underutilized. This research aimed to close that gap by studying how to expand access, particularly for high-risk communities. At the time of our grant’s cancellation, we were midway through work on three primary study aims. All have been halted and, now, knowledge that could have stopped the transmission of HIV is out of reach.

The termination letter was vague and did not give guidance on how to responsibly close out the study or manage participants already enrolled. Instead, NIH cited that because our grant was “based on gender identity,” it no longer aligned with “agency priorities.” This was both inaccurate and confusing. Our work on the OFFSCRIPT grant was not based on gender identity. Rather, it examined strategies to expand access to PrEP for all patients, with a focus on populations disproportionately affected by HIV and most likely to benefit from prevention measures, including cisgender men who have sex with men, transgender women, and cisgender women. NIH’s own Strategic Plan for 2021-2025 includes a bold prediction that its research will “significantly reduce the number of new HIV infections” through new implementation strategies for PrEP. OFFSCRIPT was directly aligned with that goal.

HIV prevention is a topic of great personal and professional importance to me. Now, that research has been suspended at a great loss to public health.

Nicole Maphis

My research is dedicated to my grandmother, who was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. Watching her condition worsen shaped my commitment to understanding Alzheimer’s and dementia more deeply. While I was in the process of applying for a training grant, NIH stripped away its funding and cost me two years of career-defining experience.

Of the nearly 7 million Americans living with Alzheimer’s, fewer than 5 percent have a known genetic cause. That means that the vast majority develop the disease without a clear familial link. I study whether excessive alcohol consumption during critical periods of life can increase this risk, which is an emerging area of research. Scientists have begun to identify this connection, but much remains unknown. My research aims to explain how alcohol exposure may prime the brain for Alzheimer’s and to ultimately identify ways to reduce or prevent that harm.

To pursue this work, I applied for NIH’s MOSAIC K99/R00 award, which supports early-career scientists from underrepresented backgrounds. I am a woman, a first-generation college graduate, and I come from a low-income family. I devote significant time to STEM outreach, including teaching neuroscience workshops to 7th-grade girls. I applied for MOSAIC because I thrive in mentorship-based programs, and the structure would have positioned me for a faculty career.

Over the course of 70 weeks, I poured hundreds of hours into my application — time I could have used writing for publications or developing other proposals. When my first submission was not discussed, I revised it carefully based on reviewer feedback and submitted it again. I had no reason to think my application was at risk, until I noticed the MOSAIC program announcement had closed two years early and the website was quietly taken down. When I contacted NIH, I was eventually told that my application had been placed on hold while the agency “reviewed its research priorities.”

After many emails, calls, and even secondhand updates on social media, I learned that my proposal had been removed from the discussion list the morning of review. I would also not receive any feedback on it. On March 21, a reviewer who participated in that meeting told me that my application was “highly regarded and likely to have received funding” if NIH had not changed course.

Now that NIH is refusing to consider my application, I feel like my career trajectory has been limited. NIH has shelved research that would have deepened public understanding of how alcohol may contribute to Alzheimer’s disease and offered new paths for intervention. That work is on hold, and so is my career.

Brittany Charlton

I was raised in a family of proud union nurses. Service, fairness, and standing up for those in need are beliefs that I hold deeply. I was called to public health through academic work, advocacy, and frontline care in LGBTQ communities. I am an associate professor at Harvard Medical School and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Last year, I founded the LGBTQ Health Center of Excellence. Over the past 15 years, I have received continuous NIH funding and secured more than 15 grants. But I have never seen grants rescinded so abruptly or with so little care for the researchers and participants involved.

In March, NIH terminated my entire portfolio of grants, resulting in nearly $6 million in lost funding to address LGBTQ health inequities. This is no minor adjustment. Rather, it is the abrupt defunding of one of the most federally-supported research programs on LGBTQ health in the world. With its terminations, the NIH sent a chilling message that research serving marginalized communities is no longer safe or sustainable.

My work was intended to improve the mental health of LGBTQ young adults, address adverse pregnancy outcomes of lesbian and bisexual women, and study how LGBTQ couples form families. Despite their documented impact, NIH terminated my grants because they ignored “biological realities” and were based on “gender identity.” As a result, critical findings — such as data showing that lesbian women are nearly three times as likely to experience stillbirth as heterosexual women — may never be published. As this research sits unfinished, more patients will suffer harm and systemic inequities will remain unaddressed.

At the time of these terminations, my team was actively conducting sensitive, in-depth interviews with young people. Participants were sharing intensely personal stories about the toll of anti-LGBTQ policies such as “Don’t Say Gay” laws. The next day, we abruptly cancelled multiple interviews. This sudden disruption jeopardizes the emotional well-being of already vulnerable young people and makes it clear that their contributions were not treated with the gravity they deserved. These are serious ethical concerns. Even if funding were restored today, I am not sure these participants would — or should — trust us again.

The loss of my entire grant portfolio has incapacitated the LGBTQ Health Center of Excellence. I can no longer compensate the team members who support these studies and have already made the devastating decision to let go of a senior member. I fear I will have to let go of the entire team.

Worse still, some of the brightest scientists in public health and medicine are now walking away from this field. Fearing that their scholarship is no longer safe or valued, some are taking medical leave for mental health reasons, while others downplay their focus on health equity in their CVs. Beyond the loss of individual careers, these terminations are the quiet dismantling of a generation of future leaders in medicine and public health. With them goes the hope for a more equitable future.

Katie Edwards

I saw firsthand the devastation that sexual violence causes. At a young age, I wanted to do something to prevent it and have dedicated my entire career to identifying solutions that can prevent sexual and related forms of violence among the most vulnerable youth in our nation.Now, instead of focusing on our life-saving work, I often spend 15 hours a day trying to manage the fallout from NIH’s unprecedented cancellations of my grants.

LGBTQ+ youth experience disproportionately higher rates of violence and adversity than their counterparts — rates that increase at the intersection of race, gender and sexuality. Early in my career, I realized how little research existed to understand these disparities and that violence prevention strategies specifically for LGBTQ+ youth and Indigenous youth were essentially nonexistent. My work has since focused on filling this gap: our lab was the first to show reduced violence and alcohol use among LGBTQ+ youth and sexual violence among Indigenous youth. Beyond preventing violence, this work is helping youth to feel proud of who they are and to be hopeful about their futures.

In March, NIH abruptly terminated six grants for which I was a principal investigator or co-investigator. Across those awards, it cited that each project “no longer effectuates agency priorities,” without any individualized feedback, advance notice, or acknowledgement of our published progress. I do not understand how rigorous, peer-reviewed research intended to protect vulnerable youth conflicts with agency priorities that seem to have shifted overnight with no official policy that I was made aware of. Most concerning is the message that this sends to vulnerable youth: you are not a priority and you do not matter. All of this will cost lives.

One terminated grant aimed to predict which factors lead to sexual assault among sexual-minority men and trans-masculine people and to support their recovery. We made significant progress on this study since its approval in 2022. NIH even renewed it three times. Our goal was to offer evidence-based guidance to reduce disparities and the staggering costs of sexual violence in the U.S. Now that funding is gone, we cannot develop recommendations, and the communities served by this research will no longer benefit. This was the largest study ever on sexual assault among sexual minority men and it is devestating that so much hard work, thoughtfulness, and heart went into a project that now collapsing.

Building on work done by a previously funded NIH project, another terminated grant tested a caregiver program to help families build bonds and support LGBTQ+ youth. We were mid-intervention with our first cohort when our funding was pulled. To abide by our ethical obligations, we were forced to prematurely begin interventions for the control group and can no longer test our hypotheses using a rigorous randomized control methodology. We also had to pause recruitment, which means that dozens of families who would have likely benefited from the intervention cannot access the intervention. This sends a message to families that they do not matter to the current administration.

Altogether, the six terminations represent millions in lost funding — a devastating loss to my research team, the communities we serve, and our study participants. I am racing to find replacement funding. While I have already submitted more than 25 proposals to nonprofit and donor organizations, to date we have raised about $10,000. While we are deeply grateful for these funds, they cannot make up for the millions of dollars lost and I am not hopeful that despite how hard we try to raise other funds, we will come close to what we lost in NIH funding.

On a personal level, I have never been more devastated in my entire life. The emotional and physical toll this has taken on me feels insurmountable and is impacting my family too. I am doing everything I can not to give up and to stay strong for the youth and communities I serve and my 50+ staff. They are the reason I do this work and the reason I must continue to fight for justice in public health research.

Published May 16, 2025 at 10:51PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/PewYKH3

ACLU: ‘Devastated’ and ‘Hopeless.’ Researchers Speak Out on Funding Cuts

‘Devastated’ and ‘Hopeless.’ Researchers Speak Out on Funding Cuts

In February, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) — the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research — began an ideological purge of its grants. Without warning, hundreds of research projects — many of which had been underway for years, representing thousands of hours of work and billions of dollars in investment — were abruptly cancelled without a scientifically valid explanation. The NIH cited only vague connections to “gender identity” and “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI), or other now-forbidden topics such as vaccine hesitancy and COVID, as justification, claiming these projects no longer aligned with “agency priorities.”

These funding cuts raise serious ethical concerns for study participants and risk many life-saving findings going unpublished. The NIH has undermined research on life-threatening diseases that affect us all like cancer, HIV, and Alzheimer’s — and dangerously implies that some patients are more worthy of care than others. These actions stifle scientific progress and put lives at risk.

Importantly, under long-standing law and practice, NIH does not have the authority to arbitrarily terminate grants. Its funding decisions must be guided by congressional mandates, regulatory requirements, and scientific expertise, not vague and undefined criteria.

The ACLU won’t let political ideology dictate public health. So we sued.

On behalf of researchers, the American Public Health Association (APHA), the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), and Ibis Reproductive Health, the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging this sweeping cancellation of grants. Joining us are our ACLU of Massachusetts affiliate, and our partners at Protect Democracy and the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Behind each cancelled grant was a team of scientists who had spent months — often years — crafting applications that ran over 200 pages, marshaling data and community partnerships to explain why the scientific gap they aimed to fill was urgent and nationally significant. Beyond funding, securing a grant was a vote of confidence in the scientific merit and public health importance of their work.

As part of our lawsuit, we collected statements from affected scientists as they lay off staff, prematurely end interventions, and dismantle years of work. Below, they describe the real consequences — on science, communities, and the future of public health — when research is erased for political reasons.

Peter Lurie

In my decades of research on HIV prevention and drug regulation, I have seen science meaningfully advance public health. Before NIH abruptly terminated our grant, I was advising a project with the potential to significantly expand access to urgently needed HIV prevention.

The NIH-funded OFFSCRIPT grant was the first study to evaluate the impact of making PrEP, a medication that significantly reduces the risk of HIV transmission, available over the counter. Although PrEP is highly effective, it remains underutilized. This research aimed to close that gap by studying how to expand access, particularly for high-risk communities. At the time of our grant’s cancellation, we were midway through work on three primary study aims. All have been halted and, now, knowledge that could have stopped the transmission of HIV is out of reach.

The termination letter was vague and did not give guidance on how to responsibly close out the study or manage participants already enrolled. Instead, NIH cited that because our grant was “based on gender identity,” it no longer aligned with “agency priorities.” This was both inaccurate and confusing. Our work on the OFFSCRIPT grant was not based on gender identity. Rather, it examined strategies to expand access to PrEP for all patients, with a focus on populations disproportionately affected by HIV and most likely to benefit from prevention measures, including cisgender men who have sex with men, transgender women, and cisgender women. NIH’s own Strategic Plan for 2021-2025 includes a bold prediction that its research will “significantly reduce the number of new HIV infections” through new implementation strategies for PrEP. OFFSCRIPT was directly aligned with that goal.

HIV prevention is a topic of great personal and professional importance to me. Now, that research has been suspended at a great loss to public health.

Nicole Maphis

My research is dedicated to my grandmother, who was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. Watching her condition worsen shaped my commitment to understanding Alzheimer’s and dementia more deeply. While I was in the process of applying for a training grant, NIH stripped away its funding and cost me two years of career-defining experience.

Of the nearly 7 million Americans living with Alzheimer’s, fewer than 5 percent have a known genetic cause. That means that the vast majority develop the disease without a clear familial link. I study whether excessive alcohol consumption during critical periods of life can increase this risk, which is an emerging area of research. Scientists have begun to identify this connection, but much remains unknown. My research aims to explain how alcohol exposure may prime the brain for Alzheimer’s and to ultimately identify ways to reduce or prevent that harm.

To pursue this work, I applied for NIH’s MOSAIC K99/R00 award, which supports early-career scientists from underrepresented backgrounds. I am a woman, a first-generation college graduate, and I come from a low-income family. I devote significant time to STEM outreach, including teaching neuroscience workshops to 7th-grade girls. I applied for MOSAIC because I thrive in mentorship-based programs, and the structure would have positioned me for a faculty career.

Over the course of 70 weeks, I poured hundreds of hours into my application — time I could have used writing for publications or developing other proposals. When my first submission was not discussed, I revised it carefully based on reviewer feedback and submitted it again. I had no reason to think my application was at risk, until I noticed the MOSAIC program announcement had closed two years early and the website was quietly taken down. When I contacted NIH, I was eventually told that my application had been placed on hold while the agency “reviewed its research priorities.”

After many emails, calls, and even secondhand updates on social media, I learned that my proposal had been removed from the discussion list the morning of review. I would also not receive any feedback on it. On March 21, a reviewer who participated in that meeting told me that my application was “highly regarded and likely to have received funding” if NIH had not changed course.

Now that NIH is refusing to consider my application, I feel like my career trajectory has been limited. NIH has shelved research that would have deepened public understanding of how alcohol may contribute to Alzheimer’s disease and offered new paths for intervention. That work is on hold, and so is my career.

Brittany Charlton

I was raised in a family of proud union nurses. Service, fairness, and standing up for those in need are beliefs that I hold deeply. I was called to public health through academic work, advocacy, and frontline care in LGBTQ communities. I am an associate professor at Harvard Medical School and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Last year, I founded the LGBTQ Health Center of Excellence. Over the past 15 years, I have received continuous NIH funding and secured more than 15 grants. But I have never seen grants rescinded so abruptly or with so little care for the researchers and participants involved.

In March, NIH terminated my entire portfolio of grants, resulting in nearly $6 million in lost funding to address LGBTQ health inequities. This is no minor adjustment. Rather, it is the abrupt defunding of one of the most federally-supported research programs on LGBTQ health in the world. With its terminations, the NIH sent a chilling message that research serving marginalized communities is no longer safe or sustainable.

My work was intended to improve the mental health of LGBTQ young adults, address adverse pregnancy outcomes of lesbian and bisexual women, and study how LGBTQ couples form families. Despite their documented impact, NIH terminated my grants because they ignored “biological realities” and were based on “gender identity.” As a result, critical findings — such as data showing that lesbian women are nearly three times as likely to experience stillbirth as heterosexual women — may never be published. As this research sits unfinished, more patients will suffer harm and systemic inequities will remain unaddressed.

At the time of these terminations, my team was actively conducting sensitive, in-depth interviews with young people. Participants were sharing intensely personal stories about the toll of anti-LGBTQ policies such as “Don’t Say Gay” laws. The next day, we abruptly cancelled multiple interviews. This sudden disruption jeopardizes the emotional well-being of already vulnerable young people and makes it clear that their contributions were not treated with the gravity they deserved. These are serious ethical concerns. Even if funding were restored today, I am not sure these participants would — or should — trust us again.

The loss of my entire grant portfolio has incapacitated the LGBTQ Health Center of Excellence. I can no longer compensate the team members who support these studies and have already made the devastating decision to let go of a senior member. I fear I will have to let go of the entire team.

Worse still, some of the brightest scientists in public health and medicine are now walking away from this field. Fearing that their scholarship is no longer safe or valued, some are taking medical leave for mental health reasons, while others downplay their focus on health equity in their CVs. Beyond the loss of individual careers, these terminations are the quiet dismantling of a generation of future leaders in medicine and public health. With them goes the hope for a more equitable future.

Katie Edwards

I saw firsthand the devastation that sexual violence causes. At a young age, I wanted to do something to prevent it and have dedicated my entire career to identifying solutions that can prevent sexual and related forms of violence among the most vulnerable youth in our nation.Now, instead of focusing on our life-saving work, I often spend 15 hours a day trying to manage the fallout from NIH’s unprecedented cancellations of my grants.

LGBTQ+ youth experience disproportionately higher rates of violence and adversity than their counterparts — rates that increase at the intersection of race, gender and sexuality. Early in my career, I realized how little research existed to understand these disparities and that violence prevention strategies specifically for LGBTQ+ youth and Indigenous youth were essentially nonexistent. My work has since focused on filling this gap: our lab was the first to show reduced violence and alcohol use among LGBTQ+ youth and sexual violence among Indigenous youth. Beyond preventing violence, this work is helping youth to feel proud of who they are and to be hopeful about their futures.

In March, NIH abruptly terminated six grants for which I was a principal investigator or co-investigator. Across those awards, it cited that each project “no longer effectuates agency priorities,” without any individualized feedback, advance notice, or acknowledgement of our published progress. I do not understand how rigorous, peer-reviewed research intended to protect vulnerable youth conflicts with agency priorities that seem to have shifted overnight with no official policy that I was made aware of. Most concerning is the message that this sends to vulnerable youth: you are not a priority and you do not matter. All of this will cost lives.

One terminated grant aimed to predict which factors lead to sexual assault among sexual-minority men and trans-masculine people and to support their recovery. We made significant progress on this study since its approval in 2022. NIH even renewed it three times. Our goal was to offer evidence-based guidance to reduce disparities and the staggering costs of sexual violence in the U.S. Now that funding is gone, we cannot develop recommendations, and the communities served by this research will no longer benefit. This was the largest study ever on sexual assault among sexual minority men and it is devestating that so much hard work, thoughtfulness, and heart went into a project that now collapsing.

Building on work done by a previously funded NIH project, another terminated grant tested a caregiver program to help families build bonds and support LGBTQ+ youth. We were mid-intervention with our first cohort when our funding was pulled. To abide by our ethical obligations, we were forced to prematurely begin interventions for the control group and can no longer test our hypotheses using a rigorous randomized control methodology. We also had to pause recruitment, which means that dozens of families who would have likely benefited from the intervention cannot access the intervention. This sends a message to families that they do not matter to the current administration.

Altogether, the six terminations represent millions in lost funding — a devastating loss to my research team, the communities we serve, and our study participants. I am racing to find replacement funding. While I have already submitted more than 25 proposals to nonprofit and donor organizations, to date we have raised about $10,000. While we are deeply grateful for these funds, they cannot make up for the millions of dollars lost and I am not hopeful that despite how hard we try to raise other funds, we will come close to what we lost in NIH funding.

On a personal level, I have never been more devastated in my entire life. The emotional and physical toll this has taken on me feels insurmountable and is impacting my family too. I am doing everything I can not to give up and to stay strong for the youth and communities I serve and my 50+ staff. They are the reason I do this work and the reason I must continue to fight for justice in public health research.

Published May 16, 2025 at 06:21PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/ubF9YDI

ACLU: Voters Reject President Trump's Dystopian Plans for "Public Safety"

Voters Reject President Trump's Dystopian Plans for "Public Safety"

President Donald Trump has been pushing mass deportations, aggressive law enforcement measures, and a sweeping expansion of the death penalty as the path to public safety— all while cutting the very programs that actually make communities safer.

Voters aren’t buying it.

New research from the American Civil Liberties Union, conducted in February 2025 in partnership with YouGov, shows voters want leaders to invest in crime prevention by improving access to mental-health care, addiction treatment, economic opportunities, and alternative crisis response models in lieu of punitive policies that harm and criminalize communities.

The Trump administration, however, has cut the very programs that voters want and that actually make communities safer.. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have slashed millions, and terminated funding entirely, for grant programs that make crime prevention possible. These cuts are sowing fear, chaos, and confusion—none of which foster community safety.

This week, ACLU leaders from our national office and 10 state affiliates will convene in Washington, D.C. for our second annual Community Safety Week where they will stand up to dangerous agenda and to demand that Congress safeguard proven solutions. Alongside grassroots advocates, public-health experts, violence intervention specialists, and alternative crisis response experts, we’ll be calling on Congress to reject harmful cuts and instead invest in community-based strategies that prevent violence, promote justice, and ensure long-term safety.

Americans Want Solutions That Uplift Communities Economically

The ACLU national survey of registered voters shows that economic issues are top of mind for most Americans. Thirty percent of voters say inflation and cost of living are their top concern, followed by 21 percent who say they are concerned about presidential abuse of power. Only five percent list crime and public safety as their most pressing issue. This doesn’t mean people don’t care about crime and public safety—it means they see it as connected to broader systemic failures. They recognize that crime is often a symptom of chronic underinvestment in healthcare, housing, and economic opportunity.

When it comes to public safety, Americans want solutions that economically uplift their communities. Seventy-nine percent of voters across the political spectrum say that addressing poverty, economic despair, and lack of opportunities would help improve safety in communities a lot or some.

The Public Supports Prevention Over Punishment

A supermajority of voters—85 percent—believe expanding mental healthcare and addiction treatment would improve safety in communities, with 68 percent of voters supporting sending mental-health specialists to appropriate crisis calls instead of police.

Most voters also believe that homelessness is a housing issue, not a crime issue. A majority of voters —75 percent—say that lack of affordable housing is the primary cause of homelessness, compared to 25 percent of voters who say that homelessness is caused by people being allowed to live on the street without facing criminal consequences. Seventy-seven percent say that we need to address homelessness through housing and services rather than arrests.

Cuts to essential services that help people out of homelessness, substance use disorders, and other mental health crises don’t just defy common sense, they run counter to what most Americans know is effective.

The Public Rejects Failed Mass Incarceration Policies

Voters don’t just prefer preventative policies— they also reject the notion that punitive measures make communities safe. In fact, 64 percent believe over-reliance on prisons causes many of the problems that lead to unsafe communities, such as homelessness, poverty, and drug or mental health challenges.

While elected leaders in both parties have relied on fear-based messaging, pushing ideas like enhanced criminal penalties and increased police power as the way to keep communities safe, voters no longer buy it. Sixty-six percent of voters say that we should prioritize rehabilitation over incarceration to safely reduce the prison population, demonstrating their belief that extreme sentencing is ineffective.

Trump Administration Funding Cuts Are Unpopular

Given voters’s clear support for investments that uplift communities, it’s not surprising that 60 percent are concerned that President Trump is going too far in slashing the federal government, eliminating important programs and critical services that many Americans rely on. Programs that have lost funding include those that provide mentorship to children, reduce violence, help people find housing, and provide addiction treatment and mental healthcare.

While cutting money for critical services Americans support, President Trump is simultaneously asking Congress for hundreds of millions of dollars to carry out deportation plans that most Americans don’t want and don’t believe contribute to safety. Sixty-three percent of voters are convinced that “deporting our neighbors and tearing apart families only makes private prison corporations and their CEOs richer” and that “politicians should prioritize real solutions to prevent crime and reduce violence, like investments in quality schools, living wages, affordable housing, and increased access to mental health and addiction treatment.”

Regardless of Political Party, Prevention Messaging Wins

Americans across the political divide want lawmakers to lead with solutions that prevent crime, rather than focusing on punishment in the aftermath. When elected officials —regardless of party affiliation— focus on the need to ensure access to healthcare, jobs, and housing in their public messaging, they win support by at least eight points, compared to someone focusing on putting more people behind bars.

Even in states that President Trump won, sometimes quite handily, voters prefer solutions over punishment. Voters in Tennessee (84%) and North Carolina (87%), for instance, agree that increasing access to mental healthcare and treatment for drug addiction would help improve safety in communities a lot or some. At the same time, 59 percent of North Carolina voters and 63 percent of Tennessee voters believe that an over-reliance on prisons causes unsafe communities.

Congress Must Listen to the Will of the People

Seizing funds proven to contribute to making our communities safer is reckless, cruel, and will lead to untold suffering and harm. When mental health clinics close, when homeless shelters lose funding, and when job training programs disappear, the social challenges don’t just vanish. They show up in emergency rooms, in overcrowded jails, and in rising desperation.

The American public agrees on a way forward in addressing the root causes of crime, and the roadmap is clear: invest in programs that help communities thrive, like affordable housing, healthcare, and harm reduction.

We’re on the Hill urging lawmakers to say no to President Trump’s cruel agenda and allocate money in ways that reflect the will of the American people. Take action and tell Congress to fund the essential services our communities urgently need.

Published May 6, 2025 at 10:42PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/cBUnN2A

ACLU: Voters Reject President Trump's Dystopian Plans for "Public Safety"

Voters Reject President Trump's Dystopian Plans for "Public Safety"

President Donald Trump has been pushing mass deportations, aggressive law enforcement measures, and a sweeping expansion of the death penalty as the path to public safety— all while cutting the very programs that actually make communities safer.

Voters aren’t buying it.

New research from the American Civil Liberties Union, conducted in February 2025 in partnership with YouGov, shows voters want leaders to invest in crime prevention by improving access to mental-health care, addiction treatment, economic opportunities, and alternative crisis response models in lieu of punitive policies that harm and criminalize communities.

The Trump administration, however, has cut the very programs that voters want and that actually make communities safer.. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have slashed millions, and terminated funding entirely, for grant programs that make crime prevention possible. These cuts are sowing fear, chaos, and confusion—none of which foster community safety.

This week, ACLU leaders from our national office and 10 state affiliates will convene in Washington, D.C. for our second annual Community Safety Week where they will stand up to dangerous agenda and to demand that Congress safeguard proven solutions. Alongside grassroots advocates, public-health experts, violence intervention specialists, and alternative crisis response experts, we’ll be calling on Congress to reject harmful cuts and instead invest in community-based strategies that prevent violence, promote justice, and ensure long-term safety.

Americans Want Solutions That Uplift Communities Economically

The ACLU national survey of registered voters shows that economic issues are top of mind for most Americans. Thirty percent of voters say inflation and cost of living are their top concern, followed by 21 percent who say they are concerned about presidential abuse of power. Only five percent list crime and public safety as their most pressing issue. This doesn’t mean people don’t care about crime and public safety—it means they see it as connected to broader systemic failures. They recognize that crime is often a symptom of chronic underinvestment in healthcare, housing, and economic opportunity.

When it comes to public safety, Americans want solutions that economically uplift their communities. Seventy-nine percent of voters across the political spectrum say that addressing poverty, economic despair, and lack of opportunities would help improve safety in communities a lot or some.

The Public Supports Prevention Over Punishment

A supermajority of voters—85 percent—believe expanding mental healthcare and addiction treatment would improve safety in communities, with 68 percent of voters supporting sending mental-health specialists to appropriate crisis calls instead of police.

Most voters also believe that homelessness is a housing issue, not a crime issue. A majority of voters —75 percent—say that lack of affordable housing is the primary cause of homelessness, compared to 25 percent of voters who say that homelessness is caused by people being allowed to live on the street without facing criminal consequences. Seventy-seven percent say that we need to address homelessness through housing and services rather than arrests.

Cuts to essential services that help people out of homelessness, substance use disorders, and other mental health crises don’t just defy common sense, they run counter to what most Americans know is effective.

The Public Rejects Failed Mass Incarceration Policies

Voters don’t just prefer preventative policies— they also reject the notion that punitive measures make communities safe. In fact, 64 percent believe over-reliance on prisons causes many of the problems that lead to unsafe communities, such as homelessness, poverty, and drug or mental health challenges.

While elected leaders in both parties have relied on fear-based messaging, pushing ideas like enhanced criminal penalties and increased police power as the way to keep communities safe, voters no longer buy it. Sixty-six percent of voters say that we should prioritize rehabilitation over incarceration to safely reduce the prison population, demonstrating their belief that extreme sentencing is ineffective.

Trump Administration Funding Cuts Are Unpopular

Given voters’s clear support for investments that uplift communities, it’s not surprising that 60 percent are concerned that President Trump is going too far in slashing the federal government, eliminating important programs and critical services that many Americans rely on. Programs that have lost funding include those that provide mentorship to children, reduce violence, help people find housing, and provide addiction treatment and mental healthcare.

While cutting money for critical services Americans support, President Trump is simultaneously asking Congress for hundreds of millions of dollars to carry out deportation plans that most Americans don’t want and don’t believe contribute to safety. Sixty-three percent of voters are convinced that “deporting our neighbors and tearing apart families only makes private prison corporations and their CEOs richer” and that “politicians should prioritize real solutions to prevent crime and reduce violence, like investments in quality schools, living wages, affordable housing, and increased access to mental health and addiction treatment.”

Regardless of Political Party, Prevention Messaging Wins

Americans across the political divide want lawmakers to lead with solutions that prevent crime, rather than focusing on punishment in the aftermath. When elected officials —regardless of party affiliation— focus on the need to ensure access to healthcare, jobs, and housing in their public messaging, they win support by at least eight points, compared to someone focusing on putting more people behind bars.

Even in states that President Trump won, sometimes quite handily, voters prefer solutions over punishment. Voters in Tennessee (84%) and North Carolina (87%), for instance, agree that increasing access to mental healthcare and treatment for drug addiction would help improve safety in communities a lot or some. At the same time, 59 percent of North Carolina voters and 63 percent of Tennessee voters believe that an over-reliance on prisons causes unsafe communities.

Congress Must Listen to the Will of the People

Seizing funds proven to contribute to making our communities safer is reckless, cruel, and will lead to untold suffering and harm. When mental health clinics close, when homeless shelters lose funding, and when job training programs disappear, the social challenges don’t just vanish. They show up in emergency rooms, in overcrowded jails, and in rising desperation.

The American public agrees on a way forward in addressing the root causes of crime, and the roadmap is clear: invest in programs that help communities thrive, like affordable housing, healthcare, and harm reduction.

We’re on the Hill urging lawmakers to say no to President Trump’s cruel agenda and allocate money in ways that reflect the will of the American people. Take action and tell Congress to fund the essential services our communities urgently need.

Published May 6, 2025 at 06:12PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/IEi49l0

ACLU: Your Questions Answered: Trump’s First 100 Days

Your Questions Answered: Trump’s First 100 Days

In the first 100 days of President Donald Trump’s second term, we’ve seen a whirlwind of executive orders, policy proposals, and media commentary that have left many of us questioning the future of our democracy. It can be hard to separate what’s truly important, what’s fact, and what can be done to safeguard our rights. We believe that an informed public is a powerful one, and we're here to help you understand the policies shaping our country,

Since January, our legal and advocacy experts have been breaking down the implications of Trump’s executive orders. These actions seek to roll back DEI efforts, attack birthright citizenship, target trans people, and attempt to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. We’ve also explained unlawful threats, such as Trump’s attempt to invoke the Insurrection Act, use outdated laws to deport millions, and silence speech that challenges his discriminatory agenda. In addition, we shared materials about what your rights are, how to exercise them, and what to do if they’re violated.

We know you have questions, and we have answers. Below, you’ll find answers to five of the most pressing questions we’ve received about Trump’s first 100 days in office. This is the first in our ongoing series, “Your Questions Answered,” where we bring your questions about civil liberties and civil rights issues directly to ACLU experts.

Trump issued a flurry of executive orders that targeted not just our civil liberties, but entire communities. Is this legal?

An executive order is a written directive, signed by the president, that orders the government to take specific actions. Executive orders cannot override federal laws and statutes.

Importantly, the Constitution has a set of checks and balances written into it so that no one branch of the government is more powerful than the other. The president can’t use an executive order to sidestep those checks and balances. Trump, or any president, is misusing executive order authority if the president orders the government to take actions that are not authorized by the Constitution or are in violation of federal laws. That’s when the courts must step in to safeguard our rule of law.

An executive order can be lawful and still cause harm, especially when it threatens important civil liberties or civil rights. At the ACLU, we have more than 100 years’ experience holding powerful entities, like the executive branch, to account. Already during this administration, we’ve explained how Trump’s most recent executive orders rolling back DEI efforts, attacking birthright citizenship, and targeting trans people are unlawful. We’ve also filed more than 20 lawsuits against the Trump administration’s policies.

–Chris Anders, director of Policy and Government Affairs, Democracy and Technology

One of Trump’s first executive orders alleged to address sex discrimination, but in effect is an attack on transgender people. How does this order harm the LGBTQ community?

On his first day back in office, President Trump signed a far-reaching executive order requiring federal agencies to discriminate against transgender people by denying who they are and threatening the freedom of self-determination and self-expression for all.

Trump’s signed order states: “It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.” The order defines terms like “man” and “woman” based on whether a person “at conception” belongs “to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell” or that “produces the small reproductive cell.”

Trump’s order then directs federal agencies to “enforce laws governing sex-based rights, protections, opportunities, and accommodations” using his cramped definitions, including designating sex on passports and other federal identification documents, or determining where transgender people are confined in federal custody. The order also includes a sweeping mandate to all agencies to “end the Federal funding of gender ideology.” The ACLU sued.

–Gillian Branstetter, LGBTQ communications strategist

Part of Trump’s “war on woke” is to eradicate diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in schools and federal offices. Can he do that?

Programs labeled as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) encompass a broad range of lawful initiatives that create fairer workplaces and schools. Trump’s executive orders targeting these programs conflate lawful efforts with discrimination, weaponizing enforcement to bully institutions into abandoning critical programs and taking steps to try to eliminate protections against discrimination by government contractors. However, no court has declared DEI efforts inherently illegal, and President Trump cannot override decades of legal precedent.

In employment, properly designed DEI programs are not only legal under federal and state civil rights laws and long-standing legal precedents; they are also necessary to ensure compliance with those laws. Programs labeled as DEI ensure that no one is excluded from opportunities because of their race, ethnicity, disability, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Many of these initiatives are not focused on selecting specific candidates for hire — they aim to create fairer processes.

Schools, too, are required to comply with federal and state civil rights laws that ensure educational opportunities are provided on an equal basis. This means reviewing policies and practices to ensure they don’t unnecessarily foreclose opportunities based on race or other protected characteristics. Schools must also work to foster a climate where all students can access and thrive in their educational pursuits. Now, more than ever, educational institutions must resist intimidation and reaffirm their commitment to identifying and removing barriers to equal opportunity.

–ReNika Moore, director of the ACLU Racial Justice Program

Communities are fighting back against Trump’s unlawful attempts to deport our neighbors. What legal rights do individuals have when speaking out about Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, Trump’s policies, or other immigrants’ rights issues?

You have the right to share truthful, lawfully obtained information about law enforcement and tell people about their legal rights — even if they’re in trouble. You can also advocate for changes to laws without fear, as long as you follow certain guidelines.

Specifically, you have the right to tell people their legal rights even when the person has broken, or is breaking, a law. Telling people about their legal rights includes identifying people’s rights and explaining them, offering practical advice about one’s demeanour when interacting with law enforcement, and suggesting specific words one can say to invoke one’s rights or to understand whether one is under arrest.

You can also advocate for what you believe in, including whether laws should change. This is political speech protected by the First Amendment. You can say that you think current policy is unjust, you can advocate for specific alternatives, and you can talk about the impacts you are seeing on the people and communities around you. You can also talk about illegal activity. For example, you can say, “I think this is a bad law and that people shouldn’t be punished for violating it.” That is true even if the government believes you are thereby encouraging or advocating for illegal activity — as long as you are not intentionally advocating for imminent and likely unlawful action or intentionally offering help to someone on how to commit a specific, unlawful act.

–Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project

Published May 3, 2025 at 01:44AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/Pf3qMdG

ACLU: Your Questions Answered: Trump’s First 100 Days

Your Questions Answered: Trump’s First 100 Days

In the first 100 days of President Donald Trump’s second term, we’ve seen a whirlwind of executive orders, policy proposals, and media commentary that have left many of us questioning the future of our democracy. It can be hard to separate what’s truly important, what’s fact, and what can be done to safeguard our rights. We believe that an informed public is a powerful one, and we're here to help you understand the policies shaping our country,

Since January, our legal and advocacy experts have been breaking down the implications of Trump’s executive orders. These actions seek to roll back DEI efforts, attack birthright citizenship, target trans people, and attempt to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. We’ve also explained unlawful threats, such as Trump’s attempt to invoke the Insurrection Act, use outdated laws to deport millions, and silence speech that challenges his discriminatory agenda. In addition, we shared materials about what your rights are, how to exercise them, and what to do if they’re violated.

We know you have questions, and we have answers. Below, you’ll find answers to five of the most pressing questions we’ve received about Trump’s first 100 days in office. This is the first in our ongoing series, “Your Questions Answered,” where we bring your questions about civil liberties and civil rights issues directly to ACLU experts.

Trump issued a flurry of executive orders that targeted not just our civil liberties, but entire communities. Is this legal?

An executive order is a written directive, signed by the president, that orders the government to take specific actions. Executive orders cannot override federal laws and statutes.

Importantly, the Constitution has a set of checks and balances written into it so that no one branch of the government is more powerful than the other. The president can’t use an executive order to sidestep those checks and balances. Trump, or any president, is misusing executive order authority if the president orders the government to take actions that are not authorized by the Constitution or are in violation of federal laws. That’s when the courts must step in to safeguard our rule of law.

An executive order can be lawful and still cause harm, especially when it threatens important civil liberties or civil rights. At the ACLU, we have more than 100 years’ experience holding powerful entities, like the executive branch, to account. Already during this administration, we’ve explained how Trump’s most recent executive orders rolling back DEI efforts, attacking birthright citizenship, and targeting trans people are unlawful. We’ve also filed more than 20 lawsuits against the Trump administration’s policies.

–Chris Anders, director of Policy and Government Affairs, Democracy and Technology

One of Trump’s first executive orders alleged to address sex discrimination, but in effect is an attack on transgender people. How does this order harm the LGBTQ community?

On his first day back in office, President Trump signed a far-reaching executive order requiring federal agencies to discriminate against transgender people by denying who they are and threatening the freedom of self-determination and self-expression for all.

Trump’s signed order states: “It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.” The order defines terms like “man” and “woman” based on whether a person “at conception” belongs “to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell” or that “produces the small reproductive cell.”

Trump’s order then directs federal agencies to “enforce laws governing sex-based rights, protections, opportunities, and accommodations” using his cramped definitions, including designating sex on passports and other federal identification documents, or determining where transgender people are confined in federal custody. The order also includes a sweeping mandate to all agencies to “end the Federal funding of gender ideology.” The ACLU sued.

–Gillian Branstetter, LGBTQ communications strategist

Part of Trump’s “war on woke” is to eradicate diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in schools and federal offices. Can he do that?

Programs labeled as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) encompass a broad range of lawful initiatives that create fairer workplaces and schools. Trump’s executive orders targeting these programs conflate lawful efforts with discrimination, weaponizing enforcement to bully institutions into abandoning critical programs and taking steps to try to eliminate protections against discrimination by government contractors. However, no court has declared DEI efforts inherently illegal, and President Trump cannot override decades of legal precedent.

In employment, properly designed DEI programs are not only legal under federal and state civil rights laws and long-standing legal precedents; they are also necessary to ensure compliance with those laws. Programs labeled as DEI ensure that no one is excluded from opportunities because of their race, ethnicity, disability, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Many of these initiatives are not focused on selecting specific candidates for hire — they aim to create fairer processes.

Schools, too, are required to comply with federal and state civil rights laws that ensure educational opportunities are provided on an equal basis. This means reviewing policies and practices to ensure they don’t unnecessarily foreclose opportunities based on race or other protected characteristics. Schools must also work to foster a climate where all students can access and thrive in their educational pursuits. Now, more than ever, educational institutions must resist intimidation and reaffirm their commitment to identifying and removing barriers to equal opportunity.

–ReNika Moore, director of the ACLU Racial Justice Program

Communities are fighting back against Trump’s unlawful attempts to deport our neighbors. What legal rights do individuals have when speaking out about Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, Trump’s policies, or other immigrants’ rights issues?

You have the right to share truthful, lawfully obtained information about law enforcement and tell people about their legal rights — even if they’re in trouble. You can also advocate for changes to laws without fear, as long as you follow certain guidelines.

Specifically, you have the right to tell people their legal rights even when the person has broken, or is breaking, a law. Telling people about their legal rights includes identifying people’s rights and explaining them, offering practical advice about one’s demeanour when interacting with law enforcement, and suggesting specific words one can say to invoke one’s rights or to understand whether one is under arrest.

You can also advocate for what you believe in, including whether laws should change. This is political speech protected by the First Amendment. You can say that you think current policy is unjust, you can advocate for specific alternatives, and you can talk about the impacts you are seeing on the people and communities around you. You can also talk about illegal activity. For example, you can say, “I think this is a bad law and that people shouldn’t be punished for violating it.” That is true even if the government believes you are thereby encouraging or advocating for illegal activity — as long as you are not intentionally advocating for imminent and likely unlawful action or intentionally offering help to someone on how to commit a specific, unlawful act.

–Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project

Published May 2, 2025 at 09:14PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/tpDfSAl

ACLU: Our Defense Against Trump: 100 Days In

Our Defense Against Trump: 100 Days In

Just 100 days into President Donald Trump’s second term, the ACLU has filed 51 cases against his administration. We sought emergency relief in 38 of these cases, winning at least some form of preliminary or temporary order in 27 cases. To our clients, these are not just numbers. Our work with them, and on their behalf, has made a real difference in their lives.

Courts Are Checking Unlawful Executive Action

From the start, litigation has been a tool of first resort in protecting people’s rights and freedom. On Inauguration Day, we filed our first case of the second Trump term, challenging his effort to dismantle the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship. We won a preliminary injunction before the unconstitutional order’s effective date.

We have also won multiple orders blocking Trump’s extraordinary invocation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, which gives presidents certain powers during wartime, to deport Venezuelan nationals to a gulag in El Salvador without due process. We’ve won preliminary relief from six federal district courts — in Washington, D.C., Texas, New York, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Nevada — blocking deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, and have scored two victories on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket. First, on April 7, the Supreme Court ordered that individuals subjected to deportation under the Alien Enemies Act must be given notice and an opportunity to contest their designation in court. Then, at 12:45 a.m. on April 19, the court granted our emergency motion to temporarily block all deportations under the Alien Enemies Act from the Northern District of Texas pending further order of the court. We also won a preliminary injunction blocking Trump’s termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuelans, affecting 600,000 people currently residing lawfully in the United States.

In four separate cases, we have protected four immigrants targeted for detention and deportation solely because of their First Amendment-protected speech. Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Columbia University graduate, was detained after leading peaceful protests in support of Palestinian human rights. Rümeysa Öztürk, a Tufts University doctoral student, was targeted for co-authoring an op-ed that criticized the university’s rejection of various student government resolutions concerning Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. Dr. Badar Khan Suri, a Georgetown University professor, was arrested due to his scholarship and advocacy on the Middle East, as well as his U.S.-citizen wife’s family ties to Gaza. And Mohsen Mahdawi, a Columbia University student and longtime lawful permanent resident, was arrested at his naturalization interview, also in retaliation for his advocacy for Palestinian rights. In all four cases, we won orders blocking the Trump administration from deporting our clients while litigation continues.

Credit: Scout Tufankjian

We have also filed ten cases challenging the Trump administration’s broader attacks on international students. The U.S. State Department terminated the electronic student visa records of hundreds of students at campuses around the country, without any due process. In the absence of any official reasons, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated in a media interview that he revokes student visas “every day, every time I find one of these lunatics,” referring to his searches through students’ social media accounts for expressions of sympathy for Palestinians. But many of the affected students have never engaged in any form of protest, and there is no discernible reason for the termination of their records or visas. We have obtained preliminary relief in six of our ten pending cases so far. And on April 25, the government announced that it would undo the mass terminations and restore the affected records.

We have also scored significant victories in challenges to Trump’s heinous executive orders targeting transgender Americans: We blocked Trump’s attempt to enforce a nationwide ban on essential health care for transgender people under the age of 19, as well as his executive order requiring passports to indicate the holder’s sex assigned at birth rather than their actual gender identity.

And when Trump has tried to roll back on the hard-won gains of the Civil Rights Movement, we’ve blocked him there, too. We secured a preliminary injunction against his executive order requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration, which usurped Congress’ constitutionally assigned role. We blocked the U.S. Department of Education’s “Dear Colleague” letter, which threatened to defund educational institutions over programming on forbidden topics such as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and subsequent guidance that would have required states, under threat of legal penalties, to certify that their schools weren’t teaching or supporting DEI programs.

Win or Lose, the Arc Bends Towards Justice

Despite these proofs of concept for the value of litigation, we must acknowledge the serious risk that the Trump administration may, in some cases, simply ignore its defeats in the courts and carry on with its unlawful actions. Although Trump has yet to openly defy a court order, he has already come dangerously close.

In our initial challenge against his use of the Alien Enemies Act, J.G.G. v. Trump, the Trump administration failed to follow the district court’s order that any planes in the air should turn around pursuant to its temporary restraining order. And in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia (not an ACLU case), a Maryland man who was deported to a notorious Salvadoran prison, CECOT, despite having an order of humanitarian protection from a U.S. immigration court prohibiting his deportation to El Salvador, the Trump administration has failed to bring him back even after the Supreme Court ordered it to facilitate his return. In these cases, U.S. Justice Department lawyers are still raising legal arguments in the courts, claiming essentially that the courts have exceeded their powers and that the executive branch no longer has custody of Mr. Abrego Garcia. But those lawyers’ words ring hollow when, at the same time, President Trump meets with El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele in the White House and Bukele declares he cannot send Mr. Abrego Garcia home against the wishes of the U.S. government, while Trump nods in agreement.

The fate of the Alien Enemies Act in the U.S. courts is far from settled. The ACLU alone has seven pending cases in various district courts, and issues in two of those cases have already reached the Supreme Court's emergency docket. These recently filed cases have cast a spotlight on the president’s repeated lawlessness, drawing attention of both Congress and the American public to the men, over 200 by now, who have been deported by the U.S. government to the Salvadoran gulag. President Trump wants to disappear these men into a legal black hole of his own creation. And in that sense, we and other advocates have already achieved one goal merely by filing lawsuits, because the men have become and remained visible for the world to see, even as our litigation fight continues.

In any litigation, regardless of the outcomes in court, we understand that lawsuits are almost always just one part of a broader strategy to achieve our long-term goals of restoring individual rights and liberties — the essential foundations of U.S. democracy. Win or lose, it matters when we stand up in court to fight for freedom, due process, and the basic notion that the president is not above the law. The ACLU has done so in many of the shameful chapters of American history, when the government has abused its power and trampled on individual liberty — including our fights against the first Trump administration’s Muslim ban and family separation policies, the U.S. military’s illegal and unconscionable use of torture after 9/11, the internment of Americans of Japanese descent during World War II, and the targeting of immigrants for deportation raids based on their political ideology in the 1920s.

"Win or lose, it matters when we stand up in court to fight for freedom, due process, and the basic notion that the president is not above the law."

History will be the judge of times like these. For now, the ACLU will continue to bring lawsuits to the courts, and to focus the eyes of Congress, the press, and the American people on the illegal actions of the president. Our impact does not stop at the courthouse steps. Every legal battle becomes a spark for broader organizing, strengthens our shared sense of solidarity, and mobilizes people across the country to come together against government overreach. Together, in the courts, in our communities, and in the streets, we will keep fighting to realize the promise of a free and democratic nation—one where the rule of law protects everyone, and no one is above the law.

Published April 30, 2025 at 08:29PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/sTqw25N

ACLU: Our Defense Against Trump: 100 Days In

Our Defense Against Trump: 100 Days In

Just 100 days into President Donald Trump’s second term, the ACLU has filed 51 cases against his administration. We sought emergency relief in 38 of these cases, winning at least some form of preliminary or temporary order in 27 cases. To our clients, these are not just numbers. Our work with them, and on their behalf, has made a real difference in their lives.

Courts Are Checking Unlawful Executive Action

From the start, litigation has been a tool of first resort in protecting people’s rights and freedom. On Inauguration Day, we filed our first case of the second Trump term, challenging his effort to dismantle the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship. We won a preliminary injunction before the unconstitutional order’s effective date.

We have also won multiple orders blocking Trump’s extraordinary invocation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, which gives presidents certain powers during wartime, to deport Venezuelan nationals to a gulag in El Salvador without due process. We’ve won preliminary relief from six federal district courts — in Washington, D.C., Texas, New York, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Nevada — blocking deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, and have scored two victories on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket. First, on April 7, the Supreme Court ordered that individuals subjected to deportation under the Alien Enemies Act must be given notice and an opportunity to contest their designation in court. Then, at 12:45 a.m. on April 19, the court granted our emergency motion to temporarily block all deportations under the Alien Enemies Act from the Northern District of Texas pending further order of the court. We also won a preliminary injunction blocking Trump’s termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuelans, affecting 600,000 people currently residing lawfully in the United States.

In four separate cases, we have protected four immigrants targeted for detention and deportation solely because of their First Amendment-protected speech. Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Columbia University graduate, was detained after leading peaceful protests in support of Palestinian human rights. Rümeysa Öztürk, a Tufts University doctoral student, was targeted for co-authoring an op-ed that criticized the university’s rejection of various student government resolutions concerning Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. Dr. Badar Khan Suri, a Georgetown University professor, was arrested due to his scholarship and advocacy on the Middle East, as well as his U.S.-citizen wife’s family ties to Gaza. And Mohsen Mahdawi, a Columbia University student and longtime lawful permanent resident, was arrested at his naturalization interview, also in retaliation for his advocacy for Palestinian rights. In all four cases, we won orders blocking the Trump administration from deporting our clients while litigation continues.

Credit: Scout Tufankjian

We have also filed ten cases challenging the Trump administration’s broader attacks on international students. The U.S. State Department terminated the electronic student visa records of hundreds of students at campuses around the country, without any due process. In the absence of any official reasons, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated in a media interview that he revokes student visas “every day, every time I find one of these lunatics,” referring to his searches through students’ social media accounts for expressions of sympathy for Palestinians. But many of the affected students have never engaged in any form of protest, and there is no discernible reason for the termination of their records or visas. We have obtained preliminary relief in six of our ten pending cases so far. And on April 25, the government announced that it would undo the mass terminations and restore the affected records.

We have also scored significant victories in challenges to Trump’s heinous executive orders targeting transgender Americans: We blocked Trump’s attempt to enforce a nationwide ban on essential health care for transgender people under the age of 19, as well as his executive order requiring passports to indicate the holder’s sex assigned at birth rather than their actual gender identity.

And when Trump has tried to roll back on the hard-won gains of the Civil Rights Movement, we’ve blocked him there, too. We secured a preliminary injunction against his executive order requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration, which usurped Congress’ constitutionally assigned role. We blocked the U.S. Department of Education’s “Dear Colleague” letter, which threatened to defund educational institutions over programming on forbidden topics such as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and subsequent guidance that would have required states, under threat of legal penalties, to certify that their schools weren’t teaching or supporting DEI programs.

Win or Lose, the Arc Bends Towards Justice

Despite these proofs of concept for the value of litigation, we must acknowledge the serious risk that the Trump administration may, in some cases, simply ignore its defeats in the courts and carry on with its unlawful actions. Although Trump has yet to openly defy a court order, he has already come dangerously close.

In our initial challenge against his use of the Alien Enemies Act, J.G.G. v. Trump, the Trump administration failed to follow the district court’s order that any planes in the air should turn around pursuant to its temporary restraining order. And in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia (not an ACLU case), a Maryland man who was deported to a notorious Salvadoran prison, CECOT, despite having an order of humanitarian protection from a U.S. immigration court prohibiting his deportation to El Salvador, the Trump administration has failed to bring him back even after the Supreme Court ordered it to facilitate his return. In these cases, U.S. Justice Department lawyers are still raising legal arguments in the courts, claiming essentially that the courts have exceeded their powers and that the executive branch no longer has custody of Mr. Abrego Garcia. But those lawyers’ words ring hollow when, at the same time, President Trump meets with El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele in the White House and Bukele declares he cannot send Mr. Abrego Garcia home against the wishes of the U.S. government, while Trump nods in agreement.

The fate of the Alien Enemies Act in the U.S. courts is far from settled. The ACLU alone has seven pending cases in various district courts, and issues in two of those cases have already reached the Supreme Court's emergency docket. These recently filed cases have cast a spotlight on the president’s repeated lawlessness, drawing attention of both Congress and the American public to the men, over 200 by now, who have been deported by the U.S. government to the Salvadoran gulag. President Trump wants to disappear these men into a legal black hole of his own creation. And in that sense, we and other advocates have already achieved one goal merely by filing lawsuits, because the men have become and remained visible for the world to see, even as our litigation fight continues.

In any litigation, regardless of the outcomes in court, we understand that lawsuits are almost always just one part of a broader strategy to achieve our long-term goals of restoring individual rights and liberties — the essential foundations of U.S. democracy. Win or lose, it matters when we stand up in court to fight for freedom, due process, and the basic notion that the president is not above the law. The ACLU has done so in many of the shameful chapters of American history, when the government has abused its power and trampled on individual liberty — including our fights against the first Trump administration’s Muslim ban and family separation policies, the U.S. military’s illegal and unconscionable use of torture after 9/11, the internment of Americans of Japanese descent during World War II, and the targeting of immigrants for deportation raids based on their political ideology in the 1920s.

"Win or lose, it matters when we stand up in court to fight for freedom, due process, and the basic notion that the president is not above the law."

History will be the judge of times like these. For now, the ACLU will continue to bring lawsuits to the courts, and to focus the eyes of Congress, the press, and the American people on the illegal actions of the president. Our impact does not stop at the courthouse steps. Every legal battle becomes a spark for broader organizing, strengthens our shared sense of solidarity, and mobilizes people across the country to come together against government overreach. Together, in the courts, in our communities, and in the streets, we will keep fighting to realize the promise of a free and democratic nation—one where the rule of law protects everyone, and no one is above the law.

Published April 30, 2025 at 03:59PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/8gnWTEU