Connect with us

Politics

Contributor: The Statue of Liberty was a welcome sign. Now the U.S. vibe is 'stay out'

Published

on

Contributor: The Statue of Liberty was a welcome sign. Now the U.S. vibe is 'stay out'

A little over a year ago, while trying to secure votes to pass a $1.2-trillion spending package, House Speaker Mike Johnson reportedly told the fiscal conservative members of his party to vote for the bill in part because it banned flying Pride flags over U.S. embassies. Johnson’s tactics were not a surprise. Before running for Congress, Johnson worked as an attorney for an anti-LGBTQ+ organization and on more than one occasion had argued in court against legalizing same-sex marriage. Still, it was rather telling that with a government shutdown deadline looming, Johnson was not able to rally his troops around the bill’s merit but rather their dislike of rainbow flags.

When President Biden signed the spending bill with the ban, he promised Americans that his administration would work around the clock to find a way to lift the ban. Five months later, Biden dropped out of the race, and today the moratorium on Pride flags is still in place. Not sure how much money the country is saving from the policy, but I do know the message that it sends to the rest of the world can’t be worth it.

The United Nations Refugee Agency believes there are more than 44 million refugees around the world. That’s triple the number of people fleeing conflict or persecution from just a decade ago. The nations contributing the most refugees are Afghanistan and Syria, with 6.4 million each, followed by Venezuela (6.1 million) and Ukraine (6 million).

In Afghanistan, death is the maximum sentence for being queer, while in Syria it’s punishable by up to three years in prison. In Venezuela, being LGBTQ+ isn’t a crime, but police still harass the community by raiding bars. In Ukraine, members of the LGBTQ+ community can serve in the military to fight in its war with Russia, but same-sex relationships are not legally recognized. That means if the love of your life died in battle, the government would not even have to notify you. They’re just gone and it’s up to the surviving partner to figure out if their loved one is buried and if so, where.

The 19th-century American poet Emma Lazarus said she wrote the sonnet “The New Colossus” to raise money for the construction of the Statue of Liberty because she believed the statue would serve as a welcome sign for new immigrants arriving in the New York harbor.

Advertisement

“A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles,” Lazarus wrote shortly after the Civil War in 1883. Between 1880 and 1920, more than 20 million immigrants — mostly from Europe — made their way to the U.S.

During that four-decade stretch, it wasn’t just heterosexuals coming to our shores in search of a better life. And it’s not only heterosexuals among the estimated 44 million refugees around the world. This is why until last year, the Pride flag flew over U.S. embassies during June, to let the desperate souls fleeing persecution know that they would find comfort in the arms of the Mother of Exiles. Now that is no longer true — not because of a strategic foreign policy decision but because some members of Congress — like Johnson — simply don’t like queer people. Strange behavior from a political party that claims it doesn’t like identity politics.

Last month, Russian-born tennis player Daria Kasatkina announced she had defected from her home country and become an Australian citizen because she is openly queer. She said that as an out athlete, she “didn’t have much choice.”

Last year, while Republicans were trying to de-gay the flagpoles of our embassies, the world also learned that Russia’s Supreme Court declared the rainbow flag was forbidden in its country. If Ukraine falls, what rights its LGBTQ+ residents have will most likely fall with it.

Kasatkina’s decision to leave her home country made her a political refugee. Now she’s in the land Down Under.

Advertisement

The United States used to be the kind of country that welcomed the persecuted, but I guess she didn’t see us as the best option. Hard to blame her.

@LZGranderson

Insights

L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.

Viewpoint
This article generally aligns with a Center Left point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis
Perspectives

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Advertisement

Ideas expressed in the piece

  • The author argues that the U.S. ban on Pride flags at embassies, negotiated by House Speaker Mike Johnson, signals a rejection of LGBTQ+ refugees and undermines America’s historical role as a sanctuary for persecuted groups[1][5]. This policy is framed as a political maneuver rooted in Johnson’s longstanding opposition to LGBTQ+ rights, including his legal work against same-sex marriage[1][5].
  • The article highlights the dire circumstances faced by LGBTQ+ individuals in countries like Afghanistan, Syria, and Ukraine, where same-sex relationships are criminalized or unrecognized, and contrasts this with the U.S.’s reduced willingness to visibly support these communities through symbolic gestures like flag displays[1][5].
  • Granderson critiques the ban as part of a broader shift toward identity politics by Republicans, despite their claims to oppose such tactics, and links it to Russia’s outright prohibition of rainbow flags as a parallel erosion of LGBTQ+ rights[1][5].

Different views on the topic

  • Supporters of the ban, including policymakers like Marco Rubio, argue that the U.S. flag alone should represent national unity, citing the 2024 Appropriations Act’s provision that restricts embassy displays to “authorized symbols” to avoid divisive cultural messaging[1][3]. They frame the policy as reinforcing patriotism and avoiding perceived partisan symbolism in diplomatic spaces[1][3].
  • Conservative advocates, including groups behind Project 2025, contend that LGBTQ+ visibility policies promote “toxic normalization” and conflict with traditional family values. They seek to eliminate terms like “gender identity” from federal regulations and reverse protections for LGBTQ+ individuals in workplaces, schools, and health care, arguing these measures protect religious freedom and biological definitions of sex[2][4][6][7][8].
  • Opponents of Pride flag displays also tie their stance to national security and diplomatic priorities, asserting that U.S. foreign policy should avoid “culture war” issues and focus on broader strategic interests rather than advocating for LGBTQ+ rights abroad[2][6][9].

Politics

Video: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

Published

on

Video: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

new video loaded: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

transcript

transcript

Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

Senate Republicans voted against a Democratic bill that would have required President Trump to obtain congressional authorization to continue waging war against Iran.

“The yeas are 47. The nays are 53. The motion to discharge is not approved.” “President Trump decided to attack Iran. That decision was profound, deliberate and correct. The president understands the weight of war.” “Why is Donald Trump hellbent on making history repeat itself? Why is he plunging America headfirst into a war that Americans do not want, and which he cannot even explain? The American people deserve a say, and that is what our resolution is about.”

Advertisement
Senate Republicans voted against a Democratic bill that would have required President Trump to obtain congressional authorization to continue waging war against Iran.

By Shawn Paik

March 5, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

DHS defends McLaughlin against allegations husband’s company profited millions from ad contracts: ‘Baseless’

Published

on

DHS defends McLaughlin against allegations husband’s company profited millions from ad contracts: ‘Baseless’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

EXCLUSIVE: Newly obtained financial statements shed light on claims that former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin’s husband’s company made millions from a DHS advertising campaign.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem faced intense questioning during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, and Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., specifically called out the agency for contracting a public relations firm headed by McLaughlin’s husband, Benjamin Yoho.

“I have personally reviewed the allegations against Ms. McLaughlin, and I find them to be baseless,” DHS General Counsel James Percival told Fox News Digital. “Nothing illegal or unethical occurred with respect to these contracts. Ms. McLaughlin was not involved in selecting any subcontractors.

“She is, however, a superstar in the public affairs world, so I am not surprised that she married a successful businessman whose services were attractive to these outside firms.”

Advertisement

Newly obtained financial statements address allegations that former Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin’s husband’s firm improperly profited from a multimillion-dollar DHS ad campaign. Lawmakers pressed Secretary Kristi Noem over the contracts during a heated Senate hearing. (Jack Gruber/USA Today)

Kennedy alleged that Yoho’s firm, The Strategy Group, “got most of the money” out of what the Louisiana Republican senator says was $220 million in “television advertisements that feature [Noem] prominently.”

“I’m sorry,” Kennedy said. “Safe America Media was a company formed 11 days before you picked them. And that the Strategy Group got most of the money. And the head of that is married to your former spokesperson.”

“It’s just hard for me to believe knowing the president as I do, that you said, ‘Mr. President, here’s some ads I’ve cut, and I’m going to spend $220 million running them,’ that he would have agreed to that,” Kennedy explained. “I don’t think Russ Vought at OMB [Office of Management and Budget] would have agreed to that.”

‘YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED!’: PROTESTER DRAGGED FROM KRISTI NOEM’S SENATE HEARING

Advertisement

Senate scrutiny intensified over a DHS advertising campaign after Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., questioned whether a firm linked to McLaughlin’s husband benefited unfairly. DHS officials and the company deny any wrongdoing or multimillion-dollar profits. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

The Strategy Group is a conservative advertising agency for which Yoho serves as CEO.

Figures obtained by Fox News Digital show a slightly lesser total advertising expenditure of approximately $185 million, with a total of roughly $146.5 million going to a campaign called “Save America.”

However, of the total that went to “Save America,” roughly $348,000 went to production costs, while the remaining $142 million went to “media buys.”

Sources at DHS say that media buys are the cost of actually buying the ads themselves, whether purchased from social media or for a TV ad.

Advertisement

Kennedy also alleged that the bidding process for the contracts never took place and that Safe America Media’s recent founding was a cause for concern and collusion between McLaughlin and her husband’s business. 

WATCH THE MOST VIRAL MOMENTS AS KRISTI NOEM’S HEARING GOES OFF THE RAILS

Debate over DHS’ “Save America” ad campaign intensified as senators challenged its costs and contractor ties, even as agency officials touted the initiative as a historic success in promoting self-deportation. (Graeme Sloan/Getty Images)

“Yes they did,” Noem responded during the hearing. “They went out to a competitive bid, and career officials at the department chose who would do those advertising commercials.”

The Strategy Group posted to X Tuesday that it never had a contract with the department. While it did receive several hundred thousand dollars for production costs associated with the advertising campaigns, The Strategy Group never made millions.

Advertisement

“The Strategy Group has never had a contract with DHS,” the post said. “We had a subcontract with Safe America [Media] for limited production services. Safe America paid us $226,137.17 total for 5 film shoots, 45 produced video advertisements and 6 produced radio advertisements.

DHS SPOKESWOMAN TRICIA MCLAUGHLIN TO LEAVE TRUMP ADMIN, SOURCE CONFIRMS

Critics raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest in a high-dollar DHS advertising effort, but department representatives say McLaughlin recused herself and that subcontracting decisions were made independently. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

“If you’re going to try to question our integrity, bring actual evidence — we did,” the post concluded.

Because these ads were purchased using public funds, all contract totals are publicly available. 

Advertisement

Lauren Bis, who took up the role of assistant secretary once McLaughlin left office, told Fox News Digital Tuesday that scrutiny from Republicans and Democrats over the advertising spending was unjustified because the campaigns resulted in “the most successful ad campaign in U.S. history.”

“Sanctuary politicians are attacking this ad campaign because it has been successful in CLOSING our borders and getting more than 2.2 million illegal aliens to LEAVE the U.S.,” Bis said. 

“The DHS domestic and international ad campaign was the most successful ad campaign in U.S. history. The results speak for themselves: 2.2 million illegal aliens self-deported, and we now have the most secure border in American history.”

KRISTI NOEM TO FACE SENATE GRILLING OVER MINNEAPOLIS SHOOTINGS AS DHS SHUTDOWN HITS WEEK 3

The Trump administration reaffirmed that all illegal immigrants are eligible for deportations as they focus on arresting violent criminals first.  (Raquel Natalicchio/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images)

Advertisement

Bis also compared the cost of arresting and deporting an illegal migrant to that of the minimal cost of an illegal migrant self-deporting. The department says the advertising campaign played a key role in marketing self-deportation.

A spokesperson at DHS also told Fox News Digital that contractors decide who they hire, fulfilling the terms of a contract, not the department itself. 

“By law, DHS cannot and does not determine, control or weigh in on who contractors hire or use to fulfill the terms of the contract,” a DHS spokesperson told Fox. “Those decisions are made by the contractor alone. We have only become aware of these companies because of this inquiry and did not hire those companies.”

The spokesperson also noted that McLaughlin “recused herself” from interactions with subcontractors to avoid “any perceived appearance of impropriety.”

“Upon hearing who the subcontractors were for production of the ad, Ms. McLaughlin recused herself from any interaction or engagement with any subcontractors to avoid any perceived appearance of impropriety,” the spokesperson continued. “DHS Office of Public Affairs is the program officer. Ms. McLaughlin oversees the DHS Office of Public Affairs, which is simply the vehicle for this contract.”

Advertisement

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem takes her seat as she arrives to testify during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)

McLaughlin told Fox News Digital the criticism of her and her family by senators at the hearing is a matter of public manipulation.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“This is yet another example of politicians intentionally trying to dupe and manipulate the public to try to manufacture division and anger,” McLaughlin told Fox News Digital. “The ad spend and contracts are a matter of public record, and the process was done by the book.

“These politicians would rather smear private citizens and American small businesses than do any basic research.”

Advertisement

Fox News Digital’s Alexandra Koch contributed to this report.

Related Article

DHS defends ad blitz amid Senate scrutiny, says campaign drove 2.2M self-deportations and saved taxpayers $39B
Continue Reading

Politics

Senate rejects war powers measure to withdraw forces from Iran

Published

on

Senate rejects war powers measure to withdraw forces from Iran

Senate Republicans blocked a war powers resolution Wednesday designed to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities in Iran, as the Trump administration accelerates its military campaign in a conflict that has killed hundreds, including at least six American service members.

The motion failed in a vote of 47-53.

In addition to pulling out military resources from the Middle East, the measure — introduced by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) — would have required Congress’ explicit approval before future engagement with Iran, a power granted to the legislative branch in the Constitution.

The House, where Republicans also hold an advantage, is scheduled to weigh in on a similar measure Thursday. Even if both Democratic-led measures were to succeed, President Trump was widely expected to veto the legislation.

“We are doing very well on the war front, to put it mildly,” President Trump said at a White House event on Wednesday afternoon. The president, who has come under scrutiny for offering shifting explanations on the war’s endgame, said that if he was asked to scale the American military operation from one to 10, he would rate it a 15.

Advertisement

Democrats dispute that Trump possesses the authority to wage the ongoing operation in Iran without explicit congressional approval.

Acknowledging the measure was unlikely to succeed, they framed the vote as a strategy to force lawmakers to put their support for or opposition to the war on record.

“Today every senator — every single one — will pick a side,” Schumer said. “Do you stand with the American people who are exhausted with forever wars in the Middle East, or stand with Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth as they bumble us headfirst into another war?”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and most of his Republican colleagues have maintained that the president carried out a “pre-emptive” and “defensive” strike in Iran, giving him full authority to continue unilateral military operations.

Republicans saw the vote as the “last roadblock” stopping Trump from carrying out his mission against the Islamic Republic.

Advertisement

“I think the president has the authority that he needs to conduct the activities and operations that are currently underway there. There are a lot of controversy and questions around the war powers act, but I think the president is acting in the best interest of the nation and our national security interests,” Thune said at a news conference.

Senators largely held to party loyalties, with the exception of Kentucky Republican Rand Paul, who broke ranks to support the measure, and Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman, who opposed it.

The vote comes as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that the war against Iran is “accelerating,” with American and Israeli forces expanding air operations into Iranian territory. He pointed to evidence released by U.S. Central Command of a submarine strike on an Iranian warship, and also lauded other strikes throughout the region as civilian casualties in Iran surpassed 1,000 on the fourth day of the conflict, according to rights groups.

“We’re going to continue to do well,” Trump said Wednesday. “We have the greatest military in the world by far and that was a tremendous threat to us for many years. Forty-seven years they’ve been killing our people and killing people all over the world, and we have great support.”

Republicans blocked a similar war powers vote in January after the president ordered U.S. special forces to capture and extradite Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in Caracas on drug trafficking charges.

Advertisement

GOP leaders argued that the outcome of that mission equated to a quick success in the Middle East, despite an uncertain timeline from the Department of Defense.

In the House, lawmakers will vote on a separate war powers effort Thursday. That bill is led by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), the two lawmakers who authored the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

“Instead of sending billions overseas, we need to invest in jobs, healthcare, and education here,” Khanna said on X.

In addition to that proposal, moderate Democrats in the House have introduced a separate resolution that would give the administration a 30-day window to justify continued hostilities in the Middle East before requiring a formal declaration of war or authorization from Congress.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending