Politics
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.
“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.
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
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
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
Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
President Donald Trump has signed an executive order blocking U.S. courts from seizing Venezuelan oil revenues held in American Treasury accounts.
The order states that court action against the funds would undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
President Donald Trump is pictured signing two executive orders on Sept. 19, 2025, establishing the “Trump Gold Card” and introducing a $100,000 fee for H-1B visas. He signed another executive order recently protecting oil revenue. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
Trump signed the order on Friday, the same day that he met with nearly two dozen top oil and gas executives at the White House.
The president said American energy companies will invest $100 billion to rebuild Venezuela’s “rotting” oil infrastructure and push production to record levels following the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.
The U.S. has moved aggressively to take control of Venezuela’s oil future following the collapse of the Maduro regime.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Politics
Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power
One of the most important political stories in American history — one that is particularly germane to our current, tumultuous time — unfolded in Los Angeles some 65 years ago.
Sen. John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, had just received his party’s nomination for president and in turn he shunned the desires of his most liberal supporters by choosing a conservative out of Texas as his running mate. He did so in large part to address concerns that his faith would somehow usurp his oath to uphold the Constitution. The last time the Democrats nominated a Catholic — New York Gov. Al Smith in 1928 — he lost in a landslide, so folks were more than a little jittery about Kennedy’s chances.
“I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk,” Kennedy told the crowd at the Memorial Coliseum. “But I look at it this way: The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgment.”
The most important part of the story is what happened before Kennedy gave that acceptance speech.
While his faith made party leaders nervous, they were downright afraid of the impact a civil rights protest during the Democratic National Convention could have on November’s election. This was 1960. The year began with Black college students challenging segregation with lunch counter sit-ins across the Deep South, and by spring the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee had formed. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was not the organizer of the protest at the convention, but he planned to be there, guaranteeing media attention. To try to prevent this whole scene, the most powerful Black man in Congress was sent to stop him.
The Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was also a warrior for civil rights, but the House representative preferred the legislative approach, where backroom deals were quietly made and his power most concentrated. He and King wanted the same things for Black people. But Powell — who was first elected to Congress in 1944, the same year King enrolled at Morehouse College at the age of 15 — was threatened by the younger man’s growing influence. He was also concerned that his inability to stop the protest at the convention would harm his chance to become chairman of a House committee.
And so Powell — the son of a preacher, and himself a Baptist preacher in Harlem — told King that if he didn’t cancel, Powell would tell journalists a lie that King was having a homosexual affair with his mentor, Bayard Rustin. King stuck to his plan and led a protest — even though such a rumor would not only have harmed King, but also would have undermined the credibility of the entire civil rights movement. Remember, this was 1960. Before the March on Washington, before passage of the Voting Rights Act, before the dismantling of the very Jim Crow laws Powell had vowed to dismantle when first running for office.
That threat, my friends, is the most important part of the story.
It’s not that Powell didn’t want the best for the country. It’s just that he wanted to be seen as the one doing it and was willing to derail the good stemming from the civil rights movement to secure his own place in power. There have always been people willing to make such trade-offs. Sometimes they dress up their intentions with scriptures to make it more palatable; other times they play on our darkest fears. They do not care how many people get hurt in the process, even if it’s the same people they profess to care for.
That was true in Los Angeles in 1960.
That was true in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.
That is true in the streets of America today.
Whether we are talking about an older pastor who is threatened by the growing influence of a younger voice or a president clinging to office after losing an election: To remain king, some men are willing to burn the entire kingdom down.
YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow
Politics
Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A federal judge Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from stopping subsidies on childcare programs in five states, including Minnesota, amid allegations of fraud.
U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, a Biden appointee, didn’t rule on the legality of the funding freeze, but said the states had met the legal threshold to maintain the “status quo” on funding for at least two weeks while arguments continue.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns.
The programs include the Child Care and Development Fund, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and the Social Services Block Grant, all of which help needy families.
USDA IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDS ALL FEDERAL FUNDING TO MINNESOTA AMID FRAUD INVESTIGATION
On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)
“Families who rely on childcare and family assistance programs deserve confidence that these resources are used lawfully and for their intended purpose,” HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill said in a statement on Tuesday.
The states, which include California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York, argued in court filings that the federal government didn’t have the legal right to end the funds and that the new policy is creating “operational chaos” in the states.
U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian at his nomination hearing in 2022. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
In total, the states said they receive more than $10 billion in federal funding for the programs.
HHS said it had “reason to believe” that the programs were offering funds to people in the country illegally.
‘TIP OF THE ICEBERG’: SENATE REPUBLICANS PRESS GOV WALZ OVER MINNESOTA FRAUD SCANDAL
The table above shows the five states and their social safety net funding for various programs which are being withheld by the Trump administration over allegations of fraud. (AP Digital Embed)
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.” (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Fox News Digital has reached out to HHS for comment.
-
Detroit, MI7 days ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Technology4 days agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Dallas, TX5 days agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Dallas, TX2 days agoAnti-ICE protest outside Dallas City Hall follows deadly shooting in Minneapolis
-
Iowa4 days agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
-
Delaware1 day agoMERR responds to dead humpback whale washed up near Bethany Beach
-
Health6 days agoViral New Year reset routine is helping people adopt healthier habits
-
Nebraska4 days agoOregon State LB transfer Dexter Foster commits to Nebraska