Salvadoran refugee Alberto, who is using a pseudonym out of safety concerns, did not feel secure in his own home. Being a gay man in a country known for state-sponsored violence and community rejection meant Alberto lived his life on high alert.
His family did not accept him. He says one family member physically attacked him because of his identity. He says he has been followed, harassed, and assaulted by police, accused of crimes he didn’t commit when he was studying to become a social worker. His effort to escape the rejection in his community left him, at one point, homeless and lost in a new city.
He sought help from the LGBTQ refugee resettlement program Rainbow Railroad to find a new home in the United States, a place renowned for its progressive advancement of LGBTQ rights. He is one of thousands of LGBTQ refugees from around the world who have been forced to flee their homes due to persecution and violence because of who they are or who they love.
“It's a second chance that I think life is giving me,” said Alberto, about resettling in the U.S.
However, many of those who have relocated to the United States, like Alberto, are caught at the intensifying intersections of discrimination and criminalization of asylum seekers and LGBTQ residents here in America.
“I felt safe to live here, but I don't feel safe with this administration, because for me, being a Latino, gay, I had some concerns about the situation for my community, for myself too,” he said, who has been in the U.S. since 2023.
Around the country, masked ICE agents have been seen arresting migrants and asylum seekers who appeared for their scheduled court hearings. Even those with legal residency or those with visas have been subject to detention and arrest by federal law enforcement agents.
The Trump administration has repeatedly deemed immigrants and asylum seekers “criminals,” even those without a criminal record, who have paid taxes to the federal government and/or are seeking asylum.
ICE has reported more than 60,000 removals since the inauguration. Migrant detention camps are expanding and popping up at the behest of the Trump administration in states like Florida and Texas. ICE raids have terrorized communities across the nation.
Alberto is in the middle of his own interview process with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, but it feels increasingly dangerous to attend even these routine check-ins: “I feel very worried, honestly, because I was watching many videos of the people who come for the appointments, and they have been arrested.”
He continued, “I did not cross the border, and I came with all documents, but nothing is secure with this administration. They can change the ideas whenever they want.”
For Alberto and others like him, this fear is compounded by the growing political and social hostility toward the LGBTQ community.
The ACLU is tracking 598 anti-LGBTQ bills across the country this year alone. GLAAD, a national LGBTQ media advocacy organization, tracked almost 1,000 anti-LGBTQ incidents in 2024, including bomb threats, acts of vandalism, assaults, and more.
Over the last year, the Rainbow Railroad received the most requests for assistance from callers in the United States, surpassing any other country.
National activist group Human Rights Campaign declared a “National State of Emergency for LGBTQ+ Americans” just last year, and created resources for those looking to move out of their state or the country.
“What we're seeing now could just be the start of the worst that is yet to come,” said Latoya Nugent, Rainbow Railroad’s Head of Engagement. “We are very fearful that in the next three and a half or four years that we may be in a world where we may not even recognize the U.S.”
The change in the dynamic was almost immediate after the inauguration. Rainbow Road’s refugee admissions programs were suspended, and similar global programs that addressed public needs connected to the LGBTQ community ground to a halt – from USAID to the U.N. LGBTI Core Group.
“The U.S. is a powerful actor in the global humanitarian protection system,” said Nugent. “It's not just what is happening in the US, but it's also the impact globally on the work that has been happening over the years.”
The new efforts by the Trump administration to turn back progress on LGBTQ and immigrant rights have increasingly exhausted and drained these already vulnerable populations fighting for their ability to stay safe and alive here in the U.S.
LGBTQ advocacy groups are preparing for the worst, as the changing legal and social U.S. landscape presents unknowns for the future of refugee resettlement and LGBTQ life in America.
“We are also seeing the community really rally around some of the most vulnerable people, including LGBTQ asylum seekers and refugees, recognizing that if we don't hold the line right now, things could become significantly worse,” said Nugent.
Still, many places in the U.S. are a beacon of hope for the queer and transgender community, especially those who hail from countries where they’d be persecuted for those identities. More than 60 countries currently criminalize the LGBTQ community. Individuals in these countries are often faced with state-sponsored violence, family violence, and societal rejection.
For Alberto, moving to Chicago has been a life-changing experience. Rainbow Railroad helped him find stability and build a support system of local connections that share in his experiences. He’s holding these positive moments close to his heart, which has helped him cope with the growing pressures of the political arena.
“For the first time in my life, I can live. I can feel, I'm feeling free to to be who I am, express my identity, who I am, and without concern over thoughts about who I am, and that's made me feel happy,” Alberto said.
Kiara Alfonseca is a reporter and producer with nearly a decade of experience reporting on the intersections of politics and identity.
What domestic violence survivors in public housing need are more flexible options - and they need them now.
She called me while she walked her dog because it was the only time she could use the phone without being monitored by her husband. Reaching out to me as a program manager for domestic survivors in a major U.S. city, she wanted to see what her options were and where she and her seven-year-old son could go.
I went over the resources in the community for domestic violence survivors, which were few. The 35-year-old mother told me she had been in and out of domestic violence shelters over the years and could not stand to destabilize her son and herself yet again. She was living now in Section 8 housing.
Subsidized housing in this country is confusing as there are many different types. For those who are in the Project-Based Voucher (PBV) program, the rental assistance it provides makes up the difference between the tenant’s contribution, 30% of their income, and the unit’s total rent and utility costs.
In this country, 530,000 people in nearly 290,000 households use project-based vouchers. Three-quarters of households in public housing are headed by women. And one in three women will experience domestic violence in their lifetime.
That means approximately 72,500 households headed by women in project-based voucher housing could be expected to experience domestic violence at some point in their lives.
Complicating matters is that the latest Donald Trump administration 2026 budget bill heading to the U.S. Senate after passing the House includes drastic cuts to federal housing assistance. A $26.7 billion cut to rental assistance programs like project-based vouchers and tenant-based (housing choice) vouchers means that there will be fewer vouchers to go around for survivors, where there were already slim pickings at the start. And the restructuring of rental assistance to focus on elderly and disabled people may inadvertently leave out survivors of violence who do not meet this criteria.
When you are a survivor of domestic violence and need to leave for your own safety, it feels like jumping out of a plane without a parachute, hoping you will land on your feet. If you leave that address, you lose your rental assistance because it is tied to that specific unit.
Yes, the Violence Against Women Act allows a public housing authority to bifurcate or split the household on the lease. With a bifurcation, the housing authority will not create two subsidies, meaning that the abuser will no longer be offered assistance.
Ironically, bifurcation is supposed to work so that the survivor stays in the unit with rental assistance and the abuser is evicted. But in reality, it becomes a non-starter, as many survivors will not pursue bifurcation out of fear that their abusers will retaliate against them for causing their eviction.
Still, a survivor can apply for an emergency transfer to another unit, which is much more complicated than it sounds. Emergency transfers allow the individual to move to a unit where they would not be considered a new applicant.
But in my experience of serving survivors experiencing homelessness, they are often offered units in the very same neighborhood, even across the street from where they were victimized. Survivors in this situation become walking targets for continued stalking, threats, and repeated violence.
And unfortunately, the emergency transfer lists are long. A U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) study of 60 Public Housing Authorities shows that emergency transfers took between six months to one year to complete.
Survivors can also apply for a new Section 8 waitlist for either another project-based voucher or a housing-choice voucher. But most communities’ waitlists do not prioritize survivors of violence. So, it's a waiting game when survivors cannot afford to wait.
A few communities in the U.S., such as Oakland and Boston, do prioritize survivors. Many more communities need to follow suit.
What survivors in public housing need are more flexible options. These include hotel vouchers to have an immediate safe place to go to when domestic violence shelters are not available or not viable for a specific survivor's situation.
Options such as Housing Choice Vouchers specifically for survivors could be honored nationwide without a waiting period.
Survivors simply cannot afford to wait while their lives are on the line.
Elisabet Avalos is a leader in housing justice, developing programs for survivors of violence experiencing homelessness, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project on Domestic Violence and Economic Security.
Royal Moroccan Armed Forces service members and U.S. Army Soldiers hold an African Lion banner during a Moroccan F-16 flyover at the closing day of African Lion 2025 (AL25) at Tantan, Morocco, May 23, 2025.
WASHINGTON – Both the Trump administration and its critics agree the U.S. risks losing influence in Africa to rivals like China and Russia. But while the administration argues its commercially driven foreign policy will reverse the trend, critics warn that retreating from development and diplomacy could deepen the problem.
Under the Trump administration, the U.S. plans to consolidate embassies, scale back USAID operations, and pivot towards a security and commercial driven approach on the continent. While U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) defense officials insist their core missions within Africa will remain intact, civilian experts and lawmakers argue that abandoning diplomatic and development tools opens the door for strategic competitors to fill the void and fails to take into account what would best benefit African countries.
AFRICOM is one of 11 Department of Defense combatant commands responsible for operations and relationships with African countries, not including Egypt. AFRICOM operates in Stuttgart, Germany, with missions focused on counterterrorism, regional security, and U.S. interests.
“The Trump Administration’s approach to Africa isn’t America first, it is America in retreat. From gutting USAID to proposing a budget that dismantles key diplomatic tools to weakening AFRICOM,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health Policy. “The Administration is reversing years of progress and investment in countries across Africa, while leaving a void that our adversaries are all too happy to fill.”
Troy Fitrell, senior bureau official of the State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs and former ambassador to the Republic of Guinea, defended the Trump administration’s Africa policy earlier this month at a Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee hearing.
The Trump administration is "fundamentally shifting our approach to Africa to a strategy that prioritizes robust commercial engagement," adding that the U.S. must recognize African nations "as equal partners in trade and investment," Fitrell said.
Fitrell said Trump’s new strategy is necessary to counter China and Russia, which have greatly expanded trade with Africa.
“The opportunity in Sub-Saharan Africa is not theoretical. It’s already being seized by our adversaries,” said Fitrell, who testified earlier this month at a Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health Policy hearing regarding China’s aggressive economic playbook.
Fitrell highlighted that while the U.S. trade with Africa has declined, China has used government-backed deals to dominate African markets, exporting over $137 billion to Sub-Saharan Africa last year, more than seven times what the U.S. exported.
Relying on China and Russia does not help Africa, he said.
“One African country after another has asked us to bring in big tech. Oracle, Microsoft, Google, but they won’t come because they can’t trust the Chinese-built digital infrastructure,” Fitrell said at the June 4th hearing, arguing that "if we want to have a modern digital economy, we need to rip out those systems and replace them.”
AFRICOM’S budget is part of the overall Department of Defense budget and is not publicly released as a separate line item, though in the Defense Fiscal Year 2024 bill, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved an additional $400 million towards AFRICOM and SOUTHCOM (responsible for defense strategy in Central America, South America, and the Caribbean).
The Department of Defense’s AFRICOM declined requests for an on-the-record interview but responded by providing links to webpages. An official from AFRICOM spoke on behalf of the Department but only in background without being named because they are not supposed to speak with the media.
The official said there had been no shift in African policy at the Defense Department. They are pursuing the same missions within AFRICOM but making them more “refined.”
According to the official, these refinements have been happening for the last three years, given the increasing importance on the continent, but now AFRICOM leaders are searching for ways to make processes more “efficient.”
To determine if a mission is “efficient,” the Defense Department assesses if there are direct U.S. interests prevalent. If not, missions could be discontinued. The official mentioned that the same assessment would be conducted for embassies when determining which should be shut down, and that consolidations would be happening in the future, but they would not say where.
Although the official works in AFRICOM, they said that although USAID has been terminated, USAID projects in Africa would continue through the State Department. This seemed to contradict a statement President Donald Trump made in April, saying he would draft an order to shut down the State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs.
As of publication, the State Department did not respond to emailed requests for comment.
Of the three USAID personnel contacted for this story, two responded, stating they were not permitted to comment on agency matters until July 1, when they no longer work for the government. They were on administrative leave per the Trump administration’s orders.
Multiple current and former Peace Corps volunteers in Africa were contacted for this story to understand their projects and presence, given cuts to funding, but they expressed hesitancy to speak on the subject for similar reasons.
Some experts in U.S. aid to Africa said U.S. assistance had already been focused on helping U.S. companies and had largely failed to successfully reach communities in need.
“What Africa needs is a serious industrial revolution. And that is not where the money is going,” said Yaw Kissi, a Ghanaian consultant working on Africa’s development.
He said U.S. assistance primarily benefits U.S. companies and does not build a strong foundational infrastructure, which is what African countries need to commercially develop on their own.
“How can you say you want to help me, but through your help, you are only serving a certain interest, and you are not really looking at what I need? That is not help,” Kissi added.
Kissi also criticized AFRICOM’s presence on the continent as misaligned with African priorities, stating, “We don’t need a military base.”
The defense official said that the U.S. will be increasing its focus on Africa because U.S. adversaries, Chinese and Russian, have growing investments on the African continent.
While defense officials emphasized efficiency and refinement in military engagement, development experts and some lawmakers argued that sustained diplomatic and humanitarian investments are equally vital.
“The U.S. has had, and should maintain, a key role in promoting peace and security, upholding human rights, creating pathways for inclusive economic growth, strengthening democratic institutions, and building invaluable people-to-people ties,” Van Hollen continued.
Critics warned that drawing down civilian-led programs in favor of security-heavy strategies could destabilize long-term partnerships and undermine broader U.S. interests on the continent.
“These investments not only support our values, they also help maintain regional stability, improve our national security, open markets for American businesses, and foster long-term partnerships rooted in mutual respect,” Van Hollen added. “I am working in Congress to continue to advance these shared priorities with African nations despite this Administration’s actions.”
AFRICOM’s goal moving forward is to no longer be the “crutch” for African countries, allowing the countries to lead their own security efforts and not rely solely on the U.S.
While defense officials emphasized efficiency and refinement in military engagement, development experts and some lawmakers argue that sustained diplomatic and humanitarian investments are equally vital.
"For too long, the United States has prioritized development assistance over commercial engagement,” Fitrell said. “Trade over aid is now truly America’s policy for Africa."
Bridget Erin Craig is a graduate student at Northwestern Medill in the Politics, Policy and Foreign Affairs specialization. She graduated with a B.A. from the University of Miami in Political Science, Criminology and Sustainable Development.
On May 8th, 2025, the Network for Responsible Public Policy (NFRPP) convened a session to discuss the future of the transition to clean energy in the face of some stiff headwinds caused by the new US administration led by Donald Trump. The panel included Dale Bryk, Director of State and Regional Policy at the Harvard Environmental and Energy Law Program and a Senior Fellow at the Regional Plan Association, and Dan Sosland, President of the Acadia Center. The discussion was moderated by Richard Eidlin, National Policy Director for Business for America.
The actions of the Trump administration are somewhat surprising, given the campaign rhetoric at face value. While the administration promised an end to burdensome Federal regulation and an era of new Federalism, the current policy regarding clean energy and the environment has been anything but. The president’s executive order “Unleashing American Energy”, issued on January 20th, 2025, is, in fact, a heavy-handed intrusion by the Federal government into state and local energy policies, and reads, according to Bryk, like a “mindless assault on anything that sounds clean.”
While the acts of the current administration will make a transition to clean energy more difficult, the message from Bryk was that “the arc of history bends towards clean energy.” The transition will happen because, politics aside, the science is now clear and not in dispute. So what can be done in the face of an administration that is antagonistic to this transition? As described by the panel, US states in fact have a tremendous amount of jurisdiction over not only energy policies, but over the industries that primarily contribute to climate change, such as transportation and housing. And the advice from Bryk to those state and local governments is “not to chase the chaos.” Most states and communities have affirmative agendas for their energy policies, and those need to be defended, including in the courts.
There is a long history of Federal and state collaboration on various programs, and many states also cooperate among themselves to agree on, for example, emission limits from power plants operating within those states. Historically, these efforts have broad bipartisan support. One of the points repeatedly mentioned during this presentation was that there is more agreement on the need for an energy transition than might be apparent based on the highly polarized talking points visible at the national level. But how is this possible?
Part of the reason is that the discussion at the state and local levels is not necessarily about “climate change.” In fact, how we discuss the transition to clean energy is a complicated issue itself, and what we say can also obscure what is happening in many states. Bryk emphasized that in many states, “climate is not the driver. Job creation is the driver.” Or, reducing energy costs is the driver, or just trying to keep energy dollars local is the driver. It can be surprising for people steeped in climate change discussions to learn that the US states that generate the most wind power (Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas) or have the most widespread use of heat pumps (South Carolina) do not have the most aggressive climate policies. They have other priorities that align with the desire to make a transition to clean energy, and the climate impact may be just a side benefit, for now. On the topic of the transition to clean energy, the American electorate has more in common than it has differences. Even conservatives argue that the Trump energy policy is interfering in the market, and is not allowing renewable energy sources to move to the forefront. However, it is often economically advantageous for them to do so.
So, how we talk about this issue matters. As Sosland emphasized, we are all paying for the costs of the energy choices we are currently making. We pay not just in terms of dollars, but also in terms of the impact on the climate and our own health. “We need to do a better job in the climate community of framing a message that works. We talk so much about cost, so much about utility and other kinds of economics…we are really talking about human beings in flood zones, coughing, getting sick. We are talking about humans here. The human impact of this issue is not even being addressed. That has to change. It has to turn around.” As Bryk put it, “The underlying values that we have are not controversial, and that’s a place where we can start and have conversations about these things with our families and our friends.”
If the transition is going to happen, however, it’s not the case that unleashed market forces by themselves will get us to where we want to be. As Bryk recognized, we know that there are “communities across the country that have been overburdened by pollution and underserved by the clean energy solutions.” There is a disconnect, and it’s important to think about what, as she says, a “just and orderly transition looks like, economic sector by economic sector. To make that transition orderly, we will need policies to be put into place that avoid the failures that often occur in the market. “That’s part of what we have to think about when we are thinking about equitable transition … all of those opportunities to intervene and help it work better and prevent the bad things from happening that can happen in a transition.”
The approach of the current administration will pose the greatest challenges to our ability to create just policies. Although states and communities have power, states cannot do everything when plans involve, for example, Federal leases, and the government may renege on those contracts. This makes it extremely difficult to conduct business. “What can you rely on if you can’t rely on the signature of the US government on a signed contract?” Bryk asked. The opposition of the Federal government to enabling a clean energy transition is especially surprising, given that data shows economic forces are already pushing in that direction. Sosland reminded us that in the Northeast region of the country, energy production was 21% based on coal just 10-15 years ago. It is now less than 1% coal. Market pressures are driving the shift away from fossil fuels. This is why the panel believes that the transition is inevitable, but the opposition of the Federal government will delay the transition timeframe, and that may or may not be the time that we have. International agreements aim to achieve goals by 2030, 2035, and 2050. If we are not on track to meet the first targets, we will either not meet or it will be much more expensive to meet the 2050 target. So, while the technology and ingenuity is in place, the policies of the current administration are incredibly damaging. “This isn’t a blip, necessarily, that is affordable. Losing four or more years is really going to be damaging to meeting the 2030, 2035 targets as we head to 2050,” Sosland reminded us. “There is an enormous amount to worry about,” Bryk said. We are currently in a very precarious position. I have confidence in the states, cities, communities, and some businesses. But, we are not meeting many targets that many states and companies have set. And now we are being hamstrung in a way … that’s out of our power. But there are always other places where we can make a lot of progress,” said Bryk.
And this last comment highlighted the areas of optimism that the panel wanted to emphasize. While the stance of the current US administration can be disheartening, the panel believes that considerable good can be achieved at the state and local levels.
For example, small communities are doing quite a bit. Putting solar farms on landfills. Creating bike paths as alternatives to cars. Massachusetts has incentives to adopt very stringent energy codes, so new buildings are being constructed to very high standards. Many states with climate policies are demonstrably improving the quality of life in their communities. Almost all states (44) participate in the Climate Pollution Reduction Grant Program, a policy initiated under the IRA. Whether or not these states have explicit climate policies doesn’t matter as much as the fact that they see good reasons to pursue a migration to a clean energy infrastructure. They have recognized that we are always spending money on energy infrastructure, so we can choose to allocate it to options that will yield greater benefits and longer lifespans.
If there is so much agreement on the underlying principles, why does it still seem so difficult to talk about it? The answer to that seems to be that, at the current level of polarization in our society, it is challenging to discuss anything that has become a political litmus test. How to talk about this issue was branded by Bryk as the “question of our time.” The advice given by this panel was to adopt the old aphorism, “think globally, and act locally.” It is hard to have these conversations at the national level, but easier at the state level, and even easier at the community level. And there is something happening in almost every community that is part of a clean energy transition. So, getting involved at the local level, for example, with local faith organizations, was described as one of the best ways to engage in this issue while avoiding much of the damaging political rhetoric.
Leigh Chinitz is a Board Member of the Network for Responsible Public Policy (NFRPP).
