Autumn Hill Speaks From Jail After Being Sentenced to 50 Years by the Trump Administration for an Alleged Terrorist Attack
In her first interview from Johnson County Jail in Texas, Hill says she is a “political prisoner” who has been unjustly locked up by the Trump administration.
“UNCLOSETED with Spencer Macnaughton” is a new podcast by Uncloseted Media, an investigative LGBTQ-focused nonprofit news publication. Follow and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. YouTube // Spotify // Apple
On July 4, 2025, over a dozen people held a protest outside of the Prairieland Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facility in Alvarado, Texas, around 40 miles away from Dallas. It was a noise demonstration, a type of protest that uses loud noisemakers—which in this case included fireworks—as a form of civil disruption. As the night went on, tensions escalated as some protestors broke off and committed several acts of vandalism, eventually leading police officers to arrive on the scene. Soon after that, unknown assailants fired several shots at the officers, with the Justice Department reporting that one of them was struck non-fatally in the neck area. Authorities later argued that the shot that hit the officer was fired by a protester named Champagne Song.
Autumn Hill attended the protest but says she left hours before shots were fired. But that didn’t stop the police from raiding her home and arresting her for alleged involvement with the protest, identifying her as a suspect on the charges of terrorism.
Then, in October, the Trump administration got involved, accusing Hill and eight other defendants—three of whom, including Hill, are trans—of being “Antifa terrorists” and “Antifa Cell operatives.”
Hill and her co-defendants were charged with providing material support for terrorists. In a press release, the DOJ wrote that “This is the first sentencing of defendants affiliated with Antifa.” This comes after Trump signed an executive order in September 2025 declaring antifa as a terrorist organization.
Despite the administration’s claims, there is no unified organization called antifa, a name which refers to a decentralized movement based on militant opposition to fascism. And despite no evidence suggesting trans people are disproportionately likely to commit acts of terrorism, the Trump administration in May unveiled a new counterterrorism strategy to highlight “radically pro-transgender” people as a threat.
Hill was convicted for riot, providing material support to terrorists and conspiracy to use and carry an explosive—namely the fireworks used at the protest. She has been sentenced to 50 years in prison. That’s more than double the sentences of former Proud Boys chairman Enrique Tarrio and Oath Keepers Founder Stewart Rhodes, who were key leaders in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. While Hill and her co-defendants are appealing the case, legal experts are sounding the alarm that these unusually harsh sentences could set a precedent for strict crackdowns on freedom of speech and assembly.
Since her arrest, Hill has been incarcerated in men’s facilities. Now, staring down half a century in prison, she gives her first on-camera interview from the Johnson County Jail in Texas, where she maintains that the federal government’s narrative about her is false and that she believes she is a “political prisoner.”
Read the interview transcript here:
Spencer Macnaughton: Hi, everyone. Welcome back to UNCLOSTED with me, Spencer Macnaughton. Today, I’m here with Autumn Hill, one of the defendants in the Prairieland case, where the Trump administration has accused several anti-ICE protesters of being part of a so-called “antifa cell.” Hill was sentenced to 50 years in prison for her alleged involvement in a protest where a police officer was shot while she was not in attendance. Today, she’s speaking with me from Johnson County Jail in Texas. Autumn, thanks so much for speaking with me and Uncloseted Media today.
Autumn Hill: Well, it’s great to be here, Spencer. I’ve never been interviewed before in a video visit like this. So, this’ll be a first time.
SM: People have seen headlines, you know, the outside world has commented a lot on this. But I want to hear from you and your account of what happened and why are you where you are right now, facing a possible sentence of up to 50 years?
AH: So the night of July 4, some friends and I protested at the Prairieland detention center in Alvarado, Texas, and we did what’s called a noise demonstration, which is a pretty typical form of protest. You know, you show up outside of a building where something is going on that you and your friends might disagree with, and you make a lot of noise to signal your presence and dissent. So, you know, fireworks and megaphones and bells and whistles and all that are extremely common. But my goal was to let the people inside, the detainees, know, “Hey, we’re here, we know that you are there, you haven’t been forgotten, and we understand that what is happening to you is unjust.” That all went well. And I actually left before any of the violence occurred. A correctional officer came outside and asked us to disperse and we did. And so I ended up going home in a separate vehicle, and I didn’t know anything about the violence that had occurred until later that evening. We had been waiting for my housemate and co-defendant Meagan Morris to return home from the protest. And when she didn’t for several hours, we started to look at the reporting from Alvarado and the first that I learned that any violence had occurred was from a report that there had been an officer-involved shooting outside of the Prairieland Detention Center.
SM: But you had left at this point? You had fully cleared the premises before that happened, before the shooting took place, you had gone home?
AH: Yes, it was hours before I learned about any violence. It was in the early hours of the next morning I learned about it from the reporting, and I was arrested the next day.
Note: Per the trial transcript, all parties agree that Hill left the premises at some point that night and was not present by the time arrests occurred. The defense claims that Hill was not in attendance when the shots were fired. Witnesses from both the FBI and the Alvarado police department were unable to produce any evidence to the contrary and as such did not directly dispute whether Hill was there when the shots were fired.
SM: Wow, and I assume you read the reporting at night, and you’re thinking, “I’m not gonna get in trouble for this, there’s nothing that I’ve done.” So you slept well, eventually? Is that fair?
AH: I did not actually sleep super well, you know. I knew that there was evidence of my presence because of the fact that I go work in that van all the time, I realized like, “Oh my god, I left my purse in the van.” And you know, I went to sleep, but I was like, “Oh my god. They are going to come arrest me because of this, because of my ID in the car.” And so I kind of spent the next day in anticipation of this raid that actually ended up happening. It was a huge surprise to me, though, when I was, you know, charged with terrorism. We figured that if there were going to be, you know, if anybody was gonna be charged with anything from that night, it would probably be just trespassing maybe. But then when everybody was charged with terrorism, that was a huge surprise.
The FBI Raid
SM: There have been details in various publications about what was involved in that raid. We want to hear from you. Can you give me, in granular detail, if you’re comfortable, describe the raid as it occurred from your perspective?
AH: Sure. We heard a loud bang from the opposite end of the house from where I was sitting. And I was like, “What’s going on?” And I remember, you know, my girlfriend, Shelby—I’m polyamorous, my wife, Lydia, and I live at the Big Gay House—and Shelby was like, “We’re being raided by the FBI.” And so, you know, the next few minutes were just kind of chaos, you know, we heard them knock down the front door; they brought along a big vehicle with like a battering ram mounted on the front, and they didn’t, they by no means had to knock down the front door. It wasn’t even locked. You know, this was a no-knock raid on our house. They flew a drone in the front door after they knocked it down, and they ordered us to come out. So I came to the front door in nothing but a red dress, you know, my house clothes, and walked out to, like, 11 rifles pointed at me, and I just remember thinking, “Oh my god, if I am not extremely careful, I’m gonna die right here, right now. They are gonna shoot me if they think that I’m gonna do anything other than follow their orders.”
SM: What are they ordering you to do? There’s 12 rifles pointed at your face, at your front doorstep. What are they saying to you?
AH: So they’re ordering me to stay where I am, and then they’re ordering the person in the red dress to come forward, and then I’m walking toward these, you know, tactically armed and armored police officers. They order me to turn around and walk backward toward them, and then they put me in handcuffs, and then they sit me on the pavement, you know, outside of my house and they leave me there for like 30 minutes under guard.
SM: Explain what the Big Gay House is, why are you calling it that? And who else was with you and then subsequently arrested in that moment?
AH: So the Big Gay House is our home in South Dallas. It’s the house of primarily Meagan Morris and her friend Taylor who went in to buy the house together a handful of years ago. And they did so always with the intention of providing shelter to housing insecure queer people and especially the trans people. I met Meagan and Co. through just the activist community. We became close friends and ultimately I started dating first Shelby and then Meagan who are also partners.
The Charges
SM: The charges against you are for rioting, for material support to terrorists and for conspiracy to use and carry an explosive. What are your responses to that when you hear that? Because the way you describe to me, that doesn’t really match up to your story. Are those false accusations?
AH: Those are false accusations, yes. So as you may know, the Trump administration for most of 2020 and then starting up again immediately during Trump two has tried to create a narrative that there is this shadowy terrorist conspiracy from the left called “antifa.” You know, in NSPM-7, they describe it as like a anti-Christian, anti-American, you know, radical, transgenderist organization. And this became their characterization of, like, the George Floyd uprising, for example. The Trump administration characterized the George Floyd rebellions as being kind of primarily provoked by antifa. And antifa to me is just anti-fascist. And it’s a disorganized collection of different kinds of leftists, and even like some people in the center, who kind of do what I would describe as an organic, immune response to the presence of fascist violence in American communities.
SM: And just to be clear, if you’re a member of antifa, you’re not violent.
AH: There’s no membership in antifa. They want to create a narrative of leftist political violence as being as much or more of a problem in the United States than, you know, right-wing stochastic terrorism. You know, they want to create a false equivalency which the data shows just doesn’t exist.
SM: And what about conspiracy to carry and use an explosive? Where did they even get that from?
AH: So that is on the basis of online conversations in an app called Signal, where, you know, defendants discussed bringing fireworks to the noise demonstration. And they say that the intent the whole time, the prosecutions say, was to riot, was to destroy government property, and was to use these fireworks as explosives.
SM: And just to be clear, it was Champagne Song, I believe, who did shoot an officer, is that correct?
AH: That’s still unclear. Champagne Song has certainly been characterized by the government as the shooter, but I think the evidence for that is still pretty weak from my perspective, and the counternarrative that I have heard talked about by lawyers throughout the trial, has been the idea that Champagne may have actually fired into the ground during the altercation, and that there was never actually any intent to harm the police officer. I wasn’t there. I can’t speak to it. I saw some blurry footage where it was very unclear to me what actually happened, but I am friends with Champagne and I’ll tell you what I have told people the entire time that we have been locked up, which is that Champagne is one of the most calm, level-headed and principled people I know. And I never believed for a minute leading up to the trial that they had attempted to murder someone in cold blood.
SM: And if you found out that Champagne had attempted to do that, you would of course denounce it, I would assume.
AH: Yeah, I mean like attempting to murder somebody in cold blood is, you know, it’s not my style. I see violent struggle as primarily being something that happens in self-defense for people of conscience.
Note: All parties in the trial agreed that Song was one of the people who fired shots. The fact that is in dispute is whether Song fired the shots in an attempt to murder the officer who was shot. The defense claims that Song was only attempting to intimidate the officers rather than to kill them. The prosecution disagrees.
A 50-Year Sentence
SM: How do they communicate the sentence? And what do they tell you the grounds for this sentence is based off of?
AH: Well, so, the sentencing, skipping to the sentencing leaves out a whole year of sitting in jail and sitting through the trial. I learned actually through the, I believe through the law library in Johnson County Jail, that if I’m convicted of all of the crimes that the federal government, you know, puts up on me, I’m looking at actually 30 to 90 as the range. That’s the information that I have when I decide that I’m gonna go, I’m going to take this to trial, is knowing that, you know, if I’m found guilty of everything, I’m looking at 30 to 90.
SM: Tell me about the last year. So, you know, from that raid until now, take me inside what your life has been like in prison.
AH: So for the first roughly 80 days of my imprisonment, I was here in Johnson County Jail, and I was in what’s called administrative segregation or SEG for short. SEG is used both for disciplinary purposes and also to separate members of the jail population who are considered to be particularly vulnerable or high risk. I was never given any reason for my separate housing other than my charges. And so I spent 80 days in what is effectively solitary confinement. These cells are very small, like the size of a bathroom, right? So you’ve got like a bunk, you’ve got a little table, and you’ve got a shower and a toilet, and you basically live in a bathroom. And so, I was physically alone. You can shout to other people in SEG through the vents or through the bean chute, that’s the shoot where they feed you, where they pass you your trays and your mail and such through. But you’re alone. So for the first week, I didn’t have any contact with the outside world. And so it was finally Friday when Lydia came to visit me. And that was the first time I actually knew that Lydia hadn’t been arrested. Like I figured that if they were gonna come raid the Big Gay House, you know, they were just going to arrest everybody. So like, I didn’t know if Shelby had her freedom. I didn’t know if Lydia had her freedom, and I was like thinking to myself, because the fluorescent lights are always on and my wife has like really bad sensitivity issues because of, cause she’s disabled, you know, I was like, “Oh my god, if Lydia is in a cell like this, she’s gonna go crazy. Like she’s not gonna be able to handle it.” And as soon as I saw Lydia, you know, I just, I burst into tears because I just knew, thank God she’s safe. She’s all right. You know, and I knew if Lydia is going to be okay, I can do this.
SM: Were you aware that a few weeks ago, Trump released a new counterterrorism strategy where he labeled certain trans folks as a terrorist threat and didn’t include white supremacists or far-right extremists in that report?
AH: I hadn’t heard of that, but that doesn’t surprise me, that’s consistent with his character.
Targeted Because She’s Trans?
SM: You believe you were targeted specifically because of your gender identity, specifically because you’re trans?
AH: Right, yeah, I think that that’s a part of it, for sure. But obviously not everybody who is a part of the Prairieland, you know, defendants is trans, right? There are autistic people, there are, you know, there are people of Mexican descent, there are women, and, you know, it’s a diverse group of people, but all of whom are part of, I would say, some marginalized underclass.
SM: And tell me about the judge.
AH: The trial judge is actually a man named Mark Pittman. Pittman is a Trump appointee, and throughout our trial, I would say he made rulings which [were] very nakedly preferential to the prosecution. You know, the the easiest example that I can see that is just very, very glaring, is on the first day of our trial, Pittman declared a mistrial on the basis of the fact that one of the defense attorneys was wearing a shirt to celebrate the lives of civil rights advocates like Shirley Chisholm and Martin Luther King Jr., and he said that he, on the basis of her wearing this T-shirt, Pittman said that this was a trial about political protest, and on the basis of that, he could find no other remedy for the bias that it could potentially have on the jury, than to declare a mistrial. You know, then he moved the trial to a different courtroom, and we came back a week later, and there was a great big mural of the Texas Rangers on the back wall of the courtroom in the area where the jury panel sits, and, you know we pointed out like, “Hey, you know, Texas Rangers are going to be prosecutorial witnesses in this case, and you have this great big propaganda mural for the Texas Rangers on the back wall, isn’t that gonna bias the jury in favor of the state?” And he said, “Well no, we can easily remedy that by asking the jury if they can put aside their biases and not be influenced by that.” He’s confirmed to have had an ex-parte meeting with William Barr, Bill Barr, who you may remember as Trump one’s attorney general and the principal architect of Trump one’s attempt to, you know, terrorify antifa. He said that he gave William Barr a tour of the courthouse during the trial, and ultimately, in spite of the fact that he sat through the whole trial, saw all of the evidence and, you know, made kind of grumbling noises about what he saw, he never explicitly said he believed that the case had been overcharged, but he definitely made grumbling noises about the way that the state had charged the case. He ultimately decided to give everyone a maximum sentence.
SM: Take me inside your mind when you’re learning about this sentence being 50 years in prison.
AH: My basic assumption was, you know, the judge had obviously made his mind up about our guilt before the trial even began, and so it didn’t take me by surprise at all when I actually was sentenced to 50 years in the Bureau of Prisons. I knew, like, this is about making an example, this is about creating a narrative that, you know, anyone who resists the Trump administration’s agenda of mass deportation, is going to be made an example of, is gonna be treated this way, that if you stand up, if you speak out, we will bury you. I knew that that was what this was about the entire time that we were going to trial, and it was why I said from the very beginning, “I’m not gonna plea to anything.” You know, like they offered us plea deals, you know, we could have signed to 15 years for material support for terrorism. And I took the risk that I took of, you know, going to trial because I was like, I’m not going to create evidence of this non-existent terrorist conspiracy. That goes against everything I believe in.
The Jury’s Decision
SM: How do you think, how did they manage to convince a jury to believe this? Like, what were the things that you heard that kind of got them to this?
AH: We are not entirely clear on that. Some observers said that, you know, several of the jury members were in tears when they delivered the verdict. There are reports of, like, violent arguing or even screams coming from the jury room during the, you know, during the jury deliberations. There has been a lot of talk amongst the defense team that you know there may have been what’s referred to as “forced trading” in the jury deliberations. It was immediately before spring break and, you know, maybe some people thought we were all innocent of everything, maybe some people all thought we were all guilty of everything, and they could all agree that the most important thing was that they get to go home and have their entire spring break uninterrupted.
The prosecution’s entire strategy revolved around introducing stickers and zines that are created by, you know, various members of different leftist communities, especially propaganda related to the term ACAB. A-C-A-B is short for “All cops are bastards,” which is a slogan that’s very common among anti-authoritarians in the United States of America. This idea that, you know, the American justice system, the American incarceration system is a relic of slavery in the United States.
SM: And just to be clear, they’re introducing kind of swag stickers of “ACAB,” but that is essentially, in America, freedom of speech. I mean—
AH: That’s protected speech.
SM: That’s protected—
AH: They introduced this, and they said, “You know, we find these zines that are very anti-authoritarian and this is evidence,” they say, “of a shared ideology between the co-defendants that proves that they want to commit violence against the police and that was their motivation in going to the Prairieland Detention Center.”
Convicted in a Deep Red State
SM: Wow. And when you think about the jury, you’re in Texas, correct? In Texas, a deep red state. And if you think about the intensity of transphobia in America right now, I imagine you’re wondering if this jury was gonna be completely fair to you?
AH: I definitely feared the idea that, you know, we could get a jury that was just going to, you know, see trans people and say, you know, “Your honor, tranny 50 years,” right? I was surprised by the quality of the jury panels that we got. I don’t feel like anybody there found me guilty, particularly because I am trans.
SM: How long do you imagine you’ll be there? And are you working with a lawyer or anyone to try and reduce the sentence?
AH: So we’re going to take our case before the Fifth Circuit, and if necessary, all the way to the Supreme Court. It’s probably going to be about two years before our case is appealed before the Fifth Circuit. Now, I will say I personally don’t have a lot of hope that the Fifth Circuit is going to set everybody free and, you know, say that this is obviously unjust. So many of those Fifth Circuit justices are Trump appointees. And I think that it is absolutely within the realm of possibility that they just shut down our appeal as a favor to the president. So—
SM: Why would they do that as a favor to the president, do you think? Why do you think Trump would see that as an assist for him?
AH: Because the president, you know, tweeted directly about us. Our case is the first case in United States history where any defendant has been successfully tried and convicted as part of a, like, an antifa-related thing, right? The Justice Department said, “This is the first time we have put antifa behind bars,” basically. But not in those exact words, right? But this is a part of the president’s agenda, you know, to create this narrative of left-wing terrorism, you know, basically in order to be able to prosecute political dissent against him. So I think that, like, if the Fifth Circuit were to overturn this case, which is the first of hundreds, right? The Justice Department has tried to go after, you know, people from Stop Cop City, you know, people from Minnesota and the George Floyd rebellions, and say like, “These people are antifa,” and hundreds of such cases have been shut down. Ours is the first such case to have made it all the way to conviction and sentencing, and that’s because of the fact that they were able to get such a conservative judge, such a conservative prosecutor, and have it tried in such a conservative district, right? In other jurisdictions, this would have been thrown out as a matter of law, but it’s thanks to the fixing of Mark Pittman and the pressure that the prosecutor Sean Smith’s superiors put on him to take this case all the way to trial, that that is what happened and I am here today.
SM: Wow.
AH: I find myself often thinking, like, “Wow, I really hit the jackpot on this one. This is not how I thought my life was going to go.”
‘A Political Prisoner’
SM: And from your perspective, you’ve done nothing wrong. And if what you’re saying is true, you do not deserve to be there. Do you consider yourself a political prisoner?
AH: I absolutely consider myself a political prisoner. I think that it’s clear that I’ve been incarcerated for political reasons. I think that it’s clear that we were tried for political reasons and that, you know, the judge who sentenced me, Reed O’Connor, who was a different man than the trial judge Mark Pittman, also sentenced people for political reasons. You know, that Mark Pittman and Reed O’Connor made it clear that they believe that, you know this sentence, it sends a message to other people who they say “share an ideology that justifies political violence.”
Note: In court notes, there are reports that Judge Reed O’Connor stated that he “wants to send a message to anyone else with similar ideology.”
SM: And when you see, when you absorb this, you know, ruling, 50 years in prison for you, how does that make you feel when you see Trump’s sweeping pardons of the January 6 rioters, for example?
AH: The president of the United States has consistently demonstrated himself to be a man who rewards sycophants and who uses the systems of government to retaliate against his perceived enemies.
SM: Tell me just so the folks know, where are you being housed right now? And is it a men’s prison, a woman’s prison or a coed prison?
AH: So I’m being housed in a men’s facility. I actually haven’t started serving my sentence in the Bureau of Prisons. I am being held in Johnson County Jail, awaiting state charge, you know, awaiting the resolution of my state charges. I’m actually being held under my birth name. I had my name legally changed by a court order in 2023, but the government prosecuted me under my birth name in spite of that. So even now, you know guards refer to me by my birth name instead of my legal name.
The Only Woman in a Men’s Jail
SM: Tell me what it’s been like as maybe the only woman in that jail surrounded by men.
AH: In FMC Fort Worth, which was where we waited, you know, pretrial, in pretrial detention for about the first week. It was pretty scary. The prison system has a reputation that everybody knows for being a rape-friendly environment. And we didn’t have to be scared of that at all as it turned out. There was one hairy encounter with a guy who went by Detroit, who put a lot of pressure on Meagan to have sex with him. But other than that, you know, everyone was very respectful to us. Here in Johnson County Jail, I would say also the people here are respectful to me, they’re friendly to me. They still don’t really necessarily understand me as a woman. You know, I had a conversation with probably my most conservative cellmate here, a guy named Zach, where I was like, you know, “I want you to think about me as a woman, and I want you to treat me as a woman.” And he was very taken aback by that.
SM: Our fantastic reporter, Hope Pisoni did a really impressive investigation where she spoke to folks, and discovered that the Bureau of Prisons is ignoring an injunction and denying trans incarcerated folks gender-affirming healthcare. What’s that been like for you?
AH: I was able to get HRT the entire time, but it was in FMC Fort Worth, and actually I’ve been able to keep my HRT the entire time that I’ve been in jail.
SM: What has this been like for you from a mental perspective? How has it affected your state of mind? Like I can’t imagine this has been easy, and through this interview to me, you’ve come across as kind of chill.
AH: You know, I’m a pretty spiritual person, pretty philosophical person. When I am in a situation where no action is likely to lead to an acceptable outcome, I take no action. And to a certain extent, I do not believe in 50 years. I don’t. Maybe I’m in denial but I still kind of don’t believe that I’m actually going to serve out this whole sentence and I think there’s a little reason for optimism in that regard. There is a big movement of support for a political pardon for us from the next Democratic president of the United States. My mother told me that my father said that the next time a Democratic president is in office, he’s going to write him a letter to ask for a pardon for me. And that was the first positive interaction that I’ve had with my dad in five years. And when I heard that, I just burst into tears and, like, just became hysterical for five minutes because it was just the perfection of the absurdity of the time to me. My arch-conservative father, who I can’t really stand to be in the same room as right now because of his transphobia, that he would do this thing, right, like appeal to a Democratic president on my behalf. And it really shows this bipartisan sentiment that this is obviously unjust, this is obviously political. You know, if this arch-conservative and I can find common ground over the belief that this is a political persecution, I think that there’s a very strong chance for some future good thing to come our way out of that.
Hill’s Message to Trump
SM: The Trump administration has labeled you as a terrorist. If you could say something to the Trump administration, to Trump himself, what would you want to say?
AH: I would say, “What you’re trying to do is foolish. History shows us that when you try to oppress a popular movement by imprisoning their heroes and valorizing the people who oppress them, all you do is build momentum for the people who want to undo your political administration.”
SM: Is there anything else I didn’t ask you that you want to get out, that you wanna say in this context? Obviously, people will see this and I know you have limited connection to the outside world.
AH: I would say the same thing that I’ve said before, which is: Be brave. We’ve been accused of being terrorists, but terror is the power that this administration wants to ply in order to keep people quiet, in order to keep people content. Fear of incarceration, fear of homelessness, you know, it’s this fear, this fear that we’re going to lose our privileges, that we are going to use our comfort, that keeps people docile, keeps people from speaking the truth. Don’t be afraid.
SM: Well, that’s a really interesting place to end on. Autumn Hill, calling me and Uncloseted Media from Johnson County Jail in Texas. Thank you so much for speaking with us today, we really, really appreciate it.
AH: Yeah, no problem. I’m really happy to be here, Spencer. It was nice to meet you and really great to have this conversation.
SM: And if you liked that episode and wanted to get all of our investigative journalism, subscribe to unclosetedmedia.com, our YouTube page, or listen wherever you get your podcasts.
Additional reporting by Soph Holland and Bella Sayegh
If objective, nonpartisan, rigorous, LGBTQ-focused journalism is important to you, please consider making a tax-deductible donation in the U.S. through our 501(c)(3) fiscal sponsor, Resource Impact, by clicking this button:
 |
|