Without Context: Evaluating the Anti-LGBT Claims Against the Trump Administration

by Chad Felix Greene

If you only viewed news reporting surrounding LGBT rights under the Trump Administration, without context, you would likely agree with nearly all LGBT advocacy and media voices that Trump has been devastating for the LGBT community. But is it true and accurate? It may be easy to take so many reports, spanning several years from 2017 to 2020, at face value and assume the number of incidents, perspectives and news reports couldn't be wrong. But what if they didn't provide a full picture of what actually happened? Would the context and facts surrounding it change your perspective? During the freest and most accepting and celebrated time in modern history for LGBT Americans, the negative news surrounding the Trump administration's treatment of LGBT people can be overwhelming and confusing, but viewed in context it begins to become clear that the story isn't exactly how it is portrayed. Chad Felix Greene, a writer for The Federalist and The Post Millennial, has spent the last several years researching and evaluating claims of anti-LGBT legislation, hate crimes and actions by the Trump administration. He has compiled a comprehensive view of the claims LGBT media has made against the Trump administration, sourcing from GLAAD's Trump Accountability Project, evaluating them one by one. As an LGBT voice, Greene has taken a personal interest in these issues, as they impact his and his husband's life. However, what he finds challenges the narrative so aggressively argued by so many in the LGBT advocacy community.

381 pages, Kindle Edition

Published September 29, 2020

Reviews

[Ben Blake · Rating 4 out of 5]

Enjoyed it. Learned information I didn't know about President Trump and his administration. I liked how it put into context all the negative stories I read about in "fake news". Some bits were alittle biased but I understand that going into reading the book.

[Aimee Nicole · Rating 1 out of 5]

Had higher expectations. References his own published work instead of referring to experts. Inaccurate and only shows the part of the story that will make his own claims true. This seems to be a “profit” piece which is unfortunate.