As the Trump administration imposes restrictions on transgender people, the 2026 midterms, the American midterm elections, are bringing an unprecedented number of openly LGBTQ+ personalities to Congress. Two simultaneous developments that shed light on the political and social fractures in the United States.
Washington, the paradox of November 2026
On one hand, the White House is defending a restrictive conception of gender identity recognition in certain federal institutions. On the other, voters have just designated new LGBTQ+ representatives to historic positions. America in 2026 cannot be summed up as either linear progress in rights or their uniform decline: it is crossed by contradictory decisions and aspirations.
Restrictions targeting transgender people
On January 27, 2025, Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14183, dedicated to criteria for service in the armed forces. Its implementation led the Pentagon to initiate proceedings concerning transgender military personnel, in the name of operational readiness and unit cohesion. Military personnel and civil rights organizations have challenged this policy in court.
On February 5, 2025, Executive Order 14201 targeted the participation of transgender athletes in women’s sports competitions in contexts covered by federal rules. The administration invokes sports fairness; its opponents denounce discriminatory exclusion. These measures primarily target transgender people: they do not constitute a general ban on homosexual military personnel serving.
At the ballot box, historic firsts
The contrast with the 2026 midterms, held on November 3, is striking. According to the provisional tally published on November 6 by LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, 17 of 18 openly LGBTQ+ candidates in federal elections won their races. Seven new LGBTQ+ elected officials are expected to join Congress, contributing to record representation. The organization notes that some vote counts remain ongoing.
In New Hampshire, Chris Pappas became the first openly gay man elected to the U.S. Senate. The presence of LGBTQ+ personalities is also expanding in state assemblies: several territories have elected openly transgender parliamentarians for the first time.
These victories do not mean that all voters approve of all LGBTQ+ demands. The cost of living, the economy, and judgment on the administration also weighed on electoral choices. They nonetheless attest that candidacies once considered improbable can today obtain a popular mandate.
Two Americas, or a more complex society?
There is great temptation to oppose an America of decrees to an America of ballots. But the boundary is not so clear-cut. Opinions on same-sex marriage, protection against discrimination, or rules applicable to transgender athletes do not always divide along a single partisan line.
This diversity of opinions also echoes debates observed in France, particularly regarding the visibility and protection of minorities. In Nice, our analysis of LGBTQ+ rights and visibility on the Côte d’Azur presents another institutional and social context. Federalism adds another dimension to the United States. States have major powers over education, health, and local law. Depending on where one lives, protections and restrictions can therefore be significantly different. Courts, local legislatures, and associations participate in this evolution as much as the president.
A Democratic Congress facing Trump
Democrats won control of both chambers of Congress in the midterms, according to the Associated Press. The new majority will take office in January 2027. It will be able to open investigations, exercise parliamentary oversight, and attempt to modify certain federal policies.
But this majority cannot, by itself, erase all presidential decrees: White House veto power, the executive’s own competencies, and court decisions will remain decisive. Electoral results therefore open institutional confrontation, not automatic legal change.
Which America in 2028?
After the 2026 midterms, the next presidential election, scheduled for 2028, will offer a new snapshot of the country’s priorities. Until then, LGBTQ+ political representation can advance without all controversies concerning rights and gender identity being resolved. Conversely, restrictive federal policy does not prevent voters from choosing representatives with diverse backgrounds.
The real question goes beyond the result of a single election: how can a federal democracy arbitrate deep disagreements over individual freedoms, equality, and the role of the state, without abandoning the protection of fundamental rights?
Tomorrow’s America will be built at once at the White House, in Congress, in the courts, and in local ballot boxes. The 2026 election above all shows that none of these arenas tells, on its own, the whole story of the country.
Sources: LGBTQ+ Victory Fund (provisional tally of November 6, 2026), Associated Press, U.S. Executive Orders 14183 and 14201.
NicePremium is a free, independent local news outlet.
Help us keep going by supporting our work from €5 per month.
