Case Explained: Anti-LGBT Victimization in the United States – Legal Perspective

In his first weeks in office, and consistent with his campaign language, President Trump issued executive orders that target or severely impact LGBT people. The orders include declaring that the U.S. federal government will officially recognize only two sexes based on sex at birth, male and female; ending diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs across federal minority groups; and rolling back anti-discrimination legal protections for LGBT people.

President Trump, members of Congress, and state legislators have been clear throughout their 2024 campaigns and since the election that they plan to attack LGBT rights, both in state and federal policies and laws. Indeed, over the past decade, states across the country have initiated legislative proposals and have passed several statutes that limit the rights of LGBT people, with especially severe attacks on transgender rights. In 2023, the ACLU tracked 510 anti-LGBT bills, and in 2024, it tracked 533 anti-LGBT bills that were introduced in state legislatures across the United States, representing an increase over previous years. This year, by February 10, 2025, the ACLU had already tracked 339 anti-LGBT bills across the U.S.

Similar efforts have been made in the U.S. Congress. In 2024, Congress killed legislation that earmarked funds for LGBT organizations, including, for example, funds to build 74 new housing units for LGBT seniors in Massachusetts and to construct a new community center for the Gay Community Center of Philadelphia. In December 2024, the U.S. Senate passed the defense budget by an 85 to 14 vote, a bill that included a ban on TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for service members, from covering medical treatment of gender dysphoria that the bill alleged “could result in sterilization” for children under 18. In January 2025, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would prohibit federal funding from going to K-12 schools that allow transgender girls on girls’ sports teams, effectively barring transgender girls from female school sports teams.

These recent developments continue years of attacks on LGB, and especially transgender people. Such acts can lead to increased violence against LGBT people. For example, researchers found that following Trump campaign rallies in 2016, which the authors described as containing hate rhetoric, there was an increase in hate-motivated incidents in the counties where the rallies happened as compared to other counties and the same counties prior to the rally. Similarly, after the 2016 presidential elections, transgender and gender non-conforming people reported experiences of hate speech and violence. Following online attacks on transgender care, hospitals and doctors faced increased harassment, including death threats. This rhetoric and the anti-LGBT sentiments it promotes can lead to adverse mental health outcomes for LGBT people.

Violent Victimization of LGBT people in the United States 2022-2023 

In this report, we present our analysis of pooled National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data from 2022 and 2023 (N = 540,732). NCVS is a survey that documents experiences with victimization in a representative sample of the United States population.

We found that LGBT people experienced 106.4 violent victimizations per 1,000 persons, and transgender people experienced victimization at a rate of 93.7 per 1,000, compared with 21.1 per 1,000 among non-LGBT persons.

LGBT rates of victimization by race/ethnicity show that Black (non-Hispanic) LGBT people had the highest rates of victimization overall, followed by Hispanic and White (non-Hispanic) LGBT people. Rates for cisgender straight populations were similar across these race/ethnicity groups (Figure 1).

LGBT people experienced a higher rate of serious violence, defined as rape or sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated assault, than non-LGBT people (53.7 vs. 8.5 per 1,000), including higher rates of violence involving a weapon (27.4 vs. 5.7 per 1,000) and serious violence resulting in injuries (21.3 vs. 2.4 per 22 LGBT people were also more likely to experience violent hate crimes (6.4 vs. 0.7 per 1,000).

Conclusion

Consistent with prior findings, our results show that compared with non-LGBT people, LGBT people have been subject to disparities in exposure to violence, including hate crimes. LGBT victims of violence are also more likely than non-LGBT people to experience attacks that are more violent and to suffer injuries because of these attacks. The curtailment and elimination of civil rights protections for LGBT people in the United States puts them at risk for increased victimization and hate crimes.

Methodology

The NCVS uses a stratified, multi-stage cluster sample of households in the United States that surveys individuals aged 12 years and older. The purpose of the NCVS is to document the prevalence and characteristics of violent and property crimes in the U.S., regardless of whether such experiences were reported to the police. Data collection for the NCVS is performed on a continuous basis, with households probabilistically selected, recruited, and empaneled for 3.5 years and interviewed at six-month intervals. The U.S. Census Bureau field representatives conduct the NCVS interviews either in person or over the telephone.

The NCVS documents sexual orientation and gender identity among individuals aged 16 years and older. Sexual orientation was measured with the following question, “Which of the following best represents how you think of yourself?” with response options: “Lesbian or gay, Straight, that is, not lesbian or gay, Bisexual, Something else,” or “I don’t know the answer.” To measure gender identity, respondents were asked about their sex assigned at birth and their current gender identity. Respondents who indicated they were lesbian, gay, or bisexual, had a current gender identity that differed from their assigned sex at birth, or indicated their current gender identity was “transgender” were categorized as LGBT. All others were considered as non-LGBT.

The NCVS asks respondents if they are of Hispanic origin and which race(s) they identify with. Response options include “White, Black/African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian/Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander,” and “other race.” For this analysis, respondents who indicated they were of Hispanic origin were categorized as Hispanic, regardless of race group chosen; respondents who identified as Black/African American were categorized as Black regardless of other race groups chosen (with the exception of Hispanic origin); respondents who chose White and no other race/ethnicity were categorized as White.

All analyses incorporated appropriate weight and design variables for population estimates.

Download the full brief