When it comes to filing lawsuits against the federal government over LGBTQ matters, it's groups like Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, or GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders that are usually front and center. SAGE, the national nonprofit focused on LGBTQ elder Americans, is more apt to take a less prominent role such as filing amicus briefs in legal matters it supports.
On occasion, it has been a plaintiff in federal lawsuits. With its latest SAGE finds itself in likely its highest profile case yet.
SAGE is one of four national nonprofits that sued the Trump administration on Tuesday over its freezing of federal contracts. Hours later, U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan issued an "administrative stay" halting the suspension of the federal spending until at least February 3 as she reviews the legal matter.
It resulted in conflicting stances from the White House on Wednesday, with the Office of Management and Budget issuing a terse order saying it had rescinded its initial memo carrying out the executive order signed by Republican President Donald Trump. Yet White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt then insisted to reporters that it hadn't been rescinded.
According to Leavitt, Trump's order remains "in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented" as the administration works to root out waste, fraud, and abuse, per a White House bulletin. The mixed messaging has led to confusion, while Democratic Congressional leaders, state, and local lawmakers have reacted with outrage as agencies that rely on the federal dollars have scrambled to understand what it means for their operations going forward.
"As I understand it, it is not clear what is happening," Aaron Tax, SAGE's managing director of government affairs and policy advocacy, told the Bay Area Reporter during a January 30 phone interview.
The agency partnered with the National Council of Nonprofits, the American Public Health Association, and Main Street Alliance to file its lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Democracy Forward is representing the quartet in the legal challenge.
"We believe we are on the right side of history and we are confident if the court can hear our arguments, we will win," said Tax.
Because SAGE has millions of dollars in federal contracts at risk, it agreed to be a party in the lawsuit, which names as defendants the White House budget office and its acting director, Matthew Vaeth. While the agency could not provide an exact dollar amount to the B.A.R., it received $6,751,064 in government grants in fiscal year 2023 based on its most recent tax filing.
"A significant portion of SAGE's funding is at stake, which is why this issue is so important. While we're focused on ensuring continued support for the communities we serve, we need to advocate for the resources needed to sustain our impact," noted Tax. "I don't have exact figures right now, but any loss would have real consequences for LGBTQ+ older people who rely on these critical services."
Tax, 49, who is bisexual, told the B.A.R. that SAGE has had a "long-term relationship" with Democracy Forward, which approached the nonprofit about being a named party to the lawsuit due to the financial largesse it relies on from its federal contracts. SAGE's total revenue in 2023 was reported as $17,179,548, and losing its funding from D.C. would greatly impact the programs and services it provides to LGBTQ older adults, estimated to number around 3 million people over the age of 50.
"We agreed to be part of the suit challenging this because we certainly do, as I mentioned, rely on the funds to do the work we do to make sure all people, including LGBTQ-plus older people, are getting the resources and support they need to remain independent," said Tax. "We want to make sure we remain doing that work."
This is the fifth lawsuit against a federal agency that SAGE has been a party to, with it previously being a plaintiff in Santa Cruz Lesbian and Gay Community Center et al v. Trump et al. Filed in November 2020, the case aimed to prevent Trump's executive order prohibiting government agencies and organizations that receive federal funding from discussing unconscious racial or sexual bias during employee trainings. A federal judge with U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California did issue a partial injunction against federal contractors and grant recipients from having to adhere to the order, which ended up being rescinded by the Biden administration in 2021 and led to the lawsuit being dismissed.
This latest case filed against the Trump White House could have far greater consequences if the courts allow the funding freeze to take effect. Just in the LGBTQ community alone, community centers and other nonprofits have been raising alarms to how it will negatively impact their budgets and ability to provide a vast array of services.
Other examples
As one example, the Victory Fund Institute, the educational arm of the LGBTQ Victory Fund that works to elect LGBTQ people to public offices across the U.S., warned its supporters in an email Thursday that the $600,000 it receives for its global programming is in jeopardy due to Trump's order. Its federal grants are now temporarily suspended, as are those of other agencies doing work globally, and it remains doubtful such funding will be restored.
It is not yet a party to a legal challenge of the executive order, Victory Institute Executive Director Elliot Imse told the B.A.R.
"There are a number of more well-resourced orgs focused on legal issues that are looking into how best to proceed from a litigation perspective. Certainly, we will be watching how that advances very closely," said Imse, adding that his focus at the moment is raising private funds to recoup what could be lost from its federal contracts. "The suspension of existing grants is unprecedented, but we are determined to keep our global work a live so we are doing everything we can to pivot and adapt and secure new funding so that our LGBTQ partners and elected officials across the globe continue to receive our support."
The enormity of the potential curtailing of its own programs factored into why SAGE agreed to join the lawsuit it is a party to, said Tax.
"I think it speaks to the gravity of what is at stake in this case and why we thought it was so important to participate in this and make sure the experiences of LGBTQ-plus elder people and how they are going to be impacted are made public," said Tax.
A separate lawsuit seeking an injunction against Trump's order has been filed by state attorneys general, including California Attorney General Rob Bonta, in United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. It argues that the directive issued by OMB violates the Administrative Procedure Act.
"It requires all federal agencies to conduct a review of all federal financial assistance programs and supporting activities for consistency with current presidential policy, including the slate of executive orders directing immigration activities; eradicating DEI initiatives from federal programs; eliminating protections for members of the LGBTQ community; and removing conservation-focused regulations intended to protect the environment. The OMB Directive violates the APA and is unconstitutional," argues the lawsuit.
As for the lawsuit SAGE is a party to, it and its co-plaintiffs are hopeful of seeing AliKhan issue a temporary restraining order against Trump's order. The agency believes it would be a "win-win" not only for the plaintiffs but also American taxpayers whose money is what funds the contracts SAGE and other nonprofits receive, said Tax.
"Our goal with receiving that money, and I believe also the goal of the federal government, is to ensure that everyone is able to age in place with the services and support they need to remain independent. We believe it's not only good for elder LGBTQ-plus folks themselves but also good for society at-large and good for taxpayers," argued Tax. "If people are able to age in place in their homes, it ends up saving them from having to be placed in a long-term care facility."
He noted that most people don't have long-term care insurance. Should something happen to them, then it is the federal government that ultimately will foot the bill for their care, said Tax.
"If they are unable to age in place and spend down their savings, then it is the government that picks up the tab to place them in a long-term care setting. No one wins in that scenario," Tax said.
Keep abreast of the latest LGBTQ political news by following the Political Notebook on Threads @ https://www.threads.net/@matthewbajko and on Bluesky @ https://bsky.app/profile/politicalnotes.bsky.social.
Got a tip on LGBTQ politics? Call Matthew S. Bajko at (415) 829-8836 or email [email protected]
Never miss a story! Keep up to date on the latest news, arts, politics, entertainment, and nightlife.
Sign up for the Bay Area Reporter's free weekday email newsletter. You'll receive our newsletters and special offers from our community partners.
Support California's largest LGBTQ newsroom. Your one-time, monthly, or annual contribution advocates for LGBTQ communities. Amplify a trusted voice providing news, information, and cultural coverage to all members of our community, regardless of their ability to pay -- Donate today!