Pakistan to Nominate Trump for Nobel Peace Prize, Praises His ‘Pragmatic Diplomacy and Peace-Building’

Pakistan has stated its intention to“formally recommend” U.S. President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, on account of his role in helping India and Pakistan reach a cease-fire after conflict between the two long-time rivals resurged earlier this year.

Previous Nobel Peace Prize recipients include former TIME100 Women of the Year honoree Malala Yousafzai, and previous TIME Person of the Year recipients Martin Luther King Jr. and former President Barack Obama.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

“At a moment of heightened regional turbulence, President Trump demonstrated great strategic foresight and stellar statesmanship through robust diplomatic engagement with both Islamabad and New Delhi, which de-escalated a rapidly deteriorating situation, ultimately securing a cease-fire and averting a broader conflict between the two nuclear states that would have had catastrophic consequences for millions of people in the region and beyond,” the Government of Pakistan said in its announcement via social media. “This intervention stands as a testament to his role as a genuine peacemaker and his commitment to conflict resolution through dialogue.”

The Pakistani government went on to say that Trump’s “leadership during the 2025 Pakistan-India crisis manifestly showcases the continuation of his legacy of pragmatic diplomacy and effective peace-building.”

Read More: India and Pakistan Cease-Fire Appears to Hold Despite Accusations of Violations

When Trump announced the cease-fire between India and Pakistan on May 10, he said the agreement had been reached after “a long night of talks mediated by the United States.” He later went on to thank Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio for their efforts.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif took to social media to express gratitude to Trump at the time, saying: “We thank President Trump for his leadership and proactive role for peace in the region. Pakistan appreciates the United States for facilitating this outcome, which we have accepted in the interest of regional peace and stability.”

By contrast, the Indian government did not mention U.S. involvement in the mediation talks. “India and Pakistan was worked out directly between the two countries,” a statement read.

Pakistan’s announcement of its intentions regarding a nomination comes after Trump posted on Truth Social about the Nobel Peace Prize when commenting on his international mediating.

Within that social media post, Trump took credit for “stopping the war” between India and Pakistan.

“I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the war between India and Pakistan. I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the war between Serbia and Kosovo. I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize for keeping peace between Egypt and Ethiopia,” Trump claimed.

Read More: A New Middle East Is Unfolding Before Our Eyes

Pakistan’s announcement also comes as Trump weighs his options on whether the U.S. should embark on military involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict.

Trump has given himself two weeks to decide whether the U.S. will continue supporting Israel from afar or become an active participant in the conflict with Iran.

source https://time.com/7296429/pakistan-nominate-trump-nobel-peace-prize-win-india-conflict/

Breaking Down Trump’s Public Rebuke of Tulsi Gabbard’s Statement on Iran–and Her Response

President Donald Trump has said that his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was “wrong” to say that Iran is not currently building a nuclear weapon.

When asked about the claims made by his intelligence community, specifically Gabbard, Trump was clear, telling reporters on Friday: “She’s wrong.”

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

In March, Gabbard testified in front of Congress that the intelligence community [IC] “continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader [Ali] Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003. The IC continues to monitor, closely, if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program.”

The testimony has resurfaced as Trump weighs his options regarding a potential U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict, as the Middle Eastern countries trade deadly missiles after Israel launched an operation against Iranian military targets and nuclear facilities on June 13.

Read More: Iran Issues New Grave Warning, Says U.S. Involvement in Israel Conflict Would Be ‘Very Dangerous for Everybody’

Trump’s latest comments echo those he made to reporters on Air Force One on June 17, when he said he did not “care” about what Gabbard had testified earlier in the year.

“I don’t care what she said, I think they were very close to having one,” Trump said of his belief that Iran was inching towards having a nuclear weapon.

Central to Trump’s stance regarding Israel’s initial assault on Iran is his belief that Iran has been moving closer to nuclear capability. He has plainly said that “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.”

Trump’s stance, bolstered by a May 31 International Atomic Energy Agency report (that stated Iran had accumulated roughly 120 kg of uranium enriched to 60%, dangerously close to weapons-grade levels of 90%), undermines previous reports by U.S. intelligence, including that of Gabbard, a former Democrat.

Read More: How Netanyahu Pushed Trump Toward War

In response to Trump’s new assertion that she was “wrong” in her previous testimony, Gabbard took to social media on Friday, stating that her words had been taken out of context by “dishonest media.” Gabbard maintains that she and Trump are on the same page.

“The dishonest media is intentionally taking my testimony out of context and spreading fake news as a way to manufacture division,” Gabbard said. “America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly. President Trump has been clear that can’t happen, and I agree.”

Attached to the post was a longer video of her testimony, which also included her claims that “Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.”

Read More: The 5 Groups Hoping to Sway Trump on Iran

Trump reportedly still has “full confidence” in his intelligence team, according to White House communications director Steven Cheung, but the open disagreements between Trump and members of his Administration signal splinters over the Israel-Iran conflict.

The President is facing questions from both within and outside the Republican party, as he weighs up his options during a self-imposed two-week deadline about whether the U.S. will intervene, despite him campaigning on staying out of wars overseas.

Republican lawmakers Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky have both openly disapproved of any potential U.S. military intervention.

Read More: Breaking Down the Feud Between Trump and Tucker Carlson Amid Divide Over Israel-Iran Conflict 

Meanwhile, former Fox News host Tucker Carlson—a long-time ally of Trump, who even hit the campaign trail with him in 2024—has also spoken out against any U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict.

Carlson’s initial comments prompted a blistering response from Trump, and their disagreement soon took a personal turn as the feud escalated. While the situation appears to have since settled—Trump said Carlson called and apologized for his “strong” words—it’s clear that the subject of the Israel-Iran conflict and how the U.S. should move forward is proving to be a divisive one.

source https://time.com/7296421/trump-public-rebuke-tulsi-gabbard-iran-nuclear-weapon-statement/

Iran Issues New Grave Warning, Says U.S. Involvement in Israel Conflict Would Be ‘Very Dangerous for Everybody’

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned on Saturday that if the U.S. were to get involved in the Israel-Iran conflict, the result would be “very, very dangerous” for everybody.

“The tweets, interviews by the U.S. President, [it’s] quite clear that he’s talking about the U.S. leadership on these questions [of a potential U.S. involvement],” Araghchi told reporters. “Unfortunately, we have heard that the U.S. may join in this aggression. That would be very unfortunate and I think that would be very, very dangerous for everybody.”

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Araghchi also claimed that Iran has “many indications” that the U.S. has been involved in Israel’s bombardments of Iran since “day one.”

These remarks come amid uncertainty and debate as to the potential U.S. involvement in the conflict and what that might look like moving forward. 

Trump, who has said that the U.S. has not been involved in the Israeli strikes thus far, has given himself two weeks to make the decision as to whether the U.S. will strike on Iran.

“Based on the fact that there’s a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,” said Trump, in a statement delivered by the White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Thursday. Leavitt went on to add that “if there’s a chance for diplomacy, the President’s always going to grab it, but he’s not afraid to use strength as well.”

The U.S. and Iran had long been engaged in talks, in the hope of reaching a nuclear deal.

Read More: How Netanyahu Pushed Trump Toward War

Officials from both countries were set to meet in Oman’s capital of Muscat last weekend for the next round of nuclear discussions. But Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi announced that, in light of the Israel-Iran active conflict, those talks would no longer be going ahead. This came after state television reported that Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei called nuclear talks with the U.S. “meaningless.”

While Trump has called for Iran to return to the table, Iranian officials appear to be reluctant.

“In order for us to come back to diplomacy, the aggression should be stopped,” Araghchi said on Saturday. “I cannot go to negotiation with the United States when our people are under bombardment, under the support of the United States.”

Trump has stated multiple times in the first months of his second term that a deal with Iran would have to include a ban on the nation enriching uranium—something that would allow them to produce nuclear weapons.

He has also called for something more permanent than a cease-fire.

“We’re looking for better than a cease-fire,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One on June 17 as he left the G7 summit. “A real end, not a cease-fire. An end… giving up, entirely.”

Trump later doubled down on his view of what Iran should do via a post on his social media platform, Truth Social, writing: “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!”

Read More: Here Are the Top Iranian Generals and Scientists Targeted and Killed by Israeli Strikes

However, Trump has delivered cryptic responses when asked exactly if and how the U.S. might get involved in the Middle Eastern conflict. 

On Wednesday, when asked if the U.S. is “moving closer” to striking Iranian nuclear facilities, Trump said: “I may do it, I may not do it, nobody knows what I’m going to do… I can tell you this. Iran’s got a lot of trouble. They want to negotiate. I said, ‘Why didn’t you negotiate with me before? All this death and destruction.’”

He later said in the Oval Office: “I like to make the final decision one second before it’s due, because things change, especially with war.”

Meanwhile, Araghchi’s new warning is the latest in a long line of stern words and threats from Iranian officials in regards to a potential U.S. involvement in the current combat.

Read More: Iran’s Supreme Leader Calls Out Trump, Threatens ‘Irreparable Damage’ If U.S. Joins Israeli Conflict

On Wednesday, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei threatened “irreparable damage” if the U.S. joins the Israeli conflict.

“The Americans should know that any U.S. military intervention will undoubtedly be accompanied by irreparable damage,” Khamenei said in a televised address. “The U.S. entering in this matter [war] is 100% to its own detriment. The damage it will suffer will be far greater than any harm that Iran may encounter.”

The Israel-Iran conflict has entered its ninth day and shows no signs of slowing down.

Israel’s initial strikes on Iran, conducted in the early hours of June 13, targeted multiple nuclear and military sites, amid rising concerns of Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the strikes, part of Operation Rising Lion, “would continue for as many days as it takes to remove this threat.”

Iran followed through on its promise to retaliate, and the rivals have been trading deadly missiles and threats since, with the reported death tolls in both countries rising as a result.

source https://time.com/7296396/iran-new-warning-trump-united-states-israel-conflict-dangerous/

Trump Maintains Control of National Guard in L.A.: What the Appeals Court Said About His Authority

President Donald Trump can maintain control of the California National Guard, a federal appeals court has ruled, overturning an earlier decision that found the President’s mobilization of the troops was “illegal.” 

The ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is temporary, but allows the President to continue directing the thousands of National Guard members he has deployed to Los Angeles to quell multi-day protests over the Administration’s immigration policy. Their deployment was subject to a lawsuit filed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who argued the President violated the Tenth Amendment, which lays out the powers of state and the federal government. Seven hundred Marines have also been sent to L.A.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The unanimous opinion, delivered by a three-panel judge panel made up of two Trump appointees and another appointed by President Joe Biden, reversed a lower court decision that found Trump did not satisfy the requirements necessary for the President to call in the National Guard under the law he invoked.

Read more: Can the President Activate a State’s National Guard?

Trump celebrated the appeals court’s ruling on his social media platform, Truth Social. “The Judges obviously realized that Gavin Newscum is incompetent and ill prepared, but this is much bigger than Gavin, because all over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done,” Trump wrote late Thursday.

Though it ruled in Trump’s favor, the court also rejected an argument from the Administration that the National Guard deployment could not be reviewed, however. 

Newsom applauded that part of the decision, and noted that litigation regarding the matter will continue. “The court rightly rejected Trump’s claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court,” Newsom said in a post on X. “We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump’s authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens.” 

Here’s what the appeals court said about Trump’s power to deploy the National Guard.

Trump “likely acted within his authority”

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling found that the President likely “lawfully exercised his statutory authority” in invoking Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code. Under that statute, the President has the power to invoke the National Guard if he cannot execute laws with “regular forces,” or if an invasion or rebellion is underway or at risk. 

The Trump Administration claimed in court filings that there was “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the United States.”

The judges, however, said that the “protests in Los Angeles fall short of rebellion,” though they pointed to the unrest in Los Angeles and risk to federal officials and property. They called Newsom’s concerns about how the presence of the National Guard could escalate tensions between protesters and law enforcement “too speculative.”

The judges also responded to Newsom’s assertion that his lack of involvement in the deployment of the troops made Trump’s actions illegal. The court found that the Secretary of Defense’s “transmittal of the order” to the Adjutant General of the California National Guard, who can issue orders in name of the Governor, satisfied the procedural requirements necessary to send in the National Guard. 

The President’s decisions to deploy the National Guard are not above review

The federal government argued that Trump’s decision to deploy the National Guard was “unreviewable” by the court system because the statute the President used empowered him to mobilize it in “such numbers as he considers necessary.”

In the ruling, the judges said that they should be “highly deferential” to the President, but also denied the assertion that the federalization of the National Guard is “completely insulated from judicial review.” 

Trump’s call up of the National Guard was the first time in six decades that a President had done so without the governor’s consent. 

source https://time.com/7296221/trump-national-guard-la-protests-appeals-court-authority/

TIME Is Looking for the World’s Top Universities

For the first time, TIME will publish a ranking of the World’s Top Universities, in partnership with Statista, a leading international provider of market and consumer data and rankings. This new list will recognize the world’s leading higher education institutions based on academic performance, student outcomes, and the institutional learning environment.

As part of the research phase, TIME and Statista are now accepting data submissions. While submitting data ensures that eligible institutions will be considered for inclusion, it does not guarantee a place on the final list. Additionally, the final ranking will not be limited to institutions that submit data.

The deadline for submissions is July 18, 2025.

To apply, click here.

More information visit: https://www.statista.com/page/worlds-top-universities. Winners will be announced on TIME.com in early 2026.

source https://time.com/7296211/worlds-top-universities-search/

How Ranked-Choice Voting in the New York City Mayoral Primary Works

Early voting is already underway in New York City’s contentious Democratic primary for mayor ahead of the June 24 election.

The last three mayoral elections in New York have been won by a Democratic candidate, meaning whoever wins the primary is likely to become the city’s next mayor.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Former Gov. Andrew Cuomo has long held a lead in primary polls, but state Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani has narrowed the gap in recent weeks with a surge in momentum.

Voters will be able to rank multiple candidates on their ballots rather than just picking their top choice after the city adopted ranked-choice voting in a 2019 referendum. 

Eric Adams, who currently holds the position, is not in the Democratic race after he was charged with bribery, illegal campaign finance and conspiracy offenses in September 2024. Adams pleaded not guilty, and in April the charges were dropped by the Department of Justice. He is running for Mayor again this year as an Independent candidate.

Alongside Adams and the eventual Democratic candidate, Republican Curtis Sliwa is running again after being defeated by Adams in 2021. Jim Walden, a former federal prosecutor, is also running as an Independent.

Here’s everything you need to know about who’s running in the New York City Democratic primary—and how the voting works.

Who is on the ballet—and what do they stand for?

Cuomo, the frontrunner in the tightening race,has focused on affordability, security and housing on the campaign trail. 

Cuomo has said that he will increase the size of the police force by 15%, an estimated 5,000 extra officers, reduce income tax for some low-income households, and provide more affordable housing with more robust tenants rights.

The 67-year-old has come under scrutiny from other candidates for scandals he faced as governor.

He resigned from the position in 2021 after more than a dozen women made allegations of sexual harassment against him. Cuomo has denied ever inappropriately touching or propositioning anyone, though he apologized for comments he made in the workplace that he said “may have been insensitive or too personal.” An investigation by the state attorney general’s office found that he “sexually harassed a number of current and former New York State employees” and “created a hostile work environment for women.”

In May, the Justice Department opened an investigation into Cuomo regarding his testimony on the City’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic as governor.

Mamdani, the Assemblymember who has recently been rising in the polls,has focused his campaign on the cost of living, using the slogan “A City We Can Afford.”

Mamdani, a democratic socialist, has said that he will freeze rent increases across New York, provide fare-free buses, provide free childcare to those aged six weeks to 5 years old, and establish non-profit grocery stores run by the City.

The youngest candidate in the primaries at 33, Mamdani has faced criticism for some remarks on the Israel-Hamas war, including when he appeared to defend the slogan “globalize the intifada.”

Mamdani has denied allegations of antisemitism, while also speaking about the Islamophobia he has experienced in his career. When questioned on whether he believes Israel has the right to exist, he replied: “I believe Israel has the right to exist … as a state with equal rights.”

New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, whose arrest at an immigration courthouse last week thrust him into the national spotlight, is also running in the Democratic primary, focusing on safety and affordability, as well as “Standing up to Donald Trump.” Lander has said he aims to end homelessness for those with serious mental health issues with a policy he says will put people in stable housing 70-90% of the time.

Lander also says that he will build 500,000 new housing units and “cut through red tape” for more affordable housing, plus improve transport efficiency.

The city comptroller was arrested on Tuesday, June 17, at a New York courthouse as he was escorting a migrant man who agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) were seeking to detain, becoming the latest of several elected officials across the country to confront federal authorities over President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

Lander and Mamdani have cross-endorsed each other, urging their supporters to rank the other second on their ballots.

Adrienne Adams, Assemblymember for New York’s 28th district and Speaker of the New York City Council, is also in the running. 

Adams, like other candidates, has put her focus on affordability and housing in New York. She has said she will continue to push for more housing construction and affordable housing, as well as investment in law enforcement and other programs to try and prevent crime before it happens.

Similarly to Mamdani and Lander, Adams has hit out against Trump in her campaign. The Assemblymember says on her website that she has already worked to “Trump-proof NYC” and will keep the President—who she says “threatens everything that makes us New York”—in check if she is elected Mayor..

Other candidates in the race who have garnered lower support in recent polls are former Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee Michael Blake, New York State Senator Zellnor Myrie, New York State Senator Jessica Ramos, former New York Comptroller Scott Stringer, and investor Whitney Tilson.

How does ranked-choice voting actually work?

Ranked-choice voting allows voters to rank multiple candidates in order of their preference, putting their preferred choices first, then second, then third and so forth.

In New York City, the method is used for Special and Primary Elections for Mayor, as well as in Public Advocate, Comptroller, Borough President, and City Council elections. Adopted in 2019, it was first used in 2021.

Voters in the Democratic mayoral primaries are able to rank their top five candidates, but are not required to fill all five slots. 

If a candidate gets over 50% first-choice votes, they win. But if not, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated as votes are counted in subsequent rounds.

For voters who put the last-place candidate as their first choice, their second choice is then counted. This process of elimination continues until there is a majority winner.

While this is the process for New York, the system varies from state to state where ranked-choice voting has been adopted.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of ranked-choice voting?

Nonpartizan organization FairVote says that this voting system eliminates a few issues, such as “vote-splitting,” in which similar candidates can draw votes away from each other.

FairVote argues that ranked choice means voters can support multiple candidates, and their vote is still represented if their first choice is eliminated. It also encourages cross endorsing, such as with Mamdani and Lander, giving voters an idea of like-minded candidates.

RankedVote, a software company that advocates for the system, argues that voters’ opinions are heard throughout the process and are more represented. “Once there’s more than two candidates in a typical ‘most votes wins’ election, it’s very easy for the ‘winner’ to have a weak plurality of support. It’s entirely possible that the winning candidate only commands 38% of the vote when a majority of the electorate would have preferred someone else,” the company argues.

However, a voting system different from what the public are used to could cause confusion. Democratic political strategist Hank Sheinkopf said that the system could benefit voters more educated on voting procedures.

Ranked-choice voting also allows for scenarios in which the candidate with the most first-choice votes still loses. This occurred in the 2018 House election for Maine’s second district, in which Democratic candidate Jared Golden received 131,954 first-choice votes, compared to Republican Bruce Poliquin’s 134,061. However, due to the ranked-choice process, Golden won by almost 3,000 votes.

What other states use ranked choice voting?

The system is used in 17 different states across the U.S. in a number of different state and local elections. In Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina, it is also used for military and overseas voters. 

In Maine, the system is used in primary and general elections for the presidency, Senate, and House elections, including the aforementioned 2018 election, as well as in statewide and state assembly primaries. In Alaska, it is also used statewide for general elections.

The other states that use it for a variety of local and city elections are Massachusetts, Vermont, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Illinois, Minnesota, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii.

source https://time.com/7296165/nyc-mayor-ranked-choice-voting-primary/

Sophia Bush: What Celebrating Pride Means to Me This Year

Pride Month tends to arrive in a confetti burst of color. Parades bring music, energy, and acceptance to the streets. But in 2025, things feel different. What a surreal time to be celebrating Pride.

On a personal note, stepping publicly into my queerness has felt like freedom. I’ve never felt more at home in myself. Falling so unexpectedly in love with the woman I now call my partner has felt like magic. Like rock becoming water, toughness and difficulty have shifted into flow, and now things move with ease. Like so many women I know who have been through their own seismic transitions, I find myself done trying to model the fairytales I was raised on. Done trying to mold myself into a version of what I saw on TV—of what I often played on TV. There is such a delicious, primal feeling that comes when you stop contorting yourself to fit outside expectations and start listening to your own voice. Getting here, to this kind of happy—the kind joy I’ve simultaneously found in my partner and also in myself—took exploring versions of myself for four decades. So if you’re still searching, keep it up. It’s not too late.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Shortly after my relationship became public, my mother called to tell me she was “shocked” to discover some of her friends were “more conservative” than she expected. I had to remind her that as a white woman in her late 70s, it’s not surprising she has some friends who quietly hold exclusionary views. She was so bothered by one particular conversation. A “friend” had called her and said, “Well! This can’t be true. I mean, your daughter isn’t gay.”

My mom said she could feel the nastiness in the way the woman emphasized the word. And without missing a beat, she told me, “You know what I said?! I said, ‘Oh honey, I think she’s pretty gay. And she’s happy.” 

One thing I’ve observed again and again since sharing my story of finding love with a woman: to some people, queer happiness will always be seen as a threat. I will never understand why. In a world already overflowing with pain and uncertainty, why would anyone try to deny more love? More joy? 

For all the happiness and gratification that has come with my love story, I also struggle with the incongruity of it all: the safety and peace we have built inside our home, and the whiplash of walking out into a world where that safety and ease are not guaranteed for everyone in our community, because LGBTQ+ rights are under attack. This is what’s on my mind during Pride Month in 2025.

Members of the right wing are working hard to roll back civil rights protections, trying to undo marriage equality, dismantle anti-discrimination laws, and strip away access to life-saving health care (it’s unbelievable to me that I have to type that sentence). The Trump administration is shutting down the crisis hotline that helps save the lives of LGBTQ+ youth. The so-called “party of family values” turns a blind eye to the fact that 40% of all homeless youth in America are unhoused because they have been kicked out of their homes for being gay, or lesbian, or trans, or bisexual, or queer.

I can’t imagine loving a child only under certain conditions. Loving them only if they become who you want them to be, instead of who they are. I recognize the privilege I grew up with, thanks to my parents—parents who had a large, gorgeous, artistic community filled with gay friends. Parents who took me to Pride parades in Los Angeles all my life. Parents who love my partner. A mom who texts me reflections on our relationship every time we have dinner, most recently: “My heart is so full seeing the joy, love and comfort you bring to each other. It’s so heartwarming and so natural to you both. I love you both very much.” What my parents want, and what every parent should want, is a happy kid. Plain and simple. 

But for so many in the LGBTQ+ community today, the violence begins at home and only expands out in the world. Queer love has always been an act of resistance, and maybe that’s something people have forgotten—public education in the U.S. is being gutted, after all. Books that reflect our love are being banned. This administration is going after inclusion like it’s the ultimate threat. They are trying to limit words that give people language for who they are, as if through erasing the language, they can erase the people. But this kind of harm doesn’t stop at queer folks. It hurts everyone. Gay. Straight. Women. Men. Our trans friends. Your children. Everyone and anyone who has ever been on the outside of the ruling class. Because the truth is our freedoms are all connected: if some of us lose our rights, it means the rest are vulnerable too.

I am celebrating Pride Month this year, wholeheartedly and with all the love I carry for my identity and for this community—but I also want to remember how hard won these traditions really are. We can’t take LGBTQ+ history for granted. Pride started as a protest. Being “out” was an open act of defiance in the face of police brutality and subjugation. Without Marsha P. Johnson and the activists of the 1960s and 1970s, we would have no Pride Month. We would have no rights. The freedoms we have today cost people their safety, their homes, their blood, sweat, and tears. People were beaten at Stonewall just for refusing to hide.

So I appreciate the shirts and bumper stickers and the rainbow confetti and what they communicate—and I love waving the flag with a huge smile on my face. But it can’t stop there. Symbols are a start, not the solution. We can’t just wear our signals of safety in public, we also have to do the work in private. Wear the t-shirt and call your Congressional representatives. Call them once a week. Demand that they stand up for equal rights protections. Remind them that your values are intersectional and our liberty is bound together. Give what you can. Donate, or better yet, volunteer your time.

I know we are all tired and experiencing burnout. We’ve been through so much—grief, division, political chaos. This moment feels heavy. My suggestion is to seek out the light. Be in community. Commit to showing up. Don’t just protect queer people; make space for our joy. Hold the line and show the world that we are not going backwards. I promise you this—it will be some of the most joyful, life-affirming activism you’ll ever be a part of. We all need to be clear which side of history we want to be on. I choose the side that loves love. I hope you’ll join us. It’s nice over here. Plus, we’ve got good snacks—and even better playlists.

source https://time.com/7294826/sophia-bush-pride-2025-essay/