Missouri Bill To Ban Racial Profiling Draws Attention For Including Gays
Legislation Inspired By Michael Brown’s Murder Covers Race, Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity
Two African-American Democrats in Missouri, ground zero for the #BlackLivesMatter movement in the wake of Michael Brown’s 2014 murder at the hands of Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson, have introduced a bill that would ban police profiling of racial and other minorities, including gays.Â
The bill would require Missouri law enforcement officers to report the “perceived race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, English language proficiency or national origin” of motorists and pedestrians who are stopped by police. Agencies would then report the data to the state, and if it were to show a pattern of police profiling, they could be subject to increased officer training requirements, funding cuts and even de-certification.Â
In addition to anecdotal evidence such as Brown’s shooting, existing data in Missouri shows that a ban on racial profiling by police is sorely needed. Missouri already requires law enforcement officers to report the ethnicity of those who are stopped, and in 2014, blacks were 75 percent more likely to be pulled over than whites, according to The St. Louis Post Dispatch.Â
“Blacks and Hispanics also were more likely to be searched as a result of those stops — even though white drivers were more likely to be in possession of drugs, weapons or other illegal contraband,” the newspaper reports.Â
Unfortunately, a column in the Post Dispatch misrepresents the new bill, known as the Fair and Impartial Policing Act, by referring to it in a headline as a “driving while gay” measure and questioning the rationale of requiring police to record characteristics that aren’t readily discernible. Not surprisingly, commenters expressed outrage about the proposal, even calling one of the bill’s authors, state Sen. Jamilah Nasheed, a “communist.”Â
To be clear, though, the bill would prohibit law enforcement officers from asking drivers, passengers and pedestrians for anything other than ID, motor vehicle registration, name and address. In addition, the identities of those who are stopped and the officers who stopped them would remain private.
Moreover, numerous studies have shown that LGBT people, just like other minorities, routinely are victims of police profiling — especially transgender and gender-nonconforming people, queer people of color, and homeless youth.
In a 2015 paper titled “Discrimination and Harassment by Law Enforcement Officers in the LGBT Community,” researchers at UCLA’s Williams Institute wrote:
“A 2014 report on a national survey of 2,376 LGBT people and people living with HIV found that 73% of respondents had face-to-face contact with the police in the past five years. Of those respondents, 21% reported encountering hostile attitudes from officers, 14% reported verbal assault by the police, 3% reported sexual harassment and 2% reported physical assault at the hands of law enforcement officers.”Â
In December 2014, in response to controversies nationwide over fatal police shootings, the U.S. Department of Justice released guidance prohibiting federal law enforcement officers from profiling based on race and other factors, including sexual orientation and gender identity. At the time, the National Center for Transgender Equality said the DOJ guidance didn’t go far enough because it exempted TSA and border security agents, as well as certain anti-terror investigators, in addition to state and local law enforcement officers:
“At a time when many communities are reeling from violence at the hands of police misconduct, our nation’s commitment to equality must be firm and without exception,” NCET Executive Director Mara Keisling said. “Whether ‘driving while Black,’ ‘flying while Muslim,’ ‘walking while Latino,’ or ‘walking while trans,’ it is always and everywhere wrong.”Â
(Notably, the Missouri bill includes sexual orientation and gender, but not “gender identity,” in its definition of “biased policing.” However, it includes “gender identity” in describing a violation of the statute.)
In March 2015, President Barack Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing released recommendations mostly focusing on racial profiling, but also addressing LGBT issues. The recommendations included legislation similar to the new Missouri bill, as well as establishing search and seizure procedures “that cease using the possession of condoms as the sole evidence of intent to engage in prostitution-related offenses.”Â
Also last year, Democratic Congressmen Ben Cardin and John Conyers reintroduced the End Racial Profiling Act (ERPA), which also includes sexual orientation and gender identity. The bill currently has only 99 co-sponsors:
“From Stonewall to stop-and-frisk, LGBTQ people … have long been targets of profiling and other forms of discriminatory policing,” Lambda Legal wrote in support of the bill. “The consequences have ranged from deportation to death, arrest to assault, homophobic harassment to humiliation.”Â
Maryland — site of widespread protests over the 2015 death of Freddie Gray by Baltimore police — recently became the first state to enact a ban on police profiling of minorities, including LGBT people, and it seems likely that other progressive states will soon follow suit.
Let’s just hope debates about these critical measures aren’t reduced to “driving while gay.”
Â
This article has been updated.Â
Image by N!(K — loveforphotography – via Flickr and a CC license
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
 |
Senate Republican Majority Leader John Thune launched into a diatribe attacking Democrats when one — Sen. Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico — asked unanimous consent to pass legislation to pay the 42 million Americans who use SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Later, Thune apologized — to reporters, not Senator Luján, for his remarks.
Despite having about $5 to $6 billion in emergency funds for SNAP, the Trump administration decided to reverse its previous policy to pay recipients during a shutdown. That policy, which was removed from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s website, had stated the “Congressional intent” was to make the funds available.
Experts have said there is a legal requirement to fund SNAP via its contingency reserves during the shutdown.
“Senate Republicans blocked legislation on Wednesday that would help low-income households afford groceries during the government shutdown, despite bipartisan support for providing nutrition aid to tens of millions of Americans,” Bloomberg News reported.
Punchbowl News’ Andrew Desiderio described Thune’s remarks as a “blowup,” and said he went “nuclear.”
READ MORE: ‘No Moral Compass’: Cuomo Condemned for ‘Odious’ and ‘Racist’ Remarks on Mamdani
“The senator from New Mexico was absolutely right,” Leader Thune said on the Senate floor Wednesday afternoon. “SNAP recipients shouldn’t go without food.”
Republicans’ position is that Democrats are to blame for the shutdown, now in its 29th day. But polling shows that more Americans blame Republicans and President Trump for the shutdown than Democrats, whom they believe are trying to reopen the government more than Republicans.
“People should be getting paid in this country. And we’ve tried to do that 13 times. And you voted no, 13 times,” he said, pointing to Democrats who have refused to vote to reopen the federal government until Republicans agree to reinstate the Affordable Care Act subsidies that expire at the end of the year. Obamacare premiums are expected to skyrocket without the subsidies.
“This isn’t a political game,” Thune said, angrily. “These are real people’s lives that we’re talking about. And you all just figured that out?”
“29 days and, ‘Oh, there might be some consequences.’ There are people who are running out of money. Yeah, we’re 29 days in.”
“13 times, people over here voted to fund SNAP. 13 times, they voted to fund WIC,” he said of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
READ MORE: Trump Suggests He Could Invoke the Insurrection Act — and ‘Courts Wouldn’t Get Involved’
“My aching back,” Thune said, expressing frustration.
The Majority Leader then went on to charge that Democrats want the shutdown to continue, long term.
“So are they making plans to end the shutdown and reopen the government?” he asked. “Nope. They’re gonna propose a bill to fund food stamps during their shutdown.”
“This bill is a cynical attempt to provide political cover for Democrats to allow them to carry on their government shutdown for the long term.”
After his remarks, and after leaving the floor, Politico reported that Thune told reporters, “Sorry I channeled a little bit of anger there.”
THUNE: “SNAP recipients shouldn’t go without food, people should be getting paid in this country, and we’ve tried to do that 13 times — and you voted no 13 times. This isn’t a political game, these are real people’s lives that we’re talking about.” pic.twitter.com/8fBO1M7kuG
— JM Rieger (@RiegerReport) October 29, 2025
READ MORE: Trump Admin Blames Dems’ Immigration and Trans Policies for Food Stamp Shut Off
Andrew Cuomo, the Democrat running as an independent in the New York City mayoral race, is under fire for remarks he made in an interview with Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo.
Describing the Democratic nominee, State Assembly member Zohran Mamdani, as “totally out of sync with New Yorkers” and “how New Yorkers feel,” Cuomo — who has been trailing by double-digits in most polls — told Bartiromo that Mamdani “is dual citizenship” and “was a citizen of Uganda.”
Mamdani was born in Kampala, Uganda, and moved to New York City when he was seven.
“He just doesn’t understand the New York culture, the New York values, what 9/11 meant, what entrepreneurial growth means, opportunity means, why people came here,” Cuomo alleged.
READ MORE: Trump Suggests He Could Invoke the Insurrection Act — and ‘Courts Wouldn’t Get Involved’
“Well, this is very important, because next year, we’ll be 25 years since 9/11, I believe,” Bartiromo told Cuomo. “And if he’s the mayor, how is he going to treat all of those people who are still in mourning, from losing their lives, 3,000 people?”
“I mean, all of the first responders that we lost on 9/11, I was there at the New York Stock Exchange,” she noted. “I guess I’m wondering if you’re expecting New York to look more like London? You go to London right now, and it is largely Muslim. Women are completely covered up. I don’t know if you expect, if Mamdani were to be in charge, him to change the look of New York as well.”
“Look,” said Cuomo, the former New York State governor who was forced to resign amid sexual harassment allegations and a damning report released by the Office of State Attorney General Letitia James, “he is out of sync with how New Yorkers feel.”
“I just think he doesn’t get it, you know?”
“His parents owned a mansion in Uganda,” Cuomo continued. “He spent a lot of time there. He just doesn’t understand the New York culture, the New York values, what 9/11 meant, what entrepreneurial growth means, opportunity means, why people came here.”
Critics blasted the former governor.
READ MORE: Public Turns on GOP as Shutdown Fallout Deepens: Report
“What an odious thing to say,” remarked author Rebecca Fishbein, who has written for The New York Times. “I hope New York Jews understand that the dual loyalty trope is used against them, too. If Cuomo feels comfortable attacking Mamdani in this way, what’s to stop him from turning on NY’s Jewish pop[ulation] when it stops being politically advantageous for him to support?”
“Politician who resigned last position in disgrace is desperate for comeback so using religious bigotry,” commented Brian Kaylor, author of “The Bible According to Christian Nationalists.”
“Cuomo and Bartiromo, two Italian Americans, repurposing the same type of xenophobia, bigotry, and religious prejudice that was used to discriminate against Italian Catholic immigrants,” observed Ron Cassie, a senior editor at Baltimore magazine.
“This is easily as racist as anything Trump has said,” noted attorney Noah Popp.
Historian Paul Cohen, a faculty member at The University of Toronto, wrote, “there is here no moral compass, no human substance, no political commitments, no attachment to virtue, no sense of character, no nagging voice of conscience … there is only the hunger for power, and the readiness to pay whatever price necessary to acquire it.”
So here’s Andrew Cuomo reacting to Maria Bartiromo wondering if Mamdani will “change the look of New York” and have Muslim women “completely covered up,” telling her that Mamdani “doesn’t understand New York culture” because he has “dual citizenship” and “he’s a citizen of Uganda.”
— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona.bsky.social) October 29, 2025 at 11:50 AM
READ MORE: Trump Admin Blames Dems’ Immigration and Trans Policies for Food Stamp Shut Off
President Donald Trump, who has recently and repeatedly floated invoking the Insurrection Act, implied that the courts would be powerless to prevent it.
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One as he traveled in Asia this week, President Trump on Wednesday was asked about remarks he made on Tuesday — that he could send more than just the National Guard into American cities.
“Sure, I would, I would do that if it was necessary,” Trump replied. “You know, if it was necessary, I’d do that, but it hasn’t been necessary. We’re doing a great job without that, but, yeah, if it was necessary.”
“As you know, I’m allowed to do that,” he said.
READ MORE: Public Turns on GOP as Shutdown Fallout Deepens: Report
“But, you know, if I want to enact a certain act, I’m allowed to do it,” he claimed, appearing to refer to the Insurrection Act while not naming it.
“Routinely, other, about 50% of presidents have used that, as you know, and I’d be allowed to do whatever I want.”
Substantially less than half of U.S. presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act. The last one to do so was President George H. W. Bush, in 1992.
“But I’d be allowed to do that, you understand,” Trump continued.
“And the courts wouldn’t get involved, nobody would get involved, and I could send the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, I could say, send anybody I wanted, but I haven’t done that because we’re doing so well without it.”
On Tuesday, Trump told reporters: “You know, people don’t care if we send in our military, if we send in our National Guard, if we send in Space Command, they don’t care who the hell it is.”
“Really, we could do as we want to do,” he insisted.
READ MORE: Trump Admin Blames Dems’ Immigration and Trans Policies for Food Stamp Shut Off
Earlier this month, according to Politifact, Trump said: “Don’t forget I can use the Insurrection Act. Fifty percent of the presidents, almost, have used that. And that’s unquestioned power.”
And two weeks ago, again, Trump told reporters, “I could use it. If I wanted to, I could use it … I’m allowed to use the Insurrection Act.”
Just days ago, more than forty members of Congress, including military veterans, urged Trump to not violate the Posse Comitatus Act or the Insurrection Act by using U.S. Armed Forces against Americans on American soil.
During the first Trump presidency, in 2020, he said in a Rose Garden speech, “If a city or a state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.”
Reporter: “What did you mean last night when you said you were prepared to send ‘more than the National Guard’ into American cities?”
Trump: “I would do that, if it was necessary.”
Reporter: “Do you mean other branches of the military?”
Trump: “I’d be allowed to do that, you… pic.twitter.com/7879R66hkS
— The Recount (@therecount) October 29, 2025
READ MORE: ‘Do What Leaders Do’: Dem Leader Scorches ‘Missing in Action’ Trump
Image via Reuters
GOP Leader Erupts Over Democrat’s Effort to Fund SNAP — Then Blocks Bill
Trump Suggests He Could Invoke the Insurrection Act — and ‘Courts Wouldn’t Get Involved’
‘No Moral Compass’: Cuomo Condemned for ‘Odious’ and ‘Racist’ Remarks on Mamdani
GOP Leader Erupts Over Democrat’s Effort to Fund SNAP — Then Blocks Bill
‘No Moral Compass’: Cuomo Condemned for ‘Odious’ and ‘Racist’ Remarks on Mamdani
Trump Suggests He Could Invoke the Insurrection Act — and ‘Courts Wouldn’t Get Involved’
Public Turns on GOP as Shutdown Fallout Deepens: Report
‘Do What Leaders Do’: Dem Leader Scorches ‘Missing in Action’ Trump
News3 days agoTrump Admin Blames Dems’ Immigration and Trans Policies for Food Stamp Shut Off
News3 days agoData Analyst Reveals Which Trump Policy Faces Sharpest Backlash Among Americans
News3 days ago‘Refrain From Any Action’: Congressional Vets Warn Trump on Using Troops Against Americans
News3 days agoWhy the Shutdown Is About to Get Even Worse
News2 days ago‘We Can Do as We Want’: Trump Boasts He Can Deploy Troops Into U.S. Cities However He Likes
News2 days ago‘Do What Leaders Do’: Dem Leader Scorches ‘Missing in Action’ Trump
News2 days agoJohnson Says Trump ‘Trolling’ on Major Constitutional Question
News2 days ago‘He Wants the Pain’: Former GOP Congressman Blasts Trump’s ‘Sadism Dressed Up as Politics’
