Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Who in Congress proposed adding LGBTQ funding to the continuing resolution?
Executive Summary
The available analyses present competing claims about who proposed adding LGBTQ funding to a 2025 continuing resolution: one line of reporting credits Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Rosa DeLauro as Democratic leaders who drafted a CR containing LGBTQ-related provisions, while a separate account points to Reps. Brendan Boyle, Chrissy Houlahan and Ayanna Pressley as sponsors of earmarks for LGBTQ projects that were later stripped during House markup. Other items in the dataset note Democratic proposals to restore foreign aid that could include LGBTQ democracy grants but do not tie a single congressional sponsor to CR language. The record in these analyses is fragmented and partly dated; some pieces reference a 2023 earmark episode and others reference broader 2025 appropriations fights, so the simplest, supportable finding is that multiple Democratic lawmakers have been associated with efforts to direct funds to LGBTQ causes, but the specific attribution varies by proposal and legislative vehicle [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Who’s being named — Two competing attributions that matter politically
One strand of the analysis identifies Senator Patty Murray (D‑WA) and Representative Rosa DeLauro (D‑CT) as the Democratic leaders behind a continuing resolution that included LGBTQ funding language; that claim appears in contemporary reporting tying Democratic leadership to the CR drafted to avert a shutdown and to protect certain LGBTQ initiatives [1]. By contrast, a separate analysis points to a discrete House earmark effort by Reps. Brendan F. Boyle, Chrissy Houlahan and Ayanna S. Pressley, describing about $3.62 million in project earmarks aimed at Massachusetts and Pennsylvania programs that were removed by Republicans during House markup—an event dated in the analysis to 2023 rather than the 2025 CR fight [2]. These are different procedural moments—a leadership-authored CR versus member-level earmarks—and the datasets conflate them when answering who “proposed” adding LGBTQ funding.
2. Evidence for the Murray/DeLauro claim — Leadership drafting the CR
The Murray/DeLauro tie comes from reporting that frames the 2025 continuing resolution as a Democratic‑led package with provisions to fund LGBTQ initiatives and to block anti‑trans riders that had been advanced in House appropriations bills [1] [4]. That reporting treats the CR as a leadership product designed to keep the government funded while incorporating policy protections and targeted funding lines for LGBTQ programs. The sources in this cluster emphasize institutional authorship—Senate and House Democratic leaders drafting a compromise vehicle—rather than individual earmarks, and they situate these moves amid a larger appropriations fight over anti‑LGBTQ riders and potential shutdown consequences [4]. The coverage attributes the CR’s language to top Democrats rather than to backbench earmark proponents.
3. Evidence for the Boyle/Houlahan/Pressley claim — Member earmarks stripped in markup
A different piece of analysis documents that Reps. Boyle, Houlahan and Pressley sought to add roughly $3.62 million in earmarks for LGBTQ‑related projects in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, but that those additions were removed by Republicans during the House markup process [2]. That account reads like a standard earmark skirmish: rank‑and‑file members proposing targeted allocations, then having them stripped in a partisan markup. Crucially, the analysis places this incident in 2023, not 2025, which means it describes a prior instance of Democratic members pressing for LGBTQ project funding rather than the 2025 continuing resolution drafted by Democratic leaders. The procedural distinction—earmarks versus CR language—is material to answering “who proposed” in a given legislative vehicle.
4. Broader context: foreign aid restorations and partisan framing of LGBTQ spending
Additional analyses show Democratic efforts to restore nearly $5 billion in unused foreign aid accounts, with critics claiming Democrats wanted to steer money to specific projects including LGBTQ democracy grants, while fact checks note the Democratic proposal funded accounts rather than stipulating projects [3]. Other coverage focuses on the damage a shutdown would do to LGBTQ services and highlights anti‑LGBTQ riders in House appropriations bills, without tying a single sponsor to funding language [5] [4]. These items illustrate two important contextual points: [6] attempts to associate Democrats with LGBTQ funding take multiple forms—domestic earmarks, CR policy language, and foreign aid restorations—and [7] Republican messaging often frames these efforts as targeted spending even when proposals fund broader accounts rather than named projects [3].
5. Bottom line and recommended next steps for verification
The dataset supports two distinct, verifiable claims: Democratic leaders (notably Murray and DeLauro) are credited with drafting a 2025 continuing resolution containing LGBTQ provisions, and separate member‑level earmark activity by Boyle, Houlahan and Pressley sought LGBTQ project funding that was later stripped during House markup in a 2023 episode [1] [2]. The analyses are consistent that no single, uncontested source in this set definitively ties the 2025 CR to the 2023 earmarks, so journalists or researchers seeking a conclusive attribution should consult contemporaneous CR text and chamber press releases for the 2025 CR and the House markup records for the 2023 earmarks to confirm sponsorship and language. This layered record shows multiple Democratic actors involved across different vehicles, and clarifying the legislative vehicle is essential to answer “who proposed” with precision [1] [2] [3].