I remember glancing around the table last Friendsgiving, struck by the backgrounds and experiences of the couples around me. Our group of sapphic couples – an inclusive term describing relationships between two women, a woman and a nonbinary person, or two nonbinary people – was first formed to organize for the rights of women, nonbinary, and gender-nonconforming people. We were brought together as organizers and as friends by love, shared identity and, unfortunately, shared economic hardship. Sharing stories of our work and our lives, it was clear just how much gender and sexual orientation impacted our ability to make ends meet.
But in that moment I felt honored that we could all show up with our multiple identities and feel counted, included and seen. As an organizer, I knew just how important being counted and included was in understanding and solving economic problems facing my community. And now, as an aspiring policy analyst, I know how important it is for our government to count us when considering how to address the economic disparities within our communities.
As we celebrate Women’s History Month and commemorate Equal Pay Day next week – our country faces anti-LGBTQ+ attacks that jeopardize our basic rights. Among these attacks is the refusal to include LGBTQ+ information in the federal data that helps us understand economic disparities.These attacks are pushing us farther from a future where gender and sexual orientation do not determine a person’s economic well-being.
Gender and sexual orientation remain predictors of economic insecurity. Compared to men, women in general have higher rates of poverty and are overrepresented in low-wage occupations. LGBTQ+ adults have higher rates of poverty and are over fifty percent more likely to have difficulties paying for food, housing, transportation and other essentials than non-LGBTQ+ adults. But a closer look at data on sapphic couples reveals the compounded impacts of gender and sexual orientation on economic well-being. Ten percent of America’s population are LGBTQ+ women, and are at a higher risk of poverty. Among same-sex couples, sapphic couples face economic inequalities that same-sex male couples don’t: In 2019, 30% cisgender bisexual women – more than any other sexual orientation group – were living in poverty. In comparison, 14% of cisgender lesbian women were living in poverty. Black and Latinx lesbians also have significantly higher odds of poverty than white lesbian couples.
This compounded impact can also be seen in wage gaps, a driver of economic disparities. In 2024, a survey found that, among respondents, LGBTQ+ women-headed households faced a 52 percent wage gap compared to non-LGBTQ+ households – an annual loss of $39,750. In 2021, respondents in a Human Rights Campaign survey found that individual LGBTQ+ women who were working full-time earned 87 cents for every dollar paid to a typical worker, which means they make even less than non-LGBTQ+ women. These disparities are even more pronounced LGBTQ+ women of color.
While we know sapphic couples are more likely to face economic insecurity, persistent data gaps hide the full extent of disparities. For many years, poverty-related studies relied on federal datasets that did not include sexual orientation or gender identity (SOGI) data. Instead, researchers were left to estimate LGBTQ+ poverty rates most commonly by identifying co-habitating same-sex individuals. At the start of the second Trump Administration, we had multiple federal data sources that helped us understand economic disparities among LGBTQ+ households and individuals, but because these datasets varied in collection methods, sample size and definitions of sexual orientation and gender identity, significant data gaps remained.
SOGI data is important for understanding economic disparities for the LGBTQ+ community compared with other individuals as well as economic disparities within the community. Despite its importance, SOGI data has long been under attack from the Trump administration.
In 2020, the Trump Administration blocked the Census Bureau from collecting SOGI data in the 2020 Census data. On January 20, 2025, Trump signed an executive order declaring that the federal government would only recognize two sexes, male and female. Nine days later, a White House memo was sent to all departments and agency heads requesting they comply by removing references that promote “gender ideology.” This resulted in the removal of countless datasets, webpages and research publications that included the references to sexual orientation or gender identity from government websites.
According to the Williams Institute, hundreds of federal data collections have removed SOGI questions within the last year:
- 94% of data measures removed from federal collections were gender identity demographic measures
- At least 60 data collections removed sexual orientation data elements
- 83% of removals were made through informal change requests
These harmful removals leave LGBTQ+ individuals out of critical policymaking conversations that address ongoing crises – from housing instability to discrimination. And importantly, these attacks threaten future data collections. For example, there have been reports that the Census Bureau sought permission to remove gender and sexuality questions from upcoming surveys. As a typically non-political agency, the Census Bureau conducts the most extensive national household survey every year. Data from these surveys are used to understand the state of the country, inform policy decisions and allocate resources.
The Trump administration’s anti-LGBTQ+ actions may also be creating fear, distrust, and real risk that could limit self-identification among LGBTQ+ people. According to a 2025 survey, 70 percent of all LGBTQ+ respondents say Trump’s anti-LGBTQ+ actions make them feel anxious and afraid. This distrust may lead some members of the community to feel unsafe reporting their identities to the government. For example, the trans military ban illustrates the misuse of data and the direct harm of openly identifying as LGBTQ+ to the government.
When data is taken away or not tracked, it can be difficult to assess the impact of policies that have helped support the economic wellbeing of LGBTQ+ individuals. Federal same-sex marriage protections secured under Obergefell v. Hodges and federal workplace protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity under Bostock v. Clayton County are under attack. But research shows that these policies impact economic security: states that denied LGBTQ+ people access to equal marriage and employment discrimination protections had higher LGBTQ+ poverty rates. In the past year, there have been 616 anti-LGBTQ+ bills introduced in this country. Without accurate data, we may not know the full impact of the policies on the economic security of the LGBTQ+ community.
These recent attacks on data are not the first time the federal government has attempted to erase or ignore the LGBTQ+ community. During the 1950s “lavender scare” several thousand government employees were investigated, interrogated, or forced to resign due to suspicion that they were gay. From 1994 to 2011, the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” federal policy was in effect. This policy prohibited gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans from serving in the armed forces. Transgender individuals continue to be barred from serving.
We cannot repeat mistakes of the past. We must demand that our federal government stop erasing LGBTQ+ people in surveys and data, preserve data confidentiality and prevent the misuse of critical data. Data is not just about numbers in a spreadsheet. It’s about making sure that – just like that Friendsgiving table I sat around – everyone is seen, counted and considered. By ensuring data collection reflects the full diversity of LGBTQ+ individuals, we can develop the policies that help build an economy where all people have the opportunity to thrive, no matter their identity.
