What Sarah McBride Gets Wrong

Congresswoman Sarah McBride recently interviewed with Ezra Klein at the New York Times, where she advocated for a politics of appeasement when it comes to transgender people.

Donna Burton // Public Domain

On Tuesday, Representative Sarah McBride sat for a 90-minute interview with Ezra Klein of the New York Times, published under the headline “Why the Left Lost on Transgender Rights.” In the interview, McBride suggested that transgender people may have “overplay|ed their| hand” and called for a political strategy in which leaders follow the polls rather than lead with conviction. At a moment when powerful interests are urging Democrats to retreat on support for LGBTQ+ people, immigrants, and other marginalized groups in response to electoral losses, McBride’s approach represents a more cautious—and ultimately more harmful—vision for transgender advocacy where capitulation is the name of the game.

The article, published Tuesday, quickly became a flashpoint among Democratic insiders, transgender advocates, allies, and political observers. Well-meaning supporters circulated it as an example of good advocacy from McBride. But for those of us who have covered transgender issues extensively, the intent was clear: to lay the groundwork for a rightward shift within the Democratic Party on transgender rights. The interview took place at a paper that has long served as fertile ground for such repositioning, with an interviewer known for advancing those very arguments. And the fallout was immediate—within hours, Fox News blasted out the headline that the most politically powerful transgender official in the country had admitted trans people had “overplayed their hand.”

Klein has repeatedly—if subtly—signaled that transgender people should cede ground on issues he seems to view as politically expendable. In the immediate aftermath of the election, he framed Democratic support for transgender athletes and incarcerated trans people as the result of “pressure,” suggesting party leaders likely regret not “holding the line a bit closer in” on such issues. That framing resurfaces in his interview with Sarah McBride, where she echoes the sentiment, advocating for a political strategy in which Democrats follow the polls rather than lead with principle or conviction or listen to what she calls “the groups.”

“We decided that we now have to say and fight for and push for every single perfect policy and cultural norm right now, regardless of whether the public is ready. And I think it misunderstands the role that politicians and, frankly, social movements have in maintaining proximity to public opinion, of walking people to a place,” says McBride.

She would go on to reiterate this after another question about Trump’s anti-trans ads, “Public opinion is everything. And if you want us to change, you need to help foster the change in public opinion before you’re asking these elected officials to betray the fact that they are, at the end of the day, representatives who have to represent in some form or fashion the views of the people that they represent…There’s always going to be a tension between the groups and elected officials. Everyone has to do their own job, but there has to be some degree of understanding.”

If Sarah McBride had her way, political leadership would amount to little more than a compilation of polls and focus groups wrapped in a suit. While fear in the face of mounting backlash is understandable, deferring to polling on civil rights is a blueprint for failure. Rights are not granted by public opinion. If the nation had waited for interracial marriage to poll well, such bans would have remained in effect until 1997.

This contradiction comes to a head in McBride’s interview with Klein. Klein notes that it’s not just sports that “don’t poll well,” but also issues like bathroom access, education about gender identity in schools, all-ages drag shows, and medical care for transgender youth. His assessment isn’t entirely accurate—polling on transgender issues often hinges on question phrasing, and there’s substantial evidence that these topics rarely drive voters’ decisions—but the point lands. If McBride believes Democrats should yield ground on some “contentious” issues (sports), how can she justify holding firm on others that face similar political headwinds? Pressed on this, McBride doesn’t offer a clear distinction, instead advocating for a “libertarian” position on those topics.

To some extent, McBride clearly does get it—because in rare moments like this, she actually engages in advocacy. I wish I could say it's because, as a leader, she understands the responsibility to fight for her community. But that conviction isn’t consistent across her politics; if it were, she wouldn’t be so quick to excuse throwing certain issues under the bus or advocating for vague notions of “compromise.” What distinguishes issues like medical care, bathroom access, and drag bans from sports—despite all being driven by the same Republican fearmongering—is their personal relevance. McBride knows that medical care bans could target her. She knows what it’s like to be young and trans, to worry about bathroom access, to see drag bans as thinly veiled attacks on trans existence. These issues hit closer to home. And that proximity, not political principle, seems to shape what she’s willing to defend.

The fact is, it’s become increasingly clear that McBride doesn’t see herself as a fighter—and, more troublingly, she seems to believe that fighting for rights is itself a problem. “Sometimes we have to understand that not fighting, not taking the bait, is not a sign of weakness. It’s not unprincipled. Discipline and strategy are signs of strength,” she explains, referring to her decision not to oppose Rep. Nancy Mace and the Republican Party’s imposition of a bathroom ban at the U.S. Capitol—one that was largely directed at her. Her response was simply to comply and not make a fuss. In doing so, she not only left other transgender people working in the Capitol more vulnerable, but also helped establish a precedent that even allies have cited to suggest that silent compliance is now the expected norm.

If it were merely a lack of fight, perhaps it could be excused. McBride is in a difficult position as a transgender woman in a political arena that still often views people like her as lesser. I know what that’s like. I’ve watched my own wife, Rep. Zooey Zephyr, navigate that same terrain in one of the hardest places to be an openly trans political figure: the red state legislature of Montana. But that’s not the problem. McBride isn’t just choosing not to fight—she’s offering cover fire for those urging Democrats to shift right on transgender rights, to abandon key battles in the name of political expediency. She plays into damaging narratives about transgender people, telling Klein, for instance, that transgender medical standards of care “might have gotten too lenient.” In doing so, she hands Fox News and other right-wing outlets the headlines they crave—ammunition to say, “See, even they admit they went too far.”

McBride’s interview with Klein was quickly overshadowed by the Supreme Court’s decision the very next day to allow states to ban gender-affirming care—the latest in a wave of rollbacks on transgender rights. And of course, the New York Times cited the Klein/McBride interview in multiple articles to put the blame on transgender people for the loss. Nearly every state that once passed a sports ban as an early “compromise” has since escalated to banning medical care, restricting bathroom access, censoring books, and more. McBride fails to grasp a hard truth: capitulation has never yielded progress on LGBTQ+ rights—not in public opinion, certainly not in policy, and not in this fight. We aren’t losing ground because we’ve been too loud or too assertive. We’re here because the far right dominates the media ecosystem, funnels hundreds of millions into demonizing transgender people, and has cowed Republican politicians into lockstep obedience. The only antidote is to stand firm and lead with principle.

I still hope McBride finds that principle. I hope that one day, instead of offering cover for those pleading for permission to let us drown, she stands firm—unapologetic, unwavering—and claims the legacy her position demands. As the first trans person to reach the halls of Congress is a responsibility few others will experience. The community doesn’t need a symbol to soothe the conscience of those ready to discard us. We need a spine. We need someone who doesn’t flinch when the battle for rights turns against us—but rises to meet it.