Speak now: Taylor Swift why pop stars must do more to defend LGBTQ+ fans

Taylor Swift has flagged her sympathies with this community, so why is her Eras tour visiting US states enacting repressive laws without comment?

Look what an overly aggressive security guard made Taylor Swift do. Over the weekend, the singer won praise for calling out a guard, mid-performance, who was being rough with a female fan.

However, as a queer Swiftie, I can’t help but wish she would channel that same energy and her enormous platform into denouncing the record number of anti-LGBTQ+ laws being introduced across the US. Since starting in March, Swift’s Eras tour has taken her to numerous states that have ushered in some of the most extreme anti-LGBTQ+ bills in decades, including Florida, Tennessee and Texas. Yet the singer has stayed silent.

For some, Swift’s silence undermines, or at least draws into question, the flurry of LGBTQ+ advocacy she embarked on in 2019. After a gay friend helped Taylor realise her position on LGBTQ+ rights wasn’t “clear enough or loud enough”, she came out swinging for the gays. Close to a million people signed her peтιтion in support of the Equality Act, she brought drag queens on stage with her at a major award show, and also made enormous donations to LGBTQ+ charities such as Glaad and the Tennessee Equality Project. (She also released the homophobe-bashing single You Need to Calm Down, though perhaps erasing that from our collective memory would be more of a win for LGBTQ+ rights.)

When Swift broke her political silence in 2018 by publicly supporting two Democrats in the US midterm elections it felt like a watershed moment. The singer had seemed to have gotten over being “so fearful of making a mistake that [she would] just freeze”, as she once told Vogue. As she said in her 2020 documentary, Miss Americana, she cared more about being “on the right side of history”. Which is why her silence now feels so loud.

But the issue of pop and politics goes beyond Swift, raising questions about our expectations of pop stars, figureheads who have by and large become more politicised over the past decade. Should artists use their platforms to speak out on social issues, and if so, how often and to what extent? (The current calls for Swift to denounce past controversies by her rumoured boyfriend, Matty Healy of the 1975, for example, are both misogynist – expecting a woman to account for her partner’s behaviour – and demonstrative of fan enтιтlement.) Do we expect them to understand and respond to all the H๏τ-ʙuттon issues going on around the world? Which countries (or states, for that matter) is it OK for them to perform in?

Now more than ever, these are valid questions to ask of pop stars. Major pop tours are watercooler events akin to sports games, Succession and Eurovision: one of the biggest platforms around, speaking directly not only to young audiences who look to their idols for support, but the wider public who might be influenced by their views. And queer fans can reasonably expect to see support for their causes because today’s pop spectacle was built on the backs of trailblazing queer icons, to whom every star owes a spiritual debt. (In 2017, Swift’s Reputation tour paid nightly tribute to the 19th-century US dancer Loie Fuller, a gay woman who pioneered modern dance and theatrical lighting and fought for artists to own their work.)

It’s understandable that many stars are wary about speaking out, particularly when on stage. Audiences have come for a show, not a political rally. Perhaps that’s why some stars opt for softer actions, such as Harry Styles waving a Pride flag or Beyoncé making venue toilets gender-neutral on her current Renaissance tour. These gestures of support can mean so much for a young queer or questioning fan. But Madonna put her career on the line in the 80s and 90s with her HIV/Aids activism, including a card detailing The Facts About Aids enclosed with 1989’s Like a Prayer album. Considering we’re living through an era of humanitarian and climate crises with a growing backlash against the rights of women, people of colour and LGBTQ+ people, today’s pop stars aren’t taking radical enough action.

So while we can applaud artists such as Lizzo, Orville Peck, Kelsea Ballerini and Hayley Kiyoko for their recent advocacy against the anti-drag and trans laws emerging across the US, statements and symbolic gestures won’t do anything to help the families of queer and trans kids fleeing Texas and Florida. What matters today is how pop stars who want to make a difference use their voice, platform and wealth to materially improve the lives of vulnerable communities. Shortly after the Grenfell tragedy in 2017, Adele stopped her Wembley concert to plead with the audience to donate £5 to the Unite for Grenfell relief efforts. On the Eras tour, it’s been revealed that Swift is making “sizeable” donations to local food banks at each stop.

Boycotts can also be effective. It was only seven years ago that North Carolina introduced an anti-LGBTQ+ bathroom bill, which sparked such a huge backlash that businesses left the state and major sporting events and concerts were cancelled. Less than a year later, the draconian law was repealed. LGBTQ+ communities are fighting for their freedom and it’s those kinds of actions that could make a meaningful difference to their safety. Imagine if pop stars highlighted local queer groups at each of their concert venues with donation stands. Or if they signposted information about local, state and national politicians fans could contact about anti-LGBTQ+ legislation. It would also be extremely powerful to see this done by artists without obvious queer fanbases such as Drake or Bruce Springsteen (who was among the artists to cancel shows in North Carolina in 2016).

With all eyes on these tours and every moment being beamed directly to TikTok, they’re one of the most powerful platforms out there and it’s devastating that more isn’t being made of these opportunities. The era of speak now is over. It’s time for pop stars who care about equality to act now.

The free press is under attack from multiple forces. Media outlets are closing their doors, victims to a broken business model. In much of the world, journalism is morphing into propaganda, as governments dictate what can and can’t be printed. In the last year alone, hundreds of reporters have been killed or imprisoned for doing their jobs. The UN reports that 85% of the world’s population experienced a decline in press freedom in their country in recent years.

As you join us today from Vietnam we hope you will consider supporting us in our efforts to do something about this. Despite the financial challenges plaguing the media industry, we’ve decided to keep our journalism paywall-free, because we believe everyone has the right to high-quality, fact-checked reporting. And we maintain our independence thanks to generosity from readers all over the world, who understand that supporting the free press is an investment in an informed and empowered public.

Unlike many others, we have no billionaire owner – this helps us maintain the freedom to fearlessly chase the truth and report it with integrity. Your support will allow us to continue to work with trademark determination and pᴀssion to bring you journalism that’s always free from commercial or political interference.

Jeffrey Ingold is a freelance journalist writing about culture and LGBTQ+ issues