Oil-rich Venezuela once ranked as one of the wealthiest economies in the world, but it experienced an economic collapse that has resulted in widespread poverty.

While the country has recently made headlines because of the U.S. president’s recent invasion and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, its LGBTQ+ community has long suffered — mostly out of the media spotlight — from a lack of legal protections.

Related

Every LGBTQ+ Congress member blasts Trump’s invasion of Venezuela

Same-sex relationships and marriage laws

While consensual same-sex relations between adults are legal in Venezuela, same-sex couples have been persecuted in the country based on vague “decency” and “lewd conduct” ordinances. Venezuela doesn’t offer legalized same-sex marriage. Article 77 of Venezuela’s 1999 Constitution defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, thereby excluding same-sex marriage.

Never Miss a Beat

Subscribe to our newsletter to stay ahead of the latest LGBTQ+ political news and insights.
Subscribe to our Newsletter today

In 2003, Venezuela’s Supreme Tribunal of Justice ruled that the government may introduce measures providing economic benefits to same-sex couples. The court, however, stopped short of saying that the government was required to do so under the law. In 2008, the court said that the country’s constitution neither prohibits nor requires government recognition of same-sex marriages.

In January 2015, same-sex marriage advocates filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Tribunal of Justice challenging Article 44 of the country’s Civil Code, which states that marriage is only legally valid between a man and a woman. But even though the court announced on April 28, 2016, that it would hear oral arguments in the case, it has taken no further action on the case since, not even issuing an official ruling.

Venezuela does recognize “stable unions” (similar to common law marriages in the U.S.) between different-sex couples who cohabitate and intend to have children, but legal recognition of these unions hasn’t been extended to same-sex couples.

Anti-discrimination protections and legal gaps

While Venezuela offers legal protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, banking, and housing, the country only prohibits discrimination based on gender identity for housing and banking.

Because the country neither collects nor releases official statistics on its LGBTQ+ citizens, queer Venezuelans remain invisible and unheeded in official government reports on how various policies affect them. Numerous LGBTQ+ Venezuelans have said that they experience harassment at work and at the hands of police, who accuse queer individuals of soliciting sex work or carrying/selling drugs.

A 2015 report from the LGBTI Network of Venezuela said that, because the country’s anti-discrimination laws lack any enforcement mechanisms, such discrimination rarely gets punished. As a result, queer Venezuelans “constantly live situations of discrimination, threats, and attacks against their moral, psychological, or physical integrity, and still lack legal protection, which makes them defenseless citizens in an atmosphere of alarming growth of homophobia and transphobia.”

In May 2016, Venezuela’s National Assembly unanimously approved a resolution establishing May 17 as the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia, to raise awareness about anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination, oppression, and harassment. However, in 2016, the country’s Supreme Tribunal of Justice suspended the resolution.

Nevertheless, in March 2023, Venezuela’s Supreme Tribunal of Justice overturned Section 565 of the Military Justice Code, which banned “sexual acts against nature” and criminalized consensual same-sex relations between military members.

Transgender rights and legal recognition

Venezuela doesn’t legally recognize the gender identity of trans individuals.

In September 2016, Venezuela’s Administrative Service of Identification and Migration Affairs (SAIME) announced that it would take action to assist a group of transgender people in obtaining new identity cards with gender markers and a photograph that matches their gender identity.

SAIME said that individual applications for such changes would be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and would require copies of birth certificates and reports from psychiatric and psychological specialists that affirm the longevity and truthfulness of the person’s trans identity. However, it’s unclear if SAIME ever actually issued these changed identity documents.

A 2021 news report from Reuters noted that Tamara Adrian, Venezuela’s first out trans deputy, has fought in court since May 2004 for new government-issued identification cards and passports for trans people, but the court has never issued a ruling on the matter.

Family rights, adoption, and parental recognition

In December 2016, Venezuela’s Supreme Tribunal of Justice ruled that children born to same-sex couples could be registered with the surnames of both parents, regardless of biological relation. The tribunal based its ruling on Article 75 of the Venezuelan Constitution, which mandates state protection for all families without discrimination.

However, the country’s food distribution program doesn’t include same-gender families, and joint adoption for same-sex couples is not legally permitted. Nevertheless, female same-sex couples are allowed to access services for in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Health care realities, including HIV and gender-affirming care access

Venezuelans have severely limited access to healthcare due to a collapsed public system, widespread shortages of medicines, supplies, and personnel, and decaying infrastructure, leaving millions lacking basic services for chronic and preventable diseases, and forcing many to rely on often inadequate private care or humanitarian aid.

HIV healthcare in Venezuela

HIV healthcare in Venezuela is severely compromised by economic and political crises, leading to major shortages of antiretroviral drugs (ART), treatment interruptions, and a weakened health system. For example, the Venezuelan Pharmaceutical Federation has reported a shortage of 80% of medical supplies, leaving both public and private clinics vulnerable to acute shortages of medical supplies and medicines, even for routine treatments.

As a result, some HIV-positive Venezuelans and natives seeking gender-affirming care must seek such healthcare abroad, with the help of international aid and non-government organizations.

As of 2022, the country has an HIV prevalence rate of an estimated 35.8% among transgender Venezuelans and 23.3% among Venezuelan men who have sex with men, compared with a prevalence rate of around 0.5% for the country’s total population, according to The Borgen Project.

Researchers in a 2025 study said there’s a significant and concerning deterioration in HIV-related research output from within Venezuela over the last decade.

While public reports haven’t shown that Venezuela restricts entry to or exit from its borders based on a person’s HIV status, Article 8 of the country’s Law on Migration and Aliens, on inadmissibility, states that foreigners can be denied entry if “they suffer from infectious or contagious diseases or others that compromise public health.”

Gender-affirming healthcare in Venezuela

Gender-affirming healthcare in Venezuela is extremely limited, with hormone therapy and other essential services largely unavailable in the public system, forcing many to seek care privately or abroad. Virtually no public hospitals or clinics provide free or accessible hormone therapy or comprehensive care, according to a 2019 report in El Universal.

Social climate, violence, and stigma

Venezuelan attitudes towards LGBTQ+ are in transition, with younger Venezuelans generally supporting the rights of LGBTQ+ people. However, this trend coexists alongside an atmosphere of anti-LGBTQ+ government repression, harassment, and violence against queer people.

A 2023 poll by the Equilibrium Center for Economic Development (Equilibrium CenDE) found that 76% of Venezuelans support LGBTQ+ people being open about their sexual orientation and gender identity, 55% of Venezuelans supported same-sex marriage (while 32% oppose it), 48% supported adoption by LGBTQ+ couples (while 39% oppose it), and only 49% felt that queer people should publicly display their affection towards one another.

The same poll found that 33% of Venezuelans think that LGBTQ+ people choose to be queer, and 13% believe LGBTQ+ identities result from past trauma — neither perception is true. Such views may be fostered by the fact that educational institutions don’t allow discussions on LGBTQ+ issues or discourse on sexuality in the country

LGBTQ+ activists in the country have faced systematic government attacks that have resulted in illegal searches, arbitrary arrests, and violence, according to a 2024 Washington Blade report. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights denounced Venezuela’s treatment of queer civil rights activist as a case of “state terrorism.”

Approximately 48% of LGBTQ+ Venezuelans have experienced discrimination or violence and 31% had chronic health conditions due to limited healthcare access or discrimination and revictimization by healthcare professionals, a 2023 analysis by the national LGBTQ+ organization Unión Afirmativa.

“In this context of oppression and violence, Venezuela’s LGBTIQ+ community continues to face monumental challenges in its struggle for equality and justice, while the government appears increasingly authoritarian and repressive,” one activist told The Washington Blade.

LGBTQ+ activism and community resilience

Despite conservative political pressure, LGBTQ+ activists in the country’s capital of Caracas continue to hold an annual LGBTQ+ Pride event, with over 50,000 attendees in recent years. The participants have demanded legal recognition of transgender people, legalized same-sex marriage, parental rights for same-sex couples, and LGBTQ+ inclusion in the government’s social programs and policies, especially regarding healthcare.

Unión Afirmativa remains the nation’s largest pro-LGBTQ+ organization, appealing to legislators and judicial officials for increased queer civil rights. International groups like The Cyrus R. Vance Center have also advocated for increased LGBTQ+ rights in Venezuela.

However, many LGBTQ+ Venezuelans, particularly trans individuals, emigrate to nearby Chile and Peru for refuge, community, and safety.

How Venezuela compares regionally

Venezuela lags behind many South American nations in LGBTQ+ rights, lacking national anti-discrimination laws, same-sex marriage, and legal gender recognition, and offering weak protections against systemic anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination, and poor access to healthcare, especially compared to regional leaders like Colombia or Brazil, which have stronger legal frameworks and policies to protect queer civil rights.

The country currently ranks ninth among South American countries in LGBTQ+ rights, according to Equaldex. Activists have blamed the conservative influence of the military and evangelical churches for the government’s inaction on implementing more queer civil rights.

The next steps for equality in Venezuela

Improving LGBTQ+ rights in Venezuela would require a combination of legislative reform, the active enforcement of existing protections, and a shift in societal attitudes to counter ingrained discrimination.

Such reforms could occur under new and committed leadership, but would require the political will and government support to provide greater legal equality to LGBTQ+ people while fostering greater social awareness and acceptance of queer people and their lived experiences.

Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.

The anti-LGBTQ+ group Turning Point USA has sent a cease-and-desist letter to Candace Owens — a conspiracy theorist — “continuing to cause harm” to the organization by pushing conspiracy theories related to the September 10 murder of its co-founder and CEO, Charlie Kirk.

Since Kirk’s death, Owens has used her massive online platform to spread her beliefs that France, Israel, and Egypt might have had a hand in Kirk’s September 10 murder; that Kirk was “betrayed” by people close to him; and that state and federal law enforcement are covering up a bigger crime in their handling of his murder, CNN reported.

Related

Even Donald Trump is trying to get Candace Owens to stop saying French first lady is transgender

Turning Point USA, which is now headed by Kirk’s widow Erika Kirk, accused Owens of “violating a non-disparagement clause” which forbids her from criticizing the organization. Owens was hired as a guest speaker during the organization’s cross-country tour.

The letter also tells Owens to stop saying or implying that the organization or any of its employees “played any part in Mr. Kirk’s assassination,” or that they “knew about the assassination beforehand, participated in the assassination day of, or covered up the truth after the fact.”

A federal judge has voided a Department of Justice (DOJ) subpoena requiring Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C. to hand over private information on young patients receiving gender-affirming care (GAC). The ruling is just the latest roadblock in the DOJ’s quest to end GAC for trans youth; however, the hospital stopped offering GAC last July in response to the current presidential administration’s threats to defund institutions that offer such care.

The case involved eight families that received transition-related healthcare through the hospital’s Gender Development Program between 2020 and 2025. The families said that the DOJ’s subpoena — which demanded their addresses, children’s social security number, medical diagnoses, prescriptions, and all documents affirming parental authorization, among other information — violated their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and their Fifth Amendment right to privacy in their medical records.

Related

Transphobia backfired at the ballot box last year. Has the culture-war rhetoric lost its power?

The DOJ argued that the families lacked legal standing to oppose the subpoena because none of them directly received it — the subpoena was sent to hospital workers — and because the families challenged the subpoena after the DOJ’s deadline for patient information had passed.

But, because the subpoena sought “private medical records containing highly sensitive treatment” about children, U.S. District Judge Julie R. Rubin wrote in her ruling that the families had legal standing, both because the subpoena put an “undue burden” upon the families and because their children were relying on their parental guardians “to protect [their] interests because [they lack legal] capacity to act in self-protection.”

Never Miss a Beat

Subscribe to our newsletter to stay ahead of the latest LGBTQ+ political news and insights.
Subscribe to our Newsletter today

“This court joins the district courts around the country in finding that the Government’s Subpoena lacks a proper investigatory purpose under law; serves only to bolster the Executive’s policy objective of terminating access to gender affirming healthcare for adolescents; and has no plausible or coherent tether to its stated purpose,” Rubin wrote.

Last June, the DOJ sent subpoenas to 20 medical providers who offer gender-affirming care to trans youth. Under the pretense of investigating healthcare fraud, the DOJ demanded patients’ Social Security numbers, emails, home addresses, and information about the care they received.

The DOJ said that its subpoenas seek to prevent healthcare fraud and “off-label” use of puberty blockers and hormones to treat youth gender dysphoria, beyond the “on-label” uses approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The blockers and hormone treatments in question have been used safely on children for decades to treat precocious puberty and certain cancers, and off-label uses of these drugs for trans individuals have also occurred safely for decades without any additional federal government oversight.

However, Judge Rubin said that DOJ lawyers “failed to place before the court any information, record, or evidence” — such as an affidavit, complaint, or whistleblower statement — “supporting or pertaining to the investigation of the hospital for any health care offense.”

“The Government seeks to investigate how the Hospital treats its patients; specifically, in the context of gender-affirming patient care,” the judge wrote. But the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) that the DOJ cited in its investigatory subpoena “regulates commerce, not patient care,” the judge added. As such, the DOJ shouldn’t need such sensitive private medical information in order to investigate alleged healthcare fraud, the judge ruled.

“The court concludes the Subpoena was not issued for a legitimate governmental purpose, is not limited in scope to any legitimate purpose, and is oppressive in its breadth,” Judge Rubin wrote. “The court finds the Subpoena is a pretext to fulfill the Executive’s well-publicized policy objective to terminate and block gender affirming healthcare.”

“The Subpoena bears no credible connection to an investigation of any statutory violation by the Hospital,” Judge Rubin continued. “Rather, the Subpoena appears to have no purpose other than to intimidate and harass the Hospital and [the families], and those similarly situated. The Government seeks to fulfill its policy agenda through compliance born of fear. Moreover, in the view of the court, the Subpoena is the classic impermissible fishing expedition.”

While the judge applied her ruling only to the eight families that sued, her mention of the DOJ’s “fishing expedition” echoes a federal judge’s ruling last September that reached the same conclusion, as well as a similar ruling issued by another federal judge in November.

“Today’s ruling is a crucial victory for families and for the fundamental right to medical privacy,” said Donovan Bendana, Liman Law Fellow at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law) and counsel for the families. “The court saw through the government’s attempt to use its investigative powers as a weapon against families who are simply trying to access healthcare for their children. These families should never have been forced to go to court to protect their children’s private medical information from government intrusion. This decision makes clear the federal government does not have the authority to intimidate patients and doctors or to insert itself into private medical decisions. We are grateful the court stood up for these families and for the principle that all Americans have a right to make healthcare decisions without fear of government harassment.”

“When families fear their private health information could be exposed or used against them, they may delay or avoid seeking necessary medical care – putting children’s health and wellbeing at risk. The court’s decision protects not only the families who brought the case, but reinforces fundamental principles of medical privacy and limitations on government power that benefit all Americans,” said Jennifer Levi, Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights at GLAD Law. 

“Parents of transgender adolescents want what every parent wants: to ensure their children get the medical care they need to be healthy and thrive,” said Eve Hill, Partner at Brown, Goldstein & Levy. “This ruling affirms that the government cannot intrude into the exam room or second-guess the medical decisions families make with their doctors.”

The administration’s “toxic” war on gender-affirming care

Though there is no federal law banning gender-affirming care, the current presidential administration has sought to eradicate the practice through a January executive order (that has since been blocked by several courts). The order instructed the DOJ to extend the time that patients and parents can sue gender-affirming doctors and to use laws against false advertising to prosecute any entity that may be misleading the public about the long-term effects of gender-affirming care.

In April, Bondi issued a memo to DOJ employees, telling them to investigate and prosecute cases of minors accessing gender-affirming care as female genital mutilation (FGM), even though hospitals don’t conduct such female genital surgeries. The memo threatened to jail doctors for 10 years if they provide gender-affirming care to young trans people.

Additionally, the DOJ sought information about the providers’ employees and their correspondence with pharmaceutical manufacturers, marketing departments, and sales representatives, as well as other sensitive information dating back to January 2020.

Fewer than 3,000 teens nationwide receive puberty blockers or hormone replacement therapy, according to a 2025 JAMA analysis of private insurance data. Gender-affirming care is supported by all major medical associations in the U.S., including the American Medical Association, the Endocrine Society, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, as safe and life-saving for young people with gender dysphoria.

One doctor interviewed by The Washington Post called the federal government’s crusade against gender-affirming care a “toxic plan” that will force some patients to detransition, potentially forcing them into adverse psychological and physical effects, including increased anxiety, depression, and the development of unwanted physical changes.

Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.