Although discourse about LGBTQ+ families moving out of states with harsher anti-LGBTQ+ laws predates the Trump administration, recent events, such as the Supreme Court ruling onU.S. v. Skrmetti, have made these conversations more pressing. However, there is a significant economic demand of such moves that not only poses obstacles to families considering this option but also puts LGBTQ+ individuals and their families at a further financial disadvantage.A growing divide between safe and unsafe statesTheAmerican Civil Liberties Union(ACLU) is currently tracking 597 anti-LGBTQ+ bills across the United States, with states like Texas (88 bills), Missouri (38 bills) and West Virginia (29 bills) ranking highest in terms of the country-wide legislative attack on LGBTQ+ rights. By contrast, Vermont (0 bills), Alaska (1 bill) and Delaware (1 bill) currently represent the states with the lowest number of anti-LGBTQ+ bills.PerSafeHome.org, there is some overlap between the states with the lowest number of current anti-LGBTQ+ bills and the states that are considered safest for LGBTQ+ people and their families in 2025. SafeHome.orgconsiders myriad metrics when defining safety, including parental rights, youth protections and legislation. Based on these data, which are generated via surveys of 1,000 members of those communities, Rhode Island, California and Delaware rank among the safest states for LGBTQ+ people, whereas Mississippi, Louisiana and Florida rank lowest.This is consistent with 2024 data published by theHuman Rights Campaign, which reported that states like Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana were High Priority to Achieve Basic Equality, although states such as Tennessee, Georgia, Wyoming and West Virginia, among many others, were also highlighted.Taken together, these data suggest that some states are considerably safer than others for LGBTQ+ people and their families, which is also reflected in the trends of LGBTQ+ individuals and families moving states. PerParents, as of January 2025, four out of 10 LGBTQ+ youth were considering moving out of their home state, citing reasons such as anti-LGBTQ+ policies, feelings of safety and medical care.Economic barriers to relocationIn addition to the challenges of uprooting ones life to move across state lines, the need to move has a significant economic impact on a population that already earns less on average than their non-LGBTQ+ counterparts.In 2024, for example,the Institute for Womens Policy Researchfound that LGBTQIA+ workers earn 90 cents on the dollar compared to workers overall, with women in the LGBTQIA+ community earning 87 cents on the dollar, and Black, Native American and Latinx LGBTQIA+ women earning 85, 75 and 72 cents on the dollar, respectively.The Movement Advancement Projectalso highlighted how anti-LGBTQ+ laws contribute to a cycle of poverty for this community, further supporting the fact that LGBTQ+ populations are already at a financial disadvantage.Against this backdrop, the same Parentsarticle reported that financial constraints were a factor in preventing LGBTQ+ individuals from moving to states they consider safer. This makes sense, particularly because, perThe New York Times, states that are considered more LGBTQ+-friendly also tend to have higher costs of living. One mother, Mindi Mercer, spoke to The New York Times andreported that she moved with her four children, one of whom is transgender, from North Carolina to Michigan after the former banned gender affirming care. The move alone reportedly cost more than $10,000, and the family had to take on debt in order to move as well.Mercer explained, Were still financially further behind, trying to make up for that. However, Mercer expressed that the move and the cost were worth it, adding that her son feels affirmed and supportive and just really settled into who he is.Michigan Advancealso highlighted that moving state lines can harm the economic stability of LGBTQ+ people and their families, but the article primarily focused on the extent to which these relocations can also have a negative economic impact on the states they are leaving, identifying yet another way LGBTQ+ relocations, often spurred on by political policies and hostile environments, as reported by Michigan Advance, can have harmful economic consequences.Health, safety and the limits of accessThe Trevor Projectreported that living in an area with more welcoming LGBTQ+ policies alleviates logistical and emotional burdens and is associated with improved mental health outcomes. However, as with The New York Timesand Michigan Advance, the Trevor Project reiterated that the same financial hardships faced by the larger LGBTQ+ community, such as poverty, housing discrimination and barriers to employment, could prevent LGBTQ+ individuals and their families from being able to move states.Despite the evident economic hardships these relocations can come with, there are ways to help. The aforementioned New York Timesarticle named several resources that assist LGBTQ+ families with relocating, specifically in terms of financial support. One such organization is theCampaign for Southern Equality, which assists LGBTQ+ individuals and families in southern states with funds either for traveling to obtain health care or for permanent relocation. Another organization named in The New York Timesis thePfund Foundation, which is based in Minneapolis.Myriad other companies and organizations also have resources available, such asLesbianRealEstate.com, which provides a free relocation kit through their website, orthe Trans Safety Emergency Fund, which offers financial assistance for expenses such as relocation as well as medical bills, utilities and other areas of need.The Human Rights Campaignalso maintains a comprehensive list of available funds. Many of these resources specifically mention the need for community support, crowdfunding and donations when possible.The Supreme Courts role in escalating needIncreasing anti-LGBTQ+ legislation and especially anti-trans legislation will only intensify the need for such resources, based on the factors influencing transgender peoples desire to move as defined bythe Williams Institute. As just one example, the Supreme Court ruling on U.S. v. Skrmetti, issued on June 18, 2025, allowed Tennessee to enact a law banning gender-affirming hormone therapies for transgender people under the age of 18.Given the Williams Institutes findings that 72% of respondents who indicated concerns about health care wanted to move out of state, it stands to reason that a ruling this significant will have an impact on LGBTQ+ relocations. In fact, perTeen Vogue, some doctors, such as Dr. Kaiyti Duffy, the Chief Medical Officer at the Los Angeles LGBT Center, are already recommending that families consider relocation as one option in response to this ruling.Im a parent. I have two kids. If I was in a state and I affirmed my childs ability and supported them pursuing their gender journey, and I was told by my state government that I wasnt allowed to do so as a parent, I would leave, Dr. Duffy told Teen Vogue. And I dont say that flippantly.The suicide rates for young people who live in a place in which, not only is their trans identity not affirmed, but that theyre restricted in accessing care, [those rates] are going to increase. And thats something that none of us can feel comfortable with, Dr. Duffy added. Ultimately, relocation is not going to be a possibility for every LGBTQ+ person being affected by anti-LGBTQ+ legislation and/or harmful or hostile environments, for financial reasons as well as various other factors that make relocation difficult. Because of that, as Teen Vogue, The New York Times, and numerous other publications highlight, leaning on the LGBTQ+ community and accessing resources when available is essential.The post The price of protection: LGBTQ+ families and the cost of moving appeared first on News Is Out.