The Community of Madrid, under the presidency of Isabel Díaz Ayuso, has once again set off alarm bells in the LGTBIQ+ community with the presentation of its draft budget for 2026. What at first glance could seem like a mere administrative restructuring, is revealed to be a strategic movement that, for many expert and activist voices, represents a worrying “historical setback” on the path towards equality. Are we witnessing a subtle but effective dismantling of policies that were once pioneers in the region? Or is it a deliberate strategy to relegate the collective to the margins of political and social relevance?
From Equality to Exclusion: A Change that Alerts
The central point of the controversy lies in the relocation of LGTBIQ+ policies. Traditionally framed in the area of Equality, the new budget project now integrates them into the 232E program, under the name “Integration, social participation and the fight against exclusion.” This label change, far from being innocuous, has been interpreted as a clear and worrying message.
From Arcópoli, one of the associations most committed to the defense of LGTBIQ+ rights, the criticism is forceful: “The Government of the Community of Madrid relegates us from the field of equality to that of assistance. We are no longer recognized as citizens with rights to treat us as a vulnerable group, without understanding that our vulnerability is not inherent to who we are, but rather a consequence of a social system that still discriminates and marginalizes.” This statement highlights the concern that the group is perceived not as a subject with full rights, but as a group in need of assistance, which implies infantilization and a denial of their autonomy.
COGAM joins this critical reading, interpreting the decision as a continuation of a policy of invisibility: “It places us in the line that the Government has been following for years. It wants us out, it wants us small, tiny, all the organizations on the left. It wants us to be as irrelevant as possible,” they express. Más Madrid deputy Mariana Arce reinforces this concern, pointing out that this change sends a “dangerous message” and that the intention is clear: “they want them to return to the margins.”
This shift from “equality” to “exclusion” is not just a play on words. It implies a substantial modification in the way in which resources are conceived and managed. Is it possible to address the equality of a group from a framework that intrinsically defines it as “excluded”? This is a fundamental question that directly challenges the philosophy of public policies.
A History of Obstacles: When Rights Are Called into Question
This recent movement is not an isolated event, but is part of a pattern of actions by the Ayuso Government that have generated constant tension with the LGTBIQ+ community since its arrival in office in 2019.
- The Cut of the Trans and LGTBI Laws: In November 2023, the regional government promoted two legislative proposals to modify the trans law of Madrid and the LGTBI law. These initiatives, perceived as a “snip” to already consolidated rights, were appealed to the Constitutional Court by the central government and the Ombudsman, who argued a violation of fundamental rights. Although the Ayuso Government was forced to adjust some of its claims, the Constitutional Court ruled in 2025 that a significant part of the LGTBI law was “unconstitutional and void.” This episode evidenced the will to reverse legislative advances and the need for judicial intervention to safeguard rights.
- The Disappearance of the General Subdirectorate of LGTBI Equality: In December 2024, the General Subdirectorate of LGTBI Equality was abolished, which until then was part of the General Directorate of Equality. The latter, in turn, was replaced by the General Directorate of Women. This restructuring, far from being a simple change in the organizational chart, already anticipated a reduction in specific institutional support for the LGTBIQ+ group, diluting its visibility and its capacity for direct dialogue.
- The “Economic Blow” to Associations: The year 2024 was particularly hard for LGTBIQ+ associations in Madrid, which suffered an “unprecedented economic blow.” The elimination of specific subsidies, leaving only personal income tax subsidies, meant a drastic reduction in funds. This measure has seriously weakened the associative fabric, which is the pillar of essential services such as psychological, legal, health and educational care. What impact does this defunding have on the community’s ability to self-organize and provide support to its most vulnerable members? Is it a way to suffocate critical voices and activism?
What Does This Relocation Really Involve?
The inclusion of LGTBIQ+ policies in the “social exclusion” program goes beyond a name change. It has direct and tangible implications. It limits aid to community associations and reduces the resources specifically allocated to these policies, which will now have to compete for budgets with other vulnerable populations, such as the gypsy people or immigrants. While intersectionality is crucial, the dilution of the specific needs of the LGTBIQ+ community under such a broad umbrella can lead to less attention and the loss of a differentiated perspective.
The question that resonates strongly is: what message is sent to LGTBIQ+ citizens when their rights and needs are treated under the umbrella of exclusion? Is this a way of making their specific demands invisible, downplaying them, and promoting a narrative of “vulnerability” instead of “equal rights”? Or, on the contrary, is a broader integration sought, although with the risk of diluting the identity and struggles of the collective?
Where are we going?
The LGTBIQ+ community has come a long way in the fight for the recognition of their rights and for real and effective equality. The progress achieved is the result of tireless collective effort. However, political decisions such as those being taken in the Community of Madrid force us to reflect deeply: to what extent are we consolidating these rights or, on the contrary, opening the door to possible setbacks? Are we allowing equality to become a negotiable category, subject to political and budgetary swings?
Rainbow readers, what role do you think we play as a society in defending these advances? How can we ensure that the voice of the LGTBIQ+ community is not silenced or relegated to the margins? The fight for equality is a constant commitment, and each political decision reminds us of the importance of vigilance and activism.
