Cookies in use
Report
Municipal Equality Index 2025
A nationwide evaluation of municipal law.
HRC Foundation, November 2025 | 40 Minute Read
Municipal Equality Index 2025
Table of Contents
Dear Friends,
Hope has always been the North Star of our movement—and even in the face of relentless attacks, it continues to light our path forward.
Over the years, the Municipal Equality Index has served as more than a scorecard. It has been a testament to what becomes possible when hope meets action, when belief in human dignity transforms into lived reality. Each year, the MEI tells a story not only of numbers and policies, but of people—visionary city leaders who refuse to accept inequality and residents who deserve nothing less than full belonging in their communities.
This year’s story is one of both breathtaking progress and unwavering persistence. A record-breaking 132 cities achieved perfect 100-point scores—more than ever before in the MEI’s history. This remarkable milestone proves what we have always known: that equality is not merely an aspiration but an achievable reality when commitment meets courage. Our cities are showing us the way forward, demonstrating that even as attacks on our community intensify, hope and determination can create sanctuaries of inclusion.
Yet we must also acknowledge a sobering truth: for the first time in seven years, the national municipal average score decreased.
This juxtaposition—rising excellence alongside widening gaps—captures the moment we’re living through. Progress is never linear, and right now, we are witnessing both the best and worst of what’s possible.
Nowhere is this struggle more visible than in the relentless attacks on transgender people. Across the nation, cruel laws attempt to erase our transgender and nonbinary siblings from public life, stripping them of their rights, dignity, and visibility. These are not abstract policy debates—they inflict real harm on our neighbors, coworkers, family members, and friends.
But here is what gives us hope: cities continue to rise to meet this moment with extraordinary courage and creativity. They are finding innovative ways to build inclusion even where obstacles persist. They are testing the limits of restrictive state laws. They are proving that proximity changes perspective, that leaders who truly know their communities will choose compassion over cruelty every single time.
That resilience is the cornerstone of our democracy. It’s what keeps the promise of equality alive when higher levels of government falter. It transforms ideals into action through the steady, people-focused work of public service. These city leaders remind us that progress is possible even—especially—in difficult environments, and that inclusion is not just good policy but the definition of good leadership.
As we celebrate the cities setting new standards and honor those steadily pushing forward despite formidable challenges, we do so with renewed conviction that partnership and shared purpose will sustain us. Hope is not passive optimism—it is the active belief that our collective efforts matter, that each ordinance passed and each policy protected brings us closer to the world we’re building together.
The road ahead will have its obstacles and setbacks, but our direction is clear and our resolve unshakeable. The courage we see at the local level reminds us that equality is built through community, with bravery and heart. We will keep working, city by city, fueled by the hope that has always guided our movement, toward the promise of a nation where every person is safe, seen, and supported.
With hope and determination,
Kelley Robinson , President , Human Rights Campaign Foundation
Inclusivity Drives Economic Growth
Ensuring that all city residents, workers, and visitors are protected from discrimination is not just the right thing to do. Full inclusivity drives economic growth.
Cities are in constant competition for residents, visitors, employees, and businesses. A demonstrated commitment to equality through laws and policies that protect everyone, including LGBTQ+ people, sends a clear message that all residents, visitors, workers, and businesses are welcomed and valued. Inclusive non-discrimination laws give cities a competitive edge.
A growing body of research shows that openness to diversity and inclusion is not a byproduct of communities that achieve economic prosperity, but rather a key element in the formula that leads to economic growth.
The Fortune 500 has long utilized inclusive workplace policies as proven recruitment and retention tools. Diversity and inclusion enhance an employer’s reputation, increase job satisfaction, and boost employee morale. Similarly, municipalities and their employees benefit from LGBTQ-inclusive workplace policies and practices.
Following an unprecedented and dangerous spike in anti-LGBTQ+ legislative assaults sweeping state houses starting in 2020 and federal intervention ramping up in the past year, LGBTQ+ people are suffering a dizzying patchwork of discriminatory laws that have created increasingly hostile and dangerous environments for LGBTQ+ people and prompting many parents to consider relocation for the health and safety of their kids.
Until full nationwide equality is realized, cities must continue to lead the way on vital protections for LGBTQ+ residents, visitors, and workers. In doing so, city leaders will help ensure the health, safety, and well-being of all residents while encouraging real economic growth that benefits everyone.
City Spotlight
Until full nationwide equality is realized, cities must continue to lead the way on vital protections for LGBTQ+ residents, visitors, and workers. In doing so, city leaders will help ensure the health, safety, and well-being of all residents while encouraging real economic growth that benefits everyone.
Executive Summary
Key Findings
Each year, municipalities are tasked with the difficult job of building community, safety, and a sense of belonging in an increasingly hostile political environment. For the last five years, anti-equality state legislators have laid the framework for targeting LGBTQ+ people, particularly transgender and nonbinary youth. These discriminatory efforts are now being amplified by the federal government whose recent threats to withhold critical federal funding has created a chilling effect in progressing municipal equality.
Whether it is state legislatures passing discriminatory laws that target the LGBTQ+ community or the federal government threatening essential funding for municipal programs, cities have continued to find ways to support the most vulnerable among us.
The 2025 MEI reveals a record number of perfect scores, or 132 cities who received a score of 100 points. Cities like Rehoboth Beach, DE who have prided themselves on being safe spaces for the LGBTQ+ community are now recognizing the need to reflect these sentiments in their laws, policies, and services. Furthermore, more cities than ever, with nearly 70 cities, are doing what the MEI characterizes as “testing the limits of restrictive state laws” – pushing back against various checks on municipal power or discriminatory state laws.
However, despite the resilience that municipalities across the country have demonstrated, there is a tangible, chilling effect that has left many feeling unsupported and vulnerable. While municipalities scramble to scrap together what they can in an increasingly polarizing climate, at best, people are left with an unacceptable patchwork of protections. For the first time in seven years, the MEI national average score is slightly lower than previous years, falling to a score of 70 points.
City Spotlight
State and Regional Trends
Similar to the fall in the national average score, almost every region of the country saw a lower average score than last year, with the Plains having the largest drop in recent history. Of the 50 states, 36 or nearly 75 percent of states saw a drop in their state average score. Comparatively, in 2024, only 15 states had a drop in their state average. North Dakota had the largest drop with a 28-point difference between their 2024 average (56) and their 2025 average (28). In addition to North Dakota, Nebraska, Georgia, Alaska, Kentucky, and Iowa also saw at least a 10-point drop in their state average score. Delaware, Wyoming, and Hawaii saw the largest increase in their state average score. Only 14 states saw an increase in their state average this year, down from 29 last year.
For every city that is overcoming adversity and resisting federal and state sanctioned discrimination, there are countless other cities who will unfortunately bear the brunt of these anti-equality efforts and leave many of their community members vulnerable.
New Records
This year’s MEI revealed several new records:
- This year, a record-breaking 132 cities or over 25 percent of all MEI-rated cities earned the highest score of 100, which is up from 130 in 2024.
- Only 5 zero-point scores, which is down from 6 in 2024.
- 323 municipalities have anti-conversion therapy ordinances, with 54 municipalities having these ordinances in states with no state-level law.
- Cities provided services to particularly vulnerable members of the LGBTQ+ community:
- People Living w/ HIV/AIDS - 140 cities (28%)
- LGBTQ+ Youth - 167 cities (33%)
- While more cities are offering trans-inclusive health care benefits, 252 cities, state legislation has gravely impacted the enforceability and accessibility of these benefits with 93 cities, or about 37 percent of cities with trans-inclusive benefits, unable to offer the same benefits to dependent minors.
- Only 159 cities offer and are able to actually provide health benefits to their municipal employees that include coverage for gender affirming care
- 69 cities, up from 53 last year, are testing the limits of restrictive state law, with actions that include: council resolutions/declarations opposing anti-LGBTQ+ state legislation, engagement with state legislators, executive orders, and other actions.
- Comparatively, only 36 cities did so in 2020 - so that number has nearly doubled in the last five years
Conclusion
The juxtaposition of having a record-breaking number of perfect scores and lower score averages across the board emphasizes the polarizing nature of this moment - cities with more security and independence are able to continue their pro-equality efforts, but other cities are not able or willing to accept possible political repercussions. While those concerns may not be unfounded, impact is real and significant for the most vulnerable in our LGBTQ+ communities.
While state legislators continue to score political points at the expense of harming families of LGBTQ+ people, municipalities know that building community is about trust. Nearly 70 cities are taking action and testing the limits of restrictive state law. Additionally, a third of MEI-rated cities are providing or supporting municipal services to LGBTQ+ youth during a time when anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and violence have surged. Municipalities continue to act as a beacon of hope and illuminate the way towards greater equality for everyone.
City Selection
How Cities Were Selected for Rating
The 2025 Municipal Equality Index rates 506 municipalities of varying sizes drawn from every state in the nation.
These include the 50 state capitals, the 200 largest cities in the United States, the five largest cities or municipalities in each state, the cities home to the state’s two largest public universities (including undergraduate and graduate enrollment), 75 cities and municipalities that have high proportions of same-sex couples and 98 cities selected by HRC and Equality Federation state groups members and supporters.
The 75 cities with the highest proportions of same-sex couples are drawn from an analysis of the 2010 Census results by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law which ranked the 25 large cities (population exceeding 250,000), 25 mid-size cities (population between 100,000 and 250,000), and 25 small cities (population below 100,000) with the highest proportion of same-sex couples. To be consistent, we rated all twenty-five of these small cities, even though some of these small “cities” are in fact unincorporated census-designated places. In that case, we rated the laws and policies of the applicable incorporated local government (the entity actually rated, often the county, will be clearly indicated).
Significant overlap between these categories of cities brings the total number of cities rated in the 2025 MEI to 506, which has been the number of cities rated since 2016. In 2012, the MEI rated 137 cities; in 2013, 291; in 2014, 353; and in 2015, we rated 408 cities.
WHY ISN’T WASHINGTON, D.C. RATED?
Washington, D.C. is not rated by the MEI, even though it has a high proportion of same-sex couples and fits into several of the city selection criteria. Unlike the cities rated in the MEI, however, Washington, D.C. is a federal district. This means that it has powers and limitations so significantly different from the municipalities the MEI rates that the comparison would be unfair—for example, no city rated by the MEI has the legal capacity to pass marriage equality, as Washington, D.C. did in 2009. While the District of Columbia is not a state, it is more properly compared to a state than to a city. For that reason, Washington, D.C. is included in HRC’s annual State Equality Index. More information on Washington, D.C.’s laws and policies can be viewed on the maps of state laws located at hrc.org/sei.
Scoring Criteria
It should not be legal to deny someone the opportunity to work, rent a home, or be served in a place of public accommodation because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
This category evaluates whether discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is prohibited within the city in areas of employment, housing, and public accommodations. In each category, cities receive five points for prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and five points for prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity. There will be a three-point deduction for non-discrimination protections in public accommodations that contain carve-outs prohibiting individuals from using facilities consistent with their gender identity. Additionally, up to six points will be deducted for religious exemptions that single out sexual orientation and/or gender identity. All non-discrimination laws ought to be fully inclusive of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people. Sexual orientation-only protections are not sufficient to protect the LGBTQ+ community from discrimination.
Note: As a result of states implementing legislation that prohibits transgender people from using facilities like public bathrooms and locker rooms, many cities lost points under the public accommodations subsection.
PART I POINTS CAN COME FROM STATE LAW, COUNTY LAW, OR CITY LAW.
If the state or county has a comprehensive and inclusive non-discrimination law that applies within the city limits, a city may conclude it is an inefficient use of resources to pass a local non-discrimination ordinance. For that reason, so long as the protection of a state or county law applies throughout city limits, the city effectively has such protections, and the state or county law will earn the city points in Part I. If there is no state or county law, but the city has passed an ordinance of its own volition, the city will receive credit for those non-discrimination protections. However, where laws exist at both the city and the state (or county) level, the city will not receive double (or triple) points—the maximum points in this section are capped at 30.
ALL-GENDER SINGLE-OCCUPANCY FACILITIES
Transgender individuals face disproportionately high levels of prejudice and discrimination in everyday life. These members of our community deserve the same dignity and respect as everyone else, in every area of life. This includes being afforded the dignity of equal access to public facilities in accordance with their gender identity.
Making single-user and gender neutral facilities open to everyone provides a safe space for transgender residents and benefits everyone by reducing line wait times. Cities that require all single-user facilities in any business establishment, place of public accommodation, and city-owned building or facility, like bathrooms and changing rooms, to be all-gender will receive two flex points. Cities that designate all single-occupancy facilities within city-owned buildings or facilities as all-gender will receive half credit (one flex point).
PROTECTING YOUTH FROM CONVERSION THERAPY
So-called “conversion therapy,” sometimes called “sexual orientation change efforts” or “reparative therapy,” encompasses a range of dangerous and discredited practices that falsely claim to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. These practices are based on the false premise that being LGBTQ+ is a mental illness that needs to be cured—a theory that has been rejected by every major medical and mental health organization.
There is no credible evidence that conversion therapy can change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. On the contrary, research has clearly shown that these practices pose devastating health risks for LGBTQ+ young people, such as depression, decreased self-esteem, substance abuse, homelessness, and even suicidal behavior. The harmful practice is condemned by every major medical and mental health organization, including the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, and American Medical Association.
Cities that enact laws to protect youth from conversion therapy will garner two flex points.
Almost every municipality has immediate control over its employment policies. Respect for LGBTQ+ employees is clearly demonstrated by the inclusiveness of these employment policies.
CITY PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION IN CITY EMPLOYMENT
Cities can adopt internal hiring policies that prohibit employment discrimination (including hiring, promotions, termination, and compensation) on the basis of sexual orientation (7 points) and gender identity or expression (7 points). It is a fundamental principle of fairness that an employee should be judged on their ability to perform the responsibilities of a position, and not by who they are or whom they love. A state-level non-discrimination law or a local non-discrimination ordinance alone is not sufficient to earn these points—personnel policies must enumerate sexual orientation and gender identity in order for the city to receive credit.
TRANSGENDER-INCLUSIVE HEALTHCARE BENEFITS
Cities, like other employers, provide health benefits to their employees. Many health plans, however, exclude critical and medically necessary treatment for some employees. Transgender employees are routinely denied health care coverage for gender-affirming care such as hormone therapy, gender-affirming surgery, and other medically necessary care.
Credit is awarded when municipalities offer at least one municipal employee health insurance plan that expressly covers transgender healthcare needs, including gender-affirming surgical procedures, hormone therapy, mental health care, and all related medical visits and laboratory services. The lack of express exclusions for these services is not sufficient for credit because this care is routinely not covered. The plan should also ensure coverage of routine, chronic, or urgent non-transition services and eliminate other barriers to coverage, including, but not limited to, separate dollar maximums and exclusions for covered dependents. Moreover, all out-of-network gender-affirming care for which in-network care is unavailable should be covered on the same terms as out-of-network coverage for other types of necessary care.
Note: As a result of states implementing legislation that targets access to medically-necessary health care and bans gender affirming care for transgender youth, some of which also ban the expenditure of public funds on transgender health care, about a third of the cities attempting to offer transgender-inclusive health benefits are receiving partial credit in this section. If best practice, medically-necessary health care isn’t covered for the transgender dependents of a city or county employee simply because those dependents are transgender, that must be accurately represented in the score.
CITY REQUIRES ITS CONTRACTORS TO HAVE INCLUSIVE NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICIES
Cities that take fair workplaces seriously also require city contractors to have inclusive non-discrimination policies. An equal opportunity ordinance, as these are sometimes known, requires city contractors to adopt non-discrimination policies that prohibit adverse employment actions on the basis of sexual orientation (3 points) and gender identity or expression (3 points).
Partial credit is awarded to cities that do not have an official policy or ordinance to this effect but maintain a practice of including a qualifying city contractor non-discrimination clause in all city contracts.
MUNICIPALITY IS AN INCLUSIVE WORKPLACE
This section measures whether the city is a welcoming workplace for LGBTQ+ employees, as measured by the following: the city actively recruits LGBTQ+ employees, or conducts LGBTQ+-inclusive diversity training, or it has an LGBTQ+ employee affinity group (a total of 2 points are awarded if any of these exist).
CITY EMPLOYEE DOMESTIC PARTNER BENEFIT
Cities will receive two flex points for offering equal benefits to both same- and different-sex domestic partners of city employees and their legal dependents. Even after nationwide marriage equality, it is important to respect the diverse family forms that exist by expanding domestic partner benefits to include all families.
Census data shows that LGBTQ+ people live in virtually every city in the country, but not every city recognizes that their LGBTQ+ constituents can have different needs. This section assesses the efforts of the city to include LGBTQ+ constituents in city services and programs.
Human Rights Commissions do important work to identify and eliminate discrimination. Even in jurisdictions where LGBTQ+ equality isn’t explicitly a part of the commission’s charter, these commissions investigate complaints, educate the city, and sometimes enforce non-discrimination laws. Human Rights Commissions serve as important bridges between constituents and their city.
An established Human Rights Commission will earn a municipality five standard points if its purpose is largely or entirely educational. These commissions may hold community discussions, screen movies, present panels, take public comment, advise the city on matters of diversity and inclusion, develop policies and strategies for making the city more inclusive, and undertake other similar types of endeavors. Where, in addition to the functions listed above, a Human Rights Commission has the authority to conciliate, issue a right to sue letter, or otherwise enforce non-discrimination protections, an additional two standard points will be awarded.
Similarly, an LGBTQ+ liaison to the City Executive, i.e. the Mayor or City Manager, who is responsible for looking at city policies and services through an LGBTQ+ lens and speaking up when a policy or service might exclude LGBTQ+ people will earn 5 points. This position is also known to be a friendly ear to constituents who want to bring LGBTQ+-related issues to the city government but are fearful they might be dismissed or misunderstood.
Cities that expressly prohibit bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity in all youth-facing city programs, activities, services, facilities, and funding will earn up to two flex points (1 flex point for sexual orientation/1 flex point for gender identity). These policies should cover, for example, the city’s parks and recreation department, library programs, and any other department or service that incorporates young people.
The MEI also evaluates city services that address segments of the LGBTQ+ population who are particularly vulnerable and may have specific and acute needs. While all people age, battle illness, struggle to fit in, and work hard to improve their lot in life, these struggles can be different and particularly difficult for LGBTQ+ people. Cities can address these challenges by offering services, or supporting a third party provider of these services, to LGBTQ+ youth, LGBTQ+ elders, LGBTQ+ homeless people, people who are HIV-positive or living with AIDS, and the transgender community (2 flex points for each vulnerable group the city provides targeted services to).
The relationship between law enforcement and the LGBTQ+ community, particularly LGBTQ+ people of color, is often fraught with suspicion, misunderstanding, and fear.
LGBTQ+ people are vulnerable to violence arising from bigotry and ignorance. Law enforcement can help ensure safety for all by treating LGBTQ+ people with understanding and respect, remaining mindful of the LGBTQ+ community’s unique law enforcement concerns and engaging the community in a positive way.
An LGBTQ+ police liaison (10 points) can serve as an important bridge between the community and law enforcement. The liaison is an advocate for fair and respectful enforcement of the law as well as an officer that the community can rely upon to appropriately respond to sensitive issues. In instances of violence against LGBTQ+ people, LGBTQ+ police liaisons can help ensure that bias-motivated crimes are properly investigated and reported, victims are not misgendered, and the community is kept abreast of the investigation’s progress.
Respectful and fair enforcement includes responsible reporting of hate crimes, including hate crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity, to the FBI (12 points). Such reporting demonstrates law enforcement’s attention to these crimes and ensures that the larger law enforcement community is able to accurately gauge the scope of and responses to them.
Leadership is an aspect of policy that is not fully captured by executive orders or the passage of legislation into law. When a city leader marches in a Pride parade, a city joins a pro-equality amicus brief, a city council dedicates a park to an LGBTQ+ civil rights leader, or a city paints its crosswalks in rainbow colors, it sends a message to LGBTQ+ people that they are a valued part of the community.
At first glance, these actions may seem to be more symbolic than substance. However, as the Trevor Project’s 2024 U.S. National Survey on the Mental Health of LGBTQ+ Young People reported, a third (36%) of LGBTQ+ youth say their community is unaccepting of LGBTQ+ people, and 90 percent of LGBTQ+ young people said their well-being was negatively impacted due to recent politics.
Further, nearly 2 in 5 (39%) of LGBTQ+ young people said that they or their family have considered moving to a different state because of anti-LGBTQ+ politics and laws, with nearly half (45%) of transgender and nonbinary youth reporting the same. When elected leaders speak out on matters of equality, their constituents do hear—and it informs their constituents’ perception of safety, inclusion, and belonging.
This category, therefore, measures the commitment of the city to include the LGBTQ+ community and advocate for full equality.
The first category rates city leadership (on a scale of zero to five points) based on its public statements on matters of equality, particularly where the city leadership pushes for equality in the face of substantial adversity.
For example, a city can earn points if the city council passed a resolution in support of a state-level non-discrimination bill—while this is not something the city can legislate, it is a powerful statement of the city’s principles nonetheless.
The level of support for pro-equality legislation is also reflected in this section. The second category rates the persistence of the city leadership in pursuing legislation or policies that further equality (on a scale of zero to three points).
Note that even small or unsuccessful efforts are recognized in this category, and that these efforts may be heavily weighted if the city’s political environment is not conducive to passing pro-equality legislation.
Finally, this section also includes two opportunities to earn flex points: first, for openly LGBTQ+ people holding elected or appointed office in the municipality (two flex points); and second, for cities who do all they can in the face of state law that restricts their ability to pass LGBTQ+-inclusive laws or policies (three flex points).
"Municipalities continue to act as a beacon of hope and illuminate the way towards greater equality for everyone."
Download
Issue Brief: Chasing 100: Why (Even Slow) Progress Matters As Much As The Perfect Score
The MEI is designed to understand the unique situation of each city and is structured to reward the specific achievements of a local government.
Acknowledging the Context of Municipal Law
Not All Cities Are Created Equal
Some cities have the autonomy and wherewithal to pass inclusive laws and offer cutting-edge city services, while others are hampered by severe state-imposed limitations on their ability to pass inclusive laws. Many still find that the small scope of their local government limits their capabilities.
The MEI is designed to understand the unique situation of each city and is structured to reward the specific achievements of a local government.
The efforts and achievements of each city can only be fairly judged within that city’s context. While imposing a score may seem to strip a city of its context, the MEI honors the different situations from which the selected cities come in three major ways: flex points, consideration of state law, and legislative leadership efforts.
FLEX POINTS
First, in addition to the 100 standard points for city laws and services, the MEI allows cities to earn up to 22 flex points.
Flex points are awarded for essential programs, protections, or benefits that may not be easily attainable for some cities. So, while cities with the item are rewarded, cities without it are not penalized.
Flex points can also provide some leeway for cities that face challenges in accomplishing the specific achievements the MEI measures, and ensure that every city has the ability to improve its score year after year.
CONSIDERATION OF STATE LAW
Second, the MEI weighs state and municipal law such that the effect of excellent or restrictive state law does not determine the city’s ability to score well. While negative state law may result in a loss of points, or positive state law may result in points gained, cities are able to utilize the flexibility of the scoring system to mitigate negative effects and balance out positive effects. Accuracy is as critical in educating the community about what rights and protections exist as is a fair process in which cities have significant control over their own score.
LEGISLATIVE LEADERSHIP
Lastly, the MEI rates the city leadership’s public position on LGBTQ+ equality and gives credit for legislative efforts (even if unsuccessful). If a city has outspoken advocates for equality who are unfortunately still in the minority, the city will still receive credit for the efforts it has made.
Fair Assessment Respects Legal Differences
The Municipal Equality Index is carefully designed to rate cities in detail while respecting that a number of factors may boost or inhibit a city’s ability, or incentive, to adopt the laws and policies this project rates.
Given the range of authority and incentives that cities have, and acknowledging that our effort to rate small cities as well as large cities exacerbates these challenges, the MEI had to wrestle with three major questions in its initial design.
QUESTION 1
How could the MEI fairly take state law into account, particularly as the disparity between states with pro-equality laws and states without pro-equality laws continues to grow?
ANSWER
Balance. The rating system would not be fair if cities outside of states with favorable laws were not able to do very well on the MEI. Carefully allocating the points to respect the dynamic relationship between state and local government was a must. Unfortunately, many of the anti-LGBTQ+ state laws enacted in recent years have eroded or overridden positive efforts cities have made over the years, especially in regard to cities offering inclusive health care policies for transgender employees or transgender family members of employees. Because several states have laws prohibiting the use of public funds to pay for health care for transgender people, cities in those states are no longer able to provide such benefits. Additionally, several states have banned transgender youth from being able to access medically-necessary health care, which means cities are no longer able to meaningfully offer transgender-inclusive health care to the dependents of their employees. In an effort to accurately reflect enforceable laws and policies, we concentrated on what the state law meant for the city being rated.
Because several states have laws prohibiting the use of public funds to pay for health care for transgender people, cities in those states are no longer able to provide such benefits. Additionally, several states have banned transgender youth from being able to access medically-necessary health care, which means cities are no longer able to meaningfully offer transgender-inclusive health care to the dependents of their employees. In an effort to accurately reflect enforceable laws and policies, we concentrated on what the state law meant for the city being rated.
QUESTION 2
How could the MEI assess a list of cities as diverse as those selected while acknowledging that the smaller places rated may understandably have less capacity to engage on LGBTQ+ issues?
ANSWER
We addressed concerns about a small city’s capacity to effect change by building flexibility into the scorecard through the use of flex points and by providing multiple avenues through which to earn points.
QUESTION 3
What do MEI scores say about the atmosphere for LGBTQ+ people living and working in a particular place?
ANSWER
Even the most thoughtful survey of laws and policies cannot objectively assess the efficacy of enforcement, and it certainly cannot encapsulate the lived experience of discrimination that many LGBTQ+ people, even those living in 100-point cities, face every day.
This question is best addressed by precisely defining the MEI: the MEI is an evaluation of municipal laws and policies.
It is not a rating of the best places for LGBTQ+ people to live, nor is it an evaluation of the adequacy or effectiveness of enforcement.
Likewise, it is not an encapsulation of what it feels like to be an LGBTQ+ person walking down the street. Indeed, members of the LGBTQ+ community have many identities beyond their LGBTQ+ identification that may have more of an impact on their daily perception of safety and inclusivity, including race, gender, and immigration status. The MEI is not, and cannot be, a rating of lived experience because LGBTQ+ people have many different constellations of identities that create very different lived experiences.
To be clear, the MEI specifically rates cities based on their laws and policies while respecting the legal and political context in which the city operates. It is not a measure of an LGBTQ+ person’s lived experience in that city.
Accounting For City Size
The MEI rates municipalities as small as Bethany Beach, Delaware (2010 population, according to the US Census: 1,060), and as large as New York City (2010 population, according to the US Census: 8,175,133). Such a range in city size creates concerns about ensuring that the efforts of small cities are not diminished in comparison to the capabilities of large cities.
Fairness dictates that the MEI not measure small cities against a standard only the metropolitan giants of the country can meet.
The MEI is designed to ensure that small cities have the same ability to score well on the MEI as large cities do.
First, while some of the criteria might be more challenging for a small city to accomplish, none of the non-flex criteria are prohibitive for small cities. Further, flexibility was built into the scoring system to acknowledge that a small city may accomplish the criteria in a slightly different manner: an LGBTQ+ liaison, for example, may have many other duties, and a Human Rights Commission might be all-volunteer.
Second, the MEI uses flex points to ensure that cities are not held accountable for services that they are simply unable to provide. Points pertaining to a city’s administrative structure and capabilities are generally flex points, and there often are multiple paths to earning the same set of points.
Having alternative paths to the same points and classifying some points as flex points accommodates the varying needs and capabilities of different-sized cities.
An analysis of the MEI’s results over the past several editions shows that these efforts to accommodate small cities worked: small cities were able to score comparably with the large cities.
More than half of the cities rated qualify as “small,” and these continue to be represented more or less proportionally across the range of scores, including top scores. In every edition, the data has shown that a city’s score is not well predicted by its size.
City Spotlight
City Size Not Predictive of MEI Score
Balancing State and Local Laws
Cities are creations of the state. Cities are granted the power to govern by their states, and some states have multiple classes of cities that are invested with varying degrees of autonomy. Some cities are granted so much power that they have nearly complete independence, but other cities, particularly smaller cities, are more limited in the scope of their city government.
To be a worthwhile survey of cities across states, the MEI must be respectful of the differences between cities.
This is especially true when LGBTQ+ law is the subject being surveyed. Some cities are hampered from passing pro-equality laws by state law that limits their ability to do so; others come from states with strong pro-equality laws that ensure a high level of legal protections for all.
The MEI balances the influence of LGBTQ-inclusive state law by weighing state and local laws equally, and by not awarding double points to a city fortunate enough to have protections at both the state and local levels.
If a state has a comprehensive and inclusive non-discrimination law, a city may not be incentivized to pass an ordinance extending duplicative protections, but it should still have those protections reflected in its score.
Conversely, the city should be able to achieve a top score on the basis of municipal law alone—otherwise the MEI would not be a true evaluation of cities. The success of this balanced approach is demonstrated by a number of cities who were able to achieve top scores despite being in states that do not have pro-equality laws.
City Spotlight
Understanding Restrictive State Law
Some states restrict their cities from passing inclusive laws either by passing specific legislation that prohibits cities from doing so or through the application of Dillon’s Rule (which prevents cities from providing broader non-discrimination protections than those offered under state law) to LGBTQ-inclusive legislation.
An example of restrictive legislation is a Tennessee law that prohibits municipalities from passing non-discrimination ordinances that apply to private employers. Because of these types of restrictions, not every city has the authority to enact the types of legislation that the MEI measures.
While some states prohibit cities from passing inclusive laws, other states impact the enforceability of inclusive municipal laws and policies by enacting anti-LGBTQ+ measures. These measures include gender-affirming care bans, preventing transgender kids from participating in sports and using facilities that align with their gender identity, and even prohibitions on discussions of LGBTQ+ topics in schools.
An example of anti-LGBTQ+ state legislation impacting municipal enforcement is a North Carolina law that bans gender-affirming care for people under 18. Because of this type of state legislation, many municipalities were unable to provide transgender-inclusive healthcare benefits to their employees and their dependents. Similarly, a state law in Florida that prohibits transgender people from using restroom facilities that align with their gender identity impacted municipalities’ non-discrimination protections in public accommodations.
Cities with a dedication to equality that are in Tennessee, Florida, and North Carolina, for example, will never be able to score as well as cities with comparable dedication to equality that exist in states without the restrictive or anti-LGBTQ+ laws.
However, the MEI provides avenues for cities who are dedicated to equality, as some cities in North Carolina and Tennessee are, to have that commitment reflected in their score, despite restrictive or anti-LGBTQ+ state law: there are standard points to reflect city leadership’s advocacy against these types of state restrictions, and flex points are offered for testing the limits of these restrictions.
It is understood that while these flex points help to level the playing field, a small number of cities suffering such restrictions may still find it extremely challenging and, in some cases, perhaps impossible to score a 100 on the MEI.
Although this may initially appear to be at odds with the MEI’s purpose of evaluating what cities do, the bottom line is that these vital protections don’t exist for the folks who live and work in these cities. That these cities will face an uphill battle in earning points for certain criteria on the MEI reflects the actual difficulties they face as a result of restrictive state law.
Ameliorating the effect of a restrictive state law on the MEI score would be a dishonest representation of the protections that an impacted city can provide.
Success Stories
The Effect of Enforcement and Lived Experience
The MEI is an encapsulation of the best practices of inclusion followed by cities nationwide. It is a blueprint for positive change and an opportunity for cities to become aware of best practices in municipal equality. It is not a ranking of the friendliest cities to live in. It neither attempts to quantify how effectively cities enforce their laws, nor does it try to gauge the experience of an LGBTQ+ person interacting with the police or city hall.
Fair and respectful implementation of the best practices described by the MEI is crucial if the policies are to have any meaning. Realistically, the MEI simply has no objective way of measuring the quality of enforcement. Even the most thoughtful survey of laws and policies cannot objectively assess the efficacy of enforcement, and it certainly cannot encapsulate the lived experience of discrimination that many LGBTQ+ people, even those living in 100-point cities, face every day.
The MEI does make some limited, blunt judgments about the existence of enforcement, however, without assessing the quality of that enforcement. For example, one of the harder questions the MEI faces is evaluating how seriously police departments take anti-LGBTQ+ related violence. While the MEI awards points to cities that report hate crimes statistics to the FBI, it does not evaluate whether the report made by the police department to the FBI is an accurate reflection of hate crimes, whether detectives competently collected evidence related to proving a hate-related motivation for the violence, or whether the police department created a safe space for victims to come forward. It doesn’t measure how respectful police are when making a stop or how the police decide whom to stop.
Collecting and assessing such data in an objective, thorough way would be impossible. However, a city will not receive credit for reporting hate crimes if the city hasn’t reported any hate crimes of any kind this year or for five previous years. The MEI deems this effectively non-reporting because the probability is very low that a city truly experienced zero hate crimes of any kind in five years. While this is an imperfect proxy, it is the best measure the MEI has to determine if hate crimes are being taken seriously at the local level.
A 100-point city, then, may have terrific policies, a well-trained police force, a police liaison, and consistent hate crimes reporting, but nevertheless be an atmosphere in which LGBTQ+ people have intense fear of tangling with the police department. This fear may be magnified for LGBTQ+ people of color or undocumented LGBTQ+ immigrants, and the MEI reflects discrimination against those populations in only a general way. On the other hand, a police department in a 40-point city could have none of these policies but have a reputation for fair and respectful enforcement. The MEI specifically rates cities on their laws and policies; it is not a measure of an LGBTQ+ person’s living experience in that city.
Having alternative paths to the same points and classifying some points as flex points accommodates the varying needs and capabilities of different sized cities.
Summary of Results
Municipalities understand the power in identifying with your home, your city, and your community. Whether it’s pride in your city or in your LGBTQ+ identity, pride comes from a sense of belonging, not exclusion. The results of this year’s report demonstrate a watershed moment in the fight for greater municipal equality. City leaders are called on to exercise resilience and play their critical role in upholding equality, especially in a time where the rights of LGBTQ+ people are increasingly attacked on various levels and branches of government.
For example, last December Congress passed restrictions on best practice healthcare for the transgender dependents of military service members, the first anti-LGBTQ+ measure to become federal law in thirty years. A bill banning transgender children from participating in school sports passed through the House of Representatives last year. Executive orders borrowing from “LGBTQ+ Erasure” and bathroom ban legislation in the states were issued alongside directives to reverse efforts supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a devastating ruling in US v. Skrmetti, upholding Tennessee’s ban on affirming healthcare treatments for transgender youth. This decision enables the removal of access to best-practice, medically necessary healthcare for thousands of transgender youth, inflicting harm on families who want to get their children the care they need to be healthy and thrive.
As these severe and devastating attacks on LGBTQ+ equality increase on the federal and state level, it is essential for municipal leaders to step up as the first line of defense rather than a last resort. While the report continues to see record-breaking numbers of high-scoring cities and increased resistance, the obstacles to equality continue to impede progress. Too many cities are forced to fight an uphill battle. However, equality requires unrelenting leaders to choose to be the support and resources their communities need, especially when the need is great. Strong city leaders know that when they protect rights to healthcare, prioritize the safety of kids, and ensure access to critical resources, people will want to invest in their communities and plant roots. Municipalities continue to prove that despite these relentless challenges to municipal equality, progress is both possible and exponentially rewarding.
Self-Submit
Municipalities not currently rated by the MEI can submit their city for rating by completing the self-submit process.
Equality Across America
Acknowledgements
ABOUT THE MEI TEAM
BRITTNY PHAM is the Senior Manager for State and Municipal Policy, where she manages both the Municipal Equality Index and the State Equality Index each year. Brittny administers the resources for the MEI project to provide to cities and counties looking to make their communities more inclusive.
CHAUNCEY GRAHAM serves as Legislative Counsel at the Human Rights Campaign, focusing on state and municipal level advocacy. He handles a range of issues, including those related to discrimination laws, conversion therapy bans, and LGBTQ+ youth.
CATHRYN OAKLEY is HRC’s Senior Director, Legal Policy and the founding author of the Municipal Equality Index. She supervises the Municipal Equality Index and State Equality Index as well as state and local policy work.
To reach the MEI team with questions, comments, suggestions, or other resources, please email mei@hrc.org.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The MEI is an unmatched assessment of municipal equality that would not see the light of day without the commitment and contributions of many individuals working together over the course of the entire year.
This year we extend a special thanks to Samantha Griffith, Sarah Warbelow, and Alec Carrasco former HRC staffers, who assisted with the initial phases of the 2025 MEI. We also thank HRC colleagues Andrea Bachinski, JoDee Winterhof, Laurel Powell, Robert Villaflor, Josette Matoto, Simon Garcia, Michael Suh, Lynne Bowman, Reg Calcagno, Aaron Miller, Marina Kelley, Sarah Jester, Steffi Badanes, and HRC’s McCleary Law Fellows and Legal Interns.
Thanks to Noted Branding and Viget for making the magic of the MEI come to life.
Finally, this work happens because of the dedicated advocacy organizations across the states. The achievements we celebrate in this publication are often theirs. The state groups on the following page deserve a special mention for their engagement and support this year.
For questions or additional information, please contact mei@hrc.org or visit www.hrc.org/mei.
The Municipal Equality Index would not have been possible without the valuable contributions made by state and local advocates. A particular thanks therefore goes out to the following:
Love conquers hate.
Wear your pride this year.
100% of every HRC merchandise purchase fuels the fight for equality.