Across foreign U.S. embassies, as of Saturday, Pride flags are not to be raised.

That is, according to a recent spending bill on behalf of Congress, who in an effort to curb a government shutdown, made budget cuts to last through Sept. 30. Congress released the funding package on Thursday, and it was signed by Pres. Biden by Saturday morning.

It was first approved by the House on 286-134 on Friday and passed again in a Senate vote of 74-24 in the early hours of Saturday. In the $1.2 trillion, 1,012-page-package, a few touts by Republicans include an increase in ICE detention beds and border agents and cutting funding of non-governmental organizations, while Democrats’ proposals include an increase in childcare and early learning programs within Human Health Services.

But one thing stood out in the spending bill: diplomatic facilities are prevented from flying non-official U.S. flags.

The funding package states: “None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be obligated or expended to fly or display a flag over a facility of the United States Department of State” other than the U.S. flag, the POW/MIA flag, the Hostage and Wrongful Detainee flag, flag of a state, flag of an Indian Tribal government, official branded flag of a U.S. agency or the sovereign flag of other countries.

While there is no explicit banning of Pride flags, those who belong in the LGBTQ community have since raised concerns about it, especially given the plight of recent treads towards queer and trans justice.

The Pride flag was designed by Gilbert Baker in the summer of 1978 in San Francisco, under the supervision of first openly gay elected California official Harvey Milk. It was months before Milk was assassinated, giving the Pride flag another political motif of celebration amidst grievances in the community.

Rodney Wilson, the gay teacher in Missouri who championed what is now known as LGBTQ History Month, believes that Pride flags make a statement everywhere—especially outside of the U.S.

“The LGBTQ+ community should be as free and as equal as all other citizens,” he tells Reckon. He added that flying such a flag in Moscow, for example, after Russia recently outlawed all LGBTQ advocacy, “is a crucial way the U.S. can demonstrate its solidarity with the LGBTQ community in Russia.” For Wilson, exemplifying Pride internationally can be a way for the U.S. to lead queer and trans activism by example.

“The same is true for publicly standing with the LGBTQ+ community everywhere our community is not free. While I understand that politics is the art of compromise, this concession to right-wing forces is most regrettable,” he said.

Meanwhile, Reed took it to X on Friday to express the larger picture: while a ban on a flag does not have immediate impact, it remains to be a testimony to the dangers of compromising the integrity of the LGBTQ movement.

In addition to the allocation of funds, the spending bill package included “policy riders.” Riders can be a strategic tool for members of Congress who are struggling to pass their own bills by pitching a sweeping amendment that would enact them into law. In this spending bill, over 50 appropriations riders were anti-LGBTQ policy amendments—most of which targeted transgender people.

One of the riders, sponsored by Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, proposed that funding for the Food and Drug Administration Act would not extend to hospitals or hospital system “that distributes, sells, or otherwise uses drugs that disrupt the onset of puberty or sexual development for individuals.” This would bar not only trans youth from hormone replacement therapy, but children who are undergoing precocious early puberty and would therefore need medication.

Another rider would have banned all Health and Human Services funding from providing gender-affirming care.

The ban on flags outside of specified flags is the only rider to affect queer, trans and nonbinary people. However, it does not fall of deaf ears that this flag ban contributes to an already-alarming drawback to the LGBTQ movement at large.

Erin Reed, anti-LGBTQ legislation tracker and independent journalist, tells Reckon that in the U.S., there have been drastic, precedent-breaking actions from Republicans concerning anti-trans legislation.

Reed, who is openly trans, mentions an instance where her also-openly trans fiancée Rep. Zooey Zephyr of Montana was silenced from speaking on the House floor and later removed. She also notes that in Georgia, Republicans revived several anti-trans measures last week by amending them onto a completely separate bill to circumvent “transmittal” deadlines.

“These instances are among countless examples of extreme and unprecedented actions against transgender individuals nationwide in recent years,” Reed said.

She notes that in states like Florida, Virginia, Nebraska, Missouri, and Texas, Republicans have utilized executive powers to target transgender individuals with legislation that failed to pass through state legislatures. In Florida, for example, following the failure of a driver’s license bill, the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles was used to prevent trans individuals from changing their gender marker.

All of this is additive to the fact that three months into 2024 alone, over 500 bills have been proposed in states across the nation to block trans people from receiving basic healthcare, legal recognition, education and more.

As of Monday, the White House vowed to repeal this aspect of the spending bill.

“President Biden believes it was inappropriate to abuse the process that was essential to keep the government open by including this policy targeting LGBTQI+ Americans,” a White House spokesperson said in a statement to The Advocate on Monday.

“While it will have no impact on the ability of members of the LGBTQI+ community to serve openly in our embassies or to celebrate Pride, the Administration fought against the inclusion of this policy and we will continue to work with members of Congress to find an opportunity to repeal it.”