Project Amicus and International LGBTI+ Rights

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/08

David Grasso, founder and CEO of Project Amicus, discusses the organization’s mission to promote LGBTQ+ rights abroad through policy, media, and diplomacy. He highlights the influence of North American advocacy and partnerships, such as with Harvard’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. Grasso details decriminalization trends in the Caribbean, the mental health impacts of criminalization, and how grassroots activism fosters change. He addresses corporate influence, geopolitical challenges, and backlash against LGBTQ+ progress. Project Amicus aims to reduce the global criminalization of same-sex relations and push for legal equality, emphasizing strategic advocacy, international pressure, and engagement with diverse stakeholders.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with David Grasso, the founder and CEO of Project Amicus. Project Amicus promotes LGBTQ+ rights abroad and raises awareness of which countries are making positive strides and which still have significant progress to make. I will use “still have work to do” as an euphemistic language. So, the first question is: How does Project Amicus leverage policy innovation to promote LGBTQ+ rights abroad? What successes have you seen so far?

David Grasso: Essentially, we strive to initiate conversations through American levers of power—whether in public policy, media, or diplomacy—to inspire change.

People often overlook the significant influence that North Americans wield through culture, politics, public policy, funding, and the nonprofit sector in shaping the reality of LGBTQ+ people worldwide. That influence is at the core of our mission at Project Amicus.

Our successes include a partnership with a program at Harvard University, where I studied at the Harvard Kennedy School, specifically at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy and its LGBTQ+ Justice Initiative, which launched a little over a year ago.

This initiative has already sponsored two workshops for activists worldwide, training them in strategies to help them succeed—especially in countries where same-sex relations remain illegal. That is the primary focus of both Project Amicus and the Carr Center.

Currently, many discussions in North America and Western Europe revolve around what we might call second-generation issues, such as transgender rights, reproductive rights, and intersectional protections. However, we focus on the fundamentals: Is same-sex life even legal in a given country? If it is, we support that country’s progress. If not, we leverage the power available to us as North Americans to help change that reality.

Jacobsen: What groundbreaking legal shifts have recently redefined protections for LGBTQ+ communities, and how do these changes compare across different regions?

Grasso: One of the most significant yet underreported developments has been the wave of decriminalization efforts in the Caribbean, particularly over the past few years.

Due to their colonial histories, many Caribbean nations inherited anti-LGBTQ+ laws from British rule. However, in recent years, there has been a strong movement toward decriminalization in several countries.

Notable examples include Barbados, which struck down its anti-sodomy law in 2022, and Trinidad and Tobago, where a high court ruled in 2018 that laws criminalizing same-sex intimacy were unconstitutional.

There is a general pattern in the legal evolution of same-sex relations laws, which typically unfolds in three stages:

1. In many countries with a British colonial legacy, same-sex relations were historically codified as illegal and remain so if the laws have not been reformed since colonial rule.
2. Some countries have stopped enforcing these laws, meaning they remain on the books but are no longer actively prosecuted.
3. The final stage is the formal repeal of these laws through legislative action or court rulings.

Nearly all countries in the Caribbean—aside from a few holdouts—are on this path toward full decriminalization.

We are only a few years away from achieving a Caribbean region free of these outdated and discriminatory laws.

Jacobsen: One thing we should probably note on a personal level is the impact on individuals. What do mental health literature and research tell us about the effects of criminalization—and, conversely, decriminalization—on LGBTQ+ people?

Grasso: It’s a huge deal.

I still remember when I was in college and lived in a state where, until 2003, same-sex relations were still criminalized in the United States. The Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas overturned sodomy laws that year, and as I sit here in Texas conducting this interview, it’s remarkable to think that, back then, I could have been arrested for sodomy.

Criminalization creates a culture of fear. It is incredibly difficult to demand acceptance when the state itself claims that any outward expression of LGBTQ+ identity is illegal.

And what does that do to someone’s psychology? By existing, you are treated as an enemy of the state by design. So what does repealing such laws do? It is the first step in a long journey toward full equality.

Right now, at least 64 countries still criminalize same-sex relations—and that number does not even account for places like Russia, which are regressing on LGBTQ+ rights. This is the daily reality for millions of people. And the fight for equality cannot even begin when same-sex relations remain illegal.

Jacobsen: In what ways do grassroots activism and policy reform reinforce each other in advancing LGBTQ+ rights globally?

Grasso: Grassroots activism humanizes the issue.

We all know that when people personally know someone who is LGBTQ+, they are far more likely to support equality. People often say, “I had a different opinion, but knowing you changed my mind.”

This applies broadly—whether you are from a religious background, a sexual minority, or any identity that diverges from the social norm. Or, rather, let’s call it any non-standard identity—”divergence” might not be the right word.

Grassroots activism gives a face to the issue. It humanizes the struggle. And fundamentally, whether in activism, politics, or business, the world is small. But on an individual level, our worlds are even smaller.

Activists play a crucial role because they live this reality. They have skin in the game, and they can show people—including those who may not initially agree with us—that LGBTQ+ individuals are human and deserve equal rights.

Jacobsen: Are governments and international bodies adapting legal frameworks to accommodate the evolving understanding of gender identity and sexual orientation?

Grasso: Well, I don’t know if governments fundamentally operate in any language other than money. Many countries are waking up to the reality that being unfriendly to certain demographics translates into fewer tourism dollars, less trade, and greater opprobrium from the international partners they rely on for aid and economic cooperation. This reality has become even more pronounced with the recent closure of USAID programs.

I think many countries recognize that, while LGBTQ+ rights may be seen as antithetical to their cultural traditions, maintaining discriminatory policies does not make sense from a business perspective—regardless of how they frame the morality of the issue.

We realize this in places like the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, where tourism boards explicitly state that they welcome LGBTQ+ travellers. That acknowledgment is significant. It signals the first step in a broader transformation because, as more LGBTQ+ tourists visit, the local population is exposed to people who openly express LGBTQ+ identities.

That exposure catalyzes change in societies where progress has historically been difficult.

Jacobsen: How can we leverage corporate and business advocacy to influence LGBTQ+ protections in places where political leadership resists change? I am aware of the draconian anti-LGBTQ+ bill that was recently proposed in Ghana, which had strong backing from American evangelicals. A similar case occurred in Uganda as well.

Grasso: Yes, it’s a major issue.

If you’re interested in a deeper dive, I highly recommend speaking with Dr. Christopher Velasco at Princeton University. He is currently writing a book on the role of the American nonprofit sector in shaping anti-LGBTQ+ legislation worldwide. He travelled to Ghana to interview the people responsible for passing these laws. He is the foremost expert on this topic and would provide invaluable insights.

As for what the business community can do—corporations wield significant influence and can use that leverage to improve conditions.

One of the strongest arguments businesses can make is that they need access to top talent. Any legal framework that restricts LGBTQ+ employees from freely living and working in emerging markets is disastrous for global business operations.

As countries seek to modernize, they need the best and brightest minds from every part of the world. Restricting LGBTQ+ populations—who make up 5–10% of the workforce in many Western nations—means leaving an enormous amount of talent untapped.

Jacobsen: What about internal disagreements within activist groups and organizations? When is it legitimate to create space for those conversations, and when is it more pressing to set differences aside and focus on enacting legal change at the federal or state level?

Grasso: That’s one of the biggest challenges in activism—whether in the United States or abroad. Activists often don’t agree on priorities, and different factions emphasize different aspects of the struggle.

Right now, for example, there is a significant push to separate trans issues from the broader LGBTQ+ rights movement. This is deeply controversial, given the long history of trans activists’ contributions to LGBTQ+ advocacy.

Ultimately, this is an ongoing conversation, and no one has yet figured out the perfect answer. Activist movements evolve, and these debates will continue to shape the direction of advocacy efforts.

Jacobsen: What legal trends are you observing in the West? Are you seeing a parallel between the progress of decolonization and advancements in LGBTQ+ rights in certain regions?

At the same time, we see regression in places like Russia or more authoritarian states like China. Even in large democracies such as India, political blockades sometimes slow progress. Given this diverse international landscape, what are the major positive and negative legal trends that stand out to you?

Grasso: I’m heading to India in two weeks to work with university students there. India recently took a major step forward by decriminalizing same-sex relations in 2018, thanks to the landmark Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India ruling by the Supreme Court of India.

That decision was a huge milestone for LGBTQ+ rights in the world’s largest democracy, and it’s certainly a positive development.

Overall, we are seeing a global trend toward legalization and liberalization. However, there are notable counterexamples, including Ghana, Uganda, and Russia, where laws have become more restrictive. In addition, there are entire regions—particularly the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa—where progress has been extremely slow and resistance to change remains strong.

It’s not just Sub-Saharan Africa; North Africa also remains deeply resistant to reform. Entrenched legal frameworks and cultural conservatism make even small policy shifts incredibly difficult in many of these countries.

Most of the world is moving in the right direction, but unfortunately, some areas are regressing.

Right now, in this geopolitical climate, the situation is unpredictable. As Dr. Velasco often points out, there is a significant amount of money and political interest behind the push to use American power to advance anti-LGBTQ+ movements abroad. That is why staying engaged is more important than ever—starting with advocacy efforts here at home.

Jacobsen: What are the primary factors driving this cultural and legal regression in Africa and the Middle East? There are some broad similarities, but I imagine there are also significant regional differences. What do you see as the key reasons behind these setbacks? Would you say that the Middle East is regressing on LGBTQ+ rights, or is it more a case of resistance to change?

Grasso: We’ve seen any regression in the Middle East. Rather, what we’re witnessing is a strong resistance to change.

Countries considered “modern”—such as Qatar—remain outwardly uninterested in shifting their stance. They view LGBTQ+ rights as antithetical to Islam and their indigenous culture. However, some of their neighbours take a different approach, leading to a divided landscape.

Africa presents a different challenge because most nations there are democracies rather than top-down monarchies like those found in the Middle East. Change is often slower in democratic systems because multiple interest groups are competing for influence simultaneously.

Now, to answer your question—why is there a counter-movement?

When studying the theory of change, it’s clear that every social movement experiences backlash. In fact, backlash often indicates that a movement has made significant progress quickly.

As a 40-year-old gay man, I can say that my life has been split into two completely different halves. The first 20 years were nothing like the second 20 years in terms of societal attitudes toward LGBTQ+ people. That rapid progress inevitably triggers opposition.

Jacobsen: For activists reading this, from your experience, what works that people assume does not? And what does not work that people assume does?

Grasso: That’s a tough question, Scott.

One thing that always works is being kind. However, we’ve lost much of our humanity in how we engage online. Many people cosplay as different versions of themselves on social media, often embracing aggression that they wouldn’t use in real life.

But in activism, human connection carries you far. It is crucial to look your opposition in the eye, acknowledge their humanity, and recognize that they are still human even if they are diametrically opposed to your views.

This element is often lost in activism today. We must treat people with the same respect we demand for ourselves.

What does not work? Honestly, I have no clue. But maintaining our humanity, even in the face of hostility, is one of the most effective strategies we can adopt.

Jacobsen: That’s an important takeaway—everyone must occasionally check in with reality. You mentioned using American power to influence global LGBTQ+ rights. How can diplomatic and economic pressure be used responsibly? And how has it been used irresponsibly? A clear example of irresponsible use would be Ghana’s anti-LGBTQ+ bill, which American evangelical groups with significant financial influence heavily backed. How can these levers of power be used more effectively in the broader interest of human rights?

Grasso: We have to recognize that this is a complex society. In democratic systems, there are always opposing interests at play, making it difficult to predict the future. However, the reality for billions of people worldwide is often shaped by decisions made here—for better or worse.

That is why we must be thoughtful and strategic in engaging with our opposition. Otherwise, the unintended consequences of our actions can manifest in places like Ghana, where external influences have played a major role in shaping anti-LGBTQ+ legislation.

It is critical to maintain an open-door policy with people we disagree with. That includes engaging with Evangelicals, who are often portrayed as a monolithic group but, in reality, hold diverse views. Many Evangelicals today support LGBTQ+ rights and reject conversion therapy, and their numbers are growing.

We cannot simply divide people into those who support us and those who oppose us—the reality is much more nuanced. If we completely shut down dialogue, we risk alienating individuals who might otherwise be open to change, pushing them toward advocacy against LGBTQ+ rights in regions where they still hold influence.

At the same time, engaging in dialogue does not mean surrendering the fight. We must counterbalance anti-LGBTQ+ efforts by investing resources into human rights advocacy in countries like Ghana. We can be strategic and diplomatic while taking firm action to oppose those seeking to roll back rights.

There is a way to walk and chew gum simultaneously when dealing with these issues.

Jacobsen: Or pat your head and rub your stomach at the same time. Now, let’s shift to international protections. What global agreements have served as bulwarks in protecting LGBTQ+ rights? We have institutions like the LGBTI Core Group at the United Nations. While symbolic, these mechanisms don’t always carry as much leverage as we would like. What do you make of their role?

Grasso: The power of international multilateral institutions is clearly declining, so this question does not perfectly align with our current geopolitical reality. That said, just because the world is shifting doesn’t mean we cannot continue to drive progress using the levers of power we still have.

Many people would be shocked to learn that during the Trump administration, there was a concerted effort—led by Ric Grenell, the former U.S. Ambassador to Germany and Director of National Intelligence—to pressure countries to decriminalize same-sex relations.

Of course, that does not negate the very real setbacks that the LGBTQ+ community faced under that administration. However, it is important to recognize that progress can still be made even in challenging political environments. We must remain open-minded to opportunities for advancing LGBTQ+ rights, even in situations that seem adverse at first glance.

Jacobsen: What do you hope to accomplish through Project Amicus in the next administration?

Grasso: Our primary goal is to see more countries decriminalize same-sex relations.

That is the fundamental issue we are focused on. We want to see more governments recognize that, regardless of their wealth or power, they cannot call themselves modern nations if they continue to persecute LGBTQ+ people.

A nation’s true value is measured by how it treats its most vulnerable populations—minorities, older people, children, and LGBTQ+ individuals. A country that still criminalizes same-sex relationships cannot be considered a civilized society by modern human rights standards.

We hope to see that list of 64 countries shrink significantly. Our mission is to bring more nations into the global fold—so that we can ultimately live in a world where being LGBTQ+ is tolerated and fully accepted.

Jacobsen: David, thank you for your time and insights today. It was a pleasure speaking with you.

Grasso: Likewise. Thanks, Scott.

Jacobsen: Take care!

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.