Staff concern over a newly appointed Equalpride board member’s apparent support for Donald Trump has reignited questions about values, governance and trust inside LGBTQ media. Jay Katari has now resigned, but the episode shows why leadership choices can matter far beyond the boardroom.

Essential takeaways

  • Jay Katari has resigned: The businessman stepped down from the board of Equalpride, parent company of The Advocate, Out and Them.
  • The dispute centred on social media: Staff raised concerns after posts appeared to show Katari wearing a Trump hat and following members of the Trump family.
  • Editorial independence became a flashpoint: Newsroom teams publicly distanced themselves from the appointment while seeking clarity from management.
  • Equalpride said the role was voluntary: Katari said he intended to contribute his experience and hadn't meant to create disruption.
  • The company is reviewing its structure: Reports say an investor appointment arrangement allowing directors to be added without management approval has since ended.

A Trump hat became a boardroom crisis

The controversy moved quickly from social media to the top of an LGBTQ publishing group. Jay Katari had reportedly been named a strategic adviser focused on growth and innovation only weeks before his departure, but an image of him wearing a red Trump hat prompted intense concern among staff.

According to Metro Weekly and LGBTQ Nation, journalists questioned how someone perceived as aligned with Trump could hold a leadership position at a company whose publications regularly cover the administration's policies affecting LGBTQ+ people. The image may have been small, but its meaning inside those newsrooms was anything but. [2], [3]

The issue wasn't simply about a political preference displayed online. Staff members also reportedly examined Katari's wider social media activity, including follows and posts that they viewed as inconsistent with the publications' editorial mission. That created an uncomfortable question: can a media organisation separate a director's personal politics from the trust readers place in its journalism? [5], [6]

Why the appointment landed so badly

LGBTQ media outlets operate in a particularly sensitive space. Their readers often expect coverage to reflect a clear understanding of the risks facing queer and trans communities, so leadership decisions can feel personal as well as professional.

The newsroom response reflected that reality. Reports from The Pink News and Watermark Out News said editorial staff sought answers from company leaders and publicly distanced their work from Katari. In a small team, that kind of internal alarm can quickly become impossible to contain. [6], [7]

There was also a practical governance concern. The Advocate reported that Katari's appointment may have come through an agreement giving Equalpride's lead investor group the power to appoint two directors without approval from the chief executive or management. That arrangement reportedly ended after the dispute, adding a structural lesson to an already heated cultural argument. [5]

Katari says he meant to help

Katari's departure statement struck a notably different tone from the newsroom reaction. Shared by Equalpride chief executive Mark Berryhill, it said he never intended his involvement to cause disruption within a community he respected and hoped to support through his business experience.

That explanation matters because the reporting does not describe explicit anti-LGBTQ statements from Katari. His background includes businesses focused on autism and disability support, and reports portray him as an entrepreneur rather than a public political campaigner. Still, the absence of overt anti-LGBTQ language didn't settle the concern for staff. [3], [4]

For journalists working under the Equalpride umbrella, the perceived clash was enough. As Them reported, the argument was less about proving a particular statement and more about whether his public political signals were compatible with the organisation's mission and the communities it serves. [5]

What the episode says about media governance

The affair highlights a growing challenge for mission-led publishers. Investors and boards may prioritise commercial experience, growth strategy or fundraising connections, while editorial teams tend to focus on credibility, independence and the confidence of readers. Those priorities can coexist, but only when expectations are explicit from the start.

That makes due diligence essential. A quick review of public posts, political donations and past affiliations may not reveal everything about a person, but it can expose potential conflicts before an appointment becomes public. Metro Weekly, The Pink News and Watermark Out News all show how quickly online material can become part of a workplace dispute once staff begin asking questions. [2], [6], [7]

It also leaves a broader question for Equalpride: how much say should journalists have in appointments to the company that owns their publications? The answer won't be comfortable, but readers may reasonably expect organisations built around identity and advocacy to have a clear process for handling it.

The resignation closes one chapter, not the debate

Equalpride has removed Katari's name from its website, and his resignation appears to have eased the immediate tension. Yet the company still faces the more durable task of rebuilding confidence between management, investors and editorial teams.

The incident is a reminder that symbolism carries real weight in LGBTQ media. A hat, a follow or a donation might look trivial in isolation, but together they can shape how colleagues interpret a leader's judgement and loyalties. For a publication serving readers who already scrutinise power closely, trust is fragile and difficult to restore once it's shaken.

In the end, this wasn't only a story about one board member's politics. It was about who gets to define an organisation's values, and whether that definition is made in the boardroom or alongside the people producing the journalism.

A small appointment can expose a very large governance problem.

Source Reference Map

Story idea inspired by: [1]

Sources by paragraph: