A new report from the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, in collaboration with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, finds that LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ residents experienced many of the same losses and hardships after the Eaton Fire in Los Angeles. However, LGBTQ+ survivors entered the disaster with greater housing and health vulnerabilities and less immediate family member support. They also faced additional barriers during recovery, including discrimination by service providers and the loss of LGBTQ+ neighborhoods and safe gathering spaces.
In January 2025, Los Angeles County experienced two of the most destructive wildfires in California’s history. The new report draws on data from a wildfire rapid needs assessment survey conducted by the Department of Public Health and from two rounds of listening sessions led by the Williams Institute with LGBTQ+ individuals affected by the Eaton Fire.
Findings show that LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ people reported similar post-fire needs, including help in repairing damaged homes, accessing air purifiers, securing mental health services, and covering essential costs. However, pre-existing inequities—particularly in housing stability, health, income, and social inclusion—shaped recovery outcomes and compounded harm for LGBTQ+ people.
LGBTQ+ respondents were far more likely to be renters (45% vs. 24%) and less likely to be homeowners (43% vs. 69%), which created unique housing vulnerabilities. LGBTQ+ respondents were three to four times more likely than non-LGBTQ+ respondents to need legal assistance to navigate tenants’ rights or resolve disputes with landlords. Renters who participated in the listening sessions reported consistently feeling overlooked by a recovery process that prioritized homeowners.
LGBTQ+ people in the Eaton Fire area were more likely to live alone than non-LGBTQ+ residents, underscoring the need for attention, resources, and support for those who may lack immediate family members.
“LGBTQ+ survivors of the Eaton Fire went into that devastating experience with greater housing instability and less social support,” said lead author Brad Sears, Distinguished Senior Scholar of Law and Policy at the Williams Institute. “When the fires finally were under control, they faced recovery services led by a federal administration hostile to LGBTQ+ people, and local service providers, including some faith-based service providers, that were not fully inclusive of their families.”
LGBTQ+ listening session participants reported additional challenges, including the loss of essential LGBTQ+ community supports, exclusion, and discrimination. They described being misgendered, having their partnerships dismissed, and encountering skepticism or discomfort from service providers unfamiliar with LGBTQ+ family structures.
Transgender and nonbinary survivors reported experiencing discrimination when seeking temporary housing and anticipated mistreatment during the rental search. Several participants also noted that civil rights protections for sexual orientation and gender identity had been visibly removed from FEMA forms, reinforcing a sense of exclusion at a time of acute vulnerability.
“As climate change increases the likelihood of extreme weather, including wildfires, it is critical that governments ensure that LGBTQ+ people are equally protected from harm when preparing for disasters and during recovery,” said co-author Laurel Sprague, Research Director at the Williams Institute. “Harms could be mitigated for LGBTQ+ survivors through disaster-response systems that support LGBTQ+ organizations in providing recovery services to LGBTQ+ communities. Enabling former residents to return should be prioritized, and LGBTQ+ people should be included in envisioning a new built environment that includes everyone.”