For individuals identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and/or asexual (LGBTQIA+), centuries of deep-rooted bias and discrimination have created cycles of interconnected challenges that persist today. In the first blog of this series, we explored the mental and physical effects that workplace discrimination has on LGBTQIA+ people, especially those with intersecting identities. Our efforts to explore these disparities in greater depth present another challenge facing these workers: Despite decades of documenting LGBTQIA+ economic inequity in the United States, the data collection on this community has been insufficient and is currently under further threat.  

While comprehensive data on the LGBTQIA+ population is crucial for advancing equality, federal data collection efforts in the United States suffer from many limitations, and the Trump administration is working to undo the incremental progress made in recent years. Executive Order 14075, issued by President Biden in June 2022, was the first time federal agencies were mandated to improve and include data on LGBTQI+ individuals in national surveys. These efforts were swiftly halted by Executive Order 14168, issued by President Trump in January 2025. Data collection on gender identity and sexual orientation indicators in any large-scale Census survey, including the American Community Survey (ACS), or in newer cycles of the Household Pulse Survey (HPS) is now nonexistent. As of 2025, data collection on the LGBTQIA+ community is extremely endangered. 

Due to the insufficiency and lack of clarity in federally available data, IWPR needed to look at two datasets—the ACS from 2019 to 2023 and the HPS from July to August 2024—to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the LGBTQIA+ wage gap. Each of these surveys had its own limitations. The ACS, a large-scale nationally representative survey, only collects information on whether respondents are single men or single women, or in same-sex or opposite-sex couples. Because the survey doesn’t distinguish between LGBTQIA+ and straight single individuals, data collection on single LGBTQIA+ people—the group most likely to have lower earnings—is absent.  

On the other hand, the HPS—one of the few Census datasets that contains self-reported sexual orientation and gender data—is a small-scale, rapid-response survey with limited information on earnings. The HPS only collects data on annual household earnings, which means that individual earnings are not accounted for. In addition, neither the HPS nor the ACS includes individuals identifying as intersex or asexual. These gaps in the data collection mean that critical data representing the economic realities for many in the LGBTQIA+ community aren’t accounted for in federal surveys at all. 

Despite the limited data available through ACS and HPS, IWPR’s analysis was still able to reveal stark disparities in earnings within the LGBTQIA+ community: 

• Even though they are more likely to have college degrees, 43.8 percent of LGBQ+ cisgender women report household incomes less than $50,000, compared to less than a third of straight cisgender men. 

• Transgender/nonbinary individuals are the most likely to live in households with annual household incomes below $50,000 (49.3 percent), despite reporting very similar levels of education compared to straight cisgender men and women (34.4 percent vs. 34.2 percent and 35.3 percent, respectively).   

• LGBQ+ cisgender women (25.2 percent) and transgender/nonbinary workers (25.3 percent) are more likely to be employed in the government or nonprofit sectors compared to straight White cisgender men (17.2 percent). These numbers are even higher for Black (29.3 percent) and Native American (33.7 percent) women in same-sex couples employed in the public sector. Although government and nonprofit positions generally offer lower salaries than private sector jobs, these roles often provide stronger benefits and more protections for marginalized communities, such as paid leave for care responsibilities or gender-affirming care, which may explain why so many LGBTQ+ people choose to work in lower-paying public sector jobs. 

The lack of inclusive data collection in US surveys—along with the grim statistics revealed by our data analysis—underscores the need for more expansive and comprehensive surveying. Without complete and inclusive data collection, the barriers faced by the LGBTQIA+ community will only be intensified. As discussed in IWPR’s Federal Policy Agenda “Equal Pay” brief, support for policies such as the Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 17 and S. 1115) is essential to advance pay equity. This legislation would protect all workers from retaliation for discussing pay, ban the use of prior salary history, and codify pay data collection, all of which are critical for combating pay discrimination against vulnerable populations such as LGBTQIA+ workers and closing the wage gap faced by members of this community.  

However, severe inequities will persist unless the agencies charged with enforcing existing protections and statutes, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, have the resources they need to conduct their critical work and are protected against ongoing threats from the current administration.  

The data clearly shows that LGBTQIA+ workers earn less than their straight cisgender counterparts—regardless of educational attainment—and are more likely to be in lower-paying jobs that might offer better protections. What’s more, the barriers driving these inequities disproportionately affect the most marginalized members of the LGBTQIA+ community, including people of color, individuals with disabilities, queer women, and transgender people, actively blocking pathways toward financial stability and mobility. While IWPR analysis reveals some of the inequalities, the lack of sufficient data sources and current attacks on data collection risk stalling progress toward measuring the economic inclusion and improving the financial stability of the LGBTQIA+ community.  

This is the second of a three-part blog series highlighting the inequities and injustices that the LGBTQIA+ community faces every day in the United States. Through exploring numerous discriminatory labor practices that LGBTQIA+ people experience in the workplace, this series seeks to increase understanding and bring awareness to the systemic barriers that have impacted this community.  

This blog was prepared by Miranda Peterson, Victoria Gianopoulos, and Brigid Rawdon, with data analysis from Mrinmoyee Chatterjee.