Donate

Beyond the vote: the new Duma and its stance on LGBTQ+ people

What deputies have said and done about LGBTQ+ people over the past 26 years, and how far their willingness to speak up for them has gone.

Published:

Contents

Russia has held elections to the State Duma. There is no basis for treating the results as an expression of voters’ free will: independent election experts point to fraud, pressure on voters and control over voting, while genuine political competition was suppressed. But that will not make the laws passed by this parliament any less real. We therefore decided to look at the people who obtained seats in the Duma through the lens of their attitudes towards LGBTQ+ people. The Bell; OVD-Info

The picture is bleak: support for restrictions predominates in our collection, while the defence of LGBTQ+ people tends to concern individual situations rather than equal rights. Yet there are nuances and occasional glimmers of hope. One deputy defends an athlete’s right to a private life; another objects to banning an ordinary rainbow. Both may nevertheless support restrictions. It matters not only that someone speaks up, but also where that support ends.

We examined public statements and actions over the past 26 years: interviews, legislative initiatives, appeals to government agencies and reactions to persecution. Our sources include national, regional and activist media, as well as politicians’ own publications. We discuss votes on five restrictive measures separately below. We could not find enough information about everyone, so this article offers a collection of profiles and broader observations, rather than a ranking of all 450 deputies.

When introducing a deputy, we give their party and route into parliament according to the list of 25 September, taking subsequent reports of seat transfers into account. Earlier statements relate to the positions these people held at the time of the events described.

Who pushes for restrictions and their enforcement

Vitaly Milonov

United Russia; Southern constituency No. 218, St Petersburg.

It would almost be rude not to begin with Vitaly Milonov: he has devoted so many years to campaigning against LGBTQ+ people that he has become one of its most recognisable faces in Russian politics. Behind that reputation are specific demands: pass a law, investigate a project, intervene in a club’s activities.

In March 2012, Interfax reported an appeal by LGBT activists identifying Milonov as the author of St Petersburg’s ban on “propaganda” among minors. He was a member of the city’s Legislative Assembly and did not yet hold a federal seat, so the State Duma’s 2013 vote is not part of his parliamentary voting record. Interfax

In a September 2012 interview with Fontanka, Milonov drew a distinction between adults’ intimate lives and their public expression. He claimed the law would not affect private life, but criticised public expressions of same-sex relationships. For someone who wants not only to live with a partner but also to speak openly about their life, that distinction has very practical consequences. Fontanka

One subsequent conflict concerned Children-404, a support project for LGBT teenagers. According to Meduza, the first administrative offence report against its founder, Elena Klimova, was drawn up following Milonov’s complaint in January 2014; the case ended in her favour in February. A later case described in the same publication was linked to an initiative by Young Guard activists, so different people were behind different stages of the pressure. Meduza

In October 2024, Moscow 24 reported his demand for inspections of Moscow’s gay clubs. The deputy referred to a video submitted by members of the public and linked the closure of venues to verification of that information. We do not know whether this particular appeal influenced subsequent raids. But he did publicly call for intervention. Moscow 24

Vyacheslav Makarov: a family as a “challenge to society”

United Russia; in the 2026 election campaign, he stood on the party list for Chuvashia. RBC

Former St Petersburg parliamentary speaker Vyacheslav Makarov took the discussion of LGBTQ+ people far beyond draft legislation. In July 2021, the VkusVill grocery chain published a feature about its customers’ families, including an LGBT family. Following an outcry, the company removed the publication and apologised. Makarov objected to the very presentation of such a family as normal and called the publication a challenge to society. He invoked the constitutional definition of marriage to justify his position. For him, that constitutional provision became an argument against the public visibility of people whose families do not fit it. FederalPress

Leonid Ogul: a ban intended to change the person

United Russia; according to a report on the election results, the federal party list for Astrakhan Region. Astrakhan News

For Leonid Ogul, a doctor and, at the time of these events, first deputy chair of the Duma’s Health Protection Committee, support for bans came with openly transphobic rhetoric. On 24 July 2023, the day the law banning gender transition was signed, he spoke of transgender women as men who should see a psychiatrist. Ogul expected people to change their behaviour once the law was adopted. Here, prohibition becomes a means of forcing people to stop expressing their identity, with medical language used to justify that pressure. Daily Storm

Alexander Khinshtein: outside the new parliament

Khinshtein declined his seat, so his relevance here is limited to his role in events to which current deputies also responded. In December 2022, he said that following his appeal, Ozon had removed books from sale, including Summer in a Pioneer Tie, Elena Malisova and Katerina Silvanova’s novel about love between a Young Pioneer and a counsellor at a Soviet summer camp. The platform confirmed that it had blocked the product listings to comply with the new requirements. Interfax; Vedomosti

Another episode was the five-day detention of Anastasia Yershova from Nizhny Novgorod for wearing rainbow earrings. On 1 February 2024, Khinshtein hoped the punishment would be overturned: he did not consider a seven-colour rainbow an LGBT symbol. By 2 February, he supported the ruling, accepting the account that it was a six-colour rainbow and citing the young woman’s alleged activism. The defence disputed the description of the jewellery. His brief intervention on her behalf ended when he saw a connection with LGBT people.

The appeals did not overturn Yershova’s punishment: on 21 November 2024, the Supreme Court upheld the rulings. We return to this case when discussing Davankov. Aegis

Nina Ostanina

Elected on the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) list.

The dispute over Summer in a Pioneer Tie shows how one book can prompt several political initiatives. Nina Ostanina also sought an investigation: NEWS.ru reported her appeal to Roskomnadzor on 31 May 2022. In a direct comment, she promised to request criminal proceedings if the regulator substantiated her complaints about the book. There is no basis for linking subsequent criminal cases specifically to that promise. NEWS.ru

In a November 2022 interview with Fontanka, she opposed restoring criminal liability for private same-sex relations between adults. In the same conversation, she supported harsher punishment for “propaganda” and offered stigmatising explanations of homosexuality. Fontanka

In December, Ostanina read a journalist’s report on a visit to a gay club and saw no grounds to prohibit its publication. But part of her explanation was that, in her view, the description did not make that way of life appealing to readers. At the same time, she considered it possible that law enforcement might take an interest in the venue itself. Fontanka

Prohibition as legislative work

The campaign against LGBTQ+ people relies on more than its most recognisable figures. Olga Zanko, named among those receiving seats on the United Russia list, publicly emphasised her co-authorship of a restrictive initiative in October 2022. Zanko called explicit depictions of same-sex relationships unhealthy and portrayed them as an expression of Western values which, in her view, had no place in Russia. Her personal contribution was not just a vote, but participation in drafting and publicly promoting restrictions. 47channel

Maxim Kavdzharadze, also named as a recipient of a United Russia list seat, had already participated in restrictive initiatives as a senator representing Lipetsk Region. In July 2020, he became a co-author of proposed amendments to the Family Code. The package envisaged restrictions on marriage and adoption for same-sex couples and people who had changed their legal sex. Restrictions on family rights were thus being advanced before the 2023 ban on gender transition. Kavdzharadze took part in that work in the Federation Council. Interfax; Duma Council minutes

Another way of justifying restrictions is to portray the very existence of same-sex relationships as a threat to the country’s future. Yevgeny Fyodorov, whose receipt of a United Russia list seat for Murmansk Region and Karelia was reported by a regional outlet, linked his opposition to such relationships to population reproduction in an OSN broadcast in July 2021 and urged the state to counter their spread. His five votes in the tables we examined, all in favour of restrictions, are consistent with that public stance. OSN

An appeal to prosecutors as political action

For Anton Tsvetkov, named among recipients of United Russia list seats, the relevant episode dates back to his leadership of Officers of Russia. In May 2013, he reported an appeal to the governor of Samara Region and to prosecutors following an event at the Eternal Flame memorial in Tolyatti. Participants were remembering people who had died of AIDS; an LGBT activist was among them. Tsvetkov objected to the event taking place specifically at the Eternal Flame and demanded a legal assessment, discussing possible administrative or criminal liability. His appeal concerned a memorial event, rather than a gay Pride. We do not know of any punishment of its participants resulting from this appeal. Interfax-Religion; NEWSru

Books, sport and demands for bans

Alexander Sholokhov, elected on the United Russia list, warned against excessive measures targeting classic works in October 2022, while supporting the ban itself. In February 2024, he justified restrictions on book sales through online marketplaces by pointing to difficulties in checking buyers’ ages, and explicitly supported censorship. He also acknowledged that he had not personally seen the list under discussion. His defence of the classics was a limited qualification, rather than an objection to book bans in general. Moscow 24; NSN

Roman Teryushkov represents United Russia in the Lyubertsy constituency, No. 122, in Moscow Region. In summer 2022, tennis player Daria Kasatkina came out, publicly discussing her relationship with a woman. In September, Teryushkov announced that he intended to challenge the award of her title of Honoured Master of Sport. In an interview, he mentioned both her coming out and her remarks about changing sporting nationality. Sport-Express; Sports.ru

An appeal against a particular book, project or venue shows how a politician seeks to have restrictions enforced. But deputies’ public statements do not always amount to demands for bans: there are also attempts to speak up for people.

Who spoke up, and where they stopped

Defending an athlete, objecting to someone’s detention, recognising a person’s right to a private life: these things also deserve attention. Especially when they come from a supporter of restrictive laws. The question is whom the politician is defending, and on what terms.

Irina Rodnina and Dmitry Svishchev

Irina Rodnina: United Russia party list. Dmitry Svishchev: Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) list.

As early as April 2018, Irina Rodnina spoke positively about LGBT acquaintances in an interview with Alexander Golovin, while qualifying her remarks with a rejection of “aggressiveness”. Asked about the future acceptance of same-sex relationships and marriage in Russia, she did not rule it out, linking that prospect to a long process of explanation and changes in public attitudes. At the same time, she opposed adoption by same-sex families and disapproved of public displays of relationships. Sports.ru

In 2022, attitudes to personal freedom emerged in responses to Kasatkina’s coming out, mentioned above. Politicians discussed both the act itself and whether it should affect recognition of her sporting achievements.

Rodnina mocked the portrayal of coming out as an act of courage, but also acknowledged Kasatkina’s right to speak about herself and opposed intrusion into her private life. That is how Championat relayed her comment to Sport24. Championat

In the dispute with those seeking a review of Kasatkina’s sporting title, Svishchev pointed to her results and the established award procedure in September 2022. He acknowledged Teryushkov’s right to put questions to the Sports Ministry, but suggested congratulating the athlete instead. Sport24

In 2025, Dmitry Svishchev again spoke of Kasatkina’s right to make choices in her private life. Commenting on her switch to representing Australia, he specifically addressed her relationship with a woman and recognised her freedom of choice, while saying that he personally did not share it. Sport-Express

Vladislav Davankov and Sardana Avksentyeva

Both elected on the New People party list.

In November 2023, Vladislav Davankov asked Roskomnadzor to clarify that depicting a rainbow did not constitute an offence. He said this was necessary to stop unfounded persecution and complaints. In February 2024, after Anastasia Yershova’s detention, he reported an appeal to the Supreme Court and criticised the punishment. We do not know the outcome of his particular appeal. However, the court appeals against Yershova’s punishment, discussed above, did not result in it being overturned. Kommersant; ZAKS.ru; Davankov on Telegram

In February 2024, Sardana Avksentyeva spoke against complaints targeting nurseries and football teams because of rainbows in their names or symbols, and against pressure on cultural life. Kommersant

But the earrings case is only one side of this portrait. On gender transition, Davankov himself helped promote restrictions. On 25 May 2023, he announced in the Duma that a ban on transition had been drafted. According to Vedomosti, he justified it through a psychiatric framing and accounts of people who regretted transitioning. This was how he explained his political choice; there is no basis for treating those explanations as a medical assessment. Vedomosti

In an interview with Ksenia Sobchak published on 4 September 2023, Davankov explained the ban in terms of a commitment to traditional values and described his part in softening the bill. According to him, cases involving congenital genetic characteristics had been exempted. That qualification matters: these were exceptions for certain conditions, not the preservation of access to transition for all transgender people who needed care. K. Sobchak video interview on Ostorozhno Media; on YouTube

At a meeting with students at MGIMO University, Avksentyeva presented the law as making the procedure more complicated while retaining medical indications, according to Groza. She also justified the restrictions as protection for young people. Groza on Telegram; Video

The 2023 law permits treatment of congenital anomalies and genetic and endocrine conditions associated with atypical development of children’s reproductive organs. Such interventions require a decision by a medical commission at an organisation subordinate to the authorised federal agency. The law does not retain general permission for gender transition on medical grounds. It also contains a separate transitional provision for certain operations performed before it took effect. There are exceptions, but describing the law as merely making transition more complicated would be inaccurate. Law text, Article 3; Law text, Article 5

Boris Chernyshov: a warning against excessive bans

Elected on the LDPR list.

On 19 October 2022, Boris Chernyshov warned on Govorit Moskva radio that defending values should not become a “witch hunt”. He made ironic remarks about searching for prohibited meanings in Cheburashka and Crocodile Gena, and urged against indiscriminate bans. In the same conversation, he supported the bill and said he was a co-author. Govorit Moskva

In May 2024, a party website reported Chernyshov’s approval of Danil Morozov’s expulsion from the Youth Parliament. The publication linked the expulsion to penalties for discrediting the army and displaying LGBT symbols. The deputy presented the expulsion as a natural consequence of a court ruling. His warning against excessive bans therefore did not prevent him from endorsing a specific exclusion. LDPR

Pavel Krasheninnikov: against persecution, but for restrictions

Pavel Krasheninnikov, named as a recipient of a United Russia list seat, discussed LGBT issues with Yekaterinburg councillors in February 2021. In response to a demand to stop their spread in the media, he said there were no plans to persecute people along Soviet or Nazi lines. Yet in the same conversation he used the word “contagion”, invoked the constitutional definition of marriage and left room for discussing harsher penalties for imposing information on people. Kommersant

The word “contagion” is itself derogatory: it associates LGBTQ+ people with disease and danger. Such language says much about the distance between promising not to persecute people and respecting them.

The objection to persecution matters, but it sits alongside support for restrictions. Krasheninnikov supported the bans in all five votes examined. He rejects the outright criminalisation of same-sex relationships, but supports prohibitions on their public representation. That boundary runs through both his words and his parliamentary decisions.

Irina Yeliferova: against intrusion into private life

United Russia; stood on the federal list, Moscow regional group No. 37.

At a conference organised by United Russia in March 2021, participants proposed banning “propaganda” of bisexuality, polyamory and gender transition. Irina Yeliferova, then deputy head of the party’s Moscow executive committee and head of its campaigning and propaganda department, publicly distanced herself from the proposals. She called them the participants’ personal opinions and said: “We are against getting into people’s beds.” Daily Storm; Candidate profile

This was a notable objection to expanding prohibitions from someone responsible for party campaigning. It does not imply support for same-sex marriage or public LGBTQ+ life. But Yeliferova was explicitly defending personal choice at that moment. Her words also serve as a reminder: statements made by individual politicians on behalf of a party did not always match even other party representatives’ explanations of its position.

Other objections to excessive bans

Anna Kuznetsova, elected on the United Russia list, opposed banning an ordinary rainbow following a dispute about ice cream in July 2020, when she was children’s rights commissioner. Her argument was that the symbol should not be reduced to LGBT associations. Olga Alimova, elected on the CPRF list, also objected to banning the colour light blue and ordinary children’s drawings of rainbows in a direct interview with RTVI in July 2022, and promised non-interference in private life. Yet she supported restrictions on the public representation of same-sex relationships and expressed negative views of same-sex parenting. Both were prepared to defend an ordinary rainbow. Their words do not, however, establish that they would have responded in the same way to deliberate use of LGBT symbols. Kommersant; RTVI

Alexander Kozlovsky represents United Russia in the Pskov constituency, No. 150. In an interview published by the Pskov Information Agency on 7 November 2022, he objected to complaints about a mural of the American poet Walt Whitman in Pskov. The portrait reproduced a painting from a museum collection, but a local resident saw “propaganda” in it because of the poet’s sexual orientation. Kozlovsky defended the image’s right to exist and suggested judging the writer by his cultural contribution. In the same conversation, he spoke positively about social tolerance while supporting the ban on “propaganda”. This was a defence of a particular work against censorship demands, rather than a rejection of restrictions as a whole. Pskov Information Agency

The same events, different responses

The differences become clearer when deputies respond to the same event. Let us return to Kasatkina’s story, then look at debates about marriage and reactions to reports of torture in Chechnya.

Kasatkina’s coming out: explaining someone else’s motives

Svetlana Zhurova represents United Russia in the Vsevolozhsk constituency, No. 112, in Leningrad Region. Her response to Kasatkina’s public disclosure in July 2022 differed from those of Svishchev and Rodnina. Speaking to Abzats, she linked female athletes’ public disclosures to discussions of new restrictions and the possibility of subsequently claiming persecution and changing citizenship. She suggested it was a planned campaign and advised the media to stop covering it. That was the deputy’s speculation about other people’s motives, not an established fact. Abzats

Zhurova had previously spoken much more mildly about public LGBT symbols. In an interview on 5 December 2019, recalling questions about the Sochi Olympics, she recounted her response: “Let them walk around with rainbow flags, even at the Olympics.” She explained that rainbows were familiar in both children’s drawings and the Games’ visual design. This was not yet a statement in favour of equal rights, but the difference in tone from her reaction to Kasatkina’s coming out is noticeable. Sport Day by Day

The constitutional definition of marriage

Another revealing issue is public support for defining marriage in the Constitution as a union between a man and a woman. Sergey Gavrilov was elected on the CPRF list. In February 2020, his press office promoted such a definition in a proposed preamble. In March, Vitaly Milonov welcomed its inclusion in the Constitution on a radio programme, presenting it as a way to close off further debate. For our purposes, this is more informative than a vote on the entire package of amendments, which bundled together many other provisions. Gavrilov’s proposal concerned the preamble, however: we cannot treat him as the author of the wording ultimately adopted. CPRF; Govorit Moskva

Chechnya: between doubt and demands for an investigation

In spring 2017, Novaya Gazeta reported detentions, torture and killings of men in Chechnya because of their perceived homosexuality. Subsequent reporting included survivors’ accounts. The discussion now centred on people’s safety and the possibility of securing an investigation, rather than symbols or the visibility of relationships. Novaya Gazeta

Tatyana Moskalkova, elected on the United Russia list, announced on 29 September that she had begun work in the new parliament. Report on her parliamentary seat. At the time of the events described, she was Russia’s human rights commissioner. In April 2017, Moskalkova entertained the possibility of a provocation and a false allegation, while noting that no final conclusions had been reached. She later met Maxim Lapunov, who reported being tortured, and forwarded his complaint to the Investigative Committee. In November, she said there were grounds for a criminal case and a need for state protection. Meduza; Kommersant; Radio Liberty

In July 2019, Committee Against Torture lawyer Vladimir Smirnov acknowledged Moskalkova’s help in transferring the preliminary inquiry into Lapunov’s complaint from the Chechen Investigative Committee to its North Caucasus Federal District directorate. At the same time, he noted the lack of results: investigators had not even obtained a list of criminal investigation officers on duty on the relevant days. His account shows that assistance was provided, but a proper inquiry was not secured. Here, we can discuss the limits of a human rights institution’s power in such circumstances. It would be much harder to use this episode to judge Moskalkova’s sincerity or what exactly she knew. Radio Liberty

Shamsail Saraliyev, included in the new parliament through the United Russia list, reported an appeal against Novaya Gazeta to the Prosecutor General’s Office in March 2021. It followed a publication about extrajudicial executions in Chechnya. His reasoning linked allegations of LGBT persecution to opportunities to obtain asylum in Europe. The deputy thus shifted attention to the source’s credibility and the complainants’ supposed motives; these materials do not substantiate his accusations. RBC

For more on the persecution of LGBTQ+ people in the Chechen Republic, read this report by North Caucasus SOS (in Russian).

When the voting record speaks loudest

A response to reports of torture shows whether a politician is willing to seek protection for victims. Another aspect of their responsibility lies in the decisions they make as legislators. Voting records reveal support for restrictions even among those who rarely speak publicly. We compared individual records for five decisions:

The voting records of people on our list contain only “for” and “did not vote”. There are no votes against or abstentions in this selection. That does not mean all 450 people voted: many were not members of earlier parliaments, and data are missing for some. A blank entry in the table does not tell us how someone voted.

See more in our compiled interactive voting table.

Three examples illustrate what lies behind the overall finding. Viktor Pinsky, elected on the United Russia list, supported both 2013 restrictions, the 2023 transition ban and the 2024 adoption restriction; his entry for 2022 reads “did not vote”. Anatoly Aksakov (A Just Russia, Kanash constituency No. 42 in Chuvashia) is recorded as voting “for” in all five cases. Galina Danchikova, elected on the United Russia list, supported the restrictions in 2022, 2023 and 2024.

Such a list cannot tell us each person’s motives. Non-participation cannot automatically be treated as protest, nor support for a law explained solely by party discipline. But the political result is visible: in the votes compared, these politicians did not openly oppose the restrictions.

How much does party affiliation explain?

Does party affiliation explain the combination of bans and occasional interventions in people’s defence? Programmes set broad directions, but leaders’ statements and individual deputies’ actions do not always fit a single line.

United Russia’s programme centres on promoting traditional spiritual and moral values, including through education and cultural projects. This general commitment does not reveal each deputy’s attitude to a particular case of persecution. United Russia programme

A Just Russia’s leader spoke explicitly about how severe he wanted punishments to be: in October 2022, Sergey Mironov, elected on the A Just Russia list, demanded criminal liability for “LGBT propaganda”, considering fines insufficient. An official regional party website presented this as a party demand. A Just Russia

New People’s programme promises sound different: limit blocking, review its justification, and check existing rules for compliance with citizens’ rights. In the manifesto 12 Steps to a Country You Want to Live In, those promises are not accompanied by specific commitments on LGBTQ+ rights. General statements about rights can be compared with Davankov’s and Avksentyeva’s actions, but do not in themselves amount to demands to repeal anti-LGBT bans. New People manifesto

The sections on family in the CPRF and LDPR programmes primarily concern social and financial support for families. They do not answer the question of attitudes towards LGBT people. For the CPRF, Ostanina’s actions discussed above provide more specific evidence; LDPR representative Svishchev has made supportive comments about Kasatkina. Neither example can automatically be extended to every member of the same party. CPRF; LDPR

A party card helps us understand a deputy’s political surroundings, but cannot replace an individual profile. Even general promises to protect private life may coexist with support for restrictive laws. Neither a single intervention in someone’s defence nor a vague programme formula can therefore be treated as a commitment by the whole party to pursue equality.

Bleak conclusions, with important qualifications

The outcome is troubling. Support for restrictions predominates in the statements and actions we collected: from votes for bans to appeals against books, projects and individuals. Yet far from every deputy runs a public campaign against LGBTQ+ people. For many, the voting record is our main source of information; the shortage of their own statements leaves their personal position unclear. It would be equally hasty to interpret that silence as neutrality or agreement.

There are still glimmers of hope. These materials contain recognition of the right to a private life, objections to interference in it, demands to investigate torture and attempts to protect someone from punishment. Such episodes matter in themselves, especially to those directly affected. But defending an athlete, a book or an ordinary rainbow does not yet amount to a willingness to uphold equal rights for LGBTQ+ people. Often the same politician supports the restrictions that make such defence necessary in the first place.

Encouraging remarks therefore do not undo the troubling overall picture. Across the stories we gathered, a consistent defence of equality does not emerge as a prominent shared position. Far more often, a deputy draws a line: these people can be left alone, this book can be kept, this symbol need not be banned. For those on the other side of that line, the promise of tolerance ends.

Behind homophobic and transphobic initiatives and laws are specific, identifiable people. Those who propose bans, press for their enforcement and vote for them have names, and any discussion of these decisions must include their personal political responsibility.

Nevertheless, the differences deserve attention. There is a distinction between demanding a new ban and trying to stop a particular act of persecution, and it cannot simply be dismissed. Will these rare interventions remain exceptions, or will they one day lead to a willingness to defend people’s rights even when LGBTQ+ people are explicitly at issue? For now, that is more a question about the future: judging by the Duma’s current priorities, human rights protection is far from the top of its agenda.