The summer brought more rain than rainbows for GLAAD, the nearly 40-year-old organization that advocates for LGBTQ+ representation in media.
The nonprofit is known for serving as an entertainment industry watchdog, calling out corporations for offensive content or for failing to provide more opportunities for queer artists. But now, it found itself the target of uncomfortable scrutiny and engulfed in one of the biggest controversies of its history after The New York Times published a blistering exposé accusing its chief executive, Sarah Kate Ellis, of “lavish” spending. The story reported that Ellis used GLAAD funds to upgrade her home, acquire a coveted vacation property and travel first class to posh confabs like the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. An expert in the philanthropy space quoted in the Times piece said Ellis may have “fallen into the trap of excess,” while the article suggested that the organization may have violated IRS rules.
The Times piece sent shockwaves across Hollywood as speculation swirled about Ellis’ future with the group and its ability to weather the public relations storm. In conversations with Variety, a common refrain emerged among sources at studios and streamers: GLAAD does important work, but Ellis’ spending had distracted from the nonprofit’s mission, and she needed to rein it in.
Ellis touched down in Los Angeles last week for her first sit-down since the Times story hit. She argued the report lacked important “context” and did not sufficiently acknowledge GLAAD’s multi-year campaign against the publication over its coverage of trans issues related to gender-affirming medical care. A spokesperson for The New York Times said, “Our journalists pursued this story in the name of accountability and transparency for a nonprofit organization that is the recipient of millions in donations. The insinuation that this piece was reported for any other reason is both outrageous and betrays a lack of understanding of the role of independent journalism.”
The Times story raised questions about the trappings of high-flying philanthropy, especially as it intersects with Hollywood (GLAAD hosts multiple annual awards shows that also serve has fundraisers and has honored the likes of Beyoncé and Jay-Z). The Ellis home renovation cost $18,000, but she argues that it was undertaken to transform her attic into a mini-studio — complete with a chandelier — for frequent live news hits amid the pandemic. The vacation home mentioned is in Provincetown, Mass., she says, noting it’s a gay resort town frequented by donors. Many of the financial matters discussed in the Times piece were flagged in 2022 by GLAAD’s then-CFO, and were investigated last year by third- party firm Sheppard Mullin at the behest of the board of directors. Ellis reimbursed GLAAD for the chandelier, and decided with the board that GLAAD would no longer subsidize her Provincetown stays.
GLAAD’s leadership was accused in The New York Times of spending excessively. How do you respond?
When I think about what was written, it lacks a tremendous amount of context [about] the work GLAAD does and our need to be in places at the axis of power. If I had to do it all over again, would I reconsider? And did we look at how we were showing up and where we were showing up? Yes. Will we do it the same way? No, and we fixed that over two years ago.
[A Times spokesperson said the publication stands by its report, which “included extensive comments and context from GLAAD. Beyond this, our reporter also consulted outside experts, who are quoted in the story. We stand behind this reporting with- out hesitation.”]
Has your fundraising been hurt by the story?
We actually had a 25% growth in our membership levels for August. We are already hearing from our major [corporate] sponsors that they’re asking for renewals. We’re not seeing an impact on the numbers.
What were the immediate hours and days like following the publication of the piece? Did you reach out to donors?
I feel fortunate, because the board supported me. The staff supported me. A lot of our donors reached out to me directly in support. There were some that asked hard questions and wanted real answers around what had happened, and we were able to provide that to them because we had done the work. We brought in an outside party to review all our expenses and how we were behaving and give recommendations that we implemented immediately.
[The GLAAD board issued the following statement to Variety in support of Ellis: “We’ve learned and led through a lot over the past several months – as all growing organizations do. Our Board, Sarah Kate, her team and the countless supporters of GLAAD and the movement are acutely focused on advancing the mission of inclusion and representation in all its forms, in all facets of society. That work has never been more urgent, more consequential and, under Sarah Kate’s leadership, more intentional.”]
What kind of tough questions did you face?
About Provincetown and the home media studio, those types of things. They were written without the context of why those decisions were made — not for lavish reasons, but to answer a business need. The way [those facts] were all put together made it seem that we were living high on the hog. That just isn’t who I am as a person.
GLAAD grew very quickly out of COVID. We increased in size by over 60%. … We didn’t have real controls being put in place right at the top of the organization, and that’s where we realized quickly that we needed to move. That’s all on me, at the end of the day. I’m the CEO. We implemented those changes, and we created a temporary subcommittee to review those changes after the Times article ran, and put in even tighter controls around spending.
I don’t think this many gay people have talked about a chandelier since “The Phantom of the Opera.”
People love to glom on to those details.
Will you keep it?
Yes. I reimbursed the company for it. We have this attic space, and we put a coat of paint on it and got some lighting. I do about 80 TV hits a year, which is a lot more media than most CEOs. What was left out of the [Times story] is that we did a thorough cost analysis of renting a studio space or redoing an unused part of my house. Producers from CNN and MSNBC don’t want you using fake backgrounds.
Your industry supporters and some donors felt the Times story was in retaliation for GLAAD’s criticism of the paper’s coverage of trans issues. Do you agree?
Our position has been and always will be that medical care is not up for debate. I don’t see the Times debating diabetes care, cancer care, any other kind of medical care — except for trans care, which should be between a doctor and a patient. Our first meeting that we had [with the publication] was one of the more jaw-dropping meetings that I’ve had in my decades of work. There was no movement; there was no openness to discussion. It was just a total lockdown.
How much more does GLAAD need to grow, and why?
Until we’re met with 100% acceptance, we need to continue to grow our impact. I don’t see it in dollars and cents. What we’ve done over the past decade is build our influence and access to be able to sit at certain tables, to build bridges and bring us from a watchdog to a partner.
How does that justify spending on something like Davos? [The Times reported that car services alone for the GLAAD team cost more than $15,000.]
In 2016 when Trump was elected, I realized that human rights was not going to be on the agenda of the World Economic Forum. We need to be wherever culture is created, which is why that event came into focus. We were also able to create the opportunity to then have meetings with the pope. The reason GLAAD wants to talk to the pope is because he influences 2 billion people. If we can influence him and if he can understand our community better, then he will treat us better. The past five years have been damning for our community, and you can see a direct rollback between the anti-LGBTQ bills and the attitudes of everyday Americans. These bills have poisoned the well … they’ve already created the context for our community that we’re dangerous. That the government needs to come in and manage us.
Many people I spoke to in the entertainment industry said that GLAAD’s most critical work is done behind the scenes as a consultant for brands and content. Does that generate revenue?
I wouldn’t say it generates revenue. I would say that one of the things that we rightsized early on at the organization was, we would give our advice and our intellectual property to people who would profit from it, and they wouldn’t compensate us for that. As a marginalized community, to take intellectual property from our experts? I couldn’t believe they were doing it. I want to be clear about this though: It never stops us from speaking out on them.
Your forward-looking plan includes expansions into the video game and digital creator sectors. What opportunities do you see there?
Gaming is the largest entertainment platform in the world. Our community over-indexes as gamers, so we launched a video game report last year to start holding that industry accountable for representation. And we’re working with CAA on influencers, arming them with our pressing issues and stats. The reason that I was brought in [10 years ago] was to modernize the organization based on the current media landscape. Culture used to come out of Hollywood and journalism like a one-way street. That’s evolved, and so has GLAAD.
What is the most pressing issue today for LGBTQ people?
If pro-equality doesn’t win in this election and Project 2025 does. We are on the front page of that 900-plus-page document. They’re coming for our marriages; they’re coming for our families. They’re coming for trans people. I see a future for our community where we are criminalized in the United States. I’m not even being hyperbolic. It’s there.