National
Holder defends decision to drop DOMA defense
House Republicans criticize att’y gen’l for abandoning anti-gay law
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder (Blade photo by Michael Key)
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder endured a barrage of hostile questions from House Republicans Tuesday over the Obama administration’s decision to drop defense of the Defense of Marriage Act in court.
During an oversight hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Holder defended President Obama’s determination that DOMA is unconstitutional in response to inquiries from GOP lawmakers amid other questions about the Justice Department’s role in preventing illegal immigration, prosecuting terrorist suspects and stopping child pornography.
Tough questioning for Holder particularly came from Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.), who recalled Holder’s Feb. 23 letter to Congress stating that the Justice Department would no longer defend DOMA in court and asked the attorney general simply, “Why’d you do it?”
Holder replied that litigation challenging DOMA in the Second Circuit — where there’s no legal precedent for laws related to sexual orientation — afforded the opportunity for the Justice Department to examine DOMA with heightened scrutiny and to determine the anti-gay law was unconstitutional.
“Applying the heightened scrutiny test, we did not think that the statute would pass constitutional muster, and as a result, I thought that we could not make reasonable arguments in defense of the statute — something that is done extremely rarely, but happens occasionally,” Holder said. “I recommended to the president that we not defend the statute and he agreed with that recommendation.”
But Holder’s answer apparently didn’t satisfy Sensenbrenner, who railed against the Justice Department for what he said was abandoning its duty by dropping defense of DOMA.
“Sexual preference has never been a protected class in any of our civil rights laws,” Sensenbrenner said.
In response, Holder noted that federal law anticipates that the executive branch may determine that some laws shouldn’t be defended in court and affords Congress the opportunity to take up defense of such statutes if the administration declines to defend them.
“The reasons for the determination were, as I said, this different standard and the fact that much has changed since the passage of the bill 15 years or so ago,” Holder said. “The Supreme Court has ruled that criminalizing homosexual contact is unconstitutional. Congress has repealed the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy.”
But Sensenbrenner observed that Congress has never taken action to repeal DOMA since the anti-gay law was enacted in 1996. Additionally, the Wisconsin lawmaker said the Lawrence v. Texas decision that Holder referenced was related only to the criminalization of homosexual acts and that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was a personnel issue in the Defense Department.
“DOMA does not deal with either of these two items,” Sensenbrenner said. “DOMA was an attempt to define for federal purposes that marriage is between one man and one woman, and 45 states in this country have also reached that conclusion — either through a constitutional amendment ratified by the people as was the case in Wisconsin or through statutory enactments by the legislature.”
Sensenbrenner’s remarks on DOMA are misleading in part because Section 3 of the statute has no impact on states where same-sex marriage isn’t available. The anti-gay law prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage only in jurisdictions where it’s available.
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (Blade photo by Michael Key)
Sensenbrenner added he would back defunding the Justice Department for the cost to the House of defending DOMA in court — a move proposed by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) last month after he hired former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement to take up defense of the statute.
“I certainly would support an effort to have the cost of Congress’ defending this provision … come out of the Justice Department’s appropriations, so that the message is sent down the street that an attorney general or president can’t willy-nilly decide that a law that they have voted against — if they’d been in Congress at the time — is unconstitutional,” Sensenbrenner said.
Holder replied that lower courts have also come to the conclusion that DOMA is unconstitutional and the notion that the Justice Department should lose funds over the decision to drop defense of the anti-gay law is “inappropriate.”
“The lawyers in the Department of Justice who would have worked on that case, believe me, have more than a full-time job, and they will have to use the time that might have been used in the DOMA defense — they will use it other areas,” he said.
The attorney general added Congress has the ability to approve funding for the expense of hiring Clement without reducing funds for the Justice Department.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the sponsor of DOMA repeal legislation, came to Holder’s defense during the hearing and said the Obama administration had no option but to determine the anti-gay law was unconstitutional following the 2003 Supreme Court decision striking down state sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas.
“I don’t believe that the administration had any choice in the matter at all by looking at the legal precedence,” Nadler said. “There had been no determination by any court, as far as I know, certainly by any circuit, of the proper standard of review after Lawrence. And if you look at the normal criteria for determining the standard of review that the Supreme Court has enjoined upon us as to what a suspect classification is … it meets all the tests, and you really had no choice but to go that route.”
Nadler added he hopes Congress doesn’t try to “start trying to intimidate” the Justice Department by threatening to restrict funds as a result of the department’s decision over DOMA.
Other Republicans on the committee also took jabs at Holder during their questioning for dropping defense of DOMA.
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), a freshman Republican who won as a Tea Party challenger in the 2010 election, asked if laws related to sexual orientation merited heightened scrutiny, why shouldn’t heightened scrutiny apply to laws on allowing cousins to marry, underaged marriage or polygamy.
“Since Lawrence, two courts of appeals have upheld a rational basis test for sexual orientation,” Gowdy said. “Why would you single out the one court of appeals that has applied a higher level of scrutiny, ignoring the two that apply to rational basis tests? That just strikes me as a political calculation and not a constitutional calculation.”
In response, Holder denied the decision the Justice Department made over DOMA had a “political component” and said the Supreme Court would ultimately have to address the issue of the anti-gay law’s constitutionality.
Michael Mitchell, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, told the Washington Blade after the hearing that he took offense to the suggestion that same-sex marriage is akin to the other unions Gowdy mentioned.
“Most people know there is a clear difference between those things and two loving, consenting adults who are willing to share their lives, and most importantly, take care of each other,” Mitchell said. “Apparently, love and commitment and ’til death do you part’ are not Republican values.”
House Judiciary Committee Chair Lamar Smith (Blade photo by Michael Key)
House Judiciary Committee Chair Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who last year sponsored a resolution condemning the federal court ruling finding California’s Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, expressed displeasure over Obama administration’s decision to drop defense of DOMA during his opening statement.
“I am concerned that in some cases, this administration may have placed political and ideological considerations above enforcing the law,” Smith said. “It seems the president’s personal, political views regarding [DOMA] may have trumped the obligations of the Department of Justice.”
Additionally, Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) chided Obama for dropping defense of DOMA after making no mention about doubts over its constitutionality during his 2008 presidential campaign.
“It would have been helpful if the president of the United States, as a constitutional law professor, during the time he was running for president, indicated that he had some constitutional questions about DOMA as he was going around the country saying he believes that marriage is between one man and one woman,” Lungren said.
As a chair of the House Committee on Administration, Lungren signed off on the House contract hiring Clement for a initial total sum cap of $500,000 and a blended rate of $520 an hour.
In response, Mitchell disputed the notion that Obama wasn’t fully disclosing his views in the 2008 presidential campaign and said Obama’s personal position on marriage has no bearing on the constitutionality of DOMA.
“By Rep. Lungren’s logic, the Republicans should have articulated in the midterm elections that they were going to focus solely on divisive social issues and the foisting of tax cuts on the wealthy instead of creating jobs,” Mitchell said.
Holder’s defense of the administration’s decision to drop legal defense of DOMA during the congressional hearing comes on the heels of comments he made to reporters last week backing Clement against criticism from LGBT people for taking up defense of the anti-gay statute.
“Paul Clement is a great lawyer and has done a lot of really great things for this nation. In taking on the representation — representing Congress in connection with DOMA, I think he is doing that which lawyers do when we’re at our best,” Holder reportedly said. “That criticism, I think, was very misplaced.”
A Wider Bridge on Friday announced it will shut down at the end of the month.
The group that “mobilizes the LGBTQ community to fight antisemitism and support Israel and its LGBTQ community” in a letter to supporters said financial challenges prompted the decision.
“After 15 years of building bridges between LGBTQ communities in North America and Israel, A Wider Bridge has made the difficult decision to wind down operations as of Dec. 31, 2025,” it reads.
“This decision comes after challenging financial realities despite our best efforts to secure sustainable funding. We deeply appreciate our supporters and partners who made this work possible.”
Arthur Slepian founded A Wider Bridge in 2010.
The organization in 2016 organized a reception at the National LGBTQ Task Force’s Creating Change Conference in Chicago that was to have featured to Israeli activists. More than 200 people who protested against A Wider Bridge forced the event’s cancellation.
A Wider Bridge in 2024 urged the Capital Pride Alliance and other Pride organizers to ensure Jewish people can safely participate in their events in response to an increase in antisemitic attacks after Hamas militants attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported authorities in Vermont late last year charged Ethan Felson, who was A Wider Bridge’s then-executive director, with lewd and lascivious conduct after alleged sexual misconduct against a museum employee. Rabbi Denise Eger succeeded Felson as A Wider Bridge’s interim executive director.
A Wider Bridge in June honored U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) at its Pride event that took place at the Capital Jewish Museum in D.C. The event took place 15 days after a gunman killed two Israeli Embassy employees — Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim — as they were leaving an event at the museum.
“Though we are winding down, this is not a time to back down. We recognize the deep importance of our mission and work amid attacks on Jewish people and LGBTQ people – and LGBTQ Jews at the intersection,” said A Wider Bridge in its letter. “Our board members remain committed to showing up in their individual capacities to represent queer Jews across diverse spaces — and we know our partners and supporters will continue to do the same.”
Editor’s note: Washington Blade International News Editor Michael K. Lavers traveled to Israel and Palestine with A Wider Bridge in 2016.
The White House
‘Trump Rx’ plan includes sharp cuts to HIV drug prices
President made announcement on Friday
President Donald Trump met with leaders from some of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies at the White House on Friday to announce his new “Trump Rx” plan and outline efforts to reduce medication costs for Americans.
During the roughly 47-minute meeting in the Roosevelt Room, Trump detailed his administration’s efforts to cut prescription drug prices and make medications more affordable for U.S. patients.
“Starting next year, American drug prices will come down fast, furious, and will soon be among the lowest in the developed world,” Trump said during the meeting. “For decades, Americans have been forced to pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs by far … We will get the lowest price of anyone in the world.”
Trump signed an executive order in May directing his administration “to do everything in its power to slash prescription drug prices for Americans while getting other countries to pay more.”
“This represents the greatest victory for patient affordability in the history of American health care, by far, and every single American will benefit,” he added.
Several pharmaceutical executives stood behind the president during the announcement, including Sanofi CEO Paul Hudson, Novartis CEO Vas Narasimhan, Genentech CEO Ashley Magargee, Boehringer Ingelheim (USA) CEO Jean-Michel Boers, Gilead Sciences CEO Dan O’Day, Bristol Myers Squibb General Counsel Cari Gallman, GSK CEO Emma Walmsley, Merck CEO Robert Davis, and Amgen Executive Vice President Peter Griffith.
Also in attendance were Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, and Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary.
Under the Trump Rx plan, the administration outlined a series of proposed drug price changes across multiple companies and therapeutic areas. Among them were reductions for Amgen’s cholesterol-lowering drug repatha from $573 to $239; Bristol Myers Squibb’s HIV medication reyataz from $1,449 to $217; Boehringer Ingelheim’s type 2 diabetes medication jentadueto from $525 to $55; Genentech’s flu medication xofluza from $168 to $50; and Gilead Sciences’ hepatitis C medication epclusa from $24,920 to $2,425.
Additional reductions included several GSK inhalers — such as the asthma inhaler advair diskus 500/50, from $265 to $89 — Merck’s diabetes medication januvia from $330 to $100, Novartis’ multiple sclerosis medication mayzent from $9,987 to $1,137, and Sanofi’s blood thinner plavix from $756 to $16. Sanofi insulin products would also be capped at $35 per month’s supply.
These prices, however, would only be available to patients who purchase medications directly through TrumpRx. According to the program’s website, TrumpRx “connects patients directly with the best prices, increasing transparency, and cutting out costly third-party markups.”
Kennedy spoke after Trump, thanking the president for efforts to lower pharmaceutical costs in the U.S., where evidence has shown that drug prices — including both brand-name and generic medications — are nearly 2.78 times higher than prices in comparable countries. According to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, roughly half of every dollar spent on brand-name drugs goes to entities that play no role in their research, development, or manufacturing.
“This is affordability in action,” Kennedy said. “We are reversing that trend and making sure that Americans can afford to get the life-saving solutions.”
Gilead CEO Dan O’Day also spoke about how the restructuring of drug costs under TrumpRx, combined with emerging technologies, could help reduce HIV transmission — a virus that, if untreated, can progress to AIDS. The LGBTQ community remains disproportionately affected by HIV.
“Thank you, Mr. President — you and the administration,” O’Day said. “I think this objective of achieving the commitment to affordability and future innovation is extraordinary … We just recently launched a new medicine that’s only given twice a year to prevent HIV, and we’re working with Secretary Kennedy and his entire team, as well as the State Department, as a part of your strategy to support ending the epidemic during your term.
“I’ve never been more optimistic about the innovation that exists across these companies and the impact this could have on America’s health and economy,” he added.
Trump interjected, asking, “And that’s working well with HIV?”
“Yes,” O’Day replied.
“It’s a big event,” Trump said.
“It literally prevents HIV almost 100 percent given twice a year,” O’Day responded.
A similar anti-HIV medication is currently prescribed more than injectable form mentioned by O’Day. PrEP, is a medication regimen proven to significantly reduce HIV infection rates for people at high risk. Without insurance, brand-name Truvada can cost roughly $2,000 per month, while a generic version costs about $60 per month.
Even when medication prices are reduced, PrEP access carries additional costs, including clinic and laboratory fees, office visits, required HIV and sexually transmitted infection testing, adherence services and counseling, and outreach to potentially eligible patients and providers.
According to a 2022 study, the annual total cost per person for PrEP — including medication and required clinical and laboratory monitoring — is approximately $12,000 to $13,000 per year.
The TrumpRx federal platform website is now live at TrumpRx.gov, but the program is not slated to begin offering reduced drug prices until January.
The White House
EXCLUSIVE: Democracy Forward files FOIA lawsuit after HHS deadnames Rachel Levine
Trans former assistant health secretary’s name changed on official portrait
Democracy Forward, a national legal organization that works to advance democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education, and regulatory engagement, filed a lawsuit Friday in federal court seeking to compel the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to release information related to the alteration of former Assistant Secretary for Health Adm. Rachel Levine’s official portrait caption.
The lawsuit comes in response to the slow pace of HHS’s handling of multiple Freedom of Information Act requests — requests that federal law requires agencies to respond to within 20 working days. While responses can take longer due to backlogs, high request volumes, or the need for extensive searches or consultations, Democracy Forward says HHS has failed to provide any substantive response.
Democracy Forward’s four unanswered FOIA requests, and the subsequent lawsuit against HHS, come days after someone in the Trump-Vance administration changed Levine’s official portrait in the Hubert H. Humphrey Building to display her deadname — the name she used before transitioning and has not used since 2011.
According to Democracy Forward, HHS “refused to release any records related to its morally wrong and offensive effort to alter former Assistant Secretary for Health Admiral Rachel Levine’s official portrait caption.” Levine was the highest-ranking openly transgender government official in U.S. history and served as assistant secretary for health and as an admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps from 2021 to 2025.
Democracy Forward President Skye Perryman spoke about the need to hold the Trump-Vance administration accountable for every official action, especially those that harm some of the most targeted Americans, including trans people.
“The question every American should be asking remains: what is the Trump-Vance administration hiding? For an administration that touts its anti-transgender animus and behavior so publicly, its stonewalling and silence when it comes to the people’s right to see public records about who was behind this decision is deafening,” Perryman said.
“The government’s obligation of transparency doesn’t disappear because the information sought relates to a trailblazing former federal official who is transgender. It’s not complicated — the public is entitled to know who is making decisions — especially decisions that seek to alter facts and reality, erase the identity of a person, and affect the nation’s commitment to civil rights and human dignity.”
“HHS’s refusal to respond to these lawful requests raises more serious concerns about transparency and accountability,” Perryman added. “The public has every right to demand answers — to know who is behind this hateful act — and we are going to court to get them.”
The lawsuit also raises questions about whether the alteration violated federal accuracy and privacy requirements governing Levine’s name, and whether the agency improperly classified the change as an “excepted activity” during a lapse in appropriations. By failing to make any determination or produce any records, Democracy Forward argues, HHS has violated its obligations under federal law.
The case, Democracy Forward Foundation v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The legal team includes Anisha Hindocha, Daniel McGrath, and Robin Thurston.
The Washington Blade reached out to HHS, but has not received any comment.
The lawsuit and four FOIA requests are below:
‘Dogs of Venice’ looks at love lost and rediscovered
A Wider Bridge to close
‘Trump Rx’ plan includes sharp cuts to HIV drug prices
Rehoboth’s Blue Moon is for sale but owners aim to keep it in gay-friendly hands
Comings & Goings
LGBTQ Democrats say they’re ready to fight to win in 2026
Brian Footer suspends campaign for Ward 1 D.C. Council seat
Lighting candles in a time of exhaustion
Why queer spaces often fail South Asian women
