Connect with us


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.”

Continue Reading


  1. adx

    May 4, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    Yeah, this is pretty comical by now because the conservatives/republicans are being some of the most manipulative weasels I’ve ever seen in my life. (I have nothing against republicans except their reactions to social issues, which are often monstrously anti-American.) The gay issue repeatedly brings out the worst in these conservatives, and it’s chilling enough that they act as if it’s the democrats who are reacting ideologically or emotionally on this issue: Think about that for a second. Just who is reacting IDEOLOGICALLY and EMOTIONALLY? — the anti-gay, period. That’s bad enough: Far worse is that Sensenbrenner comes off as uneducated when he refers to “sexual preference.” It’s called “orientation” and it’s inborn, and Sensenbrenner looks like an idiot, literally, when he (or anyone else like him) decides they’re going to be a stubborn “holdout” against prevailing medical opinion and the testimony of millions of gay people worldwide. When people question anorexia, depression or peanut allergies, particularly in kids, the parents go into defensive hysterics. It’s about time that we realize that questioning someone’s testimony on their own life and orientation is equally offensive and sickening.

  2. FlexSF

    May 4, 2011 at 8:54 pm

    Dear S.C. Christianist, bigot, Republican pervert, Gowdy, stop projecting your sexual fantasies with your daughter. The gays have better sexual practices than you and your pathetic Klan.

  3. Randy King

    May 5, 2011 at 8:50 am

    Pervert: An unusual or abnormal sexual act that is habitual

    Same-sex activity happens to be the very definition of what a pervert is; must you folks redefine every word in the English language just to lend the appearance of acceptability to your depravity?

  4. Patrick in Texas

    May 5, 2011 at 5:08 pm

    Randy, bigotry is a perversion. Look it up. You’re an anti-gay pervert. The depravity appears to be your homophobia. Nice try though. LOL!! That was easy.

  5. Thomas Alex

    May 9, 2011 at 7:00 pm

    “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.”

    Throwing around illogical comparisons only makes you that more ignorant.

  6. Thomas Alex

    May 9, 2011 at 7:01 pm

    ““Sexual preference has never been a protected class in any of our civil rights laws,” Sensenbrenner said.”

    But Sexual Orientation is, nice try at mixing up the words.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


N.C. lieutenant governor compares gays to cow feces, maggots

“If homosexuality is of God, what purpose does it serve? What does it make? What does it create? It creates nothing,” Robinson said



North Carolina Lt. Governor Mark Robinson (Blade file photo)

WINSTON-SALEM – Speaking to parishioners at the Berean Baptist Church in Winston-Salem last Sunday, November 14, North Carolina Lt. Governor Mark Robinson attacked the LGBTQ+ community in remarks caught on the church’s livestreaming video on YouTube.

Robinson said in his sermon that he questioned the “purpose” of being gay; said heterosexual couples are “superior” to gay couples; and that he didn’t want to explain to his grandchildren why two men are kissing if they see that on television the Charlotte Observer reported.

The state’s Republican Lt. Governor then went on to compare being gay to “what the cows leave behind” as well as maggots and flies, who he said all serve a purpose in God’s creation. “If homosexuality is of God, what purpose does it serve? What does it make? What does it create? It creates nothing,” Robinson said.

Democratic lawmakers expressed their outrage on Twitter:

According to the Observer, “The video was distributed Friday by a pastor at St. John’s Metropolitan Community Church in Raleigh, the day before the Transgender Day of Remembrance. A protest rally was held Friday in front of Robinson’s office, but organizers also read the names of transgender people who have been killed.

This man’s theology and religious practices are not only flawed and a perversion of the Christian tenets; he places countless people at risk of violent attacks and even murder every time he opens his mouth,” said Vance Haywood, senior pastor at St. John’s, in a statement.

Robinson is expected to run for the governor’s chair in 2024. In another video of the sermon captured the Lt. Governor ranting in transphobic terms his opinion of the Trans community:

North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson (Twitter Video)

Video of remarks made by North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson courtesy of the Charlotte Observer.

Continue Reading


LGBTQ elder care facilities open nationwide, but discrimination persists

Advocates say seniors face challenges despite groundbreaking advances



The Ariadne Getty Foundation Senior Housing facility opened this week in Los Angeles. (Blade file photo)

Marsha Wetzel, an out lesbian, shared her life with her partner of 30 years, Judith Kahn, at the couple’s home in Illinois until Kahn died in 2013 of colon cancer.

As is the case with some same-sex couples who never married, Kahn’s family took legal possession of the couple’s home several years later, forcing Wetzel, who suffered from severe arthritis, to move into the Glen St. Andrew Living Community, a retirement and assisted living facility in Niles, Ill.

According to a lawsuit filed on her behalf in 2016 by the LGBTQ litigation group Lambda Legal, when word got out that Wetzel was a lesbian after she disclosed her sexual orientation to a fellow resident, she was called homophobic slurs, spat on, and assaulted on several occasions by other residents of the facility. The lawsuit, which later resulted in a court ruling in Wetzel’s favor, charged that officials at the Glen St. Andrew facility illegally failed to take action to prevent Wetzel from being subjected to abuse and threats by fellow residents and retaliated against her when she complained.

Lambda Legal announced one year ago, on Nov. 20, 2020, that Wetzel passed away at the age of 73 of natural causes after a landmark 2018 appeals court ruling in her favor affirmed that residential facilities such as the one in which she lived are legally responsible for the safety of tenant residents.

“Marsha spent the rest of her days in a senior living community where she was out and affirmed,” said Lambda Legal attorney Karen Loewy, who represented Wetzel in the lawsuit.

Advocates for LGBTQ seniors were hopeful that the 2018 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruling in the Wetzel case would speed up the gradual but steady advances in the rights of LGBTQ elders in long-term care facilities and in society in general.

A short time later, the New York City-based national LGBTQ elder advocacy group SAGE expanded its programs providing cultural competency training for the nation’s long-term care residential facilities. And in some cities, including New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, LGBTQ specific retirement and long-term care facilities began to open to provide LGBTQ elders with a wide range of “wrap around” services in addition to a safe place to live.

But LGBTQ elder advocates were taken aback in October of this year when news surfaced that transgender U.S. Army veteran Lisa Oakley, 68, was denied placement in more than two-dozen long-term care facilities in Colorado in 2020 and earlier this year.

“When they found out I was transgender, a lot of the facilities didn’t want me,” Oakley told USA Today. “A lot of transgender people, I’m sure, face the same thing,” she said. “We’re humans, just like everybody else.” 

Oakley told other media outlets her ordeal in trying to gain admission to a residential care facility began in October 2020, when she became unable to care for herself due to complications from diabetes. Her first choice was a facility in her hometown in rural Craig, Colo., where she had lived for the previous 25 years. She believes that facility turned her down because of her gender identity.

A social worker who assisted in Oakley’s applications for long-term care facilities said the facility in Craig said Oakley would have to be placed in a private room, which was at the time unavailable, “because she still has her ‘boy parts’ and cannot be placed with a woman” in a shared room. 

Many other Colorado facilities to which Oakley applied for admission, according to social worker Cori Martin-Crawford, cited the COVID pandemic as the reason for not accepting new residents. But as COVID related restrictions began to subside, other facilities continued to deny Oakley admission.

With Martin-Crawford’s help, Oakley finally found a facility that is LGBTQ supportive in Grand Junction, Colo., which is nearly three hours away from her hometown of Craig, where she had hoped to remain.

LGBTQ activists expressed concern that the discrimination that Oakley faced took place in the state of Colorado, which has a state law that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Experts familiar with long-term care facilities for older adults have said many private elder care facilities can get around state LGBTQ nondiscrimination laws by claiming other reasons for turning down an LGBTQ person.

Michael Adams, the CEO of SAGE, told the Blade that the wide range of programs and initiatives put in place by SAGE and other groups advocating for LGBTQ elders in recent years have resulted in significant changes in support of LGBTQ seniors.

“It is the case now that in almost all states there are one or more elder care facilities that have been trained through our SAGECare program,” Adams said. “But it’s nowhere near what it needs to be,” he said. “It needs to be that there are welcoming elder care facilities in every single community in this country” for LGBTQ elders.

Adams was referring to the SAGE program started recently called SAGECare that arranges for employees and other officials at elder care facilities throughout the country to receive LGBTQ competency training. The facilities that participate in the program are designated “SAGECare credentialed,” and are included in SAGE database lists available to LGBTQ elders looking for a safe facility in which to reside.

SAGE spokesperson Christina Da Costa provided the Blade with data showing there have been 136,975 professionals trained at a total of 617 SAGECare credentialed organizations nationwide. Out of 617 organizations, 172 are residential communities. Also, out of the total of 617 are 167 Area Agencies on Aging, Aging and Disability Resource Centers, Senior Centers, and senior Ombudsman offices.

Da Costa said 278 of the credentialed entities that have received the SAGECare training throughout the country are “other aging focused nonprofit and for-profit businesses.”

According to SAGE, there are 12 SAGECare credentialed elder care facilities or service providers operating in the D.C. metropolitan area, with two located in D.C. One of the D.C. facilities is Ingleside at Rock Creek, located in Northwest D.C., which is a residential facility. The other is Options for Senior America, a company that provides in-home care services for seniors, including seniors living in D.C.

A SAGE list of the D.C.-area SAGECare credentialed facilities shows that three are in Rockville, Md.; two are in Gaithersburg, Md.; and one each are in Bethesda, Md.; Arlington, Va.; and Alexandria, Va. The list shows that one of them that provides services to elders in the D.C. area is based in North Carolina.

SAGE has a separate list of the 15 elder care residential facilities in the U.S. created specifically to serve LGBTQ residents. 

None are in D.C., Maryland, or Virginia. However, SAGE says it has been working in cooperation with Mary’s House for Older Adults, a D.C.-based LGBTQ organization that advocates for LGBTQ seniors and is in the process of opening LGBTQ elder residential facilities in D.C. and others in the surrounding suburbs.

Mary’s House founder and CEO Dr. Imani Woody couldn’t immediately be reached to determine when the organization expects to open its first residential facility. 

While a residential LGBTQ elder facility has yet to open in the D.C. area, activists note that in addition to Mary’s House, services and amenities for LGBTQ elders in the area are currently being provided by the D.C. Center for the LGBT Community and Whitman-Walker Health, the LGBTQ supportive health center, which also has a legal services branch.

Adams of SAGE said the Los Angeles LGBTQ Center opened the nation’s first LGBTQ elder residential facility over eight years ago called Triangle Square. He said the L.A. Center opened a second LGBTQ elder residential facility a short time later. And this week, the L.A. Center announced it has opened a third LGBTQ elder residential facility in Hollywood that is part of a larger “intergenerational campus” that will bring together LGBTQ seniors and LGBTQ youth. 

SAGE, meanwhile, operates two LGBTQ elder long-term care residential facilities in New York City, one in Brooklyn called the Stonewall House and one in the Bronx called Pride House. 

The other U.S. cities with LGBTQ elder residential facilities include: Philadelphia, Minneapolis, Chicago, Cleveland, San Francisco (which has two such facilities), San Diego, Houston, Fort Lauderdale, and Islip, N.Y.

Adams said the LGBTQ elder residential facilities range in size, with the largest – New York’s Stonewall House – having 143 apartments that can accommodate 200 residents. He said others vary from 40 or 50 residential units to 120.

Advocates for LGBTQ elders point to what they consider another important breakthrough for LGBTQ elders this year in the release of a joint SAGE-Human Rights Campaign Long-Term Care Equality Index report for 2021. Adams said the report is the first of what could become an annual report and rating and scorecard for long-term care elder residential facilities and other elder facilities. 

The 2021 report includes a self-reporting assessment of elder care facilities that the facilities themselves completed through a questionnaire in which many disclosed they have LGBTQ nondiscrimination policies for elders around admission to the facility and for practices by staff for those residing in their facilities.

The report includes a chart showing that 158 elder care facilities in 31 states responded positively to the outreach to them by organizers of the Long-Term Care Equality Index.

“We are thrilled to be working with SAGE and to be working with the Human Rights Campaign who are developing the Long-Term Care Equality Index,” said Nii-Quartelai Quartey, who serves as senior adviser and LGBTQ liaison for the American Association of Retired Persons or AARP.

“There is a great deal of work that we’re doing in the area of LGBTQ older adults nationwide,” Quartey told the Blade. “And AARP has been engaged with the LGBTQ community nationwide for many years now,” he said.

“In recent years, we’ve turned up the volume in working more closely with organizations like SAGE and Lambda Legal and the Victory Fund Institute, the Center for Black Equity, the National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance, and the Hispanic Federation.”

According to Quartey, a recent AARP study of LGBTQ elders called Maintaining Dignity shows that longstanding concerns of discrimination remain despite the many advances in support for LGBTQ seniors in recent years.

He said a survey that was part of the study found that 67 percent of the LGBTQ elders who responded, “were concerned about neglect in a long-term care setting.” Over 60 percent feared verbal or physical harassment in a long-term care setting and over half “felt forced to hide or deny their identity” as an LGBTQ person, Quartey said.

Another recent survey of LGBTQ elders conducted by SAGE asking them how they feel about the use of the word “queer” in descriptions of LGBTQ people yielded findings that came as a surprise to some, according to Adams. A large majority of those surveyed from across the country said they are “comfortable at this point using that word and reclaiming that word, which is different from what we had heard historically,” Adams said.

He said in response to those findings SAGE will now as an organization gradually shift to using the term LGBTQ instead of its past practice of using LGBT.

Although Congress has yet to pass the Equality Act, last year under the Trump Administration, Congress acted in a rare bipartisan way to approve the required five-year reauthorization of the U.S. Older Americans Act with new language supportive of LGBTQ older adults. President Trump signed the legislation.

The language includes a mandate for outreach to and reporting about services provided to LGBTQ older adults in federally funded programs. It also opens the way for LGBTQ older adults to be designated in a category of “greatest social need.” Under that category, older adults receive a higher priority in the allocation of resources by the federal government.

“We’ve come a long way, but we still have a way to go to get over the finish line,” said the AARP’s Quartey. “And aside from passing legislation federally and on the state and local level, we absolutely need to continue the hard work of changing hearts and minds,” he said.

Longtime gay activist and writer Brian McNaught, whose latest book, “On Being Gay and Gray – Our Stories, Gifts, and the Meaning of Our Lives,” was just released, says his own very informal survey of LGBTQ elders found there is a need for intimacy that may be too controversial for the establishment LGBTQ elder groups.

“I’m a SAGE volunteer and the 81-year-old man with whom I was working after his husband of 47 years died, said after his grieving process, ‘I want to be hugged and kissed. Does that make me a bad person?’”

McNaught told the Blade he assured the man those feelings do not make him a bad person. McNaught said the man’s comment prompted him to conduct further research, in which he found that some gay male elders in the Fort Lauderdale, Fla., area who often need assisted living support would like to patronize gay bathhouses or seek the services of an escort agency. He said he determined that any LGBTQ elder group providing such services would trigger “a huge uproar of protests” and most likely a loss of funding.

“We don’t want to talk about sexuality and aging,” McNaught said.

Continue Reading


Former VOA director nominated to head U.S. Agency for Global Media

Previous CEO’s actions threatened LGBTQ internet freedom



(Public domain photo)

President Biden on Monday nominated Amanda Bennett, the former head of Voice of America and Pulitzer Prize-winning author, investigative journalist and editor, to lead the U.S. Agency for Global Media.

“I am honored by this nomination,” Bennett told Voice of America. “If confirmed, I will be so proud to work with all the dedicated journalists at USAGM who are doing the critical and difficult work around the world of upholding and demonstrating the value of a free press.”

The agency operates independently from the U.S. government and oversees five different entities that include Voice of America, broadcasting platforms and the Open Technology Fund. The fund is an independent non-profit organization that focuses on advancing global internet freedom by providing internet access, digital privacy tutorials, privacy enhancement and security tools like encryption.

These tools have been integral in preserving internet freedom for LGBTQ people abroad, especially in places where it’s unsafe or illegal to be LGBTQ.

Bennett, 69, was named VOA director in 2016 and resigned from her post in June 2020 after conservative documentary filmmaker Michael Pack was confirmed as the agency’s CEO during the Trump administration.

Under Pack’s tenure, several technology freedom experts said the former CEO thwarted the Open Technology Fund’s efforts abroad by freezing funds. Pack also ignored a House subpoena for an oversight hearing that was meant for him to address mass firings, withholding congressionally approved funds and other questionable activities.

Pack stepped down at Biden’s request in January, and the president named Kelu Chao, a VOA veteran journalist, as Pack’s replacement and interim CEO.

Continue Reading

Follow Us @washblade

Sign Up for Blade eBlasts