Connect with us

homepage news

LBJ’s gay purge

Newly discovered documents shed light on 1960s-era White House scandal that led to ouster of 2 senior aides



LBJ, Lyndon B. Johnson, gay news, Washington Blade
Walter Wilson Jenkins, Walter Jenkins, LBJ, gay news, Washington Blade

President Lyndon B. Johnson requested the resignation of his longtime aide Walter Jenkins after he was arrested a second time for having sex at a YMCA near the White House, according to newly released documents. A second aide, who was revealed to be gay, was also ousted. (White House photo by Yoichi Okamoto)

President Lyndon B. Johnson’s longtime aide and White House special assistant Walter Jenkins, whose 1964 arrest for alleged “homosexual conduct” created an uproar in the midst of Johnson’s re-election campaign, revealed in a confidential memo that another longtime Johnson aide was accused of engaging in homosexual acts, according to documents released for the first time last month by the LBJ Library in Austin, Texas.

The newly released documents include an October 1964 draft memo attributed to Jenkins that reveals that a government background check discovered that White House secretary and Johnson family friend Robert “Bob” Waldron “had engaged in homosexual acts” in the recent past.

The Washington Blade obtained copies of the documents from the Mattachine Society of Washington, which spent months working with LBJ Library officials to identify and discover the documents from the library’s voluminous collections.

The group, which is headed by veteran gay rights advocate Charles Francis, has taken the name of the organization co-founded in the early 1960s by gay rights pioneer Frank Kameny as D.C.’s first gay rights group.

The recently revived version of the group specializes in obtaining government documents, long withheld from the public, that tell how thousands of gays were fired from federal jobs during the post-World War II era of anti-gay witch hunts.

Francis said he and Mattachine board member Pate Felts, with the help of the law firm McDermott, Will & Emery, which serves as pro bono counsel for the group, traveled to the LBJ Library to retrieve the documents with the full cooperation of library officials.

Charles Francis, Lyndon B. Johnson, gay news, Washington Blade

Charles Francis (left) and Pate Felts reviewing documents in the LBJ Library document reading room in Austin. (Photo courtesy Francis)

The Johnson White House at the time disclosed that Jenkins resigned from his job at Johnson’s request shortly after his 1964 arrest for allegedly having sex with a man in the men’s room at a YMCA facility located near the White House. An FBI report released as part of the LBJ documents, but that had been reported in the media earlier, says Jenkins had been arrested in 1959 on a similar “morals” charge at the same YMCA bathroom as the 1964 arrest.

A source who knew Waldron told the Washington Blade that Johnson also terminated Waldron from his White House position after Jenkins’ 1964 arrest, even though Waldron was never accused of wrongdoing and was never publicly identified as gay at the time he worked for Johnson. In addition to working at the White House as a presidential secretary he had been retained to perform similar duties for Johnson during Johnson’s tenure as Senate Majority Leader and U.S. vice president during the Kennedy administration.

Waldron states in an oral history released as part of the LBJ Library documents that he told friends and associates in 1964 that he decided to change careers and left his White House job voluntarily to enroll in an interior design school in New York. He became a nationally acclaimed interior decorator based in Washington, doing decorating work for prominent political figures for 26 years, and remained friends with the Johnson family.

He died in December 1995 of complications associated with AIDS at the age of 68.

“Every decorator in D.C. knew that Waldron was gay as did most of his clients,” said the source who knew him and who spoke to the Blade on condition of not being identified. “He most definitely was not a closeted gay man, nor did he make any attempt to hide his orientation.”

According to the source, unlike Jenkins, who was married with six children, Waldron was a lifelong bachelor. He regularly took on the role as escort at White House functions and on presidential trips abroad for another longtime Johnson administrative aide, Mary Margaret Wiley. But it was widely known that the relationship between the two was strictly platonic, the source and others who knew them have said.

Waldron, a native of Texas, says in his oral history that he attended Northwestern University to study court reporting and later attended “business school” in Texas. He says in his oral history that “nearing finishing a degree and no job I went to law school.” While finishing his second year at law school he says he accepted an offer in 1955 by Congressman Homer Thornberry (D-Texas) to take a job as administrative assistant in Thornberry’s congressional office in Washington. That job brought him to Washington, where he remained for the rest of his life.

It couldn’t be confirmed whether Waldron completed and graduated from any of the colleges or law school he attended. He states in his oral history that he had “no intensions of practicing” law.

Waldron stated in his oral history that he took notes at Johnson’s request as Johnson conferred with his inner circle advisers at the 1960 Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles when John F. Kennedy sent word that he would like Johnson to become his vice presidential running mate.

After Johnson accepted Kennedy’s offer, Johnson and his wife, Lady Bird Johnson, who became good friends with Waldron, invited Waldron and Wiley to join them on the convention stage along with Johnson and Kennedy’s family members and close friends as the Kennedy-Johnson ticket was introduced to tumultuous applause in the packed convention hall.

Waldron points out in his oral history that during nearly all of the years he worked for Johnson he remained on the payroll of Texas Congressman Homer Thornberry, who was a close Johnson friend and political associate.

“Homer I know called numerous times and said Bob is spending all of his time with you, why don’t you transfer him to your payroll?” the source that knew Waldron as well as Thornberry said. “And for whatever reason they just kept cajoling Thornberry to keep him on his payroll.”

The source speculated that one possible reason Johnson didn’t want to officially appoint Waldron to his staff was because he or Jenkins, who was in charge of hiring Johnson’s staff, were reluctant to directly hire someone who might be identified as gay.

Jenkins, meanwhile, had served on Johnson’s payroll beginning in 1939, shortly after Johnson won election as a congressman from Texas. Jenkins left the staff to serve in the Army during World War II before leaving the military as a major. At Johnson’s urging, he ran for a seat in the U.S. House in 1951, but lost his race. He later joined Johnson’s U.S. Senate staff and remained with Johnson during Johnson’s tenure as Senate Majority Leader, vice president and president.

Arrested at the YMCA

Among the newly released documents from the LBJ Library is a personal remembrance of Johnson from yet another longtime Johnson administrative staffer, Mildred Stegall, who worked for Johnson nearly as long as Jenkins had and worked closely with Jenkins.

“One of the saddest days of the president and my lives was the day President Johnson asked for Walter’s resignation due to reported misconduct,” Stegall wrote. “It was a tremendous loss because Walter was like the president’s right arm and the most valuable member of the staff and I think the most capable.”

Added Stegall, “I can’t begin to count the times the president asked me, ‘What do you think happened?’ My answer was always the same. ‘I simply do not know.’”

Stegall noted that Jenkins checked himself into George Washington University Hospital after his arrest, where doctors said he was suffering from exhaustion and emotional distress.

“I have always thought that Walter’s resignation was asked for too quickly,” she wrote. “Had he stayed in the hospital for several weeks with a reported nervous breakdown the matter might have blown over, but there was no way to know and the president took the only course he thought he could take.”

An FBI report on the Jenkins arrest, dated Oct. 22, 1964, says Johnson asked FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to arrange for a “full and complete investigation” when he learned of Jenkins’ arrest one week after it took place on Oct. 7 of that year.

The report says Jenkins, then 46, attended a party with his wife that day at the new offices of Newsweek magazine before the two left the party about 8 p.m. It says Jenkins planned to return to his White House office to work in the evening as he often did. But the report says he apparently decided to make a stop someplace else before returning to work.

“At 8:15 p.m. Mr. Jenkins was arrested in the basement men’s room of the YMCA Building, 1736 G Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., by officers of the Metropolitan Police Department,” the FBI report says. “Arrested at the same time for engaging in an indecent act with Mr. Jenkins was Andy Choka, a 60-year-old retired Army enlisted man.”

The report adds, “Mr. Jenkins made no attempt to hide his identity from the officers, willingly accompanied them and admitted to having been arrested one previous time on a morals charge. The previous arrest occurred shortly before 10:30 p.m. January 15, 1959, in the same basement men’s room of the YMCA. He was charged with loitering for indecent purposes.”

It says Jenkins was released following the 1959 arrest after posting and forfeiting $25 collateral. Following his 1964 arrest, he and Choka were released after each posted $50 collateral, the report says.

The report says an apparent miscommunication between D.C. police, the FBI and the U.S. Secret Service resulted in the White House not being informed of Jenkins’ 1959 arrest at the time Jenkins received his White House security clearance in 1961 when he began work for then-Vice President Johnson.

“Mr. Jenkins was interviewed by the FBI on Oct. 18, 1964, and admitted having engaged in the indecent acts for which he was arrested in 1959 and 1964, the report says. “He claimed that he had been ‘enticed’ by the arresting officer on the former occasion and that his mind was befuddled by fatigue, alcohol, physical illness and lack of food the latter time.”

The report says an extensive background investigation turned up no evidence that Jenkins compromised government secrets or acted in any way against the interests of the country or the government.

“A favorable appraisal of Mr. Jenkins’ loyalty and dedication to the United States was given the FBI by more than 300 of his associates, both business and social, representing divergent political backgrounds, who were interviewed in this investigation,” the report says.

Waldron ‘outed’ by Jenkins?

The FBI report had been released shortly after the investigation into Jenkins’ 1964 arrest. But the LBJ Library documents released to the Mattachine Society of Washington last month included for the first time several drafts of an internal memo that Jenkins reportedly prepared to “clarify” and take strong exception to some of the statements attributed to him in the FBI report.

Among other things, Jenkins said in all of the drafts of the memo that the FBI report could give the impression to some that he might have associated with people who may have engaged in homosexual conduct, even though the report didn’t say this directly.

“Never in my years of government employ, with one single and limited exception, did I associate with any person employed by any branch of the government, or any other office, whether employed by the government or otherwise – known to me to be a homosexual,” he stated in one of the drafts.

“The one exception,” Jenkins wrote, “is Mr. Bob Waldron. The relevant facts in his case are as follows: Mr. Waldron was employed by Congressman Homer Thornberry over a period of some years. From time to time he was loaned to the staff on which I was working because of his exceptional skill as a stenographer and typist,” Jenkins says in the draft memo.

He says at the time when Thornberry left Congress to become a federal judge, Waldron applied for a job with the National Aeronautics and Space Council and underwent a background check for that position.

“The field investigation of Mr. Waldron came to my attention, and it contained information alleging that Mr. Waldron had engaged in homosexual acts,” Jenkins wrote. “I did not know, and I do not know at this time, whether Mr. Waldron was or is in fact a homosexual, but I thought that the allegations were sufficient to warrant my recommending that Mr. Waldron’s application should be rejected. It was rejected.”

He states in his draft memo that the rejection of the application took place in January 1964.

“Thereafter, on a few occasions, I was present at large social gatherings where Mr. Waldron was also present,” the memo says. “This was the limit of my association with him after receiving the allegations described above. I reiterate that this is the sole exception to the categorical statement made above.”

What appears to be the final version of the Jenkins memo, dated Oct. 27, 1965 and which bears Jenkins’ name but not his signature, Waldron’s name is omitted. He is described only as a “person employed by a member of Congress” who from time to time was loaned to the staff where Jenkins worked – meaning Johnson’s staff.

The source who knew both Waldron and Jenkins believes Johnson and his White House legal advisers were clearly informed of the earlier draft that named Waldron as having been linked to “homosexual acts.” The source also thinks White House legal advisers may have played a role in drafting the memo for Jenkins.

Coming at the time of the Jenkins arrest, the source said Johnson and his advisers most likely decided to let Waldron go out of concern that he could have triggered yet another “homosexual” scandal at the White House.

Francis agrees with that assessment, saying Waldron, like Jenkins, became expendable despite his years of loyal service to Johnson.

Creating ‘revulsion’ among co-workers

Jenkins and Waldron’s departure from the White House came at a time when Kameny and his gay rights associates organized protests outside the White House calling for an end to the U.S. Civil Service Commission ban on gay civilian workers at all federal government agencies and departments.

Kameny’s correspondence to then-Civil Service Commission director John Macy prompted Macy to send Kameny his now infamous “revulsion” letter in which Macy said the Commission would not lift its ban on homosexual employees because such employees were sexual “deviates” and would create revulsion among their co-workers.

Lyndon B. Johnson, gay news, Washington Blade

John Macy, head of the U.S. Civil Service Commission in the 1960s, who referred to homosexuals as perverts and led efforts to fire gays from the federal workforce.

President Kennedy appointed Macy as head of the Civil Service Commission and Johnson retained him after assuming the presidency.

“The confidential Jenkins file safeguarded by Mildred Stegall shows how quickly a ‘bachelor’ family friend, who was as close as one could get to LBJ, could be transformed into a ‘sexual deviate’ and thrown overboard,” Francis said in discussing Waldron’s fate.

“Mainstream Johnson historians like Doris Kearns Goodwin and Robert Caro need to address the tumultuous investigations and destruction of gay and lesbian Americans beginning in the late 1940s and early 1950s and continuing and even intensifying through the Johnson years,” Francis said.

Others familiar with the Johnson administration have said the political realities of the time, especially the 1964 presidential election in which Johnson was running against Republican Barry Goldwater, made it impossible for Johnson to do anything other than jettison Jenkins and Waldron.

After Johnson left the White House in 1969 he and Lady Bird welcomed both Jenkins and Waldron to the LBJ Ranch in Texas and resumed his friendship with the two men.

Jenkins died in November 1985 at the age of 67 from a stroke.

Bill Moyers, one of Johnson’s presidential press secretaries and a longtime Johnson staffer, appeared to sum up the views of those who knew and worked closely with Jenkins during the Johnson years in a 1999 interview with Out magazine.

“When they come to canonize political aides [Jenkins] will be the first summoned, for no man ever negotiated the shark-infested waters of the Potomac with more decency or charity or came out on the other side with his integrity less shaken,” Moyers said. “If Lyndon Johnson owed everything to one human being other than Lady Bird, he owed it to Walter Jenkins.”

Moyers questioned in Jenkins case

classified_security_file_insertAnother of the LBJ Library documents released last month to the Mattachine Society of Washington is a Jan. 15, 1965 letter from J. Edgar Hoover to President Johnson informing Johnson that an FBI agent one week earlier heard a “rumor” that [presidential advisor Bill] Moyers posted the $25 bond for Jenkins’ release in connection with Jenkins’ 1959 arrest at the YMCA.

The rumor was that an unidentified D.C. police sergeant “knew” that Moyers posted the bond, Hoover said.

“Without making any open inquiry into the matter, it has been discreetly determined that copies of collateral receipts maintained by the Metropolitan Police Department have been destroyed and there is no way to determine by documentary evidence who, if anyone other than Mr. Jenkins, posted collateral for him in connection with his arrest on Jan. 15, 1959,” Hoover told Johnson.

“The above is being furnished for your information and no investigation to identify and interview the unnamed sergeant will be conducted in the absence of a specific request from you,” Hoover wrote in his letter.

The documents released by the LBJ Library to Mattachine Society do not include a reply by Johnson to Hoover’s letter.

“[T]his is a rumor and totally unfounded in fact,” Moyers replied in a Jan. 18, 1965 letter to Hoover. “I was attending Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, at the time,” Moyers states in his letter. “I was not in Washington on any date between 1954 and January, 1960,” Moyer said, adding, “I have never posted bond for Mr. Jenkins or, for that matter, anyone else.”

Moyers, who later became a nationally known journalist, couldn’t immediately be reached by the Blade for comment on the Hoover letter.

LBJ, Lyndon B. Johnson, gay news, Washington Blade

President Lyndon B. Johnson rekindled his friendship with two former aides who were ousted in gay scandals, but only after he left office. (White House photo by Arnold Newman)

Continue Reading

homepage news

New Supreme Court term includes critical LGBTQ case with ‘terrifying’ consequences

Business owner seeks to decline services for same-sex weddings



The U.S. Supreme Court is to set consider the case of 303 Creative, which seeks to refuse design services for same-sex weddings. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Supreme Court, after a decision overturning Roe v. Wade that still leaves many reeling, is starting a new term with justices slated to revisit the issue of LGBTQ rights.

In 303 Creative v. Elenis, the court will return to the issue of whether or not providers of custom-made goods can refuse service to LGBTQ customers on First Amendment grounds. In this case, the business owner is Lorie Smith, a website designer in Colorado who wants to opt out of providing her graphic design services for same-sex weddings despite the civil rights law in her state.

Jennifer Pizer, acting chief legal officer of Lambda Legal, said in an interview with the Blade, “it’s not too much to say an immeasurably huge amount is at stake” for LGBTQ people depending on the outcome of the case.

“This contrived idea that making custom goods, or offering a custom service, somehow tacitly conveys an endorsement of the person — if that were to be accepted, that would be a profound change in the law,” Pizer said. “And the stakes are very high because there are no practical, obvious, principled ways to limit that kind of an exception, and if the law isn’t clear in this regard, then the people who are at risk of experiencing discrimination have no security, no effective protection by having a non-discrimination laws, because at any moment, as one makes their way through the commercial marketplace, you don’t know whether a particular business person is going to refuse to serve you.”

The upcoming arguments and decision in the 303 Creative case mark a return to LGBTQ rights for the Supreme Court, which had no lawsuit to directly address the issue in its previous term, although many argued the Dobbs decision put LGBTQ rights in peril and threatened access to abortion for LGBTQ people.

And yet, the 303 Creative case is similar to other cases the Supreme Court has previously heard on the providers of services seeking the right to deny services based on First Amendment grounds, such as Masterpiece Cakeshop and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. In both of those cases, however, the court issued narrow rulings on the facts of litigation, declining to issue sweeping rulings either upholding non-discrimination principles or First Amendment exemptions.

Pizer, who signed one of the friend-of-the-court briefs in opposition to 303 Creative, said the case is “similar in the goals” of the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation on the basis they both seek exemptions to the same non-discrimination law that governs their business, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, or CADA, and seek “to further the social and political argument that they should be free to refuse same-sex couples or LGBTQ people in particular.”

“So there’s the legal goal, and it connects to the social and political goals and in that sense, it’s the same as Masterpiece,” Pizer said. “And so there are multiple problems with it again, as a legal matter, but also as a social matter, because as with the religion argument, it flows from the idea that having something to do with us is endorsing us.”

One difference: the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation stemmed from an act of refusal of service after owner, Jack Phillips, declined to make a custom-made wedding cake for a same-sex couple for their upcoming wedding. No act of discrimination in the past, however, is present in the 303 Creative case. The owner seeks to put on her website a disclaimer she won’t provide services for same-sex weddings, signaling an intent to discriminate against same-sex couples rather than having done so.

As such, expect issues of standing — whether or not either party is personally aggrieved and able bring to a lawsuit — to be hashed out in arguments as well as whether the litigation is ripe for review as justices consider the case. It’s not hard to see U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts, who has sought to lead the court to reach less sweeping decisions (sometimes successfully, and sometimes in the Dobbs case not successfully) to push for a decision along these lines.

Another key difference: The 303 Creative case hinges on the argument of freedom of speech as opposed to the two-fold argument of freedom of speech and freedom of religious exercise in the Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation. Although 303 Creative requested in its petition to the Supreme Court review of both issues of speech and religion, justices elected only to take up the issue of free speech in granting a writ of certiorari (or agreement to take up a case). Justices also declined to accept another question in the petition request of review of the 1990 precedent in Smith v. Employment Division, which concluded states can enforce neutral generally applicable laws on citizens with religious objections without violating the First Amendment.

Representing 303 Creative in the lawsuit is Alliance Defending Freedom, a law firm that has sought to undermine civil rights laws for LGBTQ people with litigation seeking exemptions based on the First Amendment, such as the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.

Kristen Waggoner, president of Alliance Defending Freedom, wrote in a Sept. 12 legal brief signed by her and other attorneys that a decision in favor of 303 Creative boils down to a clear-cut violation of the First Amendment.

“Colorado and the United States still contend that CADA only regulates sales transactions,” the brief says. “But their cases do not apply because they involve non-expressive activities: selling BBQ, firing employees, restricting school attendance, limiting club memberships, and providing room access. Colorado’s own cases agree that the government may not use public-accommodation laws to affect a commercial actor’s speech.”

Pizer, however, pushed back strongly on the idea a decision in favor of 303 Creative would be as focused as Alliance Defending Freedom purports it would be, arguing it could open the door to widespread discrimination against LGBTQ people.

“One way to put it is art tends to be in the eye of the beholder,” Pizer said. “Is something of a craft, or is it art? I feel like I’m channeling Lily Tomlin. Remember ‘soup and art’? We have had an understanding that whether something is beautiful or not is not the determining factor about whether something is protected as artistic expression. There’s a legal test that recognizes if this is speech, whose speech is it, whose message is it? Would anyone who was hearing the speech or seeing the message understand it to be the message of the customer or of the merchants or craftsmen or business person?”

Despite the implications in the case for LGBTQ rights, 303 Creative may have supporters among LGBTQ people who consider themselves proponents of free speech.

One joint friend-of-the-court brief before the Supreme Court, written by Dale Carpenter, a law professor at Southern Methodist University who’s written in favor of LGBTQ rights, and Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment legal scholar at the University of California, Los Angeles, argues the case is an opportunity to affirm the First Amendment applies to goods and services that are uniquely expressive.

“Distinguishing expressive from non-expressive products in some contexts might be hard, but the Tenth Circuit agreed that Smith’s product does not present a hard case,” the brief says. “Yet that court (and Colorado) declined to recognize any exemption for products constituting speech. The Tenth Circuit has effectively recognized a state interest in subjecting the creation of speech itself to antidiscrimination laws.”

Oral arguments in the case aren’t yet set, but may be announced soon. Set to defend the state of Colorado and enforcement of its non-discrimination law in the case is Colorado Solicitor General Eric Reuel Olson. Just this week, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would grant the request to the U.S. solicitor general to present arguments before the justices on behalf of the Biden administration.

With a 6-3 conservative majority on the court that has recently scrapped the super-precedent guaranteeing the right to abortion, supporters of LGBTQ rights may think the outcome of the case is all but lost, especially amid widespread fears same-sex marriage would be next on the chopping block. After the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against 303 Creative in the lawsuit, the simple action by the Supreme Court to grant review in the lawsuit suggests they are primed to issue a reversal and rule in favor of the company.

Pizer, acknowledging the call to action issued by LGBTQ groups in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, conceded the current Supreme Court issuing the ruling in this case is “a terrifying prospect,” but cautioned the issue isn’t so much the makeup of the court but whether or not justices will continue down the path of abolishing case law.

“I think the question that we’re facing with respect to all of the cases or at least many of the cases that are in front of the court right now, is whether this court is going to continue on this radical sort of wrecking ball to the edifice of settled law and seemingly a goal of setting up whole new structures of what our basic legal principles are going to be. Are we going to have another term of that?” Pizer said. “And if so, that’s terrifying.”

Continue Reading

homepage news

Kelley Robinson, a Black, queer woman, named president of Human Rights Campaign

Progressive activist a veteran of Planned Parenthood Action Fund



Kelley Robinson (Screen capture via HRC YouTube)

Kelley Robinson, a Black, queer woman and veteran of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, is to become the next president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s leading LGBTQ group announced on Tuesday.

Robinson is set to become the ninth president of the Human Rights Campaign after having served as executive director of Planned Parenthood Action Fund and more than 12 years of experience as a leader in the progressive movement. She’ll be the first Black, queer woman to serve in that role.

“I’m honored and ready to lead HRC — and our more than three million member-advocates — as we continue working to achieve equality and liberation for all Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer people,” Robinson said. “This is a pivotal moment in our movement for equality for LGBTQ+ people. We, particularly our trans and BIPOC communities, are quite literally in the fight for our lives and facing unprecedented threats that seek to destroy us.”

Kelley Robinson IS NAMED as The next human rights Campaign president

The next Human Rights Campaign president is named as Democrats are performing well in polls in the mid-term elections after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, leaving an opening for the LGBTQ group to play a key role amid fears LGBTQ rights are next on the chopping block.

“The overturning of Roe v. Wade reminds us we are just one Supreme Court decision away from losing fundamental freedoms including the freedom to marry, voting rights, and privacy,” Robinson said. “We are facing a generational opportunity to rise to these challenges and create real, sustainable change. I believe that working together this change is possible right now. This next chapter of the Human Rights Campaign is about getting to freedom and liberation without any exceptions — and today I am making a promise and commitment to carry this work forward.”

The Human Rights Campaign announces its next president after a nearly year-long search process after the board of directors terminated its former president Alphonso David when he was ensnared in the sexual misconduct scandal that led former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to resign. David has denied wrongdoing and filed a lawsuit against the LGBTQ group alleging racial discrimination.

Kelley Robinson, Planned Parenthood, Cathy Chu, SMYAL, Supporting and Mentoring Youth Advocates and Leaders, Amy Nelson, Whitman-Walker Health, Sheroes of the Movement, Mayor's office of GLBT Affairs, gay news, Washington Blade
Kelley Robinson, seen here with Cathy Chu of SMYAL and Amy Nelson of Whitman-Walker Health, is the next Human Rights Campaign president. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
Continue Reading

Eastern Europe

Former Ambassador Daniel Baer explains it all on Ukraine crisis

Expert downplays strategic thinking behind Putin’s move



Daniel Baer, United States Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, gay news, Washington Blade
Daniel Baer served as U.S. ambassador to the Organization for Security & Cooperation in Europe. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Daniel Baer, who worked on LGBTQ human rights and transatlantic issues as one of several openly gay U.S. ambassadors during the Obama administration, answered questions from the Washington Blade on Ukraine as the international crisis continues to unfold.

Topics during the interview, which took place weeks ago on Jan. 27, included Putin’s motivation for Russian incursions, the risk of outright war, predictions for Russia after Putin and how the crisis would affect LGBTQ people in Ukraine.

Baer was deputy assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor and U.S. ambassador to the Organization of Security & Cooperation in Europe.

The full interview follows:

Washington Blade: What’s your level of engagement with this affair? Are you doing any consulting work? Is the administration reaching out to you at all?

Daniel Baer: I actually think the White House is doing a pretty good job of recognizing that they need to not only have press conferences, but also talk to other people who are trying to figure out how to be constructive critics, idea generators from the outside.

Blade: OK, so you’re being solicited and engaging on this issue. My next question for you is why do you think Putin is doing this at this time?

Baer: So, I guess taking a step back from the whole thing, one of the things about a problem like this is that everybody is searching for the right answer assuming that there is a like comfortable or compelling or intellectually accurate answer, and I actually think we’re just in a really hard moment.

I don’t know why he’s doing it now. And in fact, I think that one of the puzzles that we haven’t solved yet is that all the things that he says are the reasons that he’s doing it — that he feels encirclement by NATO, … or that the situation in Ukraine is untenable — none of those things have changed. Setting aside the fact that they’re spurious, it’s not like there’s been some new move in the last 12 months that has precipitated [a reaction] on any of those fronts that you can say, “Oh, well, he’s responding to the recent meeting where Ukraine was offered membership in NATO, or he’s responding to a change in government in Ukraine that it’s clearly anti-Russia, or any other move that we’ve done.” The explanation just doesn’t hold water, and so I think we need to look for alternative ones.

The best I can come up with is actually just a broad — it doesn’t actually explain this particular moment, but I think you could look at the timing of his life. He has, I don’t know, 10 years left. And during those 10 years, it’s unlikely that Russia is going to grow more powerful; it’s much more likely that it’s going to become at least relatively and probably nominally less powerful. And so, if you’re unhappy with the status quo, and you feel like you’re a declining power, and you don’t have endless time, there’s no time like the present. And you’ll make up whatever reasons you need to in order to justify it.

I also think there’s a tendency on our part to attribute far more “strategery” to Putin than there necessarily is. I mean, he’s a bully and a thug. I think the whole Putin’s playing chess and we’re playing checkers is actually completely inverted. We’re in our own heads that there’s some kind of nuanced position that would mollify him. He’s just a gangster and he’s taking a punch because he has one. And I don’t think it gets much more complicated than that. And so, I guess the answer to why he’s doing this now, because the international conditions are such that he feels like the United States is focused domestically, the Ukrainians are not moving forward with succeeding to build — they’re kind of in stasis on building a European state— and he has, you know, he has the space to take a punch, so he’s contemplating doing it, or he’s already decided to do it. And he’s just extracting as much as possible before he takes it.

Blade: That leads me to my next question: What is your judgement of the risk of out and out war?

Baer: I don’t know because I have two hypotheses that cut both ways. One is that I think Putin is vastly underestimating the degree of resistance. On the other hand, I think that nothing short of domination is satisfactory. And so, I don’t know. I guess I think there’s a 90 percent chance that he does something, and I think there’s a 75 percent chance that what he does is not an all out invasion or ground invasion, at least not at first, but rather something that is aimed at confusing us. So some sort of hybrid or staged or false flag kind of attack in tandem with a political coup in Kiev, where he works to install a more Russia-loyal leader.

The thing with the ground invasion is that Russian soldiers’ moms are one of the only, like, powerful political forces in civil society in Russia. I just don’t see any way that a ground invasion doesn’t involve massive Russian casualties, even if they will be dominant. The people who are going to impose the consequences on him will be the Ukrainians, not the rest of us, and he should not invade, and if he does, we should, frankly, work hard to make it as painful and difficult for him as possible.

Blade: What will that look like?

Baer: I think we should at that point continue — we shouldn’t pause, we should continue to send the defensive equipment and backfill as much as possible their ability from an equipment basis to resist.

Blade: So if we were to look at a model for past U.S. engagements. I’m thinking Greece under President Truman, which was so successful that nobody really knows about it, I don’t think. Is there any model we should be looking toward, or not looking toward?

Baer: No, I guess. I’m not sure there’s any good historical model because obviously, any of them you can pick apart. I do think that one thing that has gotten lost in a lot of the analysis — and this goes back to Putin being a gangster thug, and not being such a genius — is there’s a moral difference between us. The reason why Putin gets to control the dialogue is because he’s willing to do things that we aren’t willing to do — as gangsters are, as hostage-takers are — and so yes, they get to set the terms of what we discussed, because we’re not holding hostages. We’re trying to get hostages released. And the hostage-taker has an upper hand and asymmetry because they are willing to do something that is wrong.

We shouldn’t lose the kind of moral difference there. Nor should we lose sight of the fact that Ukraine is being menaced. And I’m not saying it’s our obligation [to intervene militarily], certainly not our obligation. They aren’t a treaty ally. We have neither a political obligation nor a moral one to necessarily risk our own lives, our own soldiers in defense of Ukraine. But if Ukraine wants to defend themselves, there’s a strong moral case to be made that anything, short of risking our own lives, is something that is morally good. We generally believe that self-defense from lethal threat is a reasonable moral cause and assisting others in defending themselves is too — I think there’s a lot of back and forth that get glossed over whether that’s a provocation or whatever, and I want to say to people stand back, look at this: we’ve got one party that is attacking another. And the question is, does the other have a right to defend itself? Yes. And if they have a right to defend themselves, and they also have a right to have whatever assistance people will offer them in defending themselves.

That doesn’t mean that they get to demand that we show up and fight in the trenches with them, of course, and I don’t think there’s any serious people who are recommending that but it’s a good thing to help them. It’s not like a technical thing. It’s a good thing to help

Blade: Getting into that moral background, one thing I want to ask you was about the significance of what would happen in this concept of democracy versus autocracy. First of all, how much is Ukraine a functional democracy, in the sense that if we’re defending Ukraine, we are defending a democracy, and what signal do you think it would send if that Ukrainian government fell to Russian autocracy?

Baer: I think the institutions of government that the Ukrainian people have are not worthy of the Ukrainian people’s own demonstrated commitment …

They are not worthy of the Ukrainian people’s own demonstrated commitment to the idea of democratic institutions. So the answer is today’s Ukrainian government is a mixed bag and it’s very hard to build, on the rot of a Russian fiefdom, a functioning democracy, so I think it’s a mixed bag. I don’t want to sound like I’m minimizing [the changes], or that they’ve completely bungled an easy project. It was always going to be a hard project, and it was never going to be linear.

But I think that what we’ve seen from the Ukrainian people — by which I mean not Ukrainian people, but people of Ukraine — is that there is a broad part of society that a) does not want to live under a Russian thumb and b) sees its future in kind of European style democracy. And so I think that if there was, there’s no question that the Russian attack would be in part about subjugating the people of Ukraine and forcing them to live under some sort of new Russian satellite. And I think that there’s little space for serious argument that that’s something that the people of the country wish to have.

Blade: But I’m just kind of getting at — you’re kind of minimizing that this is a strategic move by Putin, but if he were to successfully dominant Ukraine it becomes a Russian satellite isn’t that saying like, “Well, ha ha West, you thought the Cold War was over and there’s going to be just be a unipolar world in the future but no, we’re gonna we have this we’re back and we’re gonna create a multipolar world for the future.”

Baer: Yeah, I mean, my answer to the Russians who always raise the multipolar world to me is, “Fine, it’s going to be a multipolar world. What makes you think that Russia is one of the poles?” Poles by definition draw people to them, they are compelling and a pole attracts, magnetically or otherwise, and there is nothing attractive about the model that Russia is pursuing. And if the only way that you can be a pole is by subjugating, to force your neighbors, you are proving that you are not one.

I think the benefits for Russia are far smaller than Putin thinks and I think the consequences for the rest of the world of allowing a violation of international order to go forward are much larger than many people recognize.

Blade: But that was their approach when they were the Soviet Union. They were subjugating the Eastern Bloc through Russian force. They did have, in theory, the concept of their worldview of you know, of socialism, or whatever you want to put it charitably, was going to be the right way to go. Is there really that much of a difference?

Baer: Yeah, however disingenuous it was, they did have an ideology . So you’re right, that was a key distinction. The other thing is that the Soviet Union in relative size — its economy and population etc. — was much larger than Russia is today. And Russia is shrinking, and its economy is less diverse than the Communist one was. I think it’s a delusion to think that they’re going to kind of rebuild an empire, even if yes, because of their willingness to do awful things, they could potentially for a time politically control through violence, their neighbors. I just don’t — in a multipolar world, I don’t see Russia being one of the poles, at least not on its current path.

Blade: How would you evaluate the U.S. diplomatic approach to this issue?

Baer: There’s been very clear over-the-top effort to include the Europeans at every step — meetings with them before each meeting and after each meeting, to force conversations into fora that are more inclusive and stuff like that. And I think that Secretary Blinken is rightly recognizing the need to kind of play a role of kind of keeping everybody on the side while we test whether diplomacy whether there’s anything to do, whether there’s any promise with diplomacy.

I think there’s kind of, sometimes kind of, two camps in U.S. foreign policy circles. One is like: We should give the Russians what they want because it just doesn’t matter that much. War is much worse than anything that we would give them. And another is that we can’t give them an inch and we have to punch them in the face whenever we can. And I think both of those are kind of knee-jerk positions that have become a bit religious for people and neither of them is paying attention to the practical challenge that’s in front of the administration, which is like this guy’s threatening to invade and we need to identify whether there’s any opportunity for a functional off ramp, and that doesn’t mean we do that in a vacuum and ignore the long-term consequences, but our problem is not a religious one, it’s a practical one. And I think they’re doing a pretty good job of threading the needle on that and being not too far forward and not too far back.

Blade: Do you see any significant daylight between the United States and Europe?

Baer: No, I mean, no more than the minimum that is possible. There’s a lot of talk about Germany these days. Look, I think some of the things they say are not particularly helpful, but I don’t actually think that in the long run, if Putin invaded, I don’t think that they would hold up sanctions or anything like that. So I think they’re on our side, even if they’re talking out of both sides, in some cases.

Blade: I am wise to the fact that this is a nuclear power. It might be a little old school, but could escalation get that far?

Baer: There can’t be war. There can’t be war between NATO and Russia. It should be avoided. Obviously, there can be, but it should be avoided.

Blade: How committed do you think President Biden is to protecting Ukraine?

Baer: Reasonably so. I think he’s enough of an old school trans-Atlantist that he understands that this isn’t just about Ukraine.

Blade: I was wondering because he had those comments from his press conference about “minor incursion” and I’m just wondering if you’re reading anything into that or not.

Baer: No, I think that was that was a — I think broadly speaking, everything he says is in line with the kind of view that you would expect. And of course, one sentence can catch [attention]. That wasn’t what he meant. What he meant was that he didn’t want to draw a “red line” that would prejudge policy in response to something short of the most extreme scenario.

I think it is a good caution to not obsess over a single sentence and to look at the broad considered policy statements.

Blade: What do you think if you were looking for developments, like what would you be looking out for is significant in terms of where we are going to be going in the near future? This is one thing to keep an eye out for but is there anything else that you are kind of looking out for in terms of the near future?

Baer: I guess I would look out for whether or not the United States joins meetings of the so-called Normandy Format, which is the France, Germany, Ukraine and Russia grouping, which has so far been unsuccessful, but I think can only be successful as the United States joins it, but the Russians, I think have misgivings with the idea of our joining it.

Blade: I’m not at all familiar with that. What makes this forum particularly so —

Baer: So it was started in the summer in like June of 2015, on the margins of some meeting between Merkel and Hollande. The French and the Germans are very committed to the idea that they might be able to mediate peace between Ukraine and Russia. It was supposed to implement the Minsk Agreement, and it just hasn’t been productive so far. I don’t think that the Russians will do anything — I don’t think the Ukrainians feel comfortable negotiating anything without the Americans at the table. And I don’t think the Russians feel like anything is guaranteed without the Americans at the table. So I just, I’m fine with France and Germany taking the lead, but I think the U.S. has to be there.

And there was a meeting of this group in Paris yesterday, and which the U.S. was supportive of, and so I’m watching to see whether or not the United States gets added in some ad hoc way, whether there are future meetings. I guess the reason I would watch it, if the U.S. were to join future meetings that would signal to me that it’s actually there’s some diplomacy happening there.

That’s meant to be focusing mainly on the existing Russian invasion, the occupation of the Donbas, so that’s not about the threat of the new invasion, but it would be interesting to me if there was forward movement on other parts of Ukraine. The announcement of the American ambassador is one. I think that last week movement of troops into Belarus was a game changer for the U.S., because there are all kinds of new implications if you’re using a third country as your launchpad for war, and so it complicates things and it also looks more serious if you’re starting to deploy to third countries and stuff like that. So I think that was that last week, you noticed a difference in the U.S. tone and tenor in response to that.

So things like that. But in general, like what I would do and I don’t think people always catch this is because there’s a boiling frog aspect to it. There are statements coming out from the White House or State Department. Almost every day on stuff related to this and like last week, there was a noticeable change in the tenor as the U.S. became less, I think more pessimistic about the prospects of diplomacy and those I don’t have anything better to look for in those statements as tea leaves, in terms of what the U.S. assessment is of the prospects of the escalation are, so it’s bad.

Blade: Right. That’s very sobering.

There’s a lot of talk, and I’ve just been seeing some like about in terms of, there’s like comparisons to Afghanistan and making sure that all Americans are able to get out of Ukraine. Is that comparing apples to oranges?

Baer: Yes.

Blade: And could you unpack that a little bit? I mean, I can kind of guess the reasons why. How is that apples to oranges?

Blade: Well, the level of development in Ukraine in terms of infrastructure and transport and stuff like that is not comparable to Afghanistan. I think it would be– if there were a Russian invasion–you would definitely want to, obviously, for safety reasons, it’s not safe to be in a war zone, so you would want people to be able to evacuate and you’d have to plan for that.

A major concern [in Afghanistan] was also that there were tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of locals who had worked for the Americans. The Americans that are in Ukraine are not a departing occupying power. There’s just not the same footprint there — the Americans are in Ukraine or there as business people or young [people working on] democracy assistance or whatever. And it’s just it’s a different context.

Blade: Why do you think the Russians put up with Putin? I mean, this is a country that was a world power and I would think has some economic potential just given its sheer size, first of all, and they do have oil to offer people. So why aren’t the Russians like angry at him for obstructing their participation in the global order as opposed to just putting up with him for years and years and years.

Baer: Successful instrumentalisation of cynicism. The lack of a belief in an alternative will keep you from fighting for it.

Blade: That’s pretty succinct.

Baer: I mean, I don’t think there’s any question that the people of Russia could be better off or different in terms of kitchen table issues, and ease of navigating the world, prospects for their future for their children’s future. The amount of money that Putin has invested into military modernization that Russia can ill afford, while he’s cut pensions and social services and health care. It’s just it’s objectively true that the average Russian person would be better served by a different leader. But he’s done a very good job of effectively selling off the country for profit and persuading people through repression and propaganda that there is no alternative.

Blade: And Putin won’t be around forever. Once he finally goes, is an alternative going to emerge, or will it be the next guy in Putin’s mold?

Baer: I think it’s far from clear that what comes after Putin isn’t worse and bloody. Regimes like this don’t reliably have stable transitions.

Blade: Wow, okay.

Baer: Yeah, we shouldn’t… we should be careful about wishing… wishing for his demise.

Blade: That’s good to know. It’s kind of a frightful note for me to end my questions. But actually before I sign off, there’s one more thing too because I do kind of want to talk about the intersection about your old job in democracy and human rights and then a Venn diagram of that with your experience in Eastern Europe in particular. Do you have a sense of what’s at stake for LGBTQ people in Ukraine or if they’re in more danger right now than they would be otherwise?

Baer: That’s a good question. I mean, my knee jerk reaction is yes. That — as mixed of a picture as Ukraine has been in the last seven years, or eight years — there have been meaningful steps forward, and certainly, in terms of visibility.

I guess, in the sense that Ukraine is better than Russia today, if you’re gay, if Russia is going to occupy or control Ukraine we can expect that it will get worse because it will become more like Russia.

Continue Reading

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast


Follow Us @washblade