Showing posts with label Trump Anti LGBT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trump Anti LGBT. Show all posts

January 4, 2019

Trump Admin Considers A Rollback to Cancel All Civil Anti Discrimination Laws








The Trump administration is considering a far-reaching rollback of civil rights law that would dilute federal rules against discrimination in education, housing and other aspects of American life, people familiar with the discussions said.

A recent internal Justice Department memo directed senior civil rights officials to examine how decades-old “disparate impact” regulations might be changed or removed in their areas of expertise, and what the impact might be, according to people familiar with the matter. Similar action is being considered at the Education Department and is underway at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Under the concept of disparate impact, actions can amount to discrimination if they have an uneven effect even if that was not the intent, and rolling back this approach has been a longtime goal of conservative legal thinkers. Past Republican administrations have done little to erode the concept’s application, partly out of concerns that the Supreme Court might disagree, or that such changes would be unpopular and viewed as racist.

Civil rights advocates said diminishing this tool could have sweeping consequences.

“Disparate impact is a bedrock principle,” said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “Through the courts, we’ve been able to marshal data and use the disparate-impact doctrine as a robust tool for ferreting out discrimination.”

In New York, a lawsuit alleges that a large apartment complex in Queens will not rent to anyone with a criminal record, and that this has the effect of discriminating against African American and Latino renters. The suit is pending, relying on disparate impact to make the case.

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker listens as President Trump speaks at a roundtable discussion of the Federal Commission on School Safety Report. A Justice Department memo asks senior civil rights officials to assess the impact of removing decades-old “disparate impact” regulations. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

In Maryland, civil rights groups complained to the federal government after the state shifted transportation money from a light-rail project that would have helped mostly African American residents of Baltimore. The money instead went to bridge and road projects that served mostly white residents elsewhere in the state. A Transportation Department investigation into the matter was closed this summer.


In education, the Obama administration reached settlements with school systems such as the one in Lodi, Calif., where an investigation found widespread disparities in student discipline. African American students, for instance, were five times as likely as white peers to receive out-of-school suspensions for willful defiance or disruption.

In 2014, the Obama administration formally advised school systems they may be guilty of racial discrimination if students of color are punished at higher rates.

When investigators and courts incorporate disparate impact in a review, they are looking at more than the intent of laws or practices. They are also evaluating whether a policy’s impact varies based on race, ethnicity or other factors. Regulations across the government implementing the 1964 Civil Rights Act and its amendments define discrimination as including this unintentional form of bias.

The Trump administration signaled its hostility to this approach in a report issued last week by the Federal Commission on School Safety, which recommended rescinding the school discipline guidance. In a sharply worded and controversial chapter, the report said the validity of disparate impact analysis “cannot be squared with the Supreme Court’s holdings.” The administration revoked the guidance a few days later.

Disparate impact was written into the original regulations that implemented Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination based on race, color or national origin by entities, including schools, that receive federal funding. The school safety report argued that earlier administrations had adopted the concept without regard for what the underlying statute said. It said that interpretation was of “questionable validity” and “dubious, at best.”

One person familiar with the administration’s planning said the strong language in the school safety panel’s report “really signals the direction that the administration is going in.” To that end, the Education Department is considering replacing the original Title VI regulation, this person said. He and others spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to describe internal discussions. 

One option under consideration includes “clarifying” the Title VI regulation to make its use consistent with the Trump administration’s legal views. Another option would replace the regulation with a new one, which would require a formal and lengthy process of public notice and comment.

Those options are separate from the Justice Department memo, which was described by a person familiar with the document as a starting point for moving toward removing disparate-impact-based regulations across the federal government.

In June, the Department of Housing and Urban Development published a notice announcing that it plans to consider revising its 2013 regulation on disparate-impact claims in the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion and other factors in sale, rental or financing of housing. The agency signaled that it was reconsidering how the regulations affect the insurance industry, which has challenged them in court.


Data showing that a policy resulted in uneven consequences is not sufficient to prove a discrimination claim. A school or other institution accused of discrimination under the concept of disparate impact can defend itself by showing the policy is justified and that no other method exists to accomplish a goal.

The Supreme Court has recognized disparate-impact claims, but in a 2015 housing case, its use was upheld by a narrow 5-to-4 vote, in an opinion written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, now retired. Some conservatives have speculated that the new court, with Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh in Kennedy’s place, might decide the same matter differently.

Much — but not all — of the disparate-impact law could be changed by the administration because the concept was incorporated through regulations, which administrations are free to change by following a formal process. A broad-based rewrite of regulations could affect areas such as transportation and environmental law, as well as education and housing. But it would be harder to make changes to voting and employment law, experts say, because the concept of disparate impact is overtly written into the underlying statute, not just the regulations.


Supporters of disparate-impact analysis say it is a critical tool because finding “smoking gun” evidence to prove someone intended to discriminate is difficult. And even if the intention wasn’t to discriminate, advocates say institutions should be held accountable for discriminatory effects.

“Most people don’t have access to what’s going on in somebody’s mind. Even if a decision was intentionally discriminatory, it’s going to be very difficult to prove,” said Ajmel Quereshi, senior counsel with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

But conservatives have long argued that proving discrimination should require proof that someone intended to treat people differently. And they say that if people are being judged by numbers, they may feel pressure to make decisions based on racial quotas.

“The disparate-impact approach requires decision-makers to make decisions with an eye on race. That is exactly what the civil rights laws are supposed to prohibit,” said Roger Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative think tank focused on race and ethnicity. He said he has lobbied Trump administration officials to write the idea out of federal regulations.


Disparate-impact analysis, he argued, is not necessary to combat “true discrimination.” He said he also tried to persuade officials in the George W. Bush administration to do the same, without results. “The Bushes were very skittish on civil rights issues,” he said.

“I’m sure that my counterparts are saying this is a radical change,” Clegg added. “Yes, it’s been used for a long time, but it’s been controversial for a long time.”



November 20, 2018

Trump Admin pushed national 4-H youth org to withdraw Policy Welcoming LGBT Members




The Trump administration pushed the national 4-H youth organization to withdraw a controversial policy welcoming LGBT members — a move that helped lead to the ouster of Iowa's top 4-H leader earlier this year, a Des Moines Register investigation found.
The international youth organization, with more than 6 million members, introduced the new guidance to ensure LGBT members felt protected by their local 4-H program. The document and their attempts to broaden membership in the LGBT community was a smaller part of a larger, multi-year effort to modernize the federally authorized group.
Several states posted the national guidance on their websites, including Iowa, where it prompted fierce opposition from conservatives and some evangelical groups.
Within days of the LGBT guidance's publication, Heidi Green, then-chief of staff for U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue, requested that it be rescinded, Sonny Ramaswamy, then-director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, the federal department that administers 4-H, told the Register.
Afterward, a NIFA communications manager sent an "urgent" email to at least two states — Iowa and New York — urging the 4-H organizations there to remove the LGBT guidance from their websites, the Register found.
The subsequent decision to take down the policy set off a firestorm this spring that engulfed 4-H programs in at least eight states — including Iowa, IdahoWisconsin, California, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, Virginia and New York.
And it eventually precipitated the firing of Iowa 4-H director John-Paul Chaisson-Cárdenas, a fierce advocate of the LGBT policy, the Register found after conducting extensive interviews and examining more than 500 pages of state and federal communications. 
The 4-H policy's removal comes amid other moves by the Trump administration to roll back federal protections that the previous administration saw as also covering gender identity — or the deeply held sense of who one is that may differ from the sex organs with which one is born.
The Trump administration previously declared it would place limits on transgender troops serving in the military, and it rescinded a 2016 Dear Colleague letter issued by Obama’s Education Department that said prohibiting transgender students from using facilities such as restrooms that matched their gender identity violates federal anti-discrimination laws.
The administration also attempted to remove questions about gender identity from the 2020 census. And, in October, the New York Times obtained a leaked memo from the Department of Health and Human Services that seeks to define gender as “either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with.”
The move would “essentially eradicate federal recognition of the estimated 1.4 million” transgender Americans, the Times reported.
The Trump administration to date has declined to comment on the leaked memo.

October 23, 2018

Outcry Over Trump's Plans to Civilly Erased Transgenders #WeWontBeErased


 There has been an outpouring of anger in the US from politicians, celebrities and human rights groups over a report alleging the US policy on gender recognition could be changed.
Protesters in New York. One holds a sign saying 'The future isn't binary'
 Demonstrators in New York protested against the report on Sunday evening
The change would rescind previous policy which eased trans recognition.
Instead, it would define gender solely on the genitalia people are born with.
The administration of former President Barack Obama adopted a definition of gender in federal policy which made it easier to allow individual choice and self-determination.
The Trump administration has previously tried to roll back transgender recognition in areas such as the military and in schools - but it has not commented on the latest report. 
Activists fear the changes allegedly being proposed could in effect "define out of existence" Americans who currently identify as transgender - a community who are said to number at least 1.4 million people.
Transgender and gender non-confirming people have been sharing their personal stories and response to the report using the hashtag #WeWontBeErased.

What do media reports say?

The news report published by the New York Times on Sunday said a memo the newspaper had seen from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed establishing a legal and fixed definition of sex under Title IX - a federal civil rights law that outlaws gender discrimination.
Two protesters hold up a flag for Transgender and Gender Non-comforming peopleImage copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image captionProtesters in Washington State Park hold up a flag for the transgender and gender non-conforming community
The report alleges that the department argues the current lack of clarity allowed civil rights protections to be wrongfully extended to some individuals during the Obama administration.
The proposed change would instead mean people's sex would be legally fixed as either male or female by their genitalia. 
"Sex means a person's status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth," the department proposed in the memo, according to the Times.
"The sex listed on a person's birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person's sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence," the memo allegedly says.
The Wall Street Journal has also reported on the issue - saying HHS officials hope to release a rule change, but says internal disputes mean it is not clear how extensive it will be.
No-one from the Trump administration has so far commented on the reports.

What has the reaction been? 

The report has generated an angry response from some people in and outside of the US, including swathes of the LGBTQ community.
Advocacy groups organised a demonstration on Sunday evening in New York and another protest is planned outside the White House in Washington DC on Monday Morning. 
In a series of Tweets on Sunday, the National Centre for Transgender Equality described the changes as an "abomination" and "a reckless attack" on transgender lives.  


We're not going anywhere - transgender people can't be erased with a memo. Post a selfie. Call a friend. Attend our rally tomorrow. Everything to show them that we
 Human Rights Campaign, one of the country's leading LGBTQ rights groups, said the change would set a "destructive precedent". 
Chairman Chad Griffin described the alleged proposal as "the latest effort in a consistent, multi-pronged campaign by the Trump-Pence White House... to undermine the rights and welfare of LGBTQ people."
"Defining 'sex' in this narrow language tailored to the talking points of anti-equality extremists is part of a deliberate strategy to eliminate federal protections for LGBTQ people," he went on.
Members of the transgender community took to social media to protest against the proposal - sharing personal stories and selfies of themselves and family members using #WontBeErased. 

I am a son.
I am a daughter.
I am a father.
I am a mother.
I am a grandfather.
I am a grandmother.
I am a friend.
I am a neighbor.
I am a coworker.
I am a student.

We are transgender. ⚧ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/21/us/politics/transgender-trump-administration-sex-definition.html 

October 3, 2018

Trump's State Dept Just Made Life Much Harder For Gay Diplomats







The Trump administration on Monday stopped granting visas to the same-sex partners of diplomats and officials at U.S.-based international organizations, reversing a policy put in place by former secretary of state Hillary Clinton in 2009.
Straight couples have always needed to be married in order for the partner of a diplomat or U.N. official to receive a visa of their own. The same was not true of same-sex couples, for whom a domestic partnership was enough for both to receive visas.
Now, diplomats and officials at these organizations who are in same-sex relationships will face the choice of either getting married or separating. For those same-sex partners already in the U.S. and currently holding a visa, a deadline has been set. If by the start of 2019 they’re not married, they have 30 days to leave the country.
The justification for this move is that gay marriage is now legal in the U.S., so it’s only fair that gay and straight couples play by the same rules. The U.S. mission to the U.N. explained the change in July, Foreign Policy reports:
“Same-sex spouses of U.S. diplomats now enjoy the same rights and benefits as opposite-sex spouses,” the U.S. mission wrote in a July 12 note to U.N.-based delegations. “Consistent with [State] Department policy, partners accompanying members of permanent missions or seeking to join the same must generally be married in order to be eligible” for a diplomatic visa.
In a statement to NBC News, a State Department spokesman doubled down on this reasoning, saying the policy change is “to help ensure and promote equal treatment” between straight and gay couples.
But this line ignores the reality in most countries, where gay marriage is not legal. That means many gay couples would have to come to the U.S. on a tourist visa to get married before they could return for one of them to work for the U.N. Some couples could also face a decision between getting married in order to stay together in the U.S., or being persecuted back home.
“The problem with the new policy is that it doesn’t take into consideration the fact that LGBTI people still face a very challenging global environment,” U.N. human rights official Fabrice Houdart told NBC News. Or, as former U.N. ambassador Samantha Power put it in a tweet, the move is “needlessly cruel & bigoted.”

July 24, 2018

Trump Wants Regulatory Changes to Make it More Difficult for LGBT to Obtain Medical Help









The Trump administration is considering regulatory changes that would worsen barriers many lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the United States face in obtaining health care, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) should reconsider those changes, which would leave LGBT people more vulnerable to discrimination.

The 34-page report, “‘You Don’t Want Second Best’: Anti-LGBT Discrimination in US Health Care,” documents some of the obstacles that LGBT people face when seeking mental and physical health care services. Many LGBT people are unable to find services in their area, encounter discrimination or refusals of service in healthcare settings, or delay or forego care because of concerns of mistreatment.

“Discrimination puts LGBT people at heightened risk for a range of health issues, from depression and addiction to cancer and chronic conditions,” said Ryan Thoreson, an LGBT rights researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Instead of treating those disparities as a public health issue, HHS is developing politicized rules that will make them much worse.”

Two upcoming regulatory changes are likely to worsen these barriers, Human Rights Watch said. In January 2018, HHS issued a proposed rule that would broaden existing religious exemptions in health care law, giving sweeping discretion to insurers and providers to deny service to patients because of their moral or religious beliefs. In April 2018, the Trump administration announced plans to roll back a regulation that clarifies that federal law prohibits health care discrimination based on gender identity. If finalized, these changes would further undermine the limited antidiscrimination protections that currently exist for LGBT people.

Human Rights Watch interviewed 81 people for the report, including providers and individuals who said they had experienced discrimination in healthcare settings.

 
July 23, 2018 Report
“You Don’t Want Second Best”
Anti-LGBT Discrimination in US Health Care
 
Existing protections for LGBT people in health care are uneven. In 2016, the Obama administration issued a regulation clarifying that Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits sex discrimination in health care, also prohibits discrimination against transgender people. Eight states and religious health care providers challenged the regulation in court, and the Trump administration has signaled it plans to roll it back.

Protections at the state level are lacking. As of July 2018, 37 states do not expressly ban health insurance discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. New Jersey prohibits discrimination based on gender identity but not sexual orientation. In 10 US states, transition-related health care is expressly excluded from Medicaid coverage, limiting options for low-income transgender people.

LGBT people interviewed for the report described difficulty finding hormone replacement therapy, HIV prevention and treatment options, fertility and reproductive services, and even just welcoming primary care services. Judith N., a transgender woman in East Tennessee, said, “I spent years looking for access to therapy and hormones and I just couldn’t find it.”

Others described discriminatory treatment by providers. Trevor L., a gay man in Memphis, recalled an incident when he took an HIV test at his annual checkup in 2016: “and they sat down and started preaching to me – not biblical things, but saying, you know this is not appropriate, I can help you with counseling, and I was like, oh, thank you, I’ve been out for 20 years and I think I’m okay. It’s almost like they feel they have the right to tell you that it’s wrong.”

In addition to discrimination, many LGBT people are refused services outright because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. In a nationally representative survey conducted by the Center for American Progress in 2017, 8 percent of lesbian, gay, and bisexual respondents and 29 percent of transgender respondents reported that a healthcare provider had refused to see them because of their sexual orientation or gender identity in the past year. Interviewees described being denied counseling and therapy, refused fertility treatments, denied a checkup or other primary care services, and in one instance, told that a pediatrician’s religious beliefs precluded her from evaluating a same-sex couple’s 6-day-old child.

Both providers and LGBT people noted that concerns about discrimination and mistreatment led LGBT people to delay or forego care. A 2015 survey of almost 28,000 transgender people found that, in the year preceding the survey, 23 percent did not seek care they needed because of concern about mistreatment based on gender identity.

Many interviewees expressed concern that laws permitting providers to refuse service on moral or religious grounds would make care even harder to obtain. Persephone Webb, a transgender activist in Knoxville, Tennessee, said that “[i]t tells people who are prone to being bigoted to be a little braver, and a little braver. And we see through this – we know this is an attack on LGBT people.”

Instead of finalizing the proposed changes, HHS should preserve antidiscrimination protections and withdraw sweeping exemptions that put patients at risk, Human Rights Watch said. Lawmakers at the state and federal level should prohibit discrimination in health care on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity and should repeal exemptions that allow providers to refuse to serve patients because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

“When LGBT people seek medical care, the oath to do no harm too often gives way to judgment and discrimination,” Thoreson said. “Lawmakers need to make clear that patients come first, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.”


July 3, 2018

Some of The Anti Gay Actions Trump Has Done As President {Protecting LGBTQ as Promised}








When Donald Trump ran for president, he pledged he would be an LGBT ally, even carrying an "LGBTs for Trump" rainbow pride flag at a rally in 2016. Shortly after he reached the Oval Office, the White House announced, “President Trump continues to be respectful and supportive of LGBTQ rights."
It hasn’t worked out that way. 
This is now the second year Trump has gone without acknowledging LGBT Pride Month. But more critically, Trump and his administration have aggressively rolled back and fought against LGBT rights.
For the end of Pride Month, BuzzFeed News has compiled a list, based on our reporting from the past 17 months, of those anti-LGBT efforts. They include:

1. Saying it’s legal to fire workers for being transgender.

Last October, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed a federal policy that said transgender workers were protected from discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This new position runs contrary to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — a federal agency — and numerous federal courts, which have found Title VII does protect transgender workers. For example, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in March that Title VII protects transgender workers even if the employer raises a religious objection.

2. Arguing that it’s legal to fire workers for being gay.

The Justice Department made an unexpected move last July when it stepped into in a major federal lawsuit to argue the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn’t protect gay workers from discrimination. The Trump administration’s filing was unusual in part because the Justice Department wasn’t a party in the case, and the department doesn’t typically weigh in on private employment lawsuits. Further, the Justice Department was fighting against a separate, autonomous federal agency that had supported a gay man's case. The court ruled in favor of gay rights, but the Trump administration hasn’t reversed its stance that it’s legal under federal law to fire employees for being gay.

3. Making transgender female prisoners live with male prisoners.

The Bureau of Prisons rolled back rules on May 11 that had allowed transgender inmates to use facilities, including cell blocks and bathrooms, that match their gender identity. The Trump administration was reversing course on an Obama administration effort to protect transgender prisoners from sexual abuse and assault. Federal officials now “will use biological sex” to determine the type of housing transgender inmates are assigned, resulting in conditions that increase the likelihood of rape for transgender women. The administration won't explain how they will determine who is transgender and who isn’t.

4. Telling the Supreme Court that shopkeepers can turn away LGBT customers.

In a surprise move last September, the Trump administration supported a Christian bakery owner in Colorado who refused to make a cake for a gay couple's wedding. The Justice Department filed a brief at the Supreme Court that argued the baker's religious convictions allow him to sidestep Colorado law, which bans businesses from anti-LGBT discrimination. US Solicitor General Noel Francisco also took up argument time at the Supreme Court's oral hearing in December to support the baker, even though the federal government wasn’t a party to the case.

5. Withdrawing protections for transgender students.

Weeks after taking office, the Trump administration withdrew guidance that said Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 bans anti-transgender discrimination in federally funded schools. That Obama era policy had said transgender students must be treated in accordance with their gender identity in classes, sports, and school facilities. As such, it instructed schools to give transgender students access to gender-appropriate restrooms and locker rooms.

6. Refusing to investigate anti-transgender discrimination complaints in public schools.

In April 2018, the Education Department told BuzzFeed News that it wasn’t investigating or taking action on any complaints filed by transgender students banned from restrooms that match their gender identity. Up to that point, Trump administration officials had simply said they were still considering the whether Title IX covered transgender students. Officials did not answer questions about how the department reconciles its new position with circuit court rulings that conflict with their position. The Education Department also hasn’t said why it won’t accept complaints arising from students inside those circuits (which encompass Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin).

7. Trying to kick transgender people out of the military.

In July 2017, Trump announced he would ban transgender people from serving in the military in any capacity, thereby reversing a policy created under the Obama administration. He claimed he had consulted "[his] generals" and determined that transgender people would harm troop readiness. But his top general wasn’t consulted and federal courts found no evidence to support the president’s claims. One judge called the president’s claims "capricious, arbitrary, and unqualified,"and added they were “shocking.” Four courts blocked his ban, but the Justice Department is still fighting to enact it and the Pentagon has issued recommendations on how to fully implement the policy.

8. Issuing a religious liberty policy.

Attorney General Sessions instructed federal agencies and attorneys in October to protect religious liberty in a broad, yet vague, guidance memo that critics fear could give people of faith — including government workers and contractors — a loophole to ignore federal bans on discrimination against women and LGBT people. The memo says officials should construe the Constitution and existing federal law in favor of religious rights. Sessions was asked by Congress in October if the guidance would allow federal employees and federal contractors to discriminate against LGBT people, but Sessions refused to answer.

9. Starting to rescind protections for transgender patients.

After a US District Court judge in Northern Texas blocked the Obama administration's protections for transgender patients and women seeking abortions, the Trump administration stopped defending the rules. The Department of Health and Human Services rewrote the policy, which is currently pending at the Office of Management and Budget.

10. Declining to appoint an LGBT liaison for the White House.

Trump doesn’t have an LGBT liaison at the White House, a position that previously served under President Barack Obama as a conduit between the executive branch and organizations — and individuals — when decisions were made on LGBT policies. The last White House LGBT liaison under President Obama had said she was afraid this would happen.

11. Protecting healthcare workers who don’t help transgender patients.

The Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights created a division in January to protect health workers with moral or religious objections to performing certain procedures, including abortions or sex-reassignment surgery for transgender patients.

12. Dropping its lawsuit against North Carolina’s anti-transgender law.

The Department of Justice dropped a lawsuit, which began under President Obama, that challenged a North Carolina law that restricted transgender people’s use of bathrooms. The move last year came weeks after North Carolina lawmakers repealed part of the state's anti-transgender law and replaced it with a different anti-LGBT law. Transgender people sued the state again, this time, without the Justice Department’s assistance.

13. Retracting plans to count LGBT people in the Census.

Last year, the Trump administration retracted a proposal to collect demographic information on LGBT people in the 2020 Census. Critics say that not asking citizens about their sexual orientation and gender identity — like other characteristics — undermines the government’s ability to craft policies that serve LGBT people’s health, safety, and other needs. The Department of Health and Human Services, meanwhile, has also said that a survey of older Americans would no longer collect information on LGBT people.
🌈🌈Dominic Holden is a political reporter for BuzzFeed News and is based in New York. 
Contact Dominic Holden at dominic.holden@buzzfeed.com. BuzzFeed Inc.

Featured Posts

Behind The Back of The Vice-Cheney Family

The Cheneys at former Vice President Dick Cheney's swearing-in in 2005   EMILY DAVIES People ...