The Closetocracy

Hunter Biden, the son of former President Joe Biden, recently introduced a useful term for a longstanding problem in Washington: closetocracy.

On Jennifer Welch’s “I’ve Had It” podcast, he argued that the biggest issue in the federal government is not the oligarchy but the closetocracy- a network of closeted gay men, mostly Republican, whose private conflicts shape public policy. He said people in D.C. know who they are, and that their inability to live openly fuels hostility toward LGBTQ people through votes and rhetoric.

Much of this is familiar. Specific claims about individuals like Josh Hawley or Ted Cruz remain unproven speculation, and Hunter himself noted he could not confirm the details. The larger pattern, however, is real. There is a recurring history of powerful men who oppose LGBTQ rights in public while living lives that contradict those positions. That hypocrisy has consequences.

I saw this clearly during the Aaron Schock episode.

When the former Illinois congressman was still in office, he consistently voted against marriage equality, the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and basic nondiscrimination protections. At the same time, accounts of his private life circulated widely in queer circles. I was among those who publicly pointed out the gap between his record and the reality. I do not support outing people lightly. But when a politician uses his power against the community while shielding his own life, the contradiction becomes a political issue. Schock later came out after leaving Congress amid spending scandals and after public images made further denial difficult. By then, the harm from his earlier votes had already been done.

I have heard similar accounts involving the late Senator Lindsey Graham.

Over the years, I heard stories from folks who claimed they had intimate encounters with him. The details they shared were consistent enough to stand out. Graham denied the rumors throughout his career and continued to support policies that made life harder for LGBTQ people. The stories were never proven in court. Still, the consistency across separate accounts made them hard to dismiss. After his death last month, those accounts are no longer constrained by the same fears of retaliation.

Hunter is correct about the dynamic. Schock, and Graham are just two examples among many individuals whose alleged hidden homosexuality clashes with their public persona and voting record. When someone in a position of power remains closeted and channels that tension into legislation, the result is policy that restricts others. The closet becomes more than a personal choice; it becomes a source of public harm.

This is not an argument for invading anyone’s privacy. It is an argument against punishing people for living openly while some of those in power refuse to do the same. The cost falls on LGBTQ+ people who lack the protection of high office- young people in conservative states, couples seeking basic recognition, workers who can still lose their jobs for who they are.

Until that double standard ends, the term closetocracy will remain relevant. And it’s interesting that the public awareness of this once unspoken cadre of closeted politicians in Washington seems to be growing by the day.