-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
Having died earlier this month after two decades in the Senate, Lindsey Graham is likely to be remembered for his roles in foreign policy and his imprimatur on Trumpism. For LGBTQ+ people especially, he may be remembered as the last closet case.
There is no verified public evidence of Graham’s sexual orientation. He consistently denied the rumors, stating in 2018: “To the extent that it matters, I’m not gay.”
The truth may remain hidden. That is the nature of accusing someone of being a closeted gay person: The claim is impossible to prove false and often is never proved to be true. Yet the question of Graham’s alleged homosexuality reminds us that even in 2026, homophobia keeps many LGBTQ+ people in the closet. The official silence around his sexuality reveals a core challenge in including LGBTQ+ people in society.
Graham’s work life parallels the progress of LGBTQ+ rights. Born in 1955, he entered adulthood in the mid-1970s, just after Stonewall launched the contemporary LGBTQ+ rights movement. Success for the movement was slow and hard-won. Even local civil rights protections took decades. A Democrat, Bill Clinton, signed Republican legislation in 1996 that barred federal recognition of same-sex marriages (the so-called Defense of Marriage Act). The U.S. Supreme Court decriminalized homosexuality just over two decades ago, in 2003. Marriage equality arrived just over a decade ago. Six years ago, the Supreme Court extended civil rights protections to LGBTQ+ people.
This rapid change leaves us, in 2026, in a disjointed world, in which middle-aged and older leaders live as if homosexuality were a crime, while younger people cannot fully understand why anyone would be closeted at all. So many young people identify as LGBTQ+ that, like straight and cisgender people, many don’t even bother to come out.
In a recent law review article, I argued that despite the relatively rapid entry of LGBTQ+ people into society, the world at the top looks radically different. It’s almost totally straight. To the extent LGBTQ+ people rise to the top, both public and private, they almost always remain in the closet. The U.S. has just one openly LGBTQ+ senator, Tammy Baldwin. Three governors and 12 members of the House of Representatives fill out federal leadership.
The most powerful openly gay leaders obtained their positions through appointments: Few seemed to object to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s appointment by President Trump. But while many have praised Pete Buttigieg in his public roles, and as a rising voice for the millennial generation in President Biden’s Cabinet, others still dismiss his presidential prospects because of his sexuality and his family dynamics.
The private sector matches this record: only one CEO in the Fortune 500, and LGBTQ+ people constitute less than a percent of leading corporate boards.
Why is this? Because LGBTQ+ people know that to climb the ladder one must lie about being gay. It’s not hard to imagine why someone starting a political career in 1970s and 1980s South Carolina would choose to present as straight. Ambitious gay men at that time knew the path to leadership lay only in keeping their sexuality a secret.
Closeted people play a complex role within the LGBTQ+ community. They may publicly oppose LGBTQ+ rights. They may even persecute those who are open. That’s why many LGBTQ+ people referred to Graham as “Lady G,” to mock his hypocrisy. It’s also why some in the LGBTQ+ community have supported outing those who refuse to come out.
Closeted people struggle mightily to manage their identity. Maintaining any lie always requires immense effort. Prior to smartphones, people such as Sen. Larry Craig (who resigned after cruising for sex in a men’s room) could visit gay bars and clubs without instant loss of their careers. Now, smartphones’ omnipresence has annihilated the privacy of LGBTQ+ spaces.
What matters is this: Homophobia defines leadership, just as sexism and racism do. Both public and private elites use heterosexuality as a qualification for leadership. Most corporate boards do not select openly LGBTQ+ people as chief executives. The public sector is no better. To rise to the top, almost always, one must be straight or at least willing to pretend. The challenges faced by LGBTQ+ people of Graham’s generation may have seemed insurmountable, but younger candidates, such as Buttigieg, still face serious obstacles when running for office.
What matters now — especially now — is this: Let’s hope Lindsey Graham might be America’s last closet case. LGBTQ+ people can’t settle for equal rights; we must obtain equal opportunity. The public and private sectors should pursue policies so that people don’t feel pressured to stay in the closet; part of this involves welcoming more openly LGBTQ+ leaders. Only then will inclusion become a reality, especially for the many ambitious, promising LGBTQ+ leaders. Having a broader group of potential leaders, unafraid to be who they are, can only improve society.
Darren Rosenblum is a professor of law who researches corporate inclusion.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The piece argues that Lindsey Graham’s career illustrates how, for a generation of ambitious politicians who came of age in the 1970s and 1980s — especially in conservative states like South Carolina — presenting as straight was effectively a prerequisite for advancement.[17][12]
It underscores that there is no verified public evidence of Graham’s sexual orientation and highlights the inherent difficulty of “proving” or disproving claims that someone was a closeted gay person, noting that such allegations are often impossible to resolve and can persist indefinitely.[17]
The article situates Graham’s life against the broader arc of LGBTQ+ legal progress, referencing milestones from the post-Stonewall era through the Defense of Marriage Act, the decriminalization of same-sex intimacy, marriage equality, and more recent civil rights protections, to show how quickly law has changed compared with entrenched social norms.[17][8]
Building on this history, the piece contends that rapid legal gains have produced a generational split: middle-aged and older leaders still behave as if homosexuality were socially or legally disqualifying, while many younger people see coming out as unnecessary because LGBTQ+ identities are increasingly normalized in their peer groups.[9][16]
The article maintains that despite broader social acceptance, elite leadership in both the public and private sectors remains overwhelmingly heterosexual, arguing that high-status roles — from the U.S. Senate and governorships to Fortune 500 boardrooms and C-suites — are still occupied by almost exclusively straight people, with openly LGBTQ+ leaders dramatically underrepresented.[6][10][13][14]
It describes how closeted figures in positions of power can play a fraught role in LGBTQ+ politics, noting that such leaders may publicly oppose LGBTQ+ rights or even persecute out community members, and points to Graham’s longstanding anti-LGBTQ+ voting record and the “Lady G” nickname as examples of how perceived hypocrisy fuels anger and mockery.[11][8][18]
The piece discusses how smartphones and social media have eroded the relative privacy that once existed in queer spaces, suggesting that the ubiquity of cameras and online platforms makes it far more difficult for closeted public figures to frequent LGBTQ+ venues or engage in same-sex relationships without risking exposure.[11][18]
It argues that homophobia still functions as a gatekeeping mechanism in leadership, much like sexism and racism, asserting that heterosexuality is treated as a qualification for top roles, and that most corporate boards and public institutions remain reluctant to select openly LGBTQ+ people as chief executives or senior officials.[13][14][10]
The article uses Graham’s generation and the experiences of newer leaders like Pete Buttigieg to claim that even openly gay candidates today face distinctive scrutiny and skepticism about their suitability for high office, reinforcing the notion that honesty about sexuality can limit opportunities for advancement.[7][9]
Ultimately, the piece calls for a shift from focusing solely on formal equal rights to securing genuine equal opportunity, urging public and private institutions to adopt policies that reduce pressure to remain closeted and to deliberately welcome more openly LGBTQ+ leaders, arguing that a broader, more diverse pool of unafraid leaders would improve society as a whole.[10][13][16]
Different views on the topic
By contrast, other coverage of Graham’s death emphasizes his legislative record rather than his rumored sexuality, stressing that allegations about his private life — including claims by sex workers and social media speculation — have never been substantiated by independent reporting and that his sexual orientation remains unknown.[17][11]
In this vein, some reporting suggests that what is most salient about Graham is his decades-long, documented opposition to LGBTQ+ rights — from voting for the Defense of Marriage Act and opposing employment nondiscrimination protections to resisting marriage equality — and contends that critics should prioritize his public use of power over unresolved questions about his identity.[8][5][17]
Additionally, journalists note that rumors around Graham’s sexuality often circulated as homophobic jokes and online taunts, raising concerns that weaponizing accusations of being closeted can itself be stigmatizing and that framing him primarily as “the last closet case” risks reinforcing the notion that being gay is shameful or scandalous.[17][12]
Data-focused advocates offer a more tempered assessment of elite politics, arguing that although LGBTQ+ people are still underrepresented, the number of openly LGBTQ+ elected officials has grown dramatically in recent years, more than tripling since 2017 and surpassing 1,000 nationwide — a shift they describe as unprecedented rather than evidence that leadership is “almost totally straight.”[1][15][10][16]
Similarly, corporate observers point out that the Fortune 500 now includes multiple openly LGBTQ+ CEOs and dozens of out board members, noting that while representation remains far below parity, the presence of leaders such as Tim Cook at Apple and Beth Ford at Land O’Lakes indicates that top corporate roles are no longer exclusively reserved for heterosexual executives.[2][3][4][13][14]
Some political analysts highlight that recent setbacks for LGBTQ+ rights and representation are closely tied to partisan polarization and a decline in Republican support for same-sex marriage, suggesting that current barriers to LGBTQ+ leadership may reflect ideological conflicts rather than a uniform expectation across society that leaders must appear straight.[9][7]
At the same time, activists focused on trans and nonbinary representation emphasize that the number of transgender and gender-nonconforming elected officials has increased by around 1,800 percent since 2017, arguing that this surge in visibility at various levels of government complicates a simple closet narrative and shows that openly LGBTQ+ people are increasingly able to win and hold public office.[16]
Finally, some commentators caution against declaring Graham “America’s last closet case,” pointing out that the closet remains a reality for many LGBTQ+ people in politics, business, and other spheres, and warning that such rhetoric may obscure ongoing struggles with safety, privacy, and acceptance that continue to shape decisions about coming out.[6][10][14]
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
Senator Allen has put his money on fire mitigation and bringing stakeholders together in communities up and down the state to reduce their risk and stay insured. In this episode, Host Kate Cagle speaks with Allen about his plans.
The Hillside Strangler murders terrorized Los Angeles in the late 1970s. The killers were a pair of sadistic cousins. One confessed. The other was set to stand trial—until L.A. prosecutors flinched.
Modern LA earned its first smoggy nickname 450 years ago, as the “bay of smokes.” At the La Brea tar pits, we take a short walk through a long history with curator Regan Dunn, who explains how and why the first Angelenos would have set fires that filled the broad bowl of LA and foretold the curse of smog.
