MAGA’s Obsession With “Gay Accusations,” Hypocrisy, and the Politics of Dehumanization

In recent weeks, the MAGA movement has leaned heavily into a familiar tactic: weaponizing accusations of homosexuality against its own figures and perceived enemies. What might seem like online gossip reveals something deeper—an uncomfortable mix of hypocrisy, repression, and political opportunism within a movement that simultaneously courts moral authority while attacking LGBTQ+ people.

That tension came into sharp focus during a recent conversation between Bravo personality and podcaster Jennifer Welch and journalist Don Lemon, who joined her to unpack the latest wave of rumors sparked by an interview from Milo Yiannopoulos.

Rumors, Threats, and the Weaponization of Sexuality

Yiannopoulos—an openly gay provocateur—has been publicly accusing several prominent right-wing figures of being closeted, including Benny Johnson, Charlie Kirk, and even Alex Jones. Whether these claims are true is almost beside the point. What matters is how sexuality is being used as a political weapon by a movement that routinely condemns LGBTQ+ people while allegedly harboring them in its own ranks.

Yiannopoulos has challenged those he accused to sue him for defamation, openly daring them to initiate discovery—a legal process that would pry into their private lives. As Lemon pointed out, defamation cases involving public figures face an extremely high legal bar. Suing would risk exposing far more than it would resolve.

The irony is glaring: if any of these individuals were openly gay, bisexual, or part of consensual alternative relationships, it would not matter—if they weren’t actively supporting legislation and rhetoric that harms LGBTQ+ people. The issue isn’t sexuality. It’s hypocrisy.

As Lemon noted, when someone campaigns against gay rights while secretly benefiting from the very freedoms they deny others, accountability becomes fair game.

Closets, Power, and Political Damage

This moment fits into a broader pattern. The MAGA movement has repeatedly shown that it tolerates diversity only when it can be controlled or exploited. From attacks on interracial families to coded language aimed at queer conservatives, the message is clear: inclusion is conditional.

At the same time, the real-world consequences are severe. In 2024 alone, more than 600 anti-LGBTQ+ bills have been introduced across the United States. These are not abstract culture wars—they are laws that restrict healthcare, education, family rights, and personal safety.

Against that backdrop, accusations of being gay aren’t just gossip. They are part of a system that dehumanizes LGBTQ+ people while privately consuming them.

Charlie Kirk, Gun Violence, and Selective Grief

The conversation also turned to the killing of Charlie Kirk, a tragedy that both Welch and Lemon emphasized should never have happened. Charlie Kirk should be alive. Political disagreement never justifies violence.

But grief does not erase history.

Kirk spent years promoting extremist rhetoric, opposing gun reform, and making dehumanizing statements about Black people, LGBTQ+ individuals, and others. He famously argued that gun deaths were an acceptable cost of preserving the Second Amendment. That context matters—not as justification for his death, but as an honest accounting of his public legacy.

Welch challenged the framing used in recent media interviews with Kirk’s widow, Erica Kirk—particularly the suggestion that critics “justified” his death. Neither Welch nor Lemon could identify credible examples of people celebrating or endorsing his murder. What they did see were people pointing out the tragic irony of a man who opposed gun reform dying by gun violence.

Those are not the same thing.

Dehumanization Cuts Both Ways

Claims that Charlie Kirk was “dehumanized” after his death rang hollow to many, especially given his own record. Kirk openly questioned whether he would trust a Black pilot and made derogatory comments about Black women’s intelligence. For communities he targeted, grief exists alongside memory—and both can be true at once.

Lemon put it plainly: it is possible to say someone should not have died while also saying you rejected what they stood for when they were alive.

The Rise of “Trad” Media Blitzes

Another striking pattern has emerged since Kirk’s death: a coordinated media blitz by conservative women promoting “traditional values”—marriage, stay-at-home motherhood, and rigid gender roles—while holding full-time careers themselves.

This contradiction has not gone unnoticed.

Welch argued that this is part of a broader strategy: using women to “gender-wash” authoritarian ideas and soften policies that roll back women’s rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and personal freedom. What was once a party that claimed to value limited government now increasingly dictates how families, women, and bodies should be controlled.

Grief, Performance, and Public Scrutiny

Both Welch and Lemon acknowledged the complexity of grief. People mourn differently, and public figures face pressures that private individuals do not. Still, the speed and scale of Erica Kirk’s media appearances have raised questions—especially when grief intersects with political messaging.

As Lemon noted, analysis is not cruelty. Observing patterns does not negate compassion.

A Larger Pattern

What ties all of this together—gay accusations, selective outrage, performative grief, and moral contradiction—is power. MAGA politics increasingly relies on dehumanization while demanding immunity from scrutiny. It asks for sympathy without accountability, reverence without reflection.

In the end, this moment isn’t really about rumors or gossip. It’s about whether a political movement can continue to attack marginalized communities while hiding behind grief, outrage, and selective morality.

And more Americans are starting to say: no, it can’t.