Secret City: The Hidden History of Gay Washington

by James Kirchick

The New York Times Bestseller
A New York Times Notable Book of 2022
Named one of Vanity Fair 's “Best Books of 2022 ”

“Not since Robert Caro’s Years of Lyndon Johnson have I been so riveted by a work of history. Secret City is not gay history. It is American history.”
― George Stephanopoulos

Washington, D.C., has always been a city of secrets. Few have been more dramatic than the ones revealed in James Kirchick’s Secret City .

For decades, the specter of homosexuality haunted Washington. The mere suggestion that a person might be gay destroyed reputations, ended careers, and ruined lives. At the height of the Cold War, fear of homosexuality became intertwined with the growing threat of international communism, leading to a purge of gay men and lesbians from the federal government. In the fevered atmosphere of political Washington, the secret “too loathsome to mention” held enormous, terrifying power.

Utilizing thousands of pages of declassified documents, interviews with over one hundred people, and material unearthed from presidential libraries and archives around the country, Secret City is a chronicle of American politics like no other. Beginning with the tragic story of Sumner Welles, Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s brilliant diplomatic advisor and the man at the center of “the greatest national scandal since the existence of the United States,” James Kirchick illuminates how homosexuality shaped each successive presidential administration through the end of the twentieth century.

Cultural and political anxiety over gay people sparked a decades-long witch hunt, impacting everything from the rivalry between the CIA and the FBI to the ascent of Joseph McCarthy, the struggle for Black civil rights, and the rise of the conservative movement. Among other revelations, Kirchick tells of the World War II–era gay spymaster who pioneered seduction as a tool of American espionage, the devoted aide whom Lyndon Johnson treated as a son yet abandoned once his homosexuality was discovered, and how allegations of a “homosexual ring” controlling Ronald Reagan nearly derailed his 1980 election victory.

Magisterial in scope and intimate in detail, Secret City will forever transform our understanding of American history.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, LGBT, Queer, Audiobook, Gay

864 pages, Paperback

First published February 15, 2022

Reviews

[laurel [the suspected bibliophile] · Rating 5 out of 5]

Exhaustive and exhausting, this well-researched tome is an enlightening look at LGBT (mostly G, a little B) look into the Secret City of Washington, DC.

Since it focuses mostly on the cis male movers and shakers of politics and all of their machinations, the book is mostly oriented on white men, however, it makes a token effort to include Black men and white women.

Despite this, it is definitely a book to read if you're into both queer history and US political history.

[J Earl · Rating 5 out of 5]

Secret City by James Kirchick is a very well researched work that brings to light the many contributions to our country that GLBTQ+ people have made, all while having to hide or defend who they were.

As extensive as this work is, and it covers a lot of ground, we should be aware that there are many more people who also toiled from the closet and will likely never be known, not to mention all those who gave up on public service since they weren't supposed to be included as full citizens.

Having said that, this work goes a long way toward recovering not simply a chapter of US history but a consistent thread that runs throughout all of the chapters.

This book comes very close to being unwieldy, yet I'm not sure, as it is, it should have been broken into two volumes. What I would love to see is a future revision which is broken into two or three volumes and goes into a little more depth on some of the individual stories. I don't want that comment to be misunderstood, I was impressed by just how much depth is included. Considering the time frame, FDR through Clinton, there is a lot of detail and depth. There is no doubt more information Kirchick uncovered that didn't make the cut here. That along with perhaps a few new discoveries would make for an even more detailed history but in several volumes.

As a work in the recovery of a marginalized portion of the governmental workforce this book is great. What I think is just as important is the message that young GLBTQ+ readers can takeaway, namely that they are valuable and they can choose public service if they so desire.

Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.

[Katie B · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5 stars

Full review coming soon.

[Sophia M. Davis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic research and intriguing information with historical information included. This book is very well put together and easy to read. I really enjoyed learning more about the private lives of those who built our country and understanding more about what it was like for queer individuals throughout history. Very interesting read! Highly recommend. Thank you NetGalley for the early release opportunity to read.

[Kyle C · Rating 3 out of 5]

This isn't a genuine history; it is a catalogue of every government official in the 20th century ever suspected of being gay. It's a fascinating topic but in its exhaustive study of every name and person this book transforms its material into mundane trivia. It would have been more successful if each chapter focused on one prominent individual in each presidency rather than try to compile an exhaustive litany (ambassador Sumner Welles, for example, is a fascinating example of a high-level diplomat who pressured men into sex; I wish the chapter had presented more archival material about his life rather than try to lay out a speculative network of gay connections). The result is a list of tantalizingly brief vignettes of gay officials. For example, we get only one brief paragraph on Cora Du Bois, a lesbian Berkeley cultural anthropologist who also worked for a time in an American espionage agency. The chapters don't always cohere together logically--for example, chapter 5 celebrates the rise of gay life in Washington during the Second World War. It has a brief interlude describing the life of Odessa Mardre, a crime-organizer and lesbian, and then narrates the downfall of Sumner Welles. Immediately afterwards, without any explicit signposting, it switches to Carmel Offie, a low-ranking official. It feels like a meandering collection, segueing from person to person.

I'm not sure why this is a history. It has various historical information and it is organized chronologically, but it doesn't present a readable story. Its ambitious length and huge historical span also means that it has to limit its use of archival material. I would have preferred a similar book, significantly abbreviated, constructing a more focused story. I also found the prose of this book very stuffy ("she spoke of the pain she felt upon discovering that her husband had consummated an affair with her secretary. Out of this heartfelt expression of vulnerability, Eleanor and Hick, an acknowledged lesbian, developed an emotional and possibly physical bond" and "Downes pioneered the use of sex as an instrument of American intelligence tradescraft"). In both examples, the author verbosely turns the scandalous topics of adultery and sex-work into highfalutin abstraction.

[peach · Rating 5 out of 5]

probably 4 stars based on my personal enjoyment/engagement, but 5 stars for the depth of research and passion for the subject that emitted from this book.

as i mentioned before, i don't often think about history before the 80s, so i’m grateful to have found a book covering the hidden gay scene dating back to the 1930s. it was informative, exhausting, and gut-wrenching, but ultimately offered a humanizing perspective that these guys didn’t get during their lifetimes. this book was also packed of closeted elected officials in republican governments oppressing and hindering gay movements, and readily outing gay colleagues so as to not have their own queerness revealed. this is to say that queer republicans have BEEN annoying and cowardly ! i love consistency ! 🫶

my major complaint about this book was that it lacked intersectionality. however, seeing as this book’s purpose was to cover queer history in political washington, which was rampant with gay white men, i understand if the author didn’t have much to pull from. i did see an effort in including lesbian frustrations, as well as the lives of a few black queer individuals whose careers overlapped federal washington.

main takeaways:
• eleanor roosevelt got a lil gay with it
• harvey milk was fucked up for outing that one guy.. cmon man..
• the saying “limp of wrist”

[Liquidlasagna · Rating 5 out of 5]

Here's a part of a Politico story based on the book
here are the more interesting fragments


The Plot to Out Ronald Reagan
Politico

May 27, 2022 — A group of Republicans tried to stymie what they alleged was a nefarious homosexual network within the campaign of their own party’s standard-bearer. More than 40 years later, the story can finally be told.

It was 3:15 on the morning of June 26, 1980, and Congressman Bob Livingston was extraordinarily drunk, hiding in the congressional gym beneath the Rayburn House Office Building, petrified that a team of highly trained right-wing homosexual assassins working on behalf of Ronald Reagan was about to kill him.

This account of the alleged “homosexual ring” that controlled Ronald Reagan, and the efforts to expose it on the eve of the 1980 Republican National Convention that nominated him for the presidency, is compiled from interviews with several of the surviving participants and documents uncovered in the papers of former Washington Post Executive Editor Ben Bradlee. Appropriately for a story involving what was once considered the gravest sin in American politics, it has never been told until now.

But over dinner, three weeks before he and his fellow Republicans were to gather at the Joe Louis Arena in Detroit for their national convention, Livingston had something more urgent on his mind than the twilight struggle between capitalism and communism. For months, speculation had been mounting as to whom Reagan would choose as his running mate. The former governor of California needed a veep candidate who could heal the widening divide within the GOP between its moderate establishment and conservatives like himself. Some of the top contenders were former CIA Director George H. W. Bush, who had recently bowed out of the race for president, and former President Gerald Ford. But it was the serious consideration of a fellow House colleague — Rep. Jack Kemp — that most piqued Livingston’s interest. Bouchey’s group was informally advising the Reagan campaign on Latin American issues. Perhaps Bouchey had a window into its deliberations.

“Do you know anything about Kemp, is he AC/DC?” Livingston asked, referencing not the Australian hard rock band but the slang expression for bisexual.

“Yeah, I heard some things,” Bouchey replied. “That stuff’s been around.”

“That stuff,” or what Kemp adviser Jude Wanniski termed “the homosexual thing,” had dogged the upstate New York congressman and former professional football player since the fall of 1967, when the syndicated newspaper columnists Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson published a piece linking Kemp to a “homosexual ring” operating within Reagan’s gubernatorial office. Kemp, then the starting quarterback for the Buffalo Bills and an aspiring policy wonk, had spent the summer offseason working for Reagan as perhaps the most famous intern in America. According to the muckraking duo, Reagan’s security chief had obtained “a tape recording of a sex orgy” held at a Lake Tahoe cabin leased by two Reagan staffers, and while Pearson and Anderson didn’t name any names, in the case of Kemp, they didn’t have to. One of the eight men involved, they wrote, was an “athletic adviser on youth activities who has since gone on leave for the fall athletic season.”

Murmurings about the handsome young athlete spread from the political watering holes of Sacramento to the locker rooms of the American Football League, following him all the way to Capitol Hill, where Kemp, who died in 2009, began a meteoric rise after winning a seat in Congress in 1970. In 1978, during the congressional midterm elections, senior Jimmy Carter aide Hamilton Jordan told a reporter to disregard Kemp as a serious presidential contender because he was a “queer,” and the chair of the Democratic National Committee advised another journalist that a Kemp-sponsored tax bill had no chance of passing for the same reason. “There is absolutely not a shred of evidence,” a fed-up Kemp complained. “There is nothing, and there was nothing.” The “slander” and “old calumny” that the virile ex-football pro and father of four might be gay, journalists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak wrote at the time, was a “vicious canard,” the sort of “poisonous” “garbage” one found “submerged in the political sewers” and other “gutter communications” that “not only do gross injustice to their victims but also demean and pollute democratic government.”

All this was on Livingston’s mind because of what he had heard the previous month at a secret meeting with members of the Republican “Wednesday Group,” a club of liberal to moderate GOP congressmen who gathered weekly to talk shop and plot strategy over pretzels and booze. Livingston was not a member of the group. But he had been roped into an impromptu discussion in California Rep. Pete McCloskey’s office by a colleague. Behind those closed doors, McCloskey suggested strongly that the possibility of Kemp as a running mate was proof that the “homosexual ring” around Reagan, long dismissed as rumor, might be something all too real.

While Livingston was concerned about the potential political liability for his party’s impending nominee, McCloskey was worried that Reagan himself represented a danger to the Republican Party and the country.

In recent weeks, McCloskey explained to the other congressmen huddled in his office, he had been in contact with a local television news reporter named Bill Best who used to work in the Bay Area and had been active in California GOP politics during the late 1960s. The last time McCloskey had heard from Best was in early 1976, a few months after Reagan announced his decision to challenge President Gerald Ford in the Republican primary. Best agitatedly told him that senior Reagan advisers had sexually propositioned him on two separate occasions. McCloskey did not hear from Best again until four years later, in the spring of 1980, when Reagan was on the verge of clinching the nomination. Best began calling him frantically to report that “homosexual people were very close to Reagan’s campaign leadership,” that they were “running” Reagan’s campaign, and that “the situation is absolutely out of control.” It was not until a boozy lunch with a man claiming to have been a “long time Reagan associate,” however, that Best found what he believed to be the “smoking gun” proving that Reagan was controlled by homosexuals. “Bill, you don’t understand the problem,” the man told Best. “I once engaged in a homosexual act with Reagan.”

The crux of the document was encapsulated in point 32: “Bill [Best] expressed extreme concern about the danger of a former Hollywood actor in fact being the ‘Manchurian candidate’ and spoke at length on the nature of the Hollywood movie industry and the fact that an actor is in the hands and under the manipulation of studios, producers, directors, etc., and that he must carry out orders in order to survive. He felt that Reagan had been manipulated all of his life, and that he was essentially ‘in bondage’ to those around him.” Ronald Reagan as the ventriloquized pawn of shadowy and sinister forces — his “Kitchen Cabinet” of California millionaires, his wife Nancy, Nancy’s astrologers, the Mafia — has long been a motif in assessments of the 40th president, and what McCloskey’s contribution to the genre might have lacked in plausibility, it more than made up for with originality. Controlling Reagan in this scenario was a “network” of homosexuals who “shared an almost religious zeal against communism and [on] behalf of right-wing causes.”

While gay sex might still have been illegal in most American states at the time, and gay people officially remained “security risks,” it was hard to see how any of the alleged activity involving the Reagan aides threatened the public trust. “In the end, I can’t remember anyone postulating a lede that made sense of this,” remembered Patrick Tyler. There was smoke but no fire, as Bradlee would tell McCloskey when he saw him at the Republican convention.

The rumors about Jack Kemp, however, persisted. On the first day of the convention, Reagan’s longtime communications man Lyn Nofziger told Robert Novak that the New York congressman was a strong contender for the veep nomination. After Reagan selected George Bush, Novak asked Nofziger what had dashed Kemp’s chances. “It was that homosexual thing,” Nofziger conceded, repeating Kemp adviser Jude Wanniski’s phrase. “The governor finally said, ‘We just can’t do this to Jack.’”

McCloskey remained unfazed. By September, the maverick congressman was still withholding his endorsement. The presence of a closeted homosexual, Peter Hannaford, in a potential Reagan administration could pose a threat to national security, McCloskey believed, and so he took his concerns directly to Reagan’s longtime adviser and campaign chief of staff, Ed Meese.

McCloskey gave up his House seat in 1982 to run for the Senate, losing in the Republican primary after campaigning against “the Jewish lobby.” In 2000, he emerged briefly from obscurity to deliver a speech at a Holocaust denial conference. In light of this record, his last-ditch effort to torpedo Ronald Reagan with a tale portraying him as the dupe of a right-wing homosexual conspiracy looks like just another episode in a career spent tilting at windmills — his unlikely friend John Ehrlichman described him as “a latter-day Don Quixote” — though one much less honorable than challenging Richard Nixon for the presidency.

Had the whole farrago of rumor and innuendo about the gay Reaganite conspiracy come to light during the campaign, it’s difficult to say what effect it would have had on the election. Of all the voters most likely to be troubled by such charges, it would have been the evangelical Christians whose support Reagan was courting so assiduously. Reagan’s eventual 10-point victory over Carter obscures how close the race was during the final stretch. In June, just as the Post investigation was about to unfold, Carter led Reagan 35 percent to 33 percent in a national Gallup poll, and few predicted anything near the landslide Reagan ultimately won.

Over four decades later, the plot to out Reagan vividly demonstrates the extent to which the specter of homosexuality cast a pall over American politics. Livingston’s fellow Louisianan, the comically corrupt Gov. Edwin Edwards, might have been joking with his infamous quip that the only way he could lose an election “is if I’m caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.”

[Lüdi · Rating 5 out of 5]

AMAZING

I learned so much. I have been sharing so many tidbits of information from this book with everyone who has crossed my path. This book is extensive and exhausting and I would need to read it three more times to absorb everything.

It is worth mentioning that this book focuses on the history of white gay men, not the queer community as a whole. I think that's because this is more about the gay people who were in positions of power and that has historically (and still is unfortunately) been predominantly white men. The author mentions lesbians a handful of times and people of color even less. It would have been nice to have a section centered around these groups, even if they aren't part of the political scene, so we could have a more rounded picture of what was happening at the time for everyone in DC.

But that aside!! This is so educational and gave me a new perspective on several periods of political history. Highly recommend!

[Emma]

Secret City: The Hidden History of Gay Washington is a detailed yet personal look at what life was like for queer people in Washington D.C. over the 20th century. This is the kind of book I know will stick with me.

[Katherine Antos · Rating 5 out of 5]

incredible. felt like i was getting a hearty dish of gay washington historical gossip in the most fascinating and insightful way. learned a lot (and cried a lot)

[Stefanie Robinson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is about the Lavender Scare, which was apparently a moral crisis about having gay people in positions of power. I briefly recall reading about this in passing in some history class I took, but it wasn't in much detail. Joseph McCarthy, who I knew about from his accusing literally everyone under the sun of being a Communist, also waged war on gay people. He had everyone investigated for homosexuality and Communist leanings. (He really needed to mind his own business.) He took the belief that gay people were more likely to be infiltrated by spies since they were already criminals based on their sexual preferences and used that to instigate mass expulsions of government officials from office. A lot of these people were very capable people in their jobs, which is a shame that they weren't allowed to continue in their work on top of having their reputation absolutely ruined by some man who needed to just hush. The more I read about him, the more I disliked him. His actions really caused more harm than good, and it is a shame he was allowed to get away with stuff like that for so long. This book was very informative about the Lavender Scare and the key figures that were involved in various aspects. I got this on Audible, and it was a pretty long listen. (Especially since I am sick and kept falling asleep and having to rewind.) It was really good, and I learned a lot. (Mostly, that I can't stand that McCarthy.)

[Porter Broyles · Rating 4 out of 5]

I might expand upon this book, it was a very informative read, BUT I couldn't help that I felt that the author was trying too hard.

I would definitely recommend it for anybody interested in LGBTQ issues, history, or politics---but I'm not sure if it is one that would be compelling as a primer on the subject. The overlay of gay issues sometimes felt forced.

[Margaret · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was an impressive work of scholarship that took me months to read. It probably could be at least 5 separate books. Very well researched but sometimes hard to keep track of who is who. Also even as you overwhelmed by how much this book includes, it also feel striking how many people are not included. A great book for residents of dc and alums of George Chauncey’s class!!

[Allison · Rating 2 out of 5]

Secret City is an ambitious project of history. It brings gay people into the spotlight for their contributions to U.S. politics in the 20th century. The book covers insiders and outsiders in Washington, D.C., those both in and out of the closet, and those who led double lives out of necessity. While there's an inherently social component to focusing on a particular, marginalized segment of the population, I would caution potential readers that this isn't a social history. The author was in part inspired by biographical writing, and that's clear in his writing style. Particular impactful lives are shared of the (mostly) men who both thrived and suffered by turns because of their gay identities. Sometimes, this ties into broader political trends, attitudes, and movements, but that isn't the driving force of the book. It's organized into sections based on the sitting President rather than themes or ideas and reads like an entry-level history textbook instead of a theory-based argument about the past. The author's main thesis seems to be that the U.S. government has missed out on a lot of would-be talented operators who were shut out due to being gay or lesbian. It's a reasonable statement, but it doesn't go very deep or offer a broad level of analysis.

The book covers many topics that haven't received their due in general history education due to 1) social aversion to acknowledging discrimination in its various forms and 2) the widespread erasure of gay people and their experiences. One such important topic is the lavender scare, which went hand-in-hand with its more famous brother, the red scare. Gay people were seen as supposedly more susceptible to blackmail and therefore undeserving of a security clearance. The author notes the irony that if the government didn't first make it a problem for employment, it would lack oomph as a source of blackmail for enemies. Also, whereas people could prove they weren't communists and regain lost positions, the smear campaign against believed gay men was the kiss of death for a career even if there was no evidence provided to support it. Stereotypes and guilt by association were considered reasonable ways to identify and fire gay men. Closeting became more intense, and some committed suicide once outed and fired in one fell swoop. There were long-lasting consequences to the lavender scare, even after the fear of communism was no longer as rabid. Security checks continued to include questions about being gay because the underlying, unsubstantiated assumption about the potential for blackmail remained. The State Department, which purged huge numbers of gay men (who once thrived in an environment where being unmarried and mobile were considered a plus) retained a reputation as being an especially gay branch of government.

One thing the book makes clear is that homophobia has been a feature of our government across the political spectrum. Both parties were comfortable with insinuations and smear campaigns about supposed "sexual deviancy," claims that tanked careers whether they were true or not. Gossip magazines outed and doxed gay men while newspapers wrestled with whether to name AIDs victims because of the repercussions for victims' families. Both action and inaction emphasized the assumed shame and secrecy of being gay. Politics also largely didn't factor into relationships within the gay community. There was an aspect of mutually assured destruction since pointing the finger at someone else would call into question the accuser and how they know. The author notes that this assumed safety within the community has more recently broken down for those who publicly work against the community while privately-- secretly-- participating in it.

Kirchick also investigates the ways that gay men have found success working for the government or in the social milieu of Washington. While opportunities for serving as elected officials and for working in jobs with a security clearance were at times too risky to pursue, there were ways to reach influential positions. Gay men often served as walkers and later as popular hosts on the social circuit. Walkers were men who were trusted to take men's wives to parties when they were too busy working to attend a function. Men who were single and dressed and danced well were ideal candidates. In government jobs, gay men learned to be loyal as a means of protection. If a boss came to rely on them, a rare commodity in politics, that was a currency that might (but didn't always) keep them safe from being outed or axed.

I have more to say on this in a minute, but I initially appreciated that the author is upfront about the narrow range of identity his book tends to focus on as a feature of who was allowed to work in politics. While largely about white cis men, there are a few moments discussed in the book that stand out for venturing outside that norm. When the Mattachine Society was incorporated in Washington, D.C. in the 1960s, lesbians were present in fewer numbers and subject to gendered discrimination from the men. They were expected to fulfill gender norms in how they dressed at protests and given less room to speak at meetings. The book also features the political attacks on Bayard Rustin, the Black, gay man who organized the 1964 March on Washington. White congressmen tried to discredit the civil rights movement as well as the religious leaders within it who feared his open homosexuality. Rustin had been forced to resign from positions two times previously when his identity seemed a risk to the broader cause. In this, the NAACP ultimately stood behind him in an unprecedented move when faced with an outside threat from the government.

In my opinion, the brief inclusion of other identities and intersectionalities in the book doesn't do a book on political history justice. The author seems inconsistently interested in the experiences of some parts of the queer community like women, people of color, and trans people (who really aren't featured at all). There's a difference between having to define the borders of your project out of necessity (i.e. this is about white gay men because of who could participate in government at the time) and ignoring the import of the borders you choose. First of all, I think these borders aren't as real as the author suggests given that he includes people who worked as activists and community leaders outside the government, which cuts a wider swathe. Second, if your book is going to be limited, you should reflect on why you're leaving some people out and how you could be reinforcing structures of power with that decision.

What had once been a "pebble in my shoe" level of discomfort for hundreds of pages became "a boulder blocking my path" level of unignorable irritant in the final chapter. Wrapping things up in the 90s, the ending was a bit too positive for my tastes. He muses on the march toward progress for gay rights and its rapid trajectory, which relies on a certain inaccurate and troubling view of history that I disagree with, smoothing away human chaos, backtracking, and harm by relying on a one-dimensional, mechanistic view of things. To make things worse, we currently inhabit a time of walking back queer rights in the U.S. and an increasing danger to queer people, especially but not limited to trans folx, a group that doesn't even get a crumb of acknowledgment in this history. This flies in the face of his view and tone of where gay rights stand at the end of the book.

The kind of sketchy vibe that amplified right at the end led me to seek out the author's published articles and formerly-known-as-twitter. And it turns out he's one of those people who feels expanding terminology to include more types of queer people is a disservice to gays and lesbians. He also likens demands for the powerful (i.e. politicians and media) to include trans people and listen to their often unheard perspectives as a form of authoritarianism, so it seems he's confused about who holds authoritarian power and how that all works. In general, he seems threatened by trans rights as a perceived challenge to his own need for white, cisgender gay man rights. And if that's not what's fucked up in our community.

Here's the thing. I learned a lot from this book-- important stories and themes from our government's past that more people should know. For that, I value the experience. Do I trust the author and would I pick up something else by him? Probably not. His rarefied Ivy League education seems to have granted him an expansive vocabulary and a lot to say but not an ear to listen to parts of what should be his community about their experiences and histories. Pick this up for a greater understanding of the historical roles of white, gay men in the U.S. government, not to get a broader social picture or to see other members of the queer community included.

[John Geddie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Intriguing, the basic history is known but it tells you the story from a different perspective and provides all sorts of examples to support the narrative. It’s very interesting if you follow politics at all to see the ebb and flow of lgbt experience as the administrations changed. And It provides a blast from the past if you know DC at all.

My one nag is that the review of the 90s seemed very rushed. It’s less on point as lgbt people were more open beginning in this period, but I’d have liked to hear more about the transition and get more of a scoop from this period as well.

[Emory · Rating 5 out of 5]

An interesting and well researched look into what makes Washington DC a unique city, including the hidden history of queer politicians and White House staff members. The city seems to draw folks from all over the country who want to start a new life and reinvent themselves. It seems that for some, the temptation/closeness of power supersedes their queer identity.

I enjoyed the author's writing style and tone of voice.

[Halley Brooks · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ronald Reagan I will see you in hell

[TL *Humaning the Best She Can* · Rating 4 out of 5]

*Overdrive app *

Narration: 4 stars 🌟
Comtent: 4 stars 🌟

[Nick · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a gay man who lived in Washington DC from 1970-78 and again from 1982-90, I was thrilled at this comprehensive and meticulously researched story of that "Secret City," e.g., the history of gays and lesbians that ran parallel and often intersected with the conventional view of events (meaning hetero). This book goes well beyond the well-reported scandals involving gay people, such as LBJ's close associate Walter Jenkins and the lavender scare of the early 50's to recount fascinating subplots of people lost to history, whether victims or resistors of anti-gay oppression. Moreover, Kirchick makes a compelling case that the cynical use of potential disclosure shaped almost every presidential administration and a large portion of policy, both domestic and international. The author has a spot-on sense of the unique nature of Washington's weird social milieu, where access to power fuels a parade of unique characters. I particularly liked his depiction of what can only be described as gay socialites during the late 70s and early 80s. Ditto his telling of the deep attraction of severe right-wing politics to a certain type of homosexual male. Apparently, the Young Americans for Freedom was a hotbed of gay sex, albeit unadmitted. My association with Washington makes me the ideal reader for this excellent book, but it deserves to be read by everyone interested in history, gay or straight.

[Daniel Burnett · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’m not particularly generous with my ratings on Goodreads, but Secret City deserves every one of those five stars.

After living in DC for a decade—and spending much of that time learning about the city’s history and gay scene—I feared this could be a recitation of mostly familiar stories. I was pleasantly surprised by story after story that had somehow eluded my own informal research.

The author humanized people who were too often dehumanized in their time. It feels like a lot of people who kept important parts of their lives secret can breathe a sigh of relief that this story finally has been told.

[Austin · Rating 4 out of 5]

An impressive and comprehensive detailing of the untold stories of gay Washington. Really made me appreciate my city and being gay more than I could’ve imagined.

Although this took me nearly a year to complete, I really enjoyed this book. I think it followed an engaging story arc (which like yes it’s just history but the author really made it feel like it was a story with a plot line). From invisibility, to struggle, to growing acceptance, to the ignorance of the Reagan administration, to where we are today.

I was moved by so many of the men and women who fought for our rights when doing so meant becoming a pariah in their social and professional lives.

One of two critiques would be the lack of representation of lesbians and queer poc. I think this felt very centered on white gay men and it would have been nice to hear stories about different experiences. My other critique is just related to the pacing for the beginning of the book. I just think it was not only dense but repetitive, so I did struggle to pick it up when I first started.

Very appreciative of living at a time when I can be so gay in a city that has always been very historically gay. I can’t imagine the amount of research that was necessary for this absolute behemoth of queer history to get published. Thank you Kirchick!

[Natalie · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was such an informative read. So much research, so many facts, it was so incredibly well done and I learned a lot. It’s a THICK book (800ish pages), so it’ll take readers some time. By no means is this a book to speed through!

Due to its length and the pure facts within, the content is straightforward to the point it comes off a little dry and blunt. By no means is this a fluffy story, it’s a long, journalistic piece that is very triggering.

Content warnings: homophobia, suicide, outing, sexual assault, gaslighting, bribery

Partly focused on LGBTQIA+ history, partly focused on people within politics who are/were gay, and partly focused on the homophobia within politics and our country alone.

Overall, it’s worth the read.

Big thank you to Henry Holt for the gifted copy!

[Dr. Andy · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was hella long. Useful history to know and well put together, but also dry in many places. Also, I am just SO TIRED of all the bigotry. Reading this it makes it clear how little things have change. The same way gay/queer people were targeted in the 50-80s are the same way trans people are being targeted now. Overall, I'm glad I read this and learned just how gay the US really is, but this definitely slogged in some places because of how heavy the material is.

CWs: queerphobia/queermisia, bigotry, outing, imprisonment, racism, witch hunts of queer people, violence, death, suicide, suicide attempt, murder, AIDS mentions/discussion.

[Shawn Thrasher · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first half is better than the second half -but I'm not quite sure why. More compelling perhaps? The stakes were written to make them seem higher in the first half rather than the second? An interesting history of gay (mostly male, mostly white) Washington from the Roosevelt through the Clinton administrations. Definitely not the "good old days."

[Steven · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow -- what a ride. If you like well written historical overviews, and the topic is up your alley -- read this.

Kirchick covers the people, attitudes, movements and politics that shaped gay Washington from FDR through Clinton, although both the G.H.W. Bush and Clinton eras aren't covered as deeply as earier administration. And the books is arranged by administrations, covering the good and the bad.

I knew of a lot of these people (Oliver Sipple, Gerry Studds, Leonard Matlovitch, Frank Kameny, Jean O'Leary), some of whom made the news in my youth, but others, like gangster Odessa Madre, were knew and fascinating. Kirchick acknowledges the pressure that gay people lived under during the late 20th century, and bring to light the dissonance between public and private life that citizens of the "secret city" had to endure. But also, he shows the contortions that administrations and bureaucrats went through, choosing when and when not to "see" them.

The best parts, I think are the ones about the McCarthy era and the Reagan administration. I had no idea how gay that administration was! Don't get the idea that this is a sordid tell-all, though, it's well-written and incredibly researched. Kirchick's care and passion for the subject really comes through. And he can be quite funny at times. Here's a few lines from p. 639 concerning Pete Williams, a Defense Department spokesman during the Reagan administration:

"It would be nice to find him a wife," said Williams's assistant, Carole Manlove, whose unimprovable surname hinted at why he had yet to find one.

If you like well-written gay history, read this. It's going to win some awards, I'm sure.

[Tad · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book combined two of my favorite things: gay history and politics. So of course, that meant that I was going to like it. It is extremely well researched and very thorough, sometimes a little too thorough. But what it outlines is so intriguing and so maddening that I found myself both surprised and disappointed in equal measure. It's not surprising that there have been gay people in DC for decades. Nor is it that surprising that many of then were forced to stay in the closet in order to preserve their lives and careers. What was surprising was just how prevalent and prominent many of them were to the powerful elites in DC.
I liked how this book chose to divide its chapters up by president as that helped give a bigger picture of what was going in the US at each point in time. And I appreciated that the author was willing to give a big picture overview of the ways in which gay people were a part of DC life and DC culture. This was a fascinating read, particularly if you're into politics or queer history. One thing is for sure, if you disliked Ronald Reagan before reading this, you will absolutely despise him after reading it.

[Tom · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very good history but too focused on scandals and high-profile, powerful people. The narrative was light on the lives of ordinary people, and I would have loved to learn more about how the run-of-the-mill gay Washingtonian went about their life during various periods.

[Aaron Thomas · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a very long book, and I was very frustrated by it.

In the first place—and this seems important to stress—this is a book for straight audiences, not gay ones: it continually overexplains things that would be obvious to any gay reader; and it frequently takes a teachable tone, explaining things to straight readers so that they can understand gay things better.

In the second place, Kirchick is obsessed with the idea of the secret, frequently beginning a story about some particular government operative or other by telling us about how straight-laced he is, about how many kids he has, about how long he's been married, etc. The set up is always obvious, and the punch-line is always the same, to the point of boredom: but he had a deep dark secret he had told to no one! The trouble with this approach is that it, in many ways, transforms queer desire into a "secret" rather than a set of longings, attractions, and pleasures, and this approach also makes a moral judgment about the man keeping the secret as devious or criminal or somehow perverse. It's as if the man Kirchick is describing could easily tell the entire world about his desires without repercussions. There is a persistent moral tone throughout the book, and it's aimed in particular at those in the so-called closet.

Thirdly, Kirchick insists on referring to all men who have sex with men as "gay", even when they expressly tell others they are not gay. This seems rude, and rather homophobic, actually.

Finally, Kirchick repeatedly stresses the opportunities lost to the nation because of the homophobia of so many in the government. As a gay reader raised on radical queer politics and the kinds of anti-nationalist, anti-war, anti-government, and sex-positive stances that are associated with queer political organizing, this strikes me as an almost bizarre approach. Think of how much this person wanted to serve his nation, Kirchick asks us to consider, and how much the nation lost by refusing to let him do so. It's such a weird take. If only the U.S. government could have been less homophobic, Kirchick seems to say, the U.S. would have been a much better war machine. Think of what success this country might have had as a police state if only it had been less homophobic!

The author's politics make absolutely no sense to me, and I found the writing to almost willfully avoid analysis. But I will say I learned a lot about homophobic news scandals from previous decades; it is this with which the book is chiefly concerned, and I didn't know much of this history.

Incidentally, if I hadn't already decided that this was a book for straight people, Ron Butler, the audiobook's reader, would have convinced me soon enough. He repeatedly pronounces the names of gay literary figures incorrectly—André Gide, Marcel Proust, Alain Locke, and several others all get their names butchered.

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

Extremely well-organized, researched, and readable. It's extremely long, and there's probably some stuff that could be cut, but I'm not sure exactly what so I bumped this up to a fifth star. It may also be that the current gay panic on the Right (book bans, trans attacks) just feels so similar to the bullshit they've pulled for LITERALLY ALMOST A CENTURY now, and it's ALWAYS THE SAME HYPOCRITICAL BULLSHIT to trick socially conservative people into voting for lower taxes on rich people and big corporations.
When a particular administration has some particularly weird ideas about persecuting gays (spoiler: they're all Republican administrations) he spends more time on them, and when they're just a bunch of weak-kneed cowards who can't bring themselves to protect gays (spoiler: they're all Democratic administrations) he generally spends less time on them. There are exceptions: there's quite a bit here about Kennedy and Johnson because they intersected with the growth of gay liberation movements, and there's almost nothing about Ford, because duh, but overall Kirchick has an amazing eye for the most interesting stories about the slow but steady evolution of gay identity in Washington and in particular the strange way that gay social conservatives just keep damning gays in the daytime and frequenting bathhouses and movie theatres and bars at night that happen to be full of other gay men! Huh. The diamond of all of these details is the Reagan obituary speech for Rock Hudson that Kirchick found so outrageously, vilely damning that he actually photocopied the edit. You'll see it yourself when you read this book, but basically: this is not the original speech, and the original speech is utterly heartbreaking.

[Shane · Rating 4 out of 5]

I finished this a few days ago and was holding off reviewing it until I had time to write more but that’s not coming soon so here’s the rushed version. This book has a narrower focus than I was expecting in terms of being primarily interested happening in queer people in the White House or congress with limited diversions. Within that focus I did learn a lot - I particularly found it interesting to see the evolution of the way society reacted to a gay scandal in politics (the scandal often just being that people were gay in the first place). And the way that queer people from both political had this impetus to keep each other’s secrets for a long time from mutually assured destruction but that changed as the two parties diverged in how they handled gay rights. That all being said, I was hoping for more variation in the subject matter and it wasn’t a total win for me.