Gallant’s attorney, Sara Azari, acknowledged that the photographs are genuine. However, she emphasized that they came from a private and consensual photo session involving Gallant and a former romantic partner.
“The photographs are authentic and were taken during a private, consensual photo session involving Chris and his then-partner, with whom he was in a committed four-year relationship,” Gallant’s Los Angeles and New York-based attorney Sara Azari told The Post.
Azari also explained that Gallant had a personal relationship with the owner of Mr. S Leather and had agreed to allow certain photographs to be used by the business in connection with its products.
“Chris was also friends with the owner of Mr. S Leather, and the shoot was intended to be fun and personal, with the understanding that Mr. S could use select images in connection with certain products,” she added.
Online archives reportedly show that photographs associated with Gallant remained available through the retailer’s website for years, with records indicating their presence from approximately 2011 through 2020.
According to Azari, Gallant eventually requested that the images be taken down as he began contemplating a future in public service.
“As Chris began considering a future in public service, he asked that the photographs no longer be used and that they be removed from the company’s website. Mr. S honored his request,” she continued.
The controversy goes beyond the retailer’s website. Additional explicit photographs reportedly found their way onto unrelated adult websites. Gallant’s legal team maintains that those sites did not receive unlimited authorization to distribute the material.
Azari argued that the original arrangement with Mr. S Leather should not be interpreted as permission for unrelated third parties to republish the photographs.
She said his arrangement with the retailer was “never intended to authorize unrestricted publication” by third parties.
The resurfaced material reportedly includes images of Gallant wearing bondage-related gear and appearing in sexually explicit settings. The photographs have become a potential political flashpoint as the congressional campaign moves forward and voters begin taking a closer look at the candidates seeking to represent the district.
Gallant’s background otherwise includes an extensive record of military and public service. He has served in the Army National Guard since 2006 and is a Black Hawk helicopter pilot, according to his professional biography.
His résumé also includes experience as a volunteer firefighter and former Federal Aviation Administration air traffic controller. He previously served as a union leader as well.
Another photograph that has attracted attention dates to 2007 and reportedly shows Gallant attending the annual Invasion of the Pines LGBTQ event on Fire Island. His attorney has stressed that the photograph predates the separate photo shoot involving Mr. S Leather.
Gallant’s campaign and legal team have rejected the suggestion that the resurfaced photographs should define his candidacy.
Rather than allowing the images to become the centerpiece of the race, Azari argued that voters should judge Gallant based on his qualifications, record and positions on the issues.
“He will not allow photographs from a past relationship or employment to be distorted and weaponized for political purposes or used to distract voters from the issues that matter,” Azari stressed.
“These photographs have no bearing on Chris’s record, qualifications, judgment, or ability to serve,” Azari went on. “He remains fully committed to his campaign and to earning the trust of the people he seeks to represent.”
The controversy arrives at a particularly consequential moment for Gallant. He secured the Democratic nomination after defeating Lukas Ventouras in the June primary and now faces LaLota, who has represented New York’s 1st Congressional District since 2023.
With the general election approaching, the resurfaced photographs are likely to become another point of debate in a race that will ultimately be decided by voters.
For Gallant, the central challenge is now keeping the campaign focused on his military background, professional experience and political agenda rather than photographs from a private chapter of his life that he and his attorney argue should not determine his fitness for office.
For Republicans, Democrats and voters across the district, however, the episode is certain to generate questions about how much a candidate’s past should matter when he seeks a seat in Congress.
Ultimately, voters will decide whether the resurfaced material is relevant to their judgment of Gallant—or whether, as his legal team argues, it belongs firmly in the past.
