Political Self-Disclosure In Therapy: Clinicians’ Experiences of Risk, Alignment, and Ethical Judgment

Background: Recent scholarship demonstrates that political self-disclosure is both common and consequential in psychotherapy. Studies indicate that nearly two-thirds of clients have perceived therapists as sharing political views, and that disclosure often strengthens the therapeutic alliance, especially when clients and therapists are politically aligned (Aibel, 2018; McCarthy & Saks, 2019; Solomonov & Barber, 2019). However, other research (Winters, 2021) suggests ongoing hesitancy among therapists to disclose political opinions to preserve client autonomy. Most existing literature treats political self-disclosure as a variable predicting clinical outcomes, but overlooks the complex, moment-to-moment judgment and ethical negotiation inherent in real-world practice – particularly in client–clinician dyads marked by political divergence. This study aims to examine how therapists decide whether, when, and how to disclose political views, as well as how they interpret the relational and ethical consequences within the therapeutic encounter.

Methods: Eighty-two licensed therapists (LCSWs/LICSWs, n = 49; LCPCs/LPCs, n = 21; PsyDs/PhDs, n = 12) participated in one-hour semi-structured videoconference interviews (June–October 2025). Purposive and snowball sampling were used, with adjustments to increase political and religious diversity. Interviews explored clinicians’ perceptions of political self-disclosure, including decisions to disclose or withhold views and concerns about client responses. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2019) and abductive reasoning (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012), informed by post-structuralist and social constructionist frameworks.

Findings: Therapists described political self-disclosure as a highly selective practice, tailored to particular clients and contexts. Decisions were often guided by perceived alignment with clients, and careful assessment of whether disclosure would build rapport or risk rupturing the relationship. Most clinicians were more comfortable sharing their views when they felt aligned with clients and typically only after deliberation. Explicit client requests for transparency, however, challenged therapist hesitancy and prompted disclosure in less straightforward circumstances.

Notably, political self-disclosure was seen as distinct from other forms of self-disclosure, carrying heightened relational and ethical risk, but also served as a signal of safety, especially for marginalized clients. Additionally, many clinicians described their political identity as intertwined with their professional selves (“my politics inform everything I do”), indicating that political perspectives influence therapy even when not directly discussed. For some therapists, this dynamic produced a persistent tension between striving for neutrality and maintaining authenticity. However, therapists commonly portrayed true clinical neutrality as unattainable in today’s polarized climate, noting both rigid neutrality and over-disclosure could be detrimental.

Many clinicians engaged in pre-emptive disclosure, such as in professional profiles, to facilitate client fit, yet expressed uncertainty about the ethics and potential impacts of such public expressions. Finally, clinicians noted limited formal training on political self-disclosure, often receiving only general cautions to avoid disclosure, with practical competence developing largely through experience.

Conclusion: Political self-disclosure is not a discrete intervention, but an ongoing, relationally negotiated practice shaped by alignment, risk, and limitations of neutrality in contemporary psychotherapy. These findings underscore the importance of specialized training and ethical guidance, moving beyond generic caution toward strategies for navigating political differences, using disclosure to support client safety while maintaining client autonomy.