Fashion and politics have always walked a fine line between influence and controversy. Politics shapes policies, while fashion makes statements—sometimes bold, sometimes divisive. When Donald Trump arrived at the White House, I noticed that media outlets were more focused on what the women of the Trump family were wearing to the inauguration than on the event itself. This made me reflect on the deep connection between fashion and politics—and the undeniable influence women in the political sphere have on the fashion industry. But the question remains: should the two be intertwined? Or does the obsession with fashion—especially women’s fashion—distract from the real issues?
A recent controversy surrounding the intersection of fashion and politics was the criticism of Ivanka Trump for seemingly copying Audrey Hepburn’s iconic Givenchy dress from Sabrina. In my opinion, this distasteful recreation is not an ‘inspired’ look but rather a carbon copy of Hepburn’s look, leaving Ivanka Trump looking like she is going to a Halloween party, not the Inauguration ball. Clearly, Audrey Hepburn’s level of class and elegance cannot be recreated even by the President’s daughter.
This cosplay gone wrong made me think about the broader context of fashion and politics. Women in the White House are only ever spoken/written about when it has to do with their clothing. Take Jackie Kennedy as an example. The former first lady is the pinnacle of White House fashion. When you think of Jackie O, you immediately picture the haunting pink tweed Chanel suit and pillbox hat she wore the day she tragically lost her husband. The First Lady was sophisticated, well-spoken, and a lady of tradition and class, using her French-inspired wardrobe to craft an image that has stood the test of time and, dare I say, solidified the Kennedy legacy within fashion.
In contrast, Melania Trump, an ex-fashionista and model, has often been compared to first ladies of the past and shamelessly admitted that she would like to be seen as a Jackie Kenndy type figure in the White House. However, her fashion choices sometimes do not reflect this goal, such as her infamous ‘’I really don’t care, do u?’’ jacket, worn when visiting a migrant detention camp in 2018. Clothing is a form of self- expression, especially when you are a woman in politics and representing your husband’s political values.
On the other hand, Kate Middleton, The Princess of Wales, although not directly a political figure, represents the royal court; thus her fashion choices reflect that. Her style seamlessly blends tradition with modern sophistication, reflecting both grace and approachability. The Princess is known for wearing brands from Alexander McQueen to Reiss; she successfully manages to pay homage to royal protocol whilst incorporating modern elements that define her monarchical legacy as a fashion icon.
So, why is so much attention paid to what women in politics wear?
The simple answer is that women in politics often have to navigate an unfair double standard, where their clothing is analyzed as much or more so than what they do to better their country. Male politicians are rarely critiqued for their attire unless they step too far outside the norm. A president in an ill-fitting suit might make headlines for a day. For example, When Barack Obama decided to wear a tan coloured suit the world could not believe it; nonetheless, everyone forgot about it sooner or later. However, on the other hand the fashion choices of First Ladies and female politicians define their legacy.
So, should fashion have a place in politics? In an ideal world, political figures would be judged on their policies rather than their wardrobes. However, the reality is that fashion is used as a communicative, powerful tool, to not only send messages to the public about political policies but to display these women’s status in the world of politics. While scrutiny over fashion choices can sometimes feel superficial, dismissing it entirely ignores the cultural and political power that clothing holds.
As long as public figures use fashion to make statements, whether intentionally or not, it will continue to be analyzed, debated, and—at times—weaponized. The challenge is ensuring that these discussions do not overshadow the substantive issues that truly define political leadership.