How, If at All, to Talk About Fashion in the Age of Authoritarianism

“The money is an issue — that’s why we see the most incredible things happening and nobody is reacting.”

“Bravo to Hervé Pierre, whose dress for Melania Trump struck that fine line between graceful and chic,” esteemed fashion critic Suzy Menkes gushed on Instagram after posting a photo of the President and the First Lady on Inauguration Day. She doubled down in a follow-up post which featured a sketch of Melania Trump’s strapless, off-white silk crepe dress provided to her by Pierre, Melania’s long-time stylist. “Timeless, elegant — but with a body-conscious silhouette,” Menkes, who once called Hillary Clinton’s style “manish,” remarked. She shared in the caption a letter that Pierre had written just for her, letting her know that he hoped she liked the dress and was sending her “so much love.”

suzymenkes

A post shared by @suzymenkes

The comment section was overwhelmingly less-than-pleased to see Menkes fawning so blatantly.

“Suzy, respectfully: Have you lost your mind?”

“The complicity here is shocking and horrifying to me.”

“After decades of real, objective fashion journalism you bow down to dictatorship and insanity.”

Similar sentiments are strewn across the comment section of Vogue’s Instagram as well as Oscar de la Renta’s. And yet all three sectors (brand, media and journalist) seemed undeterred. As the New York Times’s Vanessa Friedman, long on the politics in fashion beat, noted in her story:

“This time is different.” 

Oscar de la Renta, with a long history of dressing First Ladies of both political persuasions, was expectedly diplomatic when issuing their statement: “Oscar always felt that we should try to associate our brand with women of accomplishment — leaders and doers,” Alex Bolen, the chief executive of Oscar de la Renta, told Friedman.

“We would never decline the opportunity to work with a leader based solely on their politics. Further, as an American brand, we are honored to be associated with the wonderful traditions surrounding our presidential inauguration.”

I couldn’t help but be reminded of a famous quote from Oscar himself: “Fashion is nonpolitical and nonpartisan.” In that sense, this should really come as no surprise.

Anna Wintour, too, tried to make this more of a business-as-usual decision. “When a fashion house dresses a public figure it’s usually a business decision, and a day like the inauguration brings immense attention to a designer’s creative work,” she told the Washington Post. “I don’t see any broader lessons about American fashion than that.”

And yet there is something somewhat surprising at play: The willingness from the outset to treat the Trump ladies (and those in their orbit) as though they are any other First Family. There are, of course, obvious reasons for this. From the brand perspective, there’s the fear of tariffs. As the Business of Fashion noted in their reporting, manufacturers in Asia, Europe, Latin America and Africa are bracing for new tariffs that could radically shift trade flows. But it’s not just that. There’s also a fear that “if you get on the wrong side of this administration, there will be repercussions directed at [your business],” according to Alexander Fury, the fashion features director of AnOther magazine. There’s also another reality: 77 million Americans voted for Trump, and many of those voters are (potential) consumers. It’s simply unwise for a brand to alienate a large conglomerate of their consumer base. It’s easier to play both sides (or no sides, as they might call it) than potentially lose a significant swath of customers.

Is it jarring to all of the sudden see brands seemingly glorifying these people as the Camelot-esque figures they purport to be? Sure. But as I told Rachel Tashjian for her Washington Post story:

“I can’t say I’m surprised to see it. It’s a total about-face from even a few months ago, yes, but the signs were all there. Think about Trump joining Bernard Arnault at the Louis Vuitton factory in Texas a few years back. What’s changed in the immediate (and I suspect will only grow) is the willingness to say the quiet part out loud. Seeing the brands on social media, for instance, proclaiming with the same pride and enthusiasm over outfitting Ivanka Trump at dinner that’s usually reserved for an A-lister’s Oscar dress. To me, the boasting is the more shocking part. And I suspect with the greenlight from some of the premiere luxury brands, other more timid or risk averse brands will follow suit.”

Still, I am surprised with the lack of resistance messaging at the very least. “The world has become conservative, and what is happening is horrible,” Miuccia Prada told reporters after debuting her latest collection, which she claimed was a response to the algorithms pushed by Trump cronies like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg.

“It is about liberating instinct. As always it is an answer to what is happening. We have to resist.”

Why such silence (thus far)? “They are all afraid of selling less,” Belgian designer Walter Van Beirendonck told Agence France-Presse.

“The money is an issue – that’s why we see the most incredible things happening and nobody is reacting.”

Well ain’t that the goddamn truth.

That explains the brands. As for the media: It comes down to clicks which leads to ad dollars which is, again, all about the money. Whether someone is double tapping because they like what they see or commenting their disdain or disapproval, it all up-funnels as the same metric of success. During my tenure as Senior Style Editor at Mic.com, I helped create the weekly column “What Melania Wore,” which quickly became one of the site’s most-trafficked stories each week. The column was not intended to celebrate or disparage her clothing, but really a reaction to what our previous data had shown: Readers care about First Lady fashion regardless of the political persuasion of the given FLOTUS. With that in mind, it makes sense why outlets want to not only cover them, but make dedicated beats out of their every move. It’s why Vogue runs an article headlined “The Most Notable Fashion Moments From the Pre-Inauguration Events” (notably without a byline) that highlights the wears of everyone from Usha Vance to Robert F. Kennedy. Covering them — whether ooh-ing and ah-ing, condemning or, as Teen Vogue has done, shading them — is a tactic that ultimately helps bolster the media outlet.

But it’s less the “if” for me than the “how.” Like the Menkes post above, there’s been a subtle but marked shift in the way that the fashion is being spoken about, even fawned over, this go-round. I’m reminded of Morning Joe co-hosts Joe Scarborough & Mika Brzezinski going to Mar-a-Lago to meet with Trump. Several sources told CNN that Scarborough and Brzezinski were credibly concerned that they could face governmental and legal harassment from the Trump administration. I wonder if any fashion journalists might feel similarly if they were to speak out against the Trumps, particularly knowing how important fashion adjacency is to Melania and Ivanka. Will we continue to see folks like Suzy Menkes fawning over objectively uninspiring clothing? One has to wonder. Or will folks like Menkes curry favor and therefore access behind the gilded walls this administration proudly puts up? And is that of value?

I am not looking forward to what seems like an inevitable Vogue cover for Melania, Ivanka or Usha and I am not looking forward to seeing them front row at fashion shows or really embraced at all. But I also live in reality, and recognize the inevitabilities of some of this. And while it frustrates, it does not confuse. The fashion industry, much like the Trump administration, has and will always be about the bottom line. In that sense, there’s much synergy between the two. I’ll continue looking to folks like Miuccia Prada and Willy Chavarria, designers unafraid to highlight the space between fashion as art and fashion as a business. Long may their voices by heard above the cacophony of noise.