The Zelensky Fashion Controversy is Really About Political Ideals

Photo via Reuters

SUSY TERAN: During the meeting between Trump, Zelensky, and Vance, a White House staffer maliciously asked the Ukrainian President why he wasn't wearing a suit. A discussion about the White House’s dress code soon followed. This controversy presents an opportunity to explore the intersection of fashion and politics. And, as it turns out, a politician’s style is not to be underestimated, for it is surprisingly revealing of who they are and what they stand for. 

Keenly aware of the communicative power of clothing, Zelensky has been wearing “military” style attire since the beginning of the war to signal that he’s standing by his people as long as the war continues. This message has not gone unheard. At a speech he delivered for an awards ceremony shortly after the White House meeting, Zelensky ironically apologized for not wearing a suit and was met with a round of applause.

Moreover, the fact that his attire makes him “underdressed” is intentional as well. The idea is that a president whose country is at war does not have the luxury of worrying about which shoes match what tie. While the symbolism of Zelensky’s attire is quite clear, it has offended many inside and outside the White House, who perceived such “informality” of dress as “disrespectful.” 

Questioning whether Zelensky violated norms of etiquette and was or was not disrespectful misses the point. This controversy was further complicated when a reporter asked about the White House dress code after pointing out that Elon Musk rarely wears a suit. And Musk’s “informality” is as intentional and symbolic as Zelensky’s. 

Even though Musk was one of the young tech geniuses who achieved success wearing jeans, it would be overly simplistic to understand his outfit as an expression of laid-back Silicon Valley culture. His combination of a suit with a “Tech Support” t-shirt underneath creates a unique blend that exactly represents who he is today. The suit says government while the t-shirt protests the establishment. Musk managed to embody this paradox – he became DOGE. 

Zelenky’s war uniform and Musk’s defiant t-shirt are more than dress code violations. Through their clothing, both of them clearly state their values and mission. The same applies to Vance and Trump.

When JD Vance was first selected as Trump’s VP candidate, analysts found an unusual thing to discuss–his beard. Vance became the first major party nominee with facial hair in 75 years. Beards had been avoided because of their association with counterculture, eccentricity, or stereotypical masculinity. But for Vance, because of his conservative policies and electorate, “manliness” was a positive thing. The full beard underscores Vance’s ideology and traditional family values.

Finally, President Trump’s signature look – the padded blazer – is a profound political statement. This piece of clothing is fraught with history and has become a potent, multifaceted symbol. In the 80s, it became the uniform of anti-elite, anti-establishment, Wall Street men. This is also the decade that saw the rise of Donald Trump. By wearing a padded blazer, Trump invokes and affirms the ideology of money and power that forged him. However, there is now perhaps an additional layer of meaning to Trump’s attire.  

The squared-shoulder suit undeniably gives the President a silhouette that conveys strength. Vance wants to show that he is a strong man. Trump, that he is a strongman, a subscriber of the leadership style that has been rising in Europe and Latin America. For Trump, power shoulders represent the strength of his governance. 

However, Trump is not the only one who has made the padded blazer his signature style – Kamala Harris is there with him. Women in politics face much more scrutiny (and judgment) for what they wear than men. Because of gender structures, they must avoid looking like first ladies while embracing that they are women. Additionally, because they face such heightened scrutiny, they must be careful not to make too big a fashion statement that will monopolize the media’s attention away from what they say or do. 

Therefore, it makes sense that Harris should have adopted the padded blazer when she became California Attorney General. Still, it is meaningful that from the limited range of options available to her as a woman in politics, she chose the padded blazer. Among Nikki Haley and Hillary Clinton – both with a unique style deliberately constructed to convey particular ideals – Harris, in her squared-shoulder suits, looks the most assertive.  

Politics amplify the expressive power of fashion. The type of suit or color of a tie is immediately politicized when worn by a government official. And this makes sense. Clothing and style are just another medium through which politicians communicate to us what some of their values and priorities are. 

Susy Terán is a staff writer for On the Record from Quito, Ecuador. She is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences, majoring in Government and double minoring in Creative Writing and Theology and Religious Studies.