Stop Trying to Politicize White House Pregnancies

It’s no secret that The New York Times has devoted considerable resources and focus over the last decades to heavily critiquing President Donald Trump, the policies of his two administrations and the broader “MAGA” movement.

But earlier this week, the Old Grey Lady decided to plow new ground – analyzing and commenting on the supposed political significance of the maternity clothes that several members within the president’s inner circle have been wearing.

Over the last few months, there have been numerous stories highlighting something of a “baby boom” at the White House. Vice President JD Vance and his wife, Usha, are expecting their fourth child. The last time a sitting vice president’s wife had a baby was in 1870 when Ellen Colfax, Vice President Schuyler Colfax’s spouse, gave birth.

Last month, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt and her husband had their second child. Katie Miller, who is married to White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, had the couple’s fourth child earlier this month.

Writes the Times’ fashion critic, Vanessa Friedman:

Together, the women have created a notably consistent, and somewhat paradigm-shifting, picture of the White House’s family and fertility platform.

If the bare-chested, muscled mixed martial arts fighters of the U.F.C. match that President Trump hosted on Flag Day were the poster guys for MAGA’s image of masculinity, then the pregnant women of Trump world are one half of their feminine counterparts. Along with the sheath-clad, lip-filled, pageant-haired Mar-a-Lago set, they offer an image of idealized womanhood that gives literal shape to the pronatalist movement.

On Mother’s Day, now mother-of-four Katie Miller noted, “Peak feminism is having babies.” She then added, “The most radical thing a woman can do is embrace her biological destiny.”

Sadly, with an American birthrate at just 1.6 children per woman, having multiple boys and girls is quickly becoming a “radical” lifestyle choice.

The Times noted that all three women have chosen wardrobes that accentuate rather than conceal or play down their pregnancies. Liberal author and feminist Jill Filipovic observed: “It almost feels like a memo went out. They have quite intentionally opted to present themselves as, ‘I am really pregnant, and this is what women were chosen to do,’ and they are happy to say that both with their looks and their mouths.”

Predictably, The New York Times seems convinced that the three conservative women featured are consciously and strategically choosing clothes to make a social and political statement rather than simply a fashion choice or a matter of comfort. The article contrasts current maternity fashions with the era of First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy and even Cherie Blair, wife of Tony Blair, the former British prime minister. 

“Forget the maternity muumuu,” writes the Times. “Forget body-con. This is baby-con. In case you missed it, the hand serves to focus the eye.”

The Times quotes Second Lady Usha Vance, who appears to be defending her choice of clothes. She explains, “I have to dress up a lot more. I enjoyed my last pregnancy — there were a lot of sweatpants. I was working from home and sometimes put a blazer on over what was under.”

On Wednesday afternoon, in response to the Times article, Mrs. Vance politely but satirically pushed back, writing on X:

Now that we know the political significance of my $8.75 coral maternity dress from Old Navy, can’t wait to hear what The New York Times has to say about my elastic-waistband pants and compression socks! In the meantime, enjoy my pregnancy fashion (or lack thereof) and a good story with your kids on Storytime with the Second Lady.

One of the ironies in the Times analysis is how Friedman, a woman undoubtedly with sympathies to more progressive politics than the three women she is writing about likely hold, isn’t outright celebrating this current fashion development. After all, in a progressive’s world, women can certainly wear or not wear whatever they want regardless of societal norms. 

Vanessa Friedman concludes her article by quoting Helen Lewis, author of “Difficult Women: A History of Feminism in 11 Fights.”

“It’s really noticeable that the MAGA women are not hiding their pregnancy,” Lewis said. “There is pride in being pregnant and being fertile.” 

As well there should be – healthy pride, that is.

But then Lewis succumbs to the same psychoanalysis as Friedman, quickly suggesting there is a political motivation on the part of mothers Vance, Leavitt and Miller.

“They are modeling the idea that one of the ways women can hold power is by being mothers and leaning into the imagery of that.”

Does it ever occur to Williams or Lewis that maybe these are three women who love being moms who are simply delighted and unapologetically proud to be pregnant, and want, at the same time, to also dress fashionably as well as comfortably?

Leave it to The New York Times to try and politicize pregnancy and motherhood.