The Hot Priest Is in the White House! (Plus, stop picking on Lauren Sanchez)

Welcome to my special fashion edition.

Jan 24, 2025

I AM WELL-AWARE that there are much more urgent issues to write about than fashion at this juncture in our democracy but, frankly, I need a subject I can opine on without tossing my cookies.

In fact, I wasn’t planning to write one word about the transfer of power on January 20. I avoided it completely. Didn’t turn on the TV that day. Ignored news alerts on my devices. I spent most of the day looking at the lovely snow that blanketed New York, making marmalade from leftover orange peels, and finishing Far From Kensington by Muriel Spark (I recommend it). My only foray into inauguration news was turning on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart at 11 p.m., then flipping to Stephen Colbert at 11:35. That was it. Duty done. I am an informed citizen.

But I feel I would be remiss if I completely ignored that fateful day. So I’ve been braving the coverage and, lo and behold, I found a topic that can unite this country: the strange, curious outfits worn by the attendees at the inauguration. I became fascinated. What’s the symbolism behind the various sartorial choices? What message (intentional or not) did the wearer convey? And what does it all say about the American state of mind?

Melania, Melania, Melania. Naturally, we must start with FLOTUS and her austere navy and white ensemble. But what’s been getting the most attention is her wide-brimmed hat that cast half of her face in shadow. Jimmy Fallon called it “her very own border wall.” (Trump tried to kiss her at one point but her hat kept him at bay). Spawning countless memes, the hat is a celebrity in its own right, earning Melania comparisons to Zorro, McDonald’s Hamburglar, and Clint Eastwood in Fistful of Dollars.
Sexual power, Vatican style.
But I think we’re missing the ecclesiastical significance. To me, Melania’s whole attire — that hat, the swath of white cloth wrapping her neck, the tightly buttoned coat — was a form of homage to the aesthetics of the Catholic church. (Remember, she’s only the second Catholic first lady, Jacqueline Kennedy being the first.) It’s also a look that conveys a distinct type of sexual power, one that’s aloof, disciplined, forbidding, and cold. Isn’t it perfectly obvious that she was channeling her inner hot priest?
Lauren Sanchez, so misunderstood. Of all the lovelies that day, Sanchez has gotten the most grief – all because she wore a little bustier underneath her otherwise very demure and very mindful Alexander McQueen suit jacket. Commentators, including Fox News, savaged her look-at-my-boobs (which Mark Zuckerberg did) ensemble, calling it cheap and tawdry. Megyn Kelly said she looked like a “hooker.” The general consensus was that it was wholly inappropriate for such a serious occasion.
Such harsh words and so judgy! Permit me to come to her defense. First of all, this is who she is: a proud, sizzling Latina who’s got the goods (and Jeff Bezos, the second richest man in the world). And I doubt Trump was offended at all by her display. Most importantly, she neatly captured the spirit of the current era: vulgar, greedy, and flashy. These are not subtle times, mis amigos. So I say, give her props for being so forthright and honest. Refreshing, if you think about it.
Ivanka, the princess. The opposite of Sanchez is Ivanka, who’s perennially tastefully attired. Certainly, no one can argue with the appropriateness of what she wore to the inauguration: an understated, well-tailored teal-colored suit by Dior, topped with a matching hat. She looked elegant and patrician, though perhaps too conservative, borderline dowdy, as if she were a member of the royal family attending a coronation (or funeral) at Westminster Abbey — which is why it reeked of total phoniness.
Which look captures the true spirit of the Trump era?
Usha, the lamb. Sporting a soft pink coat by Oscar de la Renta, Manolo boots, and large flower earrings, Usha Vance radiated goodness and light. It was a noticeable contrast to the dark hues and sharp silhouettes favored by many of the ladies in Trump’s court. Next to the steely Melania and the practiced Ivanka, the new second lady was a picture of freshness and innocence. With her winsome smile, she signaled hopefulness — and that’s precisely why she stuck out like a lost lamb in that crowd of cougars. Did she not get the memo that this is American Carnage 2.0?
Usha Vance, pretty in pink.
Then, there’s Jill. Sorry Dr. Jill fans, but she looked spectacularly underwhelming. What’s up with all that matchy-matchy stuff? Bright purple was splattered everywhere — her coat, scarf, gloves, down to her shoes. It was a bit much and extremely dated. Though some commentators tried to be kind – noting how purple, which combines red with blue, is a tacit call for unity in this deeply divided country – I’m not too impressed by that explanation. All I can say is that Jill appeared frumpy, as if she had hurriedly assembled the outfit together by dashing to the nearest Talbots (even though it was actually a Ralph Lauren). The swansong outfit made no statement at all except dullness. It should be relegated to the back of the closet and forgotten, which is what many Americans would like to do with the Bidens at this point.