Usha Vance Mocks New York Times After Outlet Gets Weird About Her Maternity Outfit
Second Lady Usha Vance has now personally experienced one of American life’s most reliable maxims.
In short, to a liberal, everything is political.
Vance showed off a keen sense of humor on Wednesday while mocking a bizarre New York Times story about the broader meaning of her wardrobe choices during her pregnancy.
“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!” she wrote.
“In the meantime,” she added, “enjoy my pregnancy fashion (or lack thereof) and a good story with your kids on Storytime with the Second Lady.”
A special Father’s Day episode of Vance’s children’s literacy podcast, “Storytime with the Second Lady,” accompanied the post. For that episode, Vice President J.D. Vance joined his wife.
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…
— Second Lady Usha Vance (@SLOTUS) June 24, 2026
In a follow-up post, the second lady proved that her maternity dress did indeed cost $8.75 at Old Navy.
And here’s the receipt! pic.twitter.com/tgICmpbapQ
— Second Lady Usha Vance (@SLOTUS) June 24, 2026
To The New York Times, however, that dress and others like it told a much deeper story.
The legacy media outlet used the second lady’s podcast episode and maternity dress to advance a larger commentary about women in President Donald Trump’s orbit.
“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,” the article said.
“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.”
In other words, The New York Times insisted, by wearing clothing to accentuate their recent or current pregnancies, the second lady and other prominent Trump world women such as Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, and Katie Miller, wife of Trump advisor Stephen Miller, have sent a deliberate message to American women to have more children.
Hence the second lady’s gentle mockery.
No doubt many conservatives had the same reaction that the vice president’s wife did. After all, the story was hardly vicious. It deserved not an angry retort, but a mere roll of the eyes.
That story, however, also revealed a great deal about how conservatives and liberals view the world.
Conservatives by temperament simply want to enjoy our inherited blessings, pass them on, and improve what we can. We engage in politics primarily for the sake of preserving truth, goodness, and beauty.
Liberals, on the other hand, feel miserable with things as they are. They would prefer to upend or even destroy the inherited order. Thus, everything has political significance, because a liberal lives in a perpetual state of urgency, which breeds agitation.
This explains, of course, why Trump-haters feel justified — righteous even — when they cut off Trump-supporting friends or family members. Meanwhile, Trump supporters generally do not treat their Trump-hating friends or relatives the same way.
It also explains a curious cognitive dissonance unique to Western liberals. Namely, they hate the idea of children.
This, of course, makes no sense, After all, liberals in general seem to love their own children. They might even love other people’s children. They simply hate children from an ideological perspective. That is why, for instance, they support murdering unborn babies or encouraging young teens with confused feelings to mutilate themselves. It is all political.
Another recent example came to us courtesy of The Washington Post.
On Wednesday, the outlet published a story entitled, “Why Trump’s algae problem is much bigger than the Reflecting Pool.”
This spring, of course, the president renovated the Reflecting Pool. Like most any body of stagnant water, the renovated pool has suffered aesthetically from an algae bloom. (It also might have suffered from vandalism.)
Predictably, the establishment liberals at The Washington Post saw this not as a pool problem, but a political problem.
“[Trump] has seemingly overlooked two of the most important factors that experts say are driving unsightly — and sometimes dangerous — profusions of algae: pollution and climate change,” the article insisted.
Thus, where Trump saw a beautification opportunity, The Washington Post’s liberals saw a chance to make an ideological point.
And where the second lady saw a cheap outfit to wear during her fourth pregnancy, The New York Times saw political messaging.
Finding ourselves unable to communicate with liberals can prove frustrating. But at least we can understand how they view the world and why it makes them so miserable.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
