The symbolism of President Zelenskyy’s Oval Office attire – and its historical precedents.
Clik here to view.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s casual, military-style attire caused controversy during his high-stakes February meeting in the Oval Office with Donald Trump and JD Vance (alongside a quiet Marco Rubio). Trump’s first words to Zelenskyy were a sarcastic comment about his clothing. Later, the mood in the meeting soured when a reporter asked the Ukrainian president why he didn’t wear a suit.
Why the big fuss? What many Americans don’t realize is that Zelenskyy has avoided formal clothing since Russia’s full-scale invasion on Feb. 24, 2022. It’s a conscious move, a declaration of solidarity with Ukrainian troops fighting on the front lines. Zelenskyy’s decision not to “dress to impress” at the White House seems like a costless diplomatic signal vis-a-vis an important ally. But this episode raises interesting questions about what leaders wear, highlighting the need to consider both the strategic and symbolic meanings behind their sartorial choices.
Costly versus costless signaling in international relations
International relations scholars argue that foreign policy leaders communicate through signals. During any interaction, leaders will seek to shape how others see their capabilities and intentions. Doing so is hardly straightforward, given that one country might have incentives to misrepresent their true interests or strength in order to get a better deal during negotiations.
In international relations, rational choice theory suggests that leaders make choices based on a calculation of potential costs and benefits, pursuing their own national interests. Following that logic, effective signals are costly ones: Because they incur a cost, observers can trust that the communication is real. For example, engaging in military mobilization is a costly signal that a country is ready to go to war. Making a formal defense pact is a costly signal that one country wants to have a peaceful relationship with its neighbor.
Some signals are less costly and, some scholars argue, simply “cheap talk” – and less credible – because there are minimal consequences for lying or reneging. For example, congratulating a president on winning an election or making a general statement of concern about human rights abuses in another country are fairly costless signals of support (in the first example) and disapproval (in the second).
So is fashion a costless signal?
We might see fashion choices as a costless signal, because they can cheaply communicate a message of respect or friendship. For example, politicians in the U.S. and Europe have worn blue and yellow clothing to communicate solidarity with Ukraine in its fight against Russia. When the Obamas visited Buckingham Palace for a state dinner in 2011, they followed British protocol and wore elegant white tie attire.
But if fashion is a costless signal, then why would Zelenskyy show up to the White House wearing a long-sleeved black polo shirt, adorned only with a small Ukrainian trident on the chest? Zelenskyy and his team could have predicted that his outfit would cause a stir in Washington, given that his style had already drawn criticism from pro-Trump media. Electing not to wear a business suit, and at a moment in which Ukraine was in dire need of U.S. support, would seem a fashion faux-pas, and a major blunder. From the perspective of signaling theory, Zelenskyy’s outfit could seem a deliberate message of disrespect toward Trump.
Clothing as a symbol of social identity
Viewing Zelenskyy’s clothing strictly through the rationalist lens of signaling fails to capture its true meaning, however. The Ukrainian president’s military style isn’t a message for Western politicians. His military attire is instead a signal primarily for his own domestic audience, where it serves an important symbolic function.
In his classic book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, sociologist Erving Goffman uses the metaphor of the stage to analyze social interactions, comparing individuals to actors performing in front of an audience. We use clothing to communicate our values, group identity, social status, and so on. We might dress one way “backstage” with our family and another way at work or on holidays. The meaning of clothing may therefore be highly culturally specific.
Some international relations scholars invoke Goffman to describe how leaders and governments act in diplomatic scenarios. Leaders also perform – first and foremost – for a domestic audience. In the U.S., for example, Democrats often wear accents of blue and Republicans red. A purple tie or outfit, in turn, might be worn as a symbol of bipartisanship.
The deeper meaning behind Zelenskyy’s attire that day
Zelenskyy’s outfit at the White House on Feb. 28, thus, was intended to communicate a message of solidarity to Ukrainian soldiers on the front lines – and also remind his international audience that the war with Russia is ongoing. The Ukrainian president’s clothing also has historical precedents: Winston Churchill wore a military-style suit to visit the White House in the midst of World War II. However, Zelenskyy’s military-inspired outfit also has precedents among authoritarian leaders who have used fatigues to project strength and power.
That Zelenskyy’s choice of attire at the White House offended some members of the Trump administration shows how symbols may be misinterpreted. Recall Barack Obama’s infamous tan suit, which some observers felt was inappropriate for the president to wear while discussing U.S. policy toward ISIS. Or take Melania Trump’s jacket bearing the slogan “I Really Don’t Care,” while she was on official business. Mrs. Trump said this was a message to the U.S. media, but many felt this was an insensitive choice to wear while visiting a migrant child detention center in Texas. Ukrainian First Lady Olena Zelenska, for that matter, also sparked a fashion-related controversy. Her cover photoshoot in Vogue magazine shortly after Russia’s full-scale invasion drew a decidedly mixed reaction at home.
Clothing and politics in wartime Ukraine
In Ukraine, as elsewhere, clothing and politics are highly intertwined. One garment with special cultural significance is the vyshyvanka, an embroidered shirt that Ukrainians traditionally wear on special occasions like weddings and other holidays. Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the start of the war in eastern Ukraine in 2014 fostered an increase in the popularity of the vyshyvanka. Many Ukrainians, including Zelenskyy and his wife, now wear embroidered clothing to show their national pride and honor Ukrainian traditions.
For Ukrainians, preserving cultural heritage is another type of resistance against Russian aggression. Russian missiles have targeted hundreds of cultural sites like museums and churches, in what can only be described as a deliberate policy of cultural destruction. In occupied Ukrainian territories, Russian authorities have destroyed Ukrainian-language books and bullied local school teachers into adopting the Russian curriculum.
Clothing, in this context, is often an explicitly political choice – albeit one that the Trump administration does not seem to fully appreciate. Zelenskyy’s style during his recent White House visit may have bothered his American hosts, but many of his electors admire him for it. More than three years into this full-scale war, the Ukrainian president can hardly take his peacetime suit off the rack.
Isabelle DeSisto is a 2025-2026 Good Authority fellow.
The post Sartorial diplomacy in the White House appeared first on Good Authority.