Trump set the tone when he received Zelenskyy at the entrance of the White House.
“He is all dressed up today,” said the suited U.S. President, long red tie gleaming, speaking sarcastically of the uniform worn by his elected Ukrainian counterpart.
Zelenskyy, who has adopted a more utilitarian style since the 2014 Russian invasion, wore a black version of his usual military uniform, featuring the Ukrainian trident emblem. This reflects his commitment to his country’s ongoing struggle and is consistent with the uniforms worn by Ukrainian soldiers, 45,000 of whom have been killed defending their country.
In the Oval Office, a reporter berated Zelenskyy for “disrespecting” the U.S. by not wearing a suit. Vice President J. D. Vance piled on viciously. The belligerence and belittling of an elected Western leader in full glare of handpicked journalists was outrageous.
Expecting Zelenskyy to adhere to formal dress codes—especially while his country is literally fighting for survival—betrays imperialistic entitlement. The idea that a leader should dress up to “earn” support from another country, particularly when seeking aid for a war that directly impacts global security, is absurd. The U.S. has provided 40 percent of the total economic and military assistance Ukraine has received.
Zelenskyy’s choice to wear military-style clothing isn’t about disrespect. It’s about solidarity with his people. His soldiers aren’t wearing suits in the trenches, so why should he pretend to be detached from the reality they face daily? If anything, his attire is a visual rebuke to the notion that he should cater to the comfort of Western politicians over the needs of his own nation. Visual signaling, after all, is something more than familiar to Trump, a former reality TV star.
MAGA backlash against Zelenskyy’s “disrespectful” wardrobe choice also exposes a deep double standard. Historically, wartime leaders (like Churchill and FDR) have adapted their dress to reflect the times. Yet Zelenskyy has been singled out because his appearance disrupts expectations of how a leader should look in a diplomatic setting.
The criticism of Zelenskyy came from those aligned with Trump-era aesthetics of power and decorum. The outrage wasn’t really about respect. It was about controlling the optics of deference. That a leader’s clothing stirred more outrage than the war itself reveals the dubious priorities of those feigning offense.