Erika Kirk’s Memorial Glam (Or, A Definitive Guide To MAGA Aesthetics)
Interview unlocked.
Earlier this week, Marie Claire UK published “The MAGA Beauty Aesthetic Tells the Story of America Today” — a deep-dive into the role beauty standards play in the right-wing political project. The story has since been taken down; the link redirects to a piece on transitioning your skincare from summer to autumn.
I was interviewed for the original Marie Claire UK investigation and shared my full, unedited interview answers with paid newsletter subscribers on Tuesday. But in light of the article disappearing, I’m removing the paywall — the below analysis of MAGA beauty is now free for all to read and share. (If you can’t get it from Future Media — which owns Marie Claire, Who What Wear, Homes & Gardens, and more — you can get it from FLESH WORLD!)
[EDIT: An edited version of this article is now back up on the Marie Claire UK site. The original can be found on The Wayback Machine.]
Read on for my thoughts on the wide range of Republican aesthetics, the anti-trans ideology inherent in “Mar-a-Lago Face,” Kimberly Guilfoyle’s cooptation of drag makeup, and the one thing I admire about the right’s commitment to cartoonish “femininity” (at the very least, it lays bare the reality of beauty standards: they are political weapons). Consider it a definitive guide to MAGA aesthetics.
“‘Mar-a-Lago Face’ and ‘Republican makeup’ are sort of ahistorical reimaginings of the ‘classic’ 1950s beauty ideal through the lens of 1980s excess, brought to life with 2025’s modern cosmetic technology.”
Q: What does the Republican woman look like in your eyes? Does she have substantial buying power?
Jessica DeFino (me): I would say Republican women don’t have one particular aesthetic. There are Republican women who adhere to the over-the-top vibe of “Mar-A-Lago face” and “Republican makeup.” There are Republican trad-wives who prefer the no-makeup makeup look. There are Republicans who don’t care about their own appearance at all. Similarly, there are billionaire Republicans with substantial buying power, and working class Republicans with less, and poor Republicans with very little to spend on beauty products. As far as the wealthy Republican woman in or near positions of power — Melania Trump, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Kristi Noem, Laura Loomer, Erica Kirk — I would say this kind of elite Republican woman looks a bit like an AI-generated caricature of the feminine ideal.
Q: Do you think beauty is indistinguishable from womanhood to these women?
JDF: Yes. I think beauty is a core tenet of traditional femininity in conservative circles and beyond. In conservative ideology, woman is synonymous with wife, mother, and object of beauty. They believe it’s a woman’s duty to sacrifice her body to the demands of all three of these roles (although they wouldn’t necessarily put it in those words).
Q: How do you think the image of “Republican beauty” or the aesthetics of conservative women in US politics has changed since Trump entered the White House?
JDF: Trump is an over-the-top, exaggerated, almost cartoonish character and I think Republican aesthetics have taken a turn toward the cartoonish as a result.
On the first day of his second term, Trump declared there were “only two genders: male and female,” and the exaggerated “feminine” aesthetic that’s currently trending with Republican staffers, policy makers, and pundits is 100% an anticipation of and a response to that statement. The aesthetic is also predicated on whiteness — light but tanned skin, blonde hair or highlighted hair worn in loose waves, narrow noses — and we see this glorification of whiteness playing out in policy, too, with the Trump administration’s attacks on DEI and immigrants.
Trump himself has always been preoccupied with aesthetics — his tan, his hair, etc. — and the men around him are adopting these behaviors as well, likely to mirror him in a bid for his approval (and the approval of a public that voted Trump into office).
Q: Have you noticed a swing back to more classical make-up looks and techniques since the Republicans took hold?
JDF: I wouldn’t necessarily call this a “swing back” to an aesthetic that’s existed before. “Mar-a-Lago Face” and “Republican makeup” are sort of ahistorical reimaginings of the “classic” 1950s beauty ideal through the lens of 1980s excess, brought to life with 2025’s modern cosmetic technology.
If I’m noticing a “swing back” to anything, it’d be the way the fascist movement shaped beauty standards in Nazi Germany: The regime used ideals of physical “perfection” — blond hair, blue eyes, fair skin, symmetrical features — to reinforce its eugenics-driven racial hierarchy. It sought to “purify” the German population by encouraging the reproduction of those who embodied Aryan ideals and persecuting those who did not. Nazi propaganda frequently featured imagery of fit, youthful citizens, and women in particular were expected to embody traditional femininity. Republicans are following this playbook.
Q: How is this linked to recent, popular beauty trends like “Quiet Luxury” and the “Old Money” aesthetic?
JDF: I would say the Republican aesthetic you’re referencing in this story is very linked to “quiet luxury” and “old money” — it’s just that they’re saying the once-quiet part out loud. Now, it’s all about an overt, conscious signaling of wealth and power. The effort of “quiet luxury” is meant to be invisible, to look effortless. The effort of this Republican aesthetic is in-your-face — it’s meant to look effortful, a visual representation of their intense dedication to their party. Both aesthetics require a similar amount of effort to achieve.
Q: These women have [said] that their beauty routine makes them feel powerful. Does this say anything about the power of beauty, make-up and personal grooming?
JDF: I have no doubt their beauty routines make them feel powerful! That’s what the standard of beauty is — a physical representation of the power hierarchy. Or put another way, beauty standards are the physical manifestations of systems of oppression. (Some examples: The fact that beauty is considered feminine is a manifestation of sexism. That beauty is associated with youth is a manifestation of ageism. That beauty is associated with thinness is a manifestation of fatphobia. That beauty is associated with health is a manifestation of ableism. That beauty is associated with wealth — see: quiet luxury and old money above — is a manifestation of classism.) The closer a woman is to the ideal, the more power she might have access to, in terms of financial, social, and political capital. Republican women see this, and adhere to it, in order to align themselves with power and protect themselves from (a certain amount of) discrimination. In doing so, they reinforce the very systems of discrimination they seek protection from.
Q: What do you think they want their overwhelming beauty standard to communicate? Is it working?
JDF: I think they intend for their standard to communicate commitment, wealth, power, and violence. I do think it’s working.
Q: What brands do you think are most aligned with Trump Beauty?
JDF: Something that’s been overlooked in a lot of the coverage of MAGA aesthetics is how many of the biggest players in the beauty industry have aligned themselves with Trump. First of all, Trump himself has a beauty line (Trump Fragrances). But let’s look at the executives that stood with Trump on Inauguration Day:
Jeff Bezos, Founder and CEO of Amazon, which is the number one online beauty retailer in the U.S.
Mark Zuckerberg Founder and CEO of Meta, owner of Instagram, whose photo-editing technology and algorithms helped to mold “Instagram Face” and redefine modern beauty standards while selling the tools of beauty to users via Instagram Shop
Shou Zi Chew, CEO of TikTok — beauty and personal care products are the number one driver of sales on TikTok Shop
Bernard Arnault: CEO of LVMH, which owns Sephora (“the world’s most powerful beauty retailer”) as well as Benefit Cosmetics, Fenty Beauty, Make Up For Ever and a number of high-end designer fashion brands with their own cosmetics lines (Dior, Celine, Givenchy)
Delphine Arnault: Director of LVMH (see above)
Q: This attitude towards beauty seems rooted in enforcing traditional gender stereotypes. Do you think the Trumpian beauty standard is then inherently anti-trans?
JDF: Yes, the Trumpian beauty standard promotes a rigid, binary view of gender that is inherently anti-trans.
Far-right conservatives believe it’s God’s plan to have masculine men and feminine women and nothing in between — that a woman’s biological destiny is to be a wife and mother and object of beauty. Trump declared that “there are only two genders” as soon as he was inaugurated, and the outrageousness of that position is mirrored in the outrageousness of the party’s aesthetic.
Of course, their position of beauty as “biological destiny” falls apart when you look at the extreme and decidedly unnatural interventions that this supposedly ideal feminine aesthetic requires. It relies on artificial beauty practices: heavy makeup, cosmetic procedures, sometimes even hormone use (spironolactone is a common anti-androgenic treatment for hormonal acne, estrogen therapy is common during menopause and is increasingly marketed as a skincare intervention). When they frame the use of these same exact tools by trans people as “chemical and surgical mutilation” — which is the language used in Trump’s Youth Care Ban Executive Order — they are essentially playing God. They are saying that these unnatural interventions are only acceptable only for cisgender women. Republican women are making it very clear: “Because I am a biological woman, I am allowed to wear makeup. I am allowed to get surgery. You are not.” They are taunting trans people.
What’s ironic (or maybe just cruel) is that a lot of the techniques they’re using to create this aesthetic — the obvious contour, the drawn-on eyebrows — come from drag artists, who have historically used makeup as a tool to challenge gender roles, to make it clear that gender is a man-made construct, not a divine decree. By co-opting beauty rituals historically used to subvert gender norms, Republicans are weaponizing their aesthetic to draw a boundary: Only those who conform to their gender beliefs are permitted access to the tools of so-called femininity.
Q: How do you think women on the right are weaponising the appearance of women on the left?
JDF: Beauty has been used as a weapon against women for centuries. The idea of “the ugly feminist” was invented to impede the feminist movement — suffragettes were dismissed as “masculine,” second-wave feminists were “ugly man-haters.” In 2022, Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz tweeted this in response to the outrage over the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade: “How many of the women rallying against overturning Roe are over-educated, under-loved millennials who sadly return from protests to a lonely microwave dinner with their cats, and no bumble matches?” When Gaetz implied that only undesirable women — unattractive, alone, unloved — care about bodily autonomy, he once again weaponized beauty. This is what women on the right today are doing when they claim they’re more attractive than women on the left. It’s a strategic deflection: When a woman’s value is reduced to her appearance, critiques of beauty standards are framed as personal failings (“this feminist is ugly and bitter about it”) rather than political analysis (“this feminist is correctly pointing out that beauty standards are oppressive”). It’s effective because it exploits deep-rooted cultural beliefs, making feminist voices easier to discredit in a society obsessed with looks.
Q: Do you think Trumpian women are doing anything right when it comes to the beauty standards they are perpetuating?
JDF: To paraphrase Andrea Dworkin, Republican women “see the world they live in, and they are not wrong.” In a world where women are valued for their looks, it can make sense to optimize one’s looks in a bid for proximity to power. If I appreciate anything about this particular Republican aesthetic, it’s that it lays bare the reality of beauty standards: They are political weapons.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
This sentence alone is why I subscribed:
"“Mar-a-Lago Face” and “Republican makeup” are sort of ahistorical reimaginings of the “classic” 1950s beauty ideal through the lens of 1980s excess, brought to life with 2025’s modern cosmetic technology."
Applause! You are brilliant.
Nobody does it like you Jessica