At the January 6 hearing, Cassidy Hutchinson’s muted tones spoke loud and clear


This week, a quiet, even conversation between two neatly dressed Republican women, Cassidy Hutchinson and Rep. Liz Cheney, created one of the most explosive and gripping television events of the decade.

Americans were captivated as they listened to testimony about President Donald J. Trump’s behavior on January 6. But we were also visually captivated by the hundred tiny, yet critical decisions that went into each woman’s style choices. Everything – hair, makeup, jewelry, wardrobe and nail care – seemed to communicate calm, control and, above all, neutrality.

The dress of the witness was a non-event. Ms. Hutchinson, Trump’s White House aide, wore a fitted white blazer over a black scoop-neck top; a small, circular, jeweled pendant on a chain near her neck; and small earrings. The gaze was carefully neutral, avoiding any hint of spectacle or flash. Flattering without being “trendy”. Mature but not a matron. Since the clothes were meant to disappear and the cameras spent much of the time on her face, the audience largely had to contemplate her grooming choices.

She wore her shoulder-length black hair blown out with a slight flip at the ends. (In perhaps her only “saying” of nerves, she adjusted her hair several times.) She wore inconspicuous makeup – what appeared to be light bronzer, but no discernible color of lipstick or blush. eyelids. Her manicure was also a completely colorless embellishment – ​​a demure pearl white.

Viewers caught a glimpse of the manicure at one of the most dramatic moments of the hearing: when Ms Hutchinson said she was told that Mr Trump, furious at being blocked from joining his armed supporters, had allegedly thrown himself at the throat of his secret service agent. In explaining this, Ms Hutchinson offered an understated pantomime of the action, lightly placing her own hand on her collarbone.

This unique moment encapsulated the startling power of Ms Hutchinson’s appearance before the House Select Committee: She was telling a chilling story, but she unfolded her memories in the most reserved, least threatening and visually soothing way imaginable. . His attitude and his gaze were in stark contrast to the details of his testimony – and this disjunction itself, this stark contrast, set his words in relief, intensifying their impact.

Ms. Hutchinson’s measured demeanor and mute gaze mirrored those of her interlocutor, Ms. Cheney, the vice-chair of the committee. Throughout all the hearings, disturbing though the revelations were, Ms Cheney retained the same facial expression, tone of voice and level of affect. (By contrast, Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, the committee’s chairman, indulges in moments of irony, even levity.)

She keeps her white blonde hair in a side part style, with slight waves that look soft but never fall out of place or even move at all. The effect is solid, unflappable, an older version of Mrs. Hutchinson’s look. She stuck to a series of neutral-toned jackets, her crystal blue glasses, beads and the Capitol Police lapel pin she wears in solidarity with officers.

That the two women chose neutral tones and such sober, muted, almost innocuous outfits seems intentional, inviting viewers to focus more on words than appearances, and leaving little room for anyone to criticize their choices. . Ms. Hutchinson, in particular, must have known that her credibility hinged on how she would be perceived when she first stepped into the national spotlight.

Women’s clothing and care choices are always more difficult than men’s. We have so many more decisions to make (hair, makeup, jewelry, heel height, pants or skirts) and therefore so many possibilities for visual communication – and, of course, putCommunication. And especially for young women in the professional world, the daily task of building a look that’s both seductive and “serious” can feel like traversing a minefield.

Young women are also a priority target of the “culture of beauty” and its wide range of products, techniques and precepts. Social media is full of thousands of tutorials on how to “reshape your face” with contouring makeup, how to enlarge your eyes, narrow your nose, soften your skin. The general messages are clear but contradictory: “become an artist of yourself”, “make yourself beautiful” and “do it imperceptibly”.

It’s a tall order, time-consuming, hard to ignore, and subject to wide interpretation. And it is particularly difficult for women in politics. Some female politicians, like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Kyrsten Sinema, play with striking clothes, jewelry, and bold makeup to make a statement. Others settled on their own versions of a uniform. Vice President Kamala Harris has her Tahitian pearls and dark pantsuits; Senator Elizabeth Warren, her all-black outfits topped with soft, colorful jackets.

Many of the (often young and attractive) women in the Trump administration favored an overt and very glamorous style, and we saw lots of very long hair, dramatic false eyelashes, sheath dresses and stiletto pumps – a vibe of “beauty pageant” said to have the favors of the former president.

At the hearing, Ms. Hutchinson’s image was markedly different from this aesthetic. She dressed like she was ready to blend into the halls of power, do her job, bring depth to the surface (even if she was obviously telegenic).

Mr Trump claimed he did not know who Cassidy Hutchinson was, despite working only a few yards from the Oval Office. Maybe he didn’t know her. Perhaps she had a less visible style for him than that of the other young women in his orbit. But we all certainly know her now. And the nation is unlikely to forget the day Cassidy Hutchinson, with her precise and understated style, told her disturbing story.