Sort of. Looking like the businesswoman she had always branded herself, she appeared in court in New York City, and was as invaluable to her father’s cause as she was when she was in the White House

Former first daughter Ivanka Trump arrived outside the Lower Manhattan courthouse to a sunny morning, looking very poised. When she emerged from the car, it was clear she was dressed for the business at hand: to testify in her father’s by now infamous civil fraud trial, two days after the ex-president if the United States’ appearance. She wore a navy, flecked, belted, knee-length Carolina Herrera coat with notched lapels. You could see fluid pants underneath. Chromatically, she blended rather well with the security personnel around her. As she walked on, with the photographers clicking furiously away, she moved with a confident stride, as if she was not on a city pavement, but a carpeted runway.

It was clear a hairdresser and a makeup artist was in attendance earlier in the morning, at her Park Avenue apartment, where she was staying while in the city. Her sunlight-enhanced flaxen hair, centre-parted and softly curled, cascaded down her shoulders (rather like Barbie Ultimate Curls edition), and behaved admirably in the presence of the autumn-morning breeze and in rhythmic sway with her model-for-the-day gait, facilitated by her pointy-toe, velvet Jimmy Choo Romy 85 stiletto pumps, with considerably high 3.3-inch (or about 9-cm) heels. Her face was immaculately made-up (natural, it seems—even her lips were subtly shaded), ready to face the judge, if not the world. There was a hint of a smile as she tried to appear oblivious to the attention cast on her. For a moment, you forgot she was once a Manhattan socialite.

There was a hint of a smile as she tried to appear oblivious to the attention cast on her. For a moment, you forgot she was once a Manhattan socialite

We were simultaneously following the live BBC broadcast from within the courthouse. It took more than an hour for her to appear in the corridor that was flanked by cameramen. Inside, her coat was removed. She had on a navy pantsuit by the Californian designer Trina Turk. The blazer was one-buttoned and single-breasted, with fairly strong shoulders and notched lapels; it sported flapped pockets on each side. Underneath that, there was a simple white, round-neck blouse. She wore almost no jewellery, except very simple ear studs and a ring on the fourth finger of her right hand. This could have been a look for her father’s campaign trail if she had not opted to distance herself from his second run for the American presidency. Unremarkable her turnout might have been, it was clear she dressed to be taken seriously; she did not set out to stun.

But she did make sure to live up to what her father described on Truth Social earlier in the day, “my wonderful and beautiful daughter”. Behaviourally and sartorially. And that wonderfulness and beauty made her father proud. We could not see how she conducted herself inside the courtroom since it was not a televised session. But, based on news reports of what happened and transpired, we know that Ms Trump was “calm” and “courteous”, and was prepared to stay away from the truth, if not defend her father‘s honour. She made the patriarch proud by being placidly evasive when posed with questions regarding the Trump Organisation’s finances. With her hands on her lap, she spoke softly, so much so that journalist reported that she was barely audible, prompting the judge to ask her to move closer to the microphone, “a couple of times”, per the BBC. She was definitely not soft-spoken at the 2019 G20 summit, where she was among world leaders, in pink Valentino.

Speaking under her breath, she metronomed between “I don’t remember” and I don’t know”, effectively avoiding a direct answer, as her father and brothers did when they were seated next to the same judge straining to hear her. Unsurprisingly, Ms Trump doubled down on her earlier insistence that she had nothing to do with the recently-found irregularities of the Trump business . She did not explain how it was that a person who held a high, decision-making position in her father’s organisation before moving to become a presidential advisor would be so unaware of the company’s financial health—key to the attorney general’s lawsuit against the Trump Organization, which claimed that they inflated or deflated the value of their various assets as they pleased to allegedly enjoy lower taxes and better insurance coverage. Perhaps the nondescript pantsuit was picked so that she could enhance the act of playing dumb.

Ms Trump had initially refused to testify. Her lawyers had, a week early, argued that she would suffer “undue hardship” if she were to leave her home in Miami, on Indian Creek Island, dubbed the “Billion Bunker” (because of the rich residents there, who reportedly enjoy the property’s “own police force and 24-hour armed marine patrol”, according to press reports) and her school-going children. But the court did not buy her suggestion of possible domestic adversity if she appears in court, and promptly denied the application. Interestingly, last month, on the 20th, Ms Trump left her home to attend Kim Kardashian’s birthday party in Beverly Hills—that is in the West Coast, 2,745 miles (or 4418 kilometres) away, and further than Manhattan where she was to testify. She did not explain why attending that social gathering would not result in “undue hardship” for her, but showing up in court would. A business suit may mean business, but it does not necessarily communicate honesty.

Photos: Reuters