U.S. attorney general Pam Bondi is quite in the spotlight this past week. Each time, she appears in smart pantsuits, but the sharper the shoulder, the more crummy her performance

In politics, women dress for performative advantage. Their attire is almost always part of their public-facing strategic roadmap. It is not only about looking good (or as good as they can appear to be); it’s also about projecting an image of credibility, authority, trustworthiness, even relatability. Clothes can and has been used to convey specific messages and influence public perception. U.S. attorney general Pam Bondi has chosen the pantsuit to do the heavy lifting for her, a very intentional arrow in her quiver, but we’re still waiting for that breakthrough moment. Given the recent fiasco surrounding the so-called “Epstein Files”, perhaps it has arrived. But the spotlight found her, while she was fumbling with the switch.

Ms Bondi recently hosted a press conference at the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) headquarters in Arlington, Virginia on combating drug cartels and the department’s clamping down on the nation’s fentanyl distribution. She wore a one-button black suit, and under the jacket, an equally ebony shirt, with the collar splayed above the notch of her lapels. Her straight blond hair, parted off-centre, was arranged to fall casually on her left, past the collarbone, not obscuring the considerable sharpness of the jacket’s shoulder. It was not as pronounced as those on a Balmain, but it was clearly designed for assertive entrances.

It is not often that we see Pam Bondi in an all-black attire. She usually prefers bright hues, her pantsuits—often described as “unflattering”—entirely monochromatic. She was seen in all-fuschia, all-white, all-lemon chiffon, but not all-black. At the press conference, the opaque darkness of her ensemble suggested something sinister, even funereal, which could be appropriate as many members of the media attending were likely expecting the death of transparency. When Ms Bondi was pressed about the list relating to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, she said, even when she probably knew she would be asked, “This today is about fentanyl overdoses throughout our country… I am not going to talk about Epstein.” It was, as her outfit suggested, a blackout.

At the press conference, the opaque darkness of her ensemble suggested something sinister, even funereal, which could be appropriate as many members of the media attending were expecting the death of transparency

But the media was there to hear her talk about Epstein. It has been trending this past week, and there has been no confirmation if those files exist. The sharp shoulders, parallel to the top of the lectern, was no indication of a pointed approach to confronting the questions and conspiracy theories that have emerged, and how she handled them. She skirted directness, notably failing in her critics’ eyes to demonstrate a “commitment to justice”. At a broadcast cabinet meeting a week ago, Ms Bondi was practically cornered when asked about the list in question. Just as when things looked tough for her, Donald Trump swooped in like a caped crusader to save his attorney general. But Ms Bondi, rather than relying solely on the rescue, decided to take it like an attacked woman; she hit back with the same snap-back of spandex.

“My response was, it’s sitting on my desk to be reviewed. Meaning the file, along with the JFK and MLK files,” she explained with a hint of defiance. But in February, when asked on Fox News if “the DOJ (Department of Justice) may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein’s”, she replied, “It’s sitting on my desk right now to review. That’s been a directive by president Trump. I’m reviewing that.” On both occasions, she alluded to the existence of a “list”. But it isn’t clear if she has reviewed it or if she is still reviewing. Or why it has taken her so long to determine its exact content. Communicating sensitive and divisive information is not like changing into different clothes at, say, one’s own wedding. It requires consistency to gain trust and credibility, to effect clarity and understanding, and to offer adherence and action.

The pantsuit has evolved from a controversial fashion choice, such as Katherine Hepburn’s, to one that’s strategic and empowering, even deceptive, such as Elizabeth Holmes’s. Ms Bondi chooses pantsuits to project (and protect) a polished, competent and serious image. But in her handling of the Epstein fiasco, and her presenting of warped data—such as claiming in a May cabinet meeting that fentanyl busts “saved 258 million lives”—she showed that she has been muddled, feckless, and cavalier. The ‘halo effect’ of wearing a pantsuit can certainly lead others to perceive the wearer as more capable and reliable, especially in a male-dominated government department such as the DOJ. But on Pam Bondi, the perception was not present. Ultimately, fashion as mere façade always has the last laugh.

Screen shot: apnews/YouTube