The Power of Pink: A Symbol of Protest and Solidarity in the U.S. Congress

On the evening of President Donald Trump’s speech to a joint session of Congress, a striking visual emerged in the packed chamber of the U.S. Capitol. Dozens of female Democratic members of Congress chose to wear pink, a bold and deliberate act of protest against the Trump administration’s policies, which they argue harm women and families. The choice of pink was no coincidence; it carried a dual significance of femininity and defiance, echoing the iconic “pink pussy hats” of the 2017 Women’s March, which became a global symbol of resistance against Trump’s presidency. For these lawmakers, the color pink was not just a fashion statement but a powerful tool of political expression, sending a clear message of opposition to the administration’s agenda.

A History of Color-Coded Protests in Politics

The use of color as a form of silent protest in U.S. politics is not new. In recent years, Democratic lawmakers have embraced this tactic to make symbolic statements during high-profile events like State of the Union addresses. For instance, in 2018, during the height of the #MeToo movement, many wore black to show solidarity with survivors of sexual harassment and abuse. The following year, at Trump’s 2019 State of the Union address, women leaders of the House of Representatives donned white attire, paying homage to the suffragists who fought tirelessly for women’s right to vote a century earlier. These coordinated fashion choices have become a quiet yet impactful way for lawmakers to convey their values and critique the policies of the sitting president.

The Impact of Pink: A Symbol of Power and Protest

The pink attire worn by Democratic women during Trump’s speech was more than just a nod to the past; it was a call to action for the present. As New Mexico Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández, chair of the Democratic Women’s Caucus, explained to Time, “Pink is a color of power and protest. It’s time to rev up the opposition and come at Trump loud and clear.” The bright, eye-catching shade was chosen to ensure that the Democratic women’s presence was undeniable, even as they were deprived of a platform to speak during the address. Susan Scafidi, a professor at Fordham Law School and founder of the Fashion Law Institute, noted that fashion can speak volumes when words are not an option. “On an evening when the members of the Democratic Women’s Caucus have no microphone,” she told HuffPost, “their collective splash of bright fuchsia in the House Chamber at least reminds viewers of their existence every time the camera pans across the room.”

Mixed Reactions to the Pink Protest

While the pink wardrobe choice sparked widespread attention, it also drew criticism from some quarters. On social media, many questioned the effectiveness of the protest, calling it “clueless” and “toothless” in the face of Trump’s aggressive policies. Some compared it to earlier symbolic gestures, such as the Kente cloth stoles worn by Democrats during a moment of silence for George Floyd, which had been criticized as performative and insincere. Others argued that the protest felt like a relic of the past, too mild and unimaginative to make a real impact in 2025. For these critics, the pink clothing represented a lack of coherence and boldness in the Democratic Party’s opposition to Trump.

Alternative Forms of Protest: From Absence to Action

Not all Democrats opted for the pink attire. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) chose to boycott the speech entirely, instead using her social media platforms to live poste the address and critique Trump’s remarks in real time. Her decision highlighted the debate over the most effective ways to oppose the administration. Some argued that staying home or leaving the chamber during the speech would have sent a more powerful message. Einav Rabinovitch-Fox, a history professor and author of Dressed For Freedom: The Fashionable Politics of American Feminism, acknowledged the limitations of symbolic protests. “Our current moment is not business as usual, so the reaction should not be business as usual either,” she said. “This type of protest seems a bit hollow given the gravity of the situation.”

Beyond Pink: Other Forms of Resistance in the Chamber

While the pink attire dominated much of the conversation, it was not the only form of protest on display during the speech. Some Democratic lawmakers wore “no king” shirts, while others held up signs with messages like “This is NOT normal” or “Liar.” A few even brought auction-style paddles with phrases such as “Musk steals” and “Save Medicaid,” using them to express dissent during specific points in Trump’s address. These actions, though unconventional, reflected the broader frustration among Democrats with the administration’s policies and the limitations of traditional forms of opposition. While their methods were met with mockery from some, including late-night host Stephen Colbert, they underscored the growing urgency and creativity with which lawmakers are seeking to challenge Trump’s agenda.

Conclusion: The Enduring Power of Fashion in Politics

The decision by Democratic women to wear pink to Trump’s speech sparked a lively debate about the role of fashion in political expression. While some dismissed the gesture as empty symbolism, others saw it as a necessary act of defiance in a moment when traditional avenues of dissent are limited. The pink attire succeeded in generating conversation and keeping the focus on the administration’s policies toward women and families. Yet, as critics pointed out, the challenge for Democrats moving forward is to pair such symbolic acts with concrete actions that reflect the urgency and gravity of the current political climate. In the end, the enduring power of fashion lies in its ability to amplify voices and inspire change, but it is only one piece of the puzzle in the broader fight for justice and equality.