Now that Donald Trump is the president elect, there has been much speculation on who will join his cabinet. With unexpected (though, with Trump, we should have learned by now to expect the unexpected) picks like Steve Bannon as Chief Strategist and Reince Priebus as Chief of Staff, the world is waiting with baited breath to see who else Trump will appoint to some of the nation’s highest positions. The one position that wasn’t under question, though? First Lady, of course… until now.
Again, at this point we should know better than to expect for Trump to play by the rules. So, really, it should come as no surprise that the 45th president of the United States might appoint his daughter, businesswoman Ivanka Trump, to take over the roles typically assigned to the First Lady.
Rumors about this changeup in traditional duties first began to swirl on Wednesday, December 14th. CNN reported that Ivanka would be moving into the office usually reserved for FLOTUS. Shortly after, CNN reporter Lisa Mirando tweeted a statement that seemed to confirm initial speculation.
Via @SaraMurray: Ivanka Trump to get office in same space reserved for First Lady in WH; Ivanka's title still TBD, per transition source
— Lisa Mirando (@LisaMirandoCNN) December 14, 2016
Of course, many were confused by this statement -- and some, who clearly did not understand what the possibility of this meant, were disgusted. Many were quick to cry “Incest!” when first reading “Ivanka Trump” and “First Lady” in the same sentence, though, to be clear, that is in no way correct (“First Lady” is not synonymous with “wife of the president”). In fact, if this were to happen (and at this time that is a big “if,” as Trump’s team stated on Thursday, December 15th “No decisions regarding Ivanka's involvement have been made.”), it would not be the first time in history that a woman who was not married to the president acted in the traditional “First Lady” sense.
To be clear, the job of FLOTUS is grueling, thankless, and rivals that of the role of an ambassador. The position goes beyond china patterns and holiday decor, as the role of the First Lady is to be the official hostess of the White House. This means maintaining a national landmark, acting as the pseudo “mom” of America, and entertaining guests and political allies (and foes). It is not a job to be handled lightly, and whoever steps into the role must be knowledgeable and well-versed in stately matters and global affairs. This is a diplomatic role, not one to be confused with, say, the head of the party planning committee.
From the moment Trump threw his hat in the race, his wife Melania made it clear that she wanted very little (if nothing at all) to do with the campaign. Despite living in the luxurious Trump tower and overseeing a household staff, Melania does not employ a nanny for her ten-year-old son, Barron, and has stated that motherhood is her main concern. Following Trump’s surprising win in November, he announced that his wife and son would stay in New York until the end of Barron’s school year. Looking back, the now whisperings that Melania might not participate in the traditional role of First Lady should have been expected. Were she to decide to pass the reigns on to someone else (say, her step-daughter Ivanka), it would certainly be a break in recent tradition, though, again not unheard of.
Since the establishment of the office of the presidency (and thus the First Lady), there have been two instances in which a woman who was not married to the Commander in Chief carried on the duties typically assigned to the First Lady, and one where a daughter stepped in to fill the role. For Andrew Jackson, a widower, Emily Donelson stepped in as the White House hostess and for James Buchanan (never married), it was Harriet Lane. And it was Martha Jefferson Randolph who stepped in as hostess for her father Thomas Jefferson, as her mother, Martha, died eighteen years before her father was sworn into office. Granted, in all situations, a hostess was required because there was no wife to fill the role. Still, there is precedent.
Whether or not Melania chooses to forgo her duties as First Lady (and again, the White House has stated that no decision on this has been made), the possibility does create an interesting dialogue. In a year where we had the first female nominee of a major party, has the time come to replace the role of First Lady with someone who is qualified, rather than someone who is simply married to the man in office? Is the role of First Lady in its own right antiquated? Are we now at a point, thanks to third wave feminism, where women do not have to give up their career (in this case full-time motherhood) simply because of their husband’s job?
Should the White House go forward with allowing Melania to stay in New York and raise her son, it could be a win for women everywhere -- a monumental feat given Trump’s notorious anti-women campaign. And should the rumors be true, that Ivanka Trump -- a Harvard educated mother of three who has donated and supported politicians on both sides of the aisle -- will step in as the hostess of the White House, well, America could do a lot worse.