Usha Vance Expertly Trolls NYT 'Journo' Who Had Epic Melt Down Over MAGA Baby Boom

Second Lady Usha Vance took to social media Wednesday afternoon to have some fun at the expense of the New York Times, which had just published an absurd article in which the author vigorously clutched her pearls over the recent MAGA baby boom. Egads, wrote Vanessa Friedman 

 

(who is apparently the paper's chief fashion critic), not only is Vance enjoying her pregnancy, she's flaunting it for all to see! 

To which Mrs. Vance basically replied, "Oh well."

Friedman's premise seemed to be that the second lady – along with White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and Katie Miller, wife of Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, who both recently delivered babies – were far too into their pregnancies, as evidenced by the trio appearing in public wearing nice clothes. Oh, and they all had the nerve to cradle their growing bellies in full view of others! You know, just like every expectant mother does at some point during her pregnancy.

Vance is the first one Friedman picks on, probably because she's still pregnant and in a more vulnerable state. Real nice, right? It's a Father's Day video released by Mrs. Vance's office, in which Vice President Vance makes an appearance to read a children's book, that seems to have stoked Friedman's ire.

“Luckily, there’s going to be a new baby for you to read to,” the second lady says to her husband, “so you’re going to have many more years ahead of you.” She is wearing a stretchy coral dress that hugs her stomach, making what she is talking about very clear.

He grins and responds, “I was not yet ready to be out of the baby phase, so here we are, about to jump right in in just a few short weeks.”

This is apparently an example of how MAGA is using the "power and politics of pregnancy" to advance its agenda. Babies and motherhood, how awful! Oh, and that coral dress Usha wore in the video? That's of particular concern to Friedman, as the dress skimmed the second lady's 8-month pregnant belly in a way that seemed offensive to the author. It exhibited, Friedman wrote, "an image of idealized womanhood that gives literal shape to the pronatalist movement."

---

READ MORE: JD and Usha Vance Make an Exciting – and Historic! – Announcement

She Was Supposed to Be on Maternity Leave. Instead, Karoline Leavitt Brought Fire to the WH Briefing Room

---

Hilariously, the second lady responded on her official X account, "Now that we know the political significance of my $8.75 coral maternity dress from Old Navy, can’t wait to hear what the New York Times has to say about my elastic-waistband pants and compression socks!"

Now that we know the political significance of my $8.75 coral maternity dress from Old Navy, can’t wait to hear what the New York Times has to say about my elastic-waistband pants and compression socks! In the meantime, enjoy my pregnancy fashion (or lack thereof) and a good story with your kids on Storytime with the Second Lady.

She even provided the receipt showing she paid $8.75 for the dress that looked extremely comfortable for a woman experiencing late-stage pregnancy in the steamy heat of a Washington, D.C., summer.

Let's face it, it's the fact that the Usha Vance, Karoline Leavitt, and Katie Miller are happily-married mothers who look fantastic while pregnant and live fulfilling lives that really gets under the skin of liberal women like Vanessa Friedman. And she found some fellow "feminists" to join in her rage-fest.

“It almost feels like a memo went out,” said Jill Filipovic, the host of the “Week in Women” podcast. “They have quite intentionally opted to present themselves as, ‘I am really pregnant, and this is what women were chosen to do,’ and they are happy to say that both with their looks and their mouths.”

Oh, and they really don't like Katie Miller, who recently posted this:

“In honor of Mother’s Day,” she wrote, “a reminder that peak feminism is having babies. The most radical thing a woman can do is embrace her biological destiny."

The weirdest part of the article is the anger Friedman clearly feels over the MAGA ladies not dressing like ... Jackie Kennedy and Cherie Blair? Could someone please make that silliness make sense? 

It seems like Friedman would like nothing more than to see pregnant MAGA mamas covered head to toe – maybe even in a burka? Which brings the absurdity of this New York Times folly full-circle. Liberal ladies are nothing more than sneering, seething has-beens who have relegated themselves to the sidelines while real women embrace and celebrate their God-given ability to create life. 

There is zero scandal in Usha Vance's coral maternity dress or happy mothers smiling their way through their pregnancies, but it is indeed concerning that the left has become so hostile to traditional womanhood that even a pregnant woman in an Old Navy dress registers to them as a five-alarm political threat. Usha Vance, a very accomplished woman in her own right, only needed a receipt and a healthy sense of humor to make the New York Times and their anti-woman bias look absolutely ridiculous.