The Global Effort to Flatter Ivanka

This article originally appeared on this site.

Ivanka Trump at the W20 conference, in Berlin.Ivanka Trump at the W20 conference, in Berlin.CreditPHOTOGRAPH BY EMMANUELE CONTINI / NURPHOTO VIA GETTY

The international project of flattering Ivanka Trump—which some of the world’s most notable women, from Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, to Queen Máxima, of the Netherlands, engaged in at a panel discussion during the W20 conference, in Berlin, this week—does not always run smoothly. There was, first, the achingly obvious oddity of deciding that Trump, whose experience on the public stage largely consists of marketing her clothing and jewelry lines, and her efforts to get her father, Donald Trump, elected, was qualified to sit between Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund, and Chrystia Freeland, the Foreign Minister of Canada. That was quickly followed by the dispiriting thought that Trump might actually have as much power over people’s lives as the other women, through the influence that she supposedly wields over her father. Why else would the head of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, have co-authored an op-ed in the Financial Times with her, on the importance of promoting female entrepreneurship? Their insights include this: “mentorship opportunities and access to networks bring learning opportunities and connections to capital and markets.” There are probably many people in the world who would like to mentor Trump and have access to her networks. It might even explain why Merkel invited her to Berlin, a move that the German press praised as “klug,” or clever, in terms of opening a route to President Trump—and why Merkel suggested, from the stage, that the World Bank look at ways to get funding to women entrepreneurs in the developing world, and then, at an event afterward, complimented Ivanka for supporting the idea. But that is also where it all got a little bit confusing, as things tend to with the Trumps.

At some point during her Berlin sojourn, Trump spoke to Mike Allen, the political journalist. Allen ran an item on Axios with the headline “Ivanka Trump’s new fund for female entrepreneurs,” illustrated with a photograph of Trump grazing her fingers on one of the slabs that make up Berlin’s Holocaust memorial. “Ivanka Trump told me yesterday from Berlin that she has begun building a massive fund that will benefit female entrepreneurs around the globe,” Allen wrote. He added that contributors would include companies and governments—Canada, Germany, “and a few Middle Eastern countries” had already made “quiet commitments”—and that “President Trump is a huge supporter of his daughter’s idea, and she has consulted with World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim about how to pull it off in a huge way.” Double huge. It sounded a lot like the Clinton Foundation, or like any number of corporate or N.G.O. initiatives, except that Ivanka Trump’s office is in the White House. This raised a flurry of questions: What about conflicts? Would this be a for-profit operation or a shakedown one? In a few hours, it became clear that it was neither of those—because “Ivanka Trump’s new fund” was a complete misnomer. This would be a World Bank project, as spokesmen for the White House and the bank emphasized. Trump would not be involved in raising money, managing it, or deciding how it would be spent. But the World Bank wanted everyone to know that it was very, very grateful to Ivanka for promoting the fund, or “facility,” as it would be called. It was kind of her idea.

And, who knows, maybe Ivanka Trump deserves some credit. But it’s worth noting, as Bloomberg pointed out, that the World Bank has set up similar “facilities” in the past. The idea that the World Bank or the I.M.F. needs Ivanka Trump to tell it that a lack of access to financial and capital markets is an issue for women in the developing world is a bit like her father saying that NATO needed him to tell it that terrorism is a problem. (Which he has, indeed, suggested.) But maybe the make-believe about Ivanka coming up with world-changing ideas is harmless, if it means that her father will look kindly on the World Bank—although a report, this week, in the Washington Post about the conditions in a Chinese factory run by the contractor who makes her brand’s clothes (extremely low wages and long hours) does not quite fit into the picture.

In Berlin, it was clear that international observers were still testing the mechanism, in terms of the possibility of using Trump’s daughter to direct his actions. The moderator for Trump’s panel, Miriam Meckel, the editor of the German business weekly Wirtschaftswoche, had no trouble addressing Queen Máxima (“I would like to start with you, Your Majesty”) but confessed to being confused by metaphorical, rather than actual, royalty. “You’re the ‘First Daughter’ of the United States,” she said to Trump. “And you’re also an assistant to the U.S. President. As a part of the audience, especially the German audience, is not that familiar with the concept of a First Daughter, I’d like to ask you, what is your role, and whom are you representing: Your father, as the President of the United States; the American people; or your business?”

“Well, certainly not the latter,” said Trump, smiling. “I am rather unfamiliar with this role as well, as it is quite new to me. It has been a little under a hundred days, but it has just been a remarkable and incredible journey.” She continued to speak about how good the trip to Berlin was turning out to be for her, as a learning experience, and then moved on to her real job, which has always been marketing Donald J. Trump. “I’m very, very proud of my father’s advocacy, long before he came into the Presidency, but during the campaign, including in the primaries. He’s been a tremendous champion of supporting families and enabling them to thrive in the new reality of a duelling—”

“You hear the reaction from the audience,” Meckel interrupted. According to press reports, the sound from the crowd was somewhere between a gasp, a boo, and a hiss. Meckel asked Trump to comment on “some attitudes toward women your father has publicly displayed” and how those might raise doubts about his commitment to empowering women.

“I’ve certainly heard the criticism from the media, and that’s been perpetuated,” Trump said, but added that her own experience, and that of women who worked for him, demonstrated otherwise. When asked, more specifically, how she advised him, she said, “It’s been an ongoing discussion I’ve had with my father most of my adult life, and we’re very aligned in many, many areas. And that’s why he’s encouraged me to fully lean into this opportunity and come into the White House and be by his side.” The implication was that nepotism was one of her father’s virtues, and proof of his good character.

There are people who believe this when it comes to President Trump’s elevation of Ivanka. But, as John Oliver noted in a recent segment on Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, there is no proof that she is benefitting anyone beyond her family. She is simply brilliant at giving the impression that she might be. For example, in Berlin, when NBC News asked her about admitting Syrian refugees to the United States, she said that it should be “part of the discussion, but that’s not going to be enough in and of itself.” The resulting headlines suggested that this constituted a break with her father. But how, exactly? Refugees are “part of the discussion” when he rails against them; and “not going to be enough” could just as easily refer to what the President sees as the need for “extreme vetting,” or letting in only Christians. She referred, for a second time, to the areas “in which I’m fully aligned with my father—which are many.” “Many” could mean anything, but, in practice, her duties as what Germany’s ZDF television news referred to as “Papas Pressesprecherin“—Daddy’s press secretary—are extremely broad. She wanted voters to know that he ought to be President, and now she wants the world to understand his greatness, too.

Foreign countries and companies might appreciate the idea that they can more easily handle Donald Trump if they lavish his daughter with attention; this is a common enough practice when dealing with authoritarian governments. But it should, at least, cause a little unease here at home. And one saw, again, in Berlin how the perceived need to pander to Ivanka Trump can distort almost any conversation. At one point, Freeland, the Canadian Foreign Minister, while making a point about the important role that fathers play in their daughters’ progress, said, as she looked at Ivanka, who nodded in agreement, that behind “every successful woman” was a very supportive father. The moment played less as a shout-out to men in the developing world (which was likely what Freeland intended) than as a validation of the First Daughter concept. And it left little room for the fatherless, or for the defiant, or even for the sort of complexity experienced by, say, Queen Máxima, who is originally from Argentina, where her father was a member of the junta that ran that country’s Dirty War. Whatever their relationship, Máxima went along with the decision not to invite him to her wedding to the then Crown Prince of the Netherlands, in deference to Dutch public opinion. Even royalty has to listen, sometimes.

Because this was, indeed, a panel of very smart women, the disjunction presented by that stray remark did not go entirely unnoticed. “Chrystia, you mentioned ‘father,’ ” Christine Lagarde said. “I agree with you, but I just want to say, to all the women who either never had a father because they did not know him, or lost their father, you can pick and choose a father. They exist around, and they can be tremendous mentors, and I hope we can support that idea, because no one should feel left out in that game.” It was one of the more powerful moments in the session, and also a reminder that being a certain kind of daughter is a choice, too. Ivanka Trump smiled blandly, as if she didn’t mind who else joined that game. She had already won.

Reply