This article argues that certain Democrats treat the hijab as a fashionable gesture rather than confronting its role in restricting women’s freedom, highlights a recent episode involving Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and reproduces criticism from Iranian activist Masih Alinejad.
In just over 48 hours, I will be heading to Egypt for a two-week vacation that will take me all over the country. My anxieties about flying aside, I am genuinely excited to see the Great Pyramids of Giza, the Sphinx, and so much history. Planning a trip like this makes you think about how clothing and customs mean very different things in different places.
I did a lot of reading about what a Western woman should expect in a majority-Muslim nation, and most reports reassured me that tourists are welcome. Locals in the popular destinations are reportedly friendly to Americans, and I’ve packed a sun hat for the Sahara. Still, I put a scarf in my carry-on just in case.
That small precaution comes from a clear reality: in many places headcoverings are not optional. In some countries, the hijab is enforced by law or social pressure, and refusal can carry brutal consequences. Women in Afghanistan and elsewhere can face arrest, beatings, rape, and even execution for defying those rules.
That is why I refuse to treat the hijab as mere cultural color when politicians in the West wear one for applause. Too many on the Left applaud these photo ops as symbols of tolerance without wrestling with what those garments represent for women who have no choice. The latest high-profile example involved Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez speaking at a mosque in New York.
She stood before a prayer service where, according to witnesses, there were no other women in attendance and men spoke over her while she tried to address the crowd. To many observers, that was not just rude — it was emblematic of how some communities view women, even elected ones. That moment drew sharp criticism from Iranian activist Masih Alinejad, who has spent years fighting the Iranian regime.
“Hello @AOC, while you smiled in a hijab at a New York event, I was in Federal Court facing the 4th hitman hired by the Islamic Republic to assassinate me, for campaigning for Iranian women to have the same freedom you performed for a photo op. Will you come to court with me in August when I face the 5th hitman? Or does solidarity only work when it doesn’t offend the Islamic regime?” Alinejad wrote. “You wore hijab voluntarily in New York. Women are killed in Iran for taking it off.”
“You are the very woman who, at every opportunity, protests against violence against women, decries gender segregation, and champions ‘inclusion,'” Alinejad continued, “Yet here you stand, smiling and wearing a hijab, at an event in New York, in the heart of the West, where men and women are strictly separated. To me and millions of Iranian women, this does not look like a choice. It is no longer ‘My body, my choice,’ but rather ‘My body for votes.'”
“They who claim to fight for women’s self-determination in the name of feminism voluntarily embrace an ideology that mandates our women cover their hair simply because they are women. They enjoy the prosperity, freedom, and privileges of the Western world, where they may live as autonomous individuals , yet they simultaneously accept that other women should not be afforded the same rights,” Alinejad concluded.
After Alinejad’s post, AOC replied, and the response exposed how tone-deaf a performative embrace can sound. AOC’s answer framed head coverings at that mosque as a respectful custom and called it part of learning about different communities. Her exact reply read:
“Hey there!” AOC wrote. “It’s the first. This is at a mosque, where we were invited by the congregation to speak before prayer. In this context, head coverings are the respectful move. One of the fun parts of being a rep for NYC is learning different customs for so many communities. Cheers!”
https://x.com/AlinejadMasih/status/2060079814376341755
That reaction — calling capitulation “fun” — is troubling when you remember what the hijab represents for many women under authoritarian regimes. If you treat compulsory dress codes in places like Iran or Afghanistan as cute customs when they are imported to your neighborhood, you erase the suffering behind them. It also raises a question: if large Muslim communities in American cities expect “respect” this way, where does it stop?
We have already seen governments and schools flirt with forced displays of cultural solidarity in Europe. In Austria and in Wales, officials discussed formal gestures urging women or girls to wear hijabs in the name of empathy or solidarity. Those moves were presented as cultural exchange, but critics warned they risk normalizing a symbol that, in some places, enforces second-class status for women.
Other Democrats have engaged in the same performative behavior, from state leaders to prominent members of Congress. Ilhan Omar celebrated wearing the hijab in Washington as a personal choice, and Minnesota’s lieutenant governor has worn headcoverings while praising immigrant communities. None of these gestures came with a sustained reckoning about what the symbols mean where they are mandatory.
They would never applaud a Catholic veil worn in a cathedral, calling it patriarchal; they’d march in red robes from The Handmaid’s Tale and scream about looming tyranny. Yet the hijab gets the performative embrace while women living under ideological regimes pay the price. What makes you think they’ll draw the line at Islam? They won’t.
