Should We Pay the First Lady?
Guest Column by Annette Dunlap
“Where’s Melania?” asked The New York Times in the headline of an article published on May 7. As of that date, Mrs. Trump had spent less than two weeks in the White House since her husband’s inauguration on January 20. The article implied that Mrs. Trump owed the American people a full-time first lady measured by daily residence in Washington, D.C.
Jennifer Taylor’s May 15 piece in East Wing Magazine responded to the “Where’s Melania?” question. Taylor highlighted the numerous responsibilities of the first lady’s office and noted that Mrs. Trump is deftly handling her duties, regardless of the number of days she has been present in the Executive Mansion.
“The first lady is in charge of the White House,” Anita McBride, the director of the First Ladies Initiative at American University and former chief of staff to First Lady Laura Bush, said in a recent interview. “Every single day something comes up from housekeeping or the curator or the household staff. Much of the work that gets done to maintain the White House at the museum quality that the American people expect and want gets done behind the scenes.” The scope of the first lady’s responsibilities suggests that the Times might have asked a different question: Is it time to pay the first lady for the work she does on behalf of the American people?
The first lady hits the ground running on Day One. Planning for the annual Easter Egg Roll on the White House lawn begins on the first full day of the new administration. Work on Christmas events and decorations gets under way in the spring. The annual congressional picnic, “so important to the relationship between the executive and legislative branches,” McBride notes, is months in preparation. “The [first lady’s] position is so multifaceted, and it is driven by the current and projected schedule. When it gets right down to it,” McBride adds, “the quantity of time a first lady spends is not as crucial as the quality of the work she does.”
According to historian and archivist Jeanne Abrams, the presidency has been a husband and wife affair from the founding of the republic. When Martha Washington learned of the plight of Revolutionary War veterans during her weekly receptions, she used the advantage of her proximity to power to advocate for government assistance for the former soldiers. Abigail Adams, the nation’s second first lady, was John’s closest advisor, and Dolley Madison, the fourth first lady, used her “squeezes,” as her White House social events became known, to bring together people of different viewpoints in non-threatening occasions. History will never know the political decisions made at those gatherings that helped the Madison administration govern a fledgling republic facing war.
First ladies have been sounding boards, secretaries, and, in the case of Pat Nixon and Rosalynn Carter, foreign ambassadors for their husbands. As the job of president of the United States has become more complex and forever under the microscope of a 24/7 news cycle, so has the first lady’s position become one of increased public expectations. Former First Lady Rosalynn Carter observed that “the role of the first lady has changed as the role of women has changed.” Yet, the first lady remains unpaid.
Barbara Hackman Franklin, whom President Richard Nixon charged with recruiting women into managerial positions in federal agencies and who later served as secretary of commerce under George H.W. Bush, observed that “the greatest pay disparity in the world is between the president and the first lady. The president is paid four hundred thousand dollars a year, and the first lady doesn’t get a cent.” Nevertheless, Franklin acknowledges that it would be difficult to monetize the position.
The difficulty lies in the nature of the job. Each first lady’s skills have defined her tenure in office. After the first lady determines how she will handle the operational requirements of the position, she undertakes work that will benefit from her unique public platform. What often goes unseen and is as difficult to measure as setting a salary for the first lady, is the extent to which her soft power has influenced American politics, policy, and diplomacy.
When Jacqueline Kennedy spearheaded the move to treat the White House as a national treasure, she unwittingly set a new standard for first ladies. Mrs. Kennedy came into the White House as a youthful breath of fresh air after eight years of a nearly invisible Bess Truman and another eight of easygoing Mamie Eisenhower. Mrs. Kennedy’s undertaking marked something new and different in the eyes of the American public, and since then, the country has expected each of her successors to embrace a project that will define her tenure.
The variety of projects undertaken by our first ladies has contributed to the common good both nationally and internationally. The beautiful flower beds and few, if any, billboards along interstate highways are thanks to Lady Bird Johnson. The pandas at the National Zoo are the result of Pat Nixon’s “panda diplomacy.” Betty Ford’s unwillingness to hide the fact of her breast cancer—a disease that women had suffered in silence until Mrs. Ford brought it into the open—unleashed new research efforts and routine mammograms. In the same way, mental health no longer has the stigma of previous generations thanks to the work of Rosalynn Carter.
Nancy Reagan developed her “Just Say No” campaign to discourage teen drug use. Literacy and improved teaching of reading are the result of the work of Barbara Bush and Laura Bush. (And, by the way, if you have ever attended the National Book Festival in Washington, D.C., thank Laura Bush, as well.) Whatever your thoughts on the Affordable Care Act, aka “Obamacare,” recognize that many of the services covered under that act and the increased accessibility to health insurance are the result of groundwork laid by Hillary Clinton during her time as first lady. Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign has transformed school lunches. Most recently, Melania Trump’s visible support for the Take It Down Act, which requires social media platforms to remove nonconsensual images, was key to its passage. The “how” of Mrs. Trump’s involvement is an excellent illustration of a first lady’s soft power.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) introduced Take It Down on June 18, 2024. The bill had 20 cosponsors in addition to Cruz: 10 additional Republicans, 9 Democrats, and 1 Independent. The Senate passed the legislation on December 3, 2024, but it died in the House. Cruz reintroduced the bill on January 16, 2025. Four days later, Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) mentioned the legislation to First Lady Melania Trump at the inaugural luncheon. The Senate passed the bill on February 13, and it again stalled in the House. On March 3, Mrs. Trump hosted a bipartisan round table at the Capitol in support of the legislation. The House and Senate passed identical versions of the bill on April 28, and President Trump signed it into law on May 19.
Would the bill have passed the House and become a law without Mrs. Trump’s direct involvement? Senator Klobuchar, one of the original cosponsors, apparently didn’t think so. In fact, the bipartisanship of the inaugural luncheon harkens back to the days of Dolley Madison’s squeezes, providing the opportunity to work out political issues away from the public’s glaring spotlight.
“The [first lady’s] position is so multifaceted, and it is driven by the current and projected schedule. When it gets right down to it … the quantity of time a first lady spends is not as crucial as the quality of the work she does.”
—Anita McBride, former chief of staff for former First Lady Laura Bush
Recent first ladies have become adept at effectively using their soft power. Michelle Obama influenced the provisions contained in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, and former First Lady Jill Biden’s push for women’s health resulted in her husband signing an executive order to increase research funding. The breadth of scope of the first ladies’ interests is a primary reason why it is difficult to monetize the position. “A salary removes the freedom and flexibility of the platform,” says McBride.
Yet, despite a first lady’s fluctuating activities in the administration, the work is real.
“[Her] role is one of soft influence,” says Franklin in a recent interview. Franklin acknowledges that a paid first lady is a “constructive idea that should be on the table.” Indeed, when the United States gets its inaugural first gentleman, it would be surprising if a discussion were not held about paying the president’s spouse.
One of the primary arguments against paying the first lady is that she is not an elected official, but then, neither are White House aides and cabinet appointees. Whether employed as a staffer or serving in a position that requires Senate approval, every person in an administration is there because of the one elected official—the president. And they get paid.
The woman who serves as first lady is likewise in her position because of the election of that same official. Until the Carter administration, first ladies operated with two, or at most, three White House employees (typically a social secretary, press secretary, and perhaps one other assistant). Under pressure from Rosalynn Carter, Congress passed the White House Personnel Authorization Act of 1978, which gives the president freedom to appoint White House officials as he sees fit. The legislation allows the first lady to hire staff commensurate with her routine obligations and the programs she plans to implement while serving the American people. Under the Act, her staff is officially employed by the president. Nevertheless, as various studies of the White House have shown, the East Wing—where the first lady’s offices reside—develops its own culture based on the first lady’s direction.
Following passage of the Personnel Authorization Act, Rosalynn Carter restructured the first lady’s office into an efficient operation, which now includes a chief of staff. The East Wing staff size changes annually, depending upon the schedule for a given year. Melania Trump, for example, began with four staff members in 2017 and increased it to eight in 2020. Jill Biden started with eight and had 24 staffers in 2024. The average number for first ladies Laura Bush and Michelle Obama was 12, although staff counts started small, grew in the middle years of their tenure, and dropped off in the last year. As the tacit CEO of the East Wing, the first lady is a manager, policy director, and representative of the American people. Given the level of responsibility she assumes, a case can be made for a salaried presidential spouse.
If direct remuneration is constitutionally questionable, then consideration should be given to a clothing and appearance allowance. “I was amazed by the sheer number of designer clothes that I was expected to buy, like the women before me, to meet the fashion expectations for a first lady,” Laura Bush wrote in her memoir, Spoken from the Heart. After the Bushes’ first year in the White House, the couple’s accountant told George that “it cost a lot to be president.” He was “referring mainly to my clothes,” Mrs. Bush observed. Bush also paid a hairdresser to give her hair a blowout every morning “so I could try to avoid a bad hair day.”
From time to time, the question of who pays for the first lady’s wardrobe gets press coverage. As Laura Bush wrote, those funds come out of the presidential family’s pocket. Nancy Reagan raised eyebrows when she “borrowed” gowns for White House social occasions and then failed to return them. The “borrowing” was her way of avoiding the high cost of clothing expected of the first lady. It has been suggested that some of the up-and-coming designers championed by Michelle Obama were willing to loan her a gown or sell it to her at below full retail in exchange for the publicity she generated by wearing their creation. Whatever the arrangement, the Obamas still paid for many of the exquisite clothes that Mrs. Obama wore as first lady. Mrs. Trump is said to pay full price for her outfits, which are typically purchased for her by her stylist Hervé Pierre.
Whether or not the public wants to acknowledge it, Americans demand sartorial perfection of their first ladies and are quick to criticize if she does have a bad hair day. Should the first lady receive an allowance toward the cost of meeting the public’s expectations? That is a question that has occasionally been raised and not fully explored or answered.
Laura Bush was interviewed in 2014 for C-SPAN’s Influence and Image series and asked the question about the first lady receiving a salary. “I don’t think so,” Mrs. Bush replied. “There are plenty of perks. And I think the interesting question is not should they receive a salary, but should they be able to work for a salary at a job they might have already had? And I think that’s what we’ll have to come to terms with. Certainly, a first gentleman might continue to work at whatever he did.”
Jill Biden has now made that question moot.
Dr. Biden considered the potential legal ramifications of receiving a salary from outside employment while serving as first lady. Legal experts say that the first lady is not covered by the emoluments clause of the constitution, which prohibits the president from profiting from his position beyond compensation as commander-in-chief. Nevertheless, Dr. Biden arranged to have the funds for her salary come from a grant awarded to her employer, Northern Virginia Community College, as opposed to coming from either state funds or a private donor.
Melania Trump has continued to pursue her private business interests since her return as first lady. In addition to her deal with Jeff Bezos to make a documentary, Mrs. Trump has a blockchain business tied to her cryptocurrency and a jewelry and memorabilia business. The size of her deal with Bezos and Amazon has generated much public comment, but little has been said in the way of legality. And while questions continue to be raised about the legitimacy of cryptocurrency as an investment, again, there have been no legal issues brought forward regarding Mrs. Trump’s enterprise. Profits from her memorabilia business, according to an interview she had with FOX News late last year, go to her Fostering the Future, one of her Be Best initiatives to provide a home and resources for children aging out of the foster care system.
The day will come, perhaps in the not too distant future, when the role expectations of the first lady will be re-evaluated when the United States has its initial first gentleman. We will then need to finally and fully confront the inherent sexism in what Americans expect of the president’s spouse. Currently, his spouse oversees the maintenance of the White House, plans social events, chooses menus, dresses in couture clothing to fulfill the public’s expectations of the image of the position, and maintains a level of decorum and reserve considered appropriate to the role. Every aspect of this work, including the behavior norms, define traditional expectations of a woman.
Will a man want to do these tasks, or will he restructure the East Wing in such a way that his chief of staff will have the final say on White House redecorating, social event planning, and menu selection while the first gentleman continues to pursue his paid employment? In short, will a male presidential spouse formally professionalize a job that has been done for free for the 236 years since George Washington’s inauguration in 1789?
Whether unintentionally or by design, The New York Times question, “Where’s Melania?”, suggests that the American public is overdue for an explanation of the scope, breadth, and depth of work overseen by the first lady of the United States. The nation owes a debt of gratitude to every woman who has filled the role. She has accepted with energy, grace, and goodwill a position thrust upon her by her husband’s political ambitions. Our first ladies have sought to use their knowledge and understanding of the world we live in to improve the lives of all Americans as apolitically as possible in a role in which politics placed them. First Lady Pat Nixon was quoted one time as saying that the job of first lady is “the hardest unpaid job in the world.” Nothing has changed in the half century since she uttered those words. It’s time something did.
Annette Dunlap
Annette Dunlap has written the biographies of first ladies Frances Folsom Cleveland and Lou Henry Hoover and has been a contributor to White House History Quarterly. She created the program, “First Ladies & the Politics of Fashion,” which was broadcast on C-SPAN. She can be found at annettebdunlap.com.
This column is part of East Wing Magazine’s America 250 series of occasional stories spotlighting America’s presidential first ladies in the months leading up to the United States’ 250th anniversary on July 4, 2026.