Ocasio-Cortez’s Campaign Spent Thousands On Celebrity Makeup Artist: Report
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign spent more than $2,000 on makeup and styling services from a celebrity agency, according to campaign finance records. The spending has drawn attention because the New York Democrat has previously spoken about doing her own makeup.
A review of Federal Election Commission filings showed the payments were made to The Only Agency, a styling agency based in New York and Los Angeles. The agency represents makeup artists and stylists who work with high-profile clients.
According to records reviewed by the New York Post, Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign reported multiple payments to the agency. The expenses were listed as services for campaign events.
The campaign reported paying the agency $670 on Nov. 5 for “campaign event makeup services.” Five days later, records show payments of $693.08 and $665 for “campaign event hair and makeup services.”
The Only Agency represents stylists whose clients include rapper Bad Bunny and model Bella Hadid. The agency provides hair, makeup, and creative styling services for entertainment and public appearances.
The agency’s listed starting prices are $600 for hair and $600 for makeup services. The company also maintains offices in London and Nashville.
One of the appearances where Ocasio-Cortez used the agency’s services was a rally in Queens last October. The event was a get-out-the-vote rally for mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani.
“An honor to glam AOC for the ‘New York is Not for Sale’ rally at Forest Hills Stadium,” makeup artist Jocelyn Biga wrote in an Instagram post. “An unforgettable moment watching her light up the stage with conviction, courage, and heart,” Biga said.
Photos posted alongside the message showed Ocasio-Cortez wearing a smoky eye and red lipstick. The post described the look as featuring carefully styled makeup and hair for the event.
The New York Post said it was unable to determine which other appearances involved the agency’s services. Campaign records did not provide detailed descriptions.
The newspaper also reviewed other campaign spending reports for comparison. Those records suggested many candidates typically spend between $100 and $200 on hair and makeup services.
The Post cited a salon in Queens’ Forest Hills neighborhood that charges $100 for event hair services and $150 for professional makeup. The comparison was included to show typical local prices for similar services.
Republican National Committee officials criticized the spending. They argued it conflicts with Ocasio-Cortez’s frequent rhetoric about wealth and inequality.
“AOC’s favorite slogan is ‘tax the rich,’ but her campaign spending shows she’d rather live like the 1%,” RNC press secretary Kiersten Pels said. “It’s the latest reminder that her class-warfare message is little more than political theater propped up by high-priced makeovers,” Pels said.
Ocasio-Cortez has previously faced scrutiny over high-profile fashion and appearance issues. In 2023, the House Ethics Committee reviewed her attendance at the 2021 Met Gala.
At the event, Ocasio-Cortez wore a dress displaying the phrase “Tax the Rich.” The appearance generated significant media attention at the time.
The House Ethics Committee later determined she had violated House gift rules. The committee said she improperly accepted about $3,700 in rented apparel and other items related to the event.
Ocasio-Cortez has previously spoken about beauty standards for women in public life. She addressed the issue in a video posted to Instagram in 2019.
“Women are expected to put 30 minutes to an hour into their appearance every day to look just as presentable as a man who puts in 10 minutes,” Ocasio-Cortez said. She said women often face a different standard in public roles.
In a separate beauty tutorial published by Vogue several years ago, she discussed the challenges of balancing appearance and credibility. The video included a demonstration of her signature red lipstick style.
“There’s this really false idea that if you care about makeup or if your interests are in beauty and fashion, that that’s somehow frivolous,” Ocasio-Cortez said. She said young women in politics are sometimes judged unfairly over their appearance.
Seditious Six' Mark Kelly Does It AGAIN - Pete Hegseth Promises A Legal Response
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired U.S. Navy captain, drew criticism after discussing details from a classified Pentagon briefing during a live interview on CBS News. In the segment with anchor Margaret Brennan, Kelly described the impact of U.S. military operations in the Middle East on American weapons stockpiles. He specifically referenced munitions including Tomahawk cruise missiles, ATACMS, SM-3 interceptors, THAAD rounds, and Patriot systems, stating it was “shocking how deep we have gone into these magazines.”
Kelly attributed the depletion to decisions made by the current administration, saying the president acted “without a strategic goal, without a plan, without a timeline,” which he argued left the United States less prepared for potential conflicts elsewhere, including a hypothetical scenario involving China and Taiwan. He noted that replenishing the stockpiles would take years.
The comments followed a classified briefing provided to members of Congress on the effects of recent U.S. involvement in the Iran conflict. National security experts and administration officials have expressed concern that public discussion of specific munitions levels and readiness timelines could compromise operational security and provide adversaries with actionable intelligence.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth responded swiftly, stating that the Department of Defense’s legal counsel would review Kelly’s remarks to determine whether they constituted a violation of his oath or improperly disclosed classified information. Hegseth wrote on social media: “Captain Mark Kelly strikes again. Now he’s blabbing on TV (falsely & dumbly) about a CLASSIFIED Pentagon briefing he received. Did he violate his oath…again? @DeptofWar legal counsel will review.”
Kelly has faced previous scrutiny for a video earlier this year in which he and several Democratic colleagues encouraged military members to evaluate the legality of orders from President Trump, remarks some critics labeled as seditious. As a former naval aviator and astronaut, Kelly has frequently drawn on his military background when discussing national security issues.
The senator’s office has not issued a direct response to Hegseth’s statement. In the interview, Kelly framed his comments as part of legitimate congressional oversight, noting that members of Congress receive classified briefings to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities.
The episode highlights ongoing tensions between the executive and legislative branches over the handling of sensitive national security information. Legal analysts note that members of Congress are generally protected by the Speech or Debate Clause when discussing matters related to their official duties, but the public disclosure of classified details can still trigger internal reviews and potential referrals to the Department of Justice.
The Pentagon has declined to confirm or deny the accuracy of Kelly’s description of stockpile levels. Officials have previously warned that public speculation about munitions readiness can embolden adversaries and complicate deterrence strategy, particularly with respect to China’s military posture in the Indo-Pacific.
The incident occurs against the backdrop of heightened U.S.-Iran tensions and broader concerns about military readiness. Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers have expressed worries about the pace of munitions replenishment following sustained operations in multiple theaters. However, the public nature of Kelly’s remarks has intensified partisan debate over congressional responsibility and the boundaries of classified information.
As the Department of Defense legal review proceeds, the matter is likely to fuel further discussion about the balance between transparency, oversight, and national security in an era of heightened geopolitical competition.
Former General Milley Says Armed Forces Must Serve the Constitution Above Politics
Mark Milley Issues Stark Warning at Arlington National Cemetery — “Military Must Serve the Constitution, Not a President”
In times of political strain and national uncertainty, the most enduring principles of a democracy are often reaffirmed not through legislation or elections alone, but through the voices of those entrusted with its defense. The statement attributed to Mark Milley, delivered at Arlington National Cemetery, speaks directly to one of the foundational pillars of the United States: the subordination of military power to constitutional authority rather than individual leadership.
At the heart of Milley’s message lies a principle that distinguishes democratic systems from authoritarian ones—the military’s oath is sworn to the Constitution, not to a person. This idea, while deeply embedded in American civic tradition, gains renewed significance in moments when political divisions intensify and questions of loyalty arise. By emphasizing this distinction, Milley reinforces a core safeguard against the concentration of unchecked power: that no leader, regardless of position, stands above the constitutional framework.
The setting of Arlington National Cemetery adds a profound symbolic dimension to the statement. It is a place where the cost of preserving constitutional ideals is made visible in rows of white headstones, each representing a life given in service to something larger than individual ambition or political allegiance. Speaking in such a setting transforms a statement into a moral reflection, linking present concerns to a legacy of sacrifice. It reminds the nation that the principles under discussion are not abstract—they have been defended at the highest possible cost.
This message arrives amid ongoing debates about the relationship between civilian leadership and military responsibility. In any democracy, the military must remain under civilian control; yet that control is exercised through lawful authority rooted in constitutional order, not personal loyalty. The distinction is subtle but critical. It ensures that the armed forces operate as an institution of the state rather than as an instrument of any one leader’s will. When this balance is maintained, it protects both democratic governance and the integrity of the military itself.
Criticism of Milley’s remarks, particularly from allies of Donald Trump, reflects the broader polarization shaping contemporary political discourse. Some view such statements as overreach by military figures into political territory, raising concerns about the appropriate boundaries between military leadership and public debate. Others interpret them as necessary clarifications during a time when those boundaries may appear blurred. This divergence of interpretation underscores the difficulty of navigating institutional roles in a highly charged environment.
Yet beyond the immediate controversy, Milley’s words serve a broader purpose. They invite reflection on the nature of allegiance in a constitutional democracy. Loyalty, in this context, is not directed toward individuals but toward enduring principles—rule of law, separation of powers, and the rights enshrined in the Constitution. These principles provide continuity even as leaders change, ensuring that the nation’s identity is not tied to any single figure.
Ultimately, the significance of this moment lies not in partisan reactions but in the reaffirmation of a fundamental truth: the strength of a democracy depends on the clarity of its commitments. By reiterating that the military serves the Constitution above all, Milley echoes a tradition that has helped sustain American governance through crises both past and present.
In the quiet solemnity of Arlington, where history is etched in stone, such a reminder carries particular weight. It speaks not only to those currently in positions of power but to future generations, emphasizing that the preservation of democratic ideals requires constant vigilance—and, at times, the courage to restate what should never be forgotten.
