If there is one thing that is certain in fashion, it is that everything that is out comes in again, so declaring the end of any garment or accessory is pretty much a fool’s errand.
But it is also true that our relationship to fashion items changes over time, and when it comes to handbags, the industry has arrived at something of a pivot point.
The data bears this out.
According to a spokesperson for Lyst, the fashion search engine: “After years of growth, demand for women’s handbags was down 5.5% in April 2026 compared to April 2025.”
However, she went on, using the same comparison, “searches for briefcases are up 14%”. As for clothes with pockets, search volume rose a whopping 542% between last January and April.
So what exactly is going on? The answer probably has to do with both fashion trends and power. The two are connected but also different.
Fashion first.
The supremacy of the it-bag, that millennial symbol of arrival that was a flag on the arm to alert a wider world to an individual’s currency, taste and achievement, has fractured along with the wider culture.
Read more: How wraparound eyewear defies fashion rules, becoming a style statement
Every algorithm-driven niche now has its own bit of purse semiotics – the Trader Joe tote for the crunchy urban liberal set; the Prada Re-Edition 1995 for Carolyn Bessette Kennedy wannabes; the Row clutch for the stealth wealth set.
As luxury bag prices have risen to formerly unimaginable heights – the new, much buzzed-about Chanel Maxi Flap bag (leather, not quilted) is US$8,500 (approximately RM33,850) – many consumers, even the very few who can afford them, have turned away in offense.
At the same time, the rise of vintage and resale markets means that onetime it-bags like Balenciaga’s Le City and Mulberry’s Bayswater are once again discoverable.
It can seem cooler to resurrect an old it-bag than to risk looking like a fashion victim with a new one (there’s a reason Fendi is reissuing the original versions of its famous Baguette, the bag that kick-started the whole 1990s phenomenon).
And finally, the advent of phone technology means that more stuff can be contained in a much smaller space, and toting a mess of papers and objects may make you look old-fashioned.
Which leads to the final reason our relationship to bags may be shifting.
Generally, the more powerful the person, the less the need to carry a bag. The more powerful the person, the more likely they are to have people around them to deal with their stuff.
That means that if you are paying attention to that adage about dressing for the job you want (or the job you just got), the power move is to lose the handbag.
Read more: Tennis fashion is evolving, as jewellery becomes part of the athlete persona
Although glass ceiling-breakers like Margaret Thatcher and Sanae Takaichi, the prime minister of Japan, turned their purses (or totes) into symbols of their ascension, many other powerful women have embraced the handbag-free effect.
Women like (former first lady of the US and US presidential candidate) Hillary Clinton and (former US congress representative) Nancy Pelosi were not known for their bags during their time in leadership.
Nor was Kamala Harris, when she was a US presidential candidate. Despite the obsessive chronicling of her wardrobe, neither was (former first lady of the US) Michelle Obama.
Nor, currently, is the first lady of the US, Melania Trump. For all the attention paid to her outfits in her recent documentary, there was nary a handbag on-screen.
Anna Wintour, the most powerful woman in fashion (of Vogue fame), is famous for carrying only her phone.
All of which points to the conclusion that what is obsolete is not necessarily the bag, but the era of its dominance.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
