RCP Editor Responds To Report About Trump Official
It’s not the most vicious hit piece the media has published on a Trump official—but it’s unmistakably one more entry in the Washington Post’s long-running effort to delegitimize anyone who dares speak for this administration. The article on White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt—draped in faux journalistic objectivity—reads more like a subtle smear campaign stitched together with selective outrage and rolling disdain for Trump’s media strategy.
The headline alone sets the tone: “In Karoline Leavitt’s world, Trump’s word is enough.” That’s all you need to know. The rest of the piece proceeds to highlight, with barely concealed disdain, Leavitt’s loyalty to President Trump, her unapologetic posture in the briefing room, and her swift rise from student journalist to the nation’s most combative press secretary.
But here’s where the agenda comes into view. The piece isn’t really about Leavitt—it’s about the media’s bruised ego. For years, legacy outlets like The Washington Post have enjoyed unchallenged authority in the Beltway. Trump’s presidency—both terms—changed that. Now, when the Associated Press gets locked out of the Oval Office for refusing to adopt the administration’s preferred terminology (the “Gulf of America”), it’s treated not as a procedural matter, but as a First Amendment crisis. Suddenly, respecting press standards means calling a body of water by a centuries-old name—even if the administration wants to rename it. That’s not journalism; that’s territorial defensiveness.
Karine Jean Pierre stood at the White House podium for almost 3 years dissembling and deflecting and the Washington Post never once wrote a story like this about her. pic.twitter.com/4ESb17xR9O
— Tom Bevan (@TomBevanRCP) March 25, 2025
Leavitt made it clear from day one: if the press lies, the White House will hold them accountable. That’s not an attack on the First Amendment. That’s a declaration of transparency under a new standard—one where journalists don’t get to wear the cloak of neutrality while actively working to undermine the presidency. And the press can’t stand it.
Of course, there’s also the expected hand-wringing over Leavitt’s comments about taxpayer money funding condoms in Gaza—a claim that rattled fact-checkers who apparently forgot their own selective silence during the previous administration. Where was this level of scrutiny when Karine Jean-Pierre stood at that podium day after day, obfuscating the obvious decline of President Biden? Where were the in-depth profiles about her evasions, or about the media’s complicity in ignoring the signs of a president physically and mentally unfit to lead?
The difference in coverage is not a coincidence—it’s the point. Karine Jean-Pierre was shielded by a press corps that knew full well the man she spoke for was incapable of performing the job. The narrative had to be protected. By contrast, Leavitt represents a president who the media loathes and a movement they’ve failed to suppress. So her rise must be discredited, her words taken out of context, and her loyalty pathologized as dangerous.
This is why no Democrat press secretary is in contention for "best press secretary." Dem press secretaries work with really good friends (and gentle lovers!) in the press. GOP press secretaries do daily high-stakes combat with activists who loathe them 100% of the time. https://t.co/m6hrJX0QkP
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) March 25, 2025
The truth is, Leavitt didn’t create the adversarial relationship between the Trump administration and the press—she inherited it. And unlike many of her predecessors, she’s not playing their game. She doesn’t pretend to flatter the people who spend their days plotting how to trap her. She doesn’t defer to institutions that long ago traded objectivity for activism.
As Tom Bevan put it succinctly, “Karine Jean-Pierre stood at the White House podium for almost 3 years dissembling and deflecting, and the Washington Post never once wrote a story like this about her.” That says it all.