Donald Trump has spent years hurling insults at female journalists who question him. He called Bloomberg reporter Catherine Lucey "Piggy" during a press event when she pressed him on the Epstein files. CNN's Kaitlan Collins earned the label "corrupt reporter," with Trump claiming she had "hatred in her eyes." NBC's Kristen Welker was told "you're either crooked or stupid" before Trump walked off her interview set last weekend, dismissively calling her "darling." Years earlier, he suggested Fox News host Megyn Kelly had "blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever" after she questioned him aggressively during a Republican debate.
While Trump directs plenty of venom at male journalists too, his assault on women in the profession operates on a different register. Those with on-air visibility face particular targeting. Print journalists like New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman have suffered similar treatment, though it occurs with less public fanfare. He has repeatedly called her "maggot" on social media.
The pattern is unmistakable, whether rooted in misogyny, performative defensiveness, or Trump's usual strategy of distraction and denial. None of those explanations matter much. What matters is that the behavior continues unchecked, and the female journalists who cover him have largely responded by tolerating it in the name of professionalism.
That approach isn't working. It hasn't stopped the insults. It hasn't forced Trump to answer questions honestly. And it hasn't protected the reporters from abuse. A different strategy is needed.
Turning the tables on lies
When Welker pressed Trump on his claims about election fraud and his past statements about avoiding wars, he simply denied making those statements at all. She had the goods on him but didn't deploy them in real time. That's a fixable problem.
Journalists who interview Trump should come prepared with audio and video receipts. When he claims he never said something, play the clip. Make it impossible for him to bluster his way through. The power dynamic shifts immediately when a reporter produces proof rather than relying on word-against-word debate.
Beyond fact-checking in the moment, journalists can abandon the language of spin and normalization. Stop treating Trump like a conventional politician who occasionally embellishes. Call lies what they are, directly and without hedging.
"Why do you keep lying about rigged elections when there's no evidence?" asks the question plainly. "You keep lying about January 6 when we all know what happened" states a reality instead of dancing around it.
These approaches will trigger predictable attacks about "fake news" and media corruption. Trump will rage. But the alternative is worse: continued tolerance of falsehoods broadcast to millions of people.
A third option exists as well. Journalists can establish clear boundaries about interview conduct. If Trump continues lying or resorts to insults, the interview ends. Transparency about that decision matters. Tell the public and the president why the interview is ending. Don't let it be mysterious or appear to be suppression. State it clearly: "We're ending this interview rather than let you continue to make false statements."
These tougher approaches carry real costs. A journalist or news organization that pushes back hard risks losing access to future Trump interviews, press briefings, or other official events. In a media landscape obsessed with ratings and corporate bottom lines, that penalty stings.
Individual reporters rarely stick up for each other either. There's a perceived competitive advantage in being the one who keeps showing up, stays polite, and maintains the access game. That calculation has left female journalists isolated and vulnerable to sustained harassment.
But the current system isn't protecting anyone. Trump doesn't stop lying. He doesn't admit error. And he absolutely doesn't stop insulting and disparaging women who challenge him.
The insults pile up. Piggy. Darling. Corrupt. Stupid. The vocabulary of contempt keeps expanding because nobody has made him face consequences for deploying it.
Journalists and their bosses have the power to change that calculation. They haven't used it yet.
Author James Rodriguez: "The press has the leverage here and they know it. What they lack is the collective will to use it. That's the real story."
Comments