Leavitt Slammed As 'Shameful' For Claiming Trump's 'Piggy' Jab Was Just Him Being 'Honest'

In a press-room defence that has sparked fury across journalistic circles, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt insisted that President Donald Trump calling a female reporter 'piggy' was not an act of contempt but one of "frankness" and 'respect.'

Leavitt delivered her remarks during a contentious briefing on 20 November 2025, responding to a viral clip from a gaggle aboard Air Force One, in which Trump directed the slur at Bloomberg correspondent Catherine Lucey as she pressed him about the Jeffrey Epstein files.

She argued that the insult was evidence of honesty, not offensiveness, positioning Trump as uniquely transparent and accessible.

The reaction was immediate: critics branded her defence 'shameful,' accusing her of trivialising a gendered attack under the guise of open discourse.

Leavitt's Defence: 'Honest to Your Faces'

During the briefing, pressed by reporter Natalie Allison of The Washington Post on what Trump meant by 'piggy,' Leavitt said, 'The president is very frank and honest with everyone in this room ... you've all seen it yourself ... I think it is one of the many reasons that the American people reelected this president, because of his frankness.'

She continued, claiming that Trump becomes frustrated with the media when they lie about him or spread 'fake news,' but that this directness is a virtue.

Without addressing the word 'piggy' itself, she stressed his transparency: 'He gives all of you ... you are in the Oval Office almost every day asking the president questions.'

Leavitt framed this as more respectful than past administrations. According to her, 'being frank and open and honest to your faces ... is frankly a lot more respectful than what you saw in the last administration.'

She encouraged the press corps to 'appreciate the frankness and the openness ... on a near-daily basis.'

Critics See Misogyny, Not Honesty

Leavitt's justification has provoked strong criticism from media watchdogs, press freedom advocates, and other journalists, many of whom view the remarks as a thinly veiled attempt to normalise misogynistic behaviour.

The Society of Professional Journalists and other organisations have warned that such public attacks on female reporters contribute to a chilling atmosphere of intimidation rather than genuine transparency.

Some commentators have called her defence 'bonkers,' pointing out that Leavitt never explained what Trump actually meant by 'piggy,' only recasting the insult as part of his raw, unfiltered leadership style.

Others have drawn attention to Trump's long history of disparaging language toward women in the media, including past insults like 'Miss Piggy.'

On social media, users reacted with scorn: 'Insults are respectful ... We should start calling her "Miss Piggy",' one commentator wrote.

The Broader Implications for Press Freedom

Few dispute that Trump's insult reflects a broader pattern of hostility toward women journalists. In the same week, he lashed out at ABC News correspondent Mary Bruce during a joint event with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, accusing the network of bias and even suggesting its broadcast license should be revoked.

Glossing over the slur as 'honesty' risks normalising demeanour that undermines professional press-state relations and potentially chills hard-hitting questions.

Leavitt's framing, critics argue, shifts attention from the substance of the insult to a manufactured narrative of ad-hoc transparency, diverting scrutiny rather than defusing it.

For decades, observers have noted how Trump and his officials rebrand aggression as authenticity. Leavitt's defence follows a familiar playbook: weaponising bluntness, rallying base loyalty, and minimising the real-world consequences of demeaning behaviour.

The White House's response to this incident also included an internal defence, a statement that blamed the reporter, Catherine Lucey, for allegedly behaving 'in an inappropriate and unprofessional way' around her colleagues.

In publicly recasting a disparaging comment as a hallmark of openness, Leavitt has sparked questions not only about gendered insult and decorum, but about what transparency really means when wielded by power.