Trump Brands Another Female Reporter 'Obnoxious' Days After 'Piggy' Slur

President Donald Trump has launched a withering verbal assault against a senior female political correspondent during a White House policy briefing, renewing scrutiny regarding his combative relationship with the press.

The outburst, directed at ABC News reporter Rachel Scott, occurred as the administration faces mounting bipartisan pressure to release video evidence of a naval engagement off the coast of Venezuela that critics allege may constitute a war crime.

Press Inquiry on Venezuelan Boat Strike Sparks Outburst

The confrontation occurred during a session intended to announce farm support. When Scott asked if the administration remained committed to releasing the full video footage from a strike on a Venezuelan drug boat, Trump bristled.

Video of the exchange shows the President interjecting sharply. 'Didn't I just tell you that?' he asked when Scott pressed him. 'You are the most obnoxious reporter in the whole place. Let me just tell you, you are an obnoxious, terrible, actually a terrible reporter. And it's always the same thing with you.'

He added: 'I told you whatever Pete Hegseth wants to do is OK with me,' referring to Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defence.

The pivot to Hegseth is significant. Just days earlier, Trump had publicly committed to releasing the footage, stating he had 'no problem' doing so. His shift on that promise, coupled with the aggressive tone toward a journalist simply asking for transparency, has drawn sharp criticism.

A Pattern of Gendered Hostility

This is not the first time Trump has targeted female reporters with demeaning language. On 14 November 2025, aboard Air Force One, he turned to Bloomberg correspondent Catherine Lucey during a gaggle about the ongoing fallout around the Jeffrey Epstein files. As Lucey began a follow-up question, 'if there's nothing incriminating in the files...', Trump cut her off with: 'Quiet. Quiet, piggy.'

Several days later, during a press conference with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Trump called another female reporter from ABC News, Mary Bruce, 'a terrible person and a terrible reporter' for asking about Jamal Khashoggi's murder and the unreleased Epstein documents. He went as far as suggesting that her network's licence be revoked.

Observers note that while the President is combative with the press generally, the vocabulary used against women—'nasty', 'obnoxious', 'piggy'—carries a distinct gendered weight designed to diminish their professional standing.

Media Observers Decry Escalating Hostility

The reaction inside journalism circles has been swift and vociferous. Television host Nicolle Wallace, for example, condemned the remarks as 'sick s–t,' warning that normalising such invective could usher in 'an era of unprecedented misogyny.'

Advocacy groups are echoing the alarm. Commentators note that the repeated personal targeting of women asking legitimate questions undermines press freedom and threatens to chill critical reporting.

Implications for Press Freedom and Public Trust

Beyond the rhetoric, the incident served a tactical purpose: it successfully derailed a line of inquiry regarding military conduct.

Johns Hopkins University media ethicist Edward Wasserman argues that such ad hominem attacks are more than unprofessional behaviour: they are a 'growing hostility toward press accountability' that erodes democratic norms.

In this context, the issue of the Venezuelan boat strike becomes inseparable from the question of whether reporters can safely hold power to account. The incident in question involves allegations that US naval assets engaged a vessel that may have been surrendering or non-combatant.

Trump's insults during the 8 December 2025 White House session derailed a moment of potential accountability. Instead of pressing on the substance of whether the boat-strike video would be released, the press corps witnessed another instance of personal attack.

As the pattern of hostility toward female journalists mounts, the broader question looms: can a free press continue to fulfil its democratic role when its own members are repeatedly demeaned and dismissed by the highest office in the land?