Staff Reports
In an unequivocal display of adherence to reality, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has put a definitive stamp on the Trump administration’s approach to media relations by confirming that reporters who flaunt their pronouns will not receive responses from the White House. This decision, which may come as a shock to the sensitive souls at The New York Times, is based on the simple premise that using pronouns in professional communication suggests a disregard for biological facts.
Leavitt’s firm position came to light this past Wednesday when she indirectly addressed a claim made by Times reporter Michael Grynbaum. The report detailed three incidences where the Trump press office turned a cold shoulder to emails from journalists sporting pronoun identifiers in their signatures. The message is clear: if a reporter chooses to prioritize pronouns over facts, they should not expect to be taken seriously, especially from an administration that champions biological realism.
The Times investigation brought to light another example of this principle in action, highlighting an incident involving DOGE senior advisor Katie Miller. When Miller was approached by a pronoun-wielding reporter, she made it abundantly clear: engaging with journalists who so blatantly disregard scientific realities is not on the agenda. In other words, use pronouns or engage in fact-based conversation—pick one. It turns out the White House is opting for the latter.
'Deny Reality': Karoline Leavitt Confirms White House Policy for Pronoun Displaying Journalistshttps://t.co/l4GLhCdsId
— RedState (@RedState) April 10, 2025
When pressed further by Grynbaum about whether this was an official policy, Leavitt did not hold back. She reinforced that any reporter clinging to their preferred pronouns ostensibly signals a lack of commitment to biological truth and, consequently, cannot be entrusted to convey an accurate narrative. This strong stance amplifies the ongoing tug-of-war between a reality-based administration and a media landscape increasingly scrabbling to embrace a nebulous interpretation of gender.
Communications director Steven Cheung added fuel to the fire, suggesting that if The New York Times dedicated as much effort to reporting facts as it does obsessing over pronouns, perhaps it could emerge as a credible publication—a sentiment that many would argue resonates loud and clear in today’s media climate. Trump’s administration clearly aims to usher in a new era of clarity while tackling what many conservatives view as absurdities fueling the progressive agenda.
This bold move not only signals the administration’s commitment to objective truth but also resonates with a broader American sentiment fed up with the relentless promotion of ideologies that deviate from biological and scientific norms. In focusing on two distinct genders and rejecting the confusion brought about by pronoun politics, the Trump administration continues to carve a path towards what many see as a return to common sense.
