By [Your Name]
WASHINGTON. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has strongly criticized a recent Vanity Fair profile, calling it “embarrassing,” “disingenuous,” and a clear example of the media bias that the Trump administration sees against the president and his team.
The article featured an unflattering close-up of Leavitt and included candid remarks from White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, sparking immediate controversy after its release. Critics accused Vanity Fair of emphasizing sensationalism over meaningful content, while supporters claimed it offered a rare look at the personalities shaping President Donald Trump’s second term.
Leavitt made her reaction clear.
“This is fake news dressed up as glossy journalism,” she said in response to questions from reporters and online feedback about the profile. “It’s embarrassing for Vanity Fair, and it shows why the American people don’t trust legacy media anymore.”
A Profile That Sparked Immediate Backlash
The Vanity Fair article, written by political journalist Chris Whipple, aimed to provide a behind-the-scenes view of the Trump administration through its most prominent figures. While much of the focus was on Wiles’ comments about President Trump’s “alcoholic’s personality,” the piece also highlighted Leavitt as a combative spokesperson, reflecting Trump’s confrontational stance toward the press.
Included with the text was a stark, tightly cropped image of Leavitt that critics quickly labeled “deliberately unflattering.” Conservative commentators accused Vanity Fair of using visual framing techniques often criticized in political media, especially regarding Trump supporters.
Within hours, screenshots of the photo and excerpts from the article spread widely on X, Facebook, and Instagram, generating thousands of reactions and comments.
Leavitt Calls Out “Omitted Context”
In her response, Leavitt insisted the article selectively quoted administration officials while leaving out positive viewpoints that did not support what she viewed as Vanity Fair’s set narrative.
“They omitted context, ignored facts, and refused to include voices that might contradict the storyline they clearly wanted to tell,” Leavitt said. “That’s not journalism. That’s activism.”
Leavitt claimed Vanity Fair had limited engagement with her office before publishing and was more interested in stirring controversy than accurately portraying the administration’s daily work.
“The American people deserve honest reporting,” she added. “Not hit pieces meant to create clicks and outrage.”
Susie Wiles’ Comments Add Fuel to the Fire
While Leavitt criticized her own portrayal and the administration, it was Wiles’ remarks that initially sparked the outrage. In the profile, Wiles described President Trump as having an “alcoholic’s personality,” clarifying that she did not imply he drinks—Trump is known for abstaining—but that he has an intense, driven approach to work and power.
This comment led to speculation about internal conflicts within the White House. However, President Trump quickly dispelled such narratives, defending Wiles and stating he has used similar language to describe himself for years.
Leavitt supported that defense, arguing the media artificially inflated the controversy.
“This administration is unified,” she said. “Anyone suggesting otherwise is either uninformed or trying to mislead.”
Vanity Fair Accused of Bias
Leavitt’s remarks reflect a broader tactic by the Trump administration to confront what it sees as biased coverage from elite media. Vanity Fair, in particular, has been criticized by Trump supporters for its negative tone toward the president and his associates.
“This is a magazine that has lost touch with everyday Americans,” Leavitt said. “They talk down to people, and then they wonder why no one trusts them.”
Administration supporters argue that Vanity Fair’s focus on personalities and insider drama distracts from important policy discussions like border security, economic reform, and foreign policy issues.
“They’d rather talk about photos and personalities than outcomes,” said one senior administration official who spoke on background. “That tells you everything you need to know.”
Online Reaction: Divided and Volatile
The online response to the Vanity Fair profile and Leavitt’s rebuttal has been sharply split. Conservative influencers supported the press secretary, praising her for “standing her ground” and accusing the magazine of elitism and sexism.
“Imagine if this were a Democratic press secretary,” one commentator wrote on X. “The outrage would be everywhere.”
Others defended Vanity Fair, arguing that public officials should expect scrutiny and that Leavitt’s response highlighted her combative nature.
“She can’t call everything fake news just because she doesn’t like it,” posted one user. “That’s not accountability.”
The debate quickly evolved into broader discussions about media trust, political division, and the role of glossy magazines in covering serious politics.
A Familiar Battle Line for the Trump White House
For those observing Trump-era politics, this conflict felt familiar. Since his first term, Trump and his allies have consistently labeled critical media coverage as biased, dishonest, or part of a broader cultural establishment that is against him.
Leavitt, one of the youngest press secretaries in modern history, has become a key player in that strategy. Known for her sharp exchanges with reporters and strong defense of the president, she is a controversial figure who attracts both praise and criticism.
“Karoline understands the modern media battlefield,” said a Republican strategist close to the administration. “She knows that fighting back is part of the job.”
Indy100 and the Broader Media Ecosystem
The controversy also highlights the divided media landscape today. While Vanity Fair’s profile gained attention in some circles, outlets like indy100 amplified Leavitt’s response, framing it as a broader critique of biased reporting.
Readers were encouraged to engage with related stories, including past controversies involving Leavitt and the administration, and participate in what indy100 calls its “news democracy” through upvotes and comments.
This episode shows how political narratives now unfold across various platforms—traditional magazines, digital news sites, social media, and newsletters—each shaping public perception in unique ways.
What Comes Next
As of now, Vanity Fair has not issued a formal response to Leavitt’s comments. The magazine has stood by its reporting, according to sources familiar with its editorial stance.
Inside the White House, officials seem eager to move on, viewing the situation as another instance of media distraction.
“We’re focused on governing,” Leavitt said. “The American people care about results, not magazine profiles.”
Still, the issue appears unlikely to fade quickly. With Trump’s second term amid intense political division, even lifestyle profiles can spark disputes between the administration and the press.
For Leavitt, the message is clear: the White House will not remain silent when it believes coverage crosses the line.
