Watch What Happens When a New York Times Reporter Asks Karoline Leavitt a Provocative Question

On August 19, 2025, a routine White House press briefing turned into a viral moment when Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt sharply rebuffed a question from New York Times reporter Shawn McCreesh. The exchange, centered on President Donald Trump’s private phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, has sparked widespread debate about media bias, diplomatic protocol, and the role of the press in covering sensitive foreign policy matters. Leavitt’s response, “With all due respect, only a reporter from The New York Times would ask a question like that,” has become a lightning rod for discussions about journalistic integrity and the dynamics of the White House press room.

The Question That Sparked the Firestorm

The controversy arose during a press briefing following a series of high-stakes diplomatic engagements. President Trump had recently held a bilateral summit with Putin in Alaska, followed by a multilateral meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders, including British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, French President Emmanuel Macron, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. These meetings, held on August 17 and 19, 2025, were part of Trump’s efforts to broker peace in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

During the briefing, McCreesh posed a pointed question: “If the point is to get everybody on the same page, why wouldn’t Trump just take the call from Putin while the other leaders were in the room? He said it would be disrespectful to do that. Why is it disrespectful?” The question referred to Trump’s decision to step away from the meeting with European leaders to take a private call with Putin, a move he later explained on Fox & Friends as a gesture of respect to avoid straining already tense relations between Russia and Europe.

Leavitt’s response was swift and biting. “With all due respect, only a reporter from The New York Times would ask a question like that, Shawn,” she said, prompting a mix of chuckles and gasps in the briefing room. She went on to emphasize the success of Trump’s diplomatic efforts, noting that the European leaders flew to Washington just 48 hours after Trump’s meeting with Putin to receive a detailed readout of Russia’s position. Leavitt highlighted positive feedback from the leaders, including Zelensky, who described the discussions as “very good” and credited Trump with breaking the deadlock in negotiations.

A Clash of Perspectives

Leavitt’s retort has divided observers. Supporters, particularly in conservative circles, praised her for calling out what they see as a biased question designed to undermine Trump’s diplomatic strategy. Outlets like The Gateway Pundit and Blaze Media lauded her for “roasting” McCreesh and standing up to what they described as the “left-wing media’s negative coverage.” They argue that the question ignored the complexities of international diplomacy, where private discussions are often necessary to maintain trust and avoid public posturing.

Critics, however, including The New Republic and Inquisitr News, viewed Leavitt’s response as dismissive and unprofessional, accusing her of dodging a legitimate question about transparency in foreign policy. They argue that McCreesh’s inquiry was reasonable, given the public’s interest in understanding the dynamics of Trump’s negotiations with Putin, especially in the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The New Republic noted that Leavitt’s tendency to “verbally assail reporters” reflects a broader pattern of hostility toward the press, potentially undermining public access to information.

The Broader Context of Trump’s Diplomacy

The exchange must be understood within the context of Trump’s high-profile diplomatic push. His meeting with Putin in Alaska on August 17, 2025, marked a significant step toward re-opening dialogue between the U.S. and Russia, which had been strained under the previous administration. Trump’s subsequent discussions with Zelensky and European leaders at the White House were hailed by some as a breakthrough, with Zelensky himself noting that the conversations addressed “very sensitive points.” NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte also praised Trump for breaking the deadlock with Putin.

Leavitt emphasized these achievements, arguing that the rapid response of European leaders—flying to Washington within 48 hours—demonstrated the effectiveness of Trump’s approach. She contrasted this with the Biden administration’s alleged failure to engage in meaningful dialogue with Russia, which she claimed prolonged the conflict.

The decision to take Putin’s call privately was explained by Trump as a matter of diplomatic courtesy. In his Fox & Friends interview, he noted that Russia and Europe “have not had the warmest relations,” and taking the call in front of European leaders could have been perceived as disrespectful to Putin. Leavitt reinforced this, framing the private call as a strategic move that facilitated open dialogue and led to productive outcomes.

Media Ethics and Press Room Dynamics

The clash between Leavitt and McCreesh has reignited debates about the role of the press in covering sensitive diplomatic matters. Supporters of Leavitt argue that the media often frames questions to provoke controversy rather than seek clarity, pointing to McCreesh’s question as an example of “gotcha journalism.” They contend that the New York Times, often criticized by conservative outlets for its editorial stance, was attempting to cast Trump’s actions in a negative light.

On the other hand, media advocates argue that Leavitt’s dismissive tone undermines the press’s role as a check on power. Inquisitr News described her response as part of a pattern of hostility toward journalists who ask challenging questions, citing previous clashes with reporters like Peter Baker of the New York Times and Natasha Bertrand of CNN. Critics argue that such responses risk eroding public trust in government transparency, especially on issues as serious as foreign policy.

Implications for the Future

The incident has broader implications for the relationship between the Trump administration and the media. Leavitt, at 27 the youngest White House press secretary in history, has made it clear that she intends to challenge what she sees as biased reporting. Her debut briefing in January 2025 set the tone, warning reporters that “Americans’ trust in mass media has fallen to a record low” and promising to call out misinformation.

For the New York Times and other legacy media outlets, the exchange underscores the challenges of covering an administration that views them with skepticism. The viral nature of the moment, amplified by social media posts and hashtags like #KarolineLeavitt, ensures that it will remain a point of contention.

A Polarizing Moment

Karoline Leavitt’s sharp rebuke of Shawn McCreesh has become a defining moment in the ongoing tug-of-war between the Trump administration and the press. For supporters, it was a bold defense of diplomatic strategy against a media eager to criticize. For detractors, it was an evasion of accountability that highlights the administration’s contentious relationship with journalists. As the Russia-Ukraine peace talks continue, this incident serves as a reminder of the high stakes of diplomacy and the power of words in shaping public perception. Whether Leavitt’s approach strengthens her standing or fuels further criticism, one thing is certain: the exchange has left an indelible mark on the discourse surrounding media and power.