Trump’s “Quiet, Piggy” Remark to Female Reporter Sparks White House Defense

19 November 2025

President Donald Trump. Credit : JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty

In an exchange that has reignited long-standing concerns about press freedom and gender bias in political communication, Donald Trump came under heavy criticism after labeling a female reporter “Piggy” during a press gaggle aboard Air Force One and the White House responded by defending the remark. The incident unfolded on November 14, 2025, when Bloomberg correspondent Catherine Lucey asked Trump a pointed question about the release of files tied to convicted sex-offender Jeffrey Epstein. In her line of questioning, Lucey broached an email from Epstein’s network in which Trump was accused of knowing about “the girls.”

When Lucey attempted to follow up with “Sir, if there’s nothing incriminating in the files…,” Trump cut her off abruptly, poked his finger in her direction, and snapped “Quiet. Quiet, Piggy.” The remark, caught on video and shared widely across social media and news outlets, summoned immediate backlash from press freedom advocates, fellow journalists and gender-equity groups.

The White House did not shy away from defending the exchange. A spokesperson stated that the reporter “behaved in an inappropriate and unprofessional way towards her colleagues on the plane” and added cryptically “If you’re going to give it, you have to be able to take it.” No further details were provided to substantiate the claim about her conduct.

On its face, the incident reads like an uncomfortable moment of raw irritation. But for many observers, it also reflects a pattern of dismissive or disparaging treatment of women journalists by powerful figures. The fact that Trump responded to a female reporter’s question with a demeaning nickname rather than a substantive answer drew sharp rebukes. The International Women’s Media Foundation called the term “gendered” and warned it fostered an environment of intimidation toward women in journalism.

Bloomberg News, the reporter’s parent organisation, defended Lucey promptly. They emphasised the essential role that White House correspondents play in challenging power and seeking answers in the public interest. They said the manner of the insult undermined broader efforts to hold leading officials accountable.

Trump’s disparagement occurred at a moment of heightened scrutiny around his evolving stance on the Epstein files. He had previously called the release of those files a “hoax” but had shifted course to support congressional efforts to make them public. While the substantive question Lucey raised involved transparency and accountability, much of the reaction has centered on the tone of the interaction rather than the policy outcome.

In the days following the incident, the clip of the remark circulated widely. Critics argued that the use of “piggy” was meant to demean, diminish and silence the reporter rather than engage with her question. Several prominent journalists and commentators asserted that such insults from a figure in power set a dangerous precedent not only for a single exchange but for the attitude toward an entire profession.

Supporters of Trump countered that the moment was blown out of proportion that reporters often ask provocative questions and must accept push-back. They pointed to the White House’s statement about shared responsibility in the interaction. But for others, the remark underscored larger questions about how women in the media are addressed in high-stakes press environments where power and image collide.

The incident comes at a time when trust between the press and the presidency is already fragile. The press corps is navigating not only aggressive questioning of politicians but also increasingly hostile reactions on social media and in public discourse. When the head of the government personally resorts to name-calling toward a professional asking a question, many fear it contributes to a chilling effect: reporters may hesitate, tone-down their approach or avoid challenge altogether.

For the reporter involved, the moment has brought both attention and solidarity. Social media users, journalistic networks and advocates emphasised that however contentious the question, it was a legitimate inquiry into a significant matter of public interest. The fact that the White House rebuked the reporter rather than addressing the substance of the file release only amplified concerns.

As this episode continues to ripple through newsrooms and political circles, its significance lies in more than one insulting word. It reflects the intersections of power, gender and the press where a single remark becomes shorthand for broader dynamics of authority and resistance. Whether the policy around the Epstein files moves forward or not, the exchange exposes how a moment of mic-drop theatre may obscure more fundamental tensions about transparency, accountability and respect.