Which prominent journalists and media outlets did Trump insult and what were the consequences?
Executive summary
Donald Trump has repeatedly directed personal insults at specific journalists — notably female White House correspondents such as Bloomberg’s Catherine Lucey, ABC’s Mary Bruce, The New York Times’ Katie Rogers and CNN’s Kaitlan Collins — and at major outlets including CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, ABC and NBC; those slurs have been accompanied by administrative gestures and threats that have real-world consequences for press access and safety [1] [2] [3] [4]. The fallout has ranged from newsroom statements and social-media blowback to formal government actions, lawsuits and the creation of White House “Hall of Shame” pages and investigations that critics say weaponize state power against critical outlets [2] [5] [6].
1. Who was insulted — names and outlets
In recent reporting Trump is documented calling Bloomberg reporter Catherine Lucey “Quiet, piggy!”, berating ABC chief White House correspondent Mary Bruce as “a terrible person” and disparaging New York Times reporter Katie Rogers as “ugly, both inside and out,” while also publicly labeling CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post and other legacy outlets “fake news” or worse [5] [1] [2]. CNN’s Kaitlan Collins was singled out as “stupid and nasty” in a separate incident, and earlier confrontations with Jim Acosta were widely reported as emblematic of his treatment of male correspondents as well as women [7] [8].
2. Immediate newsroom and public reactions
Newsrooms responded unevenly: some outlets issued statements defending their reporters and vowed not to be intimidated, while others refrained from sustained public confrontation to avoid becoming the story; social media amplified both condemnation and mockery of the president’s language [2] [3]. Media-watch groups and associations have framed the insults as part of a pattern that disproportionately targets female journalists, prompting advocacy responses and alarm about gendered harassment [9] [10].
3. Administrative consequences and leverage
Beyond verbal attacks, the administration has used policy levers and public platforms that critics say escalate the damage: reporters and outlets have been denied certain access or removed from press pools, a White House “Hall of Shame” page publicly labeled major outlets as “offenders,” and officials hinted at — or in some cases explicitly threatened — revoking broadcast licenses for networks such as ABC and NBC [11] [5] [4]. These moves have been read by press-freedom monitors as an attempt to weaponize state power against unfavorable coverage [5] [12].
4. Litigation, investigations and press‑freedom pushback
Media organizations and journalists have pushed back in court and through public-interest litigation: by 2025 dozens of outlets and journalists had filed suits, federal judges granted early victories in some cases, and watchdogs documented multiple legal complaints and investigations tied to the administration’s actions against the press [6]. Reporters Without Borders and other groups compiled numbers illustrating arrests, removals from federal spaces and other impacts the press has suffered under the administration’s escalation [12] [6].
5. Tangible harms and the broader consequences
The insults themselves have spillover effects: PEN America and others warn that presidential name-calling serves as a green light for online harassment and threats, especially against targeted women, and that such harassment imposes personal safety costs and psychological harms on journalists [13]. Meanwhile, the combination of official hostility, policy threats and intermittent newsroom caution has produced a fragmented response — some outlets litigate and resist, others focus on protecting reporters on the beat — leaving press freedom battles to play out in courts, public advocacy and the court of public opinion [6] [3].