They slashed them: Trump WH won’t reply to reporters with pronouns in emails

New York Post - Apr 9th, 2025

The White House, under the Trump administration, has enacted a policy of not responding to reporters who include their preferred gender pronouns in email signatures. This decision, confirmed by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and Department of Government Efficiency spokeswoman Katie Miller, has been justified on the grounds that the inclusion of pronouns is seen as ignoring 'scientific realities.' The announcement was made via the Trump War Room account on X, as well as through direct communication with the New York Times, highlighting a strict adherence to recognizing only two genders.

This policy decision is significant as it directly impacts the media's interaction with the administration, potentially limiting communication with journalists who use pronouns to show solidarity with transgender and nonbinary communities. The move reflects the Trump administration's firm stance on gender identity issues, which has been a point of contention in broader societal debates. The implications of this policy could further polarize discussions on gender inclusivity and the recognition of diverse gender identities, affecting both media practices and the administration's public perception.

White House Transgender Rights Trump Administration Karoline Leavitt Katie Miller Gender Pronouns Press Relations

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

4.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The story presents a controversial policy decision by the Trump White House regarding gender pronouns in media interactions. While the topic is timely and relevant, the article lacks balance and source quality, relying heavily on statements from administration officials without providing corroborating evidence or diverse perspectives. The factual accuracy of some claims requires further verification, particularly regarding the scientific basis for the policy and its impact on reporters. Despite these weaknesses, the story addresses an issue of significant public interest and has the potential to influence public opinion and provoke debate. However, the lack of transparency and detailed context may limit its effectiveness in fully engaging the audience and driving meaningful discussion.

Accuracy

The story makes several claims that require verification, such as the White House's policy on ignoring emails with pronouns and the rationale behind it. The claim that the Trump administration recognizes only two genders is consistent with known policies, but specific confirmation from official documents or statements is needed. The anecdotal evidence of press being ignored lacks direct testimonials or evidence from affected reporters, which weakens the factual accuracy. Additionally, the scientific basis for the administration's stance on gender pronouns is not clearly cited, leaving room for potential inaccuracies.

Balance

The story predominantly presents the perspective of the White House and its officials, particularly Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and Department of Government Efficiency spokeswoman Katie Miller. It does not include viewpoints from reporters affected by the policy or from advocates for transgender and nonbinary rights, leading to a lack of balance. By omitting these perspectives, the story may appear biased towards the administration's stance without addressing the broader implications or criticisms of such a policy.

Clarity

The language and structure of the article are generally clear, with a straightforward presentation of the claims. However, the tone may appear biased due to the lack of balanced perspectives. The logical flow is maintained, but the absence of detailed explanations or evidence for some claims could affect comprehension for readers unfamiliar with the context.

Source quality

The story relies heavily on statements attributed to White House officials and the Trump War Room account on X. However, it lacks direct quotes from primary sources or official documents that could substantiate the claims. The absence of diverse and authoritative sources, such as independent experts or affected journalists, undermines the reliability of the information presented.

Transparency

The article does not provide sufficient context or transparency regarding the methodology used to gather the information. There is no explanation of how the claims were verified or which sources were consulted. Additionally, potential conflicts of interest, such as the political affiliations of the quoted officials, are not disclosed, which could impact the impartiality of the reporting.