Opinion
The now-former White House press secretary Katie Zacharia, who was sacked on Saturday after just five days in the job, was described by herself and her boss, United States President Donald Trump, as a lawyer. But as with so much in the Trumpiverse, the truth of that claim was doubtful.
When asked by reporters this week in which state she passed the bar exam, Zacharia replied: “When I moved to China”. This response was a perfect leitmotif for the Trump era – evasive, nonsensical and implausible in its deniability.
Media outlets such as the New York Times later reported that Zacharia had graduated with a law degree from Pepperdine University, a Californian Christian college, but had not been admitted to practise law in any state. According to the Wall Street Journal, she sat the California bar exam after graduating, but did not pass. Zacharia later admitted that was the case.
Zacharia says she worked on “international transaction law” during a stint in China, but it seems unlikely she practised law there – China doesn’t generally allow foreigners accreditation in its jurisdiction.
The focus on Zacharia’s credentials, and her apparent embellishment of them, came after she gave her first press briefing, which was amateurish in the extreme. She opened with a gushing monologue about how honoured she was to work for Trump. “I have wanted to work for him for a very long time,” she told the White House press corps.
She took only three questions, and couldn’t answer the most pressing inquiry – whether the United States has suspended intelligence-sharing with Ukraine.
But so what? Zacharia’s predecessor Karoline Leavitt was an excellent performer but, overall, it is difficult to mount the case that the Trump administration is a meritocracy. It is stacked with sycophants, shucksters, nepo-babies and former TV hosts (Zacharia was previously a commentator for Fox News).
The self-styled Secretary for War Pete Hegseth (a former Fox News host) presided over “Signalgate”, where a journalist – The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg – was accidentally added to a group-chat where sensitive, classified details about US military airstrikes were shared.
FBI Director Kash Patel is the subject of much scrutiny over reported heavy drinking and erratic behaviour on the job, and Trump’s hand-picked “Border Czar” Tom Homan was caught on audio in 2024 literally accepting cash in a plastic bag – $50,000 of it.
The FBI sting was shut down by the Trump administration, according to the New York Times. Homan remains in his job, as do the other men of his administration who have self-dealt and stuffed up while working, ostensibly, for the American taxpayer.
Trump, who became famous for his TV catchphrase – “You’re fired!” – seems to only terminate the employment of his female appointees. Zacharia is not the only one to get sacked this week. The now-former US Ambassador to Greece, Kimberly Guilfoyle, also fell victim to the Trump-woman curse when she was dumped via Zacharia’s first press briefing (the only informative news to emerge from it).
Guilfoyle, a Trump loyalist who was long-time engaged to Trump’s eldest son, Donald Junior, had become an embarrassment. She was given the posting immediately after her fiancé was caught canoodling with a younger woman, soon after which their engagement was broken off.
Guilfoyle may have been spurned, but she made hay with her consolation prize. She used the Greek post, it seems, to party hard and shamelessly hustle for cash – the final straw for Trump was the publication by the Wall Street Journal of texts where she tells a Trump donor whom she called “honey” to pay off her $100,000 credit card bill, apparently in return for favours.
Zacharia and Guilfoyle join former attorney-general Pam Bondi, Labour secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, homeland secretary Kristi Noem and national intelligence director Tulsi Gabbard as the latest woman to be jettisoned by Trump. All have been replaced by men. (Zacharia’s replacement hasn’t been announced yet.)
It’s no wonder Zacharia was so anxious on her first day. She seems to have had almost no preparation and little notice of her appointment. And her nerves would not have been improved by reading the subsequent media critiques, many of them unflattering and some focused on her looks.
The Times of London headlined their story, “Another Maga Blonde Bombshell”. Its author, a woman, wrote of Zacharia that it was “hard to get over how she looks, with her to-the-tits golden hair, transfixingly white teeth and notably plumped and sculpted lips and cheeks”.
The Telegraph sniffed about Zacharia’s “flat Miss America semi-finalist cadence”, and said she hid behind her “impressive mane of blonde hair”.
Such criticism of a woman’s appearance is usually denounced by feminists such as myself, especially now we have copious real-world experience of the vitriol and physical risk faced by women in the public eye.
In Australia, as in the United States, female politicians and officials face disproportionate and sexualised abuse, often based on their appearance. Such abuse tends to divide into one of two lanes – the woman is either ugly and unf---able, or the opposite, and therefore a “whore”.
But in the case of the Trump administration, the well-founded reluctance to comment on women’s appearance presents a dilemma because it is hard to observe the women of Trump’s circle without observing the way they look. And the way they look is a part of the broader story of government-by-MAGA.
Except for the non-public-facing White House chief of staff Susie Wiles (also subject to imminent-sacking rumours), who looks like a normal 69-year-old, the women of the Trump administration are all looksmaxxed versions of a heightened feminine aesthetic that owes much to our beloved Barbie. They are cosmetically enhanced, heavily made-up and usually blonde.
Trump’s MAGA movement overlaps generously with the gender-fascism and misogyny of the manosphere. In that context, perhaps this hyper-feminised Trump-woman look – the emphasis on the feminine parts of one’s appearance, from the eyelashes and lips to the bust – is an aesthetic apology for being a woman who wields power.
Or perhaps it is a way to assuage the anxieties of the men who might fear such a woman. A powerful female is less threatening if she looks like the kind of woman you might desire, and also denigrate, for apparently trying hard to be desirable.
That is the only viable sweet spot for any woman seeking to thrive in the Trump galaxy. And it’s another reminder that just because a misogynist institution may include some women, that doesn’t mean it values them. As Zacharia found out, very quickly, it’s quite the opposite.
Jacqueline Maley is a senior writer and regular columnist.
Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.