White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt didn't hold back when a HuffPost journalist pressed her with what she called agenda-driven questions.
As reported by Fox News, Leavitt publicly criticized HuffPost reporter S.V. Dáte on Monday after he sent a series of texts about President Donald Trump’s upcoming meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Budapest. The exchange quickly turned hostile, with Leavitt dismissing his inquiries as rooted in partisan talking points rather than genuine fact-seeking.
The tension began when Dáte texted Leavitt, asking if Trump was aware of Budapest’s historical significance tied to a 1994 agreement with Russia over Ukraine’s nuclear weapons. Leavitt’s response was a blunt “Your mom did,” followed by a demand to “stop texting me your disingenuous, biased, and bulls--- questions.”
Leavitt didn’t stop at the text exchange, taking to social media to expose what she sees as Dáte’s long-standing hostility toward Trump. She shared screenshots of their messages, stating, “S.V. Dáte of the Huffington Post is not a journalist interested in the facts. He is a left-wing hack who has consistently attacked President Trump for years” (Fox News).
Her point hits a nerve when you scroll through Dáte’s public profile, which seems less like a reporter’s portfolio and more like a personal vendetta against the administration. His own biography on HuffPost brags about a book that slams Trump’s handling of the pandemic and the Republican Party, hardly the hallmark of impartial reporting.
This isn’t just about one reporter; it’s a window into a broader problem of activists posing as journalists. Leavitt argued that such behavior does “a disservice to the profession,” and it’s hard to disagree when social media posts from Dáte, like one from 2023 warning against voting for Trump, read more like campaign ads than journalism.
The original query from Dáte focused on the symbolism of Trump and Putin meeting in Budapest, hosted by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. He pressed Leavitt on whether Trump understood the city’s connection to Russia’s past promises not to invade Ukraine, a pointed jab at the administration’s foreign policy.
While the question could have sparked a substantive discussion, Leavitt saw it as another attempt to frame Trump negatively rather than seek clarity. Her refusal to engage on Dáte’s terms suggests a deeper frustration with how certain media outlets approach this White House.
Meanwhile, Dáte’s article in HuffPost took a sarcastic tone, claiming the outlet was “devastated” by Leavitt’s response and now “fearful of asking any more questions” (Fox News). Such theatrics only reinforce the perception that some in the press prioritize narrative over truth, undermining their own credibility.
Social media users have jumped into the fray, with some labeling Dáte as overtly “biased” and pointing to his past posts as evidence. One shared a 2023 statement from Dáte saying it’s his job as a journalist to “warn” against voting for Trump, a stance that blurs the line between reporting and activism.
HuffPost, for its part, stood by Dáte, with a spokesperson declaring, “We look forward to receiving a professional answer to our reporter’s detailed question” (Fox News). Yet, when a reporter’s track record reads like an anti-administration diary, it’s fair to ask whether the expectation of professionalism runs both ways.
This clash isn’t just a personal spat; it reflects a growing divide between a White House pushing back against perceived media hostility and journalists who seem more invested in shaping opinion than uncovering facts. Leavitt’s sharp words may ruffle feathers, but they echo a sentiment many feel about the state of today’s press.
At the heart of this dust-up is a fundamental question: can the public trust journalists to separate their personal views from their reporting? When figures like Dáte openly wear their disdain for the administration on their sleeve, it fuels skepticism about the media’s role as a neutral observer.
Leavitt’s frustration, while delivered with a bite, taps into a real concern that too many in the press are quick to push progressive narratives under the guise of tough questions. Her stand, whether you agree with the tone or not, signals that this White House won’t quietly accept what it sees as unfair treatment.
Ultimately, this episode between Leavitt and Dáte is a microcosm of a much larger battle over truth, bias, and accountability in media. If journalism is to regain the trust it’s lost among wide swaths of Americans, it might start with reporters asking themselves whether their work serves the public or just their own prejudices.
