by Peter Funt
The great contradiction in Donald Trump’s two terms — at least as far as covering and understanding the man are concerned — is that he is, on the one hand, the most media-accessible president in history, yet he has proved to be the most difficult for journalists to interview.
This was demonstrated again the other evening as Trump toured his renovation project at the Washington Mall. ABC’s Rachel Scott asked a perfectly reasonable question: “Mr. President, you are here against the backdrop of the war in Iran. Why focus on all these projects as we’re seeing gas prices soar?”
After claiming the Mall’s reflecting pool had become “disgusting,” Trump lashed out at Scott: “That’s such a stupid question that you asked.” He added that the very act of asking the question was “a disgrace to our country.”
This is what the White House press corps deals with daily. It’s why Trump has become essentially un-questionable.
Those who get the opportunity to interview Trump must wrestle with how to be forceful without appearing to show political bias; how to fact-check him in real time; how to avoid riling him to the point where he lashes back or even, in the current climate, threatens FCC action or a lawsuit against their network.
Trump has become so impressed with himself and so confident in his bluster that he seems to treat televised interviews as a sport.
His first major interview after taking office in 2017 set the pattern. In it, Trump challenged the premise of several queries from ABC’s David Muir.
The following year Trump was interviewed by CBS’s Lesley Stahl for 60 Minutes. Midway, Trump walked out, saying he was unhappy with the questions.
Fast forward to Trump’s sit-downs in 2025 with NBC’s Kristen Welker and CBS’s Norah O’Donnell. The sessions underscored how, in his second term, Trump has become even bolder in orchestrating the course of interviews, while taking journalists to task and intentionally distorting facts.
After last month’s incident at the White House correspondents’ dinner, O’Donnell had another crack at Trump, one-on-one. At one point she read the “manifesto” of the man charged with storming the security checkpoint at the Washington Hilton. “I was waiting for you to read that,” said Trump, “because I knew you would, because you’re horrible people.”
Trump proceeded to call her “a disgrace,” and O’Donnell, who is no novice when it comes to interviewing powerful people, looked visibly shaken.
The challenge for journalists is not merely asking “tough” questions. Most politicians, especially Trump, can answer any question. What counts is the follow-up — and Trump has learned to preempt most of that.
I reached out to several current and past White House reporters about interviewing Trump and was disappointed, but not entirely surprised, to find they wouldn’t go on the record. None cared to risk poking this bear.
Some in media suggest that Trump’s interviews and gaggles are so self-serving and contrived — with softball questions from marginal outlets, called upon because they fawn over the president — that the wisest course for serious journalists would be to stop seeking interviews altogether.
That would be a mistake, both journalistically and politically.
The best White House reporters, such as Rachel Scott, who suffered Trump’s scorn on several occasions prior to the exchange at the Mall, are doing the nation a service by persevering without fighting back. They might not get direct answers to serious questions, but they’re creating a sad but necessary record of presidential abuse.
Copyright 2026 Peter Funt distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate. Peter Funt’s latest book is “Playing POTUS: The Power of America’s Acting Presidents,” about comedians who impersonated presidents.