By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During an Oval Office briefing, President Trump deflected questions about the Jeffrey Epstein files from CNN’s Kaitlan Collins by criticizing her demeanor and questioning her journalistic integrity. When pressed about the files, which mentioned associates like Elon Musk and Howard Lutnick, Trump admitted he hadn’t read them but assured they were “fine” if not major news. The President further agitated when Collins inquired about justice for Epstein’s victims, escalating his remarks by calling her “the worst reporter” and complaining she never smiles, suggesting it indicated she wasn’t telling the truth. Collins later elaborated that Epstein survivors are frustrated by redactions in the files, indicating a desire for continued scrutiny despite Trump’s call to “move on.”
Read the original article here
The recent exchange where Donald Trump again targeted CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, particularly in the context of the Epstein files, has ignited a flurry of discussion. What’s particularly striking about his remarks is the seemingly personal jab about her not smiling, suggesting it somehow invalidates her questioning. It’s as if the gravity of discussing serious allegations, like those surrounding the Epstein files, is completely lost on him, replaced by an odd focus on a reporter’s demeanor.
The comment, “I don’t think I’ve ever seen you smile,” when directed at a journalist asking pointed questions about a deeply disturbing topic, feels less like a genuine observation and more like a calculated deflection. It’s a tactic that attempts to undermine the questioner rather than engage with the substance of the inquiry. This kind of personal critique, especially when it touches on gendered expectations of women to appear pleasant, is quite telling. The underlying implication – that a woman is somehow failing in her duty if she isn’t smiling – is a tired trope, and it’s disheartening to see it resurface in such a serious context.
When Collins was pressing Trump on the Epstein files, and he responded with this observation about her not smiling, it highlights a stark disconnect. The conversation was about deeply troubling revelations and the potential involvement of individuals connected to him. For him to pivot to her facial expression rather than directly addressing the implications of the files speaks volumes about his priorities, or perhaps his discomfort with the line of questioning. It suggests an avoidance of the difficult subject matter by resorting to a personal, and arguably unprofessional, observation.
It raises the question: why would anyone be expected to smile when confronted with the grim realities of such allegations? The very nature of the Epstein files, and the individuals implicated, is designed to elicit serious concern, not joviality. To suggest that a reporter’s lack of a smile is noteworthy or indicative of anything other than the somber nature of the topic at hand is a peculiar, and frankly, rather rude, interpretation. It feels like an attempt to frame her professionalism as something lacking because it doesn’t conform to an arbitrary and, in this instance, inappropriate, standard of personal presentation.
The fact that this comment comes up when he’s facing questions about his own connections, or those of his associates, to the Epstein scandal is also significant. Instead of offering substantive answers or explanations, he opts for a personal observation that shifts the focus away from the uncomfortable topic. This pattern of deflection is not new, but the specific nature of this jab – a comment on a woman’s smile – adds another layer to the critique of his approach. It’s a tactic that many perceive as demeaning and designed to diminish the reporter and her credibility.
The broader societal context of telling women to “smile more” is well-documented. It’s often a way to dismiss women, to imply they are not being agreeable enough, or to subtly police their behavior. When this sort of comment is made by a figure in a position of power, and directed at a journalist doing her job, it takes on an even more problematic dimension. It suggests a disregard for professional boundaries and a tendency to resort to personal criticisms when challenged.
Furthermore, the timing of this remark, immediately following questions about the Epstein files, reinforces the idea that it’s a defensive maneuver. Instead of addressing the substance of the accusations or the implications of the newly released documents, Trump chooses to comment on Collins’s demeanor. This suggests a desire to control the narrative by attacking the messenger, rather than engaging with the difficult message itself. The implications of the Epstein files are far-reaching, and for the conversation to be derailed by such a superficial observation is deeply concerning.
It’s also worth noting that Trump has a history of making personal remarks about journalists, particularly women. This latest instance, however, feels particularly jarring given the gravity of the subject matter. The conversation was about potential abuse and the need for transparency, and his response was to comment on whether the reporter was smiling. This contrast underscores the discomfort he seems to have with engaging directly with the difficult realities presented by the Epstein files and any associated connections. The focus on his associates being implicated in the “Trump/Epstein/Maxwell rape ring,” as some have noted, is precisely the kind of serious inquiry that warrants a direct and factual response, not a critique of a reporter’s facial expression.
Ultimately, the exchange serves as a stark reminder of the challenges journalists face when trying to hold powerful figures accountable, especially when those figures resort to personal attacks and diversions. The expectation for a reporter to smile while discussing such disturbing subject matter is not only unreasonable but also serves to detract from the important work of uncovering the truth. The persistence of these kinds of remarks, particularly when the conversation turns to sensitive and accusatory topics, highlights a recurring pattern of behavior that many find deeply troubling.