So here we are. President Trump hosts a whirlwind of meetings with world leaders, possibly brings us closer to ending a brutal war in Europe, and what’s the burning question from the mainstream media? Why didn’t Trump let Putin eavesdrop on the group Zoom call?
You really can’t make this stuff up.
Enter Shawn McCreesh of The New York Times — an outlet that hasn’t exactly been known for its intellectual rigor lately. At Tuesday’s press briefing, he proudly stepped up to the mic and asked what might go down in history as one of the most embarrassing press questions ever lobbed at a White House podium:
“If the point is to get everybody on the same page, why wouldn’t Trump just take the call from Putin while the other leaders were in the room?”
Let’s pause there. Think about that. The man’s actually confused about why the President of the United States wouldn’t broadcast a sensitive, high-stakes conversation with the leader of Russia — a nuclear adversary — like it’s a group FaceTime call. Because apparently, in the Times newsroom, this is how diplomacy works now.
And thank God for Karoline Leavitt, who didn’t just answer the question — she disarmed it, vaporized it, and sent it straight to the Museum of Media Delusion. Her response?
“With all due respect, only a reporter from The New York Times would ask a question like that, Shawn.”
Oof. Direct hit. She then calmly explained that Trump had already met with the European leaders 48 hours after speaking with Putin — and that, unlike the Biden administration’s endless press statements and zero results, this meeting actually moved the needle.
New York Times reporter asks why Trump didn’t have the phone call with Putin in front of the European leaders at the summit.
Karoline Leavitt slaps him down.
“With all due respect, only a reporter from The New York Times would ask a question like that.” pic.twitter.com/bv6GwiKT0q
— Hotep Jeffiziah Charles🏴 (@jeffcharlesjr) August 19, 2025
Here’s what makes this more than just a dumb question.
This is the mindset of the legacy media. They aren’t interested in outcomes. They aren’t concerned about stopping a war that’s already claimed hundreds of thousands of lives — including children. Nope. They’re laser-focused on optics, on protocols, on how they feel about Trump being in the same room as Putin. They want drama, not diplomacy. Headlines, not peace.
But meanwhile, Trump did what he does best — he made deals. He brought Zelensky, Macron, Meloni, Starmer, Rutte, and the rest of the NATO set into the Oval Office, laid out what happened, and began brokering a face-to-face sit-down between Putin and Zelensky. That’s what leaders do.
Let’s talk numbers, because the media sure won’t. Around 250,000 Russian soldiers dead. Up to 100,000 Ukrainian troops. Over 12,000 civilians gone. 500+ children. And yet, we’re wasting time asking if Trump should’ve patched Putin in on speakerphone?
This isn’t journalism. It’s political theater masquerading as accountability.
And let’s be honest — if Biden had done any of this, the media would be building statues and handing out Pulitzer Prizes. “Biden Brings World to the Table.” “Diplomatic Genius.” Instead, because it’s Trump, they’d rather throw shade than acknowledge the obvious: He might actually stop the war — and worse (for them), he might do it before November.
Because here’s the dirty little secret: peace is bad for business — and even worse for the Left’s narrative.
They need the chaos. They need the casualties. They need the conflict — because they need to keep blaming Trump. That’s why a serious peace effort is treated like a scandal, and a joke of a question from The New York Times gets more media airtime than 500 dead kids.
At some point, you’d hope humanity would trump politics.
But for the media, if Trump’s involved, that point never comes.
