During a fiery press briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt made a bold statement. The press conference, held in conjunction with President Donald Trump’s joint session address on March 4, 2025, aimed to clarify and expand on his mentioned initiatives.
When she was asked about the implications of Democratic members of Congress refusing to stand in support of protecting women’s spaces and sports during the joint session, Leavitt said that the key takeaway for Americans was that “they have a president who is committed to doing what’s right for them.” She followed this with the assertion that Trump is “the president for women.”
This statement raises the question: Why would Leavitt frame Trump as a champion for women, given his controversial past remarks and accusations?
The answer lies in the content of his joint session address. The Trump administration is steadfast in its push for immigration reform and its efforts to protect women’s sports as exclusive to biological females, barring transgender women and non-binary individuals assigned male at birth from participation.
It was expected that Democratic lawmakers would not stand for these announcements, as they conflict with their party’s broader stance on gender identity and inclusion. However, what shocked so many was their refusal to stand during Trump’s recognition of two young women — Payton McNabb and Jocelyn Nungaray — whose stories were central to his argument.
McNabb, a former high school volleyball player, suffered partial paralysis after being spiked in the head by a transgender opponent. Trump highlighted her experience as part of his broader call to restrict transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports, arguing that such policies endanger fairness and safety.
Meanwhile, Nungaray, a young girl brutally tortured and murdered by an illegal immigrant gang member, was honored as Trump announced the renaming of the Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge in Texas to the Jocelyn Nungaray National Wildlife Refuge. The tribute acknowledged her love for animals and nature while reinforcing Trump’s emphasis on stricter immigration policies.
Considering these specific initiatives, the Trump administration positions itself as protecting and empowering women. Whether one agrees with this perspective or not, the administration is clearly unified in its messaging. This raises another question: Was Leavitt’s statement a genuine reflection of belief, or was it a strategic use of gendered language designed to sway moderate women voters?
As the Trump administration moves forward with its policies, Leavitt’s statement positions the former president as an advocate for women — a characterization that will undoubtedly be debated. Whether his actions genuinely reflect a commitment to women’s rights or serve as a strategic political maneuver remains a question for the American public. Will Trump’s policies resonate with those he claims to champion, or will skepticism about his past overshadow his administration’s efforts?