Fox News’ Jacqui Heinrich Says Trump’s Attacks Don’t “Keep Me Up at Night”

Just over a month into Donald Trump’s second term, press secretary Karoline Leavitt stood behind the podium in the briefing room and triumphantly announced that the administration was “going to give the power back to the people” by taking over the White House Correspondents’ Association’s traditional role of determining the daily press pool, the small group of journalists who cover the president’s words and actions in more intimate settings for the larger press corps.

Jacqui Heinrich rejects the premise that the WHCA is restrictive in regard to expanding membership, telling Vanity Fair, “At the end of the day, an independent press should be able to organize its own coverage without any interference or involvement from the government.” Heinrich, 36, not only covers the administration on a daily basis as Fox News’ senior White House correspondent, but also currently serves on the board of the WHCA, the specific target of Trump’s attacks.

Given her role on the board, to which she was elected for a three-year term, Heinrich felt as though she had to speak out against the attempts to take power away from the journalist-led organization, which has been advocating for media access to the presidency since 1914. “This move does not give the power back to the people – it gives power to the White House,” Heinrich wrote in an X post, responding to the White House’s unprecedented takeover. “Our job is to advocate for the MOST access possible.”

Heinrich’s job requires daily interaction with White House officials, so before publicly criticizing the move—a relatively rare showing of a Fox News personality taking issue with the Trump administration—Heinrich made sure to give a heads-up to the White House press shop to ensure that no bridges were burned in the process. “I am going to make these statements, and I just want you to know that it has nothing to do with any one of you people individually,” Heinrich recalls warning administration press officials. “It’s just about this being a very significant choice that’s been made, and in my role on the board, I need to speak up for that.” So far, she says, there hasn’t been “any negative impact on my working relationship with them at all.”

Since then, however, Trump has personally attacked Heinrich on Truth Social, calling her “absolutely terrible” after watching her anchor a weekend Fox News program. “Not surprisingly, I later found out that she’s a fan of the White House Correspondents Association!” Trump wrote. (Heinrich’s work has also rankled some Trump allies, including former Fox News star Tucker Carlson.) The president’s barb “didn’t keep me up at night,” Heinrich says, but the reporter did request a meeting with Trump to “figure out what it was” that irked him so deeply. “I still don’t really know what that was about,” she adds.

Looking ahead to Saturday’s annual WHCA dinner in Washington, Heinrich says that even without Trump at the Hilton, the event will still be valuable, as the “importance of journalism” should be celebrated regardless of whether he’s present. Still, she notes that “it’s not too late for him to change his mind.”

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Vanity Fair: The pace at which this administration has churned out news has been very rapid. How are you handling coverage of an administration that’s been moving so quickly?

Jacqui Heinrich: One way I approach things is just to take the 30,000-foot view. There are common threads that go through everything that he’s doing. If you can hold on to that, it helps to not be battered by the volume of information that’s coming your way.

For the first 100 days, the three takeaways that I have are that this administration is trying to, early on, determine the scope of the president’s power by driving a lot of these Supreme Court cases, whether it has to do with deportations or something else. They want to have an early nod from the Supreme Court on what it is that they can do, so that can inform the rest of these four years. Then also reorganizing the world in a way that prioritizes America, whether that be with alliances and partnerships or the global economy. Then also undoing everything, every mark that [Joe] Biden left, if the president can do it. One of the most consistent things that I hear from my sources is that if one of the president’s advisers will say, “Well, this is how Biden did it,” President Trump will immediately want to veer in the other direction.

Can you speak to your approach in the briefing room and to coverage from the ground in the White House?

I’m not a bomb thrower or a gotcha-question person. I never have been, not even with Biden. I think that is why I’m able to develop sourcing and build relationships, because I’m just trying to do an honest job. I’m asking honest, fair questions, and I do think that there is a lot of trust that I’ve been able to establish. I’m not a particularly performative person in the chair compared to some other people.

Trump recently attacked your performance on Truth Social. How do you respond to something like that?

I still don’t really know what that was about. It doesn’t keep me up at night. I requested to meet with him and talk to him about it, figure out what it was—not because it would change the nature of my reporting, but I think that it’s always important to understand how people are receiving you and to know if there was something that I left out. I always want feedback, no matter where it’s coming from, because I think part of doing a good job is representing the thing that you are covering and representing their voice in the way that they mean it. I was a little bit puzzled by it, but it didn’t keep me up at night. You can’t read the comments. You wouldn’t be a good reporter if you were trying to guard against a negative reaction.

The White House has leveled significant attacks against the WHCA, taking over a majority of the organization’s daily duties. You were pretty adamant on social media about the fact that this isn’t a good thing for press freedom and gives more influence to the White House. Can you expand on that?

It’s specifically the taking over the organization of pools from the WHCA, that particular change. I’m not sure the administration was thinking about the long run when they made it, and I wanted to make sure that was heard—not just by them, but also the people who follow me, who watch Fox. Many of them who support the president and his administration really need to think about that critically. While the president feels that the media is too liberal—and I think he does have some legitimate grievances there—the same voices that he was trying to prop up with this change could be cut down by a Democratic administration who would weaponize their newfound control to their benefit. Imagine President AOC [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] kicking Fox out of the briefing room. The same people that are cheering this on right now would be apoplectic.

At the end of the day, an independent press should be able to organize its own coverage without any interference or involvement from the government, because the pendulum always swings both ways. You don’t want access to the leader of the free world to be dependent on favorable coverage. That’s the whole reason why the WHCA self-organized, beginning back in the early 1900s. It’s just not what America stands for. While I understand where they were coming from in making this change, I wanted to make sure that they understood the significance of it and the ramifications that could come from it.

I, at the same time, have a very good working relationship with the press shop and gave them a heads-up, like, “Hey, you guys know where I stand on this. This isn’t personal. But I am going to make these statements, and I just want you to know that it has nothing to do with any one of you people individually. It’s just about this being a very significant choice that’s been made, and in my role on the board, I need to speak up for that.” We have continued to work closely after that and through that, and I don’t think there’s been any negative impact on my working relationship with them at all. That’s not reflective of the overall working relationship that I have with them.

Would it be accurate for the White House to characterize the WHCA as restrictive or limiting on who can join?

It wouldn’t be. We have always welcomed anyone that they wanted to add to the pool. We just opposed a formula that involved subtraction because we do have a very, very diverse membership. Some people would be surprised to see that a lot of the outlets who have sat in the “new media” seat—which, by the way, I thought was a great creative solution for them to make additions to the briefing room by giving up staff seats. Great, wonderful. But a lot of people who have sat in that “new media” seat are, in fact, our WHCA members.

What a pool is and how it works is very inside baseball, and it’s very unexciting. It’s not as sexy or interesting as I think Twitter would have you believe, or X, excuse me. Trying to explain that to the layman is not a winning thing to do because it is so logistical. I think that the White House is able to seize on some of the coverage that had come Trump’s way under his first administration and say, “Look, the Washington media has been unfair to me, and we want to shake things up.” I think that the public can understand why you would want to do that.

We’re heading into WHCA Dinner weekend. From your end, what is the mood among the DC political reporting class, just given the tension between the administration and the organization?

This is a celebration of the work that we do and the scholarships that we’re awarding and the importance of journalism. That’s something that you celebrate, no matter if the president is attending or not. Obviously, we invited him, hoped that he would come. It wasn’t a huge shock that he decided not to. It’s not too late for him to change his mind.

Does that diminish the value at all?

No, I don’t think that it diminishes the value per se. What we’re really there to do is to celebrate our scholars who are embarking on a career in journalism, and celebrating the First Amendment, the importance of it, the work that we have done and will continue to do. That is valuable no matter who’s in attendance. But of course we would welcome him to join us, and maybe he’ll come next year. You never know.

You occupy an interesting position at Fox News given that you’re providing straight news reporting to a network that can veer into opinion content. How do you view your role?

It’s actually really black and white. To me, my job doesn’t change no matter what hour I’m reporting on, and breaking news can happen in opinion hours. I’ve been on Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Jesse Watters, doing straight news reports—period. That’s just the role that I’m in. I don’t think that it’s uncomfortable or hard at all. I kind of take solace in the fact that I really just have one job to do, and it’s not impacted no matter what hour I’m on.

How do other reporters, anchors, or executives at Fox support your efforts given that sometimes your reporting can contradict an opinion narrative that is being aired?

I’ve had nothing but support from this network. I’ve been promoted three times since the last election. I must be doing something right. My key card still works.