White House’s Leavitt Slams Journos Asking If U.S. Lost ‘Moral High Ground’ vs. Iran

Curtis Houck
April 8th, 2026 4:47 PM

Text to Speech

00:00 00:00
Font Size

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt faced a mostly liberal, elite media press corps Wednesday afternoon that had a Costco-sized carton of eggs on their face from President Trump’s Truth Social post the night prior unveiling a preliminary peace deal with Iran following declarations “a whole civilization will die,” so it was no surprise some arrived with adversarial question.

This included two questioning whether the U.S. has lost the “moral high ground” in the world and against Iran, which has killed tens of thousands of protesters in the last year, criminalizes homosexuality, oppresses women, and has one of the worst records for press freedom.

The Independent’s Andrew Feinberg was the first to go down this road: “The U.S. has been a moral leader for most of its history by fighting wars against other governments, not against civilizations. How can the President claim that America can ever have the moral high ground if he’s threatening to destroy civilizations and not casting wars as fights against other governments?”

This question was proceeded by mention of the 2003 invasion of Iraq when “George W. Bush said in a message to the Iraqi people that the military campaign was directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you.”

Leavitt tore apart this attempt to equivocate, calling his line of question “insulting”:

I think you should take a look at the actions of this President over the course of the past six weeks and the actions of our brave men and women in our United States military who have taken out the essentially taken out the military of a rogue Islamic regime that is chanted Death to America for 47 years, that has killed and maimed thousands of American soldiers over the course of the last five decades. The President absolutely has the moral high ground over the Iranian terrorist regime. And for you to even suggest otherwise is, frankly, insulting.

The other reporter was Katie Rogers of The New York Times, who first asked: “I’m — just given the gravity of what he said yesterday, what was your understanding of what he meant when he said, I’m — this civilization is going to be eliminated?”

Leavitt declared Trump’s promise to wipe out Iranian infrastructure was “a very, very strong threat from the President of the United States that led the Iranian regime to cave to their knees and ask for a cease-fire and agree to reopening the Strait of Hormuz, so it was a very strong threat that led to results.”

Rogers then plunged down the “moral” track, but Leavitt wasn’t having a scintilla of this anti-Americanism (click “expand”):

ROGERS: Does he see the United States as a moral leader in the world given that he’s —

LEAVITT: I was asked this exact same question by your colleague Andrew in the back. And I think, again, the insinuation by anyone in this room that Iran somehow has the moral high ground over the United States of America is insulting —

ROGERS: No one is [inaudible]

LEAVITT: — considering the atrocities that they have —

ROGERS: — civilization off the map. That’s different.

LEAVITT: — considering the atrocities that they have committed against our people and our military over the past five decades.

Earlier in the briefing, NBC’s Gabe Gutierrez similarly wondered “why is it appropriate for the President of the United States to use that kind of language when talking about civilian targets” even though “Iranian leaders have previously said Death to America[.]”

“And was the President mocking Islam by signing off his true social post over the weekend, ‘praise be to Allah.’ Wouldn’t that antagonize Muslim allies across the world,” he added.

As it was still early on in the briefing (Gutierrez was the second reporter called on), Leavitt calmly explained that while “I understand the questions about the President’s rhetoric...what the President cares most about is results and, in fact, his very tough rhetoric and his tough negotiating style is what has led to the result that you are all witnessing today.”

Before the Q&A, Leavitt set the record straight on a supposed ten-point plan put out by the Iranians:

Our friends at AMAC had the “new media seat” and sent editor-in-chief Shane Harris with questions about what the U.S. achieved in Operation Epic Fury and what Trump’s message was to elderly Americans ahead of the midterms:

Speaking of conservative media, Daily Caller’s Reagan Reese invited Leavitt to further explain Vice President JD Vance’s role in mediating talks with Iran and then separately if President Trump would support or oppose the Dignity Act, which “would give some illegal immigrants in the country a path to citizenship”:

Speaking of Vance, 2023 MRC Bulldog Award winner Mary Margaret Olohan inquired about security for the Vice President and fellow U.S. negotiators Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff in Istanbul (as well as whether the U.S. “plan[s] to deport more relatives or people in the families of Iranian officials”):

Fast-forwarding to the end, independent conservative journalist Lyndsay Keith sought to have Leavitt elaborate on Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s declaration U.S. troops would be, in her words, be “sticking around” during the two-week cease-fire. She was followed by Newsweek’s Leo Feldman wondering if Trump was considering withdrawing the U.S. from NATO:

To see the relevant transcript from the May 8 briefing, click here.

Donor Privacy Policy