The person at the podium absorbs the blame. The people who hired her rarely do.
Asked by a reporter where she had passed the bar, Katie Zacharia answered: “when I moved to China.” Five days after Donald Trump announced her as White House press secretary, she was on her way out.
When a press secretary lasts five days, whose competence are we judging?
Behind that clip is a person who said yes to the biggest job of her career, stepped up to the most-watched podium in the world and stumbled. The White House’s own release called it a “powerful inaugural briefing.” The clip outran every answer she gave. By Friday, the job was over. The people who put her there still have their jobs, and few viewers could name them.
The person at the podium is the obvious answer. We can watch her delivery, examine her claims and replay her mistakes. The judgment of the president who appointed her is less visible, although it carries considerably more power.
The Guardian reports that Katie Zacharia was fired after five days as White House press secretary, citing an unnamed White House official. Trump framed it differently, telling reporters “the decision was ultimately hers,” while the White House said she was “transitioning out.” Even the account of who made the decision is contested. Her departure should prompt us to examine how we distribute accountability when an appointment collapses—and why the person explaining an administration so readily becomes the principal measure of its failure.
A dismissal allows a president to demonstrate that he has acted. It leaves unanswered why his original judgment failed.
For a communications strategist, that unresolved question sits at the centre of this story.
A press secretary borrows the authority of the presidency. Her credibility depends on whether her answers are accurate, informed and connected to actual decisions. The title guarantees attention; it cannot guarantee belief.
She must retain the president’s confidence while remaining a usable source of information for people whose responsibility includes challenging him. Lose the first and she may lose the job. Lose the second and she can retain the job while losing much of its purpose.
Doing this well requires access and judgment. It also requires enough internal authority to challenge a claim before being expected to defend it.
This is where strategic communications enters the exercise of power. It connects an institution’s objectives with its decisions, conduct and public explanations. It anticipates how those choices will be understood, where they will encounter resistance and whether the institution can support what it intends to say.
Its most valuable contribution may happen before there is anything to announce: identifying an unsupported claim, questioning an appointment or warning that a decision will create a credibility problem that better language cannot resolve.
When that advice has no influence, communications becomes the place where someone is expected to absorb the consequences.
We do not yet know enough about Zacharia’s internal access, preparation or the deliberations behind her departure to assign definitive causes. That uncertainty should direct scrutiny towards the appointment process as well as her performance.
Axios reported that Trump offered her the job on the spot after a single meeting, with input from his personal assistant, Natalie Harp, and that Chief of Staff Susie Wiles raised no objection. One official said Trump was “blindsided” to learn she was not an attorney.
The questions about her credentials are more concrete. TIME reported that Trump introduced her as an attorney and that she subsequently acknowledged failing the bar examination. It also reported that he advised her to reconsider the role, citing her treatment by the media.
A law licence is unnecessary for this job. Accuracy about professional qualifications is relevant to a position built around making representations on behalf of someone else.
The individual bears responsibility for her claims. An administration assumes responsibility when it incorporates those claims into an official endorsement. The subsequent dispute tests the credibility of both.
Harsh treatment does not erase that issue. A person can experience disproportionate ridicule while still having substantive questions to answer. Leadership must address the questions rather than treating objections to the coverage as a sufficient response.
The media’s role deserves equally serious examination.
Journalists cannot formally dismiss a press secretary. They can influence the political cost of retaining one. What they investigate, repeat and give prominence helps determine whether an appointment is understood as recoverable or untenable.
A consequential shift occurs when coverage moves from assessing whether someone can perform to predicting whether she will survive. Every appearance becomes evidence for that forecast. Every expression of presidential support becomes another test of the president’s judgment.
The media then becomes a participant in the conditions of the survival it is predicting.
That influence does not require coordination or improper motives. It can emerge through ordinary editorial competition. But it carries a responsibility to distinguish exposing a substantive weakness from making sustained embarrassment the measure of someone’s fitness.
A misleading claim, inadequate policy knowledge and discomfort on camera are different problems. They demand different evidence. A composed spokesperson can evade a question beautifully; an uncomfortable one can acknowledge a limitation honestly. When fluency becomes a shortcut for competence, journalism risks rewarding the people most skilled at making evasion look authoritative.
Scrutiny should therefore follow the substance of an answer and the chain of responsibility behind it. The person providing the most compelling footage is not necessarily the person who exercised the greatest power.
In this case, that means examining why a single meeting was enough, why a claim as checkable as a law licence went unverified, what preparation was provided and what changed within five days.
These are leadership questions. The departure does not answer them.
A rapid dismissal may be warranted. It does not retrospectively validate the hiring decision. Leadership should explain what changed its judgment.
For communications professionals, the lesson is uncomfortable. We should be wary of accepting responsibility for institutional credibility without the influence necessary to protect it. Public exposure can be enormous even when internal authority is slight. A prestigious title does not resolve that imbalance.
The next press secretary will inherit the podium. The administration’s credibility will still depend on the judgment exercised behind it.
Zacharia’s departure does not erase her responsibility for her own performance. But if scrutiny leaves with her, the president’s decision to dismiss her will have received more examination than his decision to appoint her. The media will have helped establish that she could not survive the role without fully establishing why she was chosen for it.
That would be an incomplete account of power—and a convenient outcome for those who retain it.
Zacharia will carry that clip for the rest of her career. The people who put her at the podium will carry nothing, unless someone insists on asking.
When a press secretary lasts five days, whose competence are we judging? Our answer reveals how readily we hold power accountable once the most visible person has been removed.
New writing on strategy, communications and public decisions, sent when it’s published.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime by replying to any email.
Romain Williams is a strategist and communications leader working across campaigns, public affairs, reputation, crisis communications and institutional decision-making. Her work focuses on how organizations move from decision to audience, message and action.
Read the Decision Line →Bring me the situation.