In the heated world of Washington D.C. press operations and political messaging, a clash between two successive White House press secretaries has taken on a surprising life of its own. Kayleigh McEnany, former press secretary under Donald Trump and now a TV contributor, has repeatedly taken aim at her successor, Jen Psaki, for what she characterizes as a failure to perform the core duties of the press-briefing role. The subtext of one particular jab — “Psaki must have missed THIS” — captures McEnany’s broader critique: that Psaki is not meeting the standard of transparency, accountability and access McEnany claims to have upheld.

This investigative piece will unpack: the basis of McEnany’s criticism, the record of both press secretaries, what is at stake for the role of the White House press secretary, and what this tells us about media, power and public-messaging in the U.S. government today.

The Core of the Criticism — What Did McEnany Mean?

McEnany has publicly faulted Psaki on several occasions — accusing her of failing to hold consistent briefings, providing “snarky” or evasive responses, and allegedly violating norms or rules (such as the Hatch Act) that the press secretary is meant to respect. For example:

McEnany slammed Psaki for allegedly skipping two White House briefings, saying:

Jen Psaki promised us a daily White House press briefing. There isn’t one today. There wasn’t one Monday. When the going gets tough, the daily press briefing… goes out the window.”

She accused Psaki of giving a “snarky” answer related to a mask-mandate question:

It seems to be a favourite of libs these days… She also was asked, ‘Is the mask mandate still in effect,’ to which she replied, ‘I don’t know.’ OK, you’re the press secretary. You know how government works. That’s a snarky answer.”

McEnany alleged that Psaki violated the Hatch Act by advocating for political candidates while serving as a spokesperson:

Why does the media not hold @PressSec accountable for potential Hatch Act violations? She has twice advocated for political candidates from the podium.”

In essence, McEnany’s “must have missed THIS” claim suggests that Psaki missed the fundamentals of the press-secretary job: consistent briefings, direct answers, clear access, and adherence to institutional norms.

McEnany’s Record and Her Framing of the Job

It is worth reviewing McEnany’s own tenure and how she frames her performance, as her critique of Psaki rests in part on contrasting her own claimed standards.

During her time as White House Press Secretary (April 2020 – January 2021) under Trump, McEnany emphasized access — claiming that under her leadership she had “walk-in privileges” to the Oval Office and knew exactly “where her boss stood.” She argued that she did extensive research and was ready for impromptu questions. For example, she claimed:

I always knew where his head was at, so I didn’t have to a ton of circling back because President Trump gave a lot of access to me.”

McEnany uses this record to claim she was better prepared, more direct, and more transparent than her successor. The rhetorical move: “I didn’t have to circle back, I held briefings; you (Psaki) are missing the basics.”

The Role of the Press Secretary: Expectations vs. Reality

To assess whether McEnany’s criticisms are fair, it helps to outline the normative expectations for a White House press secretary:

Regular briefings/transparent access: Historically, the press secretary holds daily briefings or at least regular briefings to update the press corps and, by extension, the public.

Knowledge and candour: The press secretary is expected to know key policy positions, have access to senior leadership, and answer or attempt to answer questions directly.

Avoidance of overt politicization while in the role: Although the office is inherently political, the press secretary is often expected to maintain the distinction between official government business and political campaigning.

Institutional respect and credibility: The role is part of the White House communications team, and maintaining credibility with the press corps is important for the functioning of the information pipeline.

McEnany’s lament is that Psaki did not meet those expectations: skipping briefings, answering evasively, and mixing campaign-style commentary with official duties.

Evaluating the Evidence: Psaki’s Performance & McEnany’s Charges

Let’s examine key instances where McEnany’s criticisms align with documented facts, and then consider counter-points.

Briefings Skipped
McEnany pointed out that Psaki skipped two briefings amid the Afghanistan withdrawal crisis. While it is true that some briefings did not occur, the broader context is that multiple immediate updates were given through other channels (Department of Defense, joint statements, etc.). Whether this constitutes a dereliction or a shift in how briefings are done is part of the debate.

Snarky” or Evasive AnswersMcEnany called out Psaki for her “I don’t know” answer on the mask-mandate question. That anecdote is valid as quoted. It suggests a moment of ambiguity or communication breakdown. Whether it reflects a systemic pattern is harder to assess.

Hatch Act AllegationsMcEnany accused Psaki of political advocacy from the podium with reference to a Virginia governor’s race. Policing the Hatch Act is complex—while the allegations are recorded, there has been no major enforcement action. Moreover, critics point out McEnany herself was accused of mixing campaign and official duties.

Access and PreparationMcEnany’s argument rests also on her claimed close access to President Trump and readiness. Whether Psaki lacked access is harder to demonstrate definitively from the outside. Psaki herself has said she had access to senior officials and walked briefings. Critics, though, argue her demeanor and polling of press-room confidence were lower compared to McEnany’s tenure.

What’s at Stake: Why This Matters

Why should we care about a spat between two press secretaries? Because the quality of the press-secretary role matters for several reasons:

Public transparency and trust: If the press secretary is seen as evasive or lacking access, public trust in the administration’s communications may erode.

Media accountability: The press room functions as a check of sorts on government messaging. If briefings are inconsistent or access diminished, the press can’t perform its role effectively.

Policy clarity: Clear communication from the podium is essential in crises (pandemic, foreign policy, economic turmoil). Any weakness can hinder public understanding and response.

Partisan messaging vs. state function: If a press secretary merges campaign-style rhetoric with government communications, there is a risk of conflating party and public interest. McEnany’s criticisms underscore this dynamic.

Counter-Points & Nuanced Considerations

It is fair to add nuance:

McEnany’s tenure was not without criticisms: Though she champions her access and readiness, McEnany’s time included concerns about accuracy, transparency, and the frequent absence of briefings. For example, she held long stretches without briefings herself.

Changing media/press-room dynamics: The role of the press secretary is evolving. Daily briefings are no longer a given; media consumption and internal communications have changed. Some absences of briefings may reflect broader structural changes rather than dereliction.

Political vs. administrative expectations: Some argue that expectations around “walking in the Oval Office” or always knowing “where the boss stands” are idealistic; real access may be more constrained.

The adversarial nature of the criticism: McEnany’s critiques are deeply partisan and aimed at undermining Psaki’s credibility in conservative media spaces. Some of the tone might be more about political positioning than objective evaluation.

Did SheMiss THIS?” — A Deeper Look at the Rhetoric

When McEnany says “Psaki must have missed THIS,” she is invoking a rhetorical trap: challenging Psaki to explain why she allegedly failed at the basics. The implication is that Psaki overlooked the very fundamentals of press briefing discipline.

Here are some of the implied “THIS” items:

Daily or consistent briefings: If you promise them, deliver them.

Direct answers to press questions rather than deflection or “circle-back” promises.

Clear separation of campaign commentary from official communications.

Full readiness, knowledge of policy, and clarity of message.

By framing it this way, McEnany is pressuring Psaki (and by extension the media) to demand accountability and set a higher bar for what the press-secretary role should be.

Implications for Media Consumption & Government Communications

For the broader public and media watchers, the McEnany-Psaki feud reveals important trends:

Spotlight on access: The question of how much access the press really has to the White House is under more scrutiny.

Shift in briefing culture: The decline of regular briefings or predictable Q&A sessions signals a change in how communication is done—raising questions about transparency.

Partisan framing of institutional roles: What should be a non-partisan institutional communication role is being increasingly framed as a partisan weapon—especially in conservative media.

Role of media in accountability: If the press secretary is perceived as failing, it is also a failure of the press to push harder, ask follow-ups, and demand clarity—a meta-critique inherent in McEnany’s remarks.

What to Watch Moving Forward

Here are some markers to monitor in the ongoing role of press secretaries and government communications:

Frequency and content of briefings: Are they regular? Are hard questions answered? Are “circle-backs” becoming the norm?

Clarity of message: Are official answers avoiding policy ambiguity? Are spokespeople walking back statements frequently?

Campaign vs. official duty separation: Are spokespeople using the podium for overt campaign advocacy? Are watchdog groups alleging violations (e.g., the Hatch Act)?

Access and preparation: Do press secretaries demonstrate close access to leadership, awareness of policy, and ability to engage ex temporaneously?

Media response: Are press corps members pushing back? Are questions being asked and answered? Or is there growing suspicion of evasion?

Conclusion

In saying “Psaki must have missed THIS,” Kayleigh McEnany distills a broader critique: her successor, she argues, has failed to perform the press-secretary job with the same rigor, access, and transparency McEnany claims to have provided. Whether one agrees with McEnany’s assessment or not, the deeper question remains: what standard should the White House press secretary meet, and how should the public and media enforce it?