Longtime Donald Trump confidante has been subpoenaed by Congress but is considering whether to violate the legal order.
On Saturday, The New York Times published a story wondering if Hicks would comply with the subpoena from the House Judiciary Committee.
"The aide, the former communications director Hope Hicks, who left the White House with an enduring mystique that inspired countless news media profiles, is now a private citizen living in California," The Times reported. "While serving in the White House, Ms. Hicks never appeared on camera, unless it was at Mr. Trump’s side, and never gave an on-camera interview."
Both Hicks and her lawyer declined to comment for the article, but The Times included studio photo of Hicks by photographer Tom Brenner that was widely described as a "glamour shot."
Hope Hicks, one of the best-known but least visible former members of President Trump’s White House staff, is facin… https://t.co/otrEwVXebR— NYT Politics (@NYT Politics) 1558707664.0
There was quickly backlash about both the artwork, the headline, and the editorial decision to run the article.
Here is some of what people were saying:
"Should a federal employee obey a lawful order, or stay loyal to an individual? Here at @nytpolitics, we can't say.… https://t.co/KaZJGMKhuX— Sam Wang (@Sam Wang) 1558835116.0
What’s with the pic? https://t.co/iPbLhPAnvM— Mehdi Hasan (@Mehdi Hasan) 1558836189.0
NYT has been acting as Hope Hicks’ publicist for 4 yrs—it’s pathetic https://t.co/HZBcge7xO1— Eric Boehlert (@Eric Boehlert) 1558835182.0
“Existential question” lol https://t.co/RaOtv5k4YT— Josh Marshall (@Josh Marshall) 1558830699.0
It’s a legal question not an existential question https://t.co/Wu6cwvb0Wm— Molly Jong-Fast🏡 (@Molly Jong-Fast🏡) 1558838565.0
Most existential questions have no clear answer. What is my purpose in life? What happens after I die? Is there a h… https://t.co/l0bFvkaIys— Max Kennerly (@Max Kennerly) 1558833803.0
Since when is compliance with a subpoena optional? https://t.co/eQ7sM8GaZa— Kyle Griffin (@Kyle Griffin) 1558835459.0
"Existential" might be overdoing it https://t.co/4bc4m7lTJe— Seth Mandel (@Seth Mandel) 1558835555.0
Note to reporters: complying with subpoenas aren’t optional. https://t.co/VbeOBwb1vQ— Neera Tanden (@Neera Tanden) 1558830733.0
Is the NYT contending here that Hope Hicks is too glamorous to follow the law? https://t.co/F1PPwmwIAC— 🕷Dante Atkins🕷 (@🕷Dante Atkins🕷) 1558830525.0
What the fuck is going on over there, guys? How is it “an existential question” whether to obey a law? How on God’s… https://t.co/xKdbZxxp28— Ken Tremendous (@Ken Tremendous) 1558838244.0
It's only "existential" because she looks pretty but tortured... https://t.co/Z6NdmeXGbn— James Oliphant (@James Oliphant) 1558835740.0
Going 90 in a school zone, I’m faced with the existential question of whether to pull over like these cops want me… https://t.co/8WsCu9wWUU— John Moe (@John Moe) 1558839230.0
That’s Hope Hicks, now chief communications exec for Rupert & Lachlan Murdoch’s Fox Corp https://t.co/Yvz2dcPG3b— David Folkenflik (@David Folkenflik) 1558835901.0
I feel like in most public-facing corporate jobs "defying valid subpoena" would be a firing offense. https://t.co/DzhiQsbG6o— Brian Beutler (@Brian Beutler) 1558833237.0
Why does someone who was involved with promoting racism and hate get treated to glamor shots? https://t.co/ty3aPqMalk— melissa “cancel student debt” byrne (@melissa “cancel student debt” byrne) 1558836558.0