Why do only men get a free pass in Trump’s White House?

The stream of women exiting the White House continues unabated, while one man after another remains in the administration despite clearly warranting the boot.

Consider Pete Hegseth, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Howard Lutnick and other lesser lights in President Trump’s realm, who managed to be nominated despite their significant lack of apparent experience for such top-level jobs. Somehow, Trump has stuck with each of these men despite the chaos and public embarrassments of their ongoing tenures, including talk of public firing squads , vaccine antipathy and resulting spread of disease, unparalleled prosecutorial misconduct , and, last but not least, disturbing ties to Jeffrey Epstein .

Somehow, though, women with flaws certainly no worse than these have not managed to survive. Instead, they are hit with a no-holds-barred, ignominious sendoff from Trump himself.

We have now witnessed the swift departures of Pam Bondi , Kristi Noem , Tulsi Gabbard , Lori Chavez-DeRemer , Kimberly Guilfoyle and, most abruptly, Katie Zacharia . Although their rapid terminations are, of course, justifiable in Trump’s eyes, each nonetheless has been forced off into the night without a second thought, robustly excoriated from both sides of the political aisle, while their male counterparts continue to manage to hang in there. Despite their different treatment, both cohorts purport to continue worshiping Trump, in equal measure.

So why is this happening? Why do women get the axe but not men?

Some might argue that it’s a simple case of misogyny. But that conclusion is arguably unfair to Trump — after all, he hired them in the first place, even though many naysayers have believed that these particular women weren’t qualified in the first place. One could posit that he appointed them in an effort to advance women into critical positions in government. This analysis, though, may be too charitable to someone who has so often shown considerable disdain for women .

Perhaps he fires them because he believes he’s doing a kindness to those women, that he’s doing them a favor by taking them out of the line of fire. Perhaps he believed he was saving Bondi from the displeased MAGA world (rather than the tempting supposition that Bondi wasn’t going after Trump’s committed enemies quickly enough ). Maybe he was taking Noem off her self-advertising horse lest she fall into a public relations ditch, or removing Guilfoyle from her ambassadorship because her benefactors were publicly tiring of her alleged demands for cash.

Gabbard was not officially fired; she stated she was resigning due to her husband’s illness . Nonetheless, the resignation stopped the public scrutiny over her differing opinion regarding the supposed threat of Iran . (Joe Kent, the administration’s top counterterrorism official, did resign over Iran.) Perhaps Trump would maintain that he was giving Zacharia time to figure out whether she was a lawyer or not , rather than have Sean Hannity and other supposed supporters continue to lambast her for her on-camera ineffectiveness.

The truth is that each of these women Trump has unceremoniously canned have been unambiguously loyal to him. And yet he hasn’t given the women he terminates a moment to come up with their own public narrative as to why they are resigning, such as personal illness, child-rearing obligations, an unequalled job opportunity or God knows what. He just lowers the boom knowing that they’re not in a position to do anything other than thank him “for the greatest opportunity of a lifetime.”

Traditionally, a candidate for a White House position is carefully vetted and has an impressive academic and work pedigree. These conditions of employment are essential when the White House — and the president in particular — rely on the appointee’s advice on matters of great national and international importance. But when a president makes up national and international policy based on his own whims, what need is there to rely on pedigree and vetting?

In contrast, an imperial figure requires reassurance of his own supposed brilliance — not the complex briefings that analyze and challenge a president’s inclinations, as we have seen in past administrations. That would explain Trump’s tolerance of mistakes by the men around him; perhaps he’s primarily relying on them to keep him company and make him feel good about himself, rather than relying on them regarding matters of state. Such a president wants an echo chamber filled with the voices of his bros, to prop up his ego and confirm his on-the-fly decisions.

The Trump presidency has been unprecedented in many negative ways. The revolving door of women suggests that Trump can’t countenance strong advice from anyone — especially a female.

Joel Cohen is a former state and federal prosecutor and practices white-collar criminal defense law at Ruskin Moscou Faltischek PC. He is the author of “Blindfolds Off: Judges on How They Decide” and is an adjunct professor at both Fordham and Cardozo Law Schools. Carla Main is a freelance writer and former reporter for Bloomberg’s U.S. Legal News team.