Maggie Haberman says Trump’s criticism of U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro was “shocking” as dispute centers on Reflecting Pool vandalism charges

President Donald Trump’s public criticism of U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s handling of a federal case tied to Reflecting Pool vandalism has drawn pushback from the media, with New York Times White House correspondent Maggie Haberman saying the remarks were “shocking.” The comments came after Trump publicly weighed in on the matter following Pirro’s decision to dismiss certain felony charges in the case, according to The Hill.

The Hill reported that Haberman made the characterization in response to Trump’s remarks, describing them as “shocking” in Thursday coverage. Haberman’s comments were directed at Trump’s decision to publicly dispute Pirro’s prosecutorial outcome rather than leaving the matter to the usual channel of judicial review and internal law-enforcement oversight.

According to The Hill, Trump said in a Saturday Truth Social post that he “disagree[d] 100 [percent]” with Pirro’s decision to dismiss felony charges connected to the Reflecting Pool vandalism case. The same reporting described Trump’s remarks as criticism of the U.S. Attorney’s judgment in bringing or continuing felony-level prosecution.

The Reflecting Pool vandalism case, as reported by The Hill, has been a point of contention around charging decisions and whether felony charges should remain in place. In U.S. criminal practice, prosecutors have discretion over what charges to pursue, and defendants can challenge charging decisions through motions and the courts can review legal issues raised in filings and proceedings.

Haberman’s reaction focused on what she characterized as the unusual nature of the president’s public pushback on a specific prosecutor’s case disposition. While administrations often comment publicly on law enforcement priorities, the dispute highlighted tensions between presidential messaging and the discretion exercised by the Justice Department and U.S. attorneys in particular cases.

The Hill’s report did not cite a White House or Justice Department document laying out the legal reasoning for Trump’s post or the precise procedural posture of the Reflecting Pool case at the time of the criticism. The public disagreement therefore turned on statements made by Trump and the response it prompted from a correspondent rather than on a new, independently documented executive or court decision.

As of publication, The Hill’s account remains the main reported source for Haberman’s characterization and for the content of Trump’s Truth Social post. Further confirmation through official records would be needed to establish the full text of Trump’s remarks and the current status of any proceedings in the Reflecting Pool matter.