A transgender doctor who left Scotland for a new role at a sun-drenched Australian coastal hospital following a high-profile tribunal has become embroiled in another dispute over gender and patient care.

The Scottish Mail on Sunday understands that Dr Beth Upton, who now uses the name Lis, has been linked to an alleged incident at a New South Wales hospital in which a woman reportedly declined treatment from the doctor, who was born male.

The woman’s family reportedly feared she could be ‘bullied’ into accepting the 6ft doctor as female, and her husband is said to have remained at her bedside. Under Australia’s self-identification laws, transgender doctors are not legally or professionally required to disclose their gender history or trans status to patients.

During an employment tribunal in Dundee last year, brought by NHS Fife nurse Sandie Peggie, Dr Upton denied being male, described biological sex as a ‘nebulous dog whistle’ and said the doctor would treat a woman who requested a female doctor.

The 31-year-old began working in the emergency department at Port Macquarie Base Hospital in April, four months after leaving the NHS.

The alleged incident is understood to have involved a middle-aged woman who became concerned after recognising the doctor as male and raising the issue. Other members of staff then reportedly became involved.

A friend claimed: ‘Her husband stayed the whole time she was in to make sure they didn’t bully her into accepting treatment.’

Australian women’s rights campaigners have called for a government investigation. They had previously raised concerns after the country’s health regulator recorded Upton’s sex as female.

Rachael Wong, chief executive of Women’s Forum Australia, said: ‘A woman in hospital should not have to defend her boundaries from the very people entrusted with her care.

‘The New South Wales health minister must urgently investigate why a vulnerable woman seeking emergency care felt she needed her husband’s protection to ensure her request to be treated by a female doctor was respected.

‘The minister and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Authority [AHPRA] must also explain what assessment was made of Upton’s assertion, given under oath, that the doctor would treat women who had specifically requested a female doctor. They must also clarify what safeguards were in place to protect the dignity, wellbeing and consent of female patients.

‘In April, we warned that AHPRA’s registration of Upton as a female doctor raised serious questions about whether women’s boundaries and consent would be respected in Australian hospitals. This allegation brings those concerns into sharp focus.’

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: Landman Season 3: Will the Hit Series Return to TV in 2026?

Sall Grover, a Queensland businesswoman who lost a legal case after refusing to allow a man who identifies as a woman to use her female-only social media platform, said: ‘A doctor who refuses to acknowledge the reality of biological sex is putting themselves and their patients in a precarious position.

‘If it is being done to validate the doctor’s own identity, it makes the situation even more sinister.’

One hospital staff member said: ‘It should now be very clear why Dr Upton wanted to come to work in Australia. Our laws, as they stand, mean the doctor is regarded as a woman here.

‘But it was always only a matter of time before an allegation like this was made.’

Other colleagues at the 228-bed hospital have welcomed the transgender doctor. One nurse said: ‘Lis is lovely. Everyone loves her.’ The Dundee University medical graduate is living in the middle-class coastal community, where the average property costs about $900,000 (£473,000).

The doctor, along with wife Zoe, has moved into a rented home in the resort, which has a burgeoning LGBTQIA+ scene.

Dr Upton, a field hockey goalkeeper, has also landed a second job umpiring games for Port Macquarie Hastings Hockey Association, earning around $50 a match.

The medic was given help by the hospital to secure a visa after landing the $110,000-a-year post.

Meanwhile, Mrs Peggie, 56, faces losing her income in three months.

She has been off sick as she continues an appeal against NHS Fife following her partial tribunal win. It is understood that her sick pay will run out in January.

The tribunal ruled the health board, which spent around £220,000 defending both Upton and itself, had harassed Mrs Peggie by allowing the trans doctor to use the female-only changing room at Kirkcaldy’s Victoria Hospital.

Unlike UK law, clarified by the Supreme Court in the For Women Scotland ruling last year, Australia’s anti-discrimination legislation allows biological men who identify as women into female-only spaces.

The health authority which oversees Port Macquarie Base Hospital said: ‘Mid Northern Coast Local Health District does not comment on matters relating to individual staff members.’ 

Mrs Peggie’s lawyer, Margaret Gribbon, also declined to comment.

How little does Anthony Albanese think Australians notice—and how much accountability does he believe his office owes them?

Those questions are increasingly difficult to dismiss after the Prime Minister’s extraordinary effort to portray a document casting doubt on Helen Haines’s integrity as something akin to a compliment.

As Haines remains in hospital after losing both legs in the horrific incident outside her electorate office, Albanese has opted to defend what critics regard as indefensible conduct.

Earlier this week, I reported that the Prime Minister’s office had circulated a briefing document about Haines to journalists last month, after the independent MP questioned a $6 million grant to Albanese’s local golf club. The document raised suggestions about undeclared gifts and private interests, yet offered no evidence to substantiate those insinuations.

Haines is widely regarded as an MP of strong personal integrity. That, however, did not prevent the Albanese team from attempting to undermine her.

When the story emerged, Albanese’s office had several opportunities to acknowledge an error, apologise and explain what the Prime Minister knew—or planned to do—to address the culture within his team.

Instead, the public received this explanation:

‘It’s a list of funding asks from Helen Haines, just showing that people of integrity stand up for their electorate,’ Albanese told ABC Radio.

The Prime Minister then made the remarkable claim that the document contained “no personal criticism of Helen”.

Really?

Sky News journalist Trudy McIntosh, who received the briefing when it was circulated, challenged that version of events on Thursday.

‘That’s not how it was handed around to journalists like myself at the time by members of the Prime Minister’s office,’ she said.

Are questions about whether an MP accepted undeclared gifts not personal? Do suggestions about private interests in projects for which she sought public funding not invite readers to question her integrity?

What, exactly, would constitute a personal criticism, Prime Minister? The attempt to redefine the document looks like gaslighting on an extraordinary scale.

Others who saw the briefing have reached much the same conclusion. It was not presented as a tribute to an MP of integrity standing up for her electorate, despite the way Albanese is now seeking to portray it.

The document went beyond listing Haines’s funding requests. Without offering supporting evidence, it questioned whether she had received undeclared gifts or maintained private interests in projects she wanted funded. In effect, it recast legitimate advocacy for her electorate as potential self-interest. That is hardly a tribute to her integrity.

Adding a question mark does not transform an insinuation into responsible public scrutiny. Nor does placing legitimate funding requests beside those suggestions erase the impression they were designed to create.

It supplies the scaffolding on which suspicion can be built, which was exactly what his office was trying to achieve.

Haines, incidentally, is an MP who gave up her Qantas Chairman’s Lounge membership. She was among the comparatively small group of parliamentarians prepared to surrender that particular perk.

Yet the Prime Minister’s office invited journalists to investigate whether her advocacy concealed private benefits. How grubby is that?

Now Albo wants Australians to believe his staff were effectively celebrating her commitment to her constituents.

How thoughtful.

What an unfortunate coincidence that this sudden enthusiasm for celebrating Haines’s integrity emerged right after she described the $6million grant to his local Marrickville Golf Club as ‘pork-barrelling by design’.

Her objection was that the invitation-only scheme let his local golf club collect millions while clubs in her electorate couldn’t even apply. Rather than explain why some communities got a cheque and others couldn’t get through the door, Albo’s office went digging in the mud.

And now we’re supposed to believe the dirt sheet was meant as a compliment? How utterly ridiculous.

Even if we play along with the PM’s fallacy, does his office routinely distribute supposedly flattering profiles of independent MPs? Where are the equivalent documents recognising their integrity and applauding their funding requests if that’s how the PM’s office operates?

And do those tributes also come with questions designed to sully reputations?

Independent senator David Pocock isn’t buying the Prime Minister’s insulting reinvention of events either.

‘Trying to explain this away rather than acknowledging what happened, taking responsibility and apologising is not good enough,’ he said.

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: Father Who Killed Bend School Shooter Speaks Publicly for First Time

‘Whether or not this behaviour was authorised, it was wrong, and there should be accountability.’

Precisely.

There is more to this affair than an offensive document and an implausible defence that reflects Albo’s tendency to gaslight.

Sources with knowledge of the incident tell me deputy director of communications Joshua Lloyd produced the document after a morning communications meeting, having been directed to do so.

It places the question of who commissioned the document squarely alongside the question of who prepared it.

I haven’t established who specifically gave that direction. But Lloyd is a deputy head of communications in the Prime Minister’s office. The number of people occupying positions of authority above him is hardly limitless.

His communications boss is Fiona Sugden. The chief of staff is Tim Gartrell. Another senior figure in the office is principal private secretary David Epstein. Above the office sits the Prime Minister himself. That’s about it.

It does not establish which, if any, of these individuals (including the PM himself) commissioned or approved this document. But it certainly makes the refusal to explain the chain of responsibility all the more unacceptable, and concerning.

Epstein’s presence also supplies some historical context worthy of special mention.

During the Hawke and Keating years, he ran the National Media Liaison Service, known in Canberra as the ‘Animals’ and notorious for its political dirt-digging. I’ve researched and written extensively about it as a political science academic.

Epstein’s experience in the government’s media operation is well-documented, and its reputation long predates this particular controversy.

That history doesn’t establish that he had any involvement in the Haines document. But it does mean this is an office with ample institutional knowledge of how political attack operations work.

It should therefore be capable of explaining this one. I gave its senior staff every opportunity to do just that.

First I sent four straightforward questions to Sugden. When she didn’t respond, I forwarded them to Gartrell.

• Did Lloyd prepare the document and who authorised its distribution?
• Did the Prime Minister know about or approve it?
• What evidence supported its questions about possible undeclared gifts and personal interests?
• And how did the office reconcile the document with Albanese’s praise of Haines’s integrity and his call to avoid unjustified questioning of politicians’ motives?

Neither of Albo’s lieutenants have bothered to reply. Four questions. No response. These are taxpayer-funded staffers, by the way, including Lloyd, who created the dirt file and was the last person to edit it, according to the metadata.

Your tax dollars hard at work.

An office willing to circulate questions about somebody else’s integrity should at least be willing to answer a few simple questions about its own conduct, surely?

Apparently that standard is too demanding for Albo’s prime ministerial office.

There is a further question he should answer: did Haines raise the document with him after she became aware of it last month?

If so, what did she say, and how did he respond? Establishing whether he was told about the document at the time is central to understanding what he knew before this week’s evasions.

It might even help us understand why he’s being so evasive. Think about it.

There is a familiarity to Albo’s gaslighting this week. After the controversy over his ‘melons’ comments (replete with hand gestures) concerning Japan’s first female prime minister, Albo insisted the interpretation placed on the exchange was incorrect.

People’s eyes and ears were deceiving then.

Now a document inviting suspicion about Haines’s integrity is presented as evidence of respect for it. The gall of it all is off the charts!

The circumstances make this episode especially ugly. Haines is facing a recovery and a changed life that most of us can scarcely comprehend. Surely this was a moment to put aside the stubborn determination to concede nothing.

Albo could have acknowledged that insinuations unsupported by evidence should never have been circulated by his office.

If he didn’t know about the document, he could have said so. If staff acted improperly, he could have told us they have been counselled to do better.

But accepting responsibility for the standards of his office requires leadership. Enough humility to acknowledge that the conduct fell short.

Instead of doing that, Albo has chosen to gaslight everyone, including Haines. She deserved better when the dirt sheet was circulated in the first place, and she certainly deserves better now.

The PM used a radio interview during the week to declare that he considers Helen Haines a friend. With friends like Albo, who needs enemies. 

Donald Trump had a growing problem—and he appeared to know exactly who might help him resolve it.

Katie Zacharia, his newly appointed press secretary, was struggling after only four days in the role. Her rushed appointment increasingly looked like a serious miscalculation. Then, somehow—though the precise chain of events remains unknown—Sean Hannity was apparently given the green light to challenge her during his Fox News program.

Instead of offering the friendly, image-repairing interview Zacharia may have anticipated, Hannity confronted her directly. Why, he asked, had she repeatedly described herself as an attorney? And why had she allowed so few questions?

‘Somebody at the White House set her up for a trap in that interview,’ a senior administration official told the Daily Mail last week, suggesting that the decision most likely came from Trump or his chief of staff, Susie Wiles.

‘It only could have been Susie or the president himself. Nobody else is going to be able to make that call to Hannity.’

Following the chaotic Hannity appearance on Thursday night—and another poor performance the next morning—Trump had the opening he needed to remove Zacharia from the job.

‘You don’t have to do this if you don’t want to,’ Trump told Zacharia. ‘Honestly if I were you, I’d reconsider.’

The president made the final decision, while Fox News delivered the damaging blow. But whether Trump was pleased with the network was another matter—at least judging by his public comments.

By Monday morning, the president was openly attacking Fox News.

‘Fox spends more time defending Dumocrats, and putting on their views versus their Republican opponent, than at any time in the History of FoxNews,’ he wrote on Truth Social. ‘It’s ridiculous! FoxNews is trying too hard to be Politically Correct!’

The outburst highlighted just how complicated Trump’s long-running relationship with the network has become.

On October 4, Trump had expressed regret over the departure of Maria Bartiromo, a 12-year Fox News veteran and prominent ally. According to the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal, she left after network executives became concerned that she had allegedly shared programming plans with the White House. Bartiromo’s attorney rejected the suggestion that she had been fired, saying at the time that she was ‘still employed by Fox.’

Trump said he missed Bartiromo and used a lengthy Truth Social post to criticize Fox executives who, he claimed, had decided against covering his midterm rallies.

‘Who makes these decisions at Fox News?’ he wrote on Truth Social. ‘Probably the same loser that fired the great Maria Bartiromo because she complained about not being allowed to cover “TRUMP.” She’ll end up bigger and better than ever – watch!’

The question now is which Fox News personalities Trump can count on—and whose loyalty may be more conditional. Here is the Daily Mail’s guide to the network’s best-known stars.

LOYALISTS   

AINSLEY EARHARDT

The 50-year-old Fox and Friends co-host, engaged to Sean Hannity, is as loyal to the president as her fiancé, and can be relied on to tamp down any criticism from guests or fellow hosts.

The closest she has come to taking Trump to task was perhaps in June this year, when she asked foreign correspondent Trey Yingst: ‘Trey, what do you say to our viewers who love Donald Trump and support him and trust him… but they’re tired of this, and they see that the midterms are around the corner, they want our economy to get back on track and our gas prices to drop. What do we need to do to get out?’

The president has also made no secret of his admiration for Earhardt, frequently promoting her children’s books and gently teasing her about her relationship with Hannity.

When the pair announced their engagement, in December 2024, he wrote on social media: ‘Great news about Sean and Ainsley. They are officially engaged to be married! There are no finer people than these, and there will be no finer couple. A deal made in HEAVEN!!!’

SEAN HANNITY

Chief among the high-profile coterie of die-hard Trump loyalists is Sean Hannity, the highest paid news anchor on television, who takes home an estimated $25 million a year.

Hannity, 64, the longest running cable news host in television history, is open about being a friend of the president’s: Earlier this month he told USA Today that he and Trump’s relationship ‘goes back way before he ever thought about politics.’

But he added, his approach as an interviewer is to simply ‘let him talk.’

The pair, both New Yorkers, have known each other for 30 years.

During his first term, Trump was so frequently on the phone to Hannity that his aides referred to the television star as ‘the unofficial chief of staff,’ according to the Washington Post.

One advisor told the paper in 2018: ‘He basically has a desk in the place.’

That close connection is evidently as strong as ever.

JESSE WATTERS

Jesse Watters, 48, is another fierce defender of Trump’s, brushing off the president’s controversial comments as jokes and defending him as a man with a sense of humor.

When Trump, earlier this month, commented approvingly on the physique of Ohio’s incumbent senator, Jon Hustead, Watters leapt to his defense.

‘We’re talking about guys’ a***s,’ said Watters. ‘Trump says a lot of stuff we all think and we don’t say. Sometimes it sounds a little gay. He can get away with it because he’s straight.’

When Trump said he would be ‘a dictator on day one,’ Watters dismissed it as a joke.

And when Trump lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden, Watters soothingly said that Trump was ‘a legend no matter what happens.’

The admiration appears mutual.

When Trump raged this week against the Washington DC judge who concluded that the Reflecting Pool was left murky by shoddy installation rather than vandalism, Trump said the judge should have watched Watters.

The president wrote on Truth Social that ‘some Radical Left person in the DC US Attorney’s Office’ had ‘got it wrong and obviously didn’t investigate, witness or see the attached tape, or the very inspiring Jesse Watters show which explained it all.’

Yet there is a growing sense, perhaps, that Hannity, Watters and their allies are increasingly outnumbered by those actually willing to challenge Trump.

ON THE FENCE

BRET BAIER

Bret Baier, the widely respected chief political anchor, won plaudits for his June 2023 interview with Trump in which he pressed the then former president about his handling of classified documents.

‘I want to go through the boxes and get all my personal things out,’ said Trump, effectively admitting he had documents he knew did not belong to him. ‘I don’t want to hand that over to [the National Archives] yet.’

Baier, in a July 2025 discussion with The New Yorker editor David Remnick, laughingly noted that Trump ‘called it a nasty interview afterwards.’

‘I’ve always, every time I’ve interviewed him, taken it as a tough but fair effort,’ said Baier. ‘He has called me – “You know what Bret, you’re a five, four, nowhere near a seven.”‘

Baier, 56, sprang to national prominence following the 9/11 attacks.

At the time he was working as a correspondent in Fox’s Atlanta bureau and was dispatched to the Pentagon. Fox executives were impressed and made him the Pentagon correspondent.

In 2009, he took over the nightly show Special Report from his mentor Brit Hume and has been hosting the hour-long program ever since.

Baier’s close relationship with Trump has seen him come in for criticism, but he insists his rounds of golf with the president give him enviable insight.

‘Tell me the journalist that won’t take the three-hour off-the-record ability to pick the brain of the commander-in-chief, the president, who’s making these big decisions, in an environment that is more relaxed – that perhaps he’s more open to talking about different things, to get you a sense of where his head is in the middle of all these big things,’ said Baier.

‘Tell me that journalist who doesn’t take that, and I’ll say, I don’t know who turns it down.’

Earlier this month, Baier told Vanity Fair that he did not give Trump ‘a pass’ when it came to contentious issues but rather gave him time to explain his opinion.

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: Whoops: Hamas Just Completely Nuked All Its Pathetic Apologists – NewsFinale

‘We definitely have to cover it and have on the critics of how he operates, but also listen to the administration’s side, because what Donald Trump says is one thing, and things that he does are another thing,’ said Baier.

Asked what he makes of Trump’s battle over the Kennedy Center, Baier told the magazine: ‘It’s a fascinating story.’

LAURA INGRAHAM 

A former speechwriter for the Reagan administration, Laura Ingraham clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in the early 1990s before entering conservative media.

In 1999, ‘just starting out in the media,’ Ingraham met Donald Trump for lunch in New York, she told the Katie Miller podcast.

Ingraham, 63, said she had this idea of Trump as a celebrity with a giant ego, and was ‘just kind of rolling my eyes’ before their meeting at Le Cirque.

‘But I was so shocked that during this lunch he talked nothing about himself,’ said Ingraham. ‘All he wanted to do was find out: how do you make your money in radio? How do you get commercials? He was mapping my whole business out.’

At the end of the lunch, he lent her his car for the afternoon to explore New York – adding: ‘Make sure you take these hand wipes with you, because New York is filthy.’

She told Miller: ‘We still joke about that.’

The two have remained firm friends, with Ingraham being widely discussed as a possible press secretary for his first term.

In December 2016, she said on air: ‘I have known Donald Trump for a long time, and we have been friends for a long time, and I am looking forward to that conversation. It is a great privilege to even be considered.

‘If your country calls you, if God opens that door, you have to seriously consider it. If I can really help, it is hard to say no to that. If I think I can help, which I think I could.’

The job ultimately went to Sean Spicer.

Ingraham, however, remained an influential advisor, regularly consulted by the president – and close to his children.

In October last year it was announced that Ingraham had gone into business with Donald Trump Jr, sitting on the board of investment firm Colombier Acquisition Corp III.

The Connecticut-born host has, however, been critical of the Iran war, asking Trump in an interview at the Republican National Convention how Iran was still able to get missiles.

‘I thought we decimated them?’ she asked him, adding: ‘If we hadn’t done Iran, you’d be cruising to midterm victory.’

HARRIS FAULKNER

Atlanta-born Harris Faulkner, 61, joined Fox News in 2005 and is known as a reliable proponent of the president’s views.

The closest she came to criticism was in 2020, when Trump was angered by the George Floyd protests and unrest, and tweeted: ‘When the looting starts, the shooting starts’.

Harris, in an interview with Trump in June 2020, told him: ‘I’m Harris on TV, but I’m a black woman. I’m a mom. And you’ve talked about it, but we haven’t seen you come out and be that consoler in this instance. And the tweets, “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” Why those words?’

He said he had heard it from ‘a very tough mayor.’

Faulkner then corrected him.

‘No. It comes from 1967. I was about 18 months old at the time. But it was from the chief of police in Miami. He was cracking down, and he meant what he said. And he said, “I don’t even care if it makes it look like brutality I’m going to crack down, when the looting starts, the shooting starts.”‘

‘That frightened a lot of people when you tweeted that.’

CRITICS

BRIAN KILMEADE

One Fox stalwart who has become noticeably more critical of Trump is Brian Kilmeade, who was extremely supportive of the Iran war this spring, and yet is now taking the president to task for his Russia policy.

Kilmeade, 62, who has been at Fox News since its October 1996 birth, strongly condemned last week Trump’s decision to ease sanctions on Russian diesel, accusing the president of appeasing ‘the modern Hitler.’

Kilmeade, fired up, told his rather surprised-looking co-hosts on October 11 that Trump was enabling Vladimir Putin, describing the Russian leader as ‘the cause of all the problems in the region,’ who ‘now is helping Iran, will kill our guys and blow up our bases.’

Kilmeade’s hawkish views on Russia and support for Ukraine are not, in themselves, new.

But his strident condemnation of the president’s actions, with less than a month to go until the midterms, certainly raised eyebrows.

Further unwelcome criticism came the following day, when Mark Levin, usually a Trump stalwart, on Monday disavowed Trump’s call for Volodymyr Zelensky to hold elections.

‘When will Putin have real elections?’ wrote Levin on X, retweeting a post from a Hudson Institute academic arguing against demanding elections in Ukraine.

‘He’s been running Russia a lot longer than Zelensky has been president of Ukraine,’ Levin continued. ‘The same can be said about the Arab countries and more.’

JACQUI HEINRICH

Even more strident are reporters Jennifer Griffin who covers the Pentagon, and Jacqui Heinrich who reports from the White House.

Both women are undaunted about taking Trump to task, with Heinrich, 37, infuriating Trump by immediately rebutting his November 2020 claim that the voting machines were rigged against him.

She has continued with her no-holds-barred reporting in the president’s second term, pointedly remarking that the Alaska summit between Trump and Putin of August 2025 did not go well for the US leader.

‘The way that it felt in the room was not good,’ she said while live on air. ‘It did not seem like things went well, and it seemed like Putin came in and steamrolled, got right into what he wanted to say, and got his photo next to the president and then left.’

Her comments quickly went viral, with John Oliver mockingly noting that Trump ‘held a press conference that went so badly even this Fox News reporter couldn’t put a positive spin on it.’

JENNIFER GRIFFIN

Griffin, 57, has been equally searing, taking Trump to task in recent months over the Iran war.

When a Tomahawk missile hit a girls’ school in Iran on the first day of air strikes, and Trump tried to say perhaps another country used the weapons (the UK, Australia, Netherlands and Japan are the only nations beside the US with Tomahawks), Griffin said that Trump was attempting to ‘muddy the waters.’

When the administration attempted to subpoena reporters over their stories about the Qatari gift plane and the drama surrounding Air Force One, Griffin said the threats to the journalists ‘should alarm every American.’

Pete Hegseth, the secretary of war, called her a ‘Trump hater.’

MARTHA MACCALLUM

New Jersey-born Martha MacCallum, 62, worked as a financial reporter for Wall Street Journal Television and CNBC before joining Fox in 2004.

Seen as a safe pair of hands, she has throughout both Trump’s terms carved out a niche hosting town halls and debates.

Her questioning has at times angered the president.

In September 2024, asked on Fox and Friends whether he would want to accept Fox’s offer to host a second debate with Kamala Harris, he replied: ‘Well, I wouldn’t want to have Martha and Bret. I’d love to have somebody else other than Martha and Bret. I’d love to have, frankly, Sean or Jesse or Laura. You know, somebody else. Let’s give other people a shot.’

He added: ‘But I didn’t think Martha and Bret were so good last night. Jesse was fantastic last night. What he said, Jesse. Really got it. Jesse said to Trump once: that debate that was, we won that debate by a lot. And I wouldn’t want Martha involved.’

And earlier this month, he was infuriated by MacCallum interviewing Michigan senate contender Abdul el-Sayed, a Democrat.

‘FoxNews spends more time covering the Jihadist and Dumocrat candidates than they do the good old fashioned Republicans, the people that have saved America, and are making it great again,’ he complained on October 6. ‘All they talk about is Dumocrat Jihadists like El-Sayed, with his softball interview by Martha MacCallum, and the like. She never interviews me like that.’

Fox did not respond to the Daily Mail’s request for comment.