Unrepentant Vanity Fair photographer breaks silence on nasty Karoline Leavitt close-up with heartless snap over ‘injection sites’

The photographer behind Karoline Leavitt’s controversial Vanity Fair shoot has broken his silence on the close-up snap.

Critics slammed the legacy publication for the ‘unflattering’ photos of President Donald Trump’s staff, which were published on Tuesday alongside a bombshell tell-all profile on Chief of Staff Susie Wiles about Trump’s first year in office.

In particular, an extreme close-up of White House Press Secretary Leavitt, 28, sparked immense scrutiny for the outlet, as many accused the publication of being negatively biased towards Trump’s staff in comparison to profiles published about former President Joe Biden.

Now, photographer Christopher Anderson has defended his decision to publish the photo, explaining in a new interview with The Independent that he often takes close-up portraits.

‘Very close-up portraiture has been a fixture in a lot of my work over the years,’ he said.

‘Particularly, political portraits that I’ve done over the years. I like the idea of penetrating the theater of politics.’

He also responded to rumors that he was trying to make Leavitt look bad.

‘I know there’s a lot to be made with, “Oh, he intentionally is trying to make people look bad,” and that kind of thing – that’s not the case,’ he insisted.

‘If you look at my photograph work, I’ve done a lot of close-ups in the same style with people of all political stripes.’

Anderson also told the Washington Post that he did not edit the shot of Leavitt.

‘I didn’t put the injection sites on her. People seem to be shocked that I didn’t use Photoshop to retouch out blemishes and her injection marks. I find it shocking that someone would expect me to retouch out those things,’ he said.

‘If presenting what I saw, unfiltered, is an attack, then what would you call it had I chosen to edit it and hide things about it, and make them look better than they look? And I would also repeat: This has been a fixture of my work for many years.

‘I’m surprised that a journalist would even need to ask me the question of “Why didn’t I retouch out the blemishes?” Because if I had, that would be a lie. I would be hiding the truth of what I saw there.

Anderson said he always goes into a shoot ‘not with the mission of making someone look good or bad.’

‘Whether anyone believes me or not, that is not what my objective is,’ he added. 

‘I go in wanting to make an image that truthfully portrays what I witnessed at the moment that I had that encounter with the subject.’

He concluded: ‘What can I say? That’s the makeup that she puts on, those are the injections she gave herself. If they show up in a photo, what do you want me to say?’

The article featured portraits of several senior White House officials. In addition to Leavitt and Wiles, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Deputy Chiefs of Staff James Blair and Dan Scavino, and Homeland Security Adviser Stephen Miller all participated in the shoot.

‘It’s clear that Vanity Fair intentionally photographed Karoline and the White House staff in bizarre ways, and deliberately edited the photos, to try to demean and embarrass them,’ White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers told the Daily Mail afterwards. 

‘Karoline is a beautiful person and truly one of the most incredible people you will meet in politics, and she is doing an extraordinary job serving the American people as the White House Press Secretary.’ 

Social media users jumped to Leavitt’s defense after the unsettling close-up was published on Instagram, with some calling Vanity Fair ‘liberal propaganda,’ and a ‘sorry excuse for journalism.’ 

‘Reality distortion machine,’ conservative commenter Benny Johnson posted to Instagram, with screengrabs of the images. ‘Disgusting.’ 

‘That is insane, she’s gorgeous lol they had to work hard to make it look so unbelievable,’ one user wrote.

‘Karoline should take it as a compliment. They’re clearly threatened by her,’ declared someone else.

‘They know she’s stunning, and if she were on the other side, she’d be on the cover in a heartbeat. Love that she’s living rent free in all their heads.’

‘The extreme close up shows everyone just how beautiful Karoline really is! I wish I looked that good up close,’ gushed another.

‘Typical liberal propaganda,’ snarked one critic.

‘Shameful Vanity Fair,’ wrote someone else. ‘Purposely creating flaws in a young professional woman simply because you don’t agree with her political views… talk about speaking out of both sides of your mouth.’

‘Coming for a successful woman like this is so embarrassing,’ said another user.

Another person slammed Vanity Fair for the coverage, responding to a post Wiles made on X, formerly Twitter, about the article writing: ‘Why any conservative would think Vanity Fair would do a fair article is shocking. Of course, it will be negative with negative pictures, it is what they do.

‘Now a staff member of Biden’s or Obama’s would be “icons, stars in Dem party.”‘

But on Vanity Fair’s Instagram, many people mocked Leavitt, with one user asking: ‘Why does she look 50?’ 

Another said: ‘I am DECEASED! The way I would enter a state of mania if this kind of closeup was posted of me! This will live forever and I LOVE it!’

Others claimed they could see lip-filler injection marks around her mouth.

‘Are those injection prick marks?’ asked one reader, with another commenting: ‘Genius. The injection marks really sing in this one!’

In September, a plastic surgeon weighed in on rumors surrounding Leavitt’s pout, telling the Daily Mail that whatever work Leavitt has had is quite subtle so far, if she’s even had any at all.

Dr. Jennifer Harrington even declared that the 28-year-old looked ‘amazing’ after viewing footage and photos of her.

‘She does appear in this interview to have enhanced fullness of her upper and lower lips, and her skin is flawless,’ said Harrington, the founder of Harrington + Associates Plastic Surgery in Minneapolis-St. Paul.

The Vanity Fair profile of Wiles generated a firestorm over her candid criticism of Trump, Vance, former ‘First Buddy’ Elon Musk and other members of the administration. 

Wiles, 68, spoke with the publication over the course of the last year, likening Trump to her own late alcoholic father and legendary sportscaster Pat Summerall, noting the president has ‘an alcoholic’s personality.’ 

‘The president operates [with] a view that there’s nothing he can’t do. Nothing, zero, nothing,’ Wiles told journalist Chris Whipple. 

Notably, Trump does not drink and has spoken about losing his older brother, Fred, to addiction and alcoholism.

The chief of staff also dished on Vice President Vance, noting his late MAGA conversion and early critiques of Trump. The VP, she added, has also been ‘a conspiracy theorist for a decade.’

Trump told The New York Post he knew what Wiles was trying to say.

He told the paper: ‘No, she meant that I’m – you see, I don’t drink alcohol. So everybody knows that – but I’ve often said that if I did, I’d have a very good chance of being an alcoholic. I have said that many times about myself, I do. It’s a very possessive personality.’

‘I’ve said that many times myself. I’m fortunate I’m not a drinker,’ Trump told the Post. ‘If I did, I could very well, because I’ve said that – what’s the word? Not possessive – possessive and addictive type personality. Oh, I’ve said it many times, many times before.’

Trump didn’t respond to other portions of the two-part Vanity Fair series because he hadn’t seen it.

‘I didn’t read it, but I don’t read Vanity Fair – but she’s done a fantastic job,’ the President said of Wiles. ‘I think from what I hear, the facts were wrong, and it was a very misguided interviewer, purposely misguided.’

Leavitt used a similar line when she quickly addressed the controversy Tuesday afternoon on the White House driveway.

‘This is, unfortunately, another example of disingenuous reporting, where you have a reporter who took the chief of staff’s words wildly out of context, did not include the context those conversations were had within and then further, I think the most egregious part of this article was the bias of omission that was clearly present,’ the White House press secretary said.

She told reporters: ‘You will leave out important context, leave out comments and facts.’