New White House Press Secretary Katie Zacharia's Chinese Ties Questioned

President Donald Trump introduced Katie Zacharia as an attorney when he named her as the new White House press secretary.

Her résumé lists a Chinese law firm and a California general counsel position. Yet the California State Bar says it has no record of licensing her under her married or maiden name, and a 50-state search found no evidence of admission elsewhere.

The Wall Street Journal reported Oct. 14 that Zacharia took the California bar examination after graduating from Pepperdine in 2011 but did not pass, citing a person with direct knowledge. That adds a reported unsuccessful examination attempt to the absence of a publicly identified license.

“I practiced international transaction law, with all the appropriate credentials,” Zacharia said.

China’s actual rules make that assurance inadequate. They distinguish, much like those in the United States, employment at a law firm from authorization to practice law.

Chinese lawyer qualification requires Chinese citizenship, examination and a practice certificate; the separate route for representatives of foreign law firms requires existing foreign licensure and experience.

Zacharia has not established she has Chinese citizenship, or a license to practice law in any jurisdiction.

White House's Defense

White House communications director Steven Cheung called her “uniquely qualified and whip smart” in a statement provided to Military.com.

“Katie is a fabulous and wonderful addition to the team. She is uniquely qualified and whip smart to help inform the American people about all the great things President Trump and his administration have been doing, and she will do an incredible job as press secretary," Cheung said in full.

Zacharia herself said this regarding her law experience: “I practiced international transaction law, with all the appropriate credentials.”

A White House official told Military.com that Zacharia has her Juris Doctor from Pepperdine, and that she moved to China with her husband after graduating because of his job at an American private equity firm while she worked on international transaction law.

On Thursday evening, Fox News' Sean Hannity asked Zacharia during an interview whether she failed the bar exam. She replied, "Correct," adding that she never took the exam a second or third time.

In an interview earlier that day, she told Real America's Voice that the results of the bar exam were "somewhat inconsequential" because she knew she would be moving to China after taking it, to work in international transaction law.

"And after moving to China, I think—I didn't—I didn't really think much of the bar results or consider that something that I needed to focus on, and I was offered a job at a—in an international practice division of a Chinese law firm," Zacharia told the outlet.

A Legal Résumé Repeatedly Advertised

Zacharia has been identified on screen as a lawyer during at least 18 Fox News appearances since March 2025.

A June 24 NovaRed Mining announcement appointing her to its advisory board explicitly called her an attorney. Her legal identity was a recurring professional qualification, rather than an isolated presidential description.

Her education is real. Pepperdine confirms undergraduate and law degrees earned in 2007 and 2011. She worked as a research assistant to Jim Gash, now university president, interned in George W. Bush’s White House and later held a university fundraising position.

Her career subsequently included Homeland Security public affairs and communications for Trump Media & Technology Group.

Her LinkedIn profile also listed her as general counsel for Ric Grenell’s Fix California political activist group from January 2024 to March 2025. Grenell was former acting director of national intelligence.

A California bar complaint asks whether that work involved unauthorized practice.

What China Required During Her Employment

Her résumé places her at Zhong Lun’s Beijing international practice from 2011 to 2013. Those dates determine which legal requirements apply.

China’s 2011 National Judicial Examination notice required Chinese nationality, full civil capacity, good character, constitutional support and electoral rights. Ordinarily, applicants need an undergraduate law degree or another undergraduate degree with legal knowledge.

Foreign educational credentials required certification, but they did not eliminate the nationality requirement.

Under the Lawyers Law provisions governing that period, Articles 5 and 6 required the judicial examination—a yearlong law-firm internship and an approved application for a practice certificate.

Article 13 prohibited providing legal services in the name of a lawyer without that certificate. Transactional work received no blanket exemption.

China’s separate rules for foreign law firms required their representatives to be licensed lawyers with bar membership and at least two years of practice outside China. Those rules provided a route for already-qualified foreign lawyers, not a substitute for obtaining a license.

Since Zacharia worked for a Chinese firm, however, that framework does not establish her authorization. She still has not identified the credential or legal basis supporting her claim that she practiced law.

Legal professionals familiar with Chinese law firms have also questioned whether her description accurately reflects the work foreign employees perform.

Lun partner Gary Gao told the New York Times that foreign hires often helped bridge linguistic and cultural gaps with overseas businesses.

“They are not practicing Chinese law at any time,” he said, suggesting Zacharia’s position likely resembled a paid internship, without confirming her specific responsibilities.

Sida Liu, a University of Hong Kong law professor who specializes in mainland law, separately told the Times that describing herself as a former associate could misleadingly imply she was licensed in China. Chinese firms can employ foreigners, he explained, but those employees do not qualify as Chinese lawyers because they do not have Chinese citizenship.

The Wall Street Journal reported a different characterization from a person familiar with her employment: Zacharia helped draft cross-border agreements and communicate with clients as an international legal consultant, while Chinese partners handled legal opinions.

That account describes employment at a law firm, but it does not establish that she held a license to practice law. Her employment records and the credentials she says she possessed remain necessary to distinguish her responsibilities from those of a licensed attorney.

A Firm Embedded in China’s Government Network

Zhong Lun’s government relationships are well documented.

Its own practice description lists counsel work for China’s ministries of Justice, Commerce and Finance and the People’s Bank of China, among others.

An April 2010 announcement identifies the firm’s Communist Party general branch secretary participating in professional conduct training for new employees. The firm therefore had an internal party organization before Zacharia arrived. These institutional connections could warrant scrutiny independently of which clients she personally handled.

Its published client work includes Huawei, ZTE, Tencent and SMIC. The FCC designated Huawei and ZTE national security threats in 2020, years after her departure. The record establishes government clients and party ties; it does not establish that Zacharia participated in intelligence operations.

Changing the Title Does Not Resolve the Representation

Zacharia told the New York Times that Pepperdine’s president advised her to avoid “attorney” and “esquire” but permitted “lawyer,” according to a public interview account.

The distinction Zacharia draws between “lawyer” and “attorney” does not establish that either title was appropriate. The American Bar Association defines a lawyer, also called an attorney, as a licensed professional.

The bar examiners’ guidance specifically cautions graduates against using “lawyer,” “attorney,” “counselor” or “esquire” before their jurisdiction authorizes it, even after passing the bar examination. A J.D. establishes education; admission establishes professional authorization.

State laws also address the impression conveyed. California Section 6126 makes it a misdemeanor for someone without the required authorization to advertise or hold herself out as practicing or entitled to practice law in California.

New York’s statute expressly includes both “lawyer” and “attorney” among titles an unauthorized person cannot use in a manner suggesting she is a legal practitioner. New York’s law does not govern her California conduct, but it directly contradicts the suggestion that the profession universally reserves “attorney” for licensed practitioners while allowing any law graduate to call herself a lawyer.

The ABA’s Model Rule 5.5 likewise prohibits lawyers from representing themselves as admitted in jurisdictions where they are not. The model rules provide the foundation for binding ethics rules in most U.S. jurisdictions, although jurisdictions adopt their own versions and modifications.

The ABA text therefore reflects a widely recognized professional standard. The applicable state’s rules and the substance of Zacharia’s representations determine whether she crossed the legal line.

The issue extends beyond her preferred title to the professional authority she claims. Saying she “practiced international transaction law, with all the appropriate credentials” presents her as someone authorized to perform that work, rather than simply a graduate employed by a law firm.

Even passing the bar does not authorize someone to claim attorney status before admission.

In a 2022 decision, South Carolina’s Supreme Court scrutinized a law graduate who was already employed as a law clerk and updated his LinkedIn profile to “associate attorney” after receiving his passing score, while his character and fitness review remained pending.

He explained that he was excited about passing. The court found no evidence that anyone had sought his legal services or that he had actually practiced without authorization, but said the misleading title raised serious questions about his honesty and fitness.

Considering that misrepresentation, alongside earlier failures to disclose information on his law school application, the court postponed his eligibility for admission until one year after the character committee’s favorable recommendation.

While a press secretary does not need a law license, the president presented her as an attorney and she invokes legal experience to establish credibility. The American people will decide whether that should play a role in her current position.