Toggle Menu

Trump’s Fed Pick Stephen Moore Is Shockingly Sexist, Even for a Trump Nominee

He is a hot-take misogynist, surely to the delight of the president. 

Dave Zirin

April 24, 2019

Stephen Moore speaking at CPAC in 2015. (Gage Skidmore / CC-BY-SA 2.0)

Stephen Moore, Donald Trump’s nominee to serve on the Federal Reserve Board, is more than a particularly slavish Trump-world sycophant. He’s a flaming bag of sexist trash. This is not my opinion. It’s a simple summary of Moore’s writing in conservative media over the last two decades. The embarrassingly unqualified economist has written “hot takes” about women having too much power and visibility and the effect that has on young boys.

In 2000, he wrote about college life and concerns about sexual assault on campuses with the following pithy observation: “The women seemed to survive just fine. If they were so oppressed and offended by drunken, lustful frat boys, why is it that on Friday nights they showed up in droves in tight skirts to the keg parties?”

But it’s his writing about sports that has provided Moore with his most irresistible platform to go full bigot. Among his more noxious comments, as reported by Andrew Kaczynski and Paul LeBlanc at CNN, Moore wrote in 2002, “Here’s the rule change I propose: No more women refs, no women announcers, no women beer venders, no women anything. There is, of course, an exception to this rule. Women are permitted to participate, if and only if, they look like [sports reporter] Bonnie Bernstein. The fact that Bonnie knows nothing about basketball is entirely irrelevant.” He advised in a later column that Bernstein, one of the most respected announcers in sports journalism, should only be allowed to do her job if wearing a halter top.

He also raged against the idea of a woman reffing a men’s basketball game, writing:

Current Issue

View our current issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

How outrageous is this?… Liberals celebrate this breakthrough as a triumph for gender equity. The NCAA has been touting this as example of how progressive they are. I see it as an obscenity. Is there no area in life where men can take vacation from women? What’s next? Women invited to bachelor parties? Women in combat? (Oh yeah, they’ve done that already.) Why can’t women ref the women’s games and men the men’s games. I can’t wait to see the first lady ref have a run in with Bobby Knight.

(Bob Knight, he of the rampant bullying and rape jokes, is Moore’s exemplar of a kind of masculinity that would put women in their place.)

Moore also fancies himself an expert on “the feminization of basketball,” writing:

And while I’m venting on the subject, here’s another travesty: in playground games and rec leagues these days, women now feel free to play with the men—uninvited in almost every case. There’s no joy in dunking over a girl. Never mind that I can’t dunk (except on the eight-foot baskets). If I could, I wouldn’t celebrate dunking over someone named Tina.

Moore also railed against women’s tennis with some of the mustiest arguments imaginable. He writes:

The women tennis pros don’t really want equal pay for equal work. They want equal pay for inferior work. There’s a very practical reason why Pete Sampras, for example, makes a lot more money than Martina Hingis does. He’s much, much better than she is. The day that Martina can return Pete’s serve is the day she should get paid what he does. If there is an injustice in tennis, it’s that women like Martina Hingis and Monica Seles make millions of dollars a year, even though there are hundreds of men at the collegiate level (assuming their schools haven’t dropped the sport) who could beat them handily. Yet these men make nothing. Venus Williams is a multi-millionaire not in spite of the fact that she is a woman, but precisely because she’s a woman. She receives much higher pay than an equally skilled man. Isn’t that precisely the opposite of what is meant by pay equity?

Moore’s response to the surfacing of this work was to say, against all evidence to the contrary, “I have a sense of humor.” This is probably a smart play, since the only response that would probably offend Trump would be if Moore apologized. But this is not just about sports.

Support urgent independent journalism this Giving Tuesday

I know that many important organizations are asking you to donate today, but this year especially, The Nation needs your support. 

Over the course of 2025, the Trump administration has presided over a government designed to chill activism and dissent. 

The Nation experienced its efforts to destroy press freedom firsthand in September, when Vice President JD Vance attacked our magazine. Vance was following Donald Trump’s lead—waging war on the media through a series of lawsuits against publications and broadcasters, all intended to intimidate those speaking truth to power. 

The Nation will never yield to these menacing currents. We have survived for 160 years and we will continue challenging new forms of intimidation, just as we refused to bow to McCarthyism seven decades ago. But in this frightening media environment, we’re relying on you to help us fund journalism that effectively challenges Trump’s crude authoritarianism. 

For today only, a generous donor is matching all gifts to The Nation up to $25,000. If we hit our goal this Giving Tuesday, that’s $50,000 for journalism with a sense of urgency. 

With your support, we’ll continue to publish investigations that expose the administration’s corruption, analysis that sounds the alarm on AI’s unregulated capture of the military, and profiles of the inspiring stories of people who successfully take on the ICE terror machine. 

We’ll also introduce you to the new faces and ideas in this progressive moment, just like we did with New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani. We will always believe that a more just tomorrow is in our power today.  

Please, don’t miss this chance to double your impact. Donate to The Nation today.

Katrina vanden Heuvel 

Editor and publisher, The Nation

Talking to the Chicago Tribune, sports-radio host Julie DiCaro—one of the few women in the country to host a show on terrestrial sports radio—said the following about Moore’s comments:

It always seems to come down to this idea that men have a proprietary interest in sports that women don’t have. As if we aren’t the daughters of Title IX. As if some of my earliest memories aren’t sitting on my dad’s lap watching the Bears and Cubs, just like theirs. For too long, college and pro sports were exclusively the province of white men, and I think we’re still dealing with the fallout from that. But sports belong to all of us. They’re the way we work through so many social issues in American society, and silencing women’s voices in sports silences their voices in the national debate about really important topics, like gender equality, race relations, and a myriad of other issues.

This is exactly right. Moore doesn’t care a whit about sports. This is about intimidating and silencing women in American life, with the kind of sophomoric, bullying threats that would get an 8-year-old punished. He’s Brett Kavanaugh with bifocals. A sane society would consign this mediocrity to the lamest corners of the Internet so he can rage to his heart’s content. Instead, he is rising to power on the backs of the very women that he’s so gleefully stepped upon, to the delight of his orange master in the Oval Office.

Dave ZirinDave Zirin is the sports editor at The Nation. He is the author of 11 books on the politics of sports. He is also the coproducer and writer of the new documentary Behind the Shield: The Power and Politics of the NFL.


Latest from the nation