This is real — an unflattering photo of Leavitt was removed from AFP and Getty's libraries after the White House was made aware of its displeasure. But the framing oversimplifies what happened. AFP insisted the removal was an 'internal editorial decision' based on image quality, not external pressure. However, there's legitimate tension here: Status columnist Oliver Darcy argued the White House doesn't need to formally demand removal — simply making displeasure known is enough. The post's use of 'scrubbed' and 'complained' captures the fact pattern but obscures the contested claim about whether this was editorial judgment or indirect censorship.