Theo ManningDonald Trump announced on 9 October 2026 that Katie Zacharia, a communications adviser at Trump Media & Technology Group, will become the next White House press secretary. She succeeds Karoline Leavitt, who left the role on 27 August. For Australian businesses, the appointment raises a practical question: what legal risks come with putting a lawyer-trained commentator on the public microphone?
What happened and why it matters
According to the Associated Press, Zacharia briefly served as a spokesperson for the US Department of Homeland Security earlier this year. She has also appeared as a commentator on Fox News and Newsmax. Her LinkedIn profile lists a law degree from Pepperdine University, although the AP reported that its request for comment on that point went unanswered.
ITV News reported that she is set to join Fox News Channel as an on-air contributor from 1 November. That detail matters because it shows how quickly a communications career can move between government, media and political roles.
Australia has no White House press office, but the same pattern plays out here. Staff leave a ministerial office for a lobbying firm, or a corporate spokesperson joins a broadcaster. Each move triggers employment, confidentiality and defamation questions that most small businesses never plan for.
The expert angle: three legal pressure points
A spokesperson is the public voice of an organisation. Three areas of Australian law apply directly to that role.
Restraint of trade. Employment contracts for senior communications staff often include clauses that stop them working for a competitor, or a rival media outlet, for a set period. Australian courts enforce these clauses only to the extent they protect a legitimate business interest and are reasonable in scope, duration and geography. In New South Wales, the Restraints of Trade Act 1976 lets a court read down an overbroad clause rather than strike it out completely.
Confidential information. A spokesperson sees strategy, crisis plans and unpublished figures. Equitable duties of confidence apply even where the contract is silent, and a well-drafted confidentiality clause makes them far easier to enforce.
Defamation. Public statements made on behalf of an organisation can expose both the speaker and the employer. Under the uniform defamation laws, a plaintiff must show that the publication caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to their reputation. A concerns notice must be given before suing, and the organisation then has 28 days to make an offer to make amends.
A concrete case: the Brisbane startup that hired a media personality
Take a hypothetical Brisbane fintech with 40 staff. In January 2026 it hires a former television commentator as head of communications on a salary of $160,000. Her contract contains a 12-month restraint covering "any media or financial services organisation in Australia", and nothing about confidential information.
In October, she accepts an on-air contributor role with a rival-owned broadcaster. The company's founder wants to enforce the restraint.
If the clause covers the whole of Australia for 12 months and the employee had access to client lists and pricing models, a court may find part of it enforceable. If she mainly handled press releases and had no access to commercially sensitive data, a court is more likely to find the restraint wider than necessary. In that case the company could end up with nothing, plus a legal bill commonly running between $15,000 and $40,000 for an urgent injunction hearing.
Now change one fact. Suppose the company had a narrower six-month restraint limited to named direct competitors, and a separate confidentiality deed. It would then be in a far stronger position. Fixing the drafting upfront costs a fraction of that, usually a few thousand dollars of a lawyer's time at hiring.
Defamation adds a second layer. If the same spokesperson posts a claim about a competitor that is later shown to be false, and the competitor sends a concerns notice, the company has 28 days to respond. Missing that window removes the chance of settling cheaply through an offer to make amends. It also weakens the company's position on costs if the matter reaches court.
Why a legal background in a communications role changes the risk
Trump described Zacharia as a veteran of his campaigns, particularly in swing states, according to the AP. A law degree in a spokesperson's CV is increasingly common. Employers like it because the person understands risk and can speak precisely under pressure.
That strength has a catch. A spokesperson who knows the law is also more likely to know what they can say and what they can take with them when they leave. Organisations should not assume legal training makes a hire safer. It makes clear contracts more important, because both sides will read them closely.
In Australia, practising certificates and professional conduct rules apply only to admitted lawyers acting as lawyers. A person with a law degree working in communications is not bound by those rules in that role. Any duty of confidence comes from the contract and from equity, which is why the drafting matters.
Common mistakes Australian employers make
Three errors come up repeatedly when a public-facing employee leaves:
- Copying a template restraint. A clause written for a sales manager rarely suits a spokesperson. Courts look at what the specific employee knew and did, not at the job title.
- Relying on an old contract. Roles change. A coordinator promoted to head of communications may still be on terms signed years earlier, with no confidentiality deed and no restraint at all.
- Waiting too long to act. If an employer learns of a competing role and delays for several weeks, a court may treat the delay as a sign that the restraint was never really needed. Urgent injunctions are won or lost on speed.
A single hour with an employment lawyer when the role is created can avoid all three. The cost is small compared with a contested injunction hearing, and the contract is then ready for the day the employee moves on.
What to do now
If you employ or plan to hire someone for a public-facing role, work through this short list:
- Review every restraint clause for scope, duration and geography. Narrow clauses are more likely to be enforced than broad ones.
- Add a standalone confidentiality deed, rather than relying on a single contract clause.
- Set a written social media and public statements policy, including who approves statements about competitors.
- Decide in advance who handles a concerns notice, so the 28-day clock never runs unnoticed.
The Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW) is available on the NSW legislation website. Other states apply their own rules, so the right answer depends on where the employee works and where the contract is governed.
When to speak to a lawyer
The news from Washington is a prompt, not a legal event for Australian employers. Even so, any business with a spokesperson, a high-profile hire or an active social media presence benefits from checking its contracts before a dispute arises. An employment or defamation lawyer can review your restraint and confidentiality clauses, advise on enforceability in your state, and set up a response process for concerns notices.
You can find a vetted legal expert on ExpertZoom to review your employment contracts and public communications policies before the next hire or the next headline.
This article is general information, not legal advice. Laws vary by state and territory, and your circumstances matter. Consult a qualified Australian lawyer about your situation.
