🔗 Share this article

“Stuff occurs.” Just two words. That was enough for Donald Trump to effectively dismiss what is arguably the most notorious murder of a reporter of the last decade – and in so doing sank to a fresh depth in his contempt for the press, for the media – and for the facts.

The Context

The American leader’s dismissive attitude of the killing of prominent journalist the Washington Post columnist came during a media briefing with the Saudi leader, Mohammed bin Salman – a man whom the US intelligence found in a recent assessment had orchestrated the kidnap and killing of the journalist in 2018. (The crown prince has rejected accusations.)

The American spy agencies were not the only ones to determine the murder – which occurred in the Saudi consulate in Turkey and in which the 59-year-old Khashoggi was sedated and cut apart – was signed off at the top echelons. An inquiry led by former UN expert, Agnès Callamard, reached comparable findings.

International Response

For a brief period, nations were in agreement in their criticism of Saudi Arabia’s actions. The United States enacted sanctions and visa bans in that year over the murder, although it stopped short of sanctioning the crown prince himself. Since then, the nation has been slowly rehabilitating itself – and the leader’s trip to Washington seemed to be the ultimate sign of that redemption.

Presidential Comments

Critics of the government had roundly condemned the visit. But what was on display at the presidential residence was more alarming than could have been anticipated. Not only did Trump fete Prince Mohammed but he seemed to alter the facts – and then pointed fingers at the victim. Prince Mohammed, he asserted when asked, knew nothing about the killing – in direct contradiction to what his country’s own intelligence services determined four years ago. Moreover, Trump said: “Many individuals didn’t like that person that you’re talking about, whether you approve of him or didn’t like him, incidents occur.”

Pattern of Behavior

This marks a fresh and shameful low for a leader who has made little secret of his contempt for the truth – or for the press. He has smeared journalists (he called ABC news, whose reporter asked the question about the journalist at the media event “fake news”), berated them in open settings (he called one a “piggy” this week for asking about his relationship with the disgraced financier the convicted criminal), sued news outlets for large amounts of money in vexatious law suits, and called for media groups he doesn’t like to lose their licenses.

He has forced veteran news services out of the official briefing group for declining to use terminology of his preference, and he has slashed financial support for vital news services at home and crucial free press abroad.

Wider Consequences

All of that has created an atmosphere in which reporters are manifestly less safe in the United States, but one in which their victimization – and indeed murder – becomes not just unimportant (“things happen”) but tolerated (“a lot of people disliked that gentleman”).

It is unsurprising that 2024 was the deadliest year on file for journalists in the more than 30 years the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has been tracking this data: a persistent failure to bring to justice those responsible for reporter murders has established a culture of impunity in which those who murder reporters are actually able to escape punishment and so persist in these actions.

In no place is this clearer than in the Middle Eastern nation, which is accountable for the killing of more than 200 journalists in the past two years.

Societal Impact

The effect on society is profound. Attacks on journalists are attacks on the truth. They are attacks on facts. They are attacks on our rights to know and on our liberty to exist without fear and safely.

This week, CPJ meets for its yearly International Press Freedom awards. My message at the event is the same as my one for the president: such events may happen. But it is our duty to make sure they cease.