🔗 Share this article

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

The Context

The US president’s dismissal of the killing of well-known reporter Jamal Khashoggi came during a press conference with the Saudi leader, Mohammed bin Salman – a man whom the US intelligence concluded in a recent assessment had orchestrated the abduction and murder of the journalist in 2018. (Prince Mohammed has rejected accusations.)

The American spy agencies were not the only ones to determine the homicide – which took place in the Saudi diplomatic building in Istanbul and in which the late Khashoggi was sedated and cut apart – was approved at the highest levels. An inquiry led by then UN special rapporteur, Agnès Callamard, reached similar conclusions.

International Response

For a brief period, governments were unified in their condemnation of the kingdom’s conduct. The United States imposed sanctions and travel restrictions in 2021 over the killing, although it stopped short of sanctioning Prince Mohammed himself. Since then, the kingdom has been gradually restoring 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 evident at the presidential residence was worse than could have been imagined. Not only did the president fete the Saudi leader but he seemed to alter the facts – and then blamed the deceased. The crown prince, Trump claimed when asked, was unaware about the killing – in direct contradiction to what his nation’s spy agencies concluded previously. Moreover, the president said: “Many individuals disliked that gentleman that you’re talking about, whether you approve of him or didn’t like him, incidents occur.”

Pattern of Behavior

This marks a new and abject point for a president who has made little secret of his disdain for the facts – or for the media. He has smeared reporters (he called a news network, whose journalist asked the question about the journalist at the Saudi press conference “fake news”), berated them in public (he called one a “rude name” this week for asking about his relationship with the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein), sued media organizations for eye-watering sums of money in vexatious law suits, and called for media groups he disapproves of to lose their licenses.

He has forced veteran news services out of the White House press pool for refusing to use terminology of his choosing, and he has slashed funding for vital news services at home and vital independent media abroad.

Wider Consequences

All of that has fostered an environment in which journalists are clearly more vulnerable in the US, but one in which their victimization – and indeed killing – becomes not just unimportant (“incidents occur”) but tolerated (“many individuals didn’t like that gentleman”).

It is no surprise that that year was the most lethal year on record for the press in the over three decades the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has been documenting this data: a ongoing neglect to hold those responsible for journalist killings has established a environment without consequences in which journalists’ killers are literally able to get away with murder and so persist in these actions.

In no place is this clearer than in the Middle Eastern nation, which is accountable for the deaths of over two hundred journalists in the recent period.

Societal Impact

The effect on the public is profound. Attacks on journalists are assaults on facts. They are attacks on facts. They are attacks on our rights to know and on our freedom to live freely and securely.

This week, CPJ meets for its yearly global journalism honors. My message at the event is the same as my message for Trump: these things may happen. But it is our duty to make sure they do not.