🔗 Share this article

“Incidents take place.” A mere phrase. That’s all it took for Donald Trump to effectively dismiss what is arguably the most infamous journalist killing 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 American leader’s dismissal of the murder of prominent journalist the Washington Post columnist came during a media briefing with the Saudi leader, MBS – a man whom the US intelligence found in a 2021 report had orchestrated the kidnap and killing of the journalist in that year. (Prince Mohammed 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 drugged and cut apart – was approved at the highest levels. An investigation led by former UN expert, Agnès Callamard, reached similar conclusions.

International Response

For a short time, nations were in agreement in their condemnation of Saudi Arabia’s actions. The United States imposed penalties and visa bans in that year over the killing, although it stopped short of penalizing Prince Mohammed himself. Since then, the nation has been slowly rehabilitating itself – and the crown prince’s visit to Washington seemed to be the ultimate sign of that rehabilitation.

White House Remarks

Critics of the regime had strongly criticized the meeting. But what was evident at the White House was worse than could have been anticipated. Not only did Trump fete the Saudi leader but he seemed to alter the facts – and then blamed the victim. Prince Mohammed, Trump claimed when asked, was unaware about the murder – in clear opposition to what his nation’s intelligence services determined four years ago. Moreover, Trump said: “A lot of people disliked that person that you’re talking about, whether you like him or disapproved, incidents occur.”

Established Conduct

This represents a new and abject low for a president who has made no attempt to hide of his contempt for the truth – or for the press. He has defamed journalists (he called ABC news, whose journalist asked the question about Khashoggi at the media event “fake news”), scolded 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 news outlets he disapproves of to lose their licenses.

He has pressured veteran news services out of the White House press pool for declining to use terminology of his choosing, and he has gutted funding for vital news services at domestically and crucial free press abroad.

Broader Implications

All of that has created an environment in which journalists are manifestly less safe in the United States, but one in which their victimization – and indeed killing – becomes not just insignificant (“incidents occur”) but acceptable (“many individuals didn’t like that gentleman”).

It is unsurprising that that year was the most lethal year on record for the press in the over three decades the press freedom organization has been documenting this data: a persistent failure to hold those responsible for journalist killings has established a environment without consequences in which those who murder reporters are actually able to escape punishment and so persist in these actions.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the Middle Eastern nation, which is accountable for the killing of more than 200 journalists in the recent period.

Societal Impact

The effect on society is profound. Targeting reporters are attacks on the truth. They are undermining of reality. They are attacks on our rights to know and on our liberty to live freely and securely.

This week, CPJ meets for its annual global journalism honors. The statement at the event is the identical as my message for the president: such events may happen. But it is our duty to make sure they do not.