🔗 Share this article

“Incidents take place.” Just two words. That was enough for the US president to effectively dismiss what is probably the most notorious murder of a reporter of the last decade – and in so doing plumbed a new low in his contempt for the press, for the media – and for the truth.

The Context

The US president’s dismissal of the killing of prominent journalist Jamal Khashoggi came during a media briefing with the Saudi crown prince, MBS – a man whom the CIA concluded in a 2021 report had ordered the kidnap and killing of the Washington Post columnist in that year. (The crown prince has denied involvement.)

The US intelligence services were not the sole entities to determine the murder – which took place in the Saudi diplomatic building in Istanbul and in which the late Khashoggi was sedated and dismembered – was approved at the highest levels. An investigation led by then UN special rapporteur, Agnès Callamard, reached comparable findings.

International Response

For a brief period, governments were unified in their condemnation of Saudi Arabia’s actions. The US imposed sanctions and visa bans in that year over the killing, although it stopped short of penalizing the crown prince himself. Since then, the nation has been gradually restoring itself – and the leader’s trip to Washington seemed to be the ultimate sign of that rehabilitation.

Presidential Comments

Opponents of the government had strongly criticized the visit. But what was evident at the presidential residence was worse than could have been anticipated. Not only did Trump honor the Saudi leader but he effectively rewrote the facts – and then pointed fingers at the deceased. Prince Mohammed, he claimed when asked, was unaware about the killing – in clear opposition to what his nation’s intelligence services concluded four years ago. Moreover, the president said: “Many individuals disliked that gentleman that you’re talking about, whether you approve of him or disapproved, incidents occur.”

Pattern of Behavior

This represents a new and abject low for a leader who has made no attempt to hide of his disdain for the facts – or for the press. Trump has smeared reporters (he called a news network, whose journalist asked the inquiry about the journalist at the media event “fake news”), scolded them in open settings (he called one a “rude name” this week for asking about his relationship with the convicted sex offender financier Jeffrey Epstein), sued news outlets for eye-watering sums of money in vexatious law suits, and called for media groups he disapproves of to lose their licenses.

He has pressured established media out of the official briefing group for refusing to use language of his preference, and he has gutted funding for vital news services at domestically and vital independent media abroad.

Wider Consequences

All of that has fostered an atmosphere in which reporters are manifestly less safe in the US, but one in which their victimization – and indeed murder – becomes not just unimportant (“things happen”) but tolerated (“a lot of people didn’t like that person”).

It is no surprise that 2024 was the most lethal year on file for the press in the more than 30 years the press freedom organization has been documenting this data: a ongoing neglect to hold those responsible for journalist killings has created a culture of impunity in which those who murder reporters are literally able to escape punishment and so persist in these actions.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the Middle Eastern nation, which is accountable for the deaths of more than 200 journalists in the past two years.

Societal Impact

The impact on the public is deep. Targeting reporters are assaults on facts. They are attacks on facts. They are attacks on our entitlement to information and on our freedom to live freely and securely.

This week, CPJ meets for its annual International Press Freedom awards. My message at the event is the same as my one for Trump: such events may occur. But it is our responsibility to make sure they do not.