🔗 Share this article

“Things happen.” A mere phrase. That’s all it took for Donald Trump to brush off what is arguably the most infamous murder of a reporter of the last decade – and in so doing sank to a fresh depth in his contempt for journalists, for journalism – and for the facts.

The Context

The American leader’s dismissal of the killing of well-known reporter the Washington Post columnist came during a media briefing with the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman – a man whom the CIA concluded in a 2021 report had ordered the kidnap and killing of the journalist in 2018. (Prince Mohammed has denied involvement.)

The US intelligence services were not the sole entities to conclude the murder – which occurred in the Saudi consulate in Turkey and in which the late Khashoggi was drugged and dismembered – was approved at the highest levels. An investigation led by then UN special rapporteur, Agnès Callamard, reached similar conclusions.

Global Reactions

For a brief period, nations were in agreement in their criticism of Saudi Arabia’s actions. The United States enacted penalties and visa bans in that year over the murder, although it refrained of penalizing the crown prince himself. Since then, the kingdom has been gradually restoring itself – and the crown prince’s visit to Washington seemed to be the ultimate sign of that rehabilitation.

White House Remarks

Opponents of the government had strongly criticized the visit. But what was evident at the White House was worse than could have been anticipated. Not only did the president fete Prince Mohammed but he seemed to alter history – and then pointed fingers at the victim. Prince Mohammed, Trump claimed when asked, knew nothing about the killing – in direct contradiction to what his nation’s intelligence services determined previously. Moreover, the president said: “Many individuals disliked that person that you’re talking about, whether you approve of him or disapproved, things happen.”

Established Conduct

This represents a fresh and shameful point for a leader who has made little secret of his disdain for the facts – or for the press. He has defamed reporters (he called a news network, whose journalist asked the question about the journalist at the Saudi press conference “false information”), scolded them in open settings (he called one a “rude name” 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 disapproves of to lose their licenses.

He has forced established media out of the White House press pool for declining to use terminology of his preference, and he has slashed funding for vital news services at domestically and crucial free press internationally.

Wider Consequences

All of that has fostered an environment in which journalists are manifestly less safe in the United States, but one in which their victimization – and indeed murder – becomes not just insignificant (“things happen”) but acceptable (“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 press freedom organization has been documenting this data: a ongoing neglect to hold those responsible for reporter murders has established a environment without consequences in which journalists’ killers are actually able to get away with murder and so continue to do so.

Nowhere is this clearer than in Israel, which is responsible for the deaths of more than 200 journalists in the past two years.

Effect on Society

The effect on the public is profound. Targeting reporters are attacks on the truth. They are attacks on facts. They are violations of our rights to know and on our freedom to live freely and securely.

On Thursday, the Committee to Protect Journalists gathers for its annual global journalism honors. The statement there is the same as my one for the president: these things may occur. But it is our responsibility to make sure they do not.