Trump Comments on Democrat ‘Sedition,’ Khashoggi Alarm Free Speech Experts

US President Donald Trump has a long and well-documented history of launching incendiary rhetorical attacks against the press and his political opponents. But human rights groups warn that the president’s anti-free speech campaign has reached an alarming and dangerous new level this week, raising serious concerns about the potential consequences for journalists and freedom of expression generally.

Since last Friday alone, US President Donald Trump has described a female reporter as a “pig,” criticized another reporter for the questions she asked during his meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and appeared to support the idea of ​​executing Democrats in congress because of the public statements they made encouraging American forces to adhere to the Constitution and reject any illegal orders.

US President Donald Trump has a long and well-documented history of launching incendiary rhetorical attacks against the press and his political opponents. But human rights groups warn that the president’s anti-free speech campaign has reached an alarming and dangerous new level this week, raising serious concerns about the potential consequences for journalists and freedom of expression generally.

Since last Friday alone, US President Donald Trump has described a female reporter as a “pig,” criticized another reporter for the questions she asked during his meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and appeared to support the idea of ​​executing Democrats in Congress because of the public statements they made encouraging American forces to adhere to the Constitution and reject any illegal orders.

“President Donald Trump’s comments this week represent a new low for an administration that has routinely shown disdain for truth or facts. Berating and belittling journalists for doing their job — asking questions — is the act of a bully on a playground, not a head of state. This is not ‘candor,’ as Carolyn Leavitt said, it is behavior designed to intimidate, humiliate and degrade,” said Judy Ginsburg, CEO of the Committee to Protect Journalists. Foreign policy.

“Demonizing journalists creates an environment in which others feel free to harass and attack them, and makes all reporters less safe,” Ginsburg said. “News organizations and politicians on all sides of the political spectrum must loudly condemn such actions.”

During a meeting with Trump With Mohammed bin Salman at the White House on Tuesday, the US president called ABC News’ Mary Bruce a “terrible reporter” and “rebellious” because she asked the Saudi leader a legitimate question about Khashoggi’s brutal murder. The Washington Post Journalist Jamal Khashoggi. While addressing other questions posed by Bruce, Trump also threatened ABC’s broadcast license in addition to hurling insults at it.

A declassified American intelligence assessment issued during the Biden administration concluded that Mohammed bin Salman approved the operation that led to the killing and dismemberment of Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October 2018.

Although Khashoggi had close ties to the Saudi royal family, he eventually went into self-imposed exile after he began publicly criticizing the crown prince’s policies, including his approach to the war in Yemen. Khashoggi’s killing sparked intense anger around the world and was considered a terrible attack on press freedom. In this vein, Bruce asked Mohammed bin Salman, who is visiting Washington for the first time since 2018, why Americans trust him.

Trump, who had previously bragged about protecting the crown prince from retaliation over Khashoggi’s killing, was quick to answer the question and once again stood by the Saudi leader. In contradiction to what US intelligence found in this regard, Trump said that Mohammed bin Salman “knows nothing” about Khashoggi’s killing. Trump went on to denigrate Khashoggi, describing him as “someone who was very controversial” and saying that “a lot of people didn’t like him,” before dismissing his killing, saying: “Things happen.”

While Trump’s insults at journalists in recent days are part of a pattern of behavior that should not be ignored, Ginsburg said the president’s “assertion that Prince Mohammed had nothing to do with the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi — which directly contradicts the intelligence community’s findings — is even more frightening.”

“It shows contempt for facts, not just those who seek to uncover and report them,” Ginsburg added.

Likewise, the National Press Club said in a statement that it was “deeply troubled” by Trump’s statements about Khashoggi’s killing, while emphasizing that for journalists around the world, statements by powerful leaders like the president “that appear to downplay or excuse the killing of a journalist have real-world consequences” and can “embolden those who wish to silence journalists.”

In another attack On freedom of speech, Trump this week appeared to endorse violence against a group of congressional Democrats who released a video urging members of the U.S. military and intelligence community to disobey illegal orders.

“This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence professionals against American citizens,” the lawmakers said in the video, which came as Trump’s crackdown on immigration and the deployment of US troops in major cities faces legal challenges and public disapproval.

Trump, who criticized the video in his posts on the Truth Social website, said it was “seditious behavior, punishable by death!” The president, who in recent months has accused the left of inciting political violence in the United States after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, also reshared posts from users of the organization Truth Social suggesting that these Democrats be executed.

Although the White House denied that Trump was calling for the lawmakers to be executed, and the president said Friday that he was not “threatening to kill,” his comments raised serious concern.

“The President of the United States just called for the execution of Democratic members of Congress,” Democratic Senator Chris Murphy wrote on X. “If you’re someone with influence in this country and you haven’t chosen a side, now might be a good time to choose a f***ing side.”

Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress have been somewhat muted in their reaction to Trump’s attacks on Democrats this week. House Speaker Mike Johnson defended Trump, saying he was responding to “wildly inappropriate” behavior from Democrats. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky was more critical, saying he did not think it was “a good idea to talk about imprisoning your political opponents or hanging them or anything else.” Paul said that political differences should be resolved “in a political way.”

“This kind of rhetoric is not good and brings up people among us who may be unstable and who may well think they are ‘traitors,'” Paul said. “So what do we do with traitors? It’s a death sentence. Maybe I’ll take matters into my own hands, which is something we shouldn’t encourage.”

Advocacy groups also spoke out. Steady State, an organization of former US national security professionals, criticized Trump and said that the message sent by Democratic lawmakers “was not extreme” but was a clear and calm reflection of the limits of presidential power and “the obligations of everyone who takes an oath to the Constitution.”

The group pointed out that established US military doctrine requires that troops refuse to obey illegal orders – a principle that was established in the Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders after World War II.

“Accusing elected members of Congress of ‘treason’ or ‘rebellion’ for rewriting binding military law misleads the public, jeopardizes the professional ethics of the armed forces, suggests that legal restraint is now treated as partisan, and creates incentives to abuse the chain of command. The United States has long relied on an apolitical, professional, and rule-of-law military,” Steady State wrote. Undermining these standards risks real and lasting harm.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.