In a press briefing on November 18, 2025, president Donald Trump had two notable exchanges with a news reporter. For a summary of the full event and link to the meeting transcript, see Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Announce $1 Trillion Investment Deal, F-35 Sales, and Defense Agreement in Wide-Ranging Oval Office Meeting. Assistance from Claude AI.
Trump’s relationship with the press is an important issue that touches on democratic norms and the relationship between the executive branch and the press. Let me walk through what happened in this meeting, evaluate the exchanges, and then place them in historical context.
What Happened in These Exchanges
The transcript shows two main confrontational exchanges, both with the same ABC News reporter.
First Exchange (Khashoggi, 9/11, Family Business):
The reporter asked a multi-part question: whether Trump’s family doing business in Saudi Arabia while he’s president represents a conflict of interest, and then asked the Crown Prince about US intelligence conclusions that he “orchestrated the brutal murder of a journalist” and noted that “9/11 families are furious” about his presence in the Oval Office.
Trump’s response began with asking who the reporter worked for, then immediately labeled ABC “fake news” and called the reporter “one of the worst in the business.” He did answer the substance—denying involvement in family business and defending MBS on Khashoggi—but framed the question itself as inappropriate, telling the reporter “you don’t have to embarrass our guest by asking a question like that.”
Second Exchange (Epstein Files):
The same reporter asked why Trump was waiting for Congress to release the Epstein files rather than releasing them himself. Trump responded with personal attacks: “I think you are a terrible reporter,” “you’re a terrible person,” and “somebody’s psyched you over at ABC.” He then called the Epstein issue “a Democrat hoax” and threatened ABC’s broadcast license: “I think the license should be taken away from ABC because your news is so fake and it’s so wrong.”
Chief of Staff Susie Wiles then spoke, calling Reid Hoffman “a sleazebag” who “should be under investigation,” criticizing the reporter’s manner, and declaring “no more questions from you.”
Were the Reporter’s Questions Legitimate?
To evaluate whether Trump’s criticisms were valid, we need to assess whether the questions themselves were appropriate journalism. Let me examine each:
The conflict-of-interest question (Trump family doing business in Saudi Arabia while he’s president) is a standard accountability question that journalists have asked of every modern president. Presidential ethics have been a subject of scrutiny for decades. Whether or not one finds the question fair, it’s clearly within the bounds of normal political journalism—it’s the kind of question asked of Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden, and Trump himself in his first term.
The Khashoggi question asked about a US intelligence assessment that the Crown Prince ordered the murder of a journalist. This is not the reporter’s personal opinion—the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a declassified assessment in 2021 stating that MBS “approved” the operation. Asking a foreign leader about such an assessment is exactly what journalists are expected to do, particularly when that leader is being received with honors at the White House.
The 9/11 families question reflects documented concerns from actual victim families. Multiple 9/11 family organizations have criticized Saudi Arabia’s treatment and opposed warming relations absent accountability. The reporter was not inventing controversy but reflecting real constituent concerns.
The Epstein files question is a straightforward transparency question. The president has the authority to declassify and release documents. Asking why he’s waiting for Congress rather than acting unilaterally is a reasonable inquiry into executive decision-making.
In sum, all four questions fall well within the bounds of legitimate journalism. They were direct and probing, but that’s precisely what adversarial journalism is supposed to be. None were factually inaccurate, none were gotcha tricks, and all addressed matters of genuine public interest.
Were Trump’s Criticisms Valid?
Trump’s substantive criticisms of the reporter and ABC don’t hold up well under examination.
“Fake news”: Trump applied this label immediately upon learning the reporter worked for ABC, before any question was asked. The questions themselves were factually grounded—they referenced actual intelligence assessments, actual family concerns, actual business relationships. Calling accurate, substantive questions “fake news” inverts the meaning of the term.
“Terrible reporter” and “terrible person”: These are personal attacks rather than substantive critiques. Trump’s stated complaint was about “attitude” and “the way you ask these questions”—essentially that the reporter asked hard questions in a direct manner. But directness is not a journalistic failing. The reporter asked legitimate questions, gave Trump opportunity to respond, and didn’t interrupt or grandstand.
“Democrat hoax”: Trump characterized Epstein questions as a partisan plot to distract from his economic achievements. But the Epstein files have been a subject of bipartisan interest, and the questions about them don’t inherently favor one party. Trump himself has previously claimed he would release Epstein information.
License revocation threat: This is the most serious element. Trump said ABC’s broadcast license “should be taken away” because its news is “so fake and so wrong” and “97 percent negative to Trump.” This conflates critical coverage with inaccuracy. Negative coverage of a president is not, by itself, evidence of falsity—presidents can and do make choices that merit criticism. The suggestion that unfavorable coverage should result in license revocation represents a fundamental challenge to the concept of press freedom.
Historical Context: How Does This Compare to Past Presidents?
To understand how unusual these exchanges are, it helps to survey how previous presidents have handled adversarial press relations.
Every modern president has had hostile relationships with some outlets. Nixon had his “enemies list” and famously said “the press is the enemy.” Reagan’s team worked to go around the press. Clinton was furious about coverage of his scandals. Obama’s Justice Department pursued leak investigations that alarmed press freedom advocates. So tension between presidents and the press is not new.
However, there are important distinctions in degree and kind:
Trump’s approach differs from predecessors in several ways. First, the personalization: calling individual reporters “terrible people,” attacking their character rather than their work, is a departure from traditional presidential rhetoric. Presidents have complained about coverage, criticized stories as unfair, and expressed frustration—but direct personal attacks on reporters in formal diplomatic settings were rare.
Second, the delegitimization strategy: the “fake news” label is applied categorically to outlets whose coverage is unfavorable, regardless of accuracy. This is different from disputing specific stories. When previous presidents objected to coverage, they typically argued the specific story was wrong or unfair. Trump’s approach is to label entire institutions as illegitimate.
Third, the license threats: suggesting the FCC should revoke broadcast licenses based on unfavorable coverage crosses a line that previous presidents generally didn’t cross. While presidents have complained about coverage, explicitly threatening regulatory retaliation against media companies based on their editorial content is a different category of action. This is not merely expressing displeasure—it’s suggesting the use of government power to punish speech.
The First Amendment context matters here. The press freedom enshrined in the Constitution exists specifically to allow criticism of government without fear of government retaliation. When a president suggests that critical coverage should result in loss of a broadcast license, it creates a chilling effect—other journalists may soften coverage to avoid similar threats. Whether or not Trump could actually revoke licenses (he couldn’t directly—the FCC is independent and licenses are not subject to content-based revocation under current law), the threat itself is corrosive to the adversarial relationship between press and government that the First Amendment is designed to protect.
A Balanced Assessment
I should note that reasonable people can view some of these matters differently. Some observers argue that mainstream media has been genuinely unfair to Trump, that coverage has been disproportionately negative compared to other presidents, and that reporters sometimes ask questions in bad faith. There’s room for debate about whether political journalism has maintained appropriate standards of objectivity.
However, even granting those concerns, the remedy matters. A president who believes he’s being treated unfairly can say so, can dispute specific stories, can criticize journalistic choices, can give access to outlets he prefers, and can appeal directly to the public. What he shouldn’t do—what no president should do—is threaten to use government regulatory power to punish unfavorable coverage. That moves from criticism (which is legitimate) to censorship (which isn’t).
The questions asked in this meeting were substantive, factually grounded, and on matters of clear public interest. The response—personal attacks, categorical delegitimization, and license threats—represents a departure from democratic norms around press freedom that have generally been respected by presidents of both parties.
Why This Matters
Does it matter if Trump insults reporters or threatens their licenses, if he can’t actually follow through? Yes, it does matter, for a few reasons.
First, norms matter even when not legally enforceable. The expectation that presidents don’t threaten media outlets with regulatory punishment has been maintained not because it’s impossible but because it’s understood as incompatible with democratic governance. Once that norm erodes, it becomes easier for future presidents to push further.
Second, the chilling effect is real. Journalists and their employers calculate risk. If a president demonstrates willingness to use regulatory threats, even hollow ones, some outlets will soften coverage to avoid becoming targets. This reduces the adversarial scrutiny that holds government accountable.
Third, it shapes public perception. When the president labels legitimate questions as “fake news” and “hoaxes,” it teaches supporters to dismiss inconvenient information. This makes it harder for citizens to evaluate their government based on shared facts.
On the specific question of whether Trump’s treatment of the press in this meeting reflects respect for press freedom and how it compares to past presidents, the transcript speaks fairly clearly: the exchanges show a president treating legitimate journalistic inquiry as illegitimate, responding to substantive questions with personal attacks, and threatening government retaliation against an outlet for unfavorable coverage. That’s a significant departure from how previous presidents, for all their frustrations with the press, generally conducted themselves.