Trump’s Defense of Saudi Crown Prince Signals a Broader U.S. Shift on Human Rights

By Matt Spetalnick, Patricia Zengerle and Simon Lewis

When President Donald Trump publicly defended Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman over the 2018 killing of U.S.-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi, his remarks — which contradicted U.S. intelligence assessments — highlighted a clear change in Washington's posture toward human rights. Rather than insisting on accountability, the administration emphasized economic and strategic ties and a transactional approach to foreign relations.

From Traditional Advocacy to Transactional Ties

While past U.S. administrations have often partnered with leaders who have poor human rights records to protect strategic interests, critics say the current administration has moved beyond quiet tolerance to active praise and protection of powerful authoritarian figures. Trump has publicly lauded leaders such as Mohammed bin Salman and shown a reluctance to confront them over rights abuses, signaling a pragmatic prioritization of deals and alignment.

In a widely noted Oval Office appearance, Trump rejected intelligence community findings that implicated the crown prince in Khashoggi's killing, even as officials and rights groups continued to press for accountability. "Trump has ignored some of the most fundamental principles underpinning U.S. relations with the world," said Brett Bruen, a former foreign policy adviser in the Obama administration. "His words and actions give a green light to strongmen to do whatever they want."

Institutional Reorientation

Observers say the administration has repurposed the U.S. human rights agenda to prioritize commercial partnerships and short-term geopolitical gains. The State Department's human rights apparatus has been reorganized, with reports that the annual human rights report has been scaled back and the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor refocused to emphasize certain priorities over others.

Officials defend the changes as respect for national sovereignty and a shift away from what they describe as intrusive activism. "All of the President's foreign policy actions are conducted through the lens of the America First agenda," a White House spokeswoman said. Supporters also point to diplomatic results the administration frames as humanitarian or stabilizing achievements.

Selectivity and Its Consequences

Critics argue the approach is selective. Governments aligned with the administration have faced muted criticism for alleged abuses, while adversaries or ideologically distant states have received public admonitions. This selectivity has prompted concerns that U.S. credibility on universal human rights standards is eroding and that autocratic leaders may feel emboldened.

Lawmakers and rights advocates have voiced alarm. "Trump is putting America on the side of the dictators and oligarchs," Senator Bernie Sanders said. John Sifton of Human Rights Watch added: "The United States government no longer has any credibility on human rights issues, at home or abroad." Supporters counter that strategic engagement and de‑escalation in some conflicts represent a different kind of humanitarian outcome.

What This Means Going Forward

The crown prince's high-profile Washington visit, coming after the president's own trip to Saudi Arabia, underscored close ties and offered bin Salman opportunities to meet U.S. business leaders. Observers warn that these optics matter: other leaders may interpret U.S. restraint or public defense as a signal that human rights concerns will not be a decisive factor in bilateral relations.

As debates continue, the central tension remains: whether U.S. foreign policy will reassert a values-based approach to human rights or continue prioritizing transactional ties and strategic interests. That choice will shape Washington's credibility and influence on human rights issues worldwide.