President Donald Trump and former President Barack Obama are polar opposites in many ways, but, as with anyone who has sat behind the Resolute Desk, they do share some similarities.

One thing both have in common is overseeing government shutdowns — one under Obama and two under Trump. And even in that sparse similarity, both men operated differently, particularly in the most recent, 43-day closure.

While both congressional battles were centered on Obamacare, Obama put his shutdown at the center of attention, while Trump kept it at more of an arm’s length.

Romina Boccia, director of budget and entitlement policy at the Cato Institute, told Fox News Digital that a major difference in the Obama and Trump administrations’ approaches to their respective shutdowns was that in 2013, Obama wanted the pain of shutdown to be felt by Americans, while Trump kept the focus centered on Washington, D.C.

‘During the Obama shutdown, it was more to make it extremely visible, shut down beloved functions — even if you didn’t have to — that affect average Americans,’ she said.

Boccia at the time worked for the conservative think-tank the Heritage Foundation and recalled the barricades that were swiftly erected around Washington, D.C.’s many national parks.

Those barricades, both concrete and human, spilled out beyond the nation’s capital and were placed around the hundreds of national parks across America as a stark reminder that the government was closed.

Boccia noted that a direct comparison of the two shutdowns would be difficult given the differing lengths, but that the Trump administration, at least early on, sought to inflict direct pain on congressional Democrats and the federal government.

That was carried out largely by the Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought, who ordered mass firings of furloughed workers and withheld or canceled billions in federal funding to blue cities and states.

‘It’s not that this wasn’t a shutdown, it’s just that the choices the administration made were an attempt to focus the impacts of the shutdown this round on the government itself,’ Brittany Madni, executive vice president of the Economic Policy Innovation Center, told Fox News Digital.

‘This was showmanship from President Obama,’ Madni continued. ‘And if you look at what happened over the last 40 something days, it was the exact same playbook by congressional Democrats.’

Madni argued that discussions and debate during the 2013 shutdown were centered largely in Washington, D.C. The latest closure saw some of that, but it also saw Trump continuing to work on trade deals, particularly during his high-profile visit to Asia, which was a point of contention for Democrats on the Hill.

‘He was doing his job,’ Madni said. ‘He was doing his job. Meanwhile, congressional Democrats, quite simply, were not.’

Still, there was a shared thread in both shutdowns: Obamacare.

In 2013, congressional Republicans wanted to dismantle Obama’s signature piece of legislation. Fast-forward, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., led his caucus to push extensions to enhanced Obamacare subsidies.

Boccia said that played a large part in why Obama was at the vanguard during his shutdown.

‘He was front and center in the media talking about the shutdown, and because it was over his legacy achievement,’ she said.

It was because his key legislative achievement was under fire that Obama took such a central role in the shutdown, Boccia argued, but for Trump, who tried during his first administration to gut and replace Obamacare, it wasn’t a priority.

‘The fact that it was over the Obamacare COVID credits, I think, made the president less necessary and perhaps interested in being the face of the shutdown,’ she said. ‘It was really a congressional battle.’

Madni disagreed that the latest shutdown wasn’t a direct bid by congressional Democrats to go after one of his legislative achievements.

Before the climactic failed vote in the Senate in late September that ushered in the longest shutdown in history, Democrats offered a counter-proposal that would have stripped several provisions from Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill,’ which has so far been the crowning legislative achievement of his second term.

‘It’s really important that everyone remembers the subsidy request was one request in a laundry list of radical, incredibly expensive ideas that added up to $1.5 trillion,’ Madni said. ‘Another item in that list was dismantling key portions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.’

‘If this was really about the subsidies, then the Democrats would have been willing at any point during the last 43 days to adjust their asks and just make it about subsidies,’ she continued. ‘Not once did they.’

President Donald Trump kicked off the week meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and closed the week meeting with New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani. 

He also signed legislation ordering the Justice Department to release files related to the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. 

Here’s a look at what happened this week. 

Epstein files 

Trump announced Wednesday evening that he put his stamp of approval on a bill instructing the Justice Department to release files related to Epstein — after Congress passed the measure Tuesday.

‘I HAVE JUST SIGNED THE BILL TO RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES!’ Trump wrote in a lengthy message on the Truth Social platform. ‘As everyone knows, I asked Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, to pass this Bill in the House and Senate, respectively. Because of this request, the votes were almost unanimous in favor of passage. 

‘At my direction, the Department of Justice has already turned over close to fifty thousand pages of documents to Congress. Do not forget — The Biden Administration did not turn over a SINGLE file or page related to Democrat Epstein, nor did they ever even speak about him.’

Trump’s ties to Epstein had faced increased attention after Trump’s Justice Department and FBI announced in July it would not unseal investigation materials related to Epstein, and that the agencies’ investigation into the case had closed.

However, Trump announced Nov. 16 that he backed releasing the documents, claiming that he had ‘nothing to hide.’

Ultimately, the House voted Tuesday to release the files by a 421–1 margin, following pressure for months from the measure’s ringleaders, Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., and other Democrats.

The Senate passed the measure by unanimous consent later Tuesday.

Mamdani meeting 

Mamdani visited Trump at the White House Friday, and the two appeared chummy and ready to launch a fresh start in their relationship. The two said they discussed addressing affordability issues and improving conditions in New York. 

Trump said the two had more in common than he anticipated, and that he would be ‘cheering’ for Mamdani as he leads the city. 

‘I expect to be helping him, not hurting him — a big help,’ Trump said.

Trump also brushed off Mamdani’s comment labeling him a despot in his victory speech following the Nov. 4 election, with the president claiming Friday he’s encountered worse and that he believes Mamdani will change his tune as the two work together. 

‘I’ve been called much worse than a ‘despot,’ so it’s not, it’s not that insulting,’ Trump said. ‘I think he’ll change his mind after we get to working together.’ 

Saudi crown prince meeting

Trump also met with the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the White House Tuesday, an occasion that included a red carpet rolled across the South Lawn, military honor guard, and an Air Force flyover to elevate the formal state-level welcome.

During bin Salman’s visit, the U.S. announced that it would sell F-35 jets to Saudi Arabia, and that it would now be a ‘major non-NATO ally’ to facilitate military cooperation between the two countries. 

‘President Trump approved a major defense sale package, including future F-35 deliveries, which strengthens the U.S. defense industrial base and ensures Saudi Arabia continues to buy American,’ the White House said in a statement. 

Trump’s reception of bin Salman is a departure from the Biden administration, who said in 2019 during his presidential campaign that he would make Saudi Arabia ‘the pariah that they are’ because of the death of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

U.S. intelligence agencies concluded in 2021 that bin Salman gave the green light on the operation that took Khashoggi’s life. Khashoggi, a Saudi dissident, was brutally murdered in Istanbul at the Saudi consulate in 2018.

But Trump defended bin Salman Tuesday, and accused a reporter who asked about U.S. intelligence reports linking the prince to Khashoggi’s death of embarrassing bin Salman.

‘A lot of people didn’t like that gentleman that you’re talking about,’ Trump said Tuesday. ‘Whether you like him or didn’t like him, things happen, but he knew nothing about it. And would you leave it at that? You don’t have to embarrass our guest by asking a question.’

Even so, bin Salman has dismissed the reports as false. When asked Tuesday about Khashoggi, bin Salman said it’s ‘painful’ to hear of the death of anyone for ‘no real purpose,’ and ‘we are doing our best that this doesn’t happen again.’

Rep. Eugene Vindman, D-Va., is demanding that President Donald Trump release a 2019 call with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, saying the American people ‘deserve to know what was said’ in the aftermath of Jamal Khashoggi’s murder.

Vindman, a retired Army colonel who once served on Trump’s National Security Council, said the call was one of two that deeply concerned him — the other being the 2019 conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that triggered Trump’s first impeachment. 

Standing beside Hanan Elatr Khashoggi, the slain journalist’s widow, Vindman said Trump ‘sidelined his own intelligence community to shield a foreign leader’ and that transparency is owed to both the Khashoggi family and the country.

‘The Khashoggi family and the American people deserve to know what was said on that call,’ Vindman said Friday. ‘Our intelligence agencies concluded that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the murder of Mr. Khashoggi’s husband. When the president sidelined his own intelligence community to shield a foreign leader, America’s credibility was at stake.’

Vindman’s name already is polarizing in Trump-era politics. 

He and his twin brother, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, became central figures in the first impeachment attempt against Trump, when their internal reporting of Trump’s Ukraine call led to accusations from conservatives that they had undermined an elected president. To Trump’s allies, Eugene Vindman’s demand to release the 2019 Saudi call feels like a replay of that fight — another attempt by a former National Security Council insider to damage the president under the banner of transparency.

Still, his comments land at a revealing moment. Washington’s embrace of bin Salman underscores a familiar trade-off in U.S. foreign policy: strategic security and economic interests over accountability and human rights.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said: ‘The U.S.-Saudi friendship is now a partnership for the future. President Trump’s historic agreements with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, from defense to investment, will create quality jobs for Americans and will grow our economy. No virtue-signaling. No lecturing. Only results for the American people.’

White House relations

Trump’s latest visit with bin Salman brought sweeping defense and investment deals, even as questions over 9/11 and Khashoggi’s murder continue to test that balance. The United States granted Saudi Arabia major non-NATO ally status, formally elevating the kingdom’s defense and intelligence partnership with Washington and clearing the way for expedited arms sales and joint military programs.

Bin Salman also pledged nearly $1 trillion in new Saudi investments across U.S. industries, including infrastructure, artificial intelligence and clean energy. The commitments were announced alongside a Strategic Defense Agreement that includes purchases of F-35 fighter jets, roughly 300 Abrams tanks and new missile defense systems, as well as joint ventures to expand manufacturing inside Saudi Arabia.

Administration officials said the initiatives would create tens of thousands of American jobs and strengthen the U.S. industrial base.

During his appearance with Trump at the White House, reporters shouted questions about Saudi Arabia’s alleged role in the Sept. 11 attacks and the 2018 killing of Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul — marking a rare moment of public pressure on the crown prince, who typically avoids unscripted exchanges with the press.

Trump accused the press of trying to ’embarrass’ his guest, but the crown prince offered what sounded like regret for the killing of Khashoggi, even as he denied involvement.

‘A lot of people didn’t like that gentleman that you’re talking about,’ Trump said. ‘Whether you like him or don’t like him, things happen, but he knew nothing about it … We can leave it at that. You don’t have to embarrass our guest by asking a question like that.’

ABC reporter Mary Bruce had told bin Salman that U.S. intelligence determined he’d signed off on the killing and that 9/11 families were ‘furious’ about his presence in the White House. ‘Why should Americans trust you?’

‘It’s been painful for us in Saudi Arabia,’ bin Salman said of the killing, calling it ‘a huge mistake.’ ‘We’ve improved our system to be sure that nothing happens like that again,’ he added.

A 2021 report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence stated: ‘We assess that Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman approved an operation in Istanbul, Turkey, to capture or kill Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.’ 

Bin Salman has repeatedly denied approving the killing, though he said in 2019, ‘It happened under my watch, I take full responsibility as a leader.’

Sept. 11, 2001

The question of Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks remains one of the most sensitive and unresolved issues in the U.S.-Saudi relationship. While 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals, the U.S. government has never concluded that the Saudi state or senior Saudi officials had prior knowledge of or directed the attacks.

Families of 9/11 victims condemned bin Salman after he invoked Osama bin Laden during his White House remarks, saying the al-Qaeda leader used Saudi nationals to drive a wedge between Washington and Riyadh.

‘We have to focus on reality,’ the crown prince said. ‘Reality is that Osama bin Laden used Saudi people in that event for one main purpose: to destroy the American–Saudi relationship. That’s the purpose of 9/11.’

‘The Saudi crown prince invoking Osama bin Laden this afternoon in the White House does not change the fact that a federal judge in New York ruled a few short months ago that Saudi Arabia must stand trial for its role in the 9/11 terrorist attacks that murdered 3,000 of our loved ones,’ said Brett Eagleson, president of 9/11 Justice, a group representing victims’ families.

In August 2025, U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels issued a landmark ruling bringing Saudi Arabia under U.S. federal jurisdiction for a 9/11 trial. The court found evidence of a network of Saudi officials inside the U.S. who allegedly provided logistical support to the hijackers, citing ‘prior planning’ and ‘constant coordination.’ 

Among the materials described in the ruling was a drawing seized from a Saudi government operative showing an airplane with flight-path equations — evidence prosecutors said suggested advance knowledge of the attacks.

Saudi Arabia has denied any role, calling the allegations ‘categorically false.’ 

But for bin Salman, who came to Washington seeking to highlight new security and economic ties, the families’ sharp rebuke was a reminder that the 9/11 case still looms large in the public eye, even as the Trump administration deepens its partnership with Riyadh.

President Donald Trump’s administration is rejecting claims that its most recent plan for a peace deal in Ukraine was really a Russian ‘wish list.’

Confusion arose regarding the deal after lawmakers on Capitol Hill claimed they were told by White House officials that the deal was a proposal from the Russian side. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has since pushed back on that claim, however.

‘[Rubio] made it very clear to us that we are the recipients of a proposal that was delivered to one of our representatives,’ Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said at a press conference. ‘It is not our recommendation. It is not our peace plan. It is a proposal that was received, and as an intermediary, we have made arrangements to share it — and we did not release it. It was leaked.’

According to The Associated Press, Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, said that Rubio told him and his colleagues that it ‘was not the administration’s plan’ but a ‘wish list of the Russians.’

Rubio responded to this narrative with a post on social media, writing that the peace proposal ‘was authored by the U.S.’

‘It is offered as a strong framework for ongoing negotiations. It is based on input from the Russian side. But it is also based on previous and ongoing input from Ukraine,’ he added.

Rounds released another statement through his press office after Rubio’s response.

‘I appreciate Secretary Rubio briefing us earlier today on their efforts to bring about peace by relying on input from both Russia and Ukraine to arrive at a final deal,’ Rounds wrote.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.

Rubio traveled to Geneva on Sunday to meet with Ukrainian officials alongside Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, where they are expected to hash out Kyiv’s misgivings regarding the deal.

Trump himself lashed out at Ukraine over the peace talks in a Sunday statement.

‘UKRAINE ‘LEADERSHIP’ HAS EXPRESSED ZERO GRATITUDE FOR OUR EFFORTS, AND EUROPE CONTINUES TO BUY OIL FROM RUSSIA,’ Trump wrote on Truth Social.

While the current agreement has not been made public, a leaked draft has been reported to include terms that would halt the fighting in Ukraine while giving Russia concessions like control over Ukrainian territory that the Russian military does not yet control, as well as barring Ukraine from membership in NATO.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy did not reject the plan outright in an address last week, but he insisted on fair treatment while pledging to ‘work calmly’ with Washington and other partners in what he called ‘truly one of the most difficult moments in our history.’

Fox News’ Jennifer Griffin and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Sunday that discussions over ending the war in Ukraine have entered a productive phase, while claiming ‘a tremendous amount of progress’ had been made.

Following a round of talks with a Ukrainian delegation in Geneva, Switzerland, Rubio told reporters negotiators had ‘a very good day today.’

‘We had a very good day today. I think we made a tremendous amount of progress, even from the last time I spoke to you,’ Rubio said.

‘We began almost three weeks ago with a foundational document that we socialized and ran by both sides, and with input from both sides,’ he said.

Rubio described how negotiators had been refining the 28-point peace framework that outlines potential conditions for a ceasefire and long-term settlement for Ukraine and Russia.

‘Over the last 96 hours or more, there’s been extensive engagement with the Ukrainian side including our Secretary of the Army and others, being on the ground in Kyiv, meeting with relevant stakeholders across the Ukrainian political spectrum in the legislative branch and the executive branch, and the military and others to further sort of narrow these points.’

‘We arrived here today with one goal: to take what – it’s 28 points or 26 points, depending on which version, as it continued to evolve and try to narrow the ones that were open items. And we have achieved that today in a very substantial way,’ he said.

The weekend talks centered on a 28-point plan, which is a framework drafted by the U.S. outlining steps for a possible ceasefire and political settlement.

The document is said to cover security guarantees, territorial control, reconstruction mechanisms, and Ukraine’s long-term relationship with NATO and the EU.

The plan has reportedly evolved through several iterations, narrowing disputes point by point as both sides weigh concessions.

‘Now, obviously, like any final agreement, it’ll have to be agreed upon by the presidents, and there are a couple of issues that we need to continue to work on,’ Rubio clarified.

While declining to specify unresolved issues, Rubio described the moment as ‘delicate.’

‘This is a very delicate moment, and it’s important – like I said, there’s not agreement on those yet.  Some of it is semantics or language; others require higher-level decisions and consultation; others, I think, just need more time to work through,’ he said before touching on some issues.

‘There were some that involved equities or the role of the EU or of NATO or so forth, and those we kind of segregated out because we just met with the national security advisors for various European countries, and those are things we’ll have to discuss with them because it involves them.’

‘I don’t want to declare victory or finality here. There’s still some work to be done,’ he added.

Suggesting there is intent to ensure Ukraine’s security, Rubio said that they all ‘recognize that part of getting a final end to this war will require for Ukraine to feel as if it is safe, and it is never going to be invaded or attacked again.’

‘I honestly believe we’ll get there,’ he said, and when asked about next steps, Rubio said a possible call between Presidents Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy could happen, adding, ‘I don’t know. It’s possible. I’m not sure.’

‘The deadline is we want to get this done as soon as possible. Obviously, we’d love it to be Thursday,’ he added.

A new feature on Elon Musk’s X is exposing the truth behind social media accounts across the political spectrum, with account owners apparently misleading followers about where they are posting from.

The new feature allows all X users to inspect where a given account is based, usually listing a country or region. Many popular accounts posing as American ‘patriots’ or ‘constitutionalists’ have been exposed as being run from foreign countries since the update rolled out on Friday.

One account with the handle ‘@1776General_’ boasts over 140,000 followers and has a user biography describing the owner as a ‘constitutionalist, patriot and ethnically American.’ The biography claims the account is based in the U.S., but X’s new feature reveals it is actually based in Turkey.

‘I work in international business. I’m currently working in Turkey on a contract,’ the owner of the account posted after the new feature was released.

Another account, ‘@AmericanVoice__’ had over 200,000 followers before the update rolled out. The new feature exposed that it was being run from South Asia, and the owners simply deleted the account.

X head of product Nikita Bier says the new feature should help X users sift out misinformation from their feeds.

‘When you read content on X, you should be able to verify its authenticity. This is critical for staying informed about important issues happening in the world. Part of this is showing new information in accounts, including the country an account is located in, among other things,’ Bier wrote.

The phenomenon is not limited to American politics, however. Many accounts claiming to have been reporting on alleged Israeli war crimes in Gaza also appear to be misleading users.

One user, Motasm A Dalloul, uses the handle ‘@AbujomaaGaza’ and claims to be a ‘Gaza-based journalist.’ His account has over 197,000 followers, but X says the owner is actually posting from Poland.

Dalloul has pushed back on claims that he is lying to his followers, however, posting a video on Saturday that appeared to show him on the ground in Gaza. Many users have argued about whether the video was digitally altered.

Another Palestinian-related account, the Quds News Network or @QudsNen, describes itself as the ‘largest independent Palestinian youth news network’ and has over 600,000 followers.

The account lists its location as ‘Palestine,’ but X says the account is actually based out of Egypt – unlike other accounts that X does list as being based in ‘Palestine,’ such as American-Palestinian journalist Mariam Barghouti.

A similar account under the name Times of Gaza/@Timesofgaza has nearly one million followers. It claims to provide the ‘latest news updates and top stories from occupied Palestine.’ The account is based in ‘East Asia and the Pacific,’ according to X.

X representatives have said its new feature could be partially spoofed by using a VPN to mask a user’s true location. In such cases where a VPN was detected, X added a warning next to the listed location.

Rep. Eugene Vindman, D-Va., is demanding that President Donald Trump release a 2019 call with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, saying the American people ‘deserve to know what was said’ in the aftermath of Jamal Khashoggi’s murder.

Vindman, a retired Army colonel who once served on Trump’s National Security Council, said the call was one of two that deeply concerned him — the other being the 2019 conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that triggered Trump’s first impeachment. 

Standing beside Hanan Elatr Khashoggi, the slain journalist’s widow, Vindman said Trump ‘sidelined his own intelligence community to shield a foreign leader’ and that transparency is owed to both the Khashoggi family and the country.

‘The Khashoggi family and the American people deserve to know what was said on that call,’ Vindman said Friday. ‘Our intelligence agencies concluded that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the murder of Mr. Khashoggi’s husband. When the president sidelined his own intelligence community to shield a foreign leader, America’s credibility was at stake.’

Vindman’s name already is polarizing in Trump-era politics. 

He and his twin brother, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, became central figures in the first impeachment attempt against Trump, when their internal reporting of Trump’s Ukraine call led to accusations from conservatives that they had undermined an elected president. To Trump’s allies, Eugene Vindman’s demand to release the 2019 Saudi call feels like a replay of that fight — another attempt by a former National Security Council insider to damage the president under the banner of transparency.

Still, his comments land at a revealing moment. Washington’s embrace of bin Salman underscores a familiar trade-off in U.S. foreign policy: strategic security and economic interests over accountability and human rights.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said: ‘The U.S.-Saudi friendship is now a partnership for the future. President Trump’s historic agreements with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, from defense to investment, will create quality jobs for Americans and will grow our economy. No virtue-signaling. No lecturing. Only results for the American people.’

White House relations

Trump’s latest visit with bin Salman brought sweeping defense and investment deals, even as questions over 9/11 and Khashoggi’s murder continue to test that balance. The United States granted Saudi Arabia major non-NATO ally status, formally elevating the kingdom’s defense and intelligence partnership with Washington and clearing the way for expedited arms sales and joint military programs.

Bin Salman also pledged nearly $1 trillion in new Saudi investments across U.S. industries, including infrastructure, artificial intelligence and clean energy. The commitments were announced alongside a Strategic Defense Agreement that includes purchases of F-35 fighter jets, roughly 300 Abrams tanks and new missile defense systems, as well as joint ventures to expand manufacturing inside Saudi Arabia.

Administration officials said the initiatives would create tens of thousands of American jobs and strengthen the U.S. industrial base.

During his appearance with Trump at the White House, reporters shouted questions about Saudi Arabia’s alleged role in the Sept. 11 attacks and the 2018 killing of Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul — marking a rare moment of public pressure on the crown prince, who typically avoids unscripted exchanges with the press.

Trump accused the press of trying to ’embarrass’ his guest, but the crown prince offered what sounded like regret for the killing of Khashoggi, even as he denied involvement.

‘A lot of people didn’t like that gentleman that you’re talking about,’ Trump said. ‘Whether you like him or don’t like him, things happen, but he knew nothing about it … We can leave it at that. You don’t have to embarrass our guest by asking a question like that.’

ABC reporter Mary Bruce had told bin Salman that U.S. intelligence determined he’d signed off on the killing and that 9/11 families were ‘furious’ about his presence in the White House. ‘Why should Americans trust you?’

‘It’s been painful for us in Saudi Arabia,’ bin Salman said of the killing, calling it ‘a huge mistake.’ ‘We’ve improved our system to be sure that nothing happens like that again,’ he added.

A 2021 report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence stated: ‘We assess that Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman approved an operation in Istanbul, Turkey, to capture or kill Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.’ 

Bin Salman has repeatedly denied approving the killing, though he said in 2019, ‘It happened under my watch, I take full responsibility as a leader.’

Sept. 11, 2001

The question of Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks remains one of the most sensitive and unresolved issues in the U.S.-Saudi relationship. While 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals, the U.S. government has never concluded that the Saudi state or senior Saudi officials had prior knowledge of or directed the attacks.

Families of 9/11 victims condemned bin Salman after he invoked Usama bin Laden during his White House remarks, saying the al Qaeda leader used Saudi nationals to drive a wedge between Washington and Riyadh.

‘We have to focus on reality,’ the crown prince said. ‘Reality is that Usama bin Laden used Saudi people in that event for one main purpose: to destroy the American–Saudi relationship. That’s the purpose of 9/11.’

‘The Saudi crown prince invoking Usama bin Laden this afternoon in the White House does not change the fact that a federal judge in New York ruled a few short months ago that Saudi Arabia must stand trial for its role in the 9/11 terrorist attacks that murdered 3,000 of our loved ones,’ said Brett Eagleson, president of 9/11 Justice, a group representing victims’ families.

In August 2025, U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels issued a landmark ruling bringing Saudi Arabia under U.S. federal jurisdiction for a 9/11 trial. The court found evidence of a network of Saudi officials inside the U.S. who allegedly provided logistical support to the hijackers, citing ‘prior planning’ and ‘constant coordination.’ 

Among the materials described in the ruling was a drawing seized from a Saudi government operative showing an airplane with flight-path equations — evidence prosecutors said suggested advance knowledge of the attacks.

Saudi Arabia has denied any role, calling the allegations ‘categorically false.’ 

But for bin Salman, who came to Washington seeking to highlight new security and economic ties, the families’ sharp rebuke was a reminder that the 9/11 case still looms large in the public eye, even as the Trump administration deepens its partnership with Riyadh.