By Adria R. Walker
On Wednesday afternoon, Donald Trump participated in a contentious panel hosted by the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ). The discussion, held in Chicago at the organization’s annual convention, began after an hour-long delay, with a room full of journalists tensely awaiting the program.
During the wait, Philip Lewis, the HuffPost deputy editor, shared on X that the hold-up was being caused by a disagreement between the NABJ and the former president. “I’m told that Trump is demanding that NABJ not do the live factchecking and that’s why the event hasn’t started yet,” he wrote. “We’re in a standoff.”
Once the panel finally began, Trump was defensive and combative, and repeatedly insulted Rachel Scott, the senior congressional correspondent for ABC, one of the three Black female moderators.
Scott began the discussion by acknowledging the fact that many Black journalists thought his presence there was inappropriate.
“You attack Black journalists, calling them ‘a loser’, saying the questions that they asked are, quote, ‘stupid and racist,’” Scott said to Trump. “You’ve had dinner with a white supremacist at Mar-a-Lago resort. So my question, sir, now that you are asking Black supporters to vote for you, why should Black voters trust you, after you have used language like that?”
Trump responded by calling Scott “nasty”, alleging that the delay had been due to faulty NABJ equipment and saying he had been brought to the convention under false pretenses.
Journalists online were quick to respond.
“Donald Trump in typical form on this circus of a #NABJ panel is being aggressive & rude to @RachelVScott – a Black woman. Very reminiscent of his past treatment of @AprilDRyan @Yamiche & @jemelehill,” producer Jawn Murray wrote on X. “A journalism advocacy group has platformed this 34-time felon for this abuse.”
April D Ryan, the Grio’s White House correspondent who has previously been targeted by Trump, wrote on X: “Rachel is fire to take this and move [on]. She was right to ask those questions. Trump is being very nasty.”
Ryan’s posts continued: “Why would the NABJ ALLOW HIM TO BE ON THE STAGE. Rachel Scott is so respected and asked a good question. He calls her ‘rude!’
“Trump came into our home, a Black Press advocacy convention, and insulted us in our face. What is worse he was invited to do this by NABJ leadership. Shame!”
Karen Attiah, who stepped down as co-chair of this year’s NABJ convention in response to Trump’s invitation, was in person at the panel. She wrote on X that the promised factchecking was inaccessible to journalists in the room, and described the room as “boiling with anger and disappointment right now”.
Kathleen Newman-Bremang, a deputy director at Refinery29’s Unbothered, wrote on X: “Well, that was just as disastrous as expected. No answers, lies on lies on lies, and blatant disrespect of the interviewers and the audience. Was that worth the so-called ‘journalistic objectivity’???”
The journalist Natasha S Alford wrote about the difficulty of watching a decades-old, once well-respected organization make the decision to host Trump.
“On a personal note, NABJ has meant a lot to so many of us, so this has been hard to see play out on multiple levels,” Alford wrote on X. “But I will never forget that Donald Trump insulted and was hostile to a Black female journalist in our own communal space and was unchecked. And the feeling of powerlessness watching it.”
Raquel Willis, an author who shared previously that she is boycotting the NABJ, wrote: “Destroyed your organization’s credibility and FOR WHAT?!”
The writer Kathia Woods simply wrote: “Mother of mercy and all the saints.”
Trump shared his post-panel thoughts on Truth Social. “The questions were Rude and Nasty, often in the form of a statement, but we CRUSHED IT!” he wrote.
Michael Tyler, communications director for Harris for President, said in a statement that “the hostility Donald Trump showed on stage today is the same hostility he has shown throughout his life, throughout his term in office, and throughout his campaign for president as he seeks to regain power”.
“Trump lobbed personal attacks and insults at Black journalists the same way he did throughout his presidency – while he failed Black families and left the entire country digging out of the ditch he left us in,” Tyler said.
“Donald Trump has already proven he cannot unite America, so he attempts to divide us.”
During her Wednesday briefing with reporters, Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, described Trump’s remarks as “repulsive” and “insulting”.
“She is the vice-president of the United States, Kamala Harris,” Jean-Pierre said. “We have to put some respect on her name.”
We have never been more passionate about exposing the multiplying threats to our democracy and holding power to account in America. In the heat of a tumultuous presidential race, with the threat of a more extreme second Trump presidency looming, there is an urgent need for free, trustworthy journalism that foregrounds the stakes of November’s election for our country and planet.
Yet, from Elon Musk to the Murdochs, a small number of billionaire owners have a powerful hold on so much of the information that reaches the public about what’s happening in the world. The Guardian is different. We have no billionaire owner or shareholders to consider. Our journalism is produced to serve the public interest – not profit motives.
And we avoid the trap that befalls much US media: the tendency, born of a desire to please all sides, to engage in false equivalence in the name of neutrality. We always strive to be fair. But sometimes that means calling out the lies of powerful people and institutions – and making clear how misinformation and demagoguery can damage democracy.
From threats to election integrity, to the spiraling climate crisis, to complex foreign conflicts, our journalists contextualize, investigate and illuminate the critical stories of our time. As a global news organization with a robust US reporting staff, we’re able to provide a fresh, outsider perspective – one so often missing in the American media bubble.
Around the world, readers can access the Guardian’s paywall-free journalism because of our unique reader-supported model. That’s because of people like you. Our readers keep us independent, beholden to no outside influence and accessible to everyone – whether they can afford to pay for news, or not.