Last Tuesday, President Donald Trump hosted Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in the Oval Office. The meeting, intended to strengthen U.S.–Saudi relations and discuss regional stability, was routine for a sitting president. Trump and the crown prince addressed significant topics, including counterterrorism cooperation and Gaza reconstruction negotiations.
However, the event incited a dramatic response from Senator Adam Schiff. Known for his vocal critiques of Trump, Schiff seized the moment to release an impassioned video. In over ten minutes, he leveled a series of personal attacks against the president, alleging corruption and foreign influence. Instead of acknowledging the critical diplomatic engagement with one of America’s key allies, Schiff framed the meeting as a scandal.
Schiff underscored Saudi Arabia’s controversial human rights record, particularly referencing the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018. He accused Trump of defending the crown prince and ignoring U.S. intelligence. Yet, Schiff neglected a crucial fact: the Biden administration maintained strong ties with Saudi Arabia during its tenure, engaging in high-level meetings and diplomatic efforts, just like its predecessors before it. The U.S.–Saudi alliance has enjoyed bipartisan support for decades.
Rather than engage with reality, Schiff relied on references to old political disputes. His speech included mentions of the 2018 Helsinki press conference, where he suggested Trump favored Putin, and he invoked the Mueller investigation, which ultimately found no evidence of collusion. These arguments felt retroactive, as Schiff struggled to connect the meeting with any current wrongdoing.
As Schiff delved deeper into speculative claims about Trump’s motives—linking his support for the crown prince to “crypto deals” and “real estate projects”—his narrative began to unravel. The factual context of the meeting was straightforward: a president was engaging in serious foreign-policy discussions with an ally, a common occurrence in the realm of international relations.
While Trump focused on enhancing diplomacy and addressing pressing global issues, Schiff displayed a more personal fixation with undermining the president. The stark contrast between Trump’s legislative agenda and Schiff’s politically charged outbursts highlighted a persistent obsession that has characterized the senator’s approach.
The American public observed a fundamental difference that day: a president executing vital diplomatic work while a senator staged a theatrical meltdown, more invested in political theatrics than substantive policy. This meeting was an opportunity to strengthen a vital alliance, showcasing Trump’s commitment to U.S. national interests. In contrast, Schiff’s response seemed like an antiquated performance aimed at reviving old grievances.
Ultimately, Schiff’s outrage was less about the meeting and more about his ongoing political battle with Trump. It revealed a disconnect from the pressing foreign affairs at hand and a fixation that continues to define his career. As both figures left the stage that day, it was clear: one was focused on the future of America, while the other was stuck in the past.
"*" indicates required fields
