US President Donald Trump has again been caught denying a public comment that was recorded on camera only days earlier. The latest episode unfolded at the White House during questions about whether his administration would release additional video from a September 2 United States military strike on a suspected drug-smuggling boat in the Caribbean. The Pentagon has published footage of the first strike, which destroyed the vessel, but has kept back video of a follow-up strike that killed people who survived the initial blast. That second clip has so far been shown only to members of Congress behind closed doors, increasing pressure for full public disclosure, CNN reported.
The controversy sharpened after Trump was asked last week whether he would support releasing the unreleased footage. In a televised exchange with an ABC News reporter, he said he did not know exactly what video existed, but that whatever the government had could certainly be released and that he had no problem with doing so. The remark appeared to indicate a willingness to let Americans see the full sequence of events.
The disputed comment about releasing the footage
Five days later, a different ABC journalist, Rachel Scott, referred back to that answer while trying to ask whether US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had been instructed to follow through. Scott prefaced her question by noting that the president had said he would have no problem releasing the full video of the strike. Before she could finish, Trump cut in and declared that he had never said that. He accused her of putting words in his mouth and dismissed the network as fake news.
Scott pointed out that he had indeed used that phrase in response to her colleague’s earlier question, then tried to move on to the substance of her query about the status of the review. Trump shifted ground and replied that whatever Hegseth decided about publication would be acceptable to him, effectively handing the decision to his defence secretary. The exchange invited immediate fact checking because the original comment is preserved in video that has already been broadcast.
From transparency to attack in minutes
Rather than address the contradiction, Trump moved to defend the strikes themselves. He repeated a familiar claim that each drug boat destroyed saves tens of thousands of American lives and said the survivors of the first blast had been trying to make the damaged vessel seaworthy again. According to his account, the second strike was ordered to stop what he described as a boat loaded with narcotics from returning to sea.
When Scott tried once more to steer the discussion back to the question of whether the administration would release the second video, the president turned on her personally. He branded her the most obnoxious reporter in the room and called her a terrible reporter, echoing past attacks on journalists who confront him with previous statements or contradictory facts. The personal insults did not address the core issue of why he had disowned a comment that is on tape.
A familiar pattern of rewriting the record
The episode fits a broader pattern in Trump’s political career. He has often denied saying things that are documented in transcripts, recordings or social media posts, then cast doubt on reporters who quote his earlier words back to him. That behaviour has repeatedly drawn the attention of fact-checkers and has contributed to ongoing battles over truthfulness, accountability and media credibility in Washington.
In this case, the subject is not just a stray sound bite but a matter of war, transparency and public oversight. Lawmakers from both parties have called for the release of the full footage of the September 2 operation so that Americans can see the circumstances in which the survivors of the initial strike were killed. The administration has so far resisted that pressure, citing the need to consider operational, legal and diplomatic factors before making a decision.
Why the strike video dispute matters
Trump’s shifting stance on releasing the video highlights the tension between his frequent promises of toughness and transparency and the realities of governing. On one day he signals that there is no problem letting the public see what happened. Days later he denies ever making that offer and places responsibility for the decision on his defence secretary, while attacking reporters who quote him accurately. For critics, the incident underlines the difficulty of holding the president to his own words. For supporters, it is likely to be framed as another clash with media organisations they already distrust.
What remains unresolved is the basic question that prompted the confrontation. The Pentagon still holds video of a strike that ended the lives of people who had already survived one round of US fire. Members of US Congress who have viewed it say the public deserves to see the full picture. Until the administration decides whether to release the footage, arguments over what Trump did or did not say about it will continue to be a proxy for a larger debate about truth, accountability and the conduct of war.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
