Get all your news in one place.

100's of premium titles.
One app.

Get all your news in one place.

100's of premium titles. One news app.

inkl

Congressman's refusal to speak to Al Jazeera reporter revives debate over the network's reputation

Al Jazeera United States Mohamed Morsi Peter Greste Egypt Brandon Gill Abdel Fattah AlSisi Del Toro Al Jazeera English Ice

A brief exchange in the corridors of the US Congress has renewed debate over a sensitive question in journalism: how far a news organisation's identity and ownership shape the way officials respond to its reporters.

The encounter

In mid-September 2026, Natasha Del Toro, a correspondent for Fault Lines, Al Jazeera English's long-running US current affairs and documentary programme, approached Brandon Gill, a Republican congressman from Texas, in a Capitol Hill hallway. According to video of the exchange that circulated online, she tried to ask him about deaths of detainees in US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody, saying that more than 50 people had died in ICE custody since President Donald Trump took office.

Mr Gill did not answer the question. Instead, he asked who she was and whom she worked for. Ms Del Toro gave her name and said she worked for a programme called Fault Lines. As the congressman continued to press her, she asked whether he was "buying time." After roughly 30 seconds, she said the programme airs on Al Jazeera English. Mr Gill then declined the interview, saying he had no desire to talk to Al Jazeera, told the crew to "get lost," and walked away.

The exchange was reported mainly by conservative US outlets, several of which framed it as the reporter concealing her employer. The footage shows that she named her programme but did not name the network until pressed. None of the reports reviewed for this article included a response from Ms Del Toro or Al Jazeera.

Al Jazeera is funded by the government of Qatar. Critics, including some US lawmakers, argue that this makes it a vehicle for Qatari foreign policy. The network rejects that characterisation and says it is editorially independent.

Analysis: The incident shows how an organisation's reputation can become an obstacle to reporters seeking access to officials, whatever the substance of the question being asked. For Al Jazeera, this scrutiny sits alongside a long history of disputes with governments in the region, most prominently Egypt.

The Egypt case

On 29 December 2013, months after Egypt's military removed President Mohamed Morsi, Egyptian authorities arrested three Al Jazeera English journalists in Cairo: Australian Peter Greste, Canadian-Egyptian Mohamed Fahmy and Egyptian Baher Mohamed. Prosecutors accused them of broadcasting false news and aiding the Muslim Brotherhood, which Egypt had outlawed. Al Jazeera denied the accusations and said its staff were doing their jobs.

In June 2014, the three were convicted. Greste and Fahmy were sentenced to seven years and Mohamed to ten. Several other Al Jazeera journalists were sentenced in absentia. Egypt's Court of Cassation later overturned the verdicts, citing violations of the defendants' rights, and ordered a retrial. Greste was deported to Australia in February 2015, while Fahmy and Mohamed were released on bail. In August 2015, the retrial court again convicted all three. Fahmy and Greste received three years, and Mohamed received three and a half years. On 23 September 2015, President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi pardoned Fahmy and Mohamed. Greste, who had already left the country, was not included in the pardon.

Press freedom and human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, condemned the prosecutions, and Fahmy's lawyer, Amal Clooney, described the proceedings as a show trial. President al-Sisi said he wished the journalists had been deported from the outset rather than put on trial.

Fahmy's lawsuit against Al Jazeera

In May 2015, while his retrial was under way, Fahmy announced a lawsuit against Al Jazeera in Canada. He sought more than C$100m in damages and alleged that the network had been negligent and had endangered its journalists in Egypt. Al Jazeera rejected the claims.

In 2017, The New York Times reported that Fahmy had received a $250,000 loan from Yousef al-Otaiba, the United Arab Emirates' ambassador to the United States, to cover his legal campaign against the network. The UAE is a regional rival of Qatar. Fahmy disputed the characterisation, saying the money had gone to a third party he declined to name and describing the reporting as libellous. Al Jazeera said he had initially denied receiving UAE funding and later admitted it.

In February 2020, Fahmy dropped the lawsuit. According to Al Jazeera, he withdrew before he was due to be cross-examined and agreed not to bring further claims against the network. Fahmy told Press Gazette that he dropped the case for financial reasons.

Al Jazeera's arbitration claim against Egypt

Al Jazeera also pursued Egypt through international arbitration. In 2016, it filed a claim at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), the World Bank's arbitration body, under the 1999 bilateral investment treaty between Egypt and Qatar. The claim was valued at about $150m. The network alleged that Egyptian authorities had closed its offices, suspended the licence of its Egyptian channel, Mubasher Misr, and targeted its staff. Egypt, represented by its State Lawsuits Authority, contested the case.

The arbitration is no longer pending. On 25 November 2024, the tribunal issued an order noting the discontinuance of the proceedings. Global Arbitration Review reported that the claim had been quietly settled. The terms have not been made public. The settlement followed a broader thaw in relations between Egypt and Qatar after the Gulf diplomatic rift ended in 2021. That year, Egypt's foreign minister appeared on Al Jazeera after years in which Egyptian officials had boycotted the channel.

Analysis: Taken together, these episodes show why Al Jazeera remains a subject of political debate. The network has been at the centre of disputes involving governments, courts and regional rivalries, and its journalists have at times paid a personal price. For reporters in the field, as the Capitol Hill exchange suggests, the network's name can shape an encounter before the substance of a question is addressed.