On August 26, 2025, a diplomatic incident erupted in Beirut when Tom Barrack, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey and special envoy for Syria, used the word "animalistic" to describe the behavior of reporters during a tense press conference at Lebanon’s presidential palace. The fallout was immediate and intense, sparking outrage from Lebanese journalists, a formal demand for an apology, and official statements of regret from the Lebanese government. Days later, Barrack publicly apologized, admitting his words were inappropriate and acknowledging the vital role of the press.
Barrack, a longtime friend and political ally of former President Donald Trump, was in Lebanon with a U.S. delegation to discuss the Lebanese government’s efforts to disarm Hezbollah and the implementation of a ceasefire agreement that had ended the most recent Israel-Hezbollah conflict in November 2024. The stakes were high, and the atmosphere in Beirut was already charged due to ongoing disputes over the disarmament process and recent military actions in southern Lebanon.
The trouble began almost as soon as Barrack entered the room. According to Associated Press, he initially began speaking from a different spot in the hall, prompting a chorus of journalists to call out, urging him to take the podium. The scene quickly grew chaotic, with reporters shouting questions and demanding clarity. Frustrated, Barrack took the podium and attempted to restore order.
“Behave in a civilized manner, be polite and tolerant,” Barrack admonished the crowd, as reported by AP. He then issued a warning that would ignite the controversy: “The moment this starts to become chaotic, like an animal, we leave.” In other accounts, including Daily Mail and Hurriyet, Barrack used the word “animalistic,” telling reporters, “The moment this starts becoming chaotic, like animalistic, we’re gone.”
The response was swift. The Lebanese Journalists’ Union and the press syndicate condemned Barrack’s language, demanding a formal apology and threatening to boycott any future visits if he did not comply. The presidential palace issued a statement expressing regret for the “words that were mistakenly said by one of its guests on stage today,” and emphasized its “full appreciation for all journalists and media representatives.”
Media figures and observers across Lebanon and abroad weighed in. Zahera Harb, a senior journalism lecturer at City, University of London, told Al Jazeera, “I can’t believe he said those words… There’s an outrage among many of the Lebanese journalists right now.” The sense of insult was compounded by the context: journalists were simply doing their jobs, covering a high-stakes diplomatic event in a country where press freedom is both cherished and contested.
Amid mounting backlash, Barrack took to the airwaves to explain and apologize. In an interview with media personality Mario Nawfal, excerpts of which were widely shared on social media and reported by outlets such as Hurriyet, BBC, and Daily Mail, Barrack sought to clarify his intent. “Animalistic was a word that I didn’t use in a derogatory manner,” he said. “I was just saying: ‘Can we calm down? Can we find some tolerance and kindness? Let’s be civilized.’ But it was inappropriate to do when the media was just doing their job.”
Barrack went further, admitting personal fault. “I should have been more generous with my time and more tolerant myself,” he stated. “If I had to do it all over again, I wouldn’t have used those words.” The apology, while welcomed by some, was met with skepticism by others who felt the initial remark reflected deeper tensions between visiting diplomats and the local press.
This diplomatic gaffe unfolded against a backdrop of regional volatility. Barrack’s visit coincided with renewed violence in southern Lebanon. On August 29, the Israeli army launched airstrikes targeting what it described as “terrorist infrastructure and a rocket platform” belonging to Hezbollah. That same day, the Lebanese army reported that two soldiers were killed while investigating an Israeli drone that had crashed and then exploded in the Naqoura area near the southern coast. The ceasefire brokered in November 2024 remained fragile, and the question of how, when, and if Hezbollah would disarm continued to divide Lebanese society and its political factions.
Barrack’s personal and professional history added further intrigue to the incident. As Daily Mail noted, he is not only a seasoned diplomat but also a prominent Los Angeles-based investor who chaired Trump’s inaugural committee, raising $107 million for the post-election celebrations. In 2021, Barrack faced charges in the United States for allegedly acting as an unregistered agent for the United Arab Emirates while advising Trump. However, a New York jury acquitted him of all charges in late 2022.
While Barrack’s apology may have quelled some of the immediate anger, the episode highlighted the delicate balance foreign diplomats must strike when engaging with local media—especially in countries where the press is both vocal and vigilant. The incident also underscored the sensitivity of language in diplomatic settings, where a single word can inflame tensions or derail carefully orchestrated negotiations.
The Lebanese press, for its part, emerged from the controversy with its reputation for assertiveness intact. The journalists’ insistence on an apology and their readiness to boycott a senior U.S. official sent a clear message: respect for the press is non-negotiable, no matter how powerful the guest or how fraught the circumstances.
As U.S. efforts to support Lebanese stability and encourage the disarmament of Hezbollah continue, the Barrack incident will likely serve as a cautionary tale for diplomats everywhere. Words matter, especially when spoken under the glare of the cameras, and even the best intentions can go awry if not matched by sensitivity and respect for the local context.
For now, Barrack’s admission of error and public apology have closed one chapter of this diplomatic drama, but the broader questions of press freedom, regional security, and the role of foreign envoys in Lebanon remain as urgent and contested as ever.
