Here's my contention:

>>On May 21 the Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister says that Trump deserves kudos for trying to unite people of faith, including Muslims.
>>Go ahead and find the Washington Post's version of this.
>>QED.

Your response is a couple of MSM efforts that don't mention the Foreign Minister, preferring an "every silver lining has a cloud" approach focused on Iranian disapproval (after Trump claimed that Iran has fueled the fires of sectarian conflict and terror) and such gems as "Trump’s own previously strident anti-Muslim rhetoric," skepticism about Saudi Arabia's own attitudes and an Iraqi soldier who complained that Trump should have given his speech in Iraq.

But what about the Saudi Foreign Minister's reaction which ought to be a primary interest after a visit to - Saudi Arabia? Where can I find that?

There you have it. You stated "for this discussion, I care about what the president says and what kind of reaction it prompts both here and in the rest of the world." Your own citations confirm that Trump visited a wealthy Muslim ally whose senior politician praised Trump for trying to unite people of all faiths, but the US MSM comes up with lots of other sourness opposite to what the Saudi said.

Update - and now CNN joins the fun, reporting that the Brits worry that another attack may be imminent before bringing on Democrat Senator Chris Murphy to fret that Trump's rhetoric may provoke a similar attack in the US.

What rhetoric is that again, and if we're to be scientists, consider that the Manchester bomber came from an unassimilated family, living in an area with a high immigrant population that has had issues before, including 2 girls traveling to Syria in 2015 to join ISIS (with turned out sadly and badly for them) and several others convicted of terrorist activity. Are we really to postulate that Trump's words are what provokes these sorts of conditions? How is he doing that again- or does it even matter, as long as there's at least one slap at him every day?