

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Netanyahu not only has unleashed vicious crimes onto Palestinians, but he failed his own people."
As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu returned to Israel after using his United Nations speech "to repeat baseless lies meant to sanitize his genocide of Palestinians" in the Gaza Strip, The New York Times on Friday corroborated Haaretz's recent reporting that the Israeli leader was warned about the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack that resulted in the war.
Haaretz reported earlier this month that during a September 2023 phone call, United Arab Emirates President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan told Netanyahu about now-deceased Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar's plans "for a major event" targeting Israel.
Netanyahu not only denied receiving that notice but also sent a "warning letter," threatening to file a libel lawsuit against the Israeli newspaper and journalists Shlomi Eldar and Ruth Yuval. In response, Haaretz said that it stood by their work.
A trio of Times journalists backed up that exposé on Friday, reporting that "a person who said they had spoken with Sheikh Mohammed and another person who said they had been briefed by someone on the call between the two leaders told The New York Times that the Emirati leader had secretly reported to Mr. Netanyahu that Hamas was considering a major attack."
"The warning from the Emirati leader, however, never reached the leaders of Israel's security establishment, according to five former senior Israeli officials. Mr. Netanyahu gathered his security chiefs days later, on October 1, 2023, for a meeting about the situation in the Gaza Strip, and never mentioned the warning," reported the US-based paper, which reviewed meeting minutes.
The minutes show that Netanyahu "pushed back when some security officials said that Israel should consider military strikes against senior Hamas leaders in Gaza who were overseeing attacks against Israelis in the West Bank," and suggested such action "might sabotage the prospect of Saudi Arabia establishing diplomatic relations with Israel," according to the Times.
While the Emirati foreign ministry and Netanyahu's office did not respond to the Times' requests for comment, the paper also revealed that months after the reported September 2023 phone call, the UAE's president told then-Central Intelligence Agency Director William Burns that "he had spoken to Mr. Netanyahu about a looming threat of violence in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip carried out by Hamas," according to someone familiar with that discussion. The paper's sources were granted anonymity.
The Times' reporting came just days after an Emirati source commented on the Haaretz article. As the Israeli paper detailed:
"UAE discusses security matters with other countries through the relevant entities, and does not discuss such details at the level of national leaders," the source told UAE state-owned newspaper The National. He did not deny that the two leaders spoke, nor did he refute Haaretz's report.
In 2024, the Financial Times reported that The National is owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the UAE's vice president and the president's brother. It also reported that the site aligns with the government's position and practices self-censorship on issues deemed sensitive or problematic by the authorities.
Noting that Netanyahu reportedly declined to pass the warning along to his intelligence agencies, investigative journalist Eli Clifton, a co-founder and senior adviser at the US-based Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, asked: "Why? Did he welcome the attack as an opportunity to wage war?"
Mehdi Hasan, who founded the outlet Zeteo, similarly wrote "wonder why" on social media.
Journalist Zaid Jilani declared that "Netanyahu not only has unleashed vicious crimes onto Palestinians, but he failed his own people."
Israel's next parliamentary elections are scheduled for October 27.
Ryan Bohl, a senior Middle East and North Africa analyst at risk intelligence firm RANE, said that it is "as close to an October surprise as one gets in Israel. If I was a betting man, I'd be betting against Netanyahu being next PM."
Reminder that the Trump administration is trying to destroy the ICC in order to protect this man.www.nytimes.com/2026/09/25/w...
[image or embed]
— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) September 25, 2026 at 1:02 PM
In a series of decisions seen as signs that Netanyahu and his allies are worried about holding on to power, Israel's Central Elections Committee—which is chaired by a Supreme Court justice but dominated by members of the Knesset's governing coalition—just disqualified all Arab-majority political parties and multiple candidates, while rejecting similar petitions for right-wing parties.
Israel's Supreme Court is set to review those decisions next week, and may overturn some or all of them before the elections.
While Netanyahu's allies on the committee tried to bar potential challengers from running, the prime minister briefly traveled to New York City to speak at the UN General Assembly—despite being the subject of a 2024 International Criminal Court arrest warrant issued over Israel's decimation of Gaza, which human rights groups and scholars have denounced as genocide.
As Netanyahu claimed in his speech that "Israel didn't commit genocide," but rather "prevented genocide," at least hundreds of protesters filled New York's streets and argued that the Israeli leader "needs to be tried in The Hague."
"Trump is pulling DHS agents from human trafficking and terrorism cases to chase his made-up voter fraud conspiracies," said one congressman.
The New York Times' Wednesday reporting on a US Department of Homeland Security "blitz to find elusive voter fraud" by noncitizens is heightening fears that President Donald Trump will try to meddle in the country's midterm elections, which are just over two months away.
The newspaper revealed that as part of a "hunt for noncitizens among the nation's registered voters" internally called the Unlawful Voter Initiative, hundreds of DHS agents "are scouring voter rolls managed by the states, and are using personally identifiable information about individual voters, such as their dates of birth and partial Social Security numbers, to look them up on those rolls."
"In some cases, investigators are effectively posing as individual voters by plugging their names and personal information into public-facing websites run by the top election official in each state. Some of these sites declare they are meant for individual use, potentially raising privacy concerns," according to the Times, which reviewed related documents and training videos.
While DHS said in a statement that it "is committed to ensuring that only US citizens vote in US elections," and Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin "have made the integrity and security of our elections a top priority," the newspaper noted the "absence of evidence of widespread fraud," and that the department "is pulling agents from their normal duties, which include investigating such serious crimes as human trafficking and terrorism."
Trump infamously refused to accept his 2020 loss, launching various unsuccessful legal battles and even motivating some of his supporters to storm the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. Since returning to power last year, the president has imposed a mass detention and deportation campaign that has killed both immigrants and US citizens while pushing various policies that critics warn are intended to limit legitimate participation in elections, from photo identification requirements to restrictions on voting by mail.
Sharing the reporting on social media Wednesday, American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick wrote: "In other words, hundreds of federal agents are being diverted away from their jobs going after serious criminals and instead told to find needles in a haystack—all to find evidence for Trump's predetermined conclusions. It's a great time to be a criminal in Trump's America."
Democrats on the US House of Representatives' Homeland Security Committee similarly declared that "instead of hunting terrorists and human traffickers, DHS is pulling agents away to investigate a conspiracy theory that has been debunked year after year."
A member of the panel, Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.), also stressed that "Trump is pulling DHS agents from human trafficking and terrorism cases to chase his made-up voter fraud conspiracies."
"Even the conservative Heritage Foundation's data shows noncitizen voting is vanishingly rare," he highlighted, referring to the right-wing think tank's database that identifies around 100 cases of noncitizen voting since 2000.
Walkinshaw warned that "Trump is laying the groundwork for election meddling in November."
Daniel Delgado, who served as deputy assistant secretary for immigration policy at DHS during the Biden administration, emphasized that "every agent that's being forced into this witch hunt means one less agent working on critical missions like curbing the flow of fentanyl into the country, or stopping human trafficking and combating terrorism, etc. The administration is deliberately making America less safe."
Cynthia Travieso, executive vice president of state campaigns and programs at the nonprofit All Voting Is Local, ripped the "McCarthy-era-like hunt" as "a waste of resources and a desperate and pathetic attempt to control elections by scapegoating immigrants and spreading lies which can keep specific groups from voting, including Black, Brown, and new Americans."
Travieso continued:
This move by DHS to pull agents that investigate "such serious crimes as human trafficking and terrorism" is based on false claims and debunked conspiracy theories that put thousands of American voters at risk of losing their voter eligibility. Equally outrageous is that the effort also risks potential privacy breaches due to the unclear use of driver's license data, birth dates, and Social Security numbers. It's especially ironic that President Trump’s DHS is expanding its immigrant voter hunt at the same time as the US Postal Service's purported effort to sabotage vote-by-mail, which would harm naturalized citizens who vote by mail at a rate of nearly 8 percentage points higher than native-born citizens. This is part of the blueprint that demonstrates how badly the White House administration wants to control our elections.
States run elections, not the president and not DHS. State election officials have checks and balances in place to verify an individual's voter eligibility and keep voter rolls accurate, and they work incredibly hard to ensure that every eligible voter can vote and that every vote is counted.
Instead of fueling election conspiracy lies, the Trump administration should focus on protecting voters from barriers to the ballot. Any efforts otherwise are a desperate attempt to undermine the will of the people and sow confusion and distrust. We won't let them gaslight us.
Separately on Wednesday, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA) filed a lawsuit against DHS, Mullin, and US Attorney General Todd Blanche, accusing them of illegally targeting citizens who were not born in the United States to prevent them from lawfully voting.
"Naturalized citizens are Americans," CHIRLA executive director Angelica Salas said at a news conference in Los Angeles, according to Spectrum News. "They took the oath. They earned their citizenship, and they have the same rights as every other American citizen."
"Everyone in the chain of command who authorized this should be charged with murder."
Outrage over another apparent US war crime against Iranian civilians continued to grow over the weekend following New York Times reporting that the United States appears to have dropped a 2,000-pound bomb on a family home in a densely populated neighborhood of Qeshm Island in the Strait of Hormuz.
The newspaper spoke with weapons experts who analyzed photos, videos, and satellite imagery of the strike—which, according to Iranian officials, killed taxi driver Qeysar Jafari, his wife Zahra Jafari, and their 2-year-old son Sina, and hospitalized their two surviving children, Mohammad Reza and Mehdi.
While a spokesperson for US Central Command told the Times it is "looking into" reports that the family members were killed in the strike overnight Thursday and "the US military never targets civilians," Stanford University law professor Tom Dannenbaum outlined the United States' legal obligations.
"The attacking force must take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm, including in its selection of munitions, times of attack and, whenever circumstances allow, by issuing effective advance warnings," he said. Using a Mark-84 bomb in a crowded area "is very difficult to reconcile with" that.
Some readers and critics of the war highlighted Dannenbaum's comments while sharing the report on social media.
Former longtime Human Rights Watch leader Kenneth Roth similarly said: "Why did the US military drop a huge 2,000-pound bomb in a densely populated residential area in Iran? It is very hard to reconcile that use with the legal requirement to avoid disproportionate harm to civilians."
Journalist Rania Khalek denounced the attack as "barbaric savagery by soulless ghouls," while Nader Hashemi, director of the Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, condemned it "a clear WAR CRIME."
Responding to Hashemi, Barbara Slavin, a George Washington University lecturer and Stimson Center distinguished fellow, said that "we are becoming more like Israel every day."
Trita Parsi, co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, explained that "for years, Israel was using [2,000-pound] American bombs to kill Gazan refugees in tents. Both the Biden and Trump administrations permitted it. A precedent was set. Now it appears the US is doing the same in Iran."
"A [2,000-pound] bomb was dropped on a family house in Qeshm, killing a taxi driver (the father), the mother, and a 2-year-old, according to The New York Times," he continued. "Yes, a taxi driver. And a toddler. And his mother. "The Times found no indication of a military site near the family's home or any reports of military casualties from the strike."
Cory Archibald, co-founder of Track AIPAC, which documents spending by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and related groups, stressed to people in the US, "That's what our government spends money on instead of giving you healthcare."
Leftist US political commentator Kyle Kulinski was among those demanding consequences for whoever carried out the deadly attack, declaring: "Pure terrorism. These people need to be in prison for life."
Saikat Chakrabarti, a Democrat who recently ran for Congress in California, agreed, saying that "everyone in the chain of command who authorized this should be charged with murder."
Since President Donald Trump and Israel began bombing Iran in late February, other apparent war crimes have included attacks on civilian infrastructure such as a water desalination plant, strikes that forced children to evacuate a hospital, and the destruction of a school in Minab that killed over 100 people.
Trump claimed late Saturday that he halted planned strikes on Iran due to progress in negotiations to end the illegal conflict. Appearing on CNN after the announcement, Parsi said that "I don't believe there was an imminent attack. We've gone through this several times, in which Trump issues these threats, and then he backs off because the other side calls his bluff."
"We are pleased that the government finally conceded that the subpoenas violated the law, but they should never have been issued in the first place," said an attorney representing The New York Times.
The US Department of Justice on Thursday withdrew its subpoenas of New York Times reporters that were heavily criticized by free press advocates.
According to the Times, Deputy US Attorney Sean Buckley told US District Judge Arun Subramanian that "the government is prepared to unilaterally withdraw the subpoenas," which were issued earlier this month shortly after the paper published a story detailing security concerns about the luxury jet the Qatari government gave to President Donald Trump.
All Rise News reported that Buckley also told the court that the DOJ made a "mistake" when it issued subpoenas to phone companies for subscriber information and toll records for phone numbers used by one reporter’s mother and by two reporters’ spouses.
“That was an error,” Buckley said of the subpoenas related to reporters' family members. “It was a consequence of trying to move quickly.”
Eric Lipton, one of the Times journalists who had been subpoenaed, wrote in a social media post that he was "glad to hear" the government's decision to back down.
"Enormous thank you to the entire NYT legal team and outside counsel that has worked with such clarity and determination to challenge this," Lipton added, "from the moment we first heard FBI agents were starting to show up at our houses."
David McCraw, the top attorney representing the Times’ newsroom, called the DOJ's decision "an important affirmation of our country’s commitment to a free press."
"We are pleased that the government finally conceded that the subpoenas violated the law, but they should never have been issued in the first place," McCraw added. "The Times and our journalists will continue to report and seek the truth without fear or favor. We will not be deterred in the face of tactics like these."
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press celebrated the DOJ's subpoena withdrawal, while crediting Subramanian for pointed questioning of government lawyers.
"Targeting reporters to appease the White House has reached a dead end once again in the federal courts," the group said. "Judge Subramanian saw DOJ’s effort clearly for what it was: a brazen and careless government overreach."
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression described the DOJ decision as a "welcome reversal," but warned that the dangers posed to the First Amendment by the Trump DOJ were not over.
"Withdrawing the subpoenas does not erase the chilling effect of issuing them in the first place, and the DOJ should not reissue them," the group said. "Journalists should not have to choose between protecting confidential sources and facing government threats. A free press depends on reporters being able to pursue the truth, and on sources being able to share information the public has a right to know."
John Schwartz, professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Journalism and Media, said there was a practical lesson to be learned from how the Times handled the Trump administration's efforts to force its reporters into court.
"Fight and you win," wrote Schwartz. "Always punch the bullies in the nose."
"This brazen act should be seen as nothing more than an attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is happening in their country by intimidating journalists from doing their jobs."
The Trump administration on Friday escalated its war with the press by subpoenaing several reporters at The New York Times days after the paper published a story on Wednesday that detailed security concerns about the luxury jet the Qatari government gave to President Donald Trump.
According to the Times, the subpoenas are attempting to force reporters to testify before a federal grand jury in Manhattan on Wednesday next week, a move that the paper describes as an "extraordinary escalation in President Trump’s efforts to threaten and intimidate independent news organizations."
The issued subpoenas do not specifically name the Times' reporting on the Qatari jet as the reason for the grand jury probe, although they were given to all four journalists—Tyler Pager, Julian Barnes, Eric Schmitt, and Eric Lipton—who reported the story.
Additionally, the Times noted, a senior official at the FBI had asked the paper to hold off publishing its story on the jet before it came out on Wednesday, citing unspecified national security concerns about its content.
David McCraw, the top attorney representing the Times' newsroom, denounced the subpoenas as an attack on the freedom of the press.
"The appearance of federal law enforcement agents on the doorstep of news reporters should shock the conscience of any American who believes in the Constitution and the press freedom it protects," said McGraw. “This brazen act should be seen as nothing more than an attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is happening in their country by intimidating journalists from doing their jobs."
It is highly uncommon for government investigators to subpoena journalists when they are probing national security leaks, as such actions are generally seen as having a chilling effect on reporters’ ability to gather information.
Rick Stengel, former under secretary of state for President Barack Obama, said that the Times' reporting on the Qatari jet, whose security upgrades are being financed with US tax dollars, is completely within the scope of constitutional protections for press freedom.
"The reporting that the Times journalists have been subpoenaed for is exactly the kind of journalism the First Amendment is designed to protect: matters involving national security and taxpayer dollars," wrote Stengel in a Saturday social media post. "Reporting that embarrasses a president is protected speech."
Fox News chief national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin also denounced the Trump administration for trying to drag reporters into a grand jury investigation.
"This action by the US government to subpoena reporters for reporting legitimate news on security concerns about Air Force One should alarm every American," Griffin wrote.
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, accused the Trump administration of abusing government power not to defend national security, but to protect the president from personal humiliation.
"We've long said that when the government claims it needs to investigate journalists to protect national security, it really means its own reputational security," said Stern. "This is as clear an example as you can get. The administration's embarrassment that it reportedly charged taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to retrofit a flying bribe that still isn't secure enough for hostile times does not supersede the need for a free and independent press."
This is the second time in recent weeks that the Trump administration has tried to subpoena reporters to compel their testimony in grand jury investigations.
In June, the US Department of Justice issued subpoenas for national security reporters at The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal related to national security leaks.
Subpoenas against both news organizations were withdrawn after they issued legal challenges in sealed filings.
While Israel said the claims amount to "blood libel," a spokesperson for the UN Human Rights Office said, "torture and ill-treatment, including sexual and gender-based violence, are systematically perpetrated against Palestinian prisoners."
As Israel attempts to discredit New York Times reporting published last week that detailed systematic sexual abuse of Palestinian prisoners by Israeli forces, the United Nations Human Rights Office over the weekend called for an independent probe into what a spokesperson characterized as well-documented mistreatment.
"Torture and ill-treatment, including sexual and gender-based violence, are systematically perpetrated against Palestinian prisoners under Israeli custody. This includes numerous cases of rape, involving children," said Thameen Al-Kheetan, a spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on Saturday, in response to questions from the Anadolu Agency.
Al-Kheetan added that the human rights office had confirmed the deaths of at least 90 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli custody since October 7, 2023, including a 17-year-old who showed signs of starvation at the time of death.
Israel has announced that it will sue the Times for the report by opinion columnist Nicholas Kristof, which included testimony from 14 Palestinians who said they faced sexual assaults in Israeli custody or during attacks by the Israeli military or settlers. Threatening legal action, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other government officials described the reporting as “blood libel.”
But Al-Kheetan said the OHCHR had “systematically documented the practice of torture and ill-treatment, including sexual and gender-based violence, against Palestinian detainees in Israeli prisons."
Reports from other human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Israeli group B'Tselem, have included similar testimonies in which Palestinian former detainees say they've experienced or witnessed sexual violence while in custody.
Al-Kheetan added that it was part of a “flawed Israeli detention and justice system,” which includes arbitrary detention, unfair trials, and violations of international law. "This system must end, and Israel, as an occupying power, must respect international human rights law and its obligations," he said.
While rejecting allegations of systemic abuse, Israel has denied requests by the UN and other agencies for access to its detention facilities. Last year, Israel refused a request from the UN to investigate possible sex crimes committed by Hamas militants against Israelis on October 7, 2023, because it would have also involved a probe into its own treatment of Palestinian detainees.
Al-Kheetan said, "independent, impartial, and transparent investigations must be conducted into every death, torture, ill-treatment, and other case of inhuman or degrading treatment, and those responsible must be held accountable."
"I get a chuckle out of the fact that a lot of folks in this political system who come from incredible amounts of privilege and wealth are the first ones to be like, 'Are you really working class?'"
In an extensive New York Times profile and interview published Friday and Saturday, the newspaper dug into what it called US Senate candidate Graham Platner's "complex class story" and asked how he can consider himself part of the "working class" considering his relatively privileged background.
The presumptive Democratic Maine candidate scoffed at the line of questioning as he pointed to the wide gap between his financial situation and that of people who have questioned his authenticity—as well as that of his opponent, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).
"I get a chuckle out of the fact that a lot of folks in this political system who come from incredible amounts of privilege and wealth are the first ones to be like, 'Are you really working class? You’re just out there not making a lot of money and working on the ocean, but your dad was a small-town attorney,'" Platner told Lulu Garcia-Navarro, host of the Times' podcast The Interview. "Does that mean that you can’t actually represent working people?"
As the Times reported Friday, Platner is "the son of a Dartmouth College-educated lawyer, the grandson of a famed Connecticut architect, and a graduate of a private high school," with a mother who owns an "upscale restaurant." His family and his in-laws contributed financial help when Platner and his wife purchased their home and when they pursued in-vitro fertilization in Norway, having found the treatment unaffordable under the United States' for-profit healthcare system.
Platner, who is a first-time political candidate and a Marine combat veteran, owns an oyster farm, and according to his financial disclosure forms, the Times reported, "The bulk of his income appears to come from the nearly $60,000 in tax-free disability benefits he qualifies for each year after serving four combat tours."
The Times noted that both Republicans and Democrats who had supported Platner's primary opponent, Gov. Janet Mills, have attacked him over his background and suggested he is wealthier than he lets on.
One Mills supporter, former Maine Democratic Party chair and corporate lobbyist Tony Buxton, was quoted as saying, “This is not a salt-of-the-earth guy coming up from a hardscrabble existence." Buxton is with the firm Preti Flaherty, which represents a company that aims to build a data center in Maine; Platner supports a nationwide moratorium on artificial intelligence data centers.
Contrary to Buxton's remarks, according to financial disclosures, Platner would be the fifth-least wealthy US senator should he be elected in November. His and his wife's combined net worth is below $100,000.
Ryan Grim, co-founder of Drop Site News, wondered whether the Times would ever send "three reporters to report on the kind of life Susan Collins has lived versus Graham Platner the last 20 years."
"Tally the private planes, very nice restaurants, millions in wealth accumulation, and stack them next to each other and compare," he suggested. "That would be balanced."
According to Collins' financial disclosures, the five-term Republican senator's current net worth is $9.6 million, with up to $1.8 million directly in the bank last year. More than $342,000 of her wealth comes from interest and dividends from one of the best-performing stock portfolios in the Senate—a portfolio that is in her husband's name, a spokesperson told the Times.
Collins has opposed a ban on stock trading for members of Congress and their spouses.
The senator's financial disclosures also show that the $4.8 million she holds in corporate stocks include Amazon, United Health, and Visa—a company that would directly benefit from Collins' vote this past week against protecting consumers from overdraft fees.
“You could make $25 million a year in this country, you’re way closer to any of the billionaires."
While the National Republican Senatorial Committee's (NRSC) recently asserted that Platner is an "out-of-touch rich kid," the Democrat's campaign told the Times that his Republican opponent is "ultra wealthy."
"I don't think you could come up with a better avatar for the long-serving, self-enriching establishment politician than Susan Collins, who raises an immense amount of money outside of the state of Maine," he told Garcia-Navarro. "She takes an immense amount of money from [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee]. She takes an immense amount of money from special interest groups and fossil fuel companies, and she has a very high-performing stock portfolio. I think a lot of people look at that in Maine and say, 'I don't think that that is actually the politics I want representing me."
Despite the NRSC's attack on Platner as a "rich kid," polls and data suggest that many of the 41-year-old candidate's peers can relate to his personal financial background, with millennials reporting in numerous surveys that their lives are more financially precarious than their parents' were at their age, due to rising costs and debt.
“It’s a lot harder for young people today to save up for markers of the American Dream than it was for previous generations,” Joanne Hsu, director of the University of Michigan’s Surveys of Consumers, told CNBC last year.
According to the Times and his detractors in the political establishment, wrote Maine-based writer Andy O'Brien, "Graham is this privileged rich kid, but he needs help paying for healthcare and housing. How is that not relatable?"
"I’ve been to a number of Platner’s town halls and one of the most common themes are older Mainers talking about the lack of economic opportunities for their adult children and grandchildren," O'Brien wrote. "Many of these young people are still living at home, even though they have jobs, because they can’t afford to rent or buy a home in Maine. Many of them struggle without affordable healthcare and childcare to allow them to work. At a recent town hall in Appleton, a local teacher told Platner that she had been teaching for 30 years in the area and still had $100,000 in student loan debt that kept compounding interest."
The Times reporters appeared taken aback by Platner's definition of "working class," one that the newspaper called "an expansive interpretation."
“My definition of working class these days is essentially anybody who makes money from wages,” he told the Times. “If you work for a living and you go out and put in hours and you pay taxes just like everyone else, I think that’s quite fair.”
He alluded to his exchange with the reporters in a conversation with The Lever's David Sirota before the articles came out.
While his grandfather was a successful architect, he suggested, the family's financial prosperity hasn't been carried down through subsequent generations.
"My mom is still working because she has no money," he said. "And we're trying to figure out, quite frankly, if she can't sell her restaurant, she's got no retirement. My wife and I, we're not broke, but there's no money at the end of the month."
"You could make $25 million a year in this country, you are way closer to somebody living in poverty than any of the billionaires," he told Sirota. "And these New York Times reporters were like, 'Well, that's a really expansive vision of 'working class.' I'm like, 'You know what else is expansive? Wealth inequality.' Because all of us don't own anything, and a couple people own damn near everything."
Asked whether he’s “really working class,” @grahamformaine had a blunt response:
“Well they’re fucking not.”
In a new Lever Time interview, Platner argues America’s class divide isn’t about who has the perfect résumé — it’s about who works for a living, and who lives off… pic.twitter.com/L2hgrIW6Qy
— The Lever (@LeverNews) May 13, 2026
To Garcia-Navarro, he said: "You are working class if you make your money from work and wages. The world of wealth disparity has become so intense that there are just so many people now who are sitting on so much money who do not work. They make money off their investments. They make money off their wealth."
"I know it’s an expansive definition of 'working class,'" he added, "but I think you need to have an expansive definition when we have the most expansive margin of wealth inequality in the history of the country."
"No American should be comfortable with the president of the United States accusing a reporter of treason for critical reporting."
President Donald Trump on Friday sparked alarm among press freedom advocates when he accused New York Times reported David Sanger of committing "treason" for portraying his illegal war with Iran in a negative light.
Speaking with journalists aboard Air Force One on his flight home from China, Trump was asked by Sanger about his failure to accomplish political changes in Iran that he swore to achieve when he launched the war without congressional authorization in late February.
"I had a total military victory," Trump replied. "But the fake news, guys like you, write incorrectly. You're a fake guy, and guys like you write incorrectly. We had a total military victory. We knocked out their entire navy, we knocked out their entire air force, we knocked out all their anti-aircraft weaponry."
Trump to NYT's David Sanger: "I had a total military victory. But the fake news, guys like you, write incorrectly. You're a fake guy. We had a total military victory. I actually think it's sort of treasonous what you write. You should be ashamed of yourself. I actually think it's… pic.twitter.com/QK421YHKtq
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 15, 2026
Despite this purported "total victory," however, Iran still controls the Strait of Hormuz and has prevented commercial vessels from traveling through it for the last two months.
After attacking the Times' reporting about the Iran War, the president pivoted to impugning Sanger's patriotism.
"I actually think it's sort of treasonous what you write," the president said. "You and The New York Times, and CNN, I would say, are the worst... You should be ashamed of yourself. I actually think it's treason."
The Times on Tuesday reported that the Trump administration’s “public portrayal of a shattered Iranian military is sharply at odds with what US intelligence agencies are telling policymakers behind closed doors, according to classified assessments from early this month that show Iran has regained access to most of its missile sites, launchers, and underground facilities.”
Hours after the president's tirade against Sanger—which echoed Trump's previous remarks about media coverage of the war—New York Times spokesperson Charlie Stadtlander released a statement defending its reporting on the Iran war.
"Reporting isn't treason," Stadtlander said. "It's foundational to a free press and the work that America's founders wrote the First Amendment to protect. That includes making clear when the claims of government officials and the reality of their actions don't line up... We will continue this important, constitutionally protected work."
Trump's treason accusation also drew a rebuke from Will Creeley, legal director of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, who said that "no American should be comfortable with the president of the United States accusing a reporter of treason for critical reporting."
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof argued that Trump's attack on Sanger was really a sign of weakness given the failures of his military campaign against Iran.
"President Trump unloading on David Sander reflects a combination of anxiety, insecurity, and desperation about the Iran War," Kristof wrote. "David is the dean of national security reporters: experienced, meticulous, and fair. Blaming the messenger underscores that the reality itself is pretty bad."
Kristof's sentiment was echoed by former ABC News journalist Terry Moran, who wrote that he can't "understand how anyone can see Trump here and not see weakness."
Former Republican Illinois Congressman Joe Walsh said Trump's interaction with Sanger exposed him as "the biggest fucking crybaby in all of human history."
To be fair, Friedman didn’t last this long by not knowing just how stupid you’ve got to talk nowadays if you want to stand out for stupid during the second Trump administration.
Perhaps I haven’t up kept as well as I should, but I can’t recall New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman coming out with such a spectacularly bad idea for some time now. But he’s certainly broken that streak—if ever streak it was‚ with his article, "NATO, Please Help. Trump Has No Strategy for Iran," in which he calls upon NATO to “get all your navies together and proceed to the Persian Gulf immediately to join the American armada.” And just so’s we’re clear here, polling tells us that the attack on Iran is the first war to be rejected—not later on but from its outset–by the American public, since before the Second World War—perhaps the first in 100 years. And Friedman thinks Europe should sail right in.
"This does not come out of nowhere; Friedman does have a serious history of sh*t-talking, the highlight of which might be his appeal to “Give war a chance” during the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia in the Kosovo War (one of our country’s “little wars” that no one is expected to recall outside of an Advanced Placement History class.) What kind of chance did he propose to give man’s oldest profession at that time? “It should be lights out in Belgrade,” he wrote, “every power grid, water pipe, bridge, road and war-related factory has to be targeted,” Whatever it took, so that no one would be “holding rock concerts in Belgrade, or going out for Sunday merry-go-round rides.”
It was understood, of course, that this advocacy of attacking civilian infrastructure—presumably including merry-go-rounds if need be—was legitimate if was done to “them.” If it were to be done to us it, would be called by its rightful name: terrorism—and you’d be able to read about that in a Friedman column. And, truth be told, this is the unspoken understanding underlying most public debate and discussion of our foreign policy—then and now—even if few choose to be quite so crude as Friedman.
But hey, Friedman didn’t last this long by not knowing just how stupid you’ve got to talk nowadays if you want to stand out for stupid during the second Trump administration. While allowing that “it would be a lot easier if either Trump or the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, would ever summon the integrity to apologize for launching this war,” he quite reasonably assumes that this will never happen. So, he reasons, if you can’t stop a war, what’s the next best thing to do? Well, join it—of course.
Here we have the nation’s most prominent newspaper proffering this argument as worth an estimated 8 minutes and 11 seconds of your reading time.
Friedman does allow that “Trump sounds more and more unhinged every day,” but he writes as if it hasn’t occurred to him that the surest way to divert people from noticing the hinges coming off would be to legitimize his war. All justification would then be retroactive: Trump and Netanyahu would have played a vanguard role in starting a war that “the West” ultimately realized was a just war—otherwise, why would they come aboard?
Now if this were just someone on the bus or train talking about how the best way to stop stupid stuff from happening was by doing more of it, you’d just move away—if it wasn’t rush hour—and that’d likely be that. But unfortunately here we have the nation’s most prominent newspaper proffering this argument as worth an estimated 8 minutes and 11 seconds of your reading time. And really, the problem goes much deeper than just the New York Times. Three years after assuming the mantle of the anti-John Lennon with his endorsement of destroying Serbian civilian infrastructure, Friedman was awarded the Pulitzer Prize (one of three he’s won) for Commentary, cited "for his clarity of vision, based on extensive reporting, in commenting on the worldwide impact of the terrorist threat." If there were a Pulitzer for Irony, the Committee would have little choice but to award it to itself.
Such are the blinders shared throughout the American journalism profession—and well beyond. Barack Obama is reported to have consulted Friedman during his presidency—this despite Friedman’s ardent support of the Iraq War, during which he wrote, “There is a lot about the Bush team's foreign policy I don't like, but their willingness to... be as crazy as some of our enemies, is one thing they have right.” At the pinnacle of American power, neither “crazy,” nor supporting too many wars is disqualifying... as long as it’s happening to “them.”
It is only fair to note, however, that even Friedman may have limits. He does not favor the “extreme Christian nationalist beliefs” of Pete Hegseth who prays “for US troops to deliver ‘overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy … in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ.’” Friedman appears genuinely appalled by the Defense Secretary’s suggestion that “it’s now our religious warriors against Iran’s”—even as his writing continues to water the violent soil from which Hegseth grew.
"To weaponize the term 'blood libel' to dismiss Kristof's thorough reporting is dangerous. It's insulting to the term's violent history and hinders our community's ability to call out actual blood libels when they occur."
A Jewish-led organization dedicated to fighting antisemitism was among the groups and individuals who on Tuesday condemned attacks on The New York Times and one of its most prominent columnists, who published accounts by alleged Palestinian victims of sexual abuse perpetrated by Israeli soldiers and settlers.
Nicholas Kristof's column, "The Silence That Meets the Rape of Palestinians," combines interviews with 14 former Palestinian detainees and information from reports published by United Nations experts and human rights groups to highlight documented rape and other systemic sexual abuse of Palestinians jailed by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops, as well as sexual assaults and other abuses allegedly committed by Israeli settler-colonists. The column features the controversial claim by one former prisoner that he was raped by a dog unleashed upon him by Israeli soldiers.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry responded to the column in a social media post alleging that the Times "chose to publish one of the worst blood libels ever to appear in the modern press."
"In an unfathomable inversion of reality, and through an endless stream of baseless lies, propagandist Nicholas Kristof turns the victim into the accused," the ministry said.
Responding to the ministry's post, the Nexus Project—a group "made up of individuals deeply committed to the fight against antisemitism"—said on Bluesky: "To weaponize the term 'blood libel' to dismiss Kristof's thorough reporting is dangerous. It's insulting to the term's violent history and hinders our community's ability to call out actual blood libels when they occur."
"Kristof's article is a challenging and important read," the group added. "It takes courage and care to expose sexual violence."
On Tuesday, the Israeli Foreign Ministry accused the Times of serving "a Hamas-driven narrative," claiming the newspaper "deliberately timed its piece to undermine today’s horrific Civil Commission report documenting Hamas’ preplanned, systematic sexual atrocities on October 7, [2023] and against hostages thereafter—attempting to create false equivalence and belittle documented crimes."
The Times refuted a claim by the ministry that the newspaper "said it was not interested" in reporting on Hamas sexual violence on and after the October 7 attack. In fact, the Times updated its earlier reporting on Hamas sex crimes after Israeli investigator called said critical details were "false."
Critics of the column also cast aspersions upon the alleged Palestinian victims and rights groups that documented the sexual violence they suffered, linking them to Hamas. The Times and other US media have been accused of accepting Israeli claims at their word but treating Palestinian testimonies with skepticism or outright dismissal.
Numerous other pro-Israel accounts, including the American Jewish Committee and EndJewHatred, have either repeated the "blood libel" accusation against Kristof or amplified social media posts that did so.
Many—including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee—denied or questioned the veracity of Kristof, his sources, and the Times.
Well documented reporting about abuses committed by a particular nation-state is not a “blood libel,” and misusing Jewish history to protect the state of Israel from criticism like this is ultimately going to make people take all of Jewish history less seriously.
[image or embed]
— Joel S. (@joelhs.bsky.social) May 12, 2026 at 1:21 PM
This, despite numerous reports by United Nations experts, as well as Israeli and international human rights groups, of Israeli rape and sexual violence against Palestinian men, women, and children in both Gaza and the illegally occupied West Bank—a pattern that goes back to the Nakba ethnic cleansing of Palestine during the establishment of the modern state of Israel.
Senior Israeli officials including Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir have defended soldiers accused of gang-raping a Palestinian prisoner in an attack caught on camera at the notorious Sde Teiman prison. The IDF is investigating the deaths of dozens of Palestinians at Sde Teiman, including one man who died after allegedly being sodomized with an electric baton.
Right-wing Israeli politicians, pundits, and others publicly argued that IDF troops should have free rein to rape, torture, and murder Palestinians as revenge for the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack on Israel.
An August 2025 investigation by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation featured Palestinian boys kidnapped by Israeli occupation forces in Gaza who said they suffered or witnessed sexual torture committed by their jailers.
Last year, Israel blocked a request from UN sex crimes experts to probe alleged sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas fighters during the October 7, 2023 attack, reportedly to avoid attendant scrutiny of rapes and other abuses allegedly committed by Israeli forces against imprisoned Palestinians.
Other Israelis and their defenders expressed incredulity or proclaimed the impossibility of dogs being trained to rape people.
"My brain does not know how to process the fact that The New York Times—the paper I grew up worshiping and hoping to work for one day—published, on the front page, that Israelis are training dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners," tech entrepreneur and anti-progressive commentator Michelle Tandler said Monday on X.
However, in addition to repeated Palestinian claims of such abuse, female Holocaust survivors have said they were raped by dogs specially trained by Nazi SS officer Klaus Barbie. Later, Ingrid Oderock, a Chilean raised in a Nazi colony in the South American country, became one of the most feared torturers during the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet. Her specialty, as noted in the Academy Award-nominated animated short film Bestia, was training dogs to rape jailed female dissidents.
Israel has repeatedly attempted to neutralize criticism of its crimes during the Gaza onslaught—from the deadly famine that's claimed at least hundreds of lives, to the apparently deliberate shooting of children, to attacks on aid workers and civilian "safe zones," to the torture of Palestinian prisoners—by smearing those who expose them with accusations of blood libel.
Responding to the common Israeli smear, socialist author Owen Jones said on Bluesky: "Israel's crimes are not a 'blood libel.' They are documented truth."