Tag: nyt

President Trump Files $15 Billion Defamation and Libel Lawsuit Against The New York Times

President Trump late Monday evening announced he filed a $15 billion libel lawsuit against the New York Times and several reporters, including Michael Schmidt.

The lawsuit was filed in a Tampa, Florida, federal court.

President Trump accused the newspaper of being a virtual “mouthpiece” for the Radical Left Democrat Party and said they gave Kamala Harris the single largest illegal campaign contribution ever.

“Today, I have the Great Honor of bringing a $15 Billion Dollar Defamation and Libel Lawsuit against The New York Times, one of the worst and most degenerate newspapers in the History of our Country, becoming a virtual “mouthpiece” for the Radical Left Democrat Party. I view it as the single largest illegal Campaign contribution, EVER. Their Endorsement of Kamala Harris was actually put dead center on the front page of The New York Times, something heretofore UNHEARD OF! The “Times” has engaged in a decades long method of lying about your Favorite President (ME!), my family, business, the America First Movement, MAGA, and our Nation as a whole. I am PROUD to hold this once respected “rag” responsible, as we are doing with the Fake News Networks such as our successful litigation against George Slopadopoulos/ABC/Disney, and 60 Minutes/CBS/Paramount, who knew that they were falsely “smearing” me through a highly sophisticated system of document and visual alteration, which was, in effect, a malicious form of defamation, and thus, settled for record amounts. They practiced this longterm INTENT and pattern of abuse, which is both unacceptable and illegal. The New York Times has been allowed to freely lie, smear, and defame me for far too long, and that stops, NOW! The suit is being brought in the Great State of Florida. Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” Trump said on Truth Social.

Keep reading

NYT Forced To Issue Correction After Making Egregiously False Claim About Charlie Kirk

The New York Times issued a correction on Thursday after falsely accusing Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk of making an antisemitic claim on his podcast.

The Times falsely accused Kirk of stating on his podcast in 2023 that Jewish communities are “pushing the exact kind of hatred against whites” that they want people to stop using against them. However, Kirk cited a tweet making that claim and critiqued it, causing the Times’ correction to be made.

“An earlier version of this article described incorrectly an antisemitic statement that Charlie Kirk had made on an episode of his podcast. He was quoting a statement from a post on social media and went on to critique it. It was not his own statement,” the correction reads.

In actuality, Kirk clarified that not all Jews are pushing hatred onto white people. He stated that certain communities have pushed it by supporting left-wing causes such as Black Lives Matter.

“Now let me just say, this is not a very well-written tweet. It’s very confusing. I’ll go through what they’re basically saying here. Half of this tweet is true, half of it, I don’t like. You want the truth said to your face. There it is. Elon responds, and he says you have said the actual truth … But the first part is absolutely true. Let’s go to this. Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them,” Kirk said.

“Now I don’t like generalizations. Not every Jewish person believes that. But it is true, the Anti-Defamation League was part and parcel with Black Lives Matter. It is true that some of the largest financiers of left-wing anti-white causes have been Jewish Americans,” Kirk said.

After his death, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu referred to Kirk as a “lionhearted friend of Israel” who “stood tall for Judeo-Christian civilization.”

The entirety of the article appeared critical of Kirk’s conservative views, such as his belief that teachers should not push gender ideology onto children. It also noted that Kirk criticized society’s fixation on race and George Floyd, who factually had a lengthy criminal history before his death on May 25, 2020.

Keep reading

DHS Wrecks NYT for Puff Piece on Deported Murderer: ‘When Will They Finally Shed Light on Their Victims?’

The Department of Homeland Security criticized The New York Times this week for writing a “sob story” about the plight of a deported murderer, and asked when the newspaper would start covering the victims of such horrendous crimes.

“The New York Times ran a sob story of Orville Etoria, an illegal alien from Jamaica and a convicted MURDERER,” the DHS news release began. “In addition to murder, this serial criminal’s rap sheet includes criminal possession of a weapon, armed robbery, and forcible theft with a deadly weapon.”

“Following his criminal convictions, Etoria’s green card was revoked,” the statement continued. “Etoria was issued a final order of removal by an immigration judge in 2009. Sixteen years later, this dangerous individual is finally off our streets and out of the country thanks to President Trump and Secretary Noem. On July 17, he was deported.”

A DHS representative quoted in the release asked, “Why does the New York Times continue to peddle sob stories of criminal illegal aliens? When will they finally shed light on their victims?”

“Every single day President Trump and Secretary Noem fight for justice for American victims of illegal alien crime and nearly every single day the media ignores these victims and their families.”

The Times article published Tuesday, co-authored by reporters in Washington and South Africa, tried to paint Etoria as a model citizen who’d turned his life around. It claimed he pursued academic degrees while in prison and got a job at a shelter after being granted parole.

While serving a 25-year sentence for murder, Etoria was ordered deported by an immigration judge, the article reported. However, after his release in 2021, he was allowed to stay in the United States by the illegal immigrant-friendly Biden administration.

The article claimed Etoria had become a “target” of President Donald Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration. The authors lamented how he wasn’t given access to an attorney after being deported to the southern African nation of Eswatini (a landlocked country formerly known as Swaziland).

It quoted Etoria’s aunt speaking about how “inhumane” his treatment was. Yet there were no quotes from the families of his victims. Why not?

The newspaper couldn’t completely ignore Etoria’s violent past, however, and was forced to finally list his litany of violent behavior. But most of it discussed was near the end of the piece.

In addition to “fatally shooting a man in the head in Brooklyn in 1996” and being convicted of murder, the article reported, Etoria “has a history of drug abuse, which he has blamed in part on head injuries he suffered as a child. He was also diagnosed with schizophrenia. Doctors noted that he has exhibited violent outbursts, hallucinations and paranoia, according to court records.”

If that wasn’t enough, he was reportedly “arrested in 1981 on charges of attempted murder, robbery and kidnapping,” according to the report.

Keep reading

NYT Buries News That Experts on Genocide Say Israel Is Committing It

The International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) passed a resolution on August 31 declaring that Israel has been committing genocide in Gaza, with 86% of voting members in agreement.

The declaration by the group, described as “the world’s biggest academic association of genocide scholars” (Reuters, 9/1/25), was widely seen as significant news. Prominent US media sources like CNN (9/1/25), NBC (9/1/25), ABC (9/2/25), CBS (9/3/25), PBS (9/1/25), NPR (9/2/25), AP (9/2/25), Time (9/1/25) and Newsweek (9/1/25) published stories on the IAGS resolution. They bore headlines like the Washington Post‘s “Israel Is Committing Genocide in Gaza, Leading Scholars’ Association Says” (9/1/25). So, too, did numerous international news sources, with the BBC (9/1/25) running the headline “Israel Committing Genocide in Gaza, World’s Leading Experts Say.”

But the New York Times (9/1/25), which has repeatedly come under fire for its bias against Palestinians during Israel’s two-year-long rampage in Gaza, buried the news in the 31st paragraph of a story headlined “Israel’s Push for a Permanent Gaza Deal May Mean a Longer War, Experts Say.” The article immediately followed the brief mention of the IAGS resolution with a response from the Israeli government that called it an “an embarrassment to the legal profession,” and “entirely based on Hamas’s campaign of lies and the laundering of those lies by others.”

The Times‘ treatment as an afterthought of the confirmation by genocide scholars of an ongoing genocide in Gaza recalls the paper’s real-time coverage of the Nazi Holocaust, which often relegated news of mass death to its back pages, and sometimes to the last paragraphs of unrelated stories (Extra!, Summer/89). Those pieces rarely quoted the genocidaires justifying their atrocities, however.

Keep reading

The NYT Just Nuked the Left’s Narrative About the Bolton Raid

When news hit last week that federal agents had raided John Bolton’s Maryland home and Washington office, the reaction was as predictable as it was hysterical. The left immediately leapt into hysterics, spinning the story as proof of Trump’s alleged obsession with revenge, tying it to Bolton’s bitter falling-out with him. Within hours, the usual chorus was screeching the same tired lines: Democracy is under attack! Trump is a dictator! This was pure political retribution!

Only it wasn’t.

A new report from—if you can believe it—the New York Times has thrown cold water on that absurd little storyline. According to their reporting, the roots of this investigation don’t trace back to Trump at all. In fact, the probe gained traction under the Biden administration—an inconvenient truth that blows up the liberal media’s theory of political retribution. 

The investigation into President Trump’s former national security adviser, John R. Bolton, began to pick up momentum during the Biden administration, when U.S. intelligence officials collected information that appeared to show that he had mishandled classified information, according to people familiar with the inquiry.

The United States gathered data from an adversarial country’s spy service, including emails with sensitive information that Mr. Bolton, while still working in the first Trump administration, appeared to have sent to people close to him on an unclassified system, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive case that remains open.

Sources say the emails at the heart of the case were written by Bolton himself and contained information pulled from classified documents he had access to while serving in the White House. Even worse, those messages were allegedly sent to people close to him as he pieced together his infamous 2020 anti-Trump book, The Room Where It Happened.

Keep reading

The New York Times Publishes False Energy And Climate Information And Refuses To Correct Its Errors

Articles addressing energy and climate topics in The New York Times (NYT) increasingly include Inaccurate data and false information. The problem is compounded by the paper’s failure to follow its own corrections policy when errors are called to its attention. 

Readers look to the NYT to deliver well-reasoned and fact-checked information and analysis in areas where they are not themselves experts. However, based on my professional focus on data and analysis of energy and related environmental issues over the past 45 years, which includes White House and Department of Energy senior positions in the Carter, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, Obama, and Trump 45 administrations as well as work at leading universities and think tanks, NYT coverage of these subjects too often fails to live up to its own standards for accuracy and journalistic integrity. 

As a lifetime reader of the NYT, the frequency of errors and a refusal to fix them raises doubts regarding the accuracy of information presented on other topics. Whether or not the problem extends beyond energy and climate, the NYT readership clearly deserves better. 

Three recent NYT articles illustrate the problem: a July 22 article by Max Bearak, ostensibly reporting on remarks by UN Secretary-General Guterres’ on renewable energy; a May 26 article by Ivan Penn on competition between electric vehicles (EVs) and vehicles powered by internal combustion engine (ICEVs); and an April 23 column by David Wallace-Wells on the loss of cultural and political momentum for action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These are considered in turn below, followed by some summary conclusions. 

  1. Max Bearak’s July 22 2025 article “U.S. Is Missing the Century’s ‘Greatest Economic Opportunity,’ U.N. Chief Says” (July 23 print edition).

The article opens with a review of UN Secretary-General Guterres’ remarks promoting renewable energy investment as both an economic opportunity and an environmental imperative. With deft mixing of quoted and unquoted words, Bearak reports that Guterres explicitly criticized the U.S. and other countries that follow its policies on fossil fuels. Though that may well be the Secretary-General opinion, that view is not borne out in the as-delivered transcript of his remarks.

The bulk of the article turns to a discussion of energy data and climate policy that attempts to explain why the current situation has arisen, noting that this material was “left unsaid” by Mr. Guterres. From this point forward the reporter’s own analysis seeks to establish that China, in contrast to the U.S., is constructively pursuing a green energy transition. Unfortunately, the article presents faulty and misleading data. 

In seeking to highlight China’s constructive role the article states “Over the past decade, China has gone from a largely coal-powered economy to one that is deploying more renewable energy than anywhere else.”  Growth in China’s production and deployment of a wide range of renewable energy technologies is indeed very impressive. However, data in the 2025 Statistical Review of Word Energy (a widely-respected source of energy data available online here), show that China is still largely powered by coal. In 2024 coal provided 58.1% of China’s total energy use (92.2 out of 158.9 exajoules), while in 2014 it accounted for 69.8% of China’s energy use (82.1 out of 117.6 exajoules). (FYI, 1 exajoule = 947.8 trillion British Thermal Units).Thus, coal still dominates in China’s energy mix, although coal use grew more slowly than total energy use over the past decade.   

Following its discussion of China’s renewable energy progress, the article turns to energy use and production the U.S. and other rich countries. It incorrectly states that “Relatively wealthy countries like the U.S., Canada, Australia and Saudi Arabia are also the world’s biggest producers of fossil fuels.”   Data in the 2025 Statistical Review show that China’s total production of coal, oil, and natural gas totaled 112.3 exajoules in 2024, 32% higher than that of the second leading producer, the U.S., which totaled 85.0 exajoules. Indeed, China’s production of coal (94.5 exajoules) alone exceeds the total fossil fuel production of any other country. Moreover, the 2024 data is no anomaly; China has been by far the world’s largest fossil fuel producer in every year since 2005.        

Despite having contacted the NYT corrections team and the author to point out these errors, as well as the article’s mischaracterization of the temperature-related aim of the 2015 Paris Agreement, no corrections have been made to date. 

Keep reading

The New York Times Has Called for Insurrection and the Destruction of the Constitution TWICE in 48 Hours

Is there something in the water at the New York Times?

Over the course of the last 48 hours, the supposed ‘paper of record’ has advocated for a military coup against Trump and called for the abolishment of the U.S. Senate and the Electoral College, and to pack the U.S. Supreme Court.

These are the people who claim to want to save Democracy? Really?

From the column:

We Used to Think the Military Would Stand Up to Trump. We Were Wrong.

By ordering 800 National Guard troops to Washington, on the pretext of an illusory crime wave, President Trump has further dragged the U.S. military into domestic law enforcement, in a move credibly perceived as an ominous “test case.” This continues what the administration started in California in June as part of the its deportation efforts.

Unfortunately, though we (and others) had hoped that the military would only respond to calls to action in American cities and states kicking and screaming, we no longer expect resistance from that institution. Once, perhaps, traditionalist officers might have leaned on protocol and refused to heed a lawless order, taking inspiration from the generals — Mark Milley and James Mattis — who resisted the uprooting of established military standards in the first Trump term.

Keep reading

Misinformation Scholarship Exposed As Liberal Activist Grift

A funny thing happened when the NY Times reported a month back that Elon Musk’s exit from DC politics had been facilitated by a group of activists targeting his electric car company after he abandoned Democrats, helped fund Trump’s election, and then ran DOGE.

In short, Musk supports zero Democratic Party politicians and none of their priorities.

Enter Democratic activists who protested against the company run by the party’s main boogey man—protests that sometimes veered into violence and started at the impetus of sociology professor Joan Donovan.

The problem with Times story is what the Times journalist doesn’t tell us, namely the function professor Joan Donovan has served at the New York Times and other legacy news. Labeling Donovan a “sociology professor at Boston University,” skips over this purported academic’s role as a central character in the Time’s fake narrative that America is awash in “disinformation” that can only be fixed by legacy media and professors, like Joan Donovan—a misinformation authority who allegedly publishes objective scholarship with neutral, verified facts and reliable truths.

“Dr. Donovan leads the field in examining internet and technology studies, online extremism, media manipulation, and disinformation campaigns,” explains one news site. “She conducts research, develops methods, and facilitates workshops for journalists, policy makers, technologists, and civil society organizations on how to detect, document, and debunk media manipulation campaigns.”

In reality, the entire arena of disinformation studies has been exposed as a jobs program for liberal activists who dress up in academic garb, to provide quotes to the Times when they run articles claiming anything not published in the New York Times might be disinformation.

Keep reading

Declassified Memos Reveal Comey’s Secret Media Mole Leaked Classified Information to The New York Times to Push For Special Counsel to Investigate Trump in Russia Hoax

Newly declassified memos reveal James Comey’s secret media mole Daniel Richman leaked classified information to The New York Times’s Michael Schmidt to help push for a special counsel in May 2017.

It was previously reported that James Comey penned nine memos stemming from his conversations with President Trump – and then leaked them through his Columbia University law professor ‘friend’ Daniel Richman.

Comey told the Senate Intel Committee in a June 2017 testimony that he asked a ‘friend’ of his to leak contents from memos he kept regarding his conversation with President Trump to the New York Times.

Comey admitted this after Senator Susan Collins asked him why he kept the memos. She then asked if he ever shared any of them outside the DOJ.

Daniel Richman confirmed to the Washington Examiner that he was Comey’s friend at Columbia. He has been referred to in the New York Times as a “longtime confidant and friend of Mr. Comey’s,” and his bio at Columbia’s website lists him as an “adviser to FBI Director James B. Comey.”

Not once did he ever disclose Daniel Richman was one of his personal lawyers or an unpaid employee of the FBI until right before his testimony.

In newly declassified memos, it was revealed that Comey shared classified information with Daniel Richman.

Richman told agents conducting the FBI’s “Arctic Haze” investigation that some of the classified information was all the way up to the SCI level [Sensitive Compartmented Information].

According to Just The News, the Arctic Haze investigation focused on four articles stemming from Richman’s leaks.

“The first was a New York Times article by four reporters — Schmidt, Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman, and Eric Lichtblau — from late April 2017 titled “Comey Tried to Shield the F.B.I. from Politics. Then He Shaped an Election.” The second was a Washington Post story by Ellen Nakashima from early April 2017 titled “New details emerge about 2014 Russian hack of the State Department: It was ‘hand to hand combat’.”” Just The News reported.

“The third was another Washington Post piece by Karoun Demirjian and Devlin Barrett from late May 2017 titled, “How a Dubious Russian Document Influenced the FBI’s Handling of the Clinton Probe.” The fourth was a Wall Street Journal article by Holman Jenkins Jr. from late May 2017 titled, “The Trump-Russia Story Starts Making Sense.”” Just The News reported.

The leaks ultimately worked. On May 17, 2017, then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller to serve as Special Counsel to investigate the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.

Keep reading

NYT Op-Ed Pushes “New Definition of Death” So We Can Harvest More Organs

An op-ed in the New York Times is calling for a “new definition of death” so that we can increase the number of available donor organs.

I’m not exaggerating, it’s right there in the headline.

Sometimes you can only look at a headline and wonder.

Of course, redefining words and phrases is nothing new in the Great Reset world. “Case”, “cause of death”, “vaccine”, “terrorist”, “democracy”…all have received updated definitions in just the last few years. Rubberizing language so that words become malleable, with vague or even totally inverted meanings, is par for the course, just as Orwell predicted.

In this case, you take the word dead and “broaden” its definition to include…people who are alive.

Keep reading