Follow us on social

Shutterstock_105380324-scaled

NYT Failed to Disclose that Hawkish Think Tank Paid Op-ed Writer While at the National Security Council

The New York Times published an op-ed by FDD staffer Richard Goldberg and didn't bother to tell anyone that FDD paid him a salary while working for Trump's National Security Council.

Reporting | Washington Politics

The New York Times published an op-ed on Friday by a staffer from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies — a hawkish “think tank” that promotes war with Iran and regime change in Tehran — defending the Trump administration’s so-called “maximum pressure” campaign against the Islamic Republic. The Times noted at the top of the page that the FDD staffer — Richard Goldberg — “served on President Trump’s National Security Council,” seemingly in an effort to justify the piece’s publication by promoting the author’s bona fides. However, the Times failed to disclose that Goldberg wasn’t an average, run-of-the-mill expert national security staffer, and that, in fact, FDD continued to pay Goldberg a salary while he was “lent,” as FDD’s CEO Mark Dubowitz described the arrangement, to Trump’s NSC. 

Bloomberg reported earlier this month that Goldberg was stepping down from the NSC and that FDD financially supported his role there. FDD — whose positions on Iran and the Middle East have often been closely aligned with those of Israel’s Likud Party — disseminated false assertions about Saddam Hussein’s development of weapons of mass destruction in the lead-up to the Iraq War, and its mission statement includes a pledge to provide “education meant to enhance Israel’s image in North America,” raising questions about the propriety of the group providing payments to a NSC staffer. 

Two former Obama-era NSC officials criticized the practice, saying it lines up with numerous instances of corruption and conflict of interest within the Trump administration, and that NSC staffers are not there to promote the interests of hawkish think tanks with murky (possibly foreign) funding sources. 

Responsible Statecraft reported that FDD even spent more than $10,000 on airline tickets for Goldberg to travel to events abroad with U.S. delegations.

Goldberg’s Times op-ed was seemingly meant to promote an evermore aggressive posture towards Iran in the wake of Trump’s (illegal) assassination of Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps commander General Qassem Soleimani earlier this month. 

But Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign — consistent with FDD’s decade-long advocacy of waging “economic warfare” against the Islamic Republic — has done nothing but subject the Iranian people to a life of misery and bolster hardliners in Tehran, all while isolating the United States from its European allies, and, obviously, bringing the U.S. closer to an all-out war with Iran than it has ever been.

Goldberg also took the opportunity to misleadingly paint Iran as the aggressor by lamenting troubling Iranian activities like downing an American drone, attacking ships in the Strait of Hormuz, and ramping up its nuclear program. But he conveniently omitted the fact that none of this was likely to have occurred had Trump not abandoned the 2015 nuclear agreement and flagrantly violated U.S. obligations to provide sanctions relief and encourage Tehran’s integration into the global economy.

FDD’s financial support of Goldberg during his work on Iran at the NSC clearly raises issues of possible conflicts of interest at the heart of the White House’s foreign policymaking apparatus, about which New York Times readers should have been informed. It marks yet another — albeit particularly striking — example of the failure of mainstream U.S. media to identify possible conflicts of interest among the sources, analysts, and op-ed writers whose foreign-policy views they help to propagate — which is an issue the Times itself has previously exposed.

Reporting | Washington Politics
Inauguration of Taiwan’s new president triggers usual pearl-clutching

Taiwan's former President Tsai Ing-wen and new President Lai Ching-te wave to people during the inauguration ceremony outside the Presidential office building in Taipei, Taiwan May 20, 2024. REUTERS/Carlos Garcia Rawlins

Inauguration of Taiwan’s new president triggers usual pearl-clutching

QiOSK

The inauguration of Taiwan’s new President Lai Ching-te this week has spurred a new push for Washington to “get serious” about Taiwan by beefing up measures to discourage a Chinese invasion of the island.

A recent essay in Foreign Policy magazine by Raymond Kuo, Michael Hunzeker, and Mark Christopher is emblematic of how many in Washington approach Taiwan policy — with a deterrence-heavy strategy that actually risks bringing about the very Taiwan crisis they seek to prevent.

keep readingShow less
Diplomacy Watch: Ukraine pushes for direct NATO involvement in war

Diplomacy Watch: Ukraine pushes for direct NATO involvement in war

QiOSK

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky chided NATO states this week for their unwillingness to directly join the fight against Russia.

“What’s the issue with involving NATO countries in the war? There is no such issue,” Zelensky told the New York Times in a fiery interview. Western planes could simply “shoot down what’s in the sky over Ukraine” without leaving NATO territory, he argued, thus mitigating escalation risks.

keep readingShow less
New evidence of Saudi role in 9/11 should close off security pact talks

Keith Burke via shutterstock.com

New evidence of Saudi role in 9/11 should close off security pact talks

Middle East

There is new evidence that shows that some Saudi government officials were more involved in the 9/11 attacks than previously known. According to a new filing in a lawsuit brought by the families of the 9/11 victims, al-Qaida operatives received significant support from members of the Saudi government in their preparations for the attacks.

As Daniel Benjamin, president of the American Academy in Berlin, and Quincy Institute senior fellow Steven Simon explain in a new article for The Atlantic, the plaintiffs allege that Saudi officials “were not rogue operators but rather the front end of a conspiracy that included the Saudi embassy in Washington and senior government officials in Riyadh.” If the allegations are true, that has important implications for our understanding of the attacks and how international terrorist groups operate, and it also gives Americans another reason to question the wisdom of a security pact with Saudi Arabia today.

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis

Latest