Follow us on social

Shutterstock_453303871-scaled

NYT fails to disclose columnist’s side gig at pro-Israel advocacy group

Bret Stephens promised to disclose the affiliation if there was any 'overlap' with subjects he writes about for the Times.

Reporting | Media

New York Times opinion columnist Bret Stephens never hid his feelings about Israel, or the support that he believes Jewish Americans owe to the Jewish state. “Thank God I was born a Jew because I’d be a raging anti-Semite,” he once said, trying to explain his frustration with his fellow Jewish Americans for insufficiently, in his view, supporting Israel.

Indeed, that sentiment of unconditional support for Israel was on display last week when the Times published his lengthy defense of Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. His column made no mention of Israel’s evictions of Israeli Arabs from Sheikh Jarrah and argued that “the U.S. does not have a vital interest in creating a Palestinian state,” a view that runs counter to the assessment of then-CENTCOM Commander David Petraus’s 2010 Senate testimony in which he observed, “The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel.”

But Stephens, and The New York Times, did hide something else: Stephens has a glaring conflict of interest between his Israel-related commentary for the Times and his side gig, working for an organization “committed to the future of a U.S.-Israel relationship that safeguards the security of the Jewish State and connects future generations of Jews with our shared values.” That’s just one of the goals of the Maimonides Fund, a pro-Israel advocacy group where Stephens recently took up the role of editor-in-chief of Sapir, Maimonides’s “journal exploring the future of the American Jewish community and its intersection with cultural, social, and political issues.”

Stephens’ opining on U.S. support for Israel seems to pose an undisclosed conflict of interest with his outside role at a group dedicated to promoting the “U.S.-Israel relationship.” It also comes fresh on the heels of Times columnist David Brooks drawing a second salary from The Aspen Institute, a role that was funded by Facebook. Brooks ultimately resigned from his second job after Buzzfeed reported on the potential conflict of interest.

In March, the Jewish Telegraph Agency spoke with Stephens about his dual-roles at Maimonides and The New York Times. “Stephens said the Times is aware he’s editing Sapir and that he anticipated no conflicts,” reported the JTA.

“Given the format (a journal of ideas), style (long-form ‘think pieces’), themes (Jewish dilemmas of various sorts), and purpose (helpful ideas for Jewish leaders), I do not think there is any overlap with subjects I might plausibly cover for The Times,” Stephens said in an email to the JTA. “If there is, I would certainly disclose and discuss it with my editors.”

But that avoidance of a potential conflict of interest was short-lived. Stephens’ article last week concluded that “the goal of U.S. policy is to support Israel’s efforts to defang, deflate and ultimately disempower Hamas.” Neither Stephens nor The New York Times provided any disclosure that he was currently employed at an Israel advocacy group that “aims to connect Jews to their people and their heritage and to contribute to the vitality of the State of Israel.”

That seems like precisely the sort of “overlap” Stephens promised he would “discuss” with his editors. Either Stephens didn’t flag the potential conflict of interest or he did and the Times decided it wasn’t worth disclosing to readers.


Photo: Osugi via shutterstock.com
Reporting | Media
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.