Follow us on social

NYT leaps forward in disclosure of potential conflicts

NYT leaps forward in disclosure of potential conflicts

The paper of record told readers of a foreign influence story that a source's employer receives funding from Saudi Arabia and the UAE

Reporting | Media

News media, pundits and, indeed, Responsible Statecraft itself, may give the impression that opaque funding and refusal to disclose potential conflicts of interest are pervasive in Washington’s policy circles. But that’s not always the case.

On Wednesday, the New York Times highlighted the funding of a source quoted in an article about new allegations made by the Justice Department against Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), taking the unusual step of weaving the funding disclosure into the article as an example of how Washington’s think tanks are awash in foreign cash.

The Times reported that “prosecutors accused Mr. Menendez of using his influence and connections — a byproduct of his powerful position as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — to help a New Jersey developer get financial backing from an investment fund run by a Qatari royal family member in exchange for lucrative bribes,” and interviewed Hussein Ibish, a widely respected expert on Middle East politics.

Times journalists Vivian Nereim and Tariq Panja, wrote:

"Gulf countries like Qatar view cultivating relationships with politicians like Mr. Menendez as a sort of 'cynical statecraft,' said Hussein Ibish, a senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington. Like many Washington think tanks, his research organization has received funding from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — a sign of the depth of Gulf influence in the United States."

Both Ibish and his employer as well as the Times deserve credit for this disclosure.

First, Arab Gulf States Institute discloses its corporate sponsors and, at its inception in 2015, disclosed that it was primarily funded from Saudi and UAE donors.

Second, the Times decided that the funding of their source was an important piece of context to pass along to readers. Indeed, they even took it as an opportunity to highlight the widespread role of foreign governments in funding DC policy shops.

Last year, Responsible Statecraft highlighted the Times’ refusal to alert readers to the Arab Gulf States institute’s funding sources when publishing an op-ed by Ibish and in 2020, when Ibish was quoted as a critic of a new initiative — Democracy in the Arab World Now — to promote human rights and democracy in the Arab world.

The Times’ decision to highlight these facts this week falls closely in line with guidance given by Margaret Sullivan, the Times’ public editor from 2012 to 2016.

“These days, with lobbyists coming under more public criticism, some like to use a ‘surrogate’ — like a supposedly neutral person from a think tank — to promote an idea that they can then email-blast out or have their client endorse in a press release,” wrote Sullivan in 2014. “The Times can’t let itself be used in that way.”

“For its readers to evaluate ideas, they need to know where they’re coming from — and who might be paying for them,” she added.

Nereim and Panja appear to be heeding Sullivan’s advice.


Editorial credit: Osugi / Shutterstock.com

Reporting | Media
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Are American 'boomers' at risk?

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Nuclear explosion
Top image credit: Let’s curb loose talk of using lower-yield nuclear weapons

Reckless posturing: Trump says he wants to resume nuke testing

Global Crises

President Donald Trump’s October 29 announcement that the United States will restart nuclear weapons testing after more than 30 years marks a dangerous turning point in international security.

The decision lacks technical justification and appears solely driven by geopolitical posturing.

keep readingShow less
Sudan al-Fashir El Fasher
Top photo credit: The grandmother of Ikram Abdelhameed looks on next to her family while sitting at a camp for displaced people who fled from al-Fashir to Tawila, North Darfur, Sudan, October 27, 2025. REUTERS/Mohammed Jamal

Sudan's bloody war is immune to Trump's art of the deal

Africa

For over 500 days, the world watched as the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) methodically strangled the last major army garrison in Darfur through siege, starvation, and indiscriminate bombardment. Now, with the RSF’s declaration of control over the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) Sixth Infantry Division headquarters in El Fasher, that strategy has reached its grim conclusion.

The capture of the historic city is a significant military victory for the RSF and its leader, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, though it is victory that has left at least 1,500 civilians dead, including 100 patients in one hospital. It is one that formalizes the de facto partition of the country, with the RSF consolidating its control over all of Darfur, and governing from its newly established parallel government in Nyala, South Darfur.

The SAF-led state meanwhile, clings to the riverine center and the east from Port Sudan.

The Trump administration’s own envoy has now publicly voiced this fear, with the president’s senior adviser for Africa Massad Boulos warning against a "de facto situation on the ground similar to what we’ve witnessed in Libya.”

The fall of El Fasher came just a day after meetings of the so‑called “Quad,” a diplomatic forum which has brought together the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates in Washington. As those meetings were underway, indirect talks were convened in the U.S. capital between a Sudanese government delegation led by Sudan’s foreign minister, and an RSF delegation headed by Algoney Dagalo, the sanctioned paramilitary’s procurement chief and younger brother of its leader.

The Quad’s joint statement on September 12, which paved the way for these developments by proposing a three-month truce and a political process, was hailed as a breakthrough. In reality, it was a paper-thin consensus among states actively fueling opposite sides of the conflict; it was dismissed from the outset by Sudan’s army chief.

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.