NYT Faces Backlash: Explosive Unverified Claims!

Newspaper headlines about Trumps indictment.

A prominent pro-Israel Democrat is openly questioning whether The New York Times is effectively working for Hamas after the paper published a column making explosive, unverified allegations against Israel — and the backlash from both sides of the aisle is only growing.

Story Snapshot

Rep. Josh Gottheimer publicly blasted The New York Times, asking whether the paper is on “Hamas’ payroll” after a column by Nicholas Kristof made unverified claims about Israeli conduct toward Palestinian prisoners.
Kristof’s column relied on conversations with 14 unnamed sources and acknowledged “there is no evidence that Israeli leaders order rapes,” yet still published the inflammatory allegations.
Jewish and pro-Israel groups called the column a “modern-day blood libel,” while the Washington Examiner labeled it “grotesque journalistic malpractice.”
Gottheimer has previously written in the New York Times itself that too many Democrats are “noticeably, shamefully silent” about Jew-hatred on the far left — making his outrage here notably bipartisan.

Gottheimer Calls Out the Times

Rep. Josh Gottheimer, a New Jersey Democrat and one of Congress’s most outspoken pro-Israel voices, publicly condemned The New York Times following a column by longtime contributor Nicholas Kristof. Gottheimer’s reaction — asking “WTF” and whether the paper is on “Hamas’ payroll” — was blunt and striking, particularly coming from a Democrat. While his payroll claim is clearly rhetorical rather than a documented accusation, it reflects a broader and growing frustration with how legacy media frames the Israel-Gaza conflict. [3]

Gottheimer is no stranger to criticizing his own side on this issue. He previously authored a New York Times op-ed arguing that too many Democrats are “noticeably, shamefully silent” about Jew-hatred on the far left — calling it “a glaring double standard.” [3] His willingness to confront the very paper he once wrote for underscores how seriously he views Kristof’s column as crossing a line, not just politically, but morally.

What Kristof’s Column Actually Said

Kristof’s column made allegations that dogs were used in the sexual abuse of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel. The column drew on conversations with 14 unnamed individuals and contained no named witnesses, no medical evidence, no prison identification records, and no corroborating documentation. Kristof himself acknowledged within the piece that “there is no evidence that Israeli leaders order rapes.” [5] Publishing such explosive claims without verifiable sourcing raises serious questions about editorial standards at the Times.

Experts and Israeli officials swiftly rejected the allegations. The American Jewish Committee and Israeli authorities dismissed the dog-rape training claim as a conspiracy theory, with no training manuals, incident reports, or whistleblower accounts surfacing to support it. [4] Jewish Insider described the column as a “modern-day blood libel” — a historically charged term referencing false accusations against Jewish people that have fueled persecution for centuries. The column’s publication without verified sourcing is a significant journalistic failure by any reasonable standard. [4]

A Pattern of Bias or Editorial Negligence?

The Washington Examiner called Kristof’s work “grotesque journalistic malpractice,” pointing to the evidentiary gaps: no named prisoners, no arrest records, no medical examinations, and no photographs. [2] The Times has not issued a public response to Gottheimer’s condemnation, nor has Kristof provided a verification trail for his unnamed sources. This silence is itself telling — when a paper of the Times’ stature publishes allegations this serious, the burden of proof should be high, and the editorial accountability should be immediate.

This controversy fits into a larger, troubling pattern. Since the October 7, 2023 Hamas terror attacks on Israel, accusations of media bias in Israel-Palestine coverage have escalated sharply, with pro-Israel figures across the political spectrum — including Democrats like Gottheimer — increasingly unwilling to stay quiet. [4] Whether or not the Times has financial ties to any bad actors, the editorial decisions that allowed Kristof’s unverified column into print deserve serious scrutiny. When a major American newspaper publishes what experts call a modern-day blood libel without primary-source verification, the credibility of the entire institution is at stake — and the American public deserves better than inflammatory narratives dressed up as journalism.