Congressman ATTACKS The New York Times: Shocking Claims!

Person reading digital news on a tablet device

A Democratic congressman is publicly questioning whether The New York Times is on “Hamas’ payroll” after the paper published a column making explosive, unverified allegations about Israeli soldiers using dogs to sexually abuse Palestinian prisoners.

Story Snapshot

Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) blasted The New York Times over a Nicholas Kristof column, asking “WTF” and whether the paper is on “Hamas’ payroll.”
Kristof’s column cited conversations with 14 unnamed individuals to allege Israeli soldiers trained dogs to sexually assault Palestinian prisoners — a claim Israeli officials and Jewish groups call a “modern-day blood libel.”
Experts and pro-Israel voices across the political spectrum are calling the column grotesque journalistic malpractice, noting the complete absence of verifiable evidence.
The controversy reflects a broader collapse of trust in legacy media over Israel-Gaza coverage since the October 7, 2023 Hamas terror attacks.

Gottheimer Breaks With His Own Party’s Media Allies

Representative Josh Gottheimer, a Jewish Democrat from New Jersey, did not mince words after reading Kristof’s column. His public reaction — “WTF… is The New York Times on Hamas’ payroll?” — drew immediate attention because it came from within the Democratic Party, not from conservative critics the Times routinely dismisses. Gottheimer has previously written in the Times itself that too many Democrats are “noticeably, shamefully silent” about Jew-hatred on the far left, calling it a “glaring double standard.” [3]

Gottheimer’s outburst carries weight precisely because he is not a right-wing commentator. His willingness to publicly humiliate the Times over Israel coverage signals that the paper’s credibility problem on this issue has crossed partisan lines. To be clear, no financial evidence of Hamas ties exists — Gottheimer’s statement is rhetorical — but the fury behind it reflects genuine alarm at how far the Times has drifted on Israel coverage since October 7, 2023.

What Kristof’s Column Actually Said — and Didn’t Prove

Kristof’s column alleged that Israeli soldiers used trained dogs to sexually assault Palestinian prisoners, citing conversations with 14 unnamed individuals. Kristof himself acknowledged in the column that “there is no evidence that Israeli leaders order rapes.” [5] No prison identification records, no medical documentation, no named witnesses, no photographs, and no corroborating military or forensic evidence were presented. The Washington Examiner called it “grotesque journalistic malpractice,” noting the complete absence of a verifiable evidentiary trail. [2]

Jewish Insider labeled the column a “modern-day blood libel,” invoking the centuries-old antisemitic trope of fabricating atrocity stories against Jewish people. [4] Israeli officials and the American Jewish Committee rejected the dog-training allegation as a conspiracy theory. Experts interviewed by World Israel News similarly slammed the column for relying entirely on unverifiable, anonymous sourcing. [5] The Times published it anyway, lending the institutional weight of one of America’s most recognized mastheads to claims that experts say do not meet basic journalistic standards.

Legacy Media’s Israel Problem Is Getting Harder to Ignore

The Times is no stranger to accusations of bias in its Israel-Gaza coverage, but the Kristof column has pushed the debate to a new level. When a sitting Democratic congressman — one who has written op-eds in the Times itself — publicly questions the paper’s editorial integrity in terms this blunt, the usual dismissals of “partisan attacks” no longer hold. The paper has offered no public response to Gottheimer’s statement, and Kristof has not produced documentation to address the evidentiary gaps critics have identified. [2]

For conservative readers who have watched legacy media outlets excuse, minimize, or editorialize around Hamas terrorism since October 7, none of this is surprising. What is notable is that the outrage is now bipartisan. Publishing explosive, unverified allegations against a U.S. ally using anonymous sources — while admitting no leadership-level evidence exists — is not journalism. It is advocacy dressed up in newsprint. And even some Democrats are finally saying so out loud. [3] [4]