Trump ramps up feud with NYT, CNN over Iran coverage criticism
The letter demanded The Times 'retract and apologize for' the story, calling it 'false,' 'defamatory' and 'unpatriotic.' The newspaper's lawyer responded by noting that Trump administration officials had confirmed the existence of the report after The Times published its findings. 'No retraction is needed,' The Times' lawyer David McCraw said in a letter. 'No apology will be forthcoming. We told the truth to the best of our ability. We will continue to do so.'
A spokesperson for CNN told The Times that the cable news network had responded to Trump's lawyer in a similar fashion. Trump had continued his criticism of the coverage throughout Wednesday and Thursday, using all caps to criticize the reports, accusing the outlets of intentionally publishing 'fake' stories.
Trump and his officials, particularly Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth criticized the reports, targeting one of the lead reporters of the story, Natasha Bertrand, of being dishonest. 'Natasha Bertrand should be FIRED from CNN! I watched her for three days doing Fake News. She should be IMMEDIATELY reprimanded, and then thrown out 'like a dog,'' Trump wrote on social media. 'She should not be allowed to work at Fake News CNN. It's people like her who destroyed the reputation of a once great Network,' Trump continued. 'Her slant was so obviously negative, besides, she doesn't have what it takes to be an on camera correspondent, not even close. FIRE NATASHA!'
During Thursday's White House press briefing, press secretary Karoline Leavitt also called out Bertrand, who covers the Pentagon for CNN, by name. 'So this is a reporter who has been unfortunately used by people who dislike Donald Trump in this government to push fake and false narratives,' Leavitt alleged. 'She should be ashamed of herself.' Trump's post about CNN firing Bertrand appeared to be wishful thinking, as CNN issued a statement standing by Bertrand and her reporting.
'We stand 100 percent behind Natasha Bertrand's (pictured) journalism and specifically her and her colleagues' reporting of the early intelligence assessment of the U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear facilities,' the news outlet said in a statement. CNN denounced the criticism targeted at Bertrand as irrational. 'We do not believe it is reasonable to criticize CNN reporters for accurately reporting on the existence of the assessment and accurately characterizing its findings, which are in the public interest,' they wrote.
The Trump administration continues to criticize the media for questioning the success of the mission after U.S. pilots aboard seven B-2 bombers dropped 14 Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP) bombs on the nuclear facilities in Fordow and Natanz. But the president continued posting criticism of both CNN and the New York Times, describing them on Thursday morning as 'bad people with evil intentions.' 'These reporters are just BAD AND SICK PEOPLE,' Trump wrote on social media on Wednesday. 'You would think they would be proud of the great success we had, instead of trying to always make our Country look bad.'
Trump and his officials singled out Bertrand for her reporting on the infamous Steele Dossier and a 2020 Politico report reporting that 'former senior intelligence officials' believed that the Hunter Biden laptop was 'Russian disinformation.' 'She lied on the Laptop from Hell Story, and now she lied on the Nuclear Sites Story, attempting to destroy our Patriot Pilots by making them look bad when, in fact, they did a GREAT job and hit 'pay dirt' — TOTAL OBLITERATION!' Trump wrote on social media.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth held a press conference on Thursday, complaining about the media reports based on 'biased leaks to biased publications.' 'How about we take a beat, recognize first the success of our warriors, hold them up, tell their stories, celebrate that, wave an American flag, be proud of what we accomplish?' he asked.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Evening Standard
4 minutes ago
- Evening Standard
Donald Trump is ‘not a force for good' London Mayor says
However he insisted that he would be 'more than happy to meet President Trump' saying he would seek to show him that it is 'possible to be proud to be a westerner and a proud to be Muslim, that it is possible to be British, and proud to be British, and be of Pakistani origin and be a law abiding citizen and we aren't three headed monsters'.
The Independent
4 minutes ago
- The Independent
Zelensky returns to Washington, this time with Europe at his side
It has to be a tribute to Volodymyr Zelensky 's resilience, as well as an acknowledgement of Donald Trump 's still-pivotal role as the would-be peacemaker, that he is prepared to risk another encounter at the White House. That meeting, six months ago, has gone down in the annals as one of the most disgraceful episodes in modern-day diplomacy, with a national leader humiliated in front of the cameras in a grilling that the US president said afterwards would make good television. Lessons have clearly been drawn from that dire encounter, not just by President Zelensky himself, and maybe President Trump, who mended fences at an informal tete-a-tete at the Vatican, but also by the Ukrainian's many European supporters. Joining Mr Zelensky in Washington will be the heads of the EU and Nato, and a clutch of European leaders, including Sir Keir Starmer. That all these highly placed individuals are prepared to meet, as they did in various configurations on Sunday, and travel at such short notice to Washington at the height of Europe's holiday season, shows how high the stakes are, as seen not just by Ukraine, but by Europe. And they are certainly a great deal higher than they were in February, given both the situation on the battlefield and what would appear to be the new level of understanding between Mr Trump and Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, following their summit in Alaska. Whatever format is applied to the meeting, or surely meetings, in Washington, there are lessons that it must be hoped Mr Zelensky has taken to heart, should he find himself again one-to-one with Trump in the Oval Office. They include using a translator – whether or not he thinks he needs one – and ignoring media questions before any talks have taken place. What he chooses to wear, on the other hand, should be for him to decide, not for the White House to dictate. In the end, though, the presence of so many high-level Europeans may be the best guarantee that Mr Zelensky is not treated as a lone leader of a peripheral state who can easily be imposed upon. And there are already intimations of a little more transatlantic flexibility on two key points. After Alaska, Mr Trump appeared to follow Putin's script for an actual end to the war, rather than an immediate ceasefire. The Europeans now appear to have followed, with the ceasefire demand now replaced by the longer-term, if more complex, aim of ending the war. It would also appear that security guarantees – a consistent requirement of Ukraine and slightly less consistent on the part of the Europeans – may be back on the agenda, although vague as to what form they might take and whether the US would underwrite them. With Nato membership for Ukraine one of Russia's reddest of red lines, this could help square that circle. The choreography in Washington alone will itself challenge complaints that the US and Russia were intent on cobbling together an agreement over the heads of Ukraine and Europe. This does not mean that the visitors should not be wary that Washington may listen and not hear. The Europeans must do their utmost not to make cracks show, and stick to what appears to be their simple and limited script. In particular, that means Ukraine's full participation in any peace process. There must also be no dilution of their stance on what the Trump White House is calling 'land swaps' and might more accurately be called territorial concessions. The European position appears to be that no borders may be changed by force, although the last word must rest with Ukraine, which is quite right. Mr Zelensky has at times hinted at a readiness at least to broach such a possibility, while at others – including at Sunday's joint press conference with Ursula von der Leyen in Brussels – insisting that sacrificing land would be out of the question as it would contravene Ukraine's constitution. In the end, though, the benefits for Ukraine of ending the war may have to be set against any territorial losses. Domestically, this will be one of Mr Zelensky's toughest calls. Internationally, there are diplomatic formulas that can cope with continuing territorial ambiguities. The emotive issue of Ukraine's abducted children must also be factored into any discussions. If it is true that the US first lady, Melania Trump, has taken up their cause, then their return may not be as remote a prospect as once seemed. Above all, the principle of 'nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine' is not just a slogan; it is an entirely practical requirement. There can be no peace that does not reflect the assent of Ukraine, as it will simply not endure. The torrent of recent developments has opened the question of whether, for all Moscow 's official intransigence, there is enough now in play, as between the US, Russia and Ukraine, for some modest progress towards peace. A very cautious 'Yes' may be the best answer that can be hoped for out of Washington on Monday.
The Independent
4 minutes ago
- The Independent
What's at stake when Zelensky meets Trump at the White House with Starmer and EU allies in tow
European leaders, including Sir Keir Starmer, will join Volodymyr Zelensky for a high-stakes meeting with Donald Trump at the White House on Monday. The prime minister will travel to Washington alongside several European leaders in a show of solidarity with the Ukrainian president, whose last visit to the Oval Office ended in a disastrous clash with Mr Trump. The summit comes just days after the US president met Vladimir Putin in Alaska, in which it is understood that the Russian president demanded that Ukraine cede the Donetsk and Luhansk regions as a condition for ending the war. Mr Trump is said to have privately endorsed the proposal, a move that Kyiv has strongly resisted. Ukraine's leader has warned that Russia 's refusal to halt hostilities before agreeing to a settlement would complicate any attempt at securing lasting peace. Speaking ahead of his trip, Mr Zelensky said: 'Stopping the killing is a key element of stopping the war.' Downing Street said Sir Keir and other leaders 'stand ready to support this next phase of talks' and will stress that their backing for Ukraine will continue 'as long as it takes.' Who is going to Washington? European leaders confirmed to be attending include: Sir Keir Starmer, UK prime minister Emmanuel Macron, French president Friedrich Merz, German Chancellor Alexander Stubb, President of Finland Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission Mark Rutte, Nato Secretary General Giorgia Meloni, Italy's prime minister The Ukrainian president will travel with a strong backing after participating in a coalition call on Sunday afternoon, hosted by the UK, France, and Germany. The so-called 'coalition of the willing' aims to provide security guarantees, including policing any future peace deal with troops on the ground in Ukraine. What will be discussed on Monday? The talks are expected to cover territorial questions, including Russia's demand for Ukraine to cede Donetsk and Luhansk. They are also expected to address security guarantees for Ukraine, which could be backed by US air power. The role of Nato and European allies in enforcing a settlement is likely to be discussed, alongside sanction pressures on Russia. European leaders want to also ensure Ukraine is at the table for all negotiations. Speaking alongside Mr Zelensky in Brussels, Ms von der Leyen said: 'With regards to any territorial questions in Ukraine, our position is clear: international borders cannot be changed by force. 'These are decisions to be made by Ukraine and Ukraine alone, and these decisions cannot be taken without Ukraine at the table.' European powers also want to help set up a trilateral meeting between Mr Trump, Mr Putin and Mr Zelensky to make sure Ukraine has a seat at the table to shape its future. What are Russia's demands? At the Alaska summit, Mr Putin reportedly insisted Ukraine must surrender Donetsk and Luhansk in full, abandon its Nato aspirations and declare neutrality. He offered to freeze the front lines in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, sources close to the meeting told The Independent. Around 88 per cent of the Donbas is under Russian control. This includes almost all of the Luhansk region and 75 per cent of the Donetsk region. Russia controls nearly 44,600 square miles or 19 per cent of Ukraine in total, including the Crimean peninsula, according to open-source maps of the battlefield. Mr Zelensky has rejected the idea of handing over territory, insisting talks must be based on current front lines and begin with a ceasefire. Mr Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff said Mr Putin agreed to allow the US and its European allies to offer Ukraine a security guarantee at his meeting with the US president on Friday. 'We were able to win the following concession: That the United States could offer Article 5-like protection, which is one of the real reasons why Ukraine wants to be in Nato," Mr Witkoff told CNN. He added that it 'was the first time we had ever heard the Russians agree to that' and called them 'game-changing.' Article 5, at the heart of the 32-member military alliance, states that an armed attack against one or more of the members shall be considered an attack against all members. Sir Keir commended Mr Trump's commitment to providing security guarantees to Ukraine, following a meeting of the coalition of the willing on Sunday afternoon. What happened the last time Zelensky met Trump? Their previous Oval Office meeting in February ended in a dramatic confrontation. A planned mineral deal signing ceremony collapsed as Mr Trump and Vice President JD Vance accused Mr Zelensky of being 'ungrateful' and 'gambling with World War III'. Mr Zelensky pushed back, insisting there could be 'no compromises with a killer' – a reference to Mr Putin. The meeting was cut short, the joint press conference cancelled, and Mr Trump declared afterwards that Zelensky could 'come back when he is ready for peace', and temporarily suspended aid to Ukraine.
