A president who once told the country that three buried nuclear sites had been totally obliterated now finds his own lawyers writing to newspapers, threatening suits over a leaked early assessment that seemed to say otherwise. The episode sits where two old tensions meet: the government's need to shape how a military success is understood, and the press's duty to report what insiders see, even when it is unfinished. Later intelligence has since backed the administration's claim that the sites were destroyed, so the dispute now turns less on what happened in the bunkers than on whether a prelim
Trump Threatens Suits Against NYT, CNN Over Reporting on Preliminary Iran Strike Assessment
Both outlets say the word 'preliminary' was right there in the reporting
Mark
Start me off simply. What did Trump's lawyers actually do here?
Mimi
They sent letters to the Times and CNN demanding a retraction and apology over stories about a leaked intelligence assessment. The letters call the reporting false, defamatory and unpatriotic, and threaten suits.
Mark
And what did the stories say?
Mimi
That an early Defense Intelligence Agency assessment suggested the June 21 strikes set Iran's nuclear program back only a few months, which cut against Trump's claim of total obliteration.
Luke
Worth pausing on the word preliminary. Both outlets say they used it. The Times says it was the second word of its article.
Mimi
Right, and that's the heart of their defense. They reported an early finding and said it could change.
Mark
But the administration says later intelligence contradicts it.
Mimi
Ratcliffe and Gabbard both said the three sites were destroyed, and Gabbard said rebuilding would take years.
Luke
Those are official statements. The reporting we have doesn't show the underlying evidence, so I'd treat them as the administration's intelligence leaders' conclusions, not something independently verified here. Stelter's point is that even the government may not know all the facts yet.
Mark
Is a lawsuit likely?
Luke
Nobody can say. The letters are a threat. Nothing in this reporting says a suit has been filed.
Mimi
What is underway is the Pentagon's investigation into the leaks themselves.
Der Puls
- Trump's lawyers have demanded retractions and apologies from the New York Times and CNN, calling their coverage false, defamatory and unpatriotic.
- A leaked preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency assessment suggested the June 21 strikes on Iranian nuclear sites did less damage than the president claimed.
- Both outlets flagged the report as preliminary, while the administration accuses them of cherry-picking lines that downplayed the strikes.
- Later CIA and intelligence director statements say the three sites were destroyed, sharpening the fight over who got the story right.
- The Pentagon is investigating the leaks, and it remains unclear whether the threatened lawsuits will ever be filed.
A president who once told the country that three buried nuclear sites had been totally obliterated now finds his own lawyers writing to newspapers, threatening suits over a leaked early assessment that seemed to say otherwise. The episode sits where two old tensions meet: the government's need to shape how a military success is understood, and the press's duty to report what insiders see, even when it is unfinished. Later intelligence has since backed the administration's claim that the sites were destroyed, so the dispute now turns less on what happened in the bunkers than on whether a preliminary finding may be printed at all. Whether the letters become lawsuits, and what the Pentagon finds about the leak, will show how far a government's account of war can be contested by those who read its reports.
Lawyers for President Donald Trump have sent letters to the New York Times and CNN threatening lawsuits over their reporting on a leaked U.S. intelligence assessment of the American strikes on Iran. The letters demand retractions and apologies, describing the coverage as false, defamatory and unpatriotic.
The strikes came on June 21, when seven B-2 bombers dropped 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs on three Iranian nuclear sites. In a national address, the president said the sites had been "totally obliterated." Three days later, both the Times and CNN reported on a preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency assessment that questioned the mission's effectiveness and suggested the program had been set back only a few months. Both outlets noted the report was preliminary.
Since then, the administration has said the sites were completely destroyed, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard have said so publicly, with Gabbard noting that rebuilding would take years. The outlets reply that the preliminary findings were accurately reported, that the word "preliminary" appeared in their stories, and that no one in the administration disputes what the early assessment said. The administration counters that the reporters left out passages suggesting serious damage, and the Pentagon is investigating the leaks.
CNN's Brian Stelter said the network never called the mission a failure, and that the facts are not yet fully known even to the government. Whether the lawsuits are filed, and what the leak investigation uncovers, remain open.
Lawyers for President Donald Trump have sent letters to the New York Times and CNN threatening lawsuits over their reporting on a leaked U.S. intelligence assessment of the American strikes on Iran. The letters demand that both outlets retract their stories and apologize, and they describe the coverage as false, defamatory and unpatriotic.
The strikes themselves came on June 21. Trump authorized seven B-2 bombers to drop 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs on three Iranian nuclear sites, aiming to end a nuclear threat that has long worried the United States and allies such as Israel. In an address to the nation right after the operation, the president said the sites had been "totally obliterated," a heavy blow to Iran's nuclear ambitions.
On June 24, the Times and CNN each published details of a leaked U.S. intelligence assessment. It called the mission's effectiveness into question, suggested the president's description was overblown, and indicated the strikes had set Iran's nuclear program back by only a few months. Both outlets reported that the assessment, from the Defense Intelligence Agency, was preliminary and that more information was needed.
Since then, the picture from the administration's side has shifted. As more has been learned about the scope of the strikes, the U.S. intelligence community has confirmed that the mission did "completely destroy" the three sites. This week CIA Director John Ratcliffe said on Wednesday that credible intelligence shows Iran's broader nuclear program was "severely damaged" and that the three targeted facilities were destroyed. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said the same day that the sites were destroyed and that rebuilding Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan would take "years."
Both news organizations rejected the demand. The Times answered that the administration protests that the assessments were only preliminary, which it noted was the second word of its article, and that later assessments may differ. But, it said, no one in the administration disputes that the first assessments said what the article reported: the destruction was not as significant as the president's remarks suggested. CNN said its reporting made clear this was an initial finding that could change with more intelligence, noted that it had extensively covered Trump's own skepticism of it, and said it does not believe it is reasonable to criticize reporters for accurately reporting the assessment's existence and findings, which it said are in the public interest.
The administration has directed particular blame at those two outlets and called for reporters to be fired. Its argument is that they cherry-picked the preliminary report, stressing parts that played down the impact while leaving out sections suggesting serious damage. Trump put it this way: "The document said, 'It could be very severe damage,' but they didn't take that." He added that more intelligence has been collected since, and that people who have seen the site say it is obliterated. He has also said the coverage is an effort to "demean" one of the "most successful military strikes in history." The Pentagon is investigating the leaks.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, speaking to Politico on Wednesday, called leaks "one of the most frustrating things anywhere," in part because they are so often mischaracterized. He said an intelligence report is often an analyst's assessment, and that a leaker gives it the spin they want, whether to embarrass the administration or because they opposed the action. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, for his part, complained that the press corps cheers against Trump as if it were in their DNA.
CNN's Brian Stelter answered on Thursday that the network did not report the mission was a failure, that it may have been a tremendous success, and that the facts are not yet fully known, even to the U.S. government. He accused the administration of picking a fight with the press and casting legitimate journalism as unpatriotic, and pointed to Vietnam and the Iraq War as evidence that questioning the government is itself patriotic.
What remains open is whether the threatened lawsuits are ever filed, and what the Pentagon's leak investigation turns up.
Bemerkenswerte Zitate
No one in the administration disputes that the first assessments said exactly what the Article said they did.— New York Times response to Trump's lawyers
CNN did not report that this mission was a failure. We just don't know all the facts yet.— Brian Stelter, CNN
Möchten Sie die ganze Geschichte?
Das Original lesen bei Washington Examiner ↗
War & Conflict