A growing coalition of law firms representing shareholders of the New York Times is demanding that the publisher turn over the "books and records" of the corporation for an internal investigation. The objective is to examine whether the board of directors shirked its "essential oversight duties" following a series of controversial investigative pieces aimed at defaming Israel or bolstering anti-Israel Democratic politicians. According to a warning letter revealed on the Washington Free Beacon website, if the newspaper fails to provide the documents by July 21, a lawsuit will be filed in the New York County Supreme Court.
The National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), a conservative, non-partisan research institute, and the National Jewish Advocacy Center (NJAC) are behind the threat, and they have now been joined by additional prominent law firms.
It is important to clarify that despite their status as "shareholders," these groups are not controlling shareholders or tycoons holding large stakes in the newspaper, but rather entities holding only a fraction of a percent – a symbolic holding – of the company's total shares. These organizations are leveraging US securities laws, which allow any entity that has held shares valued at a symbolic amount of just $2,000 for a continuous period to demand access to management documents. This strategy – known as "shareholder activism" – is not aimed at a financial takeover of the $12 billion (approximately 43.2 billion shekels) corporation, which is one of the largest newspaper publishers in the world. Instead, it serves as a sharp and effective legal and media tool designed to pressure management, expose misconduct, and force accountability for potential damage to reputation and investors. The plaintiffs argue that turning the newspaper into a "propaganda arm pushing false narratives" constitutes a real business risk for anyone invested in the company.
The current demand comes against the backdrop of mounting fury over the coverage of the war in Gaza. At the heart of the criticism is one of the most horrifying and twisted falsehoods leveled against the State of Israel in modern journalism – published under the guise of an "opinion piece" – by columnist Nicholas Kristof on May 11, 2026. The piece claimed that the State of Israel carries out sexual abuse against Palestinians as a systematic policy, including baseless allegations involving the use of dogs and carrots.
Following the publication of the lie-ridden article, the Israeli government decided to examine taking legal action against the newspaper. Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar instructed the director-general of his ministry, Eden Bar-Tal, to contact Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara to advance legal steps against the New York Times both in Israel and globally.
The Foreign Ministry made it clear at the time that the publication was a blatant echoing of Hamas propaganda designed to deny and downplay the sexual violence of the October 7 attack, while attempting to create a false symmetry between Israel and the murderous terror group. Now, according to the publication in the Washington Free Beacon, it appears that anger over the article has also reached the ranks of the newspaper's own shareholders, who are demanding to see the board of directors' communications that authorized the publication of this libel.
"Whitewashing and protecting anti-Israel politicians"
Beyond the bias in wartime reporting, the warning letter exposes severe allegations of favorable and biased coverage toward prominent Democratic politicians who hold anti-Israel views. For example, the letter claims that the newspaper "whitewashed" an investigation published on June 4 regarding Graham Planter, the anti-Israel Democratic candidate who has since dropped out of his race following sexual harassment allegations against him.
The New York Times, according to the claim in the letter, chose to soften testimonies of sexual harassment and violent behavior by Planter toward women, and entirely ignored relevant information, such as a Nazi tattoo on his body and racist statements. Planter was ultimately forced to drop out of the race in disgrace only after other media outlets exposed the severity of his actions, and the shareholders claim the New York Times helped craft a "soft-ball investigation" designed to insulate him.
Another example cited in the letter points to a double standard in the coverage of politicians' spouses. While the social media activity of the wife of pro-Israel Congressman Dan Goldman was described by the New York Times as "hate-filled or insensitive," the activity of the wife of New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who expressed support for terrorists, was described leniently under the headline "support for the Palestinian cause."
"This is a routine shareholder demand, but what is unusual is the accumulating evidence that the Times is failing to meet its own standards," representatives of the NJAC said. "This new evidence should concern any shareholder who believed they were investing in a company with proper corporate governance."
Paul Calli, the owner and founder of Calli Law PLLC – a law firm specializing in white-collar criminal defense that previously represented Project Veritas in a defamation lawsuit against the newspaper – launched a fierce attack. "The employees at the New York Times are not journalists. They are propagandists. True believers. Their personal biases infect – and destroy – everything the blog once stood for. A shadow of its former self," Calli said.
In contrast, the New York Times is attempting to rebuff the allegations and opposes the plaintiffs' request, meaning the case is expected to land before the New York County Supreme Court. However, it remains unclear whether the plaintiffs' request will be accepted, given the broad protections of free speech in America.
A spokesperson for the newspaper called the lawsuit threat a clear attempt at silencing. "As we told the National Jewish Advocacy Center and the National Center for Public Policy Research in response to a prior demand letter, although framed as a corporate law demand, this is a clear attempt to deter reporting protected by the First Amendment," the spokesperson said.
