Huckabee Aide Suppressed Reports Critical of Israel
Left 67%
Center 0%
Right 33%
2 left · 0 center · 1 right
What happened
The New York Times reported, citing unnamed officials and documents, that David Milstein, a senior adviser to U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee at the embassy in Jerusalem, suppressed or manipulated staff reports to downplay Israeli settler violence in the West Bank and portray Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government favorably. After 19-year-old U.S. citizen Nasrallah Abu Siyam was shot dead in the West Bank in February while trying to prevent settlers from taking his livestock, 30 members of Congress wrote Secretary of State Marco Rubio seeking updates on investigations into a string of nine American deaths there. Embassy staff completed a report by March finding that Israeli investigations had gone nowhere, some cases were closed, and no one had been charged; the Times said Milstein pushed to send Sen. Chris Van Hollen a letter rather than that report. Huckabee categorically refuted the claim that his aide had suppressed or altered reports, saying the Times account had no named sources and likening it to earlier Times stories he described as false.
Sourcing check · Partly on the record · 3 articles
1 of 3 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report. Mike Huckabee denied part of it on the record.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 1 of 3
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: David Milstein and 30 members of Congress
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 2 of 3
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: documents, news report, letter, embassy report
- Credits another outlet 2 of 3
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: The New York Times, New York Times
- Unnamed sources 2 of 3
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this. Here: e.g. “multiple officials”
- On-record denial 1
- A named person or institution says the claim, or part of it, is not true. It is on the record — someone signed their name to it — but it is not confirmation, so it never counts toward On the record. Criticizing or dissenting from a decision is not a denial. The count is how many people or institutions deny it; each is listed with the first article that carried the denial. Here: Mike Huckabee (Daily Caller, Oct 8, 15:14 UTC)
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 8, 09:00 UTC by New York Times, naming its source. First document in the first report, from New York Times (documents).
- Not counted 0
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Left-leaning coverage never tells readers that the suppressed embassy work concerned Americans killed in the West Bank. It instead says a top aide portrayed the Netanyahu government "in a favorable light." Right-leaning coverage of the same investigation, in the Daily Caller, puts the death count at nine and says a March report found no one had been charged. That difference decides whether a reader sees ordinary diplomatic spin or a blocked accounting of American fatalities.
The headlines diverge in a single pair of phrases. Left-leaning coverage calls the files "Reports Critical of Israel." Right-leaning coverage calls the same conduct "Downplayed Murders Of American Citizens." One phrase centers criticism of Israel; the other centers American dead.
Did the State Department ever send Congress the March report, or only the shorter letter?
Bottom line
The New York Times never puts nine dead Americans inside the suppressed embassy file. The Daily Caller does, and also prints Huckabee's claim that the story has no named source.
The receipts — 4 facts one side's coverage lacks
- Huckabee said he categorically refuted the story and that it had not even one named source
- The Times obtained documents and cited multiple officials
- Milstein pushed to send a letter to Sen. Chris Van Hollen rather than the detailed embassy report
- Thirty members of Congress wrote Secretary of State Marco Rubio demanding updates on the killings
The Left View
The New York Times frames the episode as a U.S. diplomat who “suppressed and altered” reports critical of Israel and “skewed information” to put the Netanyahu government in a favorable light. It presents a pattern, based on multiple officials and documents, that included keeping the March report from Congress, downplaying West Bank settlement expansion, and dismissing mass casualties during aid deliveries to Palestinians. The paper also describes a chilling effect on embassy staffers, some of whom cited Milstein’s relationship to Fox News host Mark Levin, described as a fervent Netanyahu ally.
The Right View
The Daily Caller restates the Times allegations but centers Huckabee’s on-the-record denial that he “personally and categorically refute[s] the elements” of a story he called “so lacking in fact” and unsupported by “even one named source.” He compared it to prior Times reports he labeled farcical or “totally debunked,” including a Gaza case in which he said a boy the paper described as shot by the IDF was alive and had been evacuated by the embassy. Right-leaning framing treats the piece as an unsourced attack on Huckabee’s team rather than demonstrated misconduct.
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is the Times’ claim, tied to documents and multiple officials, that a senior embassy adviser kept the March report on stalled investigations into American deaths from reaching Congress. The right’s strongest argument is Huckabee’s categorical public denial and the absence of named sources, which he argues means the story should not be taken seriously. The central unresolved tension is whether unnamed officials and internal documents establish that reporting was suppressed, or whether the ambassador’s refutation and lack of on-the-record witnesses leave the allegations unproven.
2 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.