Why Was The Atlantic’s David Frum Working With Israel’s Ambassador?

David Frum, a senior editor at The Atlantic, helped ghostwrite a speech for the Israeli U.N. ambassador in 2014—at the same time as he profiled the ambassador for the magazine.

Frum’s galling, undisclosed conflict of interest was exposed via the ambassador’s hacked emails, first reported by Ryan Grim and Murtaza Hussain for Drop Site.

In 2014, Israel was in the midst of waging war in Gaza, ultimately killing over 2,200 Palestinians and wounding over 11,000. It was Israel’s most devastating campaign against the Palestinians since the 1967 war, according to UNRWA. As the country faced criticism for its conduct, allies like Frum reached out to Israeli government officials to offer their support in spinning the narrative, according to Drop Site.

In Frum’s case, he could offer more to the Israeli cause than just money or positive news coverage: Before coming to The Atlantic, he had been a speechwriter for George W. Bush.

Frum contacted Ambassador Ron Prosor on July 31, 2014, during the height of the war, in an email titled, “an earlier draft of that speech I sent you.” The speech, seemingly meant to be delivered to the U.N. Security Council, described the war as “the most tenacious challenge to the free world in decades,” and asked Americans to continue to support Israel. “This version was drafted by Seth Mandel of Commentary, with whom I’ve been working,” Frum wrote in his email.

Only one day before, Frum had contacted Prosor from a different email address, with a different request: to interview him for The Atlantic. The ensuing profile praised Prosor for his “toughness,” and painted a sympathetic portrait of Israel as unfairly maligned on the global stage. “In many ways, and on many days, it feels as if the whole UN system is concerned with the monitoring and critiquing of one small member nation,” Frum wrote.

It’s not known whether Prosor delivered Frum’s speech at the U.N. (Frum was competing with British journalist Douglass Murray for the honor, the leak also reveals). But to secretly draft a speech for a foreign government official, all the while rapturously profiling him from a place of presumed journalistic objectivity, is an egregious ethical breach.

Frum is still at The Atlantic, where he recently published a piece arguing against recognizing Palestine as a state.

In response to this story, The Atlantic’s Anna Bross told TNR in a statement, “David was not an employee of The Atlantic in 2014. He did not write the speech referenced in the 2014 email. He advised a friend, pro bono.

“This was 11 years ago. David has since become an employee of The Atlantic, and like all our editorial staff, follows our rigorous standards for the disclosure of potential conflicts. Of course, our staff writers are not allowed to advise political, corporate or diplomatic figures, pro bono or otherwise.”

While Frum may not have technically been an employee, as The Atlantic claims, he did hold the title of Senior Editor at the magazine while working on contract in 2014, at the time that he sent those emails to Prosor.

This story has been updated.

The Pentagon has to provide The New York Times information about Elon Musk’s security clearances, a federal judge ruled Wednesday—and the billionaire’s own posting habits helped decide the case.

In September 2024, the Times filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking “a list of security clearances” granted to Musk, including “any details about the extent and purview of each of the clearances.”

The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, which handles security clearances, denied access, arguing that the “privacy interest” of Musk “outweighs disclosure.” Shortly thereafter, the Times took the DCSA to court.

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote ruled that Musk himself had reduced his privacy interest by publicly boasting that he holds a “top secret clearance”—and discussing his drug use (including ketamine and marijuana) and contacts with foreign leaders (including Russian President Vladimir Putin), both of which are factors that the DCSA is supposed to consider for security clearance decisions.

“His posts on X on these topics have collectively garnered over 2 million views,” Cote observed.

Moreover, the judge noted, the Times’ request was far from sweeping, covering only a single two-page list of the security clearances of the billionaire, who, as the former head of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, was granted “special government employee” status.

Outweighing Musk’s privacy interests is public interest in “whether the leader of SpaceX and Starlink holds the appropriate security clearances,” Cote said. Also, “courts have repeatedly recognized a public interest in understanding the thoroughness, fairness, and accuracy of government investigations and operations.”

Musk’s admissions about ketamine and the Kremlin “only enhance the public interest in disclosure,” the judge wrote, and the document could “provide meaningful insight” into the DCSA’s vetting processes.

If there are any further concerns about Musk’s privacy, Cote stated, the government can propose redactions for a private review by the court by next Friday.

Senate Democrats said Wednesday that they plan to force a vote on President Donald Trump’s extrajudicial military strikes on foreign vessels he claims are smuggling drugs.

Senators Adam Schiff and Tim Kaine announced their intention to force a vote on the Trump administration’s decision to execute military strikes on vessels in the Caribbean. The government has provided no evidence that the vessels were linked to drug cartels, or that the individuals on board were drug smugglers. Having conducted no searches, no arrests, and no trials, the military had them summarily executed.

“If a president can unilaterally put people or groups on a list and kill them, there is no meaningful limit to his use of force,” Schiff wrote in a post on X.

Last month, the duo introduced a privileged resolution to stop the strikes under the War Powers Act, which grants Congress sole authority to decide whether the United States is at war.

But Trump seemed unbothered by the resolution. Last week, multiple congressional committees received a memo asserting that the president had declared a state of “non-international armed conflict” against boats that are part of “designated terrorist organizations.” But if the U.S. is at war, that’s for Congress to decide—not Trump. And if allowed to use this justification, Trump could potentially declare war against any group he wants.

While the issue may have some difficulties making its way through the GOP-controlled House and Senate, it seems that the Democratic effort already has some bipartisan support, at least from Republican Senator Rand Paul, an outspoken critic of the Trump administration’s policy on the strikes.

“I think blowing up speedboats in the Caribbean isn’t the answer,” Paul said on Newsmax Wednesday. He pointed out that 25 percent of searches of suspected drug-trafficking boats yielded no actual drugs. Using that logic meant it was more than likely one of the boats the military had blown up wasn’t actually a smuggling vessel.

The Trump administration has been less than forthcoming about the details of the extrajudicial strikes—for starters, how many there have actually been.

Speaking for the U.S Navy’s 250th anniversary Sunday, Trump claimed that there had been yet another strike the day before—a claim that the Pentagon has not confirmed, according to Reuters. Two U.S. officials told the outlet they were unaware of any such operation that day, though it’s possible the president could have been referring to a strike that occurred on Friday that killed four alleged drug traffickers. And last month, when speaking about a previous strike that he had posted about on social media, Trump claimed that the military had struck three boats, not just the two shown in the video.

Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have only formally announced four strikes, but the actual number could be as high as six. It seems it’s proven difficult to obtain accountability when the president so readily lies.

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene isn’t quite the MAGA acolyte she once was.

Greene has publicly broken with Donald Trump several times since his inauguration, differing from her “favorite president” on issues ranging from artificial intelligence to Russia’s assault on Ukraine. She’s also sparred with the White House over the executive branch’s apparent hostility toward demands to release the Epstein files.

Even Trump has started to notice the Georgia lawmaker’s lone agent status among her far-right peers in recent months, even calling senior Republicans to inquire about her loyalty.

“What’s going on with Marjorie?” the president has asked, two GOP sources with direct knowledge of the conversations told NBC News.

The initial fissure point traces back to May, when the White House corralled Greene away from a Senate bid in Georgia. At the time, Trump’s political team had commissioned a poll that indicated Greene would lose the race to Democrat Jon Ossoff by double digits.

“I’m not some sort of blind slave to the president, and I don’t think anyone should be,” Greene told NBC Wednesday. “I serve in Congress. We’re a separate branch of the government, and I’m not elected by the president. I’m not elected by anyone that works in the White House. I’m elected by my district. That’s who I work for, and I got elected without the president’s endorsement, and, you know, I think that has served me really well.”

Greene, notably, won her district in 2020 without the president’s endorsement. Viewed as something of a joke when she first arrived on Capitol Hill in 2021, the renowned conspiracist has since become a powerful independent agent, apparently beholden to no party and no man.

“So I get to be independent as a Republican,” Greene said, “and I think what helps [Trump] the most is when he has people that are willing to be honest with him and not just tell him what they think he wants to hear.”

Now, Greene claims she has zero interest in serving in the Senate, blaming the upper chamber for the current federal failure.

“I don’t want to serve in that institution. Look at them. They’re literally the reason why the government is shut down right now,” Greene said. “I think all good things go to die in the Senate, and I certainly don’t want to go there. But I think those are just attacks to try to marginalize me or try to sweep me off, so to speak. And I really don’t care.”

Republicans are running out of excuses for refusing to swear in Democratic Representative-elect Adelita Grijalva.

Ohio Representative Jim Jordan was left grasping at straws to explain away the delay during an interview with CNN’s The Source Tuesday night. While claiming that Grijalva couldn’t possibly enter the lower chamber due to Congress’s current pro forma session, he also admitted that he forgot that two of his Republican colleagues were sworn in during a pro forma session in April, just one day after they won their special elections.

“There’s two people on the floor, or, you know, whatever, there’s—but normally, it’s done in front of the full House, so that new member in a special election gets a, I think, in some ways, a kind of a neat experience, where they get to talk to the House, their first day, getting sworn in,” Jordan told CNN. “And that’s happened every single time that I can recall, with any new member elected in a special, in the middle of a congressional session.”

“But a couple months ago, he swore in Jimmy Patronis and Randy Fine in a pro forma session,” pressed host Kaitlan Collins.

“I didn’t—I actually didn’t even know that, when they were sworn in,” Jordan said. “But I always remember when it happens, the delegation is up front, and that person is sworn in.”

“Do you think it has anything to do with the discharge petition, and that she could be the 218th signature, for the Jeffrey Epstein files?” asked Collins.

“No, I think it’s—I think it’s—to make the clear point, we have voted to fund the government at levels, all the Democrats supported, and they now won’t support it, because they’re bringing up an issue that, frankly, was not even part of the campaign last year,” Jordan said.

Grijalva won the special election in Arizona last month to replace her late father, Raul Grijalva, making her the first Latina the Grand Canyon State has sent to Congress. She’s also the last signature that the House needs on a petition to force a vote on releasing the Epstein files.

Grijalva had already vowed to sign the bipartisan petition advancing the immediate release of the Epstein files. Just four Republicans have penned their signatures on the petition, demanding more transparency from the Trump administration regarding the investigation into deceased pedophilic sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and his potential associates. Those conservative lawmakers include Representatives Thomas Massie, Nancy Mace, Lauren Boebert, and Marjorie Taylor Greene—the last of whom told NewsNation Tuesday that she’s faced more pressure on the petition than any other issue.

Jordan’s interview was a long clash with Collins, as they also butted heads over health care subsidies, immigration, and government spending.