David Sanger

8.4K posts

David Sanger banner
David Sanger

David Sanger

@SangerNYT

White House and National Sec. Corresp., New York Times. Author of "Confront and Conceal," "The Inheritance," and “The Perfect Weapon." April 16: "New Cold Wars"

Washington, DC Katılım Temmuz 2010
2.7K Takip Edilen96.1K Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
David Sanger
David Sanger@SangerNYT·
So thrilled to hear that “New Cold Wars” was an instant NYT bestseller on its first week. Grateful to all who made that possible, from the fabulous team that helped me and @Mary_K_Brooks report and write the book, to the many who we discussed it with this week, on TV, blogs, news sites and live events around the country. And mostly, thanks to our readers, engaged with the world and thinking about where we are headed at this pivotal moment.
David Sanger tweet media
English
90
45
199
160.4K
David Sanger retweetledi
Peter Baker
Peter Baker@peterbakernyt·
When Trump pulled out of the international nuclear agreement with Tehran in 2018, Iran lacked even a single bomb's worth of uranium. Since then, it accumulated 22,000 pounds of enriched uranium. @BlackiLi @WilliamJBroad nytimes.com/interactive/20…
English
843
4K
7K
694.4K
David Sanger retweetledi
David Sanger retweetledi
Robert Malley
Robert Malley@Rob_Malley·
Told @SangerNYT that should Iran agree to suspend enrichment for a period of years, it would be, in that respect at least, stronger than the JCPOA Of course (a) the marginal gain wouldn’t excuse tearing up the deal which led to a massive boost in Iran’s nuclear program (b) this outcome was achievable on the eve of the war and (c) it clearly wouldn’t justify an unlawful war & the death, destruction & global economic trauma the US has provoked  nytimes.com/2026/04/13/us/…
English
1
67
222
77.1K
David Sanger
David Sanger@SangerNYT·
The nuclear threat was the primary reason to attack Iran, Trump said a month ago. Now, he says he has "attained" success in halting the program, even though the near-bomb-grade uranium remains in Iranian hands. nytimes.com/2026/03/31/us/…
English
4
8
14
2.7K
David Sanger retweetledi
Nicholas Kristof
Nicholas Kristof@NickKristof·
1.) President Trump appears to be threatening a war crime; 2.) This will go over badly with other Gulf countries, for Iran will then attack their power plants and perhaps desalination; 3.) Iran won't reopen the Strait, because closure is what gives it leverage.
The White House@WhiteHouse

🚨 “If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST…” - President DONALD J. TRUMP

English
284
683
1.9K
358.3K
David Sanger retweetledi
Phil Mattingly
Phil Mattingly@Phil_Mattingly·
Trump’s threat is a pretty important window in the current U.S. position if you take a step back. *If you are considering winding down the war, as Trump said this AM, hitting energy infrastructure would have the exact opposite effect. *But you can’t wind down the war without the strait re-opened - despite Trump’s contention to the contrary. *So you threaten to do the thing you’ve intentionally avoided, precisely bc: 1. the retaliation would make the energy shock much worse while directly targeting the most valuable cornerstones of GCC economic success 2. You want the Iranian energy infrastructure left in good shape for your strategic goal of post-conflict Iran never threatening energy supplies again. *The latter of which still feels pretty, well, aspirational to be generous about it at the moment, given the de facto weekslong closure of the Strait and the strikes on GCC in general, and specifically energy infrastructure last week. *And now Trump’s threat puts a 48-hour timeline/redline on the table - which Trump and his team have intentionally avoided boxing themselves in on from the start - on the one thing Iran has a clear asymmetric advantage on for leverage, which they’ve made clear they know, understand, and have no intention of letting go for nothing. Maybe the deadline sparks something real diplomatically, or is TACO-d with claims of some concession or Iranian capitulation. Or maybe it’s red line that is followed through on. No idea. But the Truth post is a good snapshot of the complexity of the moment for the WH.
English
36
106
328
158K
David Sanger
David Sanger@SangerNYT·
Welcome @dnvolz! We are lucky to have you, and look forward to seeing your byline in the Times - alongside those of the hardest-working, most experienced Nat-Sec team in American journalism.
Dustin Volz@dnvolz

Some personal news: After nearly eight fantastic years, today is my last day at @WSJ. Next month I'm starting with @nytimes to cover cybersecurity, intelligence, and more. I'm thrilled to be joining such an excellent team, and can't wait to get started.

English
1
1
18
8.8K
David Sanger
David Sanger@SangerNYT·
A vitally important decision that cuts through to the core of the Pentagon’s aimes with its new rules: to creat a compliant press corps that will not challenge the statements of defense officials, independently report out evidence of strategic success or failure, or provide evidence so readers can assess whether the United States is living up to its laws and values . But mostly the judge reaffirmed in the strongest words possible that there is a reason, as our former executive editor Bill Keller used to say, that the First Amendment is first. And that means that the government has no control over the kinds of questions asked, the kind of information sought, and the editorial decisions that follow. As the judge noted, that’s where our true national security lies.
Natasha Bertrand@NatashaBertrand

The ruling uses multiple DoD officials’ statements against them. “The record evidence supports the conclusion that the Policy discriminates not based on political viewpoint but rather based on editorial viewpoint—that is, whether the individual or organization is willing to publish only stories that are favorable to or spoon-fed by Department leadership. See, e.g., (Ms. Wilson praising the new PFAC holders for being “on board and willing to serve our commander in chief”). As counsel for the plaintiffs put it at oral argument, the difference between the prior and current PFAC holders is their viewpoint on “the nature of the role of the journalists covering the Pentagon.” OA Tr. at 16-17. In sum, the undisputed evidence reflects the Policy’s true purpose and practical effect: to weed out disfavored journalists—those who were not, in the Department’s view, “on board and willing to serve,” SUMF at 16 (¶ 91)—and replace them with news entities that are. That is viewpoint discrimination, full stop.”

English
1
56
131
43.4K
David Sanger retweetledi
Peter Baker
Peter Baker@peterbakernyt·
"It feels wonderful to align myself with a public-spirited media owner who uses his billions to support journalism above all else, who isn't afraid to hold the powerful to account and who cares deeply about the Washington community."
Dana Milbank@Milbank

I am leaving the Washington Post to join a new journalistic venture backed by Politico founder Robert Allbritton that will be both the hometown publication the D.C. region sorely needs and a scrappy and fearless national news organization. I hope you'll join us.

English
27
296
1.4K
83.7K