On Wednesday, The New York Times published a story about my coverage of the Alexander brothers. Read it closely and notice what it does not contain: a single fact I reported that was false. Not a fabricated quote, not a misrepresented exhibit, not a mischaracterized court filing. The story is not about my reporting. It is about me.
Here are the facts. Juda Engelmayer of HeraldPR, who was handling public relations for the Alexander brothers, offered to help subsidize part of the cost of covering the case, and I accepted. I made no agreement with the Alexanders, and I had no knowledge of how Mr. Engelmayer billed his clients. There were no editorial discussions, direction, conditions or influence of any kind. I have no idea whether Mr. Engelmayer actually used the phrase “pay to play,” but I strongly suspect he was referring to efforts to encourage journalists and commentators to pay attention to the case. Any suggestion that I was paid to produce “favorable” coverage is completely divorced from reality. No one requested favorable coverage, no one dictated a single word, and no one exercised the slightest editorial influence over my reporting. I am among the very few people who actually read every single page of every single transcript from the trial. My reporting was grounded in that exhaustive examination of the evidence, and my conclusions were entirely my own.
The Times reports that I called the payments “a complete and total fabrication.” Here is what I was initially answering. The Times’ first message to me read: “We have reviewed a $15,000 payment you received from JSE Consulting/HeraldPR, which is Juda Engelmayer, on Jan 5 2026.” No such payment was made to me on that date. That claim was false, and the published story no longer makes it. It now refers to an invoice Mr. Engelmayer sent to others, a document I have never seen.
Independent journalists do not have the Times’ budget. We fund our work through subscribers, patrons and contributors, like documentary filmmakers and nonprofit newsrooms do. The Times itself runs sponsored content and accepts foundation grants. Who pays for the work is a fair question. Whether the work is accurate is the question that matters, and on that the Times has nothing.
My position has never been a secret, and I refuse to apologize for it. I believe the government stretched a federal sex-trafficking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1591, beyond its proper limits to prosecute conduct that belonged in state sexual-assault courts. Many people still believe the Alexander brothers were on trial for rape. They were not. They were prosecuted for sex trafficking, a specific federal crime with specific legal elements that the government was required to prove. In my view, it failed to do so. The government should not be able to charge someone with one crime and then rely on outrage over other reprehensible conduct to substitute for proof. That is not justice. That is a dangerous distortion of it. And the principle does not become any less important because the defendants are deeply unsympathetic.
My criticism of the prosecution is not an endorsement of the brothers, an excuse for sexual assault, or a dismissal of the women who testified. Anyone suggesting otherwise is deliberately conflating two entirely different things. I believe rapists deserve the harshest punishment the law allows. Personally, I believe they should be chemically castrated.
But punishment must follow proof of the crime actually charged, not public disgust toward the accused. That distinction is fundamental to the rule of law, and I will not abandon it simply because defending it is unpopular.
Holding those views never meant hiding evidence. I called Alon’s text, “I took down a 17 year old,” “perhaps the most damning piece of evidence” of Day 8. I called Tal’s “cheap hookers” texts “the most damning evidence” of Day 14. I wrote that the “Fyre Puss” chat revealed “the defendants’ cavalier attitude toward women and drugs.” I published the indictment, the government’s exhibits and a full closing-argument transcript.
The allegations against the brothers describe conduct that is morally repugnant, profoundly disturbing and, in some instances, among the most deeply twisted behavior I have ever encountered. But it is precisely because these allegations are so horrifying that establishing the truth matters so much. The more serious the accusation, the greater our obligation to distinguish what has been alleged from what has actually been proven. Moral outrage cannot substitute for evidence, and the repulsive nature of an allegation does not relieve the government of its burden of proof. Justice demands that we confront even the most disturbing accusations with rigor, fairness and an unwavering commitment to the truth.
The Times also claims that I attended the trial to “criticize the motives of women on the stand.” This is a particularly egregious and damaging mischaracterization of my reporting, one that I believe crosses the line from legitimate criticism into defamatory insinuation. I did not attend the trial to attack women, question their motives or advance a predetermined narrative. I attended to examine the evidence and report what happened in court. Throughout the proceedings, people repeatedly asked me why women would testify under oath if their accounts contained inconsistencies or serious questions remained unanswered. My response was consistent and unequivocal: I have no idea. I refused to speculate about their motives because I had no basis to know them. When the defense raised questions about witnesses’ motives during cross-examination, I reported those arguments and explicitly attributed them to the defense. My Day 12 recap stated that “the defense argued” a fight with her boyfriend “was the true motive for her coming forward.” Those were the defense’s arguments, not mine.
The Times has taken the ordinary act of accurately reporting courtroom testimony and recast it as a personal campaign against the women who testified. That is a serious accusation about my professional conduct, and it is unsupported by the reporting I actually published. There is an enormous difference between scrutinizing testimony, reporting a lawyer’s arguments and personally attacking a witness. A newspaper that prides itself on precision should know the difference. I reject this characterization categorically.
The Times placed my name alongside Hollywood smear campaigns and the publicist’s past clients without identifying a single factual error in my reporting. I was the only reporter to speak with Hana Boulos, who faced trafficking allegations in civil court, and I uncovered multiple previously unreported nondisclosure agreements and significant aspects of the trial that other outlets overlooked. This was original journalism built on court records, testimony and firsthand reporting. The Times was entitled to scrutinize how that work was funded. But rather than demonstrate that financial support influenced a single word I wrote, it relied on insinuation and guilt by association. The distinction matters. Questioning a journalist’s independence is fair; implying that his reporting was compromised without showing how is something else entirely. The Times demands evidence from those it investigates. It should hold itself to the same standard. If anything I published was inaccurate, I welcome the opportunity to correct it immediately and publicly. Until then, the reporting should be judged on its merits, not on the associations the Times chose to emphasize.
I believe in the rule of law and the presumption of innocence, especially when the defendants are unsympathetic. Questioning the government’s legal theory does not mean dismissing the women who testified. The jury heard their testimony and reached its verdict. Every piece of my reporting remains publicly available for anyone to examine. I stand by that work, and I invite readers to judge it for themselves, based on what I actually reported rather than what the Times would have them believe about me.