Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., told Fox News Radio Tuesday that it is unlikely President Trump was briefed on intelligence that Russia secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing American troops in Afghanistan due to the information’s unverified nature.

“I don’t think the president was briefed,” Kinzinger told “The Brian Kilmeade Show.” “The briefer made the decision when he — keep in mind this is when the coronavirus pandemic is kicking off as well — skipped over that issue to wait for more information.”

MCENANY: PELOSI ‘PLAYING POLITICS’ WITH ‘FALSE’ REPORTING ON RUSSIAN BOUNTIES FOR US TROOPS

The New York Times report on the intelligence sent shockwaves throughout Washington over the weekend. A senior U.S. official told Fox News Monday that the National Security Council recently met to come up with a “menu of responses” to Russian action in Afghanistan. However, a White House official said the president was not briefed on the matter until “after the NY Times reported on unverified intelligence” Friday.

“What I do know is that whether or not the president was briefed, frankly, is irrelevant because the intelligence agencies could not yet agree on this,” explained Kinzinger, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee who attended a White House briefing on the subject. “If this is something, you need to have large agreement or at least [agreement] to a point of significant confidence to be able to take action.

“Otherwise, in theory, if it’s not true and you’re reacting against the Russians, think of the damage of that.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Kinzinger added that the intelligence leak to the Times is more than likely going to “dry up any trails we have been pursuing to get more information on this,” but urged lawmakers to resist politicizing the issue as they wait for more information.

“I think where we’re at now, unfortunately, this has become a political issue,” he said. “Republicans and Democrats should both agree that if Russia is doing this, there has to be harsh consequences. Instead, a lot of people have taken this as a moment to do politics with it and embarrass the president.”

Fox News’ Jennifer Griffin and Kristin Fisher contributed to this report.

The New York Times is reportedly blocking its reporters from appearing on liberal cable news programs such as MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show” and “CNN Tonight” with Don Lemon because they’re “too partisan,” but critics think the Gray Lady needs to look in the mirror.

Vanity Fair reported that Times’ executive editor Dean Baquet is concerned that his reporters who appear on particular programs would be “perceived as being aligned” with the show’s far-left politics.

‘UNMASKED’ BOOK RANKS MEDIA MEMBERS WHO HATE PRESIDENT TRUMP THE MOST, FROM JIM ACOSTA TO MIKA BRZEZINSKI

Media Research Center vice president Dan Gainor mocked the situation, essentially labeling the Times as hypocrites in the process.

“This isn’t a news story, it’s a sitcom plot. The nation’s most liberal paper is suddenly concerned that the wacky network filled on air with its employees might be too far left,” Gainor told Fox News. “The Times is liberal on the opinion and news pages on every major issue facing the nation — from abortion to taxes. Yet, MSNBC is even further left? Does anyone at The Times read their own paper?”

Conservative strategist Chris Barron echoed Gainor’s reaction to the Vanity Fair story.

“I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at this story,” Barron told Fox news. “Has anyone from the New York Times actually read the New York Times? If they want to avoid the appearance of overt partisanship they might try taking a look in the mirror first.”

“Has anyone from the New York Times actually read the New York Times? If they want to avoid the appearance of overt partisanship they might try taking a look in the mirror first.”

— Chris Barron

Fox News’ Sean Hannity said the Times is “scared” and has been “duped by the conspiracy TV media mob.” The “Hannity” namesake sarcastically asked, “Why would the New York Times not go on their favorite programs?”

NewsBusters managing editor Curtis Houck called the report “one of the more peculiar and obviously ironic” media stories possible.

“There’s no denying that the [Times] is right about MSNBC primetime shows, as they are hotbeds for the Resistance, but if MSNBC is that home on TV, The New York Times is without a doubt their paper equivalent,” Houck told Fox News. “So while it’s nice they’re realizing something that a lot of us already know about how biased they are, it would behoove them to take care of matters in their own newsroom first.”

Rewire News editor-in-chief Jodi Jacobson thinks the Times “jumped the entire school of sharks,” while BuzzMachine’s Jeff Jarvis said the report is “bad for the Times, for journalism, for an informed public, and just dumb.”

JIM ACOSTA’S CNN ROLE FURTHER MUDDLED BY UPCOMING BOOK: ‘YOU CAN’T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIM AND A PAID PUNDIT’

DePauw University professor and media critic Jeffrey McCall feels differently, telling Fox News that it’s “wise” for the Times to carefully assess where its reporters appear as guests.

“News outlets such as the Times need to protect their more objective reporters from the appearance that they are playing a partisan role for a broadcast outlet’s benefit. The news industry already suffers from public perception that real reporters are agenda-driven, and trotting reporters into opinion shows just fuels that problem,” McCall said. “In a sense, partisan television interview shows want to use real reporters as props to borrow the credibility of direct news reporting to support their opinion angles.”

McCall feels that news organizations should just let their objective news stories speak for themselves without having to “trot out those reporters to engage in chit-chat” with partisan pundits.

The New York Times did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In Washington, D.C.-area Asia circles last week, the rumor mill was buzzing with the news of a possible media event at the Demilitarized Zone that separates the two Koreas during President Trump’s visit to South Korea. The other part of that rumor, that Trump would have a third summit, or at least a short meeting, with North Korean Chairman Kim Jong Un, was also floated—but no White House or Blue House officials would commit to anything (well, at least not to me).

But something told me I was not to be disappointed. I held out hope for one reason: Donald Trump’s strategy for dealing with North Korea always involved taking the old rulebook on dealing with the Kim regime and lighting it on fire. What violates such diplomatic decorum more than a meeting planned with little notice and almost no time to prepare? Such a gathering, however, oozes with the potential to get Washington and Pyongyang back on track towards a new type of relations free of nuclear threats. It also hints to the possible elimination of Kim’s nuclear weapons altogether. In other words, it was just too good to pass up for both sides, as I saw it.

TRUMP MEETS KIM IN DMZ, BECOMES FIRST SITTING US PRESIDENT TO STEP INTO HERMIT KINGDOM

With no risk, and lots of possible rewards, why not give it a shot? Trump’s greatest advantage in dealing with Pyongyang is that he simply does not care about the so-called proper way of conducting diplomacy. His mission, as it has always been, is to keep the American people safe, secure and prosperous. A meeting along the DMZ, even if it was quick and more of a gut check to see where Chairman Kim stood on the all-important question of denuclearization, clearly attempts to advance such an agenda. Trump took a chance for peace, with little downside to trying.

In my humble opinion, the president has done more good on the Korean issue in the last year and a half than President Obama did in eight.

Ever the showman, the president did not disappoint. In a historic gathering where Trump became the first sitting U.S. president to step into North Korea, he met with Chairman Kim jointly with South Korean President Moon Jae-in while also having a separate meeting with Kim. While no major deal was announced, just the sheer act of Trump crossing into North Korea territory is progress itself, a sign that trust is building and that both sides can work towards a brighter future. Remember, history is all about mind-blowing optics that change hearts and minds. Most people can’t recite the details of a certain treaty or document that made history, but they always remember the photo that did. Trump delivered that Sunday.

To be honest, this is a day I never thought I would see in my lifetime. During the dark days of 2017, I thought the chances were high that a nuclear war between America and North Korea could break out at any moment. While no handshake can take the place of full-blown nuclear disarmament, meetings such as these can set the tone where more summits and working level gatherings can take place for both sides to make big gains. We must start somewhere, and the past two summits and now Sunday’s gathering all build trust toward the harder work and agreements that are yet to come.

But, just as in all things that involve President Trump, those who can’t stand his clearly unconventional and unorthodox style as commander-in-chief were quick to lash out. Word from the pundit class—or the so-called foreign policy “experts” in both parties who cheered on the Iraq War, the disaster in Libya or countless other international debacles that cost our nation trillions of dollars and too many American lives—called Trump a fool for doing this.

That’s just flat wrong. While I have always believed progressives take their attacks on Trump too far, I can’t say I agree with everything the president does, either. For one, I am not a fan of Trump’s shoot-from-the-cellphone tweetstorms, going on a rampage on whatever issue has upset him at the time. I do get frustrated when he gets the facts wrong on some of the most basic issues. But on this issue, the idea that he is pulling out all the stops to try and get North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons and perhaps someday join the brotherhood of nations, is not only smart statecraft, it’s also good common sense.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Sorry, I won’t let the good outweigh what is merely annoying. In my humble opinion, the president has done more good on the Korean issue in the last year and a half than President Obama did in eight. North Korea is no longer testing nuclear weapons or long-range missiles, and Trump is now apparently pen pals with Kim. Is it all rather strange? Yep. But is it better than a war that would kill millions of people? For sure. And while we have a long way to go before we can declare North Korea is no longer a threat to America, I for one love what the president is doing. And so should the American people.

And heck, if President Obama received a Nobel Prize for nearly nothing, then I think there is only one obvious thing to do, and that’s to make sure Donald Trump receives the award as well.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM HARRY KAZIANIS