What did PBS report exactly about which embassies received the forwarded letter and when?

1. What PBS said: the letter was obtained after embassy forwarding

PBS’s reporting, as cited by multiple outlets, states the news organization came into possession of the disputed letter “after it had been forwarded to a number of European embassies,” framing the acquisition as following circulation among allied diplomatic posts in Washington rather than direct release from the White House ^[1]. That language is repeated in other reporting that references PBS’s account, indicating the organization’s version centers on post‑draft distribution to embassies prior to PBS publishing the text ^{[2] [3]}.

2. Who PBS attributed the forwarding to: NSC staff and “multiple” ambassadors

PBS’s on‑air correspondents and subsequent citations identify the National Security Council (NSC) staff as the actors who circulated the letter to European missions, saying NSC personnel forwarded the text to multiple European ambassadors in Washington ^[3]. The phrasing used in PBS’s reporting, echoed by outlets quoting PBS, is that the NSC forwarded the material to “a number of” or “multiple” European embassies and ambassadors — phrasing that signals plural recipients but stops short of naming posts or counting them ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

3. Where PBS located the forwarding: Washington, D.C. diplomatic posts

PBS’s description places the forwarding explicitly in Washington, D.C., noting the message was sent to European embassies and ambassadors located in the U.S. capital rather than to capitals abroad ^{[2] [3]}. That geographic detail matters because it frames the dissemination as an in‑Washington alert to allied diplomatic personnel, consistent with how intra‑capital diplomatic notification often occurs, according to standard consular and diplomatic practice ^{[2] [4]}.

4. What PBS did not — and could not — specify

PBS’s reporting, as presented in the sourced snippets, does not identify which individual embassies received the forwarded letter, nor does it provide a precise date and time when the NSC circulated the document; the language is limited to “a number of,” “multiple,” and the general setting of Washington ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The absence of named posts or timestamped logs in the cited material means PBS’s public account establishes circulation to European diplomatic missions in Washington without documenting the full recipient list or an exact forwarding timeline ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

5. Alternative reporting and verification limits

Other outlets that reused PBS’s lines repeat the NSC‑forwarding detail and the Washington receiver‑list but likewise do not add a verified recipient roster or a definitive timestamp, instead echoing PBS’s formulation that the letter was “forwarded by the NSC staff to multiple European ambassadors in Washington” ^[3]. Given the available sourcing, there is no independent, sourced list in the cited material of embassies that received the message; therefore, any claim beyond PBS’s phraseology would exceed what the referenced reporting supports ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

6. Implicit agendas and why the forwarding detail matters

The fact that PBS ties its acquisition to NSC forwarding to European missions in Washington signals two implicit consequences: one, that the administration’s own staff considered allied capitals a necessary audience for the message, and two, that the distribution pathway provided a source for media to obtain the letter without a formal White House release ^[3]. Those implications, while logical given PBS’s phrasing, are not spelled out as confirmed motives in the cited reporting and thus remain interpretive rather than directly reported facts ^{[1] [2]}.