Crooked Bough News Round-up

— Election Records Handed Over to the FBI in Maricopa County, Arizona, Could Be Fatally Flawed, Experts Say

 

at 3/12/26 11:30am

This week, when 2020 voting information from Maricopa County, Arizona, was handed over to the FBI, it might have seemed like a replay of the agency’s late January raid in Fulton County, Georgia. Both are large counties in swing states that voted for Joe Biden in 2020, and both have long been targets of President Donald Trump’s claims that that year’s presidential election was stolen from him. But the evidence collected from Maricopa County is fundamentally different, in ways that election experts say threaten the accuracy and integrity of the federal government’s investigation. In Fulton, the FBI took the actual ballots cast in the county’s 2020 election, which had been kept in secure court storage facilities. In Maricopa, a federal grand jury subpoenaed digital data related to a partisan audit of the county’s vote, according to Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen, the subpoena’s recipient. This material — which may have included scans and photos of ballots — was stored by the Senate, not the county. Maricopa County destroyed the original ballots after two years, as state law requires. The firm hired by Senate Republican leaders to run the audit, the Cyber Ninjas, was funded by and took direction from Trump allies. Its leader, Doug Logan, privately admitted in text messages obtained by journalists via public records requests that its ballot recounts were “screwy.” County leaders, both Republicans and Democrats, and nonpartisan outside observers documented several ways Logan’s team had failed to follow procedures to prevent tampering. (Logan didn’t respond to a request for comment.) Several election experts, including some who watched the Arizona audit in person in 2021, said any investigation based on the Cyber Ninja data would be fatally flawed. “Accessing invalid data will only draw inaccurate conclusions and risk further degradation of public confidence,” said Ryan Macias, a national elections technology consultant who observed the audit on behalf of the Arizona secretary of state’s office. The Department of Justice and White House did not answer questions from ProPublica on experts’ concerns about the quality of the data and records produced under the subpoena. A spokesperson for the Arizona U.S. attorney’s office declined to respond to questions about whether it was involved in the case, saying it was against policy to comment on grand jury subpoenas or proceedings. Petersen, a Republican who helped launch the audit in 2021 and handed over the records to the FBI, didn’t say under which court’s authority the grand jury subpoena was issued or respond to a question on its basis. Neither Petersen nor a spokesperson for the Arizona Senate gave details on what exactly the FBI collected. The Senate has not released the subpoena. The subpoena is the latest salvo in the Trump administration’s unprecedented attempt to reinvestigate purported problems in the 2020 election. The White House has tasked Kurt Olsen, a lawyer who tried to assist Trump in overturning his loss, with helping to lead the criminal inquiry. Olsen helped initiate the Fulton County case, which is being overseen by Thomas Albus, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, according to the supporting affidavit. It’s not yet clear whether Olsen or Albus is involved in the Maricopa County investigation. The Arizona audit began in April 2021, after the Senate’s Republican leadership subpoenaed Maricopa County for scans of all 2.1 million ballots, the county’s voter rolls and other voting system data, such as logs showing who accessed the system. The Senate also had material that the Cyber Ninjas shared from the audit, such as sheets used to tally votes and track anomalies as well as data from the county’s election management system and ballot tabulators. Cyber Ninjas pulled data from the Dominion Voting Systems machines the county used in 2020, so the FBI presumably has that material. Trump falsely claimed after the election that Dominion voting machines had been hacked, switching votes for him to register as votes for Biden. The Trump administration has been trying to access Dominion machines from other locations since he took office. Fox News and Newsmax settled defamation lawsuits with Dominion after making similar claims, agreeing to pay the company millions. Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat who was secretary of state during the 2021 audit, said in an interview with ProPublica that it’s unclear what has happened to the records in the five years they have been out of the county’s hands. “I don’t think anyone should have confidence in whatever comes out of whatever was turned over to the FBI,” Hobbs said. Maricopa County’s 2020 election results have been confirmed repeatedly, both by the county’s postelection hand-count and by multiple audits conducted by independent firms commissioned by the county. Courts tossed out several cases filed by lawyers for Trump alleging fraud. The Cyber Ninjas’ review, which also concluded that Biden won, drew intense criticism from the get-go, both for its methodology and its partisanship. One of the audit managers was Heather Honey, who now holds a key post in the Trump administration as the Department of Homeland Security’s deputy assistant secretary for election integrity. The contractor conducted its review without county or Senate employees present and only allowed in observers from Hobbs’ office after a court demanded more transparency. The firm’s workers made errors recounting votes cast in the presidential race, keeping three separate tally sheets for each batch of ballots that often reflected different totals, a secretary of state’s office report found. They also had black and blue pens out as they took photos of ballots, causing concern among observers about the potential for tampering. The contractor sent data collected from ballot tabulators to a Montana cabin for analysis and wouldn’t say how — or if — it had protected the data from hacking. Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, said in an interview that the contractor’s sloppy procedures would make it unlikely a court would accept the records handed over to the FBI as evidence proving irregularities in the 2020 vote. “You can easily poke holes in any of this stuff,” Fontes said. Cyber Ninjas sometimes mistook routine aspects of the election process as signs of wrongdoing. It announced that 74,000 more mail-in ballots had been cast in Maricopa County than had been sent out. There was a simple explanation for the discrepancy, however: The ballots hadn’t been sent out; they’d been given to the voters by hand at early voting locations. Ken Bennett, a Republican who was the Arizona Senate’s liaison to the audit and is a former Arizona secretary of state, said in an interview that he thinks the county’s original election results were correct. “The only evidence I could find of mistakes made by the county were minor errors that had nothing to do with whether or not they came up with the accurate results,” Bennett said. The post Election Records Handed Over to the FBI in Maricopa County, Arizona, Could Be Fatally Flawed, Experts Say appeared first on ProPublica.

[Category: Democracy]

— Veterans Who Depend on Mental Health Care Keep Losing Their Therapists Under Trump

 

at 3/12/26 3:30am

As Jason Beaman recounts his long slog searching for mental health therapy last year, he sounds defeated. The first therapist assigned to him by the Department of Veterans Affairs told him at their initial meeting that she was leaving the agency. A few months later, his second therapist told him she was also leaving. An appointment with a third counselor was canceled with no explanation. These were huge setbacks for the 54-year-old veteran of the Navy and Army Reserve. Nearly a decade ago, a spiral of depression and anxiety left him homeless and living on the streets of Spokane, Washington. A VA social worker threw him a lifeline, helping him apply for benefits, find housing and get into therapy. He still needs mental health care, he and his physician say. But bouncing from therapist to therapist has left him exhausted. “I just quit. I don’t want to mess with the therapist anymore,” Beaman said. He spends much of his time now alone playing video games or walking with his dogs. Beaman, a veteran of two military branches, gave up searching for a new therapist after attempting to meet regularly with several different providers after his move to Nebreska. He eventually met with a therapist in January, after months of false starts. After President Donald Trump returned to office last year, his administration announced plans to overhaul the VA, one of the largest health care systems in the country, to deliver “the highest quality care.” “This administration is finally going to give the veterans what they want,” VA Secretary Doug Collins said last March, as the department announced tens of thousands of job cuts. But in interview after interview, veterans across the country told ProPublica that one year into the second Trump administration it’s become more difficult to get treatment, as hundreds of therapists and social workers have left the VA. Many of them have not been replaced. While front-line mental health care workers were largely exempted from the job cuts, hundreds chose to leave anyway. Some cited disagreements with new administration policies, including several targeting the LGBTQ+ community, while others, facing diminished ranks, said they simply could no longer provide proper care. In January, the department had around 500 fewer psychologists and psychiatrists than it had at the same time last year, ProPublica found. Although the losses represent a relatively small number — about 4% of psychologists and 6% of psychiatrists — they are notable for an agency that has long struggled with inadequate mental health staffing. For years, administrators have listed psychologists in particular among their most “severe staffing shortages.” Mental health is not the only area where the VA has lost medical staff. The agency has eliminated more than 14,000 vacant health care positions across the system, according to data first reported by The New York Times. Data published by the VA going back to May 2023 shows that the agency was adding psychologists every quarter until Trump’s return to the White House. Then, the trend flipped, with departures outpacing hires in all four quarters of last year. Compounding the losses, the agency’s cohort of social workers, some of whom are licensed therapists who provide mental health counseling, declined by nearly 700 staffers over the year. To better understand the departures and their impact on veterans’ care, ProPublica interviewed dozens of former and current VA staffers as well as patients. ProPublica also examined a previously unreported internal employee exit survey, which included hundreds of responses from mental health care workers. “Mental Health is understaffed, burned out, and there is not enough mental health care for the Veterans who need the services,” wrote one New York-based former employee, according to the records. “Support is no longer there to provide ethical and good care for these Veterans,” wrote a second, based in Indiana. “Scheduling issues are incredibly high due to poor staff hiring and retainment.” Yet another wrote that the number of new patients seeking help at their Kansas facility was far too high, making it “unethical to accept more veterans in our clinics.” Many of those vacated positions have gone unfilled due to a yearlong hiring freeze, which was only lifted in January. After Hiring Spree Under Biden, VA Lost Mental Health Staff When Trump Returned to Office The losses under the new administration amount to 4% of the agency’s psychologists, 6% of psychiatrists and 3% of social workers. Note: Quarters are labeled by calendar, not fiscal, year. Source: VA workforce dashboard, internal data. Echoing the exit survey, many who remain on staff describe crushing workloads as they struggle to fill the gaps. Those reached by ProPublica, who agreed to speak only under the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation, said that as staffing losses mount, they’ve seen their patient loads increase, while administrators shorten their appointments and pack more and more clients into group therapy sessions. “It was always bad,” said one VA psychologist, referring to staffing at a facility in Arizona. “And now it’s at a breaking point.” The therapist described being stretched so thin that schedulers replaced some one-on-one sessions with online group sessions that included as many as 35 veterans. The therapist said despite that they were still overloaded with individual sessions and had to limit each one to as little as 16 minutes. The VA declined ProPublica’s request to interview an official familiar with its mental health programs. In an email, VA spokesperson Peter Kasperowicz accused ProPublica of attempting to mislead the public by “cherry picking issues that are limited to a handful of sites and in many cases were worse under the Biden Administration.” He argued that the agency’s performance around mental health has improved since Trump took office, citing more than 15.5 million direct mental health care appointments in the most recent fiscal year (Oct. 1, 2024, to Sept. 30, 2025), a 4% increase from the previous fiscal year. He did not say whether those additional appointments were for individual therapy. Kasperowicz also noted that the administration has opened 25 new health care clinics. After ProPublica shared its findings and the names of veterans who would appear in this story, the agency reached out to several to inquire about their care and offer help. The veterans told ProPublica they remained skeptical that the VA would consistently respond to their mental health needs. As the ranks of mental health care providers at the VA have shrunk, the department has proposed shifting billions of dollars into community care, a program in which veterans obtain health care via private physicians and other providers. But the program has been stretched thin amid the loss of administrative staff and ongoing issues finding private therapists, ProPublica found, with veterans encountering longer delays as they seek help. In December, patients waited an average of around 25 days just to receive a confirmed appointment date, nearly four times the VA’s stated goal for scheduling community care. Collins has disputed assertions that there’s a systemwide problem with access to mental health care. “And if you need emergency care, or are in a crisis situation, you have immediate care,” he told a Senate committee in January. He said the VA’s average wait time for new patients seeking mental health care appointments was less than 20 days, the number it has set as its goal. But other VA officials have acknowledged problems with access. “There are wait times at some facilities that are beyond what our expectations and standards would be,” Dr. Ilse Wiechers, assistant undersecretary for health for patient care services, told senators at a separate hearing. ProPublica’s analysis found that wait times fluctuate dramatically, and fast access to care can depend on location. For example, the small clinic near Beaman’s home in rural Nebraska, with its comparatively small staff, saw appointment wait times for new mental health clients climb as high as 60 days in December and drop to 20 days in February, according to the VA figures. But a closer look at the entire VA system reveals that a large number of facilities are struggling. In early February, more than half of its hospitals and clinics reported one-on-one mental health appointment wait times for new patients that were longer, and in some cases far longer, than the VA’s 20-day goal, according to a ProPublica analysis of data published on the agency’s website. In late December, Beaman said he received an email from the VA saying he’d been approved for additional therapy. He was able to meet with a therapist in January — after about six months of waiting and going more than a year without a session. In the interim, he said, he relied on prescription medications, video games and his therapy dogs to keep him steady. Still, his anxiety worsened, he said, and now he often feels so uncomfortable around others that he rarely leaves his home except to walk his dogs while wearing headphones so no one speaks to him. Kasperowicz, the VA spokesperson, wrote in his email to ProPublica that Beaman had “more than a dozen mental health visits at VA between late 2024 to mid-2025 through the Cheyenne VA clinic” in Wyoming, which is about an hour-and-a-half trip for Beaman. Kasperowicz declined, however, to say whether those appointments involved the one-on-one mental health counseling Beaman had requested. Beaman said he only had two sessions for one-on-one therapy in 2025 — meetings that were truncated because of the therapists’ impending departures. Kasperowicz also said that one of Beaman’s appointments didn’t occur because he had “moved.” Beaman, however, said he has lived at only one address in Nebraska. Experts warn that the exodus of mental health care providers from the VA has hurt the agency’s ability to meet veterans’ unique needs. “VA psychologists are best in class,” said Russell Lemle, former chief psychologist for the San Francisco VA Health Care System and a senior policy analyst at the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute. “They have research and training and decades-long experience” working with veterans.  “When you lose them, the veterans are the ones who pay the price,” he said. Michelle Phillips, a Navy veteran, received a pink toy soldier at a Department of Veterans Affairs event. “It Could Mean Life or Death” Michelle Phillips, 56, a Navy veteran from Ohio, saw her therapist in remote sessions once a week for two years for her PTSD. Then, in December, Phillips’ therapist told her that she was quitting the VA because of Trump’s policies. The change, Phillips said, “could mean life or death.” Years of depression have led Phillips to isolate. Inside her small home about an hour outside of Columbus, the city where she enlisted in 1988, the walls are filled with reminders of brighter times — photos of family members and military paraphernalia from her time in the service. Her only real company is an aging dog, and she almost never leaves. Her virtual therapy sessions were “the only contact that I had coming in my home to talk to me every week,” she said. “And I would sit and just wait for that appointment.” Phillips said the counselor requested that the VA continue her one-on-one remote counseling with a new therapist — which totaled about four hours per month. The agency initially offered her virtual group therapy, an option that her previous therapist dismissed as inappropriate. In the third week of January, the VA told Phillips she could have an appointment for one-on-one sessions in March. She later declined the appointment because she didn’t want to face starting over with a new therapist. Phillips, who is disabled and doesn’t work, said she will try to pay for one-on-one therapy out of pocket with the same therapist who left the VA but will likely only be able to afford one, possibly two, sessions a month. Phillips was sent an iPad by the VA for her remote therapy sessions. It sits unused since Phillips’ VA therapist told her that she was quitting. James Jones said his close connection to his VA therapist, who was trained in combat trauma, helped him control his PTSD-fueled episodes of anger and alcohol abuse. Now the 54-year-old Gulf War veteran, who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina, has seen his care cut in half after his therapist told him colleagues had quit and he had to pick up the load. His sessions went from an hour every week to half an hour every two weeks. “I can tell it’s rushed,” said Jones, a maintenance mechanic with the National Park Service. “I’m not able to work through something.” Others have found it difficult to establish care in the first place. Last summer, George Retes, 26, who left the Army in 2022 after serving for four years, was driving to work in Camarillo, California, when he was suddenly caught between immigration agents and protesters. Retes said the agents broke his car window, pepper-sprayed him and detained him for days. The incident, which ProPublica detailed last fall, left him shaken and exacerbated the PTSD that was first sparked after he faced missile attacks in Iraq, Retes said. (The Department of Homeland Security has not responded to ProPublica’s questions about Retes.) Following his release, Retes found himself withdrawing from the world. “I wasn’t texting anyone or talking to anyone,” he said. “Not even my kids.” A few weeks after being arrested, Retes sought help from the VA clinic in Ventura, California, where staffers told him they’d be in touch for an appointment. But Retes said he never heard back, even after he called to follow up. His incident with Immigration and Customs Enforcement was in July. Retes is still waiting. According to data on the VA’s website, new patients seeking individual therapy at the Ventura clinic had to wait an average of two and a half months in early February. The VA said it could not discuss Jones’ or Retes’ accounts because the veterans declined to waive their privacy rights. Strains on the System The VA overhaul has also taken a toll on mental health providers, many of whom quit after spending years at the agency. Natalie McCarthy worked as a social worker and mental health therapist for a decade before quitting the VA in May. Like many others working in mental health, she did all of her work remotely; from her Ohio home she saw vets mostly from the Washington, D.C., area. But McCarthy and her colleagues faced pressure to return to agency offices after the VA issued new restrictions on telehealth workers. She was uneasy about the prospect of having to conduct sessions in makeshift spaces like conference rooms filled with other counselors — a situation that raised widespread ethical concerns over the legally mandated privacy for medical conversations. Complicating matters, McCarthy said, were Trump’s orders eliminating diversity and equity initiatives within the federal government. She said she began to worry that therapists would no longer be able to discuss the subject of race with their patients or document patients’ thoughts on the topic in their session notes. So she quit. “I was angry that veterans were in that position,” said McCarthy, who started her own practice. “I was angry that I was in that position. It just felt like an unnecessary thing to have to navigate.” Psychologist Mary Brinkmeyer quit working with the VA last February after her superiors began enforcing the Trump administration’s anti-diversity agenda. Psychologist Mary Brinkmeyer found herself in a similar situation. She started at a VA facility in metropolitan Norfolk, Virginia, in 2022 after seeing a posting for an LGBTQ+ care coordinator, which oversees support programs for LGBTQ+ veterans and helps navigate their care. She quit last February after her superiors began enforcing Trump’s anti-diversity orders. Brinkmeyer said she was told to stop conducting training for physicians and other staff on best practices for caring for LGBTQ+ patients. Then, she said, staff members were ordered to remove all LGBTQ+ paraphernalia from the facility such as rainbow flags, identity-affirming literature and program brochures. Also, an edict was issued directing people to use the bathroom of their gender assigned at birth, Brinkmeyer said. That’s when the VA stopped feeling like a welcoming place. “There was a failure of empathy,” she said. The VA did not respond directly to either Brinkmeyer’s or McCarthy’s accounts of how the administration’s policies had impacted the quality of mental health care. Much like those seeking mental health care directly from the VA, veterans referred to community care are also struggling to secure appointments. Gwyn Bourlakov, 58, enlisted in the Army National Guard in 1998 and over the following 21 years she was awarded a Bronze Star for her service in the invasion of Iraq, climbed the ranks to become a major and won a Fulbright scholarship to study Russian history. Today, after a series of professional setbacks, Bourlakov works as a museum security guard. Lingering PTSD from her time in the service, coupled with deep bouts of depression over her current circumstances, have kept her seeking the VA’s help despite long-standing frustrations with its services. After she began looking for a new therapist last year following a move to Colorado, officials at her local VA clinic in Golden said at her intake appointment that its in-house providers were swamped and could not see new patients for at least six months. She asked if she could get help through community care, but staffers told her that the system was so overwhelmed that it would be a “nightmare,” she recalled. Veterans living in eastern Colorado waited 57 days on average to get a community care appointment scheduled in December, VA figures show. Bourlakov said she tried to get help through a separate VA clinic, but when her phone calls went unanswered, she finally gave up. “I don’t have time for all of that,” she explained. “It’s just like shouting into the wind.” Gwyn Bourlakov gave up looking for care through the VA after a series of unanswered calls and attempts to find help went nowhere. After inquiries by ProPublica, VA authorities reached back out to offer her assistance. Following inquiries from ProPublica, VA officials reached out to Bourlakov and other veterans interviewed for this story to offer additional assistance with their mental health care. The calls left several frustrated, saying it shouldn’t take questions from the media for them to get help from the VA.  Though skeptical, Bourlakov decided to move forward. She was contacted by three separate VA representatives in February asking about her health and if she needed help scheduling a therapy appointment.  The earliest telehealth appointment they offered was not until June, she said. The next available in-person slot was not until July. Bourlakov opted for June. The post Veterans Who Depend on Mental Health Care Keep Losing Their Therapists Under Trump appeared first on ProPublica.

[Category: Health Care, Military]

— Amid Crowded Skies, FAA Kills Rule Aimed at Regulating Space Junk

 

at 3/12/26 3:00am

The Trump administration is backing off a rule aimed at stopping commercial space companies from leaving rocket bodies in Earth’s orbit, a practice that experts say could threaten public safety and telecommunications. The Federal Aviation Administration first proposed the measure in 2023, under the Biden administration, in hopes of curbing the growing junkyard of debris circling the planet. It would have required companies like Elon Musk’s SpaceX to safely remove such spacecraft within 25 years of launch, saying they “pose a significant risk to people on the ground due to their mass and the uncertainty of where they will land.”  Officials cited examples such as a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket reentering Earth’s atmosphere over the Pacific Northwest in March 2021, which created streaks of lights across the night sky and dropped a tank on a farm in Washington state. SpaceX and other companies, however, criticized the proposal, citing concerns that included its cost, and in January, the FAA nixed the rule, saying the agency needs more time to research it.  “FAA intends to review the space launch industry cost inputs and expectations with respect to debris mitigation activities,” the FAA said, adding it would also look at the agency’s authority to enact such regulations. In response to questions for this story, an agency spokesperson reiterated that rationale. The White House did not respond to requests for comment about the withdrawal. The action is a concession to the commercial space industry and follows moves by President Donald Trump’s administration last year to roll back regulations meant to protect the environment and the public during rocket launches. “The Trump administration is committed to cementing America’s dominance in space without compromising public safety or national security,” a White House spokesperson said last summer.  Critics, however, said the government was missing an opportunity to control debris — and endangering the public in the process. Rockets can be hundreds of feet tall and typically are made up of multiple parts, known as stages. After any lower stages fall away, the upper stage continues on into space to deploy payloads such as satellites or to perform other missions. “Instead of requiring companies to responsibly dispose of these upper stages, the U.S. has decided to roll the dice on a person or a plane getting hit by falling debris,” said Ewan Wright, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of British Columbia and junior fellow at the Outer Space Institute, a nonprofit that supported the rule.  Wright’s research with colleagues found a 20% to 29% chance that debris from a reentering rocket would kill at least one bystander sometime in the next decade. No deaths have occurred from falling space debris yet. But minor injuries have been documented, including a boy in China whose toe was broken and a woman who was hit on the shoulder in Tulsa, Oklahoma. In 2024, a piece of metal from the International Space Station crashed through the roof of a home in Naples, Florida. The explosions of two SpaceX Starship megarockets last year that rained debris over the Caribbean brought new attention to the danger to airplanes as spacecraft reenter the atmosphere — sometimes in an uncontrolled way. After ProPublica wrote about the Starship mishaps, the FAA issued a new warning to airlines, saying that rocket launches could “significantly reduce safety” and that pilots should prepare for the possibility that “catastrophic failures” could create dangerous debris. Space junk also adds to the threat, experts said, for both the space program and daily life on Earth. If the growing debris field above the planet is left unchecked, the FAA said in 2023, it could clutter orbits used for human spaceflight and increase the chance of collisions causing damage to satellites that support communications, weather forecasting and global positioning systems. The FAA said at the time that the rule was an attempt to bring the evolving commercial space industry in line with national practices that are followed by NASA and with international guidelines.  Wright said that about half of all launches leave the rocket’s upper stage in orbit. There, it can pose a risk to crewed space stations and interfere with astronomers’ research before crashing to earth.  In the last three years, U.S. rocket companies, including SpaceX and United Launch Alliance, have abandoned 41 upper stage rockets in orbit, Wright said. Thirty-three are still there now. “Abandoning truck-sized upper stages in orbit is an irresponsible act,” he said. In response, SpaceX pointed to a statement posted on its website, saying it has been working to reduce — and ultimately eliminate — space debris left behind by Falcon, which regularly deploys new Starlink satellites.  “In 2024, 13 out of 134 upper Falcon 9 stages remained on-orbit after successful payload deploys,” the company said. “In 2025, we reduced this number to three out of a total of 165 launches.” United Launch Alliance, a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Boeing, said through a spokesperson that it disposes of its upper stage rockets safely “by placing them in a graveyard orbit or conducting a controlled reentry where most of the stage disintegrates over the remote, deep ocean.”  A piece of space debris has fallen to Earth every day on average for the last 50 years, the FAA said when it proposed the rule. Last year, an eight-foot, 1,100-pound ring from a rocket fell on a remote Kenyan village, and fragments of a Falcon 9 were found in a forest, warehouse and field in Poland. The FAA’s proposal would have required launch companies to submit a plan for how they would remove debris prior to launch and would apply to any pieces of debris larger than five millimeters. Acceptable options for disposing of used rockets that couldn’t burn up in the atmosphere would include pushing them out to a higher “disposal” orbit or navigating them to splashdown in a “broad ocean area,” the FAA wrote. Read More “We’re Too Close to the Debris” In comments responding to the proposal, commercial space companies challenged the FAA’s authority to implement the rule and said they were concerned about issues including cost. SpaceX said the proposal “grossly underestimates the costs and impacts of the proposed rule and overstates the benefits.” Experts worry that a debris collision could create a chain reaction that would be hard to stop, rendering large areas unnavigable — a phenomenon known as Kessler syndrome. In 2009, a U.S. satellite and a defunct Russian satellite collided above northern Siberia, generating more than 2,300 pieces of debris large enough to be tracked. The problem complicates SpaceX’s work, too. As the New Scientist reported in January, the company’s Starlink satellites regularly maneuver to avoid colliding with objects such as other satellites or space debris — performing about 300,000 such actions last year alone. The post Amid Crowded Skies, FAA Kills Rule Aimed at Regulating Space Junk appeared first on ProPublica.

[Category: Regulation]

— Report Confirms Columbia Ignored Decades of Doctor’s Sexual Abuse

 

at 3/11/26 2:05pm

Decades after patients first warned Columbia University that one of its doctors sexually abused them, some university administrators have finally faced consequences. On Tuesday, Columbia released a long-awaited report that details a culture of silence that allowed OB-GYN Robert Hadden to abuse more than 1,000 patients during his nearly 25-year career at Columbia.  In unveiling the report, the university also announced that two long-time administrators are leaving their positions.  Dr. Mary D’Alton, chair of the OB-GYN department and Hadden’s former boss, has stepped down. D’Alton will maintain her clinical practice. Dr. Lee Goldman, the former dean of the medical school, will retire. The two were administrators above Hadden. They were also among those cc’d on a 2012 letter that let Hadden continue seeing patients even after he was arrested when one woman reported he’d assaulted her. Yesterday’s report was prompted by a ProPublica investigation that revealed how Columbia had dismissed women and ultimately protected a predator. Amid outrage in the wake of the 2023 story, Columbia announced it would set up a $100 million fund for survivors and initiate an independent review.   More than two years after the review was announced, the 156-page report was published days after the New York attorney general said it was investigating Columbia’s response to the Hadden case. The report outlines how more than a dozen patients complaints had gone nowhere, in part because of the lack of clear reporting procedures. The report also found a “hierarchal institutional culture” in which physicians occupied an “exalted” or “god-like” status that made it difficult for staff to report concerns. One patient, Eva Santos Veloz, was 18 years old when she saw Hadden for an emergency delivery in 2008. At the time, she and her mother reported that Hadden had touched her in ways that made her uncomfortable, sometimes without gloves. Nothing happened after she filed the complaint. At the time, she said, she came to believe she was making the whole thing up because no one seemed to believe her. Santos said that while the report confirms that she was right all along, it doesn’t tell her anything new. “The only peace it gives me is that they are publicly saying, ‘We knew about this and we did nothing,’” she said. The report also lists five different complaints that were reported to leadership but resulted in no action against Hadden. Investigators note that the university’s record-keeping practices were insufficient and that higher-ups failed to conduct a full investigation into his misconduct. Andrew Toth/Getty Images Patrick McMullan/Getty Images As a result of the report, both Dr. Mary D’Alton, first image, chair of the OB-GYN department, and Dr. Lee Goldman, former dean of the medical school, are leaving their administrative positions at the school. In an internal email sent Tuesday to the OB-GYN department and obtained by ProPublica, D’Alton announced that she will remain on the faculty “to continue our department’s work of advancing women’s health.”  “I cannot adequately express the sorrow that I feel for the suffering Robert Hadden inflicted on his patients,” D’Alton wrote in the email. “That these acts were committed by a doctor in our department, including while I was chair, pains me deeply and always will.” A similar statement posted to the Columbia website does not note her continued employment. D’Alton did not respond to a request for comment. In a statement, Goldman said his “heart breaks for the victims of Robert Hadden.” He continued: “Throughout my tenure we focused on prioritizing a culture of ethics and patient safety at the medical school, and to reassess and enhance its policies and procedures on an ongoing basis.” The report also confirms that executives at the top of the organizations — including former Columbia President Lee Bollinger, as well as one of the trustees at both Columbia and NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, the Columbia-affiliated system where Hadden was an attending physician — had been alerted to Hadden’s arrest the evening it occurred. Bollinger, who retired from his post in the summer of 2023, did not respond to a request for comment. A letter accompanying the report’s release said, “The University remains steadfast in our commitment to our ongoing responsibilities. We must continue to operate with transparency and confront systemic failures when they occur.” Columbia did not provide an additional comment. In a statement, a group of survivors, including Marissa Hoechstetter and Evelyn Yang, criticized the report for failing to examine what happened in the years after Hadden left Columbia — including the university’s documented efforts to destroy evidence, fight former patients in court and discredit those survivors. The statement also points out that Claire Shipman, the current acting president of the university and who signed Tuesday’s announcement, has been on the board of trustees since 2013, amid the fallout from the Hadden case. She did not respond to a request for comment. Read More How Columbia Ignored Women, Undermined Prosecutors and Protected a Predator for More Than 20 Years “What Columbia has released today offers the bare minimum accountability for failures that should have been addressed years ago,” the survivors’ statement said. “It confirms the systemic breakdown that allowed Hadden to operate. But it stops short of examining the cover-up culture that survivors experienced firsthand once the abuse came to light.” The deadline to submit a claim for compensation to Columbia’s survivor fund, which was established for former patients who do not want to file a lawsuit, was extended to June 15. The post Report Confirms Columbia Ignored Decades of Doctor’s Sexual Abuse appeared first on ProPublica.

[Category: Criminal Justice, Education]

— DHS Seeks Access to Massive Employment, Salary and Family Database Legally Restricted to Use in Child Support Cases

 

at 3/11/26 3:00am

The Trump administration’s immigration enforcement arm is requesting unfettered access to what is considered to be the most comprehensive government database of people in the United States and their most private information, including sensitive details about individual children, according to six current and former federal officials. It is called the Federal Parent Locator Service, and it’s meant for finding people who owe child support. Granting access to the Department of Homeland Security, the officials said, would violate a federal law that explicitly limits its use to determining and collecting child support payments and a handful of other narrow purposes. But DHS’ ask is being seriously considered within the Department of Health and Human Services, which maintains the database. The database contains the name, address, Social Security number, employer, and salary or wages of every employed person in the country, as well as the equivalent details for anyone listed in state unemployment systems. It exists so that if someone owes child support, the government can pursue them for it even if they’ve changed jobs or moved to another state.  The repository includes these personal details and employment records, updated throughout the year, for all types of people — even those who don’t have any children. Only some who work exclusively in the gig or cash economy, or who are entirely self-employed, might not be listed. The database also names every child in the U.S. who is the subject of a state child support case, including each child’s sex, birthday and Social Security number, as well as family members’ names and relationships. And it identifies when single mothers and kids who receive child support are domestic violence victims — alongside their address.  “This is the most powerful people-finder system that the U.S. government has, and possibly that exists,” said Bethanne Barnes, who from 2019 through October of last year was a data director for the Administration for Children and Families, the subdivision of HHS that oversees the database. Turning the child support data over to Homeland Security “would be disastrous for child support enforcement” and “would ruin the foundation of the child support program,” said Vicki Turetsky, who was commissioner of HHS’ office of child support enforcement from 2009 to 2016. Turetsky said that if this were to happen, many employers, fearful of ICE arrests of their employees or workplace raids, would consider no longer reporting new hires to the government. This in turn would degrade the ability of the system to find parents who owe payments to their kids, she said. State child support agency leaders have been nervously messaging one another about this prospect recently, said Kate Cooper Richardson, the longtime head of Oregon’s child support program who retired in January. State officials have spent decades building trust with employers, Cooper Richardson said, reminding them that submitting their new-hire data to child support authorities is required and that sensitive information about their workers will be used only for child support enforcement and otherwise kept confidential. Some business leaders have already reached out to state administrators, she said, concerned about rumors of President Donald Trump’s administration seeking to use this data for immigration enforcement. “And if we’re not learning from employers when a parent who owes child support gets a new job, who loses in that situation?” Cooper Richardson said. “The 1 in 5 U.S. children who rely on consistent and regular child support.” A White House spokesperson said in a statement that “the entire Trump administration is working to lawfully implement the President’s agenda to put Americans first. Any sensitive information required to do so will be obtained and handled properly.” A DHS representative requested additional time to respond to detailed questions sent by email, which ProPublica agreed to, but DHS did not provide any responses.  Last year, Department of Government Efficiency appointees sought and for a brief period gained access to the National Directory of New Hires, the part of the child support database that contains people’s employment information. It is unclear what, if anything, the DOGE team did with this data; the federal courts temporarily blocked it from continuing to access Social Security, IRS and other sensitive records, and then DOGE disbanded last summer before final rulings on the legality of its efforts had been made.  Over the past month, though, three officials said, DHS has separately and expressly requested both the new-hire data and also the Federal Case Registry, the other half of the database where the catalog of all child support cases is housed. This has the much more sensitive specifics on families and children, including information on paternity, domestic violence and more. It is unclear why DHS would want this, given that locating undocumented immigrants at their places of work or targeting those businesses for raids would be possible using just the employment data, without all of the case registry’s additional personal details. Whatever DHS’ intentions might be, multiple officials and privacy experts interviewed for this story expressed concern that abusers in the ranks of law enforcement would soon be able to see their victims’ case information and addresses, and that a manifest of vulnerable children would become widely available in the government. Read More The Untold Saga of What Happened When DOGE Stormed Social Security The Department of Health and Human Services general counsel’s office, which is run by a Trump political official, must now decide whether it believes federal law allows the agency to provide DHS with the full child support database. Child support staff strongly oppose doing this, but the request is now with the lawyers, people familiar with the situation said. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. may also have to approve the data sharing. If it’s approved, the department is likely to be sued by legal advocacy groups almost immediately, lawyers and experts said. HHS did not respond to a request for comment. Internal emails show that HHS’ Administration for Children and Families last year was also directed to cross-check all of its other datasets — on families who interact with child care, foster care, Head Start and other systems — against DHS immigration records. The Trump administration has expanded a DHS tool called SAVE to allow federal and state agencies to check the citizenship of millions of people at once, including those who rely on public assistance programs like these. (Also using this tool, the administration has consistently inaccurately flagged citizens as noncitizens on state voter rolls, ProPublica has reported.) In DHS’ efforts to gather data from other agencies, the department has argued that several U.S. statutes allow federal law enforcement to obtain information without a warrant from any government agency pertaining to the identity and location of people living in the country illegally, especially if national security is at stake. In DHS’ view, these statutes should overrule all others, even a law that would seem to bar the department from obtaining an entire database of sensitive information about children unrelated to immigration. Congress has previously permitted a handful of exceptions that allow certain agencies to access parts of the child support data archive. That includes using it in limited ways to help manage custody and visitation cases, to pursue people who have federal student loan debt and to check the incomes of those who apply for means-tested government programs, like housing assistance.  Maya Bernstein has overseen federal data privacy policies for over three decades, starting during the first Bush administration. In the 1990s, she helped lead the work on the creation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the medical records privacy law, before serving 20 years as the senior adviser for privacy policy at HHS. “I know a lot about a lot of different databases,” she said, and the child support database is “the one that I’m most worried about.” “It is very unusual for them to want the Federal Case Registry,” Bernstein added, referring to the part of the database with children’s case information. “In my career, no one has asked for access to that. Most people have never even heard of it.” The post DHS Seeks Access to Massive Employment, Salary and Family Database Legally Restricted to Use in Child Support Cases appeared first on ProPublica.

[Category: Immigration, Trump Administration]

— The U.S. Built a Blueprint to Avoid Civilian War Casualties. Trump Officials Scrapped It.

 

at 3/10/26 3:25pm

Images from the missile strike in southern Iran were more horrifying than any of the case studies Air Force combat veteran Wes J. Bryant had pored over in his mission to overhaul how the U.S. military safeguards civilian life. Parents wept over their childrens bodies. Crushed desks and blood-stained backpacks poked through the rubble. The death toll from the attack on an elementary school in Minab climbed past 165, most of them under age 12, with nearly 100 others wounded, according to Iranian health officials. Photos of small coffins and rows of fresh graves went viral, a devastating emblem of Day 1 in the open-ended U.S.-Israeli war in Iran. Bryant, a former special operations targeting specialist, said he couldn’t help but think of what-ifs as he monitored fallout from the Feb. 28 attack. Just over a year ago, he had been a senior adviser in an ambitious new Defense Department program aimed at reducing civilian harm during operations. Finally, Bryant said, the military was getting serious about reforms. He worked out of a newly opened Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, where his supervisor was a veteran strike-team targeter who had served as a United Nations war crimes investigator. Today, that momentum is gone. Bryant was forced out of government in cuts last spring. The civilian protection mission was dissolved as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made “lethality” a top priority. And the world has witnessed a tragedy in Minab that, if U.S. responsibility is confirmed, would be the most civilians killed by the military in a single attack in decades. Dismantling the fledgling harm-reduction effort, defense analysts say, is among several ways the Trump administration has reorganized national security around two principles: more aggression, less accountability. Trump and his aides lowered the authorization level for lethal force, broadened target categories, inflated threat assessments and fired inspectors general, according to more than a dozen current and former national security personnel. Nearly all spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. “We’re departing from the rules and norms that we’ve tried to establish as a global community since at least World War II,” Bryant said. “There’s zero accountability.” Citing open-source intelligence and government officials, several news outlets have concluded that the strike in Minab most likely was carried out by the United States. President Donald Trump, without providing evidence, told reporters March 7 that it was “done by Iran.” Hegseth, standing next to the president aboard Air Force One, said the matter was under investigation. The next day, the open-source research outfit Bellingcat said it had authenticated a video showing a Tomahawk missile strike next to the school in Minab. Iranian state media later showed fragments of a U.S.-made Tomahawk, as identified by Bellingcat and others, at the site. The United States is the only party to the conflict known to possess Tomahawks. U.N. human rights experts have called for an investigation into whether the attack violated international law. The Department of Defense and White House did not respond to requests for comment. Since the post-9/11 invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, successive U.S. administrations have faced controversies over civilian deaths. Defense officials eager to shed the legacy of the “forever wars” have periodically called for better protections for civilians, but there was no standardized framework until 2022, when Biden-era leaders adopted a strategy rooted in work that had begun under the first Trump presidency. Formalized in a 2022 action plan and in a Defense Department instruction, the initiatives are known collectively as Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response, a clunky name often shortened to CHMR and pronounced “chimmer.” Around 200 personnel were assigned to the mission, including roughly 30 at the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, a coordination hub near the Pentagon. The CHMR strategy calls for more in-depth planning before an attack, such as real-time mapping of the civilian presence in an area and in-depth analysis of the risks. After an operation, reports of harm to noncombatants would prompt an assessment or investigation to figure out what went wrong and then incorporate those lessons into training. By the time Trump returned to power, harm-mitigation teams were embedded with regional commands and special operations leadership. During Senate confirmation hearings, several Trump nominees for top defense posts voiced support for the mission. Once in office, however, they stood by as the program was gutted, current and former national security officials said. Around 90% of the CHMR mission is gone, former personnel said, with no more than a single adviser now at most commands. At Central Command, where a 10-person team was cut to one, “a handful” of the eliminated positions were backfilled to help with the Iran campaign. Defense officials can’t formally close the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence without congressional approval, but Bryant and others say it now exists mostly on paper. “It has no mission or mandate or budget,” Bryant said. Spike in Strikes Global conflict monitors have since recorded a dramatic increase in deadly U.S. military operations. Even before the Iran campaign, the number of strikes worldwide since Trump returned to office had surpassed the total from all four years of Joe Biden’s presidency. Had the Defense Department’s harm-reduction mission continued apace, current and former officials say, the policies almost certainly would’ve reduced the number of noncombatants harmed over the past year. Beyond the moral considerations, they added, civilian casualties fuel militant recruiting and hinder intelligence-gathering. Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who commanded U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, explains the risk in an equation he calls “insurgent math”: For every innocent killed, at least 10 new enemies are created. U.S.-Israeli strikes have already killed more than 1,200 civilians in Iran, including nearly 200 children, according to Human Rights Activists News Agency, a U.S.-based group that verifies casualties through a network in Iran. The group says hundreds more deaths are under review, a difficult process given Iran’s internet blackout and dangerous conditions. A mourner holds a portrait of students during a funeral held after a school in Iran’s Hormozgan province was bombed. Thousands attended the ceremony. Stringer/Anadolu via Getty Images Defense analysts say the civilian toll of the Iran campaign, on top of dozens of recent noncombatant casualties in Yemen and Somalia, reopens dark chapters from the “war on terror” that had prompted reforms in the first place. “It’s a recipe for disaster,” a senior counterterrorism official who left the government a few months ago said of the Trump administration’s yearlong bombing spree. “It’s ‘Groundhog Day’ — every day we’re just killing people and making more enemies.” In 2015, two dozen patients and 14 staff members were killed when a heavily armed U.S. gunship fired for over an hour on a Doctors Without Borders hospital in northern Afghanistan, a disaster that has become a cautionary tale for military planners. “Our patients burned in their beds, our medical staff were decapitated or lost limbs. Others were shot from the air while they fled the burning building,” the international aid group said in a report about the destruction of its trauma center in Kunduz. A U.S. military investigation found that multiple human and systems errors had resulted in the strike team mistaking the building for a Taliban target. The Obama administration apologized and offered payouts of $6,000 to families of the dead. Human rights advocates had hoped the Kunduz debacle would force the U.S. military into taking concrete steps to protect civilians during U.S. combat operations. Within a couple years, however, the issue came roaring back with high civilian casualties in U.S.-led efforts to dislodge Islamic State extremists from strongholds in Syria and Iraq. The aftermath of the U.S. airstrike on the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, that killed 42 people. Najim Rahim/AP Images In a single week in March 2017, U.S. operations resulted in three incidents of mass civilian casualties: A drone attack on a mosque in Syria killed around 50; a strike in another part of Syria killed 40 in a school filled with displaced families; and bombing in the Iraqi city of Mosul led to a building collapse that killed more than 100 people taking shelter inside. In heavy U.S. fighting to break Islamic State control over the Syrian city of Raqqa, “military leaders too often lacked a complete picture of conditions on the ground; too often waved off reports of civilian casualties; and too rarely learned any lessons from strikes gone wrong,” according to an analysis by the Pentagon-adjacent Rand Corp. think tank. “Do It Right Now” Under pressure from lawmakers, Trump’s then-Defense Secretary James Mattis ordered a review of civilian casualty protocols. Released in 2019, the review Mattis launched was seen by some advocacy groups as narrow in scope but still a step in the right direction. Yet the issue soon dropped from national discourse, overshadowed by the coronavirus pandemic and landmark racial justice protests. During the Biden administration’s chaotic withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan in August 2021, a missile strike in Kabul killed an aid worker and nine of his relatives, including seven children. Then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin apologized and said the department would “endeavor to learn from this horrible mistake.” That incident, along with a New York Times investigative series into deaths from U.S. airstrikes, spurred the adoption of the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response action plan in 2022. When they established the new Civilian Protection Center of Excellence the next year, defense officials tapped Michael McNerney — the lead author of the blunt RAND report — to be its director. “The strike against the aid worker and his family in Kabul pushed Austin to say, ‘Do it right now,’” Bryant said. The first harm-mitigation teams were assigned to leaders in charge of some of the military’s most sensitive counterterrorism and intelligence-gathering operations: Central Command at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida; the Joint Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina; and Africa Command in Stuttgart, Germany. A former CHMR adviser who joined in 2024 after a career in international conflict work said he was reassured to find a serious campaign with a $7 million budget and deep expertise. The adviser spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. Only a few years before, he recalled, he’d had to plead with the Pentagon to pay attention. “It was like a back-of-the-envelope thing — the cost of a Hellfire missile and the cost of hiring people to work on this.” Bryant became the de facto liaison between the harm-mitigation team and special operations commanders. In December, he described the experience in detail in a private briefing for aides of Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who had sought information on civilian casualty protocols involving boat strikes in the Caribbean Sea. Bryant’s notes from the briefing, reviewed by ProPublica, describe an embrace of the CHMR mission by Adm. Frank Bradley, who at the time was head of the Joint Special Operations Command. In October, Bradley was promoted to lead Special Operations Command. At the end of 2024 and into early 2025, Bryant worked closely with the commander’s staff. The notes describe Bradley as “incredibly supportive” of the three-person CHMR team embedded in his command. Bradley, Bryant wrote, directed “comprehensive lookbacks” on civilian casualties in errant strikes and used the findings to mandate changes. He also introduced training on how to integrate harm prevention and international law into operations against high-value targets. “We viewed Bradley as a model,” Bryant said. Still, the military remained slow to offer compensation to victims and some of the new policies were difficult to independently monitor, according to a report by the Stimson Center, a foreign policy think tank. The CHMR program also faced opposition from critics who say civilian protections are already baked into laws of war and targeting protocols; the argument is that extra oversight “could have a chilling effect” on commanders’ abilities to quickly tailor operations. To keep reforms on track, Bryant said, CHMR advisers would have to break through a culture of denial among leaders who pride themselves on precision and moral authority. “The initial gut response of all commands,” Bryant said, “is: ‘No, we didn’t kill civilians.’” Reforms Unraveled As the Trump administration returned to the White House pledging deep cuts across the federal government, military and political leaders scrambled to preserve the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response framework. At first, CHMR advisers were heartened by Senate confirmation hearings where Trump’s nominees for senior defense posts affirmed support for civilian protections. Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote during his confirmation that commanders “see positive impacts from the program.” Elbridge Colby, undersecretary of defense for policy, wrote that it’s in the national interest to “seek to reduce civilian harm to the degree possible.” When questioned about cuts to the CHMR mission at a hearing last summer, U.S. Navy Vice Adm. Brad Cooper, head of Central Command, said he was committed to integrating the ideas as “part of our culture.” Despite the top-level support, current and former officials say, the CHMR mission didn’t stand a chance under Hegseth’s signature lethality doctrine. The former Fox News personality, who served as an Army National Guard infantry officer in Iraq and Afghanistan, disdains rules of engagement and other guardrails as constraining to the “warrior ethos.” He has defended U.S. troops accused of war crimes, including a Navy SEAL charged with stabbing an imprisoned teenage militant to death and then posing for a photo with the corpse. A month after taking charge, Hegseth fired the military’s top judge advocate generals, known as JAGs, who provide guidance to keep operations in line with U.S. or international law. Hegseth has described the attorneys as “roadblocks” and used the term “jagoff.” At the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, the staff tried in vain to save the program. At one point, Bryant said, he even floated the idea of renaming it the “Center for Precision Warfare” to put the mission in terms Hegseth wouldn’t consider “woke.” By late February 2025, the CHMR mission was imploding, say current and former defense personnel. Shortly before his job was eliminated, Bryant openly spoke out against the cuts in The Washington Post and Boston Globe, which he said landed him in deep trouble at the Pentagon. He was placed on leave in March, his security clearance at risk of revocation. Bryant formally resigned in September and has since become a vocal critic of the administration’s defense policies. In columns and on TV, he warns that Hegseth’s cavalier attitude toward the rule of law and civilian protections is corroding military professionalism. Bryant said it was hard to watch Bradley, the special operations commander and enthusiastic adopter of CHMR, defending a controversial “double-tap” on an alleged drug boat in which survivors of a first strike were killed in a follow-up hit. Legal experts have said such strikes could violate laws of warfare. Bradley did not respond to a request for comment. “Everything else starts slipping when you have this culture of higher tolerance for civilian casualties,” Bryant said. Concerns were renewed in early 2025 with the Trump administration’s revived counterterrorism campaign against Islamist militants regrouping in parts of Africa and the Middle East. Last April, a U.S. air strike hit a migrant detention center in northwestern Yemen, killing at least 61 African migrants and injuring dozens of others in what Amnesty International says “qualifies as an indiscriminate attack and should be investigated as a war crime.” Operations in Somalia also have become more lethal. In 2024, Biden’s last year in office, conflict monitors recorded 21 strikes in Somalia, with a combined death toll of 189. In year one of Trump’s second term, the U.S. carried out at least 125 strikes, with reported fatalities as high as 359, according to the New America think tank, which monitors counterterrorism operations. “It is a strategy focused primarily on killing people,” said Alexander Palmer, a terrorism researcher at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. Last September, the U.S. military announced an attack in northeastern Somalia targeting a weapons dealer for the Islamist militia Al-Shabaab, a U.S.-designated terrorist group. On the ground, however, villagers said the missile strike incinerated Omar Abdullahi, a respected elder nicknamed “Omar Peacemaker” for his role as a clan mediator. After the death, the U.S. military released no details, citing operational security. “The U.S. killed an innocent man without proof or remorse,” Abdullahi’s brother, Ali, told Somali news outlets. “He preached peace, not war. Now his blood stains our soil.” In Iran, former personnel say, the CHMR mission could have made a difference. Under the scrapped harm-prevention framework, they said, plans for civilian protection would’ve begun months ago, when orders to draw up a potential Iran campaign likely came down from the White House and Pentagon. CHMR personnel across commands would immediately begin a detailed mapping of what planners call “the civilian environment,” in this case a picture of the infrastructure and movements of ordinary Iranians. They would also check and update the “no-strike list,” which names civilian targets such as schools and hospitals that are strictly off-limits. One key question is whether the school was on the no-strike list. It sits a few yards from a naval base for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. The building was formerly part of the base, though it has been marked on maps as a school since at least 2013, according to visual forensics investigations. “Whoever ‘hits the button’ on a Tomahawk — they’re part of a system,” the former adviser said. “What you want is for that person to feel really confident that when they hit that button, they’re not going to hit schoolchildren.” If the guardrails failed and the Defense Department faced a disaster like the school strike, Bryant said, CHMR advisers wouldve jumped in to help with transparent public statements and an immediate inquiry. Instead, he called the Trump administration’s response to the attack “shameful.” “It’s back to where we were years ago,” Bryant said. If confirmed, “this will go down as one of the most egregious failures in targeting and civilian harm-mitigation in modern U.S. history.” The post The U.S. Built a Blueprint to Avoid Civilian War Casualties. Trump Officials Scrapped It. appeared first on ProPublica.

[Category: Military]

— Credit Bureaus Are Leaving More Mistakes on Frustrated Consumers’ Reports Under Trump’s CFPB

 

at 3/10/26 3:00am

Rebecca Sheppard specializes in untangling other people’s financial messes. But for nearly a year, the Colorado accountant has been unable to fix a glaring error on her own credit report.  Her credit score plunged roughly 85 points because of a $240,000 student loan debt she does not owe. She repeatedly asked the nation’s big three credit reporting companies to correct the mistake, submitting documentation showing the debt belonged to her ex-husband. Even the loan’s account manager confirmed she wasn’t responsible. Still, the credit bureaus refused to remove it, jeopardizing her plans to move with her disabled father into a more accessible home. “There’s no way in the world I could qualify for the purchase,” she said. Sheppard should have been able to count on the federal government to pressure the credit bureaus to take her dispute seriously. For years, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau wielded the threat of fines and lawsuits to make companies fix errors and engage with consumers. Under the Biden administration, a rigorous supporter of the agency, consumers’ rates of relief for such complaints rose to about 10 times as high as in 2020. But Sheppard needed help under the Trump administration, which has drastically curtailed the CFPB’s mission, including its policing of credit bureaus. With the agency weakened, two of the three major credit bureaus, TransUnion and Experian, have sharply reduced the share of consumer complaints they resolved in customers’ favor, according to a ProPublica analysis of federal complaint data. TransUnion’s relief rate, which had remained relatively steady for several years, began plunging in the summer of 2025. By October it was providing relief roughly half as often. Note: Credit reporting agencies can close complaints in customers’ favor by providing financial or nonmonetary relief, such as changing information on a credit report. Otherwise, complaints are generally closed with an explanation. Complaints are shown in the month the CFPB received the complaint. Companies have up to 60 days to provide a final response. Data as of Feb. 23, 2026. Source: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Joel Jacobs/ProPublica Experian’s drop was even more dramatic. The company resolved nearly 20% of complaints in consumers’ favor in 2024. Last year, that figure fell to less than 1%. Joel Jacobs/ProPublica The third major bureau, Equifax, did not show a similar decline. Just days before President Donald Trump was inaugurated, the company entered into a consent order with the CFPB over deficient dispute and investigation practices. Under the agreement, the company committed to reforms and ongoing oversight. Equifax’s consumer relief mostly kept up with complaints. Joel Jacobs/ProPublica The timing of the drops at TransUnion and Experian coincides with the Trump administration’s dismantling of the CFPB. In February 2025, Russell Vought, a White House official who oversaw sweeping cuts across federal agencies, took control of the CFPB as acting director. He quickly ordered a stop to  nearly all agency work. Under his leadership, the CFPB has attempted to fire most of its staff, frozen investigations and dropped enforcement actions, including against TransUnion. One of the CFPB’s new lawyers leading the pullback on enforcement represented Experian for years before joining the administration. The credit bureaus “want to do as little as possible,” said Chi Chi Wu, director of consumer reporting at the National Consumer Law Center, which is a plaintiff in a lawsuit that has so far blocked some of the administration’s dismantling efforts. “The thing that is making them do any kind of effort is a lawsuit or a regulator, and now we don’t have the regulator,” Wu said.  In statements to ProPublica, the credit bureaus said that many complaints are illegitimate, including a large volume filed by credit repair organizations that charge customers to challenge negative information on their reports. Experian said in a statement that some of those companies “mislead consumers into believing they can remove accurate information,” adding that it investigates “all legitimate” complaints. The company did not respond to specific questions about its decline in relief. Third parties are allowed to submit complaints on behalf of consumers if they disclose their involvement and get permission. Federal regulators have acknowledged that bad actors exist, but the CFPB and a House subcommittee found that the credit bureaus’ systems for identifying third-party involvement were overly broad and dismissed legitimate concerns. Asked about the decline in relief, TransUnion said it recently changed its processes to handle third-party complaints and now redirects those with insufficient documentation to “a more appropriate” internal channel for review. For years, the CFPB’s complaint system has served as a public middleman: forwarding consumer issues to the bureaus, requiring responses and publishing data showing how companies handled them.  But the companies have successfully lobbied the Trump administration to start steering some consumers away from the transparent process and toward their internal systems.  A CFPB spokesperson said the complaint system was inundated with submissions from bots and third-party credit repair firms, and the agency was working to address that so legitimate consumers can more effectively get help. The agency did not respond to written questions about the decline in relief or enforcement. How many consumers get help — or don’t — when using the credit bureaus’ internal systems is not public. But CFPB data shows that since Trump’s inauguration in January 2025, more than 2.7 million credit reporting complaints submitted to the CFPB have gone without relief, leaving some people at risk of being denied loans, housing or employment and subject to higher rates from insurers and lenders.  One anonymized complaint came from a Texan who said a fraudulent account remained on their credit report despite their disputes. “I have an important deal that I need to complete that is important for the safety and survival of my family,” the person wrote. CFPB records show that Equifax provided relief, while TransUnion and Experian did not. Also among those who complained was an Air Force veteran and elections organizer in Arkansas who said the bureaus refused to restore his erroneously deleted mortgage history. ProPublica interviewed the man, Kwami Abdul-Bey, who said the error left him unable to refinance his home or car even after going to multiple lenders. “Each time they tell me that I do not have enough years of credit. I was paying on that mortgage for a decade before that trade line disappeared,” he said.  After ProPublica contacted his mortgage servicer, Wells Fargo, the company reached out to Abdul-Bey to apologize for his situation and said it would investigate. Equifax and Experian did not reply to questions about individual consumers who filed complaints. TransUnion declined to comment on individual situations but said in a statement that the company “has multiple resources available to consumers to help with every step of the dispute process.” Everyday Americans cannot opt out of having their financial data collected and sold by credit bureaus. Congress passed the Fair Credit Reporting Act in 1970, giving consumers the right to flag errors. But more recently, the credit bureaus have employed a limited number of workers — often overseas — to handle enormous volumes of investigations.  TransUnion, for example, had 171 workers responding to consumer disputes covering 38 million line items in 2021. A TransUnion spokesperson said in an email that the company has since added staffing but would not provide a number. “These ‘investigators,’ they have a stack of disputes like a mile high that they have to go through every day,” said Liam Hayden, a Chicago attorney who has represented consumers in credit reporting cases. “A real, authentic investigation costs money.”  After the 2008 financial crisis, Congress created the CFPB to protect Americans from unfair and abusive practices. By 2015, the big three credit bureaus had become the most complained about firms in the agency’s complaint system. Credit Reporting Complaints About the Three Major Credit Bureaus Have Surged in Recent Years Complaints about Equifax, TransUnion and Experian vastly outnumber all other complaints, for matters such as credit cards, loans or debt collection. Note: Data as of Feb. 23, 2026. Source: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Joel Jacobs/ProPublica In 2022, identifying a lack of responsiveness by the credit bureaus to consumer issues, the CFPB released a critical report, alongside guidance on how the companies should address “shoddy investigation practices.” Over the next few years, relief rates rose as the companies provided more individualized responses to complaints filed through the agency. Announcements on the CFPB’s website show the agency has brought a dozen enforcement actions against consumer reporting companies since 2015. Just days before Trump took office, the CFPB announced an enforcement action against Equifax. The company settled, agreeing to pay $15 million and operate under a legally binding consent order designed to fix its dispute process.  Among the reforms, the company agreed to improve its web interface for submitting disputes, avoid relying on faulty information from creditors and not automatically dismiss repeated concerns from the same consumer. The agreement did not specifically mention the company’s handling of CFPB complaints. Equifax was given about a year to put many of the changes in place and has to remain compliant for five years after. ProPublica found that the agency had approved a similar action against TransUnion in July 2024, but it was never brought. Settlement talks ended shortly after the change in administration.  “Given recent changes in CFPB leadership, our engagement with the agency on this matter has paused,” TransUnion wrote in a February 2025 Securities and Exchange Commission filing. “We cannot provide an estimate of when, or if, such engagement will resume.” That month, the CFPB dropped a lawsuit against TransUnion and a former company executive over alleged deceptive practices. TransUnion denied the allegations, calling them “meritless.” The CFPB later ended an agreement meant to fix the company’s failure to promptly place and remove credit freezes. The CFPB sued Experian shortly before the administration changed, alleging failures in its dispute handling processes. Experian has denied the allegations in court, called the suit “completely without merit” and said the company investigates “every consumer dispute thoroughly.” The Experian case remains active. A CFPB spokesperson said that Victoria Dorfman, the new senior legal adviser who previously represented Experian, has recused herself from the case.  In a July public comment letter, Experian argued it should not be required to respond to individual CFPB complaints and that the vast majority of those filed recently are illegitimate. The industry’s lobbying arm, the Consumer Data Industry Association, has urged the CFPB to route more consumers away from the complaint system and make the remaining complaints private.  This year, just a week after receiving a letter from the lobbying group, the CFPB added three notices for consumers to click through before filing a public complaint, warning them that their requests might be ignored if they have not already disputed issues directly with credit bureaus — a standard the agency previously said companies cannot reliably verify. In a statement to ProPublica, the CDIA highlighted that a notice instructing consumers to first dispute directly had been present in the CFPB complaint portal briefly around 2012. The new changes are “necessary to address the widespread misuse of the portal” that divert resources away from legitimate concerns, the group said. Sheppard Theo Stroomer for ProPublica But consumer advocates contend that the industry-friendly changes present even more obstacles for consumers like Sheppard who are trying to get their issues resolved. She twice disputed the student loan error directly with the bureaus. Then in June, she turned to the CFPB. All three responded that they had verified that the debt was hers without addressing documentation she provided to the contrary. In December, she sent another dispute by certified mail, but TransUnion replied with a postcard stating it believed the submission had not come from her. In response to Sheppard’s fourth attempt to get TransUnion to fix an error on her credit report, the company sent her a postcard saying that it did not believe the request came from her. Rebecca Sheppard “They didn’t even try,” Sheppard said. “The fact that they sent that little postcard was just ridiculous.” TransUnion did not provide a response regarding Sheppard’s situation but said in a statement that it “cannot change information furnished to us absent sufficient documentation and clear instruction from the consumer.” In her mailed dispute, Sheppard included a letter she received from the loan account manager stating that she was not responsible for the debt.  With no other options, Sheppard sued the three credit bureaus in January. The companies have not yet responded in court. Without a functioning CFPB, enforcement may fall to state attorneys general and private lawsuits. The Federal Trade Commission can bring cases but lacks the authority to conduct routine supervision. A future without a CFPB will leave consumers increasingly trapped, said Hayden, the Chicago attorney. “In five years, the resolution of consumer disputes is going to be worse, credit reports are going to be worse and it’s going to be harder for folks to fix them, guaranteed.” Have You Recently Sought Help From the CFPB? ProPublica Wants to Hear From You. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is walking away from cases that might have helped return money to consumers across the U.S. We want to hear from people who feel left behind. Share Your Experience The post Credit Bureaus Are Leaving More Mistakes on Frustrated Consumers’ Reports Under Trump’s CFPB appeared first on ProPublica.

[Category: Regulation, Trump Administration]

— ​​Native Students Receive Excessive Discipline in This New Mexico School District, Report Finds

 

at 3/9/26 2:25pm

One of the largest school districts in New Mexico subjects Navajo students to pervasive discrimination and a climate of fear, according to a report released last week by the Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission.  The 25-page report draws on testimony from parents and community members at four public hearings in Navajo Nation communities within the school district. It urges the New Mexico attorney general’s office to release findings from a two-and-a-half-year investigation into the district’s discipline of Indigenous students. The Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission’s report cited an investigation published in December 2022 by New Mexico In Depth and ProPublica that found Indigenous students were punished more harshly than other students in New Mexico during the four years ending in 2020. The Gallup-McKinley district, which has the largest Indigenous student body of any local school district in the country, was largely responsible for that disparity, an analysis of student discipline records from across the state showed. Attorney General Raúl Torrez opened an investigation into the district’s disciplinary practices in 2023.  On Wednesday, Torrez’s chief of staff, Lauren Rodriguez, said the office’s long-running investigation is complete and has found “troubling disciplinary practices.” She added that the agency’s “exhaustive” investigation calls for the state Public Education Department to enforce student discipline data reporting requirements and better track that information. Previously, the district’s former longtime Superintendent Mike Hyatt, had downplayed the amount of discipline Native students receive and pointed to poor data collection as an issue. “It’s our kids, our students, who are suffering the consequences of entrenched racism,” Wendy Greyeyes, the chair of the commission that released the new report and an associate professor of Native American studies at the University of New Mexico, said in an interview.  The Public Education Department should have caught the discipline disparities in the data it collects from districts, Greyeyes said. “There’s obviously not a clear auditing of data that’s being collected,” she said. The attorney general’s office told New Mexico In Depth that, despite its findings, it’s not clear under state law that the office can “pursue formal legal action against the district for this particular conduct.”  That lack of legal clarity, the spokesperson said, is why Torrez has pushed for comprehensive state civil rights legislation since 2023.  Under the New Mexico Civil Rights Act, private individuals can sue public bodies for violations of the state constitution, but law does not explicitly authorize the attorney general to investigate and prosecute public bodies for systemic inequities, the way the federal Department of Justice can. In 2023, New Mexico lawmakers passed a bill that would have given the attorney general broad authority to investigate state or local agencies for civil rights violations. The bill had bipartisan support, but Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham killed it with a pocket veto. (Lujan Grisham did not issue a formal statement about the veto but said at the time that the bill was well-intentioned but would “create confusion” and that “much of the work outlined in the legislation can be undertaken by the AG regardless of whether or not the bill is signed.”) At the time, Torrez told New Mexico In Depth that his office has an implied authority to pursue such cases, but that having it enshrined in law would have made it “crystal clear.” Torrez’s spokesperson said he remains committed to seeing such legislation pass.  At the four meetings held by the Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission in September and October, parents, students and community members described harsh discipline, language barriers, discriminatory hiring practices, problems with special education plans and inadequate classroom heating systems.  Greyeyes described a pervasive fear of retaliation. Some witnesses cried at hearings, she said — afraid their words would get back to the district — and parents spoke on behalf of children too afraid to testify themselves. Transcripts of their testimony were not publicly released. The commission’s report recommends a formal agreement between the Navajo Nation and Gallup-McKinley for the district to adopt a discipline policy based on restorative justice, a strategy that seeks to rebuild relationships, not simply punish the student who caused the harm. Such a policy could be modeled on existing talking-circles programs at New Mexico’s Cuba Independent School District and the STAR School east of Flagstaff, Arizona, on the Navajo Nation, Greyeyes said. The report also recommends a comprehensive state financial audit of the district’s spending on Native education compared to that of other students, and it calls for the state education department to better manage and track districts’ student discipline data.  The school district did not respond to voice messages and emails seeking comment about the Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission report.  The problems identified in the commission’s report are “rooted in colonization,” Greyeyes said. “It’s rooted in institutional racism. A lot of these things are accepted sometimes even by our own Navajo people, and we need to bring this information out and figure out a way to address these issues.” The report’s recommendations “begin that conversation,” she said.  The post ​​Native Students Receive Excessive Discipline in This New Mexico School District, Report Finds appeared first on ProPublica.

[Category: Education]

— He Promised His Dying Mother He’d Protect the Family’s Health. In This Georgia Town, It Isn’t Easy.

 

at 3/9/26 9:30am

Clifford Thomas and his family lost four relatives during the COVID-19 pandemic, including his beloved mother, Beverly. A middle school teacher, Beverly had struggled with chronic health problems all her life, and when they forced her to leave her job due to disability, she was unable to afford regular medical care. Her final request to her son was that he keep the family healthy. But in Albany, Georgia, achieving that promise is a battle. The city is served by a single, dominant hospital system, Phoebe Putney Memorial. Its control of the market and Georgia’s strict limits on Medicaid have left nearly one-third of people in Albany, one of the poorest cities in the state, uninsured. Poor access to quality, affordable care has contributed to deep distrust of the system. Residents like Thomas see Phoebe as more of a barrier to good health than a safety net. He gave up on trying to find medical insurance or a doctor who would care for him without it. Then, he began to get sick. There are millions like Thomas across the United States and dozens of places like Albany — places with populations suffering high rates of chronic but treatable conditions, where the dominant institution is a hospital. ProPublica examines the country’s health care crisis in a five-part series called “Sick in a Hospital Town.” Read or listen to the full series here. Watch this short documentary for a close-up of one man’s effort to overcome the obstacles to care. Read More Sick in a Hospital Town The post He Promised His Dying Mother He’d Protect the Family’s Health. In This Georgia Town, It Isn’t Easy. appeared first on ProPublica.

[Category: Health Care]

— New York Attorney General Is Investigating Columbia for Allowing Predatory Doctor to See Patients Despite Warnings

 

at 3/6/26 11:10am

The New York State attorney general’s office has begun investigating how Columbia University let a predatory doctor continue to see patients despite decades of warnings. “The Office of the Attorney General is conducting a thorough investigation into the institutional response to Robert Hadden’s misconduct,” a spokesperson said in a statement to ProPublica. The agency did not give further details. A ProPublica investigation from the fall of 2023 revealed how Columbia ignored women and ultimately protected Robert Hadden, a longtime OB-GYN at the university. In 2012, Columbia allowed Hadden to continue seeing patients just days after one of them called 911 to report Hadden had sexually assaulted her. In early 2023, Hadden was convicted in federal court of sexually abusing patients. He is currently serving a 20-year sentence. Columbia has paid out more than $1 billion for over 1,000 claims of sexual abuse. After our investigation, Columbia committed to a variety of reforms, including improved patient safety, a $100 million fund for victims and an independent investigation. But advocates, students and survivors say Columbia needs to do far more to grapple with its role in Hadden’s conduct. Four hundred Columbia medical students recently wrote to university officials demanding disciplinary reviews for administrators who failed to heed warnings about Hadden.  Unlike at other universities that have dealt with serially abusive doctors, no higher-ups at Columbia appear to have lost their jobs or been disciplined. Dr. Mary D’Alton, who was cc’d on a letter that authorized Hadden’s return to work, remains the chair of the obstetrics and gynecology department. D’Alton did not respond to a request for comment. Columbia declined to comment for this story. The attorney general’s office has significant powers over New York’s nonprofits, including Columbia. A few years ago, it forced the Trump Foundation to shut down. More recently it sued the National Rife Association, which then had to enact a series of reforms.  Survivors told ProPublica they were heartened that New York is looking into Columbia.  “Accountability is overdue, particularly in light of the Epstein files,” said Evelyn Yang, pointing to recent revelations that several Columbia affiliates had ties to the financier.   Read More How Columbia Ignored Women, Undermined Prosecutors and Protected a Predator for More Than 20 Years Yang was among at least 8 patients who were assaulted by Hadden after he returned to work. She was seven months pregnant at the time. Shortly after our story was published more than two years ago, Columbia promised to “thoroughly examine the circumstances that allowed Hadden’s abuse to continue.”  No report detailing those findings has yet been published.  Last week, Columbia acknowledged in an announcement that there “are many questions” about the timing of the investigation it commissioned. It said that the report is expected to be released “soon.” New York State Assemblymember Grace Lee blasted the university’s failure to issue the report, telling ProPublica the university has not taken responsibility for what happened. “To me, its just outrageous that we are here now in 2026 and we still have no report and no one has been held accountable,” she said. By comparison, the external investigation into the University of Michigan’s response to the crimes committed by its former physician Robert Anderson took about 15 months.  Another Hadden survivor, Marissa Hoechstetter, said the attorney general’s decision to examine Columbia provides some relief because the institution has repeatedly failed to do so itself. “I do believe institutional accountability is a missing part of making a bigger change in the fight of gender-based violence,” Hoechstetter said. “I don’t know what will come of this investigation” — referring to New York’s probe — “but it shows that institutions that protect and cover up abusers in order to protect their own people and reputation will be held accountable.” Hoechstetter and Yang both advocated for the passage of the Adult Survivors Act, a New York State law that in 2022 opened a one-year window in which survivors of sexual assault could file civil suits against their abusers or the institutions that protected them, even after the statute of limitations had passed. For years, the university had failed to notify Hadden’s former patients of his misconduct. Finally, in November 2023, just 10 days before the law’s extended window closed, Columbia announced it would send letters to almost 6,500 patients. A closed town hall meeting at the medical school this January gave a window into who was behind that lack of notification. “It actually is a Board of Trustee decision” because of the potential cost of litigation, Monica Lypson, the vice dean for medical education, told students in a recording that ProPublica obtained. Lypson did not respond to a request for comment. Separately, the deadline to submit a claim to Columbia’s survivors’ settlement fund, which was established for survivors who do not want to file lawsuits, has been extended to April 15. The post New York Attorney General Is Investigating Columbia for Allowing Predatory Doctor to See Patients Despite Warnings appeared first on ProPublica.

[Category: Criminal Justice, Sex and Gender]

— ProPublica Wins Lawsuit Over Access to Court Records in U.S. Navy Cases

 

at 3/6/26 3:00am

The Navy is no longer allowed to shroud its criminal trials in secrecy and must provide public access to hearings and records, a federal judge ruled last month. The order, the result of a yearslong lawsuit filed by ProPublica, forces the service for the first time to more closely mirror the transparency required in civilian courts. The judge agreed with ProPublica that the Navy was violating the First Amendment with its policies. “This is a landmark victory for transparency,” Sarah Matthews, ProPublica’s deputy general counsel, said. “It’s the first time a civilian court has held that the First Amendment right of public access applies to military courts and records. The Navy was allowed to prosecute our service members in secret for far too long, but that ends now.” ProPublica sued the Navy in 2022 after the service refused to release almost all court documents in a high-profile arson case, in which a sailor faced life imprisonment for a fire that destroyed a Navy assault ship. A ProPublica investigation found that the service decided to prosecute Ryan Mays despite little evidence connecting him to the fire — or that the fire was a result of arson in the first place — and a military judge’s recommendation to drop the charges. The Navy’s long-standing policy was to withhold all records from preliminary hearings, which consider whether there is probable cause to move forward with a case. In those that did go to trial, the Navy would only provide scant records long after the proceedings were over — and only if they ended in guilty findings. Records weren’t released if the charges were dropped or a defendant was acquitted. As a result, the public was unable to assess whether the court-martial system was fair or whether important issues, such as sexual assault, were being handled properly. Now the Navy must provide more timely access to all nonclassified records from trials regardless of outcome as well as from preliminary hearings. This includes the report from a crucial milestone in a criminal case, what the military calls an Article 32 hearing, in which a hearing officer, in a role much like a judge, recommends whether criminal charges should proceed. The Navy had argued to the court that it shouldn’t be required to release these reports because they are “non-binding, internal advisory documents.” The judge, Barry Ted Moskowitz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, disagreed, saying earlier in the case that these hearings are “strikingly similar” to those in civilian courts that are open to the public. Access to the reports is a big win for the public, according to Frank Rosenblatt, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, a nonprofit advocacy group. “Congress intended for the military justice process to be a public window into what is happening with the military, and Article 32 reports in many cases end up being highly newsworthy,” he said. “These proceedings often reveal scapegoats, investigative flaws and command influence on matters of public concern not long after incidents happen.” The ruling imposed deadlines on the Navy for when records must be made public. Transcripts from hearings and trials must be turned over as soon as possible but no later than 30 days after a request, and other court records must be provided as soon as possible but no later than 60 days. The Navy is also required to give advanced notice of preliminary hearings, listing the full names of defendants and providing their charge sheets. After ProPublica sued, the Pentagon issued guidance early last year requiring the military to give at least three days’ notice of these hearings. But Moskwotiz said that wasn’t enough time and bumped up the requirement to 10 days. “While the judge did not require the Navy to provide contemporaneous access to records like in civilian courts, we’re thrilled that the Navy can no longer withhold more than 99% of the court records,” Matthews said. The Navy said in a brief to the judge that complying with the order “will require substantial amendments to multiple Navy policies, instructions and standards, including revisions to guidance for preliminary hearing officers, and the development and delivery of comprehensive training across the Navy.” Moskowitz stopped shy of ordering the secretary of defense to issue similar rules across the services, as requested by ProPublica and required by a federal law passed in 2016. (The Pentagon’s policy addressing the law, which wasn’t issued until 2023, fell far short of the “timely” release of documents “at all stages of the military justice system” that Congress called for.) Moskowitz said he could not make such a ruling because the secretary’s duties are “imprecise and subject to discretion.” The Navy did not respond to requests for comment about the judge’s order. During the last court hearing, the government lawyers told the court that “the Navy has an interest in complying with the law in general.” ProPublica is represented in the suit by Matthews and by pro bono attorneys at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (Ted Boutrous, Michael Dore, Marissa Mulligan and Mckenzie Robinson, plus former Gibson Dunn attorneys Eric Richardson, Dan Willey and Sasha Dudding when they were at the firm) and at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP (Tenaya Rodewald and Matthew Halgren). The post ProPublica Wins Lawsuit Over Access to Court Records in U.S. Navy Cases appeared first on ProPublica.

[Category: Courts, Military]

— Documents Reveal a Web of Financial Ties Between Trump Officials and the Industries They Help Regulate

 

at 3/5/26 3:00am

Thousands of companies are jockeying for billions of dollars in Defense Department contracts to build a shield designed to intercept and destroy missiles launched against the United States. But amid the intense competition, a handful of firms have an important inside connection. At least four of the companies awarded contracts so far are owned by Cerberus Capital Management, a private equity firm founded by billionaire Steve Feinberg, who until last year ran the company and is now the deputy secretary of defense — the second-highest-ranking official in the Pentagon. Feinberg oversees the office in charge of the Golden Dome for America project, which is modeled on Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system. Feinberg filed paperwork saying he divested from Cerberus and its related businesses. But his government ethics records contain an unusual clause: He is allowed to continue contracting with the company for tax compliance and accounting services as well as health care coverage, a financial relationship that documents show could continue indefinitely. Feinberg’s financial statements and ethics agreement are part of a trove of nearly 3,200 disclosure records that ProPublica is making public today. The disclosures, which can be viewed in a searchable online tool, detail the finances of more than 1,500 federal officials appointed by President Donald Trump. Records for Trump and Vice President JD Vance are also included. The documents reveal a web of financial ties between senior government officials and the industries they help regulate — relationships that have drawn scrutiny as Trump has dismantled ethics safeguards designed to prevent conflicts of interest. On his first day back in office, Trump rescinded an executive order signed by President Joe Biden that required his appointees to comply with an ethics pledge. The pledge barred them from working on issues related to their former lobbying topics or clients for two years. Weeks later, Trump fired 17 inspectors general charged with investigating fraud, corruption and conflicts of interest across the federal government. Around the same time, he removed the head of the Office of Government Ethics, the agency that oversees ethics compliance throughout the executive branch. The office is currently without a head or a chief of staff. Read More Explore Financial Disclosures From President Trump and 1,500 of His Appointees Against that backdrop, ProPublica has, over the past year, used the disclosure records to investigate how personal financial interests have intersected with government decision-making inside the Trump administration. The documents helped show that senior executive branch officials, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, made well-timed securities trades, at times selling stocks just before markets plunged because Trump announced new tariffs. (The officials either did not respond to requests for comment or said they had no insider information before they made their trades.) Other disclosures revealed that two high-ranking scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency who recently helped downgrade the agency’s assessment of the health risks of formaldehyde had previously held senior positions at the chemical industry’s leading trade group. (The EPA said the scientists had obtained ethics advice approving their work on the project.) In December, ProPublica reported that Trump has appointed more than 200 people who collectively owned — either by themselves or with their spouses — between $175 million and $340 million in cryptocurrency investments at the time they filed their disclosures. Some of those appointees now hold positions overseeing or influencing regulation of the crypto industry. Among them are Todd Blanche, Trumps former criminal defense attorney and now the second-highest-ranking official in the Justice Department. Blanche’s disclosure records show that he owned at least $159,000 in crypto-related assets last year when he shut down investigations into crypto companies, dealers and exchanges. After ProPublica reported on Blanche’s actions, six Democratic senators accused him of a “glaring” conflict of interest, and a watchdog group asked the Justice Department’s inspector general to investigate. A Justice Department spokesperson has said Blanche upholds the highest ethical standards and that his crypto orders were “appropriately flagged, addressed and cleared in advance,” but she did not respond to questions asking who had cleared his actions. Conflicts of interest have long plagued both Democratic and Republican administrations. But ethics experts say Trump’s second term marks a sharp break from modern norms. Trump has openly defended his family’s financial enrichment while he is in office, including through cryptocurrency deals that critics say allow investors, including foreign entities, to curry favor by boosting the president’s personal wealth. “I found out nobody cared, and I’m allowed to,” Trump told The New York Times, referring to his family’s business dealings. Trump also remains unapologetic about accepting a Boeing 747 worth about $400 million from the Qatari government and transferring nearly $1 billion from a nuclear weapons program to retrofit it. Virginia Canter, chief counsel for ethics and corruption at Democracy Defenders Fund, a nonprofit governmental watchdog group, cited Trump’s new plane as a brazen example of self-dealing. “Ethics is in the toilet,” said Canter, who served as an ethics lawyer at the White House, Treasury Department and Securities and Exchange Commission during the presidencies of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly defended the president and his appointees. “President Trump is leading the most transparent administration in history,” Kelly said. “He has also nominated highly-qualified individuals across the Executive Branch who have a wide range of public and private sector backgrounds.” The idea of a space-based missile defense shield has persisted ever since President Ronald Reagan proposed his own version nicknamed “Star Wars.” Trump rekindled the idea on the campaign trail. His Golden Dome for America imagines a battery of weapons, deployed from land, sea and space, able to destroy missiles launched at the U.S. We are continuing our reporting on conflicts of interest in the Trump administration. Do you have information you can share about any of the people in our database? Or about current officials not found in our online tool who might have conflicts? You can reach our tip line on Signal at 917-512-0201. Please be as specific, detailed and clear as you can. In December, the Defense Department started selecting companies for the project, for which it has allocated as much as $151 billion. So far, the agency has granted awards to more than 2,000 firms. Cerberus owns or is a majority investor in at least four of them: North Wind, Stratolaunch, Red River Technology and NetCentrics Corp. Citing national security concerns, defense officials have not publicized the amounts of each contract or the products or services the companies are providing. (The Defense Department is required by law to publicly announce only contracts worth more than $9 million.) Feinberg, who co-founded Cerberus in 1992, listed assets worth at least $2 billion when he was nominated by Trump last year. In his ethics agreement, Feinberg said he would divest his stake in the firm, potentially giving assets to irrevocable trusts benefiting his adult children — a maneuver that is legal under federal conflict-of-interest law but one that ethics experts say undermines its intent. Feinberg also told ethics officials that he needed to contract with Cerberus for accounting, tax and health care services in the short term but would find other providers by April 2026. However, at Feinberg’s request, Defense Department officials approved an extension earlier this year, allowing the financial relationship to continue without an end date. In an amendment to his ethics agreement, he said he would “pay customary and reasonable fees” for Cerberus’ services but did not say how much those would be. Deputy Secretary of Defense Steve Feinberg, center, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, right, at the Pentagon in 2025 Jonathan Ernst/Reuters It’s unclear what role Feinberg has played — or will play — in deciding which firms receive Golden Dome contracts. In response to questions from ProPublica, the Defense Department said Feinberg does not “have direct responsibility for any Golden Dome acquisitions” but did not elaborate. The department would not comment on whether Feinberg or anyone in his office had met with any contractor representatives. What is not disputed is Feinberg’s oversight of the Golden Dome initiative. Space Force Gen. Michael Guetlein, who heads the project, reports directly to him. Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, said Feinberg’s ongoing relationship with Cerberus creates at least a perception of a conflict of interest that could undermine confidence in the fairness of the contracting process. “This is what President Eisenhower worried about in the 1960s” when he railed against the military-industrial complex, Painter said of Eisenhower’s farewell address warning of the risks of a too-close relationship between the military and private defense businesses. In response to questions from ProPublica, a Cerberus spokesperson said in an email: “Mr. Feinberg divested his stake in Cerberus and any funds that it manages, and is not involved with the operations of Cerberus or any of its portfolio companies in any way.” The spokesperson added that the administrative services provided to Feinberg “are unrelated to any investment activities or operations of Cerberus or its funds and were pre-approved by the Department of War’s Ethics Office and the Office of Government Ethics.” Another top official in the department is Marc Berkowitz, who was confirmed in December as assistant secretary of defense for space policy. During his confirmation, Berkowitz described the Golden Dome project as one of his top priorities. Berkowitz previously worked as a space industry consultant and vice president for strategic planning at Lockheed Martin. The giant defense and aerospace company was among the firms awarded Golden Dome contracts days before Berkowitz’s confirmation. Lockheed is likely to compete for a large role in the project. The company has set up a webpage dedicated to the Golden Dome, and Reuters reported that Lockheed is one of several firms that received contracts to build competing prototypes of the missile defense system. In his financial disclosure documents, Berkowitz reported receiving two monthly pensions from Lockheed and owning between $1 million and $5 million worth of stock in the firm. Berkowitz agreed to divest by March 18, documents show. During his confirmation hearing, he downplayed any potential role he would have in Golden Dome contract decisions, noting that his position was more about policy. A senior Defense Department official told ProPublica that Berkowitz is recusing himself from matters involving Lockheed until his remaining shares are sold. Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said the department’s ethics framework is “rigorous” and that Feinberg and Berkowitz are in full compliance with the law. “Any claims to the contrary are fake news,” Parnell said. Other agencies have similar industry links. Across the administration, former lobbyists and corporate executives now occupy influential positions, including Bondi, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy. Their ties to former clients have made national headlines, but ProPublica’s searchable online tool provides the public an important glimpse into the financial relationships or industry links of a powerful and often hidden cadre of presidential appointees within the federal bureaucracy. Reports show that after being nominated to head the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Jonathan Morrison revealed he served for two years as a director of the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association, the trade group that represents companies that make and use self-driving cars. He left the position in February 2024. At his confirmation hearing last year, Morrison said he wanted the NHTSA to set national standards and play a leading role in the industry’s development of self-driving vehicles. Sean Rushton, an NHTSA spokesperson, said Morrison had an unpaid position on the autonomous vehicle group’s board of directors and doesn’t have to recuse himself from matters involving the organization because he left long before the presidential election and his nomination as highway traffic safety administrator. Most political appointees and senior officials in the executive branch are required by law to file public financial disclosure reports. These documents detail their financial assets, the positions they hold outside government, their spouse’s holdings, their liabilities and their recent financial transactions (such as buying or selling stock) during a defined reporting period. For the most part, the law does not require appointees to provide exact financial values but instead a range. At least a dozen appointees withheld the identities of previous clients, ProPublica found. Appointees are allowed to keep the name of former clients confidential under exceptional circumstances, such as when the identity is protected by a court order or revealing the name would violate the rules of a professional licensing organization. In New York and Washington, D.C., for example, the organizations that license attorneys prohibit them from revealing confidential information about a client in most situations, including if doing so would be embarrassing or is likely to be detrimental to the client. While the relationship between a client and an attorney is often made public, in some cases — if, for instance, an appointee had conducted legal defense work for a client during a nonpublic criminal investigation — the clients identity could be withheld from the financial disclosure. Guidelines issued by the Office of Government Ethics say that such situations are unusual and “it is extremely rare for a filer to rely on this exception for more than a few clients.” But at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which is responsible for tariff policy, the head of the agency, Jamieson Greer, withheld the names of more than 50 former clients from his time at King & Spalding, one of the nation’s most influential law firms. In his disclosure, Greer cited the New York and D.C. bar rules for not identifying the clients. Greer’s senior adviser in the federal agency, Kwan Kim, previously worked as an international trade lawyer for Covington & Burling. From October 2020 to February 2025, Kim helped businesses win federal exemptions from steel and aluminum tariffs and defended companies accused by investigators of import-related crimes, according to a Covington biography that has since been taken down. Kim kept the names of 52 companies he represented secret, citing the D.C. Bar rules, the disclosure documents show. The U.S. Trade Representative office did not respond to ProPublica’s request for comment. When the names of former clients are withheld, it becomes virtually impossible for the public to know if an official’s actions in government benefit a former client. Kedric Payne, ethics director at the nonpartisan watchdog group Campaign Legal Center, said the lack of disclosure is concerning. “When you see these types of close connections between the regulated community and the new regulators, it raises a yellow flag,” Payne said. “Because these officials are walking an ethical tightrope where any meeting or communication with their former employer and client could become a serious conflict of interest.” ProPublica’s journalists have been gathering these records for more than a year. We obtained all of the disclosures that were available from the Office of Government Ethics. Those consist of the top appointees who require Senate confirmation. To get records for people working in lower-level positions, we made requests to individual federal agencies. Some didn’t respond or responded partially; records we requested for about 1,200 people weren’t provided. Still, ProPublica’s online tool is the most comprehensive public source of financial disclosures from across the executive branch. The post Documents Reveal a Web of Financial Ties Between Trump Officials and the Industries They Help Regulate appeared first on ProPublica.

[Category: Trump Administration]

— Explore Financial Disclosures From President Trump and 1,500 of His Appointees

 

at 3/5/26 2:55am

See the full financial disclosures app at ProPublica.org. The post Explore Financial Disclosures From President Trump and 1,500 of His Appointees appeared first on ProPublica.

[Category: Trump Administration]

— Kristi Noem Misled Congress About Top Aide’s Role in DHS Contracts

 

at 3/4/26 8:15am

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem misled Congress on Tuesday about the powers of her controversial top aide Corey Lewandowski, according to records reviewed by ProPublica and four current and former DHS officials. Lewandowski has an unusual role at DHS, where he is not a paid government employee but is nonetheless acting as a top official, helping Noem run the sprawling agency. For months, members of Congress have asked the agency to detail the scope of his work and authority.  At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., asked Noem whether Lewandowski has “a role in approving contracts” at DHS. Noem responded with a flat denial: “No.” But internal DHS records reviewed by ProPublica contradict Noem’s Senate testimony. The records show Lewandowski personally approved a multimillion-dollar equipment contract at the agency last summer.  That was not a one-off. Lewandowski has approved numerous contracts at DHS and often needs to sign off on large ones before any money goes out the door, the current and former department employees said. Last year, Noem imposed a new policy that consolidated her and her top aides’ power over all spending at DHS, requiring that she personally review and approve all contracts above $100,000. Before the contracts reach Noem, they must be approved by a series of political appointees, who each sign or initial a checklist sometimes referred to internally as a routing sheet. Typically, the last name on the checklist before Noem’s is Lewandowski’s, the DHS officials said. Noem Denies That Lewandowski Has “a Role in Approving Contracts” at DHS Via C-Span Under federal law, it is a crime to “knowingly and willfully” make a false statement to Congress. But in practice, it is rarely prosecuted. In a statement, a DHS spokesperson reiterated Noem’s claim. “Mr. Lewandowski does NOT play a role in approving contracts,” the spokesperson said. “Mr. Lewandowski does not receive a salary or any federal government benefits. He volunteers his time to serve the American people.” Lewandowski did not respond to a request for comment.  Several news outlets, including Politico, have previously reported on aspects of Lewandowski’s involvement in contracting at DHS.  There have been widespread reports of delays caused by the new contract approval process at the agency, which has responsibilities spanning from immigration enforcement to disaster relief to airport security. DHS has asserted that the review process saved taxpayers billions of dollars.  A similar sign-off process exists for other policy decisions at DHS. One of the checklists, about rolling back protections for Haitians in the U.S., emerged in litigation last year. It featured the signatures of several top DHS advisers. Under them was Lewandowski’s signature, and then Noem’s. An internal Department of Homeland Security policy document from February 2025 shows agency officials, including top aide Corey Lewandowski and Noem — referred to as “S1,” signing off on a policy change. U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Scrim added by ProPublica for clarity. Lewandowski is what’s known as a “special government employee,” a designation historically used to let experts serve in government for limited periods without having to give up their outside jobs. (At the beginning of the Trump administration, Elon Musk was one, too.) Special government employees have to abide by only some of the same ethics rules as normal officials and are permitted to have sources of outside income. Lewandowski has declined to disclose whether he is being paid by any outside companies and, if so, who. The post Kristi Noem Misled Congress About Top Aide’s Role in DHS Contracts appeared first on ProPublica.

[Category: Trump Administration]

— Albuquerque’s Mayor Said Arrests Were “Not the Solution” to Homelessness. Yet Jail Bookings Have Skyrocketed.

 

at 3/4/26 3:00am

During his reelection campaign last fall, the mayor of Albuquerque, New Mexico, criticized his challenger for suggesting the city should get tougher on the homeless population. Such an approach would be cruel, Tim Keller said during a televised debate with former County Sheriff Darren White. The city clears encampments and gives people citations “all the time,” said Keller, who defeated White to win a third term. But “this problem is complex and you cannot dumb it down to arresting people,” he said. “You simply cannot arrest your way out of this problem whether you want to or not.” Despite his rhetoric, a ProPublica analysis found that under Keller’s leadership, Albuquerque has increasingly criminalized conduct associated with homelessness, causing a growing number of people on the streets to be arrested and jailed. In 2025, people were charged 1,256 times for obstructing sidewalks, nearly six times the number of cases in the previous eight years combined. More than 3,000 trespassing charges were handed out last year, the highest for any year since 2017. And cases of unlawful camping increased to 704 from 113 the year before, according to previously unreported county data provided to ProPublica by the New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts. Charges Associated With Homelessness Surged in 2025 Cases involving sidewalk obstruction, camping and trespassing have risen in recent years. People were charged nearly six times more often for sidewalk obstruction in 2025 than the previous eight years combined. Source: New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts In recent years, a majority of these cases, once they were adjudicated, were dismissed. But not without consequences: Each citation lists a court date, which, if missed, can lead to a bench warrant and arrest. And that’s often what has happened. Over the past four years, the number of bookings in Bernalillo County’s jail classified as homeless or “transient” has skyrocketed — to nearly 12,000 in 2025, from 3,670 in 2022. In recent months, the share of people booked who are transient made up about 49% of the jail’s population, according to a ProPublica analysis. This has occurred as the average daily population at the jail from July 2024 through June 2025 reached its highest point in a decade. On some days last year, the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center held more homeless people than the largest local shelter. Homeless Inmates Drive Increases in County Jail Admissions Over the past three years, the number of jail bookings marked as homeless or “transient” has skyrocketed. Admissions marked as transient made up nearly 50% of the county jail bookings at the end of 2025. Source: Bernalillo County The city’s homeless population has more than doubled from 2022 to 2025, while the increase in homeless people jailed by the county has more than tripled during the same time period. Police and court records and interviews with homeless people show the increase in their incarceration is primarily driven by the cascading effects of repeatedly citing people who are experiencing homelessness. In an interview with ProPublica, Keller echoed his contention from the debate that citations and arrests are not a solution to homelessness. Still, he defended the actions police have taken. “What we’re doing is following the letter of the law. There are much more punitive things that I’m sure a lot of people would want, that we don’t do because they’re inappropriate,” he said.  In a statement, a spokesperson for Keller noted that other cities “rely on immediate arrests, blanket sweeps without service connection or criminal penalties without offering alternatives.” The city issues three citations before an arrest is made, the spokesperson said. (People living outside told ProPublica they’ve been taken to jail without first receiving three citations.)  When ProPublica pointed out that citations can lead to arrests and jail time, Keller acknowledged that jail “is not the solution.” But, he said, people call the city and ask that laws be enforced. A city of Albuquerque worker empties a shopping cart filled with belongings collected during a sweep into a garbage truck along Commercial Street. Sweeps can lead to citations, which can lead to an arrest. A Christian outreach group from Texas distributes food and clothing and prays with people who are homeless in Albuquerque on Sept. 13. In recent years, U.S. cities, facing record numbers of people on the street, have adopted more laws targeting them. In 2024, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that cities may enforce bans against sleeping outside, more than 150 municipalities nationwide, including Albuquerque, either passed new laws prohibiting public camping or ramped up enforcement of existing laws. President Donald Trump has endorsed this approach, calling for federal grants to be prioritized for cities that enforce bans on “urban camping and loitering.” The emphasis on enforcement has come despite evidence that such citations and arrests are costly. For example, Bernalillo County spends about $169 per night to jail inmates without significant medical or mental health needs, according to a county spokesperson. The cost increases for people with severe medical ($250 a day) and mental health (about $450 a day) needs, a spokesperson said.  By comparison, housing an individual in the city’s year-round emergency shelter costs $44 a night. Tony Robinson, a political science professor at the University of Colorado who has studied camping bans, said the share of homeless inmates in Bernalillo County’s jail is “unusually high” — even at a time when cities are ramping up enforcement. ProPublica found that jails in similarly sized counties, including San Francisco and Pasco County, Florida, have lower rates of incarceration for people who are marked homeless. Citing people who are homeless can land them in jail because some lack cellphones or an address where they can receive notices by mail. This is a barrier to appearing in court, leading to a warrant for their arrest, he said. “Simple citations lead to jail time and arrest by a predictable path.”  ProPublica reviewed more than 100 cases and interviewed two dozen people experiencing homelessness in Albuquerque about their encounters with police. Nearly everyone ProPublica spoke to had been charged for a crime associated with homelessness. They said they feel singled out by the police: Officers contact them frequently and issue citations, which can lead to warrants. When officers see they have warrants, they can take them to jail. Natalie Rankin, a 45-year-old homeless woman in Albuquerque, was charged 12 times over the last year for a variety of crimes, including blocking the sidewalk, public camping and criminal trespassing. She spent a night in jail in August after an officer noticed that she had a warrant for her arrest. “I don’t do anything more than get little warrants for not showing up in court,” she said in August.  Rankin has already been charged at least seven times in 2026 and spent at least one day in jail. Gateway West provides shelter and resources for homeless people in the Albuquerque area. The shelter has served more people since Mayor Tim Keller took office. Since Keller took office nine years ago, Albuquerque has spent at least $100 million to expand the city’s Gateway system, which includes shelter for families and adults, a 50-person treatment program, and a place where people are supervised by medical professionals as they withdraw from drugs or alcohol. “We’re one of the few cities who really has been proactive about building a new system,” Keller said. “It needs tons of work and tons of help, but we’ve at least built something that has gotten 1,000 people off the street.” Meanwhile, the city’s homeless population, which was at least 2,960 last year, exceeds the shelters’ capacity even with the expansions. Keller has also become less tolerant of encampments in public spaces like parks and sidewalks, vowing to not allow “tent cities.” In text messages reported in 2024 by the news organization City Desk ABQ, Keller asked then-police Chief Harold Medina to develop a plan to address the “growing crisis.” Medina texted back a plan to “hammer the unhoused.” (After the texts were published, a spokesperson for Keller said, “We continue to balance enforcing laws against illegal activity to keep our communities safe, and providing resources for people experiencing homelessness to both get them connected to services.”)  The city has been accused of breaking the law as it carries out the crackdown. In 2022, current and former homeless people sued Albuquerque in state district court over its targeting of encampments, alleging the city “criminalizes their status as homeless,” according to court documents. The class-action lawsuit is pending. A 2024 ProPublica investigation found city workers routinely discarded the belongings of homeless people as they cleared encampments, violating a court order and city policy. Some people told ProPublica in recent interviews that city workers continue to throw away their belongings, and police are issuing citations more frequently. Officers have not targeted people who are homeless, Medina said in an interview in December. The increase in citations and arrests for crimes associated with homelessness are the result of a broader crime-fighting surge, he said. Last April, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham deployed the National Guard to assist Albuquerque police, citing the “fentanyl epidemic and rising violent juvenile crime.” The National Guard was also to provide humanitarian and medical assistance in parts of the city frequented by people who are homeless. “It’s important that we don’t categorize this as, ‘We’re doing an initiative on the unhoused,’” said Medina, who retired at the end of last year. “We’re doing an initiative across the board.”  City statistics show, however, that the biggest jump in arrests from 2024 to 2025 was for misdemeanor warrants, the kinds described by many of the people ProPublica interviewed. Arrests associated with misdemeanor warrants were up 72%. Priscilla Montano, 67, sometimes stays under a bridge near downtown Albuquerque. She said city workers, who are occasionally accompanied by police, visit the spot at least five days a week to tell people to move their belongings. In July, Montano was charged three times for unlawful camping and obstructing sidewalks. In September, she was incarcerated for a day on the same charges. There is a warrant for her arrest related to a separate violation from September. Montano said each time she goes to jail her belongings are thrown away. She’s lost her wedding ring and property she needs to survive. People pack their belongings in anticipation of city enforcement on Rhode Island Street. Lisandra Tonkin, who leads a team at the New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness that helps people find housing, said the crackdown has made it more difficult to stay in touch with the people they’re trying to help because they’re “constantly moved” by sweeps and jail stays. City officials say they first offer resources, including a spot in a shelter. Tonkin said some people are reluctant to accept because they have been traumatized by their experiences in shelters, like being assaulted or having their belongings stolen. The offer sometimes comes with requirements they won’t accept, like giving up a pet or separating from a companion.  “So what is the solution of where to move them? I think a lot of times the choice is shelter or jail,” she said. The result, according to Medina, the former chief, is that the Metropolitan Detention Center has become the state’s largest “mental health facility.” “I dont think it’s ideal for these individuals to always end up in jail, 100%, but there’s limited resources and ability to get people to those resources under our current system,” he said. People who have received citations or who have been arrested told ProPublica that the city’s offer is either a bed in a shelter that used to be the county jail or nothing at all. One evening in December, Tiffany Leger sat on a sidewalk in northwest Albuquerque listening to a virtual meeting through headphones. Leger, who spent two years on the streets but now has a home, still visits friends who live outside and shares phone numbers for local organizations where they can seek help. As she listened to the virtual meeting, police approached and told her she was being detained for camping, noting there was a tent nearby. The officers issued a citation. Over the years, Leger has heard from friends that if police offer resources, it’s usually a card with outdated information on shelters in the city or a bed in the shelter on the outskirts of town, she said. Leger said that usually police approach people who look homeless and check for warrants, sometimes leading to an arrest.  Janus Herrera, a local advocate and volunteer, helps people who are homeless find resources, including housing. For decades, Peter Cubra has monitored the city’s treatment of homeless people. Cubra was involved in a 1995 lawsuit in which Jimmy McClendon, an inmate at the Bernalillo County Detention Center, sued Albuquerque and the county over conditions there, including overcrowding. The lawsuit also alleged that police were jailing people, including those who were homeless, for nonviolent misdemeanors.  A city settlement in the lawsuit directed police to issue citations for nonviolent misdemeanors, when possible, instead of making arrests on the spot.  Cubra said that in 2020, he started noticing “slow-motion arrests,” where police issue citations understanding that a person experiencing homelessness won’t get the notices from court. Police, he said, would revisit the same location, demand identification and run warrant checks, eventually picking people up on warrants from the previous citations or charges. Janus Herrera, a local advocate and volunteer, said people have told her they miss court dates because they lost paperwork stating where and when to appear in court that they received during an encampment sweep. “People are already strained to a breaking point,” she said. “You keep adding more and more on top of that.” ProPublica’s review of 100 randomly selected cases for criminal trespassing from 2025 showed 67% of people had missed their court dates, leading to an arrest warrant.  Most of the people ProPublica interviewed who had gone to jail said they were held overnight and released back to the streets with a pending case. A recent study supports their claims: From 2024 to 2025, the number of people jailed for less than a day increased by 131%, according to a data analysis by the Center for Applied Research and Analysis at the University of New Mexico. If a person doesn’t attend subsequent court dates, their case can result in additional warrants. The next time they encounter police, they can be arrested again. Cubra said instead of repeatedly citing and arresting people, some communities designate places for people to “informally but deliberately” sleep outdoors without harassment. (A church opened such a space in Albuquerque last year with capacity for 10 tents.) But in Albuquerque, Cubra said, the arrests “have persisted and accelerated” over the past year, which he called “shameful.” “Our city is knowingly saying, ‘We won’t let you sleep outdoors,” Cubra said. “We know there is no place for you to sleep indoors, and we’re going to keep arresting you and harassing you for something that is unavoidable and intrinsic to just existing.’” Methodology ProPublica obtained court data on three charges frequently associated with homelessness: criminal trespassing, unlawful obstruction of sidewalks and unlawful camping. In some circumstances, a single charge appeared multiple times in the data. In these cases, we included only the most recent outcome associated with the charges. We also excluded cases marked as transferred within the court system, to avoid double-counting. As much as possible, we excluded cases where it was clear the charges were not directly associated with homelessness — for example, domestic violence and driving under the influence. The court data did not include housing status. The county jail tracks whether a person has permanent housing during booking and marks a person “transient.” The court data did not list the law enforcement agency that issued the charge. But jail data shows the Albuquerque Police Department was responsible for 75% of the homeless bookings from 2020 to 2025.  ProPublica interviewed 24 people who are homeless about being charged with crimes associated with their housing status. We independently verified their cases through court records. The post Albuquerque’s Mayor Said Arrests Were “Not the Solution” to Homelessness. Yet Jail Bookings Have Skyrocketed. appeared first on ProPublica.

[Category: Criminal Justice, Police]

— Nike Wants Factory Workers to Earn a Decent Living. In Indonesia, It’s Moved Into Areas Where Workers Don’t.

 

at 3/3/26 3:00am

If you’re among the more than 1 million people who make Nike’s sneakers and apparel around the world, the company says you should be able to support your family. You should earn enough to pay your living expenses and have some discretionary money left over. If your factory wages don’t cut it, your employer should have a plan to get you there. But Nike’s expansion in Indonesia over the last decade has directly undermined these goals, an analysis by ProPublica and The Oregonian/OregonLive found. Over the last decade, employment at factories supplying the world’s largest athletic apparel brand expanded dramatically in regions of Indonesia where, according to one leading estimate, the minimum wage is less than the amount workers need to live on. Meanwhile, Nike’s supply chain shrank overall in places that pay this estimated living wage, our analysis found. The trend shows how the movement of multinational corporations to countries with ever-lower labor costs is being replaced, in some cases, by movements within a country that can achieve major savings and improve the bottom line. Nike’s suppliers employ 280,000 people in Indonesia, the company’s second-largest production center. From 2015 through last year, these suppliers shed around 36,000 jobs in places where the monthly minimum wage exceeds or comes close to a living wage. In these high-wage areas, which include the capital of Jakarta, the minimum typically equates to about $300 a month. By contrast, the company’s supplier workforce grew by nearly 112,000 in parts of Central and West Java with local minimum wages that are typically about $165 a month — far from what’s considered enough to live on. Dozens of workers employed by Nike suppliers in Indonesia told the news organizations the minimum is about all they make. “If it’s very labor intensive, then you go where labor is cheapest,” said Nurina Merdikawati, a lecturer in the Indonesia Project at Australian National University. In Indonesia, she said, “that’s going to be Central Java.” Other brands have also moved to Central Java and other low-wage regions of Indonesia in recent years and continue expanding there, local news organizations have reported. For Nike, the trend threatens the jobs of the existing factory workforce elsewhere in the country. Last October, more than 2,000 workers were laid off by Victory Chingluh, one of Nike’s longtime suppliers near Jakarta. In 2024, another 1,500 workers were cut by a Nike shoe supplier nearby, Adis Dimension, according to local news reports. Labor advocates say the geographic shift is concerning because the Jakarta area has a stronger union presence that ensures working conditions and wages get closer attention than in less-developed places like Central Java. At Victory Chingluh, three employees told the news organizations that the fear of more job cuts hangs over their work. They said the company is building a new factory in Cirebon, in West Java, where the minimum wage is 45% lower. Over the Past Decade, Nike’s Workforce Ballooned in Areas Where Workers Do Not Make a Living Wage Factory employment shrank in the areas near Jakarta where the minimum wage is considered enough to meet basic needs. Lucas Waldron/ProPublica Employees said when they were offered a choice between keeping their jobs and accepting severance packages during layoffs last year, workers were willing to take the buyout, fearing that they wouldn’t get anything if the factory closed altogether. That happened in 2018 when one Nike supplier near Jakarta, Kahoindah Citragarment, shut down without paying workers their full severance after Nike pulled its orders, an investigation by the Worker Rights Consortium found. The factory’s South Korean parent company, Hojeon, eventually agreed to pay workers $4.5 million after labor advocates argued they were legally owed separation pay. Hojeon did not respond to requests for comment. At Victory Chingluh, two union leaders said in December that they anticipated another 5,000 layoffs at a company that once employed about 15,000. “Almost all employees here are worried about that,” one of them said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they feared repercussions from talking to reporters. The leaders said they’ve been told the factory being built in Cirebon could be ready by 2027. They said they’ve been told it’s for an expansion — even though their factory recently lost thousands of jobs. Victory Chingluh did not respond to questions. Nike said in a statement that it works closely with suppliers during layoffs to minimize disruptions. “We mandate that suppliers pay all statutory severance, social security, and other separation benefits required by local law and often assemble working groups — which may include civil society, unions, and local governments — to aid in proper execution,” the company said. Business leaders near Jakarta have voiced concern about the wage disparity between their region and Central Java, more than 150 miles away, saying that mandated pay increases around Jakarta could lead to mass layoffs and cause manufacturers to shift production. “There is a real possibility that many labor-intensive industries will move to other regions,” Herry Rumawatine, the head of a local employers association, told the Jakarta Globe in January. Asked whether the geographic shifts in Nike’s Indonesian supply chain were aimed at improving the bottom line, the company said that creating “operational efficiencies” is part of doing business in a competitive environment. However, the company said treating Nike’s geographic shift primarily as a move to save money “creates an incomplete picture” and cited “other plausible drivers” such as automation or changing production needs. Less-developed regions shouldn’t be excluded from opportunities for economic growth, Nike said, and it expects its suppliers everywhere to meet its code of conduct. “Growth and progress go hand in hand,” Nike wrote, “and we remain committed to investing in ways that expand opportunity while strengthening labor standards and worker protections where we operate worldwide.” Nike suggests that people who work for its foreign suppliers are well paid. In particular, the company says workers at its strategic suppliers earn an average of nearly double the local minimum wage. As The Oregonian/OregonLive reported in partnership with ProPublica in January, Nike does not pay workers anywhere close to this amount in Indonesia. In interviews across three regions of the country, roughly 100 workers said they made the minimum wage or a little bit more. Nike told the news organizations that its figure is a global average and variations naturally exist. But the company also told the news organizations that it’s important not just to compare what its suppliers pay relative to the minimum wage. Nike’s focus, one company official said, is on whether workers make a living wage and, if not, whether their employers are trying to get there. Although Nike does not explicitly require its suppliers to pay this amount, it says every worker “has a right to compensation for a regular work week that is sufficient to meet workers’ basic needs and provide some discretionary income.” The company reported that two-thirds of its key suppliers — it did not say which ones — paid above living wage benchmarks in 2022. Jason Judd, executive director of the Global Labor Institute at Cornell University, said living wage pledges from companies like Nike are so flexible that they’re almost meaningless. Only asking factories to be working toward living wages, as Nike does, “could go on for 20 years,” Judd said, “until you’ve found yet another lower-wage province.” Nike’s recent move to Central Java is notable because while wages are far lower there than in urban Jakarta, food and housing are not dramatically cheaper, according to estimates from the WageIndicator Foundation, a Dutch nonprofit. The foundation says a living wage in Central Java starts around $245 a month; in the parts of the province that are home to Nike suppliers, the local minimum wage ranges from only $136 to $215. Workers in Central Java said second jobs are common, including selling fish and gasoline. One said workers covertly sold snacks inside the factory, out of sight of managers who might fire them if caught. “At its core, this is about cost reduction and power,” Wiranta Ginting, deputy international coordinator for the Asia Floor Wage Alliance, a labor group, said in an email. It isn’t clear exactly how much Nike may have saved on labor by growing aggressively in low-wage regions. But some rough calculations are possible, based on addresses Nike has published for its suppliers, the numbers it says they employ and the minimum wage they must pay in each municipality. If each factory worker made exactly the minimum wage and worked only on Nike products, then the company’s shift into lower-cost areas would have saved about $200 million on labor in 2025 alone. The estimate is based on what Nike’s suppliers paid last year versus what they would have paid in labor costs had the company expanded uniformly across regions where it had factories in 2015. It’s only a broad indicator of potential savings. Nike said the analysis “rests on a series of oversimplified assumptions that limit the reliability of its conclusions.” For example, the company said that to assume the workforce could have grown where suppliers were located in 2015 “does not reflect the realities of manufacturing operations, which are constrained by factors such as facility capacity, workforce availability, skills, technology, and changes in product mix.” The geographic shift into lower-wage regions of Indonesia shows one way Nike can try to wring more profit from its vast supply chain. The company, which reported $46.3 billion in revenue last year, is struggling with declining annual sales and profits, problems compounded by uncertainty around President Donald Trump’s tariffs, which Nike had estimated would cost $1.5 billion a year before a recent Supreme Court decision struck them down. Its stock has dropped more than 60% from a 2021 peak. “Margin expansion is a top priority for me and my leadership team,” CEO Elliott Hill told Wall Street analysts in a December earnings call. Nike CEO Elliott Hill in February Francesca Volpi/Bloomberg via Getty Images Officials in low-wage Central Java have welcomed the industrial expansion. The province’s then-governor said in 2022 that 97 factories had opened there. Another 10 garment and footwear factories were under construction last year, according to local news reports, with 17 more expected to be built this year. Nike’s explanation of its move into the region was in keeping with assertions decades ago by its co-founder, Phil Knight, that Nike’s arrival was a positive force for local economies and workers in developing countries. “Increased manufacturing in Central Java is not an accident and, in many ways, is something to be celebrated,” Nike told The Oregonian/OregonLive and ProPublica. “The Indonesian government has taken meaningful, intentional steps to transform Central Java into an industrial hub, with an eye toward extending the economic growth that has benefited other regions of the country for more than 30 years.” The company added that “manufacturing growth in regions with lower prevailing wages can lead to raised standards, increased worker skills, and positive contributions to local communities.” Nike’s move has ripple effects around relatively high-wage Jakarta, Indonesia’s biggest city, where the company has sourced sneakers since 1988. Factory workers and union officials there said they’re reluctant to demand wage increases. They said they fear better pay will mean fewer jobs. “It’s clear that every company will expand where it’s cheaper,” a union official at a Nike supplier near Jakarta said. The differences between Indonesia’s well-established urban production centers and the less-developed areas where Nike has expanded employment go beyond wages. “Greater Jakarta is an older industrial region with a long history of unionization and collective bargaining, reflected in higher minimum wages won through years of worker organizing and mass mobilization,” Ginting, the Asia Floor Wage Alliance representative, said in his email. By contrast, he said, factories in the new apparel hot spots of Central Java often recruit younger workers, have less union representation and face less scrutiny from labor inspectors. Scott Nova, executive director of the Worker Rights Consortium, said problems on the factory floor are more prevalent in this region. Nova’s international watchdog group has conducted investigations at the region’s apparel factories for the past five years. Despite some recent progress, Nova said by email, workers at many factories “suffer gender-based violence and other abuses at higher rates than in the country’s older production centers.” “Because unions have a tenuous foothold in the region and face harsh employer resistance,” he added, “workers often cannot fight back.” An investigation by Nova’s group found that women at a Central Javanese factory producing Nike-licensed goods for Fanatics, a privately owned brand, had been sexually harassed for years. The labor rights group told Fanatics in 2022 it had heard from women who said they had to endure unwanted touching and verbal harassment by supervisors. After the factory owner pledged to fix the problems, the consortium found even more egregious abuse in 2023 at another Central Java factory owned by the same company, South Korea-based Ontide. The company struck a binding deal with labor unions in 2024 called the Central Java Agreement for Gender Justice, which mandates harassment training and monitoring. Ontide did not respond to a request for comment. However, Ontide sustainability director John Yoon said in a press release announcing the gender justice agreement that it would protect workers. “As part of our commitment to our workers’ safety and well-being, we are pleased to be seeing initial results,” the release said. Fanatics said in a statement to The Oregonian/OregonLive and ProPublica that there has been “excellent progress” in implementing the agreement. “We are proud of this work, which has been recognized by the Agreement signatories, and which will continue into 2026,” the company said. Nova, of the Worker Rights Consortium, called the outcome at Ontide “a ray of hope.” But workers told the news organizations that problems have persisted at other factories in Central Java. Ten workers at one supplier said many women’s toilets hadn’t been working for months. Two workers at other factories said they received written reprimands after they told their employers they were injured on the job. Asked about these workers’ accounts, Nike said that a “safe and healthy work environment is a fundamental human right” and that it audits factories annually for compliance with its code of conduct. It said it has not found more problems at suppliers in Central Java than in other parts of Indonesia. The company added that it works quickly with its suppliers when needed to put improvement plans in place. At Selalu Cinta, a Central Java factory that employs 18,000 people and has made Nike Burrow slippers, Blazer Mid ’77 sneakers and other shoes, hundreds of workers signed petitions asking the factory to remove a manager they said repeatedly screamed at and intimidated workers. Leaders at the factory have failed to remove him, 10 workers told the news organizations. Nike said it required Selalu Cinta to engage in an independent third-party investigation and is overseeing corrective actions in consultation with unions. Nike said it plans follow-up verification. Selalu Cinta officials did not respond to requests for comment. A woman who worked for the manager said in an interview last summer that her parents depended on her wages, forcing her to keep her job despite what she described as her boss’ frequent tantrums. “Working like that,” she said, “feels like you’re in hell.” How We Tracked Nike’s Factories Overall employment at Nike suppliers in Indonesia grew by 39% from 2015 to 2025. To see where in Indonesia that growth occurred, we used factory-level data self-reported by Nike in November 2015 and November 2025. Because Nike said it began working to increase its disclosure of materials and components factories in 2021, we excluded any factories of this kind that appeared on Nike’s list in 2025 but not in 2015, to avoid counting Nike’s expanded disclosure as employment growth. This eliminated 12 materials factories from 2025, removing about 3,500 workers from the analysis. ProPublica and The Oregonian/OregonLive assigned minimum and living wages to each factory based on their locations. Wage and location data was manually reviewed, and when information was incomplete or inconsistent, classification was based on the data that appeared to be the most reliable. The city or regency of each factory was identified using factory addresses and verified against Google Maps, factory websites, shipping records and other public disclosures. We assigned minimum wages at the municipal level based on 2025 government decrees. Some municipalities specify a single minimum wage across all sectors. Others specify wages by sector (in which case we used the sectoral wage that best matched what each factory produces) and/or by nature of the work and employer (in which case we used the rate for labor-intensive multinational companies). Unlike minimum wages, which are defined by law, living wage estimates can vary. We used estimates from the WageIndicator Foundation, an independent Dutch nonprofit. While the group calculates living wages as a range, we used the group’s lowest estimate for 2025 of what a worker would need to provide a decent standard of living for a typical family. Factories were classified as “at or above living wage” if the applicable minimum wage was at least 95% of WageIndicator Foundation’s lowest living wage estimate for the province. Wages were converted from Indonesian rupiah to U.S. dollars using the mean of monthly average daily USD/IDR exchange rates for 2025 from the Federal Reserve. For the graphic, factory coordinates were manually reviewed, then grouped when multiple factories were close to one another. Factories were grouped when located within 15 kilometers of at least one other factory, forming density-based clusters that were represented on the map as the geometric center of those points. We verified that factories in different wage classifications were not lumped together. For municipalities without a Nike factory, we assigned the highest 2025 minimum wage that could apply if a Nike factory was located there. To estimate potential savings based on where Nike expanded production between 2015 and 2025, we compared actual 2025 supplier payroll (based on reported number of factory workers and municipal minimum wages) to a counterfactual scenario in which employment grew proportionally across the same municipalities where Nike had factories in 2015. The calculation reflects what Nike’s suppliers would have paid in labor costs under each scenario if all workers earned the applicable minimum wage and factory employment were dedicated to Nike production. Because suppliers can produce for multiple brands and some workers earn above minimum wage, the estimate merely provides a broad sense of potential savings rather than a precise measure of how much the company and its suppliers actually saved in labor costs. The post Nike Wants Factory Workers to Earn a Decent Living. In Indonesia, It’s Moved Into Areas Where Workers Don’t. appeared first on ProPublica.

[Category: Labor]

— ProPublica Sues Education Department for Withholding Records About Discrimination in Schools

 

at 3/2/26 9:50am

ProPublica has sued the U.S. Department of Education in federal court in New York, accusing it of withholding public records about how it’s enforcing civil rights protections for millions of American students. The Education Department has failed to provide public records related to its investigations, communications and other work that ProPublica sought through four Freedom of Information Act requests filed last year. The Education Department’s civil rights arm for decades has investigated allegations of discrimination in schools. It historically has kept an online list of its open investigations and posted the findings of completed inquiries. But under Education Secretary Linda McMahon, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, the Office for Civil Rights has been decimated and the work of its remaining investigators is largely cloaked in secrecy. ProPublica submitted three FOIA requests — the first of them more than a year ago — seeking records about civil rights investigations that have been opened or closed, notices sent to institutions being investigated and previous findings of discrimination that have been reversed under the Trump administration. A fourth request sought communication between top Education Department officials and conservative groups that have criticized public schools. Some of the groups have urged the OCR to investigate specific school districts and have met often with McMahon. The department has not responded to the requests other than to acknowledge that it received them. “Actions by the Department of Education have real consequences for millions of students and families,” said Alexandra Perloff-Giles of the law firm Davis Wright Tremaine, which is representing ProPublica. “The public deserves to understand how executive authority is being exercised so that it can hold government accountable,” she said. “Congress enacted FOIA to offer the public that necessary transparency, and we’re asking the court to enforce it.” Spokespeople for the department did not respond to a request for comment about the lawsuit. The department has not yet responded to the complaint in court. The lawsuit, filed Wednesday, argues that since Trump took office, the work of the OCR — once one of the federal government’s largest enforcers of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — has become significantly more opaque. Though each presidential administration has its priorities, OCR has consistently worked to uphold constitutional rights against discrimination based on disability, race and gender. But the focus of the OCR under Trump has shifted to investigations relating to curbing antisemitism, ending participation of transgender athletes in women’s sports and combating alleged discrimination against white students. Complaints about transgender students playing sports and using girls’ bathrooms at school have been fast-tracked while cases of racial harassment of Black students last year were ignored. And although some documents that detail how cases were resolved are being posted online, some older resolution agreements have been terminated. Those terminations have not been disclosed to the public. “The public interest in this information is substantial and ongoing. Since there are approximately 49.6 million students in the U.S., changes to the ED and its policies affect millions of families,” the lawsuit says. Trump has been working to shutter the department. Hundreds of department workers have been laid off and official employee counts at the OCR went from 568 in 2024 to 403 as of December 2025. McMahon closed seven of the 12 regional OCR offices that handled discrimination complaints across the country. Amid the staffing difficulties and the shift in priorities at the OCR, families’ discrimination complaints have piled up. When President Joe Biden left office, about 12,000 investigations were open; by December 2025, there were nearly 24,000. ProPublica reporting has found that new complaints as well as older ones included in the backlog often are dismissed without investigation. OCR workers have said they feel as if they’re working in a “dismissal factory.” In the past year, ProPublica has filed several other lawsuits seeking to force transparency in courts and the federal government. That includes a lawsuit filed in May against the State Department. ProPublica also has joined other media organizations in lawsuits. Help Us Report on How the Department of Education Is Handling Civil Rights Cases Have you recently filed a civil rights complaint or do you have a pending case? We need your help to get a full picture of how the dismantling of the Office for Civil Rights is affecting students, parents, school employees and their communities. Share Your Experience The post ProPublica Sues Education Department for Withholding Records About Discrimination in Schools appeared first on ProPublica.

[Category: Education, Trump Administration]

— What Emergency Managers Say They Need More Than Ever

 

at 3/2/26 3:30am

Local emergency managers, the behind-the-scenes coordinators who mobilize help during disasters, have raised the same point time and again: We need adequate resources to protect people in harm’s way — before the harm arrives.  In some notable cases, resources didn’t come soon enough. It wasnt until after Hurricane Helene devastated Yancey County, North Carolina, in 2024 that commissioners there hired additional emergency management staff, which the former emergency manager said he’d requested for years. City officials in St. Louis, Missouri, were in the process of upgrading their faulty outdoor warning system when a tornado killed four people and injured dozens of others in May 2025.  We wanted to know more about the cracks in the systems meant to keep communities safe when disasters strike. To do that, we reached out to dozens of emergency management agencies and wound up hearing from more than 40 current and former emergency managers in 11 states. They described common concerns.  Some said their agencies have been saddled with an ever-growing list of responsibilities. In Saluda County, South Carolina, the emergency management director said his team of six is responsible for everything from the county’s IT department to a spay and neuter program. In San Bernardino County, California, the emergency manager said that she has had to help respond to new challenges like a lithium battery fire and, at a previous agency, was tasked with responding to busloads of immigrants arriving from other states. Funding for additional staff was the most pressing issue they cited. One North Carolina emergency management director said an internal study from about three years ago recommended their agency have more than 20 staffers, but they still only have 10. Across the country, more than half of the 1,689 local emergency management agencies that responded to Argonne National Laboratorys July 2025 emergency management survey have either one or no permanent full-time employees, and a “notable percentage” of local emergency managers who responded are volunteers. Get Involved We know disasters are a matter of where and when, not if. And our reporting team at ProPublica wants to be prepared well in advance. If you are a local or state emergency manager, sign up to be a part of our long-term source network to help fuel ProPublica’s investigative journalism. Get Involved Given the wide-ranging responsibilities and increasing risk due to climate change, part-time or volunteer emergency management positions shouldn’t exist, said Samantha Montano, an emergency management associate professor and researcher at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy.  “To expect somebody to understand how to mitigate cyber risks and also recover from a tornado, I mean, these are different skill sets,” Montano said. “So to think that one person is going to be capable of doing all of those things, especially working part time or as a volunteer, is ludicrous.”  Meanwhile, President Donald Trump’s administration has caused delays in emergency management funding to state and local agencies and issued an executive order to shift more of the weight of disaster preparedness to state and local governments.  Kelly McKinney, the vice president of emergency management at NYU Langone Health and a former deputy commissioner at the New York City Emergency Management office, said that over the years states have become “overly dependent” on funding administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. But there is no clear plan for alternative funding streams, according to McKinney. “This crisis-management system in the United States is itself in crisis,” he said. “There’s Only So Much You Can Do”  Several emergency managers we heard from said one of the only times they’re able to draw attention to their agency’s needs is in the aftermath of a wide-scale disaster. Wike Graham, the emergency management director for the Charlotte-Mecklenberg area of North Carolina, said the first question the media typically asks following such a disaster is: “Did emergency management do what they were supposed to do?” According to Graham, that’s almost always the wrong question. He instead asks: “Did you properly fund emergency management staff? And did you provide them with the resources that they need? Did you make emergency management a priority for your community?”  Unlike firefighters, EMTs or law enforcement, emergency managers face a “public identity issue” that can result in agencies receiving smaller budgets, Montano said.  Several emergency managers told ProPublica that because people in their field operate mostly behind the scenes or as part of larger departments, they often find themselves competing for funding with better-recognized agencies, and they say elected officials frequently don’t have a clear understanding of their role. Some said it’s simply difficult to get people to care about a disaster that hasnt happened yet. Several others told ProPublica they are also seeing an uptick in the frequency and intensity of disasters, which makes it difficult to manage recovery (which can take years) while preparing for the next storm or fire. In St. Louis, for example, emergency management commissioner Sarah Russell was still in the midst of managing recovery efforts from 2022 flash flooding when the 2025 tornado hit. Josh Morton, president of the International Association of Emergency Managers USA Council and emergency management director for Saluda County in South Carolina, says local emergency management is “where the rubber meets the road,” but local governments are often “the most limited when it comes to resources.” Donaven Doughty for ProPublica At the Saluda County emergency management office where Morton works, a memorial, first image, honors the two volunteer firefighters who lost their lives while responding to Hurricane Helene. Donaven Doughty for ProPublica During the St. Louis tornado, the sirens — which the city was in the early process of upgrading — weren’t activated, in part due to a miscommunication between Russell and a fire alarm dispatcher, according to an external investigation commissioned by the city. Russell, who is nonbinary and uses they/them pronouns, told ProPublica that the fire department was responsible for sounding the sirens.  But even if the activation button had been pressed, more than a third of the sirens weren’t working, and a later test showed that the button at the fire alarm office wasn’t either.  Russell was terminated in August 2025, in part due to their management of the tornado response, according to their termination letter. But Russell, who is appealing the termination, said the incident highlights the need to proactively invest in emergency management.  Russell had made several requests for additional staff who specialize in emergency management to help with core responsibilities, like updating the city’s outdated plan for responding to emergencies. “Theres always things that you would do different with hindsight,” Russell said. “But theres only so much you can do with so little resources and support.” St. Louis Mayor Cara Spencer, who had been in office for a month at the time of the tornado and who was an alderwoman for the decade prior, told ProPublica that she was aware of the agencys requests for additional funding, but that most city departments make such requests. After the tragedy, the city fully automated the tornado sirens and issued an executive order declaring that the fire department would have primary authority over the sirens, replacing an unclear protocol.  A city spokesperson said the new emergency management commissioner has “implemented several improvements” to the emergency operations plan.  “Recognizing that budget restraints are unfortunately the reality across many aspects of government,” Spencer said via email, “I’m incredibly proud of the improvements this team has been able to implement with almost no additional funding.” “This Isn’t a Quick Fix” Strained budgets for local emergency management agencies aren’t a new issue. But in recent months, federal funding has become uncertain.  In April 2025, the Trump administration cut federal grants that pay for local disaster-preparedness projects — but a judge later halted the administration’s efforts to shutter the grant program. In May 2025, federal officials delayed grants that help fund local and state emergency managers salaries.  In December, the FEMA Review Council, which Trump created to advise on ways to reform the agency, was expected to vote on a long-awaited report that would outline the agency’s future. But after a draft was leaked to CNN, the meeting was abruptly canceled. The work of the review council has been extended until late March.  Several emergency managers told ProPublica they would welcome change at FEMA. But many voiced concerns about the federal government shuttering grant programs — which fund salaries, upgrades to equipment and disaster-mitigation efforts — or drastically reducing reimbursement for local agencies responding to large-scale disasters without alternative funding in place. They said such actions would be detrimental, especially in small, rural regions with limited local budgets.  In North Carolina, one emergency manager said that without federal emergency management performance grants, which can be used to pay 50% of an emergency manager’s salary, “we are looking at the loss of preparedness and response capabilities.” Another called the grant “vital” to daily operations.  FEMA did not respond to requests for comment.  Claire Connolly Knox, who directs the University of Central Florida’s master’s program for emergency and crisis management, has been studying what a “decentralized FEMA” could mean for state agencies. She said it could take several legislative cycles before states are prepared to fill in the gaps that changes to FEMA might create. Many states, Knox said, are not closely tracking spending across multiple departments and multiple phases of emergency management, meaning “we dont know the true cost” of mitigating, preparing for, responding to and recovering from disasters.  “When you start breaking that down,” Knox said. “You start seeing that this isnt a quick fix.” The post What Emergency Managers Say They Need More Than Ever appeared first on ProPublica.

[Category: Environment, Trump Administration]

— Emergency Managers: Help ProPublica Prepare to Report on the Next Disaster

 

at 3/2/26 3:25am

We know disasters are a matter of where and when, not if. And just like you, our reporting team at ProPublica wants to be prepared well in advance. If you are a local, state or federal emergency manager, former emergency manager, emergency management researcher, or a part of the broader network of disaster response and recovery partners, we want to hear your concerns. Dozens of current and former emergency managers working everywhere from large cities to rural counties have already told us about the growing challenges they face amid more frequent disasters and uncertain federal funding. Now we need your help to build a comprehensive picture of the real conditions across the country. What resources do you need to feel prepared for the next gray-sky day? How have or will changes to the Federal Emergency Management Agency impact the work you’re doing? How are alerts and warning systems working in your region? Have you been hit by multiple large-scale disasters in recent years? What new hazards are on your radar? We know that emergency managers are critically important but aren’t often thought about until after tragedy strikes. We are building this source network to fuel in-depth coverage of the nation’s emergency preparedness and disaster response and recovery infrastructure that goes far beyond breaking news and brings attention to important issues across the country. As with all ProPublica journalism, our goal is impact. Fill out the brief form below to tell us what we should be covering, or to stay in touch as changes unfold. You may hear from our team as we report on major overhauls to the emergency management system, develop emergency preparedness guides or provide crucial information to communities that have just experienced their worst day. The post Emergency Managers: Help ProPublica Prepare to Report on the Next Disaster appeared first on ProPublica.

[Category: Environment, Trump Administration]

— Applications Open for 2026 ProPublica Investigative Editor Training Program

 

at 3/2/26 3:00am

For the fourth year, ProPublica will invite up to 10 news editors from media companies across the country to participate in a yearlong investigative editing training program, led by the newsroom’s award-winning staff. Applications are now open for the ProPublica Investigative Editor Training Program. Submissions are due Monday, March 30, at 9 a.m. Eastern time. As the nation’s premier nonprofit investigative newsroom, ProPublica is dedicated to journalism that changes laws and lives and to advancing the careers of the people who produce it. The goal of this program is to address our industry’s critical need to broaden the ranks of investigative editors. Building a pipeline of talent is a priority that serves us and our industry. “Journalism is vital to a healthy democracy, and it is clear that our world needs more investigative journalism at this moment, not less,” Managing Editor Ginger Thompson said. “We see the Editor Training Program as an indispensable training ground to ensure the future of investigative journalism. Where others are contracting, we are investing in the future of our industry, and that of talented journalists across the country.” This year’s program will begin with a weeklong boot camp in New York that will include courses and panel discussions on how to conceive of and produce investigative projects that expose harm and have impact. The editors will also get training in how to manage reporters who are working with data, documents and sensitive sources, including whistleblowers, agency insiders and people who have suffered trauma. The program also includes virtual continuing education sessions and support from a ProPublica mentor. Frequently Asked Questions What is this? The ProPublica Investigative Editor Training Program is designed to help expand the ranks of editors with investigative experience in newsrooms across the country, to help better reflect the nation as a whole. What kind of experience can you expect? The program kicks off with a five-day intensive editing boot camp in New York, which includes a series of courses and panel discussions led by ProPublica’s senior editors, veteran reporters and other newsroom leaders. The boot camp will include hands-on editing exercises and opportunities for participants to workshop projects underway in their own newsrooms. Afterward, participants will gather virtually for seminars and career development discussions with their cohort and ProPublica journalists. Each of the participants will also be assigned a ProPublica senior editor as a mentor for advice on story and management challenges or on how to most effectively pursue their own professional aspirations. What skills should I expect to learn? How to evaluate story ideas and determine the right scope, length and time for getting the work done. How to manage a reporter through a complicated accountability story and communicate feedback in ways that build trust and confidence. How to edit investigative drafts, spot holes in reporting logic, organize a narrative and guide the reporter through the fact-checking process. How to work collaboratively with research, data and multimedia teams to elevate an investigative project. When is the boot camp? The five-day, all-expenses-paid boot camp will be held May 31 to June 4, 2026, in New York, with remote sessions via Google Meet throughout the year. Is there a virtual option for the boot camp? This boot camp will be held in person and will not have a virtual option. Will I be responsible for my expenses in New York? ProPublica will cover participants’ expenses for meals, travel and lodging during the boot camp. How many participants will be selected each year? Up to 10 journalists. Who is eligible? The program is open to all. The aim is to help broaden our industry’s investigative editing ranks to include journalists from a wide array of backgrounds. We encourage everyone to apply, including those from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds and rural news organizations, as well as women, people of color, veterans, LGBTQ+ people and people with disabilities. Past participants have come from a wide range of news outlets across the country. The ideal participants will have:  A minimum of five years of journalism experience, either as an editor or as a reporter primarily doing work with an investigative or accountability focus.  A strong grasp of the basics of editing, storytelling, structure and framing. Experience managing a team of journalists or a complicated multipronged reporting project. An accountability mindset: You don’t have to have been on the investigative team, but we are looking for people with an eye for watchdog reporting and editing. Am I eligible if I live outside of the United States? No. How do I apply? The application period is now open and closes Monday, March 30, at 9 a.m. Eastern time. You can find the posting to apply at propublica.org/jobs. What if I have other questions? Send an email to Assistant Managing Editor Talia Buford at talent@propublica.org. The post Applications Open for 2026 ProPublica Investigative Editor Training Program appeared first on ProPublica.

— Trump Officials Attended a Summit of Election Deniers Who Want the President to Take Over the Midterms

 

at 2/28/26 3:30am

Several high-ranking federal election officials attended a summit last week at which prominent figures who worked to overturn Donald Trump’s loss in the 2020 election pressed the president to declare a national emergency to take over this year’s midterms. According to videos, photos and social media posts reviewed by ProPublica, the meeting’s participants included Kurt Olsen, a White House lawyer charged with reinvestigating the 2020 election, and Heather Honey, the Department of Homeland Security official in charge of election integrity. The event was convened by Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, and attended by Cleta Mitchell, who directs the Election Integrity Network, a group that has spread false claims about election fraud and noncitizen voting.  Election experts say that the meeting reflects an intensifying push to persuade Trump to take unprecedented actions to affect the vote in November. Courts have largely blocked his efforts to reshape elections through an executive order, and legislation has stalled in Congress that would mandate strict voter ID requirements across the country. The Washington Post reported Thursday that activists associated with those at the summit have been circulating a draft of an executive order that would ban mail-in ballots and get rid of voting machines as part of a federal takeover. Peter Ticktin, a lawyer who worked on the executive order and had a client at the summit, told ProPublica these actions were “all part of the same effort.”  The summit followed other meetings and discussions between administration officials and activists — many not previously reported — stretching back to at least last fall, according to emails and recordings obtained by ProPublica. The coordination between those inside and outside the government represents a breakdown of crucial guardrails, experts on U.S. elections said. “The meeting shows that the same people who tried to overturn the 2020 election have only grown better organized and are now embedded in the machinery of government,” said Brendan Fischer, a director at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan pro-democracy organization. “This creates substantial risk that the administration is laying the groundwork to improperly reshape elections ahead of the midterms or even go against the will of the voters.” Five of six federal officials who attended the summit didn’t answer questions about the event from ProPublica.  A White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said federal officials’ attendance at the gathering shouldn’t be construed as support for a national emergency declaration and that it was “common practice” for staffers to communicate with outside advocates who want to share policy ideas. The official pointed to comments Trump made to PBS News denying he was considering a national emergency or had read the draft executive order. “Any speculation about policies the administration may or may not undertake is just that — speculation,” the official said. In the past, Trump has expressed an openness to a federal takeover as a way to stem projected Republican losses in November. This month, he said in an interview with conservative podcaster Dan Bongino that Republicans need “to take over” elections and “to nationalize the voting.” Mitchell did not respond to questions from ProPublica about the summit. A spokesperson for Flynn responded to detailed questions from ProPublica by disparaging experts who expressed concerns, texting, “LOL ‘EXPERTS.’”  The 30-person roundtable discussion on Feb. 19, at an office building in downtown Washington, D.C., was sponsored by the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a conservative think tank. Afterward, activists and government officials dined together, photos reviewed by ProPublica showed. Flynn, the institute’s chair, told a social media personality why he’d arranged the event.  “I wanted to bring this group together physically, because most of us have met online” while “fighting battles” in swing states from Arizona to Georgia, Flynn said to Tommy Robinson on the gathering’s sidelines. Robinson posted videos of these interactions online. “The overall theme of this event was to make sure that all of us aren’t operating in our own little bubbles.” Flynn has repeatedly advocated for Trump to declare a national emergency and posted on social media after the event addressing Trump, “We The People want fair elections and we know there is only one office in the land that can make that happen given the current political environment in the United States.” Get Involved Do you have information you can share about conservative activists engaging with federal officials about elections or any of the individuals named in this article? Contact reporter Doug Bock Clark at doug.clark@propublica.org or on Signal at 678-243-0784. If you’re concerned about confidentiality, check out our advice on the most secure ways to share tips. In addition to Olsen and Honey, four other federal officials from agencies that will shape the upcoming elections attended the event. At least four of the six attended the dinner. One is Clay Parikh, a special government employee at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence who’s helping Olsen with the 2020 inquiry. A spokesperson at ODNI said Parikh had attended the summit “in his personal capacity.”  Another, Mac Warner, handled election litigation at the Justice Department. A department spokesperson said that Warner had resigned the day after the event and had not received the required approval from agency ethics officials to participate.   The department “remains committed to upholding the integrity of our electoral system and will continue to prioritize efforts to ensure all elections remain free, fair, and transparent,” the spokesperson said in an email. A third administration official who attended the summit, Marci McCarthy, directs communications for the nation’s cyber defense agency, which oversees the security of elections infrastructure like voting machines.  Kari Lake, whom Trump appointed as senior adviser to the U.S. Agency for Global Media, was a featured speaker. Lake worked with Olsen and Parikh in her unsuccessful bid to overturn her loss in the 2022 Arizona gubernatorial election. Lake said in an email that she “showed up to the event, spoke for about 20 minutes about the overall importance of election integrity, a non-partisan issue that matters to all citizens — both in the United States and abroad. I left without listening to any other speeches.”  “Elections should be free from fraud or any other malfeasance that subverts the will of the people,” she added.  At the meeting, activists presented on ways to transform American elections that would help conservatives, according to social media posts and interviews they gave on conservative media, such as LindellTV, a streaming platform created by the pillow mogul Mike Lindell. They said the group broke down into two camps: those who wanted to pursue a more incremental legal and legislative strategy and those who wanted Trump to declare a national emergency. Multiple activists left the meeting convinced Trump should do the latter, a step they believe would allow the president to get around the Constitution’s directive that elections should be run by states.  Former Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne, a prominent funder of efforts to overturn the 2020 election, told LindellTV that Trump has “played nice” so far in not seizing control of American elections. “But at some point,” Byrne said, “he’s got to do something, the muscular thing: declare a national emergency.” Byrne responded to questions from ProPublica by sending a screenshot of a poll that he said suggested “2/3 of Americans correctly do not trust” voting machines, which the proposed national emergency declaration aims to do away with. Will Huff, who has advocated for doing away with voting machines, told a conservative vlogger that Olsen, the White House lawyer, and other administration representatives would take the “consensus” from the gathering back to Trump. “It’s got to be a national emergency,” said Huff, the campaign manager for a Republican candidate for Arkansas secretary of state. In response to questions from ProPublica, Huff said in an email that Olsen and Trump would use their judgment to decide whether to declare a national emergency.  “The President has been briefed on findings of shortcomings in election infrastructure,” Huff wrote. “I believe there are steady hands around the President wanting to ensure that any action taken is, first, constitutional and legal, but also backed by evidence.” McCarthy, the cybersecurity official, expressed more general solidarity with fellow attendees in a post on social media about the summit. “Grateful for friendships forged through years of standing shoulder-to-shoulder, united by purpose and conviction,” she wrote. “The mission continues… and so does the fellowship.” Marci McCarthy, second from left, Heather Honey, fourth from right, and Cleta Mitchell, third from right, were among the conservative activists and officials who attended the summit. McCarthy posted about the event on LinkedIn. Screenshot by ProPublica. Redactions by ProPublica. Last week’s gathering was the latest in a string of private interactions between conservative election activists and administration officials, according to emails, documents and recordings obtained by ProPublica. Many have involved Mitchell’s Election Integrity Network. Before taking her government post, Honey was a leader in the Election Integrity Network, ProPublica has reported, as was McCarthy. Previously unreported emails obtained by ProPublica show that just weeks after Honey started at the Department of Homeland Security, she briefed election activists, a Republican secretary of state and another federal official on a conference call arranged by her former boss, Mitchell. “We are excited to welcome her on our call this morning to hear about her work for election integrity inside DHS,” Mitchell wrote in an email introducing presenters on the call. Honey didn’t respond to questions from ProPublica about the call. Experts said Honey’s briefing gave her former employer access that likely would have violated ethics rules in place under previous administrations, including the first Trump administration — though not this one. The prior “ethics guardrails would have prevented some of the revolving door issues we’re seeing between the election denial movement and the government officials,” said Fischer, the Campaign Legal Center director. Those prior rules “were supposed to prevent former employers and clients from receiving privileged access.” The post Trump Officials Attended a Summit of Election Deniers Who Want the President to Take Over the Midterms appeared first on ProPublica.

[Category: Democracy]

As of 3/12/26 8:08pm. Last new 3/12/26 11:46am.