Author name: moderat ereport

by Abe Streep ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week. The top Democrat on a House committee is demanding that Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins account for discrepancies between her public statements about wildland firefighter staffing and a ProPublica report showing there were thousands of vacancies in the Forest Service’s firefighting workforce as peak wildfire season approached. In June, the Forest Service claimed it had reached 99% of its hiring goal for its wildland firefighting workforce. But ProPublica’s reporting indicated that the agency was selectively counting firefighters, presenting an optimistic assessment to the public. As many as 27% of jobs were vacant as of July 17, according to data obtained by ProPublica. Rep. Robert Garcia, a Democrat from California and the ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, made the request to Rollins in a letter sent Thursday morning. “The Trump Administration’s staffing decisions are exacerbating an already dire situation: The Forest Service’s firefighting capacity has been dangerously hampered by Department of Government Efficiency and Trump Administration layoffs, deferred resignations, and other early retirements and resignations just as climate change is extending the fire season,” he wrote. The Forest Service’s assertions about its readiness are contradicted not only by its own staff — a wildland firefighter in California quoted in the ProPublica report called the 99% figure “grossly inaccurate” — but by its own statistics. In July, ProPublica reported that, according to agency data, its fire and aviation management program contained more than 4,500 active vacancies, including for such crucial primary firefighting positions as hotshots, dispatchers and engine captains. At the time, a spokesperson for the Agriculture Department disputed that the Forest Service had that many vacancies within its fire and aviation management program but did not provide data showing otherwise. A spokesperson for the Forest Service later claimed that ProPublica’s figures were inaccurate, telling the High Country News, “Their numbers likely come from outdated org charts and unfunded positions.” However, ProPublica excluded all unfunded positions from its analysis, and its data came from active agency organizational charts. When asked to support its claims that the agency’s fire service is fully staffed, a spokesperson wrote: “The Forest Service is fully prepared and operational to protect individuals and communities from wildfires. The Forest Service has over 19,000 workers, both in and out of the Fire and Aviation Management group, who hold incident response qualifications.” According to experts, the agency has long resisted providing a comprehensive and transparent breakdown of its wildland firefighting force. “Unless Congress tells them to, they’re not going to do a report of that magnitude,” said Robert Kuhn, a former Forest Service official who between 2009 and 2011 co-authored such an assessment. Kuhn cited the cost and effort involved in analyzing a sprawling and complex agency. Earlier this year, Grassroots Wildland Firefighting, a labor advocacy organization, wrote, “None of the federal agencies have developed a modern formula for determining how many wildland firefighters and support personnel are truly needed to address 21st century issues.” Most federal wildland firefighters work for the Forest Service, within the Department of Agriculture. In addition, the federal government employs thousands of wildland firefighters at four agencies in the Department of the Interior. President Donald Trump has ordered all of them to consolidate their wildland fire programs. Details about that unification have not been released. Every year, the Forest Service reports that it has filled its ranks with what are known as primary firefighters. But according to current and former Forest Service employees, that assessment — the basis of the claim that the agency reached 99% of its hiring goal — is misleading on a number of levels. The Forest Service simply counts “operational firefighters” working within a specified pay range. That figure includes both temporary seasonal firefighters who have just joined the agency and experienced year-round veterans — but it does not distinguish between the two and therefore elides a great loss of institutional knowledge. In recent years, the agency has suffered an exodus of experienced firefighters. The agency’s assessment also excludes both senior-level fire managers and crucial support staff. The public associates wildland firefighting with its most iconic figures: smokejumpers, hotshots and members of engine crews, who often are supported by aircraft dropping retardant. But the nation’s wildland fire apparatus also includes, for example, human-resource specialists, ecologists, wilderness rangers, meteorologists, trails workers and other employees who possess qualifications allowing them to work on a fire line. Those qualifications are listed in what’s known as a “red card.” An archaeologist could have a red card allowing them to, say, oversee the distribution of food at a fire camp. A recently departed staffer received this email of Forest Service wildland firefighting job openings in August. (Obtained and redacted by ProPublica) According to internal data reviewed in July by ProPublica, approximately 1,600 red-carded staff left the government this winter and spring. The Forest Service has claimed that the actual figure is 1,400. Garcia asked for a full accounting of DOGE’s impact on the Forest Service, demanding “all documents and communications regarding staffing, hiring, reductions in force, the Deferred Resignation Program, or the ‘Fork in the Road,’ and firefighting resources and capacity at the Forest Service.” The agency’s rosy public assessments of its own force have also been belied by its efforts to rehire the workers it forced out. In a July memo, the Forest Service’s chief, Tom Schultz, allowed that the agency did not have enough resources and was now recruiting red-carded staff who had separated from the agency. More recently, emails reviewed by ProPublica show that, since July 22, the Forest Service has sent multiple recruiting notices to departed staff. The emails advertise dozens of openings for essential firefighting positions — such as dispatcher, engine captain and hotshot superintendent — in at least seven states. When asked about the emails, an agency spokesperson wrote, “We do have

by Jacob Orledge, North Dakota Monitor This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network in partnership with the North Dakota Monitor. Sign up for Dispatches to get our stories in your inbox every week. Millions of Americans own the rights to oil and gas underground. When they’re approached by an energy company to lease out those rights, they’re offered a cut of the revenue, called a royalty. “Royalties saved our place,” said James Horob, a farmer in northwest North Dakota, who used oil royalties to rescue his family’s farm from bankruptcy in 2008 and replace equipment that had been auctioned off. “We’re lucky to have what we got.” However, the royalty income that mineral owners like Horob get can depend in part on the state where they live. In North Dakota, estimates show that in recent years companies have been deducting hundreds of millions of dollars annually to help cover the costs incurred once oil and gas leave the ground on their way to being sold. North Dakota officials have not stepped in to help royalty owners, even though the state, in its own leases, has explicitly prohibited oil and gas companies from taking deductions from government royalty payments since 1979, as the North Dakota Monitor and ProPublica reported this month. “It’s tough to think that there isn’t some better solution out there than what we currently have,” said Aaron Weber, a Watford City-based attorney who represents mineral owners in North Dakota. In contrast to North Dakota, at least seven oil-and-gas-producing states have taken either legislative or judicial action to restrict the costs that can be deducted from royalty owners’ checks. Here are the key ways North Dakota differs from these other states when it comes to protecting the interests of royalty owners: The Debate in North Dakota North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong has called the oil and gas industry the “No. 1 driver of our economy” in the state. The industry contributed $32 billion in oil and gas taxes to state and local governments between 2008 and 2024, according to the Western Dakota Energy Association, which advocates for energy-producing communities. That same study found that more than 50% of all local tax collections are tied to oil and gas. Oil and gas companies owed the state’s private mineral owners, like Horob, an estimated $4.6 billion in 2023 before deductions, according to North Dakota State University research. Deductions from that royalty income — which can vary greatly by company and mineral owner — are deeply contentious in the state: Companies say they’re withholding transportation and other expenses that should be shared with royalty owners; the owners say those “postproduction deductions,” as they are generally known, shouldn’t be permitted in most circumstances. The energy industry says the postproduction deductions, which began surging about a decade ago, reflect changes in the oil business. Oil, discovered in the state in 1951, used to be sold primarily at the well site. Now, oil and gas are often sold farther away, and companies incur costs to process and transport the minerals. The companies say this enables them to fetch a better price, benefiting the royalty owner as well. The industry also attributes an increase in deductions to regulations added in 2014 to reduce natural gas flaring, requiring companies to make new investments. A gas flare in Williams County, North Dakota, in June (Sarahbeth Maney/ProPublica) Owen Anderson previously worked for North Dakota’s regulatory agencies and helped draft language to prohibit companies from taking deductions from royalty payments owed to the state. Anderson, a law professor who studies the energy industry, called the issue “a big, big deal.” Armstrong declined to comment. How Courts Have Addressed Oil and Gas Royalties Around the country: State supreme courts in Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia have determined oil and gas companies are responsible for the costs that make the commodities “marketable.” That means there are limits on the expenses that companies can pass on to royalty owners after the minerals leave the ground. Those expenses may include removing impurities, gathering the products in central locations, and transporting the oil and gas to where it will be sold. Still, the costs that companies can deduct from royalties vary by state, depending on how states define when a product is marketable. West Virginia provides royalty owners the most protection from deductions, the result of state Supreme Court of Appeals decisions in 2001 and 2006. In those cases, the court found that companies cannot pass on costs to the owners unless a lease explicitly allows it. This matters because many leases across the country were written before shifts in the industry led to more extensive deductions, so most early leases don’t explicitly mention them. “The default is, you cannot take deductions unless they’re specifically agreed to,” said Tom Huber, the leader of West Virginia’s royalty owner association. The 2006 court decision “basically says if there’s ambiguous language, you go on the side of the royalty owner because the company constructed the lease,” he said. That decision also determined that deductions cannot be taken unless leases specify which costs can be shared and lay out how the deductions will be calculated. Rulings in 2024 and 2025 confirmed the court’s stance. Courts in Colorado, Kansas and Oklahoma also have placed limits on what costs can be deducted from royalty payments. Those courts have determined that companies must make the oil and gas “marketable” before costs can be deducted from royalties. Each state uses different criteria to determine at what point in the process the commodities become marketable. Courts in other oil-and-gas-producing states have taken a legal approach that is more friendly to the industry. Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and others have determined that companies can deduct costs incurred between the minerals’ extraction and when they are sold unless there is lease language to the contrary. That is also true in Pennsylvania. But in 2015, the state’s attorney general cracked down on a company, Chesapeake Energy, alleged to be taking artificially excessive deductions. The

by ProPublica ProPublica announced that Ryan Little and Kevin Uhrmacher have been hired as deputy editors on our data and news applications teams. Little will serve as one of two deputy data editors, and Uhrmacher will work as deputy news applications editor. Together, they will strengthen ProPublica’s editing capacity and streamline collaboration between our data, interactive and reporting teams. “We’re so happy to have Ryan and Kevin joining us at ProPublica,” said Ken Schwencke, senior editor for data and news applications. “They are excellent managers and journalists, and we’re excited to bring them on to make the already-excellent journalism coming from these teams even better.” Little joins ProPublica from The Baltimore Banner, where he served as data editor and worked on stories that won a Pulitzer Prize, a George Polk Award and an Investigative Reporters and Editors Award, among other honors. Those stories included a series revealing the city’s overdose crisis, an investigation of the transit nightmare Baltimore students face to get to school, and how listless container ships like the one that collapsed the Francis Scott Key Bridge are more common than previously known. Prior to his time at the Banner, Little worked at Mother Jones as a Roy W. Howard fellow. Little previously collaborated with ProPublica in 2022 on a rent pricing investigation that led to a Department of Justice inquiry and a settlement with Greystar, the nation’s largest landlord, who agreed to stop using anti-competitive rent algorithms. He holds a master’s degree from the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland, where he also teaches data journalism. “ProPublica has set the standard for accountability data journalism, and I am delighted to join the team,” Little said. “I’m eager to pursue audacious, high-impact work together.” Uhrmacher comes to ProPublica from The Washington Post, where he worked for more than 11 years, most recently as graphics assignment editor overseeing data visualization and interactive stories. Uhrmacher was a driving force behind some of the Post’s most impactful visual journalism, including doing graphics editing on work that was a part of three Pulitzer Prizes. He launched numerous trackers, including those that followed state abortion laws and presidential appointees. He also served as a graphics editor and project manager for a database-driven story that detailed the history of enslavers in Congress, which won a Salute to Excellence Award from the National Association of Black Journalists. “I’m thrilled to be joining ProPublica’s stellar news applications team, which has been an industry leader in interactive accountability journalism, including by making consequential data more accessible to the public,” Uhrmacher said. “ProPublica’s work exposing abuses of the public trust — at a global, national and local scale — makes it a top destination for any journalist, and I’m honored that the institution has entrusted me with this role.”

by Maya Miller and Jeremy Kohler ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published. During his first term, President Donald Trump frequently turned to the issue of mental health, framing it as a national crisis that demanded action. He linked it to opioid addiction, mass shootings and a surge in veteran suicides — and he later used it to argue against COVID-19 lockdowns and school closures. At times, he backed up his rhetoric with action. His administration issued tens of millions of dollars in grants to expand community mental health services and continued funding contracts to help federal regulators enforce the parity law, which requires insurers to treat mental and physical health care equally. But just months after Trump returned to the presidency this year, his administration paused new rules issued in President Joe Biden’s final months that were designed to strengthen mental health protections and hold insurance companies accountable when they unlawfully denied coverage. That pause came after an industry group that advocates for large employers on issues related to employee benefits filed a lawsuit seeking to block the new rules. What’s more, Congress has curtailed funding for the Employee Benefits Security Administration, or EBSA, a small agency in the Department of Labor that enforces mental health parity in most employer-sponsored health insurance plans. The squeeze is largely due to the expiration of temporary supplemental funding Congress approved just weeks after Biden was elected president but before he took office. While the impact of these changes is hard to measure, federal employees, policy experts and front-line workers warn that suspending the rules and cutting enforcement funding could have serious consequences. They say it could mean longer waits for help when patients challenge insurance decisions, fewer investigations of insurers and employer health plans over possible violations of federal mental health protections, and more people going without care they’re legally entitled to. Their long-term predictions include more untreated mental illness and growing anger at insurers. “Imagine if you are a parent calling about lifesaving care your kid needs,” said Ali Khawar, who was second in command at EBSA before stepping down at the end of the Biden administration. With less money and fewer employees, he said, the agency isn’t equipped to open new investigations quickly. The suspended rules were meant to strengthen enforcement of the 2008 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act. The failure to provide the same level of access to mental health care as physical care has been well documented by researchers as well as by a recent ProPublica investigation. We found that insurers often block care, underpay mental health providers and make it hard for patients to find help — sometimes with deadly consequences. The rules, released in September 2024, required health plans to gather and report detailed data on how they restrict or deny mental health claims. If the plans found disparities when compared with medical care, insurers had to explain what they were doing to close those gaps, a requirement the Trump administration put on hold. In his first term, Trump positioned himself as an advocate for expanding mental health services and strengthening parity enforcement. His commission on opioid abuse even recommended giving EBSA more authority to penalize insurers that violate the parity rules, though Congress never approved the proposal. But after returning to office, his administration has moved to roll back several Biden-era initiatives, from solar energy grants to student loan relief. The new parity rules were no exception. Days before Trump’s second inauguration, the ERISA Industry Committee, or ERIC, a trade group representing large employers on employee benefits policy, sued to block the regulations. After that, the Trump administration went to court to ask to have the lawsuit paused while it considered whether to rescind or modify the rules. A federal judge granted the request, and the Trump administration promised not to enforce them during the litigation or for 18 months afterward. ERIC says that the new rules went beyond what Congress intended when it created the mental health parity law and were too vague and burdensome. But advocates for the new rules said the action effectively gutted the parity law’s strongest protections. “The expectation was that these rules would be incredibly significant in driving better compliance,” Khawar said. “So now that it is on hold, it is a significant benefit that will never be realized.” James Gelfand, ERIC’s president and CEO, said he believed the Biden administration went too far. “While we do support mental health parity generally, we don’t support this rule,” he said. “We don’t think that the Biden administration had any authority to write it.” He added that it created “an impossible standard that we can’t meet,” and that rules were “purposely vague so they could choose to enforce against whoever they wanted, whenever they wanted.” EBSA, which safeguards workplace benefits for 150 million Americans, has always had to make do with a small staff, and it was struggling even under the Biden administration, which backed its mission. In a 2023 report to Congress, the agency acknowledged that with one investigator for every 7,700 health plans, its resources “are limited compared to the vast universe that it regulates.” Those limits showed in the results: Between February 2021 and July 2024, EBSA conducted 150 investigations and issued just 70 letters finding violations of the parity law — though in many other cases, the agency worked with insurers and employers to resolve problems without a formal violation finding. And now it is pressing ahead with far fewer employees. The Senate Appropriations Committee has proposed holding EBSA’s base funding at the same level as last year but without the temporary boost Congress provided under the December 2020 No Surprises Act. That law, designed to protect patients from surprise medical bills, included extra funding to help EBSA handle a surge in complaints and new responsibilities. That funding expired a few months after Biden left office. With that support