ProPublica

by Margaret Coker, The Current This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network in partnership with The Current. Sign up for Dispatches to get stories like this one as soon as they are published. Update, Sept. 24, 2025: This story has been updated to reflect that on Sept. 23, 2025, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services extended the Georgia Pathways program through 2026. Most of the tax dollars used to launch and implement the nation’s only Medicaid work requirement program have gone toward paying administrative costs rather than covering health care for Georgians, according to a new report by the Government Accountability Office, the nonpartisan agency that monitors federal programs and spending. The government report examined administrative expenses for Georgia Pathways to Coverage, the state’s experiment with work requirements. It follows previous reporting by The Current and ProPublica showing that the program has cost federal and state taxpayers more than $86.9 million while enrolling a tiny fraction of those eligible for free health care. The GAO analysis, which does not include all the Pathways administrative expenses detailed by the news outlets, shows that as of April the Georgia program had spent $54.2 million on administrative costs since 2021, compared to $26.1 million spent on health care costs. Nearly 90% of administrative expenditures came from the federal budget, the report concluded, meaning that Georgia’s experiment is being funded by taxpayers around the country. Federal spending will likely increase given that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has approved $6 million more in administrative costs not reflected in this report because it was published before the state submitted invoices. The spending watchdog agency echoed its 2019 criticism of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for a lack of oversight of administrative costs associated with state initiatives approved in the name of Medicaid reform. The September GAO report said the Medicaid agency never required Georgia to detail the costs of building and implementing the program. The federal approval process for states that want to experiment with their Medicaid systems “does not take into account the extent to which demonstrations will increase administrative costs,” the report said. Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, promoted Pathways as an example of how fellow conservatives around the country could overhaul federal safety net benefits and end reliance on what critics deride as handouts to low-income Americans. Congressional Republicans cited Pathways as a model for the federal Medicaid work requirement law passed in July that will take effect in 2027. The Georgia Pathways program was slated to expire Oct. 1, but the Trump administration on Tuesday approved an extension of the experiment through Dec. 31, 2026. The Georgia program was supposed to expand free health care to a group the state had previously deemed ineligible for Medicaid: adults under 65 years old who earn less than the federal poverty line of $15,650 a year. To qualify, Georgians had to prove that they work, study or volunteer at least 80 hours a month. But enrollment in Georgia Pathways has remained low. The most recent state data shows that 9,175 of the nearly quarter-million low-income Georgians eligible for the program were enrolled as of Aug. 31. Previous reporting by The Current and ProPublica revealed that was due to glitches in the digital platform people must use to enroll, chronic understaffing in the state agency charged with enrollment help and a maze of bureaucratic red tape. Georgia officials previously told The Current and ProPublica that Pathways was never designed to maximize enrollment. Carter Chapman, Kemp’s spokesperson, said Monday that the Kemp administration remains committed to Pathways and making refinements to meet the health care needs of Georgians. In December Democratic senators critical of Medicaid work requirements, including Georgia’s Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock, had asked the GAO to report on the administrative costs of implementing Pathways and verifying that recipients are working, studying or volunteering. “Administrative spending has outpaced spending for medical assistance (e.g., health care services)” for Georgia Pathways, the report said. “This was likely driven by the up-front administrative changes needed to implement the demonstration, the delayed start date for enrollment, and any duplication in administrative spending due to the delay.” Georgia officials told the GAO that the administrative costs associated with Pathways increased by 20% to 30% because of a two-year delay caused by legal battles with the Biden administration, which tried to end all Medicaid work requirement programs that had been approved before the Democratic president took office in 2021. State officials said the delay resulted in having to duplicate some spending, including IT system changes, staff training and other implementation costs, the report said. The report did not provide evidence to support the state’s assertion. “This report was requested by the same individuals who have no new or good ideas for addressing healthcare needs in Georgia,” Chapman said in a statement. “Now, as other states prepare to adopt our model and reject one-size-fits-none big government healthcare, Democrats like Senators Ossoff and Warnock are trying to rewrite history after four years of inaction and blame the State for costs associated with their own stonewalling.” Warnock said the GAO’s findings reinforce his opposition to the Trump administration’s push to nationalize work requirements because of the amount of tax dollars going to expenses other than health care. “Now the entire country can see what we in Georgia already know: Georgia’s Medicaid work reporting requirement program is the real waste, fraud, and abuse,” Warnock said in a statement. “This report shows that Pathways is incredibly effective at barring working people from health coverage and making corporate consultants richer.” Ossoff called Georgia Pathways “a boondoggle that’s wasted tens of millions on pricey consultants while Georgia hospitals struggle and Georgians get sick without health insurance.” The GAO report does not include the $27 million that Deloitte Consulting earned to market Pathways or the approximately $10 million that went toward additional consulting, including by other firms, and legal fees related to the state’s two-year court battle with the

by Till Eckert ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has taken one of its agents off the streets after he was caught on video throwing a distraught mother to the floor of a New York City courthouse in front of her two children on Thursday. It wasn’t the first time videos have captured scenes of immigration agents using violent force to carry out the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign. But the videos of this incident — one of which I filmed for ProPublica — seemed to stir something different. In a rare move, the government publicly reprimanded an officer for such conduct. “The officer’s conduct in this video is unacceptable and beneath the men and women of ICE,” an assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, Tricia McLaughlin, said. “Our ICE law enforcement are held to the highest professional standards and this officer is being relieved of current duties as we conduct a full investigation.” A video filmed by Till Eckert shows the officer throwing Moreta-Galarza to the ground inside the courthouse. (Till Eckert/ProPublica. Edited for privacy by ProPublica.) Watch video ➜ I’ve only been in the U.S. as a reporter for eight weeks — so I just barely arrived. I come from Germany and am on the staff at Correctiv, a nonprofit investigative newsroom. I’d been alarmed by videos of masked ICE agents sweeping immigrants off the street, scenes I never thought I’d see in the United States, and I came with the goal of witnessing what was going on for myself. I wanted to report on how the administration’s immigration crackdown was playing out from the front lines. Since arriving, I’ve spent time reporting in immigrant neighborhoods, emergency rooms, churches, ICE field offices and, most recently, in the federal courthouse in lower Manhattan. I’ve gone there most every morning for the past two weeks. During that time, I’d seen ICE drag several immigrants away from their families, all of them sobbing and pleading with the officers not to separate them from their loved ones. But what happened Thursday was a shocking escalation. When I emerged from the elevator on the 14th floor, I heard a woman’s pleas. She sounded terrified. I walked around the corner to see what was happening. At the end of the hallway, I saw the woman, Monica Moreta-Galarza, standing in front of an agent. She was crying because her husband had been detained. She told the agent she was afraid her husband would be hurt. She wanted to go with him. I began recording and captured the agent barking back at the woman. “Adios,” he said, over and over, pressing toward her as if warning her to back away. When she didn’t, he grabbed her. The rest — including her children’s screams — has been memorialized online. The federal agent yells and waves his finger at Moreta-Galarza after throwing her to the ground. (Graham Macindoe) I followed Moreta-Galarza to the hospital. She is an immigrant from Ecuador and has been living in Coney Island since last year. Speaking in Spanish, she said the government routinely beat people in her home country. “I didn’t think I’d come here to the United States and the same thing would happen to me.” This morning, I went back to the courthouse with the goal of speaking to the agent who’d tackled Moreta-Galarza. I’d heard the other ICE agents call him Victor, though I can’t be sure that’s his real name. By the time I got there, however, he was gone. ProPublica’s mission is impact. I don’t think any of us expected we’d help bring it about with my video. The question now is what will the government do the next time something like this happens. I asked DHS how many agents have been disciplined this year for misusing force. They did not answer that question. If you have tips about new ICE enforcement tactics in courts, we want to hear from you. Reach out via Signal (tilleckert.90) or propublica.org/tips.

by Joshua Kaplan, Justin Elliott and Alex Mierjeski ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published. For months, the complaints have rolled in from parts of the country hit by natural disasters: The Federal Emergency Management Agency was moving far too slowly in sending aid to communities ravaged by floods and hurricanes, including in central Texas and North Carolina. Many officials were blaming Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, whose agency oversees FEMA. “I can’t get phone calls back,” Ted Budd, the Republican senator from North Carolina, told a newspaper this month, describing his attempts to reach Noem’s office. “I can’t get them to initiate the money. It’s just a quagmire.” The delays were caused in part by a new policy announced by DHS that requires Noem’s personal sign-off on expenses over $100,000, several news outlets reported. But records obtained by ProPublica show how one locality found a way to get FEMA aid more quickly: It asked one of Noem’s political donors for help. The records show that Noem quickly expedited more than $11 million of federal money to rebuild a historic pier in Naples, Florida, after she was contacted by a major financial supporter last month. The pier is a tourist attraction in the wealthy Gulf Coast enclave and was badly damaged by Hurricane Ian in 2022. Frustrated city officials had been laboring for months, without success, to get disaster assistance. But just two weeks after the donor stepped in, they were celebrating their sudden change of fortune. “We are now at warp speed with FEMA,” one city official wrote in an email. A FEMA representative wrote: “Per leadership instruction, pushing project immediately.” Along with fast-tracking the money, Noem flew to Naples on a government plane to tour the pier herself. She then stayed for the weekend and got dinner with the donor, local cardiologist Sinan Gursoy, at the French restaurant Bleu Provence, according to records and an interview with the Naples mayor. This account is based on text messages and emails ProPublica obtained through public records requests. Noem’s actions in Naples suggest the injection of political favoritism into an agency tasked with saving lives and rebuilding communities wiped out by disaster. It also heightens concerns about the discretion Noem has given herself by personally handling all six-figure expenses at the agency, consolidating her power over who wins and loses in the pursuit of federal relief dollars, experts said. Jeffrey Schlegelmilch, director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University, said that politics has long been a factor in federal disaster relief — one study found that swing states are more likely to get federal help, for example. But “I’ve not heard of anything this egregious — a donor calling up and saying I need help and getting it,” he said, “while others may be getting denied assistance or otherwise waiting in line for help that may or may not come.” In a statement, DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said, “This has nothing to do with politics: Secretary Noem also visited Ruidoso, NM” — where floods killed three people in July — “at the request of a Democrat governor and has been integral in supporting and speeding up their recovery efforts.” “Your criticizing the Secretary’s visit to the Pier is bizarre as she works to fix this issue for more than 1 million visitors that used to visit the pier,” McLaughlin added. She did not answer questions about the donor’s role in expediting the funding or Noem’s relationship with him. Reached by phone, Gursoy said “get lost” and hung up. He did not respond to detailed follow up questions. Noem has been criticized for creating a bottleneck at FEMA. When the floods hit Texas this summer — ultimately killing over 100 people — it took days to deploy critical search-and-rescue teams because Noem hadn’t signed off on them, according to CNN. Budd, the Republican senator, said this month: “Pretty much everything Helene-related is over $100,000. So they’re stacking up on her desk waiting for her signature.” Noem has denied there were delays in the Texas flood response and has defended her expense policy, saying it has saved billions of dollars. “Every day I get up and I think, the American people are paying for this, should they?” she recently said. “And are these dollars doing what the law says they should be doing? I’m going to make sure that they go there.” Once a sleepy fishing town, Naples is now home to CEOs and billionaires (a property listed for $295 million recently made headlines as the most expensive home in the U.S.). The city is known as an important stop for Republican politicians raising money, and Noem has held multiple fundraisers in the area. State credit card records suggest she visited Naples at least 10 times during her last four years as South Dakota governor. Noem’s top adviser, Corey Lewandowski, also appears to own a home in Naples near the city’s pier, according to property tax records. Lewandowski is an unpaid staffer at DHS serving as Noem’s de facto chief of staff. (Media reports have alleged the two are romantically involved, which they have both denied.) Lewandowski told ProPublica that he was not involved in the pier decision and that he was not in Naples during Noem’s visit. For the first seven months of the Trump administration, the pier reconstruction was in bureaucratic purgatory. The city had long been struggling to secure the regulatory approvals it needed to start building, and emails suggest Trump’s wave of federal layoffs had made the process even slower. “These agencies are undergoing significant reorganizations and staff reductions,” a city official told a frustrated constituent in early August. That “sometimes means starting over with new reviewers — something we’ve faced more than once.” McLaughlin said “both past FEMA and the City bear responsibility” for the delays. She listed “several failures” since the process started in 2023, including “FEMA

by Jessica Schreifels, The Salt Lake Tribune This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network in partnership with The Salt Lake Tribune. Sign up for Dispatches to get our stories in your inbox every week. The patients kept coming to the Utah oral surgeon’s office — one after another, year after year — with dental work that the surgeon said had gone wrong. He later recounted in a letter to state licensors that he had seen dental implants that had been the wrong size, patients with chronic sinus infections and one person whose implant had become lost inside their sinus cavity. These patients, he said, had all been worked on by the same dentist: Dr. Nicholas LaFeber. The surgeon, a 30-year veteran, wrote the letter in November 2022 after Utah’s licensing division asked for his opinion of work done by LaFeber, whose license was on probation after the agency determined he had provided substandard care to more than a dozen patients. His warning was blunt: He believed LaFeber wouldn’t improve as a dentist and should not be performing dental implant procedures. He had seen LaFeber make the same mistakes in patients for years, he wrote, causing “severe” and sometimes life-changing complications. “I believe that he is not competent to place implants,” the oral surgeon, Dr. Creed Haymond, concluded. “I give this opinion with soberness and sadness, but I feel I have a duty to aid the board in protecting the public from what appears to be an incompetent practitioner.” His assessment of LaFeber’s skills in restorative dentistry was also mentioned in a February 2023 order regarding agency action on LaFeber’s license. Haymond did not respond to interview requests. This was the second letter that Utah’s Division of Professional Licensing had received recommending that LaFeber be stopped or limited from practicing after more than a decade of dentistry in Utah, according to records obtained by The Salt Lake Tribune and ProPublica. The agency licenses Utah dentists and other professionals and investigates allegations of misconduct. Two years prior, another dentist who had considered buying one of LaFeber’s practices recommended LaFeber’s license be revoked after looking through patient files: “As I started going through charts, as well as seeing the previous work, I began to realize how poor he treated these individuals,” wrote Dr. Brandon McKee. “Patients with failed implants are put on antibiotics and told to wait while the implant is continuing to heal. Some of these are for nine months.” This letter was discussed in a September 2020 public dentistry board meeting. McKee did not respond to interview requests. The licensing division’s dentistry board — whose members are mostly dentists and hygienists — recommended to Utah licensing director Mark Steinagel in December 2022 that LaFeber’s license be revoked after reviewing additional evidence suggesting his skills had not improved. But despite this recommendation and the letters of warning from his colleagues, Steinagel reinstated LaFeber’s license in May 2023 after the dentist completed three years of probation, which included taking remedial classes. Mark Steinagel, director of the state agency that licenses Utah professionals, reinstated Nicholas LaFeber’s license even though the agency’s dentistry board recommended that it be revoked. (Rick Egan/The Salt Lake Tribune) Since LaFeber’s license was reinstated, new patients say they’ve been hurt. The Tribune and ProPublica spoke with two patients who say they saw the dentist within the last year for what they believed would be routine cavity fillings. Instead, they say they left in pain that became prolonged and ultimately required the procedures to be redone by other dentists. Neither knew when they sought dental care that LaFeber had nearly lost his license after regulators determined his work fell below the standard of care. “I had never had this done before, so I didn’t know what’s normal,” said one patient, Michelle Lipsey. “I was just like, ‘He’s an adult, male dentist. He probably knows what he’s doing.’” Lipsey filed a complaint against LaFeber with licensors in July detailing her experience, but the agency closed the case a month later and took no disciplinary action. LaFeber said he would not discuss individual patients because they did not grant him permission to do so. He told The Tribune and ProPublica that he has always tried to keep his patients’ best interests in mind. “I had a few outcomes from dental work that had complications and needed further treatment,” he wrote in an email in response to questions. “I assume every dentist encounters some percentage of negative patient outcomes and I have no reason to believe that my practice had a higher percentage than others.” Melanie Hall, a spokesperson for Steinagel and the Division of Professional Licensing, said in response to questions that the division only revokes someone’s license when their conduct has been “especially egregious” because doing so “ends a career.” The agency’s top priority, she said, is keeping Utahns safe — but she added that it also wants to ensure that licensees have a chance at “professional rehabilitation” and, when appropriate, can continue to work and earn money. The state has revoked two dental licenses since June 2015, according to a Tribune and ProPublica examination of a decade’s worth of publicly available licensing division records. Hall said that LaFeber’s license was reinstated despite the dental board’s recommendation because the dentist had finished the remedial courses that the board required him to take and his probationary period was ending. She noted that no other patients filed a complaint during that three-year period and that the dental board’s role was to only make recommendations to Steinagel and his staff. That decision bothered some of those who served on the dental board during that time. Two former board members told The Tribune and ProPublica that they were frustrated state licensing division leaders did not listen to them and that they felt LaFeber should not practice dentistry given his record. Both spoke on the condition of anonymity because of potential professional repercussions. “You hate to take somebody’s livelihood away from them when they’ve

by Duaa Eldeib ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published. The National Institutes of Health has launched a five-year, $37 million stillbirth consortium in a pivotal effort to reduce what it has called the country’s “unacceptably high” stillbirth rate. The announcement last week thrilled doctors, researchers and families and represented a commitment by the agency to prioritize stillbirth, the death of an expected child at 20 weeks or more. “What we’re really excited about is not only the investment in trying to prevent stillbirth, but also continuing that work with the community to guide the research,” Alison Cernich, acting director of the NIH’s Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, said in an interview. Four clinical sites and one data coordinating center spanning the country — California, Oregon, Utah, New York and North Carolina — will come together to form the consortium, each bringing its own expertise. Most will focus on ways to predict and prevent stillbirths, though they also plan to address bereavement and mental health after a loss. Research shows that of the more than 20,000 stillbirths in the U.S. each year, as many as 25% may be prevented. For deliveries at 37 weeks or more, that figure jumps to nearly half. The teams plan to meet for the first time on Friday to discuss possible research targets. Those include: understanding why some placentas fail and fetuses don’t grow properly; assessing decreased fetal movement; considering the best times for delivery and using advanced technology to explore how blood tests, biomarkers and ultrasounds may help predict a stillbirth. They also may evaluate how electronic medical records and artificial intelligence could help doctors and nurses identify early signs of stillbirth risk. While the announcement did not mention racial disparities, a representative said the consortium hopes to identify factors that determine who is at a higher risk of having a stillbirth. For many families, the devastation of a stillbirth is followed by a lack of answers, including how and why the loss occurred. The teams will collaborate with the stillbirth community through advisory groups. The North Carolina team will oversee data collection and standardization. Incomplete, delayed and sometimes inaccurate stillbirth data has been an impediment to prevention efforts. “If we could see the signs and deliver the baby earlier, so that the mom has a live baby, that’s I think what we’re all hoping for,” said Dr. Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman, the chair and professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California San Diego, who will co-lead the effort there. The consortium follows a national shift in the conversation around stillbirth, which has long been a neglected public health concern. ProPublica began reporting on stillbirths in 2022 and, in 2025, the news organization released a documentary following the lives of three women trying to make pregnancy safer in America following their stillbirths. Debbie Haine Vijayvergiya, who was featured in the documentary, has spent years asking Congress to support stillbirth legislation and urging lawmakers to pass the Stillbirth Health Improvement and Education (SHINE) for Autumn Act, named after her stillborn daughter Autumn Joy. Two days after that the NIH announced the consortium, Republican and Democratic members of Congress reintroduced the bill. “I feel like our moment has finally arrived, and we are being included in all this tremendously important lifesaving work that’s being done,” she said. Congress had previously mandated a stillbirth working group, which the NICHD formed in 2022, and heard directly from stillbirth families. The working group released a federal report calling the country’s stillbirth rate “unacceptably high.” The U.S. lags far behind other wealthy countries in reducing its stillbirth rate. Dr. Bob Silver, a leading stillbirth expert at the University of Utah Health, has spent decades working on stillbirth prevention. He is the co-director of the University of Utah Stillbirth Center of Excellence, which focuses on both prevention and compassionate care after a loss, and will lead the consortium’s efforts in the state. “There’s no question that the ProPublica reporting was intimately tied to this,” Silver said. “You can’t always draw a straight line between those things. But in this case, you can draw a very straight line.” While some studies, including the NIH’s Human Placenta Project, have indirectly contributed to stillbirth research, the consortium is the first stillbirth-specific initiative of this scale since the Stillbirth Collaborative Research Network more than a decade ago. Both Silver and Dr. Uma Reddy, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Columbia University, worked together on the research network and will again on the consortium. “We need to be able to get our rates down to similar high-income countries,” Reddy said. “This initiative to really look at reducing the stillbirth rate and to look at preventing them is so important, and it’s really about time.” Dr. Karen Gibbins, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health & Science University, had just finished her morning clinic when she received the email a few days before the official announcement informing her that both she and OHSU had been selected as part of the consortium. Gibbins, whom ProPublica wrote about for advocating for more autopsies following the stillbirth of her son Sebastian, almost couldn’t believe it. She logged on to a federal grant website to confirm, then she stepped outside her office and gave her division director a hug. “Stillbirth is such a huge public health issue, and one that historically has not had as much attention,” Gibbins said. “The fact that we have this investment of centers that are going to be taking these different approaches to fight stillbirth and to prevent stillbirth, and also to provide better care to families who do experience stillbirth, it’s a piece of hope that I think we all needed.” Gibbins and her team specialize in studying the role of chronic stress, nutrition and heart health. The NIH has distributed the first year of funding,

by Corey G. Johnson ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published. Two major law firms accused the National Shooting Sports Foundation this week of violating the privacy rights of millions of gun owners by running a decades-long program that sent their information to political operatives without consent. The allegations in a lawsuit filed Monday in federal court by Keller Rohrback of Seattle and Motley Rice of Connecticut closely mirror the findings of a ProPublica investigation that detailed the secret program operated by the gun industry’s largest trade group. The 24-page complaint asks the court for approval of class-action status and requests financial damages against the NSSF, claiming the gun industry lobbyist enriched itself by exploiting valuable gun buyer information for political gain. It features the accounts of two gun owners, Daniel Cocanour and Dale Rimkus, both of whom assert they purchased rifles, pistols and handguns from the 1990s through the mid-2010s. ProPublica identified at least 10 gun industry businesses, including Glock, Smith & Wesson and Remington, that handed over hundreds of thousands of names and addresses, along with other private data, to the NSSF. The lobbying group then entered the details into what would become a massive database, which was used to rally gun owners’ electoral support for the industry’s preferred candidates running for the White House and Congress. The data initially came from decades of warranty cards filled out by customers and returned to gun manufacturers for rebates and repair or replacement programs. A ProPublica review of dozens of warranty cards from the 1970s through today found that some promised customers their information would be kept strictly confidential. Others said some information could be shared with third parties for marketing and sales. None of the cards informed buyers their details would be used by lobbyists and consultants to help win elections. Cocanour and Rimkus claimed to have regularly shared personal information when filling out warranty cards for Glock, Remington, Smith & Wesson and other manufacturers thinking it was in their best interest. They say they weren’t told of the companies’ participation in the NSSF program, according to the lawsuit, which was filed in Connecticut. “Through the complaint, two brave plaintiffs have stepped forward to vindicate the rights of millions of their fellow firearms purchasers,” lead attorney Benjamin Gould of Keller Rohrback wrote in a statement to ProPublica. “We look forward to gathering evidence to prove the truth of our allegations and holding NSSF accountable for its actions.” Keller Rohrback has a specialty in cybersecurity and data breach cases. The firm recently won a landmark $725 million class-action settlement from Facebook after accusing the company of allowing political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica to obtain user information without consent. Motley Rice is one of the nation’s largest consumer protection law firms; its founder, Ron Motley, garnered fame for leading lawsuits against big tobacco companies during the 1990s. Representatives from gun violence prevention groups called the lawsuit a major development in trying to hold the gun industry responsible for the data sharing. “This is a hideous breach of privacy by the gun industry,” said Justin Wagner, senior director of investigations at Everytown for Gun Safety. “The NSSF must come clean and face accountability.” Founded in 1961 and currently based in Shelton, Connecticut, the NSSF represents thousands of firearms and ammunition manufacturers, distributors, retailers, publishers and shooting ranges. The trade group didn’t respond to ProPublica’s request for comment. The organization previously defended its data collection, saying its “activities are, and always have been, entirely legal and within the terms and conditions of any individual manufacturer, company, data broker, or other entity.” The NSSF has faced criticism in the aftermath of ProPublica’s reporting. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, slammed the data sharing. And a prominent gun owner rights organization, Gun Owners for Safety, asked the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to investigate the NSSF. Gun Owners for Safety is operated by Giffords, which was co-founded by Gabby Giffords, the Arizona lawmaker who survived an attempted assassination in 2011, and it advocates for improved background checks and other measures aimed at reducing gun-related deaths. Chris Harris, a spokesperson for Giffords, said the FBI and ATF have not responded to the request for an inquiry into the NSSF. Privacy experts previously told ProPublica that companies that shared information with the NSSF may have violated federal and state prohibitions against deceptive and unfair business practices. Under federal law, companies must comply with their own privacy policies and be clear about how they will use consumers’ information, privacy experts said. Shani Henry, a member of Gun Owners for Safety, said ProPublica’s reporting showed the industry’s hypocrisy on the issue of privacy. “They don’t care about our families’ safety or the rights of everyday gun owners, they’re more than happy to betray their own customers for political power and money,” Henry said. “Gun owners’ privacy was violated and we deserve a full accounting of what happened and who profited from it.” The gun industry launched the data-sharing project approximately 17 months before the 2000 election as it grappled with a cascade of financial, legal and political threats. Within three years, the NSSF’s database — filled with warranty card information and supplemented with names from voter rolls and hunting licenses — contained at least 5.5 million people. Most of the companies named in the NSSF documents, including Glock and Smith & Wesson, previously declined to comment or did not respond to ProPublica. Remington has since been split into two companies and sold. RemArms, which owns the old firearms division, previously said it was unaware of the company’s workings at the time. The other portion of the company is now owned by Remington Ammunition, which said it had “not provided personal information to the NSSF or any of its vendors.” In 2016, as part of a push to get Donald Trump elected president for the first time and to

by Gabriel Sandoval, ProPublica, with additional reporting by Nick Reynolds and Anna Wilder, The Post and Courier; Yasmeen Khan, The Maine Monitor; Lauren Dake, Oregon Public Broadcasting; Marjorie Childress, New Mexico In Depth; Louis Hansen, Virginia Center for Investigative Journalism at WHRO; Mary Steurer and Jacob Orledge, North Dakota Monitor; Kate McGee, The Texas Tribune; Alyse Pfeil, The Advocate | The Times-Picayune; and Shauna Sowersby, The Seattle Times This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network. Sign up for Dispatches to get our stories in your inbox every week. In Virginia this year, a legislative committee killed a bill that would have required lawmakers to disclose any crypto holdings. In New Mexico, the Democratic governor vetoed legislation that would have required lobbyists to be more transparent about what bills they were trying to kill or pass. And in North Dakota, where voters who were galvanized by a group called BadAss Grandmas for Democracy established a state ethics commission nearly seven years ago, lawmakers continued a pattern of limiting the panel’s power. At a time when the bounds of government ethics are being stretched in Washington, D.C., hundreds of ethics-related bills were introduced this year in state legislatures, according to the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures’ ethics legislation database. While legislation strengthening ethics oversight did pass in some places, a ProPublica analysis found lawmakers across multiple states targeted or thwarted reforms designed to keep the public and elected officials accountable to the people they serve. Democratic and Republican lawmakers tried to push through bills to tighten gift limits, toughen conflict-of-interest provisions or expand financial disclosure reporting requirements. Time and again, the bills were derailed. With the help of local newsrooms, many of which have been part of ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network, we reviewed a range of legislation that sought to weaken or stymie ethics regulations in 2025. We also spoke to experts for an overview of trends nationwide. Their take: The threats to ethics standards and their enforcement have been growing. “Donald Trump has been ushering a new cultural standard, in which ethics is no longer significant,” said Craig Holman, a veteran government ethics specialist with the progressive watchdog nonprofit Public Citizen. He pointed to Trump’s private dinner with top buyers of his cryptocurrency and the administration’s tariff deal with Vietnam after it greenlit the Trump Organization’s $1.5 billion golf resort complex; and he said in an email it was “most revealing” that the White House “for the first time in over 16 years has no ethics policy. Trump 2.0 simply repealed Biden’s ethics Executive Order and replaced it with nothing.” The Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit that pushes for ethics enforcement, documented the risks and challenges that specifically confront state ethics commissions across the country. Such commissions have a range of mandates, but they often enforce lobbying, campaign finance and conflicts of interest laws. In the center’s 2024 Threat Assessment report, it warned that “those who want to weaken ethics commissions are becoming more creative with how they approach their attacks, and all commissions should be battle ready.” Delaney Marsco, the center’s director of ethics and the report’s lead author, told ProPublica, “Any attempts to chip away at ethics commission authority is actually just chipping away at the public’s right to know what’s actually going on in their government.” Louisiana passed a law significantly weakening ethics standards by making it harder for the state Board of Ethics to launch and conduct investigations. The law raised the bar on when the 15-member board could launch its own investigation from “reason to believe” to “probable cause.” And where the board had been required to investigate any sworn complaint it received, now two-thirds of its members must agree probable cause exists before opening an inquiry. The law, which had overwhelming bipartisan support, targets the processes that resulted in ethics charges against then-Attorney General Jeff Landry, who is now the governor; the private lawyer defending him against those charges helped craft the legislation. The ethics commission dropped the charges last month as part of a settlement deal. Sponsoring Rep. Beau Beaullieu, a Republican, said that checks on the board’s power were needed in response to overzealous enforcement actions. But more often, legislators stood in the way of ethics reforms. In South Carolina, a sweeping Statehouse corruption probe during the 2010s led to the convictions of several legislative leaders and to the passage of a number of ethics reforms. “It’s been radio silent ever since,” Sen. Sean Bennett, a Summerville Republican who chairs the chamber’s Ethics Committee, told The Post and Courier. “There’s been attempts to do things, but they just have not gotten a lot of traction.” And this year, legislators there moved in the other direction, introducing a bill that would have exempted government appointees from having to file statements of economic interest. These statements, required for all elected officials, most candidates for elected office and certain high-profile public figures like commission members or school district employees, include the disclosure of everything from an individual’s income sources and gifts received from special interests to any property or business interests in their name. Sponsoring Rep. Mike Burns, a conservative Republican from the college town of Tigerville, argued the bill would help protect nonpaid appointees, who he said end up with fines because they often don’t know how to correctly file. But in an interview with The Post and Courier, Rep. Roger Kirby, a Democrat from Lake City, pushed back. “Transparency is what the goal is, right? Why would we try to back away from that?” South Carolina has two-year sessions, and the bill remains stalled in committee. And in another example of legislation that sought to weaken reform, the leader of Oregon’s Senate Republicans at the time, Daniel Bonham, made a Hail-Mary effort and introduced a measure to dissolve the state’s ethics commission and allow state agencies to police themselves. The measure didn’t get out of committee, which, Bonham acknowledged in an interview with Oregon Public Radio, was what he expected.

by T. Christian Miller, Sebastian Rotella, Kirsten Berg and Brett Murphy Leer en español. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published. In August 2020, the president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, went to the U.S. ambassador with an extraordinary request. Salvadoran authorities had intercepted a conversation between a journalist and a U.S. embassy contractor about corruption among high-level aides to the president. The contractor, a U.S. citizen, was no ordinary source. He collaborated with U.S. and Salvadoran investigators who were targeting the president’s inner circle. Over the previous year, he had helped an FBI-led task force uncover a suspected alliance between the Bukele government and the MS-13 street gang, which was responsible for murders, rapes and kidnappings in the United States. He had worked to gather evidence that the president’s aides had secretly met with gang bosses in prison and agreed to give them money and protection in exchange for a reduction in violence. The information posed a threat to the Bukele government. Bukele wanted the contractor out of the country — and in Ambassador Ronald D. Johnson, he had a powerful American friend. Johnson was a former CIA officer and appointee of President Donald Trump serving in his first diplomatic post. He had cultivated a strikingly close relationship with the Salvadoran president. After Bukele provided Johnson with the recordings, the ambassador immediately ordered an investigation that resulted in the contractor’s dismissal. It was not the only favor Johnson did for Bukele, according to a ProPublica investigation based on a previously undisclosed report by the State Department’s inspector general and interviews with U.S. and Salvadoran officials. The dismissal of the contractor was part of a pattern in which Johnson has been accused of shielding Bukele from U.S. and Salvadoran law enforcement, ProPublica found. Johnson did little to pursue the extradition to the United States of an MS-13 boss who was a potential witness to the secret gang pact and a top target of the FBI-led task force, officials said. After he stepped down as ambassador, Johnson continued his support for the Salvadoran president despite the Biden administration’s efforts to curb Bukele’s increasing authoritarianism. He also played a prominent role in making Bukele Trump’s favorite Latin American leader, according to interviews and public records. Johnson’s tight friendship with Bukele troubled top State Department officials in the Biden administration, who asked his successor, Jean Manes, to look into the firing of the contractor. She reached a blunt conclusion, according to the inspector general’s report: “Bukele requested Johnson remove [the contractor] and that was what happened.” “Manes explained that [the contractor] was working on anti-corruption cases against individuals close to El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele and Manes believed removing [him] was a way to ensure the investigations stopped,” the report said. ProPublica has also learned that Manes’ review led to an extreme measure: She forced the ouster of the CIA station chief, a longtime friend of Johnson, because she felt he was “too close” to Bukele, according to the inspector general report. Senior State Department and White House officials said they suspected that Johnson’s continuing relationships with the station chief and Bukele fomented resistance within the embassy to the new U.S. policy confronting the Salvadoran president over corruption and democracy issues, according to interviews. “Manes would go see Bukele to convey U.S. concerns about some of his policies. Then the station chief would go see him and say the opposite,” said Juan Sebastian Gonzalez, who received regular briefings about the embassy as the former senior director for Western Hemisphere affairs at the National Security Council. ProPublica is not identifying the former station chief or the contractor to protect their safety. After battling Bukele in public and her own embassy in private, Manes announced a pause in diplomatic relations and left El Salvador in late 2021. Days later, Johnson posted a photo on LinkedIn that sent a defiant message to the Biden administration: It showed him and Bukele smiling with their families in front of a Christmas tree at the Johnson home in Miami. “It was great to spend some time in our Miami home with El Salvadoran President Bukele,” Ambassador Ronald D. Johnson, left, wrote in a Nov. 30, 2021, post on LinkedIn. (Ronald Johnson via LinkedIn) The bond between the two men was at the center of a fierce political conflict that spread in Washington, San Salvador and Miami. Today, Johnson and Bukele — once minor players in U.S. foreign affairs — have emerged from the fray triumphant. On April 9, the Senate confirmed Johnson as ambassador to Mexico, arguably the most important U.S. embassy in Latin America. On April 14, Trump met with Bukele in the White House to celebrate an agreement that would allow the U.S. to deport hundreds of immigrants to a Salvadoran megaprison, elevating the global stature of the leader of one of the hemisphere’s smallest and poorest countries. Johnson’s detractors accuse him of championing Bukele despite his increasing abuses of power. “We didn’t have a credible or effective U.S. representative in that country. We had a mouthpiece for the government of El Salvador,” said Tim Rieser, a longtime foreign policy aide to former Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat. Johnson’s defenders argue that his strong ties to the Salvadoran president benefited U.S. policy objectives. Upon arriving in El Salvador, Johnson told his staff that he wanted Bukele’s support in reducing U.S.-bound immigration, the Trump administration’s top priority with the country. “During Trump and Johnson’s time, the thinking was let El Salvador be El Salvador,” said Carlos Ortiz, the former attache for the Department of Homeland Security at the embassy, who describes himself as a friend and admirer of Johnson. “Let them deal with their own corruption. The U.S. focus was migration.” A State Department spokesperson said it was “false” that Johnson had blocked or impeded any law enforcement efforts in order to protect Bukele or his allies and that the allegations

by Jesse Coburn ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published. Some 4 million people could lose federal housing assistance under new plans from the Trump administration, according to experts who reviewed drafts of two unpublished rules obtained by ProPublica. The rules would pave the way for a host of restrictions long sought by conservatives, including time limits on living in public housing, work requirements for many people receiving federal housing assistance and the stripping of aid from entire families if one member of the household is in the country illegally. The first Trump administration tried and failed to implement similar policies, and renewed efforts have been in the works since early in the president’s second term. Now, the documents obtained by ProPublica lay out how the administration intends to overhaul major housing programs that serve some of the nation’s poorest residents, with sweeping reforms that experts and advocates warn will weaken the social safety net amid historically high rents, home prices and homelessness. “These are rules that are going to cause an enormous amount of hardship for millions of people in communities across the country,” said Will Fischer, director of housing policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan think tank. “It’s going to cause people to become homeless, kids to be pulled out of their schools, people to lose their jobs.” A spokesperson for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which drafted the rules, declined to comment. The two rules obtained by ProPublica are labeled as drafts and could change before they are officially proposed. At a meeting at HUD headquarters this month, Ben Hobbs, who heads the agency’s public housing office, said the rules were under review at the Office of Management and Budget, according to a HUD official in attendance. (OMB typically reviews proposed rules for compliance with federal standards and consistency with the president’s policies.) The push to adopt the rules is part of a broad effort to roll back federal housing programs under the current administration. Trump’s budget proposal called for cutting funding for public housing, housing vouchers and other rental assistance by 43%. In March, HUD and the Department of Homeland Security announced a data-sharing agreement targeting so-called mixed-status families, in which some family members are eligible for housing assistance and others are not because they are in the country illegally or have another immigration status that makes them ineligible. More recently, HUD reportedly planned to require all local public housing authorities to identify such families to the federal agency. Work requirements impart a “renewed sense of purpose for millions of Americans,” in the view of HUD Secretary Scott Turner. Calling welfare a “lifelong trap of dependency” for many, Turner and other senior Trump officials wrote in a joint op-ed, “for able-bodied adults, welfare should be a short-term hand-up, not a lifetime handout.” Federal housing assistance programs support more than 8 million people by providing units in public housing or subsidies that help cover the cost of rentals on the private market. Under these programs, participants pay a percentage of the rent — generally 30% of their adjusted income — and the government covers the rest. Most of those assisted are elderly, disabled or children. The average family that lives in public housing or receives housing vouchers makes less than $20,000 annually and receives benefits for 10 to 12 years, although non-elderly, non-disabled families typically stay far shorter, according to HUD data. The first rule would not mandate work requirements and time limits; instead, it permits local housing authorities and landlords to implement them. Hobbs originally wanted the rule to require those policies, but career staffers at HUD persuaded him to make them voluntary, according to a HUD official familiar with the matter. The rule would allow local housing authorities and private landlords to impose work requirements and time limits in four major federal housing programs: public housing, Housing Choice Vouchers, Project-Based Vouchers and Project-Based Rental Assistance (the latter three are part of what is commonly called Section 8). Residents, including both parents in two-parent households, could be required to work up to 40 hours a week. The time limits could be as short as two years, after which residents would lose assistance. The time limits would apply to any family in which the household heads are not elderly or disabled, with few exceptions. Similarly, the work requirements would apply to residents ages 18 to 61 who are not disabled, pregnant, primary caretakers of young children, college students or in other exempted categories. Housing providers may allow them to perform job training or community service instead of traditional work. Housing providers implementing work requirements would have to offer support services to residents, but what those services are would be up to the providers. HUD expects 750 public housing authorities and 3,500 landlords to implement work requirements or term limits in response to the new rule. Such provisions will likely be adopted first in more conservative parts of the country, Fischer said. The new regulation asserts that it will promote economic self-sufficiency and free up subsidized housing for millions of people who qualify for assistance but cannot receive it because of the limited amount of housing aid that the government provides. Housing advocates and researchers expressed a different view. “It’s disguised as work requirements and term limits, but in reality it’s a way to strip families of their benefits,” said Deborah Thrope, deputy director of the National Housing Law Project, an advocacy group. “This is a huge departure from how the HUD programs have been run since their inception.” Some 4 million people could lose housing assistance, estimated Fischer, Thrope and Katherine O’Regan, a former HUD official and now a professor at New York University. Many of those people could become homeless as a result. Fischer noted that most non-elderly, non-disabled households receiving assistance already include one or more people who work. But their jobs

by Jennifer Berry Hawes, ProPublica, and Ren Larson, The Assembly 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. Slogging through a thick slop of mud and rock, Brian Hill passed the roof that Hurricane Helene’s floodwaters had just ripped off someone’s barn and dumped into his yard. Then he peered into the unrecognizable chaos inside what had been his family’s dream home. The century-old white farmhouse, surrounded by the rugged peaks of western North Carolina, sat less than 15 yards from the normally tranquil Cattail Creek. As Helene’s rainfall barrelled down the Black Mountains last September, the creek swelled into a raging river that encircled the house. Its waves pounded the walls, tore off doors, smashed windows and devoured the front and back porches. Brian and his wife, Susie, had just bought the house a year earlier. They had a 30-year mortgage — and, now, no house to live in. Because their home didn’t sit in the 100-year floodplain, they had not purchased flood insurance. Across Helene’s devastating path through the Southeast, people like the Hills turned to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA doles out financial help after a major disaster for everything from home repairs to rental assistance. Once she could get a cell signal, Susie applied. It took months of persistence, but eventually the Hills were among the lucky ones. They received close to $40,000, just shy of the maximum amount FEMA provides for rebuilding and repairs. But farther up Cattail Creek, a man whose wife was killed in floodwaters said he checked his FEMA application one day and noticed it was marked “withdrawn,” a surprise since he’d received no explanation. Elsewhere in Yancey, another man said he realized FEMA had denied him aid because his birthdate was a year off on his application. A third man said his application — which he filled out just days after hiking down a mountain severely injured — seemingly vanished from the system. FEMA’s application process can be onerous, particularly for people who’ve lost their homes. And it can be especially daunting for those with lower incomes who may have fewer resources. An analysis by ProPublica and The Assembly found that among the more rural counties hardest hit by Helene, the households that got the most housing assistance tended to have the highest incomes. The income disparity is especially stark in Yancey County, where the Hills live. In North Carolina’s Hardest-Hit Rural Counties, the Highest-Income Homeowners Typically Received the Most FEMA Housing Assistance Notes: Applicant income is self-reported to FEMA. Charts depict the median amount of assistance. The hardest-hit counties are the 10 counties with the highest per-capita rates of homeowners receiving housing assistance. The more rural counties are Ashe, Avery, Haywood, Henderson, McDowell, Mitchell, Polk, Watauga and Yancey. The chart does not include Buncombe County, which is classified as urban, is the area’s most densely populated county, and is home to many regional and local nonprofits that assisted with FEMA applications and appeals. (Chart: Ren Larson, The Assembly. Sources: Federal Emergency Management Agency Individuals and Households Program, U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Classifications.) A ProPublica investigation earlier this year found that despite dire warnings from the National Weather Service, many people in Yancey were unaware of the enormity of danger Helene posed. The storm killed 11 people there, the highest per-capita loss of life for any county in North Carolina. The Hills, who are both public school teachers, do not fall in the highest-income brackets FEMA identified. Households in the middle range tended to get about as much FEMA housing assistance money as the lower-income ones, or even a little less. But experts say the Hills did have something in common with the highest-income households: They had the luxury of time to pursue every dollar of federal aid that they were qualified to receive. That’s because they received full pay for seven weeks while schools were closed. That allowed them to navigate FEMA’s bureaucracy during a crucial time when, for many others, pursuing the aid felt insurmountable. Our analysis looked at counties with the highest per-capita rate of households receiving FEMA aid for housing assistance, an indicator of where Helene hit people the hardest. Housing assistance includes separate buckets of money that cover both rental assistance and home repairs and rebuilding. Apart from Buncombe County — home to Asheville and by far the most urban county in the region — lower- and middle-income households overall got lower amounts of this aid compared to the highest-income earners. In some counties, the highest-income homeowners received two to three times as much housing assistance as those with lower incomes. Yet income isn’t supposed to play a role. FEMA aid for home repairs and rebuilding is intended to help begin replacing a primary home or make it safe and habitable again, not restore one to its prior state. In theory, a couple living in a million-dollar home and another in a starter house should be eligible for the same level of assistance. For instance, couples who live alone generally would qualify for aid to cover one bedroom, one bathroom and one refrigerator, even if they had three of each. FEMA did not respond to ProPublica and The Assembly’s requests for comment. The agency previously told the Government Accountability Office, according to a 2020 report, that it encourages all survivors with property damage to apply, and those with minimal damage are “driving down the average award amount.” Disparities in who receives FEMA aid have long been known to researchers, including Sarah Labowitz, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace who studies and writes about disasters and publishes the Disaster Dollar Database. “Disasters pull back the curtain on inequity,” Labowitz said. “It’s a vicious combination of things that make it so much harder for people without a lot of money to get