a Better Bubble™

ProPublica

How We Report on Maternal Health — and How to Get in Touch With Our Team

6 months ago

More than a dozen ProPublica journalists are working across the country to cover reproductive health in the wake of abortion bans. We hope to hear from medical providers, families and policymakers. We asked Deputy Managing Editor Alexandra Zayas to explain our reporting process and the ethics that guide it.

It’s clear by now that state abortion bans are having a seismic impact on health care. They are, as intended, preventing doctors from terminating pregnancies. But they are also introducing a dangerous new dynamic for anyone who happens to conceive.

If you have a story to share or expertise to volunteer, you can get in touch with the whole team, including editors, by:

.maternal-health-contact-aside { border-top: 1px solid var(--color-neutral-10); border-bottom: 1px solid var(--color-neutral-10); padding: var(--spacing0) 0 var(--spacing1) 0; } .maternal-health-contact-aside p { font-size: var(--scale-2); line-height: var(--line-height-1); margin-bottom: var(--spacing-1); } .maternal-health-contact-aside ul { margin: 0 !important; } .maternal-health-contact-aside li { list-style-type: none; margin: 0 !important; } .maternal-health-contact-aside .btn { --button-color: var(--color-neutral-10); }

Doctors have told us they’ve seen their colleagues hesitate to treat deadly conditions like preeclampsia and cancer, worried their attempts to protect their pregnant patients could be interpreted as a crime against the fetus, punishable by prison time.

Defenders of abortion bans insist that those doctors are being misled or confused, and that so-called “life-of-the-mother” exceptions are clear. But even a Republican lawmaker who voted for his state’s ban, a doctor himself, told ProPublica he thinks the language is too vague.

Indeed, the death of Amber Thurman raises critical questions about the role abortion bans are playing in the decisions of doctors in emergency situations. Suffering from a grave infection, the 28-year-old medical assistant and single mother needed a procedure that had been criminalized in Georgia, with few exceptions. As her condition deteriorated in a suburban Atlanta hospital, doctors discussed performing it, but they did not do so until 20 hours after she had arrived; by then, it was too late. A state committee of maternal health experts, including 10 doctors, deemed her death preventable and blamed a delay in care.

The more cases like these we examine, the more we can do to expose the cracks through which women are falling.

ProPublica has a long, successful track record of exploring the causes of maternal harm. Seven years ago, we dedicated a significant portion of our staff to investigating why so many women in the United States were dying from causes related to pregnancy and childbirth. We dug past academic research and hospital data to explore individual, preventable deaths. What specific, fixable flaws in the system had cost us Lauren Bloomstein, and Shalon Irving, and Dacheca Fleurimond? What had left their babies motherless?

Each loss was a tragedy. But when the people closest to those mothers shared what they knew, they also unearthed lessons for how to save the next life, illuminating the causes and consequences of maternal mortality in a way nothing else had. ProPublica’s reporting on the “Lost Mothers” had a tremendous impact, including a landmark new law funding the study of maternal deaths and how to prevent them.

Our reporting so far suggests state abortion bans are having unintended, lethal consequences. If there are more cases out there, only the people closest to the families know the most critical details. This is why we’ve again devoted a significant portion of our newsroom to examining preventable maternal deaths — and it’s why we need your help to unearth them, so that those with the power to change systems can learn from them.

If you happen to be aware of a case in which you suspect abortion-related laws played a role, we understand why you may be hesitant to tell us about it. This is why we want to tell you more about our reporting process and the ethics that guide it.

We are nonpartisan.

We are a nonprofit, independent newsroom and have no partisan agenda in exposing these deaths. While we are bringing necessary scrutiny to the Republican state governments that passed these bans, we are also questioning what more the Biden administration can do to assess and mitigate their consequences.

Ahead of a heated election in which abortion is on the ballot in 10 states — and on the lips of presidential candidates — we want voters to know everything they can about the impact state bans are having on the safety of anyone who can conceive.

We rely on and protect anonymous sources.

Only because of the courage of ProPublica’s anonymous sources does the public know the extent of the horror of child separation at the U.S.-Mexico border, and the intertwined interests of billionaire donors and Supreme Court justices, and the preventable nature of the abortion-related deaths we exposed in Georgia.

We have secure ways to speak to us and send us documents. We honor agreements to not name sources in our stories. We do not rely on any single source for reporting; we independently and carefully confirm and corroborate evidence.

We help families find answers.

We can help families get medical records and then consult with experts about them. We take our findings and go to hospitals, clinics and doctors and press them for answers. We work hard to check every fact and to keep families updated on our progress.

We want to know not just about the last moments of a person’s life, but the entirety of it, to help the public understand the magnitude of the loss and how to avoid another. We can travel and meet with families face-to-face, at the time, place and pace that feels most comfortable to them. We recognize the loss of control families already feel and work hard to not add to that.

When reporter Kavitha Surana first began talking with Thurman’s family members, their grief was raw and intense, and they did not feel ready to grapple with their loss. It took a year before they were finally ready to discuss her death.

“Hopefully her death won’t be in vain,” her sister Cjuana Williams told ProPublica.

We value expertise.

Recognizing that every one of these cases involves a unique set of very complex factors, we seek out independent experts to help us interpret and convey all of the details. We never rely on one source, and we subject our final stories to a rigorous editing process by journalists with decades of experience reporting on health care systems.

If you have a story to share or expertise to volunteer, you can get in touch with the whole team, including editors, at reproductivehealth@propublica.org. You can also leave us a voicemail at 917-512-0242.

If your tip is sensitive, consider sending us a secure message on Signal at 917-512-0242.

  • Signal does not collect any metadata regarding who you are messaging. The service only retains your phone number and the last time you accessed the app.
  • If you’re concerned about someone knowing that you have contacted a journalist, you can enter the reporter’s Signal number directly into the app — without adding to your address book.
  • Messaging us on Signal does reveal your phone number to ProPublica. In some situations, using a separate phone number (such as a Google Voice number) for Signal communications will be more secure.
by Alexandra Zayas

A Law Was Meant to Target Teen Violence. Instead, 17-Year-Olds Are Being Charged as Adults for Lesser Offenses.

6 months ago

This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network in partnership with Verite News. Sign up for Dispatches to get stories like this one as soon as they are published.

In February, a prosecutor from a rural area outside Baton Rouge asked members of Louisiana’s Senate judiciary committee to imagine a frightening scene: You are home with your wife at 4 a.m. when suddenly a 17-year-old with a gun appears. The teenager won’t hesitate, District Attorney Tony Clayton said. “He will kill you and your wife.”

According to Clayton, teenagers were terrorizing the state without fear of consequences. The only way to stop them was to prosecute all 17-year-olds in adult court, regardless of the offense, and lock them up in prison. Law enforcement officials from around the state made similar arguments. Legislators quickly passed a bill that lowered the age at which the justice system must treat defendants as adults from 18 to 17.

But according to a review of arrests in the five months since the law took effect, most of the 17-year-olds booked in three of the state’s largest parishes have not been accused of violent crimes. Verite News and ProPublica identified 203 17-year-olds who were arrested in Orleans, Jefferson and East Baton Rouge parishes between April and September. A total of 141, or 69%, were arrested for offenses that are not listed as violent crimes in Louisiana law, according to our analysis of jail rosters, court records and district attorney data.

Just 13% of the defendants — a little over two dozen — have been accused of the sort of violent crimes that lawmakers cited when arguing for the legislation, such as rape, armed robbery and murder. Prosecutors were able to move such cases to adult court even before the law was changed.

The larger group of lesser offenses includes damaging property, trespassing, theft under $1,000, disturbing the peace, marijuana possession, illegal carrying of weapons and burglary. They also include offenses that involve the use of force, such as simple battery, but those are not listed in state law as violent crimes either, and they can be prosecuted as misdemeanors depending on the circumstances.

In one case in New Orleans, a boy took a car belonging to his mother’s boyfriend without permission so he could check out flooding during Hurricane Francine last month, according to a police report. When the teen returned the car, the front bumper was damaged. The boyfriend called police and the teen was arrested for unauthorized use of a vehicle. In another case, a boy was charged with battery after he got into a fight with his brother about missing a school bus.

In July, a 17-year-old girl was charged with resisting arrest and interfering with a law enforcement investigation. She had shoved a police officer as he was taking her older sister into custody for a minor charge resulting from a fight with another girl. None of those defendants have had an opportunity to enter a plea so far; convictions could result in jail or prison time of up to two years.

In juvenile court, teenagers facing charges such as these could be sentenced to a detention facility, but the juvenile system is mandated to focus on rehabilitation and sentences are generally shorter than in adult court, juvenile justice advocates said. And in the juvenile system, only arrests for violent crimes and repeat offenses are public record. But because these 17-year-olds are in the adult system, they all have public arrest records that can prevent them from getting jobs or housing.

Rachel Gassert, the former policy director for the Louisiana Center for Children’s Rights, said there was one word to describe what she felt when Verite News and ProPublica shared their findings: “Despair.”

Eight years ago, Gassert and other criminal justice advocates convinced lawmakers to raise the age for adult prosecution from 17 to 18 years old, pointing to research that shows that the human brain does not fully develop until early adulthood and that youth are more likely to reoffend when they are prosecuted as adults. The law enacted this spring was the culmination of a two-year effort to reverse that.

“The whole push to repeal Raise the Age was entirely political and all about throwing children under the bus,” Gassert said. “And now we are seeing the tire treads on their backs.”

Gov. Jeff Landry’s office, Clayton and state Sen. Heather Cloud, R-Turkey Creek, who sponsored the bill to roll back Raise the Age, did not respond to requests for comment. The Louisiana District Attorneys Association, which supported the bill, declined to comment.

The whole push to repeal Raise the Age was entirely political and all about throwing children under the bus. And now we are seeing the tire treads on their backs.

—Rachel Gassert, former policy director at the Louisiana Center for Children’s Rights

Louisiana is the only state to have passed and then fully reversed Raise the Age legislation. It’s one of four states, along with Georgia, Texas and Wisconsin, that automatically prosecute all 17-year-olds as adults. In other states, 17-year-olds can be prosecuted as adults only in special circumstances, such as when they are charged with a serious, violent crime like murder.

Landry and his Republican allies argued that Raise the Age and other liberal policies were responsible for a pandemic-era uptick in violent offenses committed by juveniles in Louisiana. They said juvenile courts, where a sentence can’t extend past a defendant’s 21st birthday, are too lenient.

Juvenile justice advocates argued that the law would cause teenagers to be prosecuted as adults for behaviors that are typical for immature adolescents. These 17-year-olds would face long-lasting consequences, including arrest records and prison time. And the harm would fall largely on Black children. Nearly 9 out of every 10 of the 17-year-olds arrested in Orleans and East Baton Rouge parishes are Black, Verite News and ProPublica found. (A similar figure couldn’t be calculated for Jefferson Parish because some court records weren’t available.)

Opponents of the law also pointed out that the data didn’t show a link between enacting the Raise the Age legislation and a surge in violent crime. In 2022, when then-Attorney General Landry and others first tried to repeal the law, crime data analyst Jeff Asher said in a legislative hearing that Louisiana’s increase in homicides during the pandemic was part of a national trend that began before Raise the Age was passed.

“It happened in red states. It happened in blue states. It happened in big cities, small towns, suburbs, metro parishes,” Asher told lawmakers. Starting in 2023, data has shown a significant drop in homicides in Louisiana and nationwide.

Conservative lawmakers dismissed Asher’s numbers and instead cited horrific crimes committed by teenagers, such as the brutal killing of 73-year-old Linda Frickey amid a surge in carjackings in New Orleans in 2022. In that incident, four teenagers between 15 and 17 years old stole Frickey’s SUV in broad daylight. One of them kicked, punched and pepper-sprayed her as he pulled her out of the vehicle, according to court testimony. Frickey, who had become tangled in her seat belt, was dragged alongside the vehicle. Landry argued that teenagers who commit such heinous crimes must be punished as adults.

Opponents said the Frickey case instead showed why the law wasn’t needed: District attorneys in Louisiana have long had the discretion to move cases involving the most serious crimes out of juvenile court, which is what Orleans Parish District Attorney Jason Williams did. Three girls who took part in the carjacking pleaded guilty to manslaughter and were each sentenced to 20 years in prison; the 17-year-old who attacked Frickey and drove her car was found guilty of second-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison.

After the attempt to repeal the Raise the Age law failed in 2022, lawmakers passed a bill in 2023. It was vetoed by Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards. “Housing seventeen year olds with adults is dangerous and reckless,” Edwards said in a written statement at the time. “They often come out as seasoned criminals after being victimized.”

This year, with Landry in lockstep with the Republican supermajority in the Legislature, the law sailed through. For Landry, who was elected on an anti-crime platform, the law’s passage fulfilled a campaign pledge. When the law took effect, he declared, “No more will 17-year-olds who commit home invasions, carjack, and rob the great people of our State be treated as children in court.”

Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry speaks before lawmakers in Baton Rouge. (Michael Johnson/The Advocate via AP)

Now these teenagers are treated as adults from arrest to sentencing. In New Orleans, that means that when a 17-year-old is arrested, police no longer alert their parents, a step that department policy requires for juveniles, according to a department spokesperson. It’s not clear if law enforcement agencies elsewhere in the state have made a similar change.

All 17-year-olds arrested in New Orleans are now booked into the Orleans Parish jail, where those charged with crimes not classified as violent have spent up to 15 days before being released pending trial. Though the jail separates teens from adults, it has been under a court-ordered reform plan since 2013 after the Department of Justice found routine use of excessive force by guards and rampant inmate-on-inmate violence. Federal monitors said in May that violence remains a significant problem, although they acknowledged conditions have improved somewhat. The sheriff has agreed with this assessment, blaming understaffing.

Most of the cases involving 17-year-olds in Orleans, Jefferson and East Baton Rouge parishes are pending, according to court records and officials in those offices. Several defendants have pleaded guilty. Prosecutors have declined to file charges in a handful of cases. Many defendants are first-time offenders who should be eligible for diversion programs in which charges will eventually be dropped if they abide by conditions set by the court, according to officials with the Orleans and Jefferson Parish district attorneys.

None of the DAs in Orleans, Jefferson or East Baton Rouge parishes took a position on the law, according to officials in those offices and news reports. Williams, the Orleans Parish DA, responded to Verite News and ProPublica’s findings by saying his office is holding “violent offenders accountable” while providing alternatives to prison for those teenagers “willing to heed discipline and make a real course correction.”

Margaret Hay, first assistant district attorney with Jefferson Parish, declined to comment on Verite and ProPublica’s findings except to say, “We’re constitutionally mandated to uphold and enforce the laws of the state of Louisiana.” East Baton Rouge District Attorney Hillar Moore declined to comment.

Having a felony arrest or conviction on your record is like wearing a heavy yoke around your neck.

—Aaron Clark-Rizzio, legal director at the Louisiana Center for Children’s Rights

Even those who avoid prison face the long-term consequences of going through the adult court system. Background checks can reveal arrests and convictions, which could prevent them from obtaining a job, housing, professional licenses, loans, government assistance such as student aid or food stamps, or custody of their children.

“Having a felony arrest or conviction on your record,” said Aaron Clark-Rizzio, legal director for the Louisiana Center for Children’s Rights, “is like wearing a heavy yoke around your neck.”

Marsha Levick, chief legal officer with the Juvenile Law Center, a nonprofit law firm based in Philadelphia, said that what’s happening in Louisiana reminds her of the late 1990s, when states toughened punishments for juveniles after a noted criminologist warned of a generation of “super predators.” That theory was eventually debunked — but not before tens of thousands of children had been locked up and saddled with criminal records.

Mariam Elba contributed reporting and Jeff Frankl contributed research.

Do you have a story to share regarding a 17-year-old facing criminal charges in Louisiana? Contact Richard Webster at Rwebster@veritenews.org.

by Richard A. Webster, Verite News

Georgia Judge Lifts Six-Week Abortion Ban After Deaths of Two Women Who Couldn’t Access Care

6 months ago

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Women in Georgia can once again legally obtain abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, following a judge’s strongly worded order this week tossing the state’s ban. While Gov. Brian Kemp spoke out against the decision and Georgia’s attorney general quickly appealed it, providers told ProPublica they have immediately resumed offering such care.

Planned Parenthood’s four clinics in Georgia are fielding an influx of calls from within the state and those around it where most abortions remain banned, said Jaylen Black, vice president of marketing and communications for the organization’s Southeast region. Workers are also calling patients they have previously had to turn away. “We’ve been able to get them rescheduled,” Black said.

The new, if temporary, access is the latest in a wave of developments in the two weeks since ProPublica told the stories of Amber Nicole Thurman and Candi Miller, Georgia women who died after they couldn’t access legal abortions and timely medical care in their state. A committee of maternal health experts, including 10 doctors, deemed their deaths “preventable,” shifting the discussion about such outcomes from hypothetical to a new American reality.

“This isn’t something that the state will easily be able to sweep under the rug,” said Monica Simpson, executive director of SisterSong, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging the ban. “It is now a national issue.”

Watch video ➜

The women’s stories reverberated through the U.S. Senate, the vice presidential debate and a demonstration outside the Georgia Capitol. Vice President Kamala Harris spoke to one of their families alongside Oprah Winfrey, then traveled to Atlanta to give a speech about them. “Now we know that at least two women — and those are only the stories we know — here in the state of Georgia died — died because of a Trump abortion ban,” she told the crowd. Before launching into the details of the first, she led the crowd in a chant to “speak her name: Amber Nicole Thurman, Amber Nicole Thurman, Amber Nicole Thurman.”

Thurman died on Aug. 19, 2022, one month after Georgia’s law went into effect banning abortion before many women know they’re even pregnant. Thurman had traveled to North Carolina, where she obtained abortion medication, and had not fully expelled the fetal tissue.

She sought care for the rare complication at a suburban Atlanta hospital, where she was diagnosed with sepsis, a life-threatening infection. As her condition deteriorated, doctors discussed a procedure to empty the uterus called a dilation and curettage, or D&C; the state had recently attached criminal penalties to performing it, with few exceptions. It took 20 hours after Thurman’s arrival for doctors to do so, according to records reviewed by ProPublica. It came too late.

Miller, who died Nov. 12, 2022, had lupus, diabetes and hypertension, and doctors warned another pregnancy could kill her. She ordered abortion pills online, but she also did not expel all the fetal tissue and needed a D&C. Her family later told a coroner she hadn’t visited a doctor “due to the current legislation on pregnancies and abortions.” Her children watched her suffer in bed for days, moaning in pain. She ultimately took a lethal combination of painkillers.

Georgia’s maternal mortality review committee, tasked with studying deaths of pregnant women and new mothers to recommend improvements in care, directly blamed the state’s abortion ban for Miller’s death, according to members who spoke to ProPublica on the condition of anonymity. The committee found that the hospital’s delay in performing the critical procedure on Thurman had a “large” impact on her “preventable” outcome. The hospital and doctors involved in her care have not explained the delay or commented on her case; an attorney hired by Thurman’s family said the hospital was within its legal rights to perform the procedure.

First image: Thurman and her son in a photo she posted on social media the year before her death. Second image: Miller with her husband, Alex Cardenas; son Christian; and daughter Turiya, whom she named after her sister. (Courtesy of Turiya Tomlin-Randall)

While defenders of the ban have said it includes an exception to save the life of the mother, doctors have told ProPublica that the language doesn’t account for the fast-moving realities of emergency medicine or the complexities of maternal health.

Though Miller’s underlying conditions would have made her pregnancy riskier as it progressed, that alone did not qualify her for an abortion. And once she and Thurman needed a D&C to clear the fetal tissue, neither of their cases appeared to clearly fit the language of the ban’s exception allowing doctors to perform it.

It allows doctors to remove “a dead unborn child” that resulted from a “spontaneous abortion” defined as “naturally occurring” from a miscarriage or a stillbirth. Thurman had told doctors her miscarriage was not spontaneous but the result of abortion pills. Most bans including Georgia’s also allow abortions “necessary in order to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or the substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.” There is no standard protocol for how providers should interpret such language, doctors have told ProPublica — or how far gone a patient needs to be to qualify.

Forty-one senators introduced a resolution inspired by ProPublica’s reporting that calls on hospitals in all states to provide emergency abortion care when their patients need it. Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregan Democrat who chairs the powerful Senate Finance Committee, has a pending request for information from the hospital that treated Thurman to determine whether doctors violated a federal law that requires them to provide emergency care. (The hospital has not responded to ProPublica’s requests seeking comment on those questions about its adherence to the law.)

And in Georgia on Monday, Fulton County Superior Judge Robert C. I. McBurney struck down key parts of the state’s ban criminalizing nearly all abortions after about six weeks.

“It is not for a legislator, a judge, or a Commander from ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ to tell these women what to do with their bodies during this period when the fetus cannot survive outside the womb,” McBurney’s ruling states.

“The Court finds that, until the pregnancy is viable, a woman’s right to make decisions about her body and her health remains private and protected, i.e., remains her business and her business alone. When someone other than the pregnant woman is able to sustain the fetus, then — and only then — should those other voices have a say in the discussion about the decisions the pregnant woman makes concerning her body and what is growing within it.”

In reversing the six-week ban, McBurney reverted to the state’s previous standard, which allowed abortion up until a fetus was deemed viable, at about the 22nd week of pregnancy.

Kemp, a Republican who said he was “overjoyed” when the ban first went into effect, said this week through a spokesperson: “Once again, the will of Georgians and their representatives has been overruled by the personal beliefs of one judge.”

Brittany Smith, program director for SisterSong, one of the plaintiffs in the case against the ban, attended Saturday’s vigil for Thurman and Miller. “I think a lot of people are not making the connection that abortion care is health care,” she said. “Abortion quite literally saves lives. All pregnancies are not safe, and all pregnancies should not be carried all the way to term.” (Nydia Blas for ProPublica)

The ruling marks the second time McBurney has blocked the state abortion ban.

In 2022, he issued a ruling that the law was unconstitutional when the state legislature passed it in 2019, frozen in the books until after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal constitutional right to abortion three years later. The state appealed, and its Supreme Court reinstated the ban until it could review McBurney’s ruling.

About a year later, with the ban still in place, the state Supreme Court rejected the argument, sending the case back to McBurney to consider the lawsuit’s underlying question: Whether the Georgia Constitution protects the right to privacy and, if so, if that right includes abortion. McBurney’s ruling Monday emphatically says it does.

While McBurney allowed abortions to resume in Georgia, the Supreme Court could, once again, stay the judge’s ruling until it takes up the case.

The last time it did so, the window of abortion access in Georgia lasted eight days.

The urgency and impermanence of this moment in Georgia was palpable in conversations with providers. “I think this type of moment definitely feels like a demand to provide a lot of care to as many people as possible,” said Kristen Baker, public affairs manager and lobbyist for the Feminist Women’s Health Center, which operates a clinic in Georgia.

Black said that Planned Parenthood staff is doing all it can — “for the time being” — to meet the demand and “getting people in our doors as soon as possible.”

Kavitha Surana contributed reporting. Mariam Elba and Cassandra Jaramillo contributed research.

by Ziva Branstetter

A Hospital Kept a Brain-Damaged Patient on Life Support to Boost Statistics. His Sister Is Now Suing for Malpractice.

6 months ago

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

In 2018, Darryl Young was hoping for a new lease on life when he received a heart transplant at a New Jersey hospital after years of congestive heart failure. But he suffered brain damage during the procedure and never woke up.

The following year, a ProPublica investigation revealed that Young’s case was part of a pattern of heart transplants that had gone awry at Newark Beth Israel Medical Center in 2018. The spate of bad outcomes had pushed the center’s percentage of patients still alive one year after surgery — a key benchmark — below the national average. Medical staff were under pressure to boost that metric. ProPublica published audio recordings from meetings in which staff discussed the need to keep Young alive for a year, because they feared another hit to the program’s survival rate would attract scrutiny from regulators. On the recordings, the transplant program’s director, Dr. Mark Zucker, cautioned his team against offering Young’s family the option of switching from aggressive care to comfort care, in which no lifesaving efforts would be made. He acknowledged these actions were “very unethical.”

ProPublica’s revelations horrified Young’s sister Andrea Young, who said she was never given the full picture of her brother’s condition, as did the findings of a subsequent federal regulator’s probe that determined that the hospital was putting patients in “immediate jeopardy.” Last month, she filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the hospital and members of her brother’s medical team.

The lawsuit alleges that Newark Beth Israel staff were “negligent and deviated from accepted standards of practice,” leading to Young’s tragic medical outcome.

Defendants in the lawsuit haven’t yet filed responses to the complaint in court documents. But spokesperson Linda Kamateh said in an email that “Newark Beth Israel Medical Center is one of the top heart transplant programs in the nation and we are committed to serving our patients with the highest quality of care. As this case is in active litigation, we are unable to provide further detail.” Zucker, who is no longer on staff at Newark Beth Israel, didn’t respond to requests for comment. His attorney also didn’t respond to calls and emails requesting comment.

Zucker also didn’t respond to requests for comment from ProPublica in 2018; Newark Beth Israel at the time said in a statement, made on behalf of Zucker and other staff, that “disclosures of select portions of lengthy and highly complex medical discussions, when taken out of context, may distort the intent of conversations.”

The lawsuit alleges that Young suffered brain damage as a result of severely low blood pressure during the transplant surgery. In 2019, when the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services scrutinized the heart transplant program following ProPublica’s investigation, the regulators found that the hospital had failed to implement corrective measures even after patients suffered, leading to further harm. For example, one patient’s kidneys failed after a transplant procedure in August 2018, and medical staff made recommendations internally to increase the frequency of blood pressure measurement during the procedure, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that the hospital didn’t implement its own recommendations and that one month later, “these failures were repeated” in Young’s surgery, leading to brain damage.

The lawsuit also alleges that Young wasn’t asked whether he had an advance directive, such as a preference for a do-not-resuscitate order, despite a hospital policy stating that patients should be asked at the time of admission. The lawsuit also noted that CMS’ investigation found that Andrea Young was not informed of her brother’s condition.

Andrea Young said she understands that mistakes can happen during medical procedures, “however, it’s their duty and their responsibility to be honest and let the family know exactly what went wrong.” Young said she had to fight to find out what was going on with her brother, at one point going to the library and trying to study medical books so she could ask the right questions. “I remember as clear as if it were yesterday, being so desperate for answers,” she said.

Andrea Young said that she was motivated to file the lawsuit because she wants accountability. “Especially with the doctors never, from the outset, being forthcoming and truthful about the circumstances of my brother’s condition, not only is that wrong and unethical, but it took a lot away from our entire family,” she said. “The most important thing to me is that those responsible be held accountable.”

ProPublica’s revelation of “a facility putting its existence over that of a patient is a scary concept,” said attorney Jonathan Lomurro, who’s representing Andrea Young in this case with co-counsel Christian LoPiano. Besides seeking damages for Darryl Young’s children, “we want to call attention to this so it doesn’t happen again,” Lomurro said.

The lawsuit further alleges that medical staff at Newark Beth Israel invaded Young’s privacy and violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, more commonly known as HIPAA, by sharing details of his case with the media without his permission. “We want people to be whistleblowers and want information out,” but that information should be told to patients and their family members directly, Lomurro said.

Andrea Young, Darryl’s sister, is now suing the hospital for medical malpractice in her brother’s death. (Demetrius Freeman for ProPublica)

The 2019 CMS investigation determined that Newark Beth Israel’s program placed patients in “immediate jeopardy,” the most serious level of violation, and required the hospital to implement corrective plans. Newark Beth Israel did not agree with all of the regulator’s findings and in a statement at the time said that the CMS team lacked the “evidence, expertise and experience” to assess and diagnose patient outcomes.

The hospital did carry out the corrective plans and continues to operate a heart transplant program today. The most recent federal data, based on procedures from January 2021 through June 2023, shows that the one year probability of survival for a patient at Newark Beth is lower than the national average. It also shows that the number of graft failures, including deaths, in that time period was higher than the expected number of deaths for the program.

Andrea Young said she’s struggled with a feeling of emptiness in the years after her brother’s surgery. They were close and called each other daily. “There’s nothing in the world that can bring my brother back, so the only solace I will have is for the ones responsible to be held accountable,” she said. Darryl Young died on Sept 12, 2022, having never woken up after the transplant surgery.

A separate medical malpractice lawsuit filed in 2020 by the wife of another Newark Beth Israel heart transplant patient who died after receiving an organ infected with a parasitic disease is ongoing. The hospital has denied the allegations in court filing. The state of New Jersey, employer of the pathologists named in the case, settled for $1.7 million this month, according to the plaintiff’s attorney Christian LoPiano. The rest of the case is ongoing.

by Caroline Chen

Who Will Care for Americans Left Behind by Climate Migration?

6 months ago

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

This article is a partnership between ProPublica and The New York Times.

When Hurricane Helene, the 420-mile-wide, slow-spinning conveyor belt of wind and water, drowned part of Florida’s coastline and then barged its path northward through North Carolina last week, it destroyed more than homes and bridges. It shook people’s faith in the safety of living in the South, where the tolls of extreme heat, storms and sea level rise are quickly adding up.

Helene was just the latest in a new generation of storms that are intensifying faster, and dumping more rainfall, as the climate warms. It is also precisely the kind of event that is expected to drive more Americans to relocate as climate change gets worse and the costs of disaster recovery increase.

Researchers now estimate tens of millions of Americans may ultimately move away from extreme heat and drought, storms and wildfires. While many Americans are still moving into areas considered high risk, lured by air conditioning and sunny weather, the economic and physical vulnerabilities they face are becoming more apparent.

One study by the First Street Foundation, a research firm that studies climate threats to housing, found that roughly 3.2 million Americans have already migrated, many over short distances, out of flood zones, such as low-lying parts of Staten Island, Miami and Galveston, Texas. Over the next 30 years, 7.5 million more are projected to leave those perennially flooded zones, according to the study.

All of this suggests a possible boom for inland and Northern cities. But it also will leave behind large swaths of coastal and other vulnerable land where seniors and the poor are very likely to disproportionately remain.

The Southern United States stands to be especially transformed. Extreme heat, storms and coastal flooding will weigh heavily on the bottom third of this country, making the environment less comfortable and life within it more expensive and less prosperous.

The young, mobile and middle class will be more likely to leave to chase opportunity and physical and economic safety. That means government — from local to federal — must now recognize its responsibility to support the communities in climate migration’s wake. Even as an aging population left behind will require greater services, medical attention and physical accommodation, the residents who remain will reside in states that may also face diminished representation in Congress — because their communities are shrinking. Local governments could be left to fend alone, but with an evaporating tax base to work with.

In December, the First Street Foundation created one of the first clear pictures of how this demographic change is unfolding. It looked at flood risk and migration patterns down to the census tract, across the country, and identified hundreds of thousands of so-called abandonment zones where the out-migration of residents in response to rising risk had already passed a tipping point, and people were making small, local moves to higher ground.

The research contains plenty of nuance ⎯ cities like Miami may continue to grow overall even as their low-lying sections hollow out. And the abandonment areas it identified were scattered widely, including across large parts of the inland Northeast and the upper Midwest. But many of them also fall in some of the very places most susceptible to storm surges from weather events like Helene: Parts of low-lying coastal Florida and Texas are already seeing population declines, for instance.

In all, the First Street report identified 818,000 U.S. census blocks as having passed tipping points for abandonment ⎯ areas with a combined population of more than 16 million people. A related peer-reviewed component of the organization’s research forecasts that soon, whole counties across Florida and Central Texas could begin to see their total populations decline, suggesting a sharp reversal of the persistent growth that Florida has maintained as climate pressures rise, by the middle of this century.

Such projections could turn out to be wrong ⎯ the more geographically specific such modeling gets, the greater its margin of error. But the mere fact that climate research firms are now identifying American communities that people might have to retreat from is significant. Retreat has not until recently been a part of this country’s climate change vernacular.

Other research is putting a finer point on which Americans will be most affected. Early this year Mathew Hauer, a demographer at Florida State University who has estimated that 13 million Americans will be displaced by rising sea levels, was among the authors of a study that broke out what this climate-driven migration could mean for the demographics of the United States, examining what it might look like by age.

Hauer and his fellow researchers found that as some people migrate away from vulnerable regions, the population that remains grows significantly older. In coastal Florida and along other parts of the Gulf Coast, for example, the median age could increase by 10 years this century — far faster than it would without climate migration.

This aging means that older adults — particularly women, who tend to live longer — are very likely to face the greatest physical danger. In fact, there is notable overlap between the places that Hauer’s research suggests will age and the places that the First Street Foundation has identified as the zones people are abandoning.

The exodus of the young means these towns could enter a population death spiral. Older residents are also more likely to be retired, which means they will contribute less to their local tax base, which will erode funding for schools and infrastructure, and leave less money available to meet the costs of environmental change even as those costs rise. All of that is very likely to perpetuate further out-migration.

The older these communities get, the more new challenges emerge. In many coastal areas, for example, one solution under consideration for rising seas is to raise the height of coastal homes. But, as Hauer told me, “adding steps might not be the best adaptation in places with an elderly population.” In other places older residents will be less able and independent, relying ever more on emergency services. This week many of Helene’s victims have simply been cut off, revealing the dangerous gaps left by broken infrastructure, and a mistaken belief that many people can take care of themselves.

In the future authorities will have to adapt the ways they keep their services online, and the vehicles and boats they use, in order to keep flooded and dangerous places connected. Such implications are worrisome. But so is the larger warning inherent in Hauer’s findings: Many of the effects of climate change on American life will be subtle and unexpected. The future demographics of this country might look entirely unfamiliar. It’s past time to give real thought to who might get left behind.

by Abrahm Lustgarten

A Pair of Billionaire Preachers Built the Most Powerful Political Machine in Texas. That’s Just the Start.

6 months ago

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

This article is a partnership between ProPublica and The New York Times Magazine.

This story is exempt from our Creative Commons license until Nov. 2.

Last December, Sid Miller, the Texas commissioner of agriculture, posted a photo of himself brandishing a double-barrel shotgun on X and invited his followers to join him on a “RINO hunt.” Miller had taken to stumping in the March primary election against incumbents he deemed to be Republicans in Name Only. Not long after that, he received a text message from one of his targets, a state representative named Glenn Rogers. “You are a bought and paid for, pathetic narcissist,” it began. “If you had any honor, you would challenge me, or any of my Republican colleagues to a duel.”

Rogers, a 68-year-old rancher and grandfather of five, represents a rural district west of Fort Worth. He was proud to serve in a Legislature that, as he told me recently, “couldn’t be more conservative if it tried.” Since entering office in 2021, he co-authored legislation that allowed Texans to carry handguns without a permit, supported the Heartbeat Act that grants citizens the right to sue abortion providers and voted to give the police the power to arrest suspected undocumented migrants in schools and hospitals. In a statehouse packed with debate-me agitators, he was comparatively soft-spoken — a former professor of veterinary medicine with an aversion to grandstanding. He was not in the habit of firing off salvos, as he had to Miller, that ended with “Kiss My Ass!”

But the viciousness of the primary season had been getting to him. Nearly a year before the March elections, ads began to appear in Rogers’ district castigating him not simply as a RINO but as a closet liberal who supported gun control and Shariah law. (Rogers was especially peeved by an ad that photoshopped his signature white cowboy hat onto a headshot of Joe Biden.) Some of the attacks originated from his challenger’s campaign, while others were sponsored by organizations with grassroots-sounding names, like Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, Texas Gun Rights and Texas Family Project. By the time voters headed to the polls, they could have been forgiven for thinking that Rogers had disappointed a suite of conservative groups.

In reality, Rogers had disappointed two men: Tim Dunn and Farris Wilks, billionaires who have made their fortunes in the oil industry. Over the past decade, the pair have built the most powerful political machine in Texas — a network of think tanks, media organizations, political action committees and nonprofits that work in lock step to purge the Legislature of Republicans whose votes they can’t rely on. Cycle after cycle, their relentless maneuvering has pushed the statehouse so far to the right that consultants like to joke that Karl Rove couldn’t win a local race these days. Brandon Darby, the editor of Breitbart Texas, is one of several conservatives who has compared Dunn and Wilks to Russian oligarchs. “They go into other communities and unseat people unwilling to do their bidding,” he says. “You kiss the ring or you’re out.”

Like the Koch brothers, the Mercer family and other conservative billionaires, Dunn and Wilks want to slash regulations and taxes. Their endgame, however, is more radical: not just to limit the government but also to steer it toward Christian rule. “It’s hard to think of other megafunders in the country as big on the theocratic end of the spectrum,” says Peter Montgomery, who oversees the Right Wing Watch project at People for the American Way, a progressive advocacy group.

Texas, which has few limits on campaign spending, is home to a formidable army of donors. Lately Dunn has outspent them all. Since 2000, he and his wife have given more than $29 million to candidates and PACs in Texas. Wilks and his wife, who have donated to many of the same PACs as Dunn, have given $16 million. Last year, Dunn and his associated entities provided two-thirds of the donations to the state Republican Party.

The duo’s ambitions extend beyond Texas. They’ve poured millions into “dark money” groups, which do not have to disclose contributors; conservative-media juggernauts (Wilks provided $4.7 million in seed capital to The Daily Wire, which hosts “The Ben Shapiro Show”); and federal races. Dunn’s $5 million gift to the Make America Great Again super PAC in December made him one of Donald Trump’s top supporters this election season, and he has quietly begun to invest in efforts to influence a possible second Trump administration, including several linked to Project 2025.

Rogers believes he provoked the ire of the Dunn and Wilks machine for two reasons. He refused to support a school voucher bill that would funnel taxpayer dollars to private schools, and he voted to impeach Attorney General Ken Paxton, one of the machine’s most powerful allies. (Paxton, who did not respond to requests for comment, was impeached in part for misusing his office to help a friend under federal investigation.)

Since neither of these issues particularly excited voters, many attacks focused on distorting Rogers’ record on immigration instead. When his wife joined a text group for the spouses of incumbents under siege (they called themselves the Badass Babes), she saw that her husband was not the only opponent of vouchers who had supposedly given Democrats “control of the Texas border.” The mailers sent across the state were identical, with only the names and faces swapped out.

Flyers attacking Texas state Rep. Glenn Rogers (Jake Dockins, special to ProPublica)

The onslaught worked. Rogers lost his seat by 27 percentage points, and more than two dozen statehouse candidates backed by the two billionaires prevailed this spring. These challengers received considerable support from Dunn-and-Wilks-backed allies like Miller, the agricultural commissioner, as well as from GOP heavyweights like Gov. Greg Abbott. “You cannot overstate the absolute earthquake that was the March 5 primary,” says Matt Mackowiak, a political consultant and chair of the Travis County GOP.

The morning after his routing at the polls, Rogers published an editorial in The Weatherford Democrat. Commendably short on self-pity, it argued that the real loser in his race was representative democracy. “History will prove,” he wrote, “that our current state government is the most corrupt ever and is ‘bought’ by a few radical dominionist billionaires seeking to destroy public education, privatize our public schools and create a theocracy.”

Dunn and Wilks are often described as Christian nationalists, supporters of a political movement that seeks to erode, if not eliminate, the distinction between church and state. Dunn and Wilks, however, do not describe themselves as such. (Dunn, for his part, has rejected the term as a “made-up label that conflicts with biblical teaching.”) Instead, like most Christian nationalists, the two men speak about protecting Judeo-Christian values and promoting a biblical worldview. These vague expressions often serve as a shorthand for the movement’s central mythology: that America, founded as a Christian nation, has lost touch with its religious heritage, which must now be reclaimed.

Exactly what this reclamation would look like is up for debate. Some Christian nationalists advocate for more religious iconography in public life, while others harbor grander visions of Christianizing America’s political institutions. Those on the extreme end of this spectrum are sometimes called Dominionists, after the passage in Genesis in which man is given “dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”

Tim Dunn in 2022 (Guerin Blask/The Forbes Collection via Contour RA by Getty Images)

David Brockman, a nonresident scholar at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, has extensively reviewed the speeches and donations of Dunn and Wilks and believes the two men to be thoroughgoing Dominionists. Zachary Maxwell, a Republican activist who knows the Wilks family personally and used to work for Texas Scorecard, a media group associated with Dunn and Wilks, agrees. “They want to get Christians in office to change the ordinances, laws, rules and regulations to fit the Bible,” he told me. According to Texas Monthly, Dunn once told Joe Straus, the first Jewish speaker of the Texas House since statehood, that only Christians should hold leadership positions. (Dunn has denied the remark.)

Wilks did not respond to detailed lists of questions. In an email, Dunn directed me to his previous public statements. In one of them, he explained that every Christian should avoid the label “Christian Nationalist” because “it makes ‘Christian’ an adjective — in other words, subjugated to something else.” A self-proclaimed proponent of limited government, he has also rejected the way in which the label, a “smear,” suggests that Christians would replace “God as King with earthly kings who claimed God’s authority.”

Unlike most billionaires, Dunn and Wilks are also pastors. Friends and critics alike described the pair as conspicuously down-home and devout. “They love God, they serve God,” said Jerry Maston, an evangelical pastor and Wilks’ brother-in-law. Dunn, who is 68, has served on the “pulpit team” of a nondenominational church in Midland. Wilks, who is four years older, practices a form of Christianity that hews closely to the Old Testament at the Assembly of Yahweh, a church his family founded outside of Cisco, a town in Central Texas. When I saw him preach there earlier this year, he warned his followers that “absorption in bounty makes us forgetful of the giver.” The two men may differ on certain points of doctrine — Wilks doesn’t celebrate Christmas, considering it a pagan holiday — but they share the same vision of a radically transformed America.

Farris Wilks in 2015 (Ronald W. Erdrich/Abilene Reporter-News/AP Images)

Many of their ideas have been shaped by David Barton, a former teacher in Aledo, Texas, and the closest the Christian nationalist movement has to an in-house intellectual. Barton has been advancing the same revisionist thesis for decades: The founders intended for the barrier between church and state to protect Christianity from the government, not vice versa. “‘Separation of church and state’ currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant,” explains the website for WallBuilders, Barton’s advocacy group, to which Wilks has donated more than $3 million.

This view, dismissed by historians but increasingly common among white evangelicals, has been encouraged by recent Supreme Court decisions reinterpreting the establishment clause and embraced by prominent Republicans, most notably the speaker of the House, Mike Johnson. Johnson lauded Barton at a 2021 WallBuilders event, citing his “profound influence on me and my work and my life and everything I do.” The day after Johnson was elected speaker, Barton said on a podcast, “We have some tools at our disposal now we haven’t had in a long time.”

With its high concentration of movement leaders, conservative pastors and far-right megadonors, Texas has become the country’s foremost laboratory for Christian nationalist policy, and many of its experiments have been bankrolled by Dunn and Wilks. Several of the lawmakers they’ve funded have introduced bills linked to Project Blitz, a coalition of religious groups, including Barton’s WallBuilders, that drafted model legislation to advance Christianity’s role in civic life. One bill directs educators to hang posters of the Ten Commandments “in a size and typeface that is legible to a person with average vision from anywhere in the classroom.” Another, now law, requires schools to display “In God We Trust” placards.

“You can look here to see what’s coming to other states soon,” said Amanda Tyler, the executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit legal advocacy group. After Texas passed a law allowing the work of licensed mental health counselors in public schools to be done by unlicensed chaplains — representatives of “God in government,” one of the bill’s sponsors called them — a dozen other states introduced similar bills. That includes Louisiana, which became the first state to sign a bill into law this June requiring schools to post the Ten Commandments in classrooms. (Trump celebrated on Truth Social: “I LOVE THE TEN COMMANDMENTS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PRIVATE SCHOOLS, AND MANY OTHER PLACES, FOR THAT MATTER.”)

It is no accident that Dunn and Wilks have concentrated their energies on infusing Christianity into education. Many far-right Christians trace the country’s moral decline to Supreme Court rulings in the 1960s and early 1970s that ended mandated prayer and Bible reading in public schools. Texas recently proposed an overhauled reading curriculum that strongly emphasizes the Bible “in ways that verge on proselytizing,” according to Brockman, the scholar at the Baker Institute; The 74, a nonprofit newsroom, reported that the state’s educational consultants contracted with the Texas Public Policy Foundation, whose board Dunn has served on since 1998. Wilks and his brother, Dan, have given around $3 million to PragerU, a video platform co-founded by Dennis Prager, the conservative radio host. It is not an accredited university; instead it provides “a free alternative to the dominant left-wing ideology in culture, media and education.” Public school leaders in Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and South Carolina have recently approved PragerU’s teaching materials. One lesson shows an animated Frederick Douglass explaining that slavery was a compromise the founding fathers made to “achieve something great.”

Predictably, these attempts to control what happens in the classroom trigger local culture wars, which, in turn, lead Christian nationalists to contend that religious values are under siege. “They’re going to be things that people yell at, but they will help move the ball down the court,” Barton said in a 2016 conference call with state legislators that was later made public. The ultimate aim of these skirmishes is to end up with a religious liberty case before an increasingly conservative Supreme Court.

Last year, researchers at the Public Religion Research Institute and the Brookings Institution found that more than half of Republicans support Christian nationalist beliefs, including that “being a Christian is an important part of being truly American,” that the government should declare the United States a Christian nation and that “God has called Christians to exercise dominion over all areas of American society.” They have also found that Christian nationalists were roughly twice as likely as other Americans to believe that political violence may be justified. Those who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 with wooden crosses and Christian flags did not see themselves as insurrectionists overturning democracy but as patriots defending the will of God. They had been spurred on by years of rhetoric that recast political debates as spiritual battles with apocalyptic stakes.

In 2016, Trump received a higher share of the white evangelical vote than any presidential candidate since 2004, but the sociologists Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry have found that Christian nationalist beliefs were an even better predictor of support for his candidacy than religious affiliation. The slogan Make America Great Again can be interpreted, not unreasonably, as a dog-whistle to make it Christian Again, too. During the same speech in which he boasted that he could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue without losing voters, Trump warned that Christianity was “under tremendous siege” and pledged that when he was president, “Christianity will have power.” This June, he promised a Christian coalition “a comeback like just about no other group,” and in July, he encouraged Christians to vote “just this time” because in four years “you won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.”

Dunn has placed himself in a favorable position to guide a second Trump administration — and transform the nature of the federal government. He helps fund America First Legal, a conservative law firm headed by the former Trump senior adviser Stephen Miller that represents itself as the MAGA movement’s answer to the ACLU, as well as the Center for Renewing America, a far-right policy group led by the former Trump budget director Russell Vought. According to documents obtained by Politico, the Center for Renewing America has explicitly listed “Christian Nationalism” as one of its top priorities. Both groups have played a role in shaping Project 2025, an extreme policy agenda, published by the Heritage Foundation, that proposes consolidating executive power and remaking the federal bureaucracy, agency by agency.

“Eighty percent of my time is working on the plans of what’s necessary to take control of these bureaucracies,” Vought said in a video captured in August by undercover reporters from the Centre for Climate Reporting. “I want to make sure that we can say we are a Christian nation.” Vought has publicly defended the Christian nationalist label as “a rather benign and useful description for those who believe in both preserving our country’s Judeo-Christian heritage and making public policy decisions that are best for this country.”

Since 2021, Dunn has also been a founding board member of the America First Policy Institute, yet another group assembled by Trump loyalists to prepare for his possible return to the White House. One of its papers, “Ten Pillars for Restoring a Nation Under God,” discusses how America was “founded as a self-governing nation on biblical principles” — a favored Dunn talking point. Brooke Rollins, a former domestic policy adviser in the Trump administration who worked with Dunn at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, recruited him to the institute. “We wanted to create a national organization similar to what we built in Texas,” she told The Wall Street Journal. “This is a 100-year play.”

“I am by nature a tightwad,” Dunn writes in “Yellow Balloons,” a book he self-published in 2018. His mother once told him that as a child, he needed to be turned upside down to shake a nickel out of his pocket for the church collection basket. The youngest of four boys, Dunn grew up modestly in Big Spring, Texas. In the 1980s, he settled with his wife and six children in Midland, the seat of the Permian Basin, to become the chief financial officer at an oil company before founding his own in 1996. When the British writer Peter Stothard traveled to Midland for The Times of London during the 2004 presidential election, he spoke to Dunn, a “thin-faced, blue-jeaned Bush-backer” who was “convinced that his oil has existed for only 4,000 years, the time decreed by Genesis, not 200 million years as his geologists know.”

CrownQuest Operating, as Dunn’s company is called today, keeps most of its operations within Texas to limit interactions with the federal government. It ranks among the top 10 biggest oil producers in the state and has made Dunn one of the wealthiest people in Texas. But for many years, when it came time to pick up the check at lunch with colleagues, Dunn writes, he found himself with “alligator arms.” It wasn’t until he came to better understand the parable of the unjust steward, a cryptic story from the Gospel of Luke, that he discovered his charitable side. Its moral, according to Dunn, is that when we get to heaven, “part of our reward will be being invited into people’s homes to reciprocate for things we did for them in this life, and we’re supposed to make that part of our investment calculation.”

In the meantime, many of Dunn’s investments have brought him treasures here on Earth. In 2007, he started his own PAC, Empower Texans, to fight a tax on oil wells financed through investors. Dunn has donated a majority of its funds, lending it the air of a special interest group of one. Around a decade later, when one of Dunn’s political advisers connected him to Farris Wilks, Empower Texans became an interest group of two.

Wilks was raised in a goat shed on a homestead just south of Cisco, a town of 3,900 people and more than a dozen churches. He went to work at his father’s masonry business, and on weekends, he helped his family build their own church, the Assembly of Yahweh. In the 1990s, Wilks and his younger brother, Dan, decided to use their knowledge of stone to prospect for oil in their own backyard. In 2000, the brothers founded Frac Tech, a fracking services provider, and a decade later they sold their stake for $3.5 billion. Not long before the deal closed, the brothers established charitable foundations to fund conservative groups, including Focus on the Family and the Heritage Foundation. In 2015, they made their first significant campaign gift — $15 million to a Ted Cruz super PAC connected to David Barton — and the San Antonio Express-News said they were gaining a reputation as the “Koch brothers of the Christian Right.”

Scenes from Cisco, Texas (Jake Dockins, special to ProPublica)

Wary of the media spotlight, Dan Wilks made fewer headline-grabbing campaign donations after that. Farris, however, was only getting started. Though he does not regularly socialize with Dunn, he relies on the same fleet of consultants and synchronizes his donations to many of the same campaigns. By 2018, he’d become the largest donor to Empower Texans, after Dunn.

At first glance, what’s most striking about Dunn and Wilks’ political giving, apart from its unprecedented scale, is its low rate of return. For more than a decade, their PACs and the lawmakers they supported won a handful of proxy wars — obstructing legislation, forcing retirements, generating scandals — but they were snubbed by the establishment Republicans who controlled the statehouse. In 2022, according to The Texas Tribune, 18 out of the 19 candidates backed by the group lost their races.

Political strategists have attributed this poor showing to the group’s uncompromising approach. Luke Macias, a longtime consultant to Dunn-and-Wilks-backed campaigns, has refused to work with candidates who support exceptions for abortion bans. (Macias did not respond to a request for comment.) “My job is to communicate a candidate’s beliefs to a broader audience,” a consultant who worked with Macias on an Empower Texans-funded campaign told me. “His job is to find people who believe exactly what they believe and try to get them elected. From a financial perspective, Luke is the worst possible investment you can make, because he doesn’t seem to make decisions based on the facts, polls or strength of the opposition, but that right there tells you something about the strength of Tim Dunn’s ideology: Loyalty and fidelity are more important to him than short-term outcomes like winning.”

Dunn and Wilks, however, are focused on the long term. Gerrymandering has meant that most Republicans in Texas only fear for their seat if they’re challenged in a primary election — the Texas equivalent of term limits, Dunn has said. The tactical brilliance of Empower Texans has been to transform the political climate of Austin into a perpetual primary season. A dark money subsidiary, Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, warns legislators about how upcoming votes will affect their conservative rankings on its index, while a separate media arm, Texas Scorecard, publishes editorials, podcasts and documentaries to hound incumbents it disapproves of out of office. “The irony is that most of the incumbents they attack agree with them on 95% of the issues,” Jon Taylor, a political scientist at the University of Texas at San Antonio, said of Dunn and Wilks. “I’m not sure how to explain the purity test they demand, except that it comes down to wanting people they can completely control.”

Some donors might hesitate to back a losing candidate, but Dunn and Wilks’ PACs often resurrect their challengers as though they are fighters in an arcade game. “They find candidates with an exceptionally high pain tolerance,” said a Texas House staff member who has worked for an incumbent opposed by Empower Texans. “They might not beat you on the first go, but they slowly chip away at your support and keep you under a microscope by hammering you with the same guy 52 weeks a year.” Shelley Luther, a beautician who was jailed for refusing to close her hair salon in Dallas during the pandemic, won the primary for a House seat this March after two failed campaigns supported by Dunn and Wilks. For Bryan Slaton, a former youth pastor and Empower Texans-backed candidate, the third time was the charm, though he was later unanimously expelled from the House after an internal investigation found that he got a 19-year-old aide drunk and had sex with her.

The political muscle of Christian nationalism is driving a growing share of attacks on Republicans across the country. Since 2010, a historically high number of Republicans have been defeated by primary challengers in the most evangelical House districts, according to an analysis posted on Substack by Michael Podhorzer, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. The former Texas Gov. Rick Perry recently expressed his concerns about the internecine warfare consuming the state party. “If we continue down this path pointing our guns inside the tent,” he told The Texas Tribune earlier this year, “that is the definition of suicide.”

David Pepper, the author of “Laboratories of Autocracy: A Wake-Up Call From Behind the Lines” and the former chair of the Ohio Democratic Party, calls this trend the Texas Lesson. “It’s a tragic case study in how statehouses have flipped from serving the public interest to serving the far-right interests of private donors,” he told me. “These billionaires have been relentless and systematic about punishing moderates — ” Pepper paused and corrected himself. “Actually, I wouldn’t even call these lawmakers ‘moderate.’ These are simply officials who maybe, on one occasion, will stand up for the best interest of their district.”

Rogers (Jake Dockins, special to ProPublica)

Not long after he arrived in Austin at the start of his first term, Glenn Rogers began to sort his colleagues into categories. There was a close-knit contingent of unabashed loyalists, who took most of their money from Empower Texans and its spinoffs. There were legislators who may or may not have taken some money from Dunn and Wilks, but who followed most of their agenda out of fear of facing a primary challenger. And there were representatives who reliably voted for the interests of their district, though this last category, Rogers conceded, was “largely aspirational.” When Dunn and Wilks win, they win, Rogers told me, “and when they lose, they still win, because the people left in office are afraid to disagree with them. You can’t be in politics long without being influenced by them in one way or another.”

That influence, Rogers soon realized, extended well beyond the House. In the 2022 gubernatorial primary, Dunn and Wilks backed Don Huffines, a real estate investor and former state senator who ran to the right of Abbott, through a new PAC they dubbed Defend Texas Liberty. Huffines called for sending troops to the border, abolishing property taxes and passing a school voucher program. Abbott handily won the primary, but he also started to sound a lot more like Huffines, particularly when it came to private school vouchers.

Abbott’s newfound ardor for vouchers was striking. He asked faith leaders to “go to the pulpit” for the measure and called four special sessions of the Legislature in an attempt to rally the House into passing it. That vouchers undermine church-state separation while also draining resources from public schools has made them appealing to both free-market fundamentalists and far-right Christians. Yet vouchers are unpopular in rural districts across Texas, where Friday night football games are sacrosanct and private schools are scarce. When Abbott failed to corral the votes he needed, he began to vigorously campaign against the holdouts, including Rogers.

“How did someone who pitched himself as a governor committed to public education end up leading the charge to destroy public schools?” asks James Talarico, a Democratic member of the House and a former public school teacher. “Follow the money.” Abbott’s motivations have remained a subject of speculation in Austin, but Talarico suggested that the governor started to push for vouchers in earnest because he was shut out by Dunn and Wilks. Last December, Abbott intensified his push after receiving $6 million from Jeff Yass, a pro-voucher billionaire in Pennsylvania, to spend in this year’s primaries.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott after an event that promoted a statewide school voucher program (Jordan Vonderhaar/The Texas Tribune)

In an opinion essay in the Midland Reporter-Telegram, Dunn wrote that he is “basically uninvolved” with the voucher movement, but candidates he and Wilks backed have repeatedly testified in support of vouchers; Texans for Fiscal Responsibility has given high marks to those who support the measure; and the Texas Public Policy Foundation, where Dunn has long served on the board, joined Abbott on a tour of private Christian schools across the state.

As the voucher fight escalated, the House decided to bring impeachment charges against Attorney General Paxton, claiming, among other charges, that he had abused public trust and committed bribery. Paxton, one of the biggest recipients of Dunn and Wilks largess, had refused to defend the Texas Ethics Commission against lawsuits filed by Empower Texans in an effort to strip the campaign-finance watchdog agency of its powers. The Dunn-Wilks political machine seemed to view the impeachment as an existential threat. In May 2023, Jonathan Stickland, a political adviser to Dunn and Wilks and the president of their new PAC, Defend Texas Liberty, wrote on X that a vote to impeach Paxton was “a decision to have a primary.” In June, Defend Texas Liberty paid for a billboard in Rogers’ district attacking him for joining “61 Democrats to impeach Ken Paxton,” without mentioning that in doing so Rogers had also joined the majority of Republicans.

One of the billboards paid for by Defend Texas Liberty PAC (Tony Pilkington/Breckenridge Texan)

That same month, Defend Texas Liberty contributed $3 million to Dan Patrick, the lieutenant governor and a former conservative talk show host, shortly before he was set to preside over the impeachment trial in the Senate. (Patrick did not respond to a request for comment, but he has denied that the donation influenced his impartiality at the trial, during which Paxton was acquitted on all 16 articles.) Texas Monthly calculated that the well-timed gift from Defend Texas Liberty was 30 times more than what the group gave Patrick when he ran for reelection in 2022. Hours after the donation was made public in a campaign-finance report, Stickland, the political adviser, wrote on X: “This is just the beginning, wait till you see the next report. We will never stop. Ever.”

He spoke too soon. Last October, The Texas Tribune reported that Stickland met for hours with Nick Fuentes, one of the country’s most prominent white supremacists, at an office park near Fort Worth owned by Wilks Development, the family’s real estate company. A Holocaust denier and antisemite, Fuentes has popularized the idea of an imminent “white genocide,” a fear that has been used as a justification by several mass shooters, including the one who killed 23 people at a Walmart in El Paso in 2019. (Defend Texas Liberty replaced Stickland and released a terse statement opposing Fuentes’ “incendiary views.” Stickland did not respond to requests for comment.)

After the Tribune’s reporting prompted a rare bipartisan outcry, Dunn and Wilks phased out Defend Texas Liberty and poured $6.8 million into a new vehicle, Texans United for a Conservative Majority. The rebranded PAC has not been shy about communicating its vision. Its new logo replaces the Goddess of Liberty statue that crowns the top of Austin’s Capitol building with a cross.

“We have a three-party system in Texas, and they all loathe each other,” Vinny Minchillo, a Republican-aligned consultant in Plano, said. “You have the Democrats, the more traditional moderate Republicans and the official state GOP, a dysfunctional organization which has been pretty much completely overtaken by the Dunn and Wilks side of things.” Once ridiculed as unserious fanatics by the conservative establishment, Dunn and Wilks are now its kingmakers.

Nowhere was this more evident than at the Texas Republican Convention in San Antonio in May. In the exhibit hall, there was plenty of generic Republican fare — gold-standard absolutists, Patriot Mobile vendors, merch stores hawking sweatshirts printed with “Jesus was accused of Insurrection too” — but many booths were linked to the Dunn-Wilks universe. Wilks Development co-sponsored the weekend, and the Dunn family hosted a “grassroots” breakfast, closed to the press. A WallBuilders booth was selling “The American Story,” a two-volume revisionist history that Barton co-wrote with his son. State Sen. Angela Paxton, the attorney general’s wife, spoke on a panel dedicated to “Upholding Our Judeo Christian Heritage & Values.”

On a prominent stage erected by Texas Scorecard, lawmakers talked up the Contract With Texas, an open letter that began to circulate in the weeks before the convention. It asked for “all GOP legislative priorities” to receive a floor vote before any Democratic bill and for the removal of all Democratic committee chairs. No one knew for sure who was behind the letter, which would significantly curb the influence of a party that holds 42% of seats in the House, but at least 21 of its 23 signatories had taken money from Wilks and Dunn’s entities.

One morning, I ran into Mark McCaig, the publisher of The Texas Voice, a conservative political blog, in the main lobby, where children wearing bright yellow sandwich boards printed with the phrase “Abolish Abortion” had been serving as an unofficial welcome party. McCaig has a close-cropped beard and a wonkish demeanor. The previous day, the general counsel of the Texas Republican Party posted a photo of McCaig chatting with a Texas Tribune journalist on Facebook; her caption denounced McCaig as a “plague” and the Tribune journalist as a “pagan reporter.”

McCaig told me he didn’t mind “committing the sacrilege” of talking to other reporters, though he confessed that he often had trouble articulating Dunn and Wilks’ goals when asked. “They say they want to make things even more conservative,” he observed, “but I don’t know what else is left to accomplish socially.” Buoyed by the MAGA wave, the Legislature has passed bills — permitless-carry laws, abortion bans, LGBTQ+ restrictions, border militarization — that would have seemed far-fetched just a few years earlier. “A lot of pro-life leaders in the state don’t want to give women the death penalty,” McCaig continued. “You start to wonder what their true agenda is, and I think it’s power.”

The most far-reaching of these efforts to consolidate power may be the Convention of States Project. A highly controversial effort, partly funded by Dunn, it represents one of the best hopes for Christian nationalists, among other interested parties, who want to transform the laws of the land in one fell swoop. “When we started the Convention of States — and I was there at the beginning — I knew we had to have a spiritual revival, a Great Awakening and a political restoration for our country to come back to its roots,” Dunn said at a 2019 summit for the group, where he spoke alongside Barton. “What I did not expect is that the Convention of States would be an organization that would trigger that Great Awakening.”

The Convention of States Project takes its cues from Article V of the Constitution, which proposes two paths for constitutional amendments. The familiar path — a two-thirds vote in each chamber of Congress to be ratified by three-fourths of states — has been deployed successfully 27 times. The other path, which involves two-thirds of states passing resolutions to call for a constitutional convention, is rarely discussed and has never been used.

One afternoon in San Antonio, Mark Meckler, the president of the Convention of States and one of Dunn’s close friends, pitched a packed room of delegates on this second path. Wearing a blue trucker cap printed with a COS logo, he mocked the group’s critics, which included “every other baby-killing America-hating Marxist organization in the country” as well as the John Birch Society. “Thank God, those people were not at the Alamo,” Meckler said. “Because we wouldn’t remember the Alamo, because there would have been no Alamo, because all those people would have just run away.”

Meckler, who lives in a home that Dunn transferred to him near Austin, is a deft salesman. He said he regularly hears from people who find the prospect of a convention frightening. During his lecture, he sought to assuage those fears, casting the prospect of a constitutional convention as a humdrum exercise that would bore even its own attendees. “What’s going to happen at a convention?” Meckler asked, pausing for dramatic effect. “People are going to make suggestions.” Some of the delegates laughed. “Are you guys scared? I’ve never been to a meeting where I was afraid of people making suggestions.” Yet nothing in Article V limits the scope of the laws that might be changed.

“It’s a gamble, but if it pays off, it would be the biggest opportunity ever for billionaires to transform the government,” Montgomery, the researcher of the religious right, said. The Mercer family and Koch-funded groups have also backed the effort. The Convention of States says that 19 states have passed its resolutions. To win over the remaining 15, the group has started to back primary challengers to Republicans who oppose them in states across the country. During a 2018 appearance on Fox, Meckler admitted that critics of the movement were getting at “something truthful” when they complained that the convention was “intended to reverse 115 years of progressivism. And we say, ‘Yes, it is.’”

This spring, Rogers took me on a tour of his ranch, a 3,000-acre property that abuts the Brazos River. “Our forefathers intended for ranchers and farmers to be able to serve in the Capitol,” he told me as we cut through the tall grass.

Rogers insisted to me that he was better off working his land, because it allowed him to spend more time with his grandchildren. But as the afternoon turned to evening and he began to play the consolatory voicemail messages he had received from constituents and colleagues, it was evident the loss still rankled. “I’ve been coming up with a short list of people interested in running for office,” he said, “but I’ve yet to find anyone who’s willing to go through what I did without billionaire support.”

Dunn’s wealth is only growing. Last December, he signed an agreement to sell his oil company to Occidental Petroleum in a deal valued at $12.4 billion. Seventeen days later, he made the $5 million contribution to a Trump PAC. Brad Parscale, Trump’s 2016 digital campaign manager, recently bought a modern farm-style house around the corner from Dunn’s compound in Midland. Dunn has poured millions into a new effort led by Parscale to use AI to target voters.

Before I left, Rogers brought out a little-known book, first published in 1998, called “Confrontational Politics.” Its author, H.L. Richardson, was a Republican state senator in California who was known for ruthlessly campaigning against other Republicans in the 1970s and 1980s.

The text had been recommended to Rogers by someone who knew that Dunn encouraged his associates to study it, and the tactics deployed against Rogers appeared to be lifted directly from its pages. Richardson advised conservatives to cultivate single-issue groups, to “joyfully punish the adversaries” and to keep in mind a vital principle: The route to political domination starts at the local level. “Control the bottom,” he wrote, “and one day you control the top. One day the man you elected to city council becomes the state senator and then moves to Congress and talks to the president on your behalf. If you really become effective, one day the phone rings and you are asked to come to Washington to advise the president. Somebody is leveraging the president at this very moment. Why not you?”

Doris Burke contributed research.

by Ava Kofman

Heritage Foundation Staffers Flood Federal Agencies With Thousands of Information Requests

6 months ago

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Three investigators for the Heritage Foundation have deluged federal agencies with thousands of Freedom of Information Act requests over the past year, requesting a wide range of information on government employees, including communications that could be seen as a political liability by conservatives. Among the documents they’ve sought are lists of agency personnel and messages sent by individual government workers that mention, among other things, “climate equity,” “voting” or “SOGIE,” an acronym for sexual orientation, gender identity and expression.

The Heritage team filed these requests even as the think tank’s Project 2025 was promoting a controversial plan to remove job protections for tens of thousands of career civil servants so they could be identified and fired if Donald Trump wins the presidential election.

All three men who filed the requests — Mike Howell, Colin Aamot and Roman Jankowski — did so on behalf of the Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project, an arm of the conservative group that uses FOIA, lawsuits and undercover videos to investigate government activities. In recent months, the group has used information gleaned from the requests to call attention to efforts by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency to teach staff about gender diversity, which Fox News characterized as the “Biden administration’s ‘woke’ policies within the Department of Defense.” Heritage also used material gathered from a FOIA search to claim that a listening session the Justice Department held with voting rights activists constituted an attempt to “rig” the presidential election because no Republicans were present.

An analysis of more than 2,000 public-records requests submitted by Aamot, Howell and Jankowski to more than two dozen federal offices and agencies, including the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Trade Commission, shows an intense focus on hot-button phrases used by individual government workers.

Those 2,000 requests are just the tip of the iceberg, Howell told ProPublica in an interview. Howell, the executive director of the Oversight Project, estimated that his group had submitted more than 50,000 information requests over the past two years. He described the project as “the most prestigious international investigative operation in the world.”

Among 744 requests that Aamot, Jankowski and Howell submitted to the Department of the Interior over the past year are 161 that seek civil servants’ emails and texts as well as Slack and Microsoft Teams messages that contained terms including “climate change”; “DEI,” or diversity, equity and inclusion; and “GOTV,” an acronym for get out the vote. Many of these FOIAs request the messages of individual employees by name.

Trump has made clear his intentions to overhaul the Department of the Interior, which protects the nation’s natural resources, including hundreds of millions of acres of land. Under President Joe Biden, the department has made tackling climate change a priority.

Hundreds of the requests asked for government employees’ communications with civil rights and voting rights groups, including the ACLU; the Native American Rights Fund; Rock the Vote; and Fair Count, an organization founded by Democratic politician and voting rights advocate Stacey Abrams. Still other FOIAs sought communications that mention “Trump” and “Reduction in Force,” a term that refers to layoffs.

Several requests, including some sent to the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, focus on personnel. Some ask for “all employees who entered into a position at the agency as a Political Appointee since January 20, 2021,” the first day of the Biden administration. Others target career employees. Still other FOIAs seek agencies’ “hierarchy charts.”

“It does ring some alarm bells as to whether this is part of an effort to either intimidate government employees or, ultimately, to fire them and replace them with people who are going to be loyal to a leader that they may prefer,” Noah Bookbinder, president and CEO of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, said of the FOIAs.

Asked whether the project gathered the records to facilitate the firing of government workers, Howell said, “Our work is meant to just figure out who the decision-makers are.” He added that his group isn’t focused on simply identifying particular career employees. “It’s more about what the bureaucrats are doing, not who the bureaucrats are,” he said.

Howell said he was speaking on behalf of himself and the Oversight Project. Aamot requested questions in writing, but did not respond further. Jankowski did not reply to a request for comment.

Bookbinder also pointed out that inundating agencies with requests can interfere with the government’s ability to function. “It’s OK to make FOIA requests,” said Bookbinder, who acknowledged that CREW has also submitted its share of requests. “But if you purposely overwhelm the system, you can both cause slower response to FOIAs … and you can gum up other government functions.”

Indeed, a government worker who processes FOIAs for a federal agency told ProPublica that the volume of requests from Heritage interfered with their ability to do their job. “Sometimes they come in at a rate of one a second,” said the worker, who asked to remain anonymous because they were not authorized to speak to the press. The worker said they now spend a third of their work time processing requests from Heritage, including some that seek communications that mention the terms “Biden” and “mental” or “Alzheimer’s” or “dementia” or “defecate” or “poop.”

“They’re taking time away from FOIA requesters that have legitimate requests,” said the worker. “We have to search people’s accounts for poop. This isn’t a thing. I can’t imagine a real reporter putting in a request like that.”

Asked about the comment, Howell said: “I’m paying them, so they should do their damn job and turn over the documents. Their job is not to decide what they think is worth, you know, releasing or not.” He added that “we’re better journalists by any standard than The New York Times.”

Project 2025, which is led by Heritage, became politically toxic — with Trump disavowing the endeavor and Kamala Harris seeking to tie her opponent to the plan — in part for proposing to identify and fire as many as 50,000 career government employees who are deemed “nonperforming” by a future Trump administration. Trump attempted to do this at the end of his first term, issuing an executive order known as “Schedule F” that would have allowed his administration to reclassify thousands of civil servants, making them easier to fire and replace. Biden then repealed it.

Project 2025’s 887-page policy blueprint proposes that the next conservative president reissue that “Schedule F” executive order. That would mean a future Trump administration would have the ability to replace tens of thousands of career government employees with new staffers of their choosing.

To fill those vacancies, as ProPublica has reported, Project 2025 has also recruited, vetted and trained future government employees for a Republican administration. In one training video obtained by ProPublica, a former Trump White House official named Dan Huff says that future government staffers should prepare to enact drastic policy changes if they join the administration.

“If you’re not on board with helping implement a dramatic course correction because you’re afraid it’ll damage your future employment prospects, it’ll harm you socially — look, I get it,” Huff says. “That’s a real danger. It’s a real thing. But please: Do us all a favor and sit this one out.”

Howell, the head of the Oversight Project and one of the FOIA filers, is a featured speaker in one of Project 2025’s training videos, in which he and two other veteran government investigators discuss different forms of government oversight, such as FOIA requests, inspector general investigations and congressional probes. Another speaker in the video, Tom Jones of the American Accountability Foundation, offers advice to prospective government employees in a conservative administration about how to avoid having sensitive or embarrassing emails obtained under the FOIA law — the very strategy that the Oversight Project is now using with the Biden administration.

“If you need to resolve something, if you can do it, it’s probably better to walk down the hall, buttonhole a guy and say, ‘Hey, what are we going to do here?’ Talk through the decision,” Jones says.

“You’re probably better off,” Jones says, “going down to the canteen, getting a cup of coffee, talking it through and making the decision, as opposed to sending him an email and creating a thread that Accountable.US or one of those other groups is going to come back and seek.”

The records requests are far reaching, seeking “full calendar exports” for hundreds of government employees. One FOIA submitted by Aamot sought the complete browser history for Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, “whether exported from Chrome, Safari, Windows Explorer, Mozilla.” The most frequent of the three requesters, Aamot, whose online bio describes him as a former psychological operations planner with the Army’s Special Operations Command, submitted some FOIAs on behalf of the Heritage Foundation and others for the Daily Signal. The publication spun off from the Heritage Foundation in June, according to an announcement on the think tank’s website, but another page on the site still seeks donations for both the foundation and the Daily Signal.

ProPublica obtained the Department of Interior requests as well as tallies of FOIAs from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Health Resources and Services Administration through its own public records requests.

Several of the Heritage Foundation’s requests focus on gender, asking for materials federal agencies presented to employees or contractors “mentioning ‘DEI’, ‘Transgender’, ‘Equity’, or ‘Pronouns.’” Aamot sent similar requests to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Office of Management and Budget, Americorps and the Chemical Safety Board, among other agencies. Howell said he believes that the group has uncovered evidence that “unpopular and just frankly sexually creepy and sexually disordered ideas are now being translated into government jargon, speak, policies, procedures and guidance documents.”

Heritage’s FOIA blitz has even sought information about what government employees are saying about Heritage and its employees, including the three men filing the thousands of FOIAs. One request sent to the Interior Department asks for any documents to and from the agency’s chief FOIA officer that mention Heritage’s president, Kevin Roberts, as well as the names of Aamot, Howell and Jankowski.

Irena Hwang contributed data analysis. Kirsten Berg contributed research.

by Sharon Lerner and Andy Kroll

We Enlisted a Community to Help Us Report on One State’s Crumbling Schools. Here’s How You Can Do the Same.

6 months ago

This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network in partnership with the Idaho Statesman. Learn more about how to apply for upcoming opportunities.

When the Idaho Statesman and ProPublica teamed up to report on crumbling school buildings last year, we recognized that it would be a challenge to capture the attention of readers and officials.

Idaho residents already knew that their own school buildings were in bad shape and that state law made it hard for districts to raise the money to fix them. We were unsure whether additional reporting would change anything.

To have a chance at impact, we set out to do the most comprehensive possible version of the story to show that the problems were statewide. We needed to take readers into schools so they could see what was broken and the effect on students and staff in a way that wouldn’t be easy to ignore. And because we couldn’t visit every school ourselves, we needed to get people in every part of the state to help us document what was happening locally.

Through ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network, we spent about nine months reporting and heard from 106 of the state’s 115 superintendents and 233 students, parents, teachers and others.

While Idaho has one of the highest thresholds for school bonds to pass, we know school facilities funding is an issue across the country. Local journalists have already done important coverage of this issue and related equity concerns. We want to share our tips and the lessons we learned doing this work so you can scale up your efforts to reach many different kinds of stakeholders in your community.

If you would like to talk about adapting some of these strategies for your reporting, email us at asia.fields@propublica.org and bsavransky@idahostatesman.com.

Step 1 Determine the reporting gaps.

If you’re new to the beat or topic, you’ll first want to figure out exactly how school funding works in your state. Some questions you might ask include: What data and public records are out there? Can we get them? And what’s missing from what already exists?

When it comes to school maintenance, you can find information through the Education Writers Association, National Council on School Facilities and your state Department of Education, as well as by talking to your local school administrators. The Education Commission of the States has a 50-state breakdown of school construction funding in different states.

In Idaho, through a records request, reporter Becca Savransky was able to get the results of every school bond election for decades from the state Department of Education. But there was a lot she couldn’t get through official channels. There hadn’t been a statewide assessment of school facilities in nearly three decades.

Schools had received inspections, but they were mostly surface level and sparse in detail, primarily focused on clear worker safety issues rather than an exhaustive facilities review. For example, Becca visited a Boundary County school where she saw buckets taped to pipes to catch leaks and heard that the maintenance director had to blow snow off the roof to prevent it from collapsing again. In comparison, the inspection report’s only reference to the roof was linking to a federal alert about preventing injury during snow removal. It also didn’t show the impact on students and staff.

The maintenance director at Valley View Elementary School in Bonners Ferry, Idaho, spends hours after snowstorms blowing snow off the roof to prevent a collapse. (Sarah A. Miller, Idaho Statesman)

The state said it would cost thousands of dollars to find and release the inspections for every school in the state, anyway, and a separate state agency denied Becca’s request for school safety reports because they could reveal security vulnerabilities.

As you figure out what’s missing from the official record, that will help you focus your large crowdsourcing efforts to help target those gaps.

Step 2 Who has the information you need? Take their temperature.

Once you’ve identified a gap, it’s time to think about who has information that can fill it. The key for a successful crowdsourcing project is finding people who care about the topic and are willing to talk. Make a list of possible stakeholders and start thinking about the concerns and opportunities that might come up as you talk with each group.

For the Idaho project, we talked with a variety of sources early on, listening for:

  • Buy-in. Becca had already spoken with a number of superintendents who told her this issue needed more attention. Other sources said this was an important issue and that they were eager to share their experiences.
  • Clear examples. Sources were able to provide concrete examples of problems with their school buildings. Superintendents also had information about budgets and costs and were willing to give us access to schools. Students and teachers were able to explain how these issues got in the way of learning.
  • Potential barriers. We asked what might prevent someone from participating in our reporting. While we heard a variety of concerns, the good news was that our sources felt we could address them — and they were willing to help us spread the word.

Step 3 Come up with a reporting plan.

The next step is to figure out the specific materials to seek and questions to ask. We asked ourselves: If we had this information, what might we be able to say in the story? What would make it stronger? Who was best situated to give us what we were seeking? And if we received a ton of responses, how could we keep them organized and incorporate as many as possible into a story?

In Idaho, we decided we needed three things: a way to show how prevalent school disrepair was across districts; visual evidence; and material that would clearly illustrate how school conditions were affecting students, parents and staff.

We planned how we’d approach different stakeholders and tracked our outreach and what came from it. (We used Airtable, but you can use a spreadsheet or another system that works for you.)

Superintendents

We decided to create a survey to send public school district superintendents, with the goal of hearing from as close to all 115 of them as possible. We knew getting busy superintendents to respond might be hard, so we did some testing before reaching out to the whole group. We asked four superintendents in a diverse range of districts to provide feedback on the survey. We asked whether anything was missing, what might keep someone from filling it out and about the best ways to share it.

Reporters Asia Fields and Becca Savranksy speak with Jan Bayer, the Boundary County School District superintendent, over Zoom. Bayer was one of four superintendents we asked for feedback on our survey before sending it out to the larger group. (Asia Fields/ProPublica)

We were able to get all but nine to respond by having a group of superintendents share the survey and by doing multiple rounds of reminder calls and emails. We found it effective to share the percentage of their peers we had heard from.

Principals, teachers and other school staff

In order to reach school staff and students, both newsrooms published a callout asking people to tell us about their schools. We set up calls with groups such as the state teacher’s association to introduce our project and ask for their help to spread the word through emails, social media posts, flyers or any methods they thought might work.

We reached out to teachers when we thought the issue might be front of mind, such as when there was a heat wave, as many schools don’t have air conditioning.

We also reached out to online groups, asking moderators or administrators if we could join and post or if they would be willing to post for us.

Students

To reach students, we found that posting on Instagram and TikTok alone didn’t work. A recent graduate suggested we reach out directly to students, and we had the most success by visiting students at schools. (Read more about that below.)

Parents, community members and facilities experts

To reach others with knowledge about school buildings, we identified social media groups from those focused on a region in Idaho to those specifically for parents. We made sure to connect with groups for parents whose children had disabilities, as we knew school accessibility was a concern.

Some recommendations for reaching out over social media:

  • Use a professional account (especially on Instagram) that identifies you as a journalist and shows examples of your past work.
  • If you’re creating a new account, ask your audience team to give you a follow from the newsroom account to help establish your credibility.
  • Make your requests clear and concise. Do you want them to fill out a callout, help you spread the word or something else?

We also reached out to associations for engineers and architects in the state.

Highlights From This Series Previous Arrow Right Next Arrow Right April 13, 2023

We documented how restrictive policies in Idaho made it difficult for school districts to raise funds for construction and repairs, leaving students to learn in freezing classrooms and overcrowded schools.

Sept. 6, 2023

We showed how a state fund to fix unsafe schools had gone largely unused. One district had received only a fraction of what it needed after six bond elections in seven years failed.

Dec. 14, 2023

We revealed how prominent lawmakers were discussing a proposal to make it easier for school districts to repair and replace their aging buildings by lowering the required threshold for bond votes to pass.

Dec. 15, 2023

Hundreds of students, parents, educators and others — including 91% of the state’s superintendents — told us what it’s like to have schools with flooded classrooms, leaky ceilings, failing plumbing and discolored drinking water.

Jan. 8, 2024

In his State of the State address, Gov. Brad Little called for $2 billion in state funding to help schools repair or replace their buildings, declaring it “priority No. 1.”

March 21, 2024

The Legislature approved $1.5 billion in new funding and redirected an additional $500 million, which the governor said was the largest investment in school facilities in state history.

April 9, 2024

We reported on how the Idaho Freedom Foundation used a state election law to make it harder for school districts to pass bonds and levies to fix their buildings.

May 21, 2024

For the first time in two decades, voters in the Salmon School District in remote Central Idaho approved a bond to build a new school.

Step 4 Look at what’s missing and adjust as you go.

Once you’ve heard from many people, it can be helpful to take a step back and evaluate what you’re getting against your initial goals. What are you missing? Who haven’t you heard from? You can and should adjust as you get more feedback.

Sometimes, you may even find that what you’ve heard from the community significantly shifts the focus of your story or your understanding of a problem. That’s a success!

When we noticed we weren’t getting many photos and videos, we emphasized it in our callout and outreach. When we heard from some teachers who said their schools were in good condition, we updated the callout to clarify that we were interested in hearing about that, too. We also heard some criticism in response to our posts on social media. We responded directly to those posts to clarify our process and invite further feedback.

Step 5 On-the-ground reporting.

Some of our best reporting happened when we went to where our sources were — in schools.

If you have limited ability to travel, you’ll want to choose your destinations carefully to help you fill gaps and capture geographic diversity. We focused on rural districts we hadn’t heard from and those where it seemed there were extreme facilities issues. We picked routes that allowed us to visit multiple schools. We visited 39 in total.

Some superintendents were eager to help us meet groups of students. Others were more wary but let us meet with a few students they selected. (You can read more about the activities we did with students in our methodology post.)

We also brought a camera that produces instant prints because we wanted to make sure we left the school visits with evidence of the problems in hand. With teacher permission, students photographed the issues they saw in their schools. We found that the photos were sometimes hard to make out. We would recommend making sure the students use flash and also having them use their cellphones to take photos, as long as teachers and administrators are OK with it. Just be sure the students share the photos with you before you leave.

Idaho Statesman and ProPublica reporters brought a camera that makes instant prints to school visits so students could show the problems in their schools. Students documented a deteriorating locker at Kamiah High School, leaky ceilings at Moscow High School and bathroom drains bulging up from the floor at Canyon Springs High School, among numerous other problems. (Courtesy of Kamiah, Moscow and Canyon Springs students) Step 6 Keep sources updated.

Be sure to report back to your sources! You might not be able to use everything they shared, but hopefully the relationships you build will help fuel other stories going forward. When the governor called for making school maintenance “priority No. 1,” we reached out to sources for their response to what the Legislature was considering.

It’s an example of the way ProPublica’s engagement team thinks about how reporting and source relationships can build off each other.

ProPublica’s engagement reporting team created this diagram to show that community-fueled journalism doesn’t stop after one story. Staying in touch can lead to great tips and more meaningful impact.

If you try any of these engagement approaches in your reporting or have questions, we’d love to hear from you. You can reach us at asia.fields@propublica.org and bsavransky@idahostatesman.com.

ProPublica plans to partner with newsrooms in every state in the next five years through its Local Reporting Network. If you have an accountability project you’d like to partner on, you can learn more about the program and sign up for office hours to discuss your idea with an editor.

Peter DiCampo contributed reporting.

by Asia Fields, ProPublica, with Becca Savransky, Idaho Statesman

EPA Says It Plans to Withdraw Approval for Chevron’s Plastic-Based Fuels That Are Likely to Cause Cancer

6 months ago

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is planning to withdraw and reconsider its approval for Chevron to produce 18 plastic-based fuels, including some that an internal agency assessment found are highly likely to cause cancer.

In a recent court filing, the federal agency said it “has substantial concerns” that the approval order “may have been made in error.” The EPA gave a Chevron refinery in Mississippi the green light to make the chemicals in 2022 under a “climate-friendly” initiative intended to boost alternatives to petroleum, as ProPublica and The Guardian reported last year.

An investigation by ProPublica and The Guardian revealed that the EPA had calculated that one of the chemicals intended to serve as jet fuel was expected to cause cancer in 1 in 4 people exposed over their lifetime.

The risk from another of the plastic-based chemicals, an additive to marine fuel, was more than 1 million times higher than the agency usually considers acceptable — so high that everyone exposed continually over a lifetime would be expected to develop cancer, according to a document obtained through a public records request. The EPA had failed to note the sky-high cancer risk from the marine fuel additive in the agency’s document approving the chemical’s production. When ProPublica asked why, the EPA said it had “inadvertently” omitted it.

Although the law requires the agency to address unreasonable risks to health if it identifies them, the EPA’s approval document, known as a consent order, did not include instructions on how the company should mitigate the cancer risks or multiple other health threats posed by the chemicals other than requiring workers to wear gloves.

After ProPublica and The Guardian reported on Chevron’s plan to make the chemicals out of discarded plastic, a community group near the refinery in Pascagoula, Mississippi, sued the EPA in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The group, Cherokee Concerned Citizens, asked the court to invalidate the agency’s approval of the chemicals.

Over several months when ProPublica and The Guardian were asking questions about the plastic-based chemicals, the EPA defended its decision to permit Chevron to make them. But in the motion filed on Sept. 20, the agency said it would reconsider its previous position. In a declaration attached to the motion, Shari Barash, director of the EPA’s New Chemicals Division, explained the decision as based on “potential infirmities with the order.”

Barash also wrote that the agency had used conservative methods when assessing the chemicals that resulted in an overestimate of the risk they pose. The EPA’s motion said the agency wants to reconsider its decision and “give further consideration to the limitations” of the risk assessment as well as the “alleged infirmities” identified by environmental groups.

Asked last week for an accurate estimate of the true risk posed by the chemicals, the EPA declined to respond, citing pending litigation. The EPA also did not respond when asked why it did not acknowledge that its approval may have been made in error during the months that ProPublica was asking about it.

Chevron, which has not begun making the chemicals, did not respond to a question about their potential health effects. The company emailed a statement saying that “Chevron understands EPA told the court that the agency had over-estimated the hazards under these permits.”

As ProPublica and The Guardian noted last year, making fuel from plastic is in some ways worse for the climate than simply creating it directly from coal, oil or gas. That’s because nearly all plastic is derived from fossil fuels, and additional fossil fuels are used to generate the heat that turns discarded plastic into fuels.

Katherine O’Brien, a senior attorney at Earthjustice who is representing Cherokee Concerned Citizens in its suit, said she was concerned that, after withdrawing its approval to produce the chemicals, the EPA might again grant permission to make them, which could leave her clients at risk.

“I would say it’s a victory with vigilance required,” O’Brien said of the EPA’s plan to withdraw its approval. “We are certainly keeping an eye out for a new decision that would reapprove any of these chemicals.”

by Sharon Lerner

Maylia and Jack: A Story of Teens and Fentanyl

6 months ago

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Maylia Sotelo arrived in a black Cadillac. It pulled down an alley by the Fox River, which cuts through the city of Green Bay, Wisconsin. On that Tuesday evening in November 2022, she stepped out of a rear door and into another car. Maylia was 15 years old and slight, with a soft, girlish face and large, upturned eyes. For $50, she sold a man five “blues,” round pills stamped with “M30” that passed for Percocet. Narcotics investigators from the Brown County Drug Task Force were listening over a wire and, within minutes, their informant turned over his buy. Like every fake Percocet the task force seized that year, the pills were actually fentanyl. The officers, though, decided to let Maylia leave.

Maylia was comfortable around the business of drugs. Her childhood home had been a hangout for users and dealers; hollowed-out pens littered the floors, and strange men let themselves in at all hours. She had grown up with three older sisters, who had all been kicked out or left because of their mother’s violence. It fell to Maylia to protect Maliasyn, two years younger, from their mom’s unpredictable delusions. She would lose herself in uppers and opioids, start yelling out of nowhere or cry uncontrollably. Sometimes, she locked the girls in the house for days.

Before Maylia sold blues, she sold weed. She had been smoking since fifth grade. The first time she tried weed, she found herself laughing at nothing. “Why would I sit here being sad and sober when I can be high and happy?” she thought. She hated staying home, so after class, she took Maliasyn to a trap house where teens smoked blunts on the first floor and adults met in the bedrooms upstairs. The guys there, a couple of years older, were dropping out of school to sell weed. When Maylia was 13, she started dealing, too, because everyone was doing it.

By the start of her sophomore year at West High School, blues had overtaken bud in popularity. Across the city, boys blared songs about popping percs (“Yeah, just popped a 30, yeah, a 30 / It could change your life or it could ruin it, that’s the dirty”), and blue circle emojis with an “M” dominated Snapchat and Facebook. Maylia didn’t use percs. Like everyone at West, she knew they were fake, but nobody talked about what that meant. Instead of the oxycodone in Percocet, the pills contained filler and fentanyl, an opioid 50 times stronger than heroin.

Two days after the drug task force confirmed that Maylia was selling fentanyl, she arranged through a friend to buy a bulk order of blues from a man she’d never met. The city was facing a dry spell, so instead of her typical hundred-pill order from her usual source, she asked the man for a thousand. When her friend delivered the percs, she poured them onto a tray in her lap and pushed each chalky pill with a key, counting them one by one. She texted her customers: “Back in motion.” The next day, she caught a ride to an apartment complex and sold a pill to a teenager named Jack McDonough.

Early the following week, Maylia told Maliasyn that she’d be home soon, put on her “Sesame Street” slides and settled into the passenger seat of a friend’s Audi Q5. He drove her to Culver’s for a strawberry milkshake and then to Taco Bell for a sale. When they parked, lights flashed in the rearview mirror. Drug task force agents in unmarked cars rushed in and Maylia was handcuffed. “I don’t think you can do that,” she said quietly, as an officer went to pat her down. “I’m a minor.”

Agents took Maylia to a juvenile detention center in Fond du Lac, an hour south of Green Bay, and booked her on drug charges. Since she had no criminal history, the prosecutor and a county caseworker began negotiating with Maylia’s attorney. They presented a consent decree, the juvenile justice equivalent of a deferred prosecution agreement, which proposed that Maylia could be released to her father, whom she barely knew, placed on an ankle monitor, and required to satisfy certain conditions, like attending therapy or substance abuse counseling. If Maylia complied for six months, her charges could be dropped. After Christmas, while her dad was preparing his home, the county moved her into the less restrictive setting of shelter care, a coed house for kids.

In early January, a month after the arrest, a police officer arrived looking for Maylia. She was in the shower, getting ready for a hearing where she expected to be let out. Instead of taking her to court, the officer drove her to jail. There, he told her that she was under arrest for first-degree reckless homicide. Jack McDonough had died of an overdose.

Maylia would be the first juvenile in Wisconsin charged with homicide for providing the fentanyl that led to a death. In a country flooded with the drug, at a time when teens were dying from opioids at record rates, far outpacing plans to help them, she would be treated as an adult by a justice system that has no clear guidelines for how to handle the kids who are selling.

Jack McDonough first tried blues a year earlier, at the age of 17. With his girlfriend, he learned to crush the pill on a swatch of tinfoil, run a lighter underneath it and inhale the smoke through a straw. Calm blanketed them, muting their anxiety. Sometimes, it triggered a surge of confidence, a feeling that anything was doable. More often, it let them drift into nothingness, a fuzzy space between wakefulness and sleep. “We thought we were doing Percocets,” his girlfriend told me. “I didn’t even really know what a perc was.” At first, they smoked the pills a few times each week, sitting in Jack’s car between classes at Southwest High. Within a couple months, they needed one a day or they’d be sick — vomiting, legs shaking, unable to sleep. “I told Jack that I’m pretty sure it’s not even real percs, I’m pretty sure it’s fentanyl, and he was like, ‘What? No. I’m not doing fentanyl.’”

Until recently, opioids almost exclusively claimed the lives of adults. Since COVID-19 began, though, the rate of overdose deaths among teenagers has rocketed, more than doubling in three years. It’s not that more teens are using drugs, but that fentanyl has made the supply deadlier than ever. Many know or discover that the pills on the street are tainted but don’t want to stop — until they can’t. In a matter of weeks or a couple of months, they’ve become addicted. Today, over 300,000 kids under 18 are estimated to have an opioid-use disorder.

As fentanyl has rapidly entered the world of adolescents, the major institutions that touch teens’ lives have been unprepared to manage the fallout. Few doctors are offering the recommended medication, most schools are ill-equipped to help, and the justice system is treating children as criminals. Parents don’t know what to look for: the straws, the ash marks, the weight loss, the nausea of withdrawals. Teens are on their own. With nowhere to turn, each week, 22 high-school-aged kids — a classroom’s worth — are dying from overdose.

Jack’s parents had separated when he was an infant, and he’d grown up with his mom, Carrie, who owned a small house in De Pere, a suburb of Green Bay, and worked in sales at a truck maintenance supply company. He saw his father on weekends and holidays and in the summer. Carrie is warm and effusive, a self-labeled “helicopter parent,” with a deadpan sense of humor. Jack preferred body comedy, jump-scaring anyone he could. If he wanted to learn karate, Carrie booked him classes; if he wanted to swim with friends, she drove them to the water park. Together, the two worked out, volunteered to walk rescue dogs, went shopping, talked through plays he could run on his basketball team. After Carrie remarried when Jack was 11, he continued to confide in her about his insecurities and offered updates on his various crushes.

By high school, Jack was a gangly 6 foot 3, and he preferred duck hunting to sitting in class. At Southwest, 4 miles from Maylia’s school, he kept falling behind. He had trouble believing in himself: He told his mom he thought he was too slow. She would stay up late helping him with homework or she’d do it for him when he gave up. With his friend Mason, he liked to break down old cars just to fix them back up. The two clicked “like Buzz and Woody,” Mason told me. They would wrestle in public, but “behind closed doors, he was like a teddy bear.”

Left photo: Jack and Carrie, when he was 13. Right photo: Jack celebrates Christmas in 2017. (Collage by Han Cao for ProPublica. Source images: Courtesy of Carrie Harrison.)

The winter he started smoking percs, Jack cut out most of his friends. In early 2022, he began buying from a young dealer who went by Speakers, and soon he was introduced to other teens who were selling. Within a couple months, he dropped 15 pounds. Carrie worried he was bulimic. She would press her ear against the bathroom door, listening for hints of purging. He’d always been sweet and respectful, but that semester, he started disobeying her, becoming hostile out of nowhere. On weekends, he racked up speeding tickets and broke curfew; Carrie and her husband, Ryan, clamped a wheel lock on his car. On weekdays, he retreated to his room after school and went to bed at sundown. Carrie had no idea, but he often video-chatted with his girlfriend so the two could smoke percs at the same time.

Carrie booked him a therapy appointment, but the first slot she could get was a few months out. She told his school counselor that she thought he was using drugs but says she was brushed off. Carrie couldn’t prove anything — the drug tests she randomly gave Jack kept coming back negative. Others, though, knew what was going on. A classmate texted saying that he had lost two friends and didn’t want to see Jack die, too. “1 perk can’t kill you lmao, you’d have to smoke like 10 perks to even think abt overdosing,” Jack replied. “It just gets you high, for like an hour.” Mason also worried, and he sometimes probed Jack, who swung from denial to regret. “He knew he was addicted,” Mason said. “He knew it was hurting the people around him. He also knew he couldn’t stop on his own.”

In April of 2022, Carrie got a call from Tracy Liska, a police officer assigned to Southwest. Jack had been caught going door to door, pretending to fundraise for St. John’s Homeless Shelter — a place Maylia’s mom sometimes stayed. Liska had heard rumors that kids at school were using fake Percocet, which she knew was probably fentanyl, but she couldn’t search them unless she had reason to believe they had pills on them. Jack was “attached at the hip” to his girlfriend, “so in love,” Liska told me, and kids said she was using. When Carrie arrived at her office, stammering that something wasn’t right with Jack, Liska told her that a classmate was calling him a “perkhead.” Back home, Carrie took Jack’s phone and started scrolling. She found streams of texts setting up deals to buy “erks” and photos and videos of Jack smoking them.

Carrie didn’t know that the gold-standard treatment for teens addicted to opioids is buprenorphine, a long-acting opioid that strips away withdrawal symptoms and cravings and protects against overdose. Each year, on average, only 372 kids between the ages of 12 and 17 are getting the drug, according to the best national data. Most pediatricians aren’t trained in addiction and don’t feel comfortable prescribing the medication, and many clinics are afraid of the liability that comes with treating minors. A recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that only 39 rehabs in the country offer buprenorphine to those under 18. Carrie called the most comprehensive national resource hotline in the country, run by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; it pointed her to Libertas, one of the only centers for adolescents in Green Bay. But when she reached Libertas, which doesn’t offer buprenorphine to kids, it had closed its inpatient program for teens.

After five days of calls to every rehab she could find, Carrie heard back from a residential facility in Minnesota, a Hazelden Betty Ford clinic. For the first time, it seemed like she’d found a solution. Before Jack left home, he wrote to his girlfriend’s mom to say that her daughter needed help. “We chose the wrong road to walk, and it is worse than I thought,” he texted. “I need you to make sure you keep her away from these kinds of drugs no matter what the case is. I can’t lose her to addiction, she is going to tell you that she hates you and tell you things to make you feel terrible about yourself and your job as a parent. But what I feel for her is real love and I wouldn’t be saying this if I didn’t care.” To his mom, he scribbled, “I’m trying to do better to be a better son. I hope you can forgive me for everything.”

Jack wrote his mom a note before he went to rehab. (Courtesy of Carrie Harrison)

The same spring that Jack entered rehab, Maylia was introduced to blues by her older sister Marianna. Since leaving home at the age of 13, Marianna had been bouncing between relatives and a boyfriend, between a local shelter and the back seat of a car. She’d sold weed to support herself, and then she’d leveled up to percs. She’d climbed so high that some considered her Green Bay’s biggest dealer.

Maylia was captivated by her sister — she was “self-made and self-paid.” Marianna could buy at $3 a pill and sell at $20. At 18, she owned a midnight blue Mercedes Benz and an apartment on Imperial Lane, the main stretch in one of the city’s poorest neighborhoods. She had decorated it with silver-studded couches and filled it with a collection of Nike sneakers and Louis Vuitton purses. With their mom caught up in her own addiction, Marianna took the girls in. Often, when she crisscrossed the city selling, Maylia sat shotgun, looking out for cops. She took photos of her sister, draped in long, neon-orange wigs, smirking next to 4-foot stacks of cash. Sometimes, they flashed fans of bills together.

In August of 2022, Marianna was arrested for dealing fentanyl and held in Brown County Jail. Maylia and Maliasyn went to stay with their grandmother, a manager at Family Dollar, who they said rarely stocked the kitchen. Soon, Maylia’s phone would not stop ringing. Marianna’s clients were asking if she had any idea where they could buy blues. “Money kept calling,” Maylia said. “It was calling me.”

Through Marianna’s contacts, Maylia bought a hundred pills for $500. She could double her money in a day. In the mornings before school, she tucked a handful of pills in her panties and another handful in her purse. Customers came to her. The 19-year-olds told the 18-year-olds, who told the 17-year-olds, and then the kids she had known as infants. Maylia was a good student with a quiet, observant demeanor. She didn’t like to sell on campus. Sometimes, classmates begged. The stink, like burnt popcorn, hung in the girls’ bathroom. Kids walked the hallways scratching their faces.

The only experience Maylia enjoyed more than smoking weed was surprising Maliasyn with a gift and seeing the look on her face. “Sometimes, I just wished that everything, everybody around us, would disappear, and it could just be me and my sister,” she said. Maylia hid packets of ramen and goldfish and hot Cheetos around their bedroom; she bought Maliasyn pink low-top Nike Dunks and brought home a PlayStation a customer had traded for blues. She promised she’d stop selling once she’d saved $3,000 for a car, which she couldn’t yet buy because she wasn’t old enough to drive. Maliaysn reminded her to be smooth and slow down. Instead, she kept going. “Her name was ringing in the streets,” a competing dealer told me. Maylia loved being one of the only girls in the game. For as long as she could remember, people had called her Princess. Now they called her Hollywood, for her big curly wigs, thick feline lashes and how little interest she showed in the kids at school.

Left photo: Maliaysn, left, and Maylia. Right photo: Marianna, left, and Maylia. (Collage by Han Cao for ProPublica. Source images: Courtesy of Maylia’s sisters.)

Maylia knew that people were overdosing, but she didn’t realize that a tiny amount of fentanyl could kill: 2 milligrams, which, if poured on a penny, would only cover Abraham Lincoln’s ear. On Dec. 1, 2022, just after the informant bought from Maylia, a customer told her that his girlfriend died from pills and he didn’t want to use anymore. Maylia sent her condolences, adding: “im glad you thinkin smarter.” Two days later, she saw Jack’s girlfriend’s Facebook story announcing that Jack had died. She’d hung out with his girlfriend once and messaged right away. “I’m so sorry for your loss mami keep your head up 💔,” she wrote. “Can I asked what happened?”

Jack had returned to Green Bay that fall. He’d spent 24 days at Hazelden, where he told staff that he didn’t have a problem. This wasn’t unusual. Jack’s counselor attributed his resistance to “significant shame and fear” and predicted that Jack would open up. He never did. The counselor noted in his file that Jack had a moderate Percocet disorder but made no mention of fentanyl. Nor did a doctor prescribe buprenorphine or explain the importance of the medication to Carrie. (Though Hazelden was given a medical release form, a spokesperson said it would not comment on Jack’s care for confidentiality reasons.)

In May, Jack was discharged to his dad, who had moved to Arizona. Carrie begged him to stay there and start over, but once Jack turned 18, he came back, moving in with his grandparents. Mason saw Jack once, in late November, and he could tell that he was still using. He told Jack he wouldn’t speak to him until he stopped.

On Dec. 2, Jack went to his girlfriend’s house and logged into her Facebook. He ordered a pill from Maylia. It was the first time he had bought from her. At 9 p.m., he took an Uber home, changed into his pajamas and kissed his grandmother goodnight. “Mmm you should smoke wimme mamita ❤️,” he texted his girlfriend hours later. The next morning, when his grandparents couldn’t open his bedroom door, they called the police. Officers found him sitting cross-legged in bed, unresponsive.

It wasn’t until Carrie arrived at her parents’ house that morning that she realized Jack was using fentanyl. She had always thought he was smoking real Percocet, which was terrifying enough. But as she tried to keep breathing, she noticed that the officers weren’t touching Jack’s belongings, as if any contact could kill. She had no idea that all the fake Percocet in town now contained fentanyl. Tracy Liska, the police officer at Southwest, hadn’t told her. (Liska says she must have mentioned fentanyl, though she didn’t note this in her reports.) The Drug Enforcement Administration was claiming that 60% of all fentanyl-laced pills it analyzed were potentially lethal, but the person on the federal government hotline hadn’t warned her, either. Hazelden hadn’t tested Jack’s urine for fentanyl or told Carrie that Percocet bought on the street was often contaminated with the drug. “You think you’ve talked to the police, doctors, teachers,” she said. “I didn’t fathom that it would be fentanyl.”

Aaron Hanson, the De Pere detective assigned to investigate Jack’s death, was the first person in a position of authority who seemed to care about Jack and want to do something for him. He checked in often, keeping Carrie apprised of what he was uncovering. After Jack’s autopsy confirmed that the cause of death was fentanyl intoxication, Hanson told her that the state would be pursuing a homicide charge. The term “homicide” didn’t seem to fit — she pictured a person shooting a gun or wielding a knife — but she was relieved to hear that a dealer would be taken off the streets. In early January of 2023, Hanson let her know that the seller was a 15-year-old girl. She would be charged as an adult. Carrie had imagined an older man with clout, maybe a warehouse full of drugs. “How could this happen? Any of it?” she wondered. She also thought, “Put her away.”

Over the past 15 years, as the number of opioid overdoses has risen sharply, leaders in law enforcement have promoted homicide charges as a key component of the nation’s response. The goal, they say, is to send a message that dealing drugs comes with great risk. Prosecutions have soared in the 30 states with the statutes on the books. Wisconsin is one of the most aggressive. Its counties filed nearly 400 cases between 2019 and 2023. The charges often attach to friends or relatives or partners who use with the person who overdosed rather than people who deal in any significant quantity. Even when the charges fall on habitual drug sellers, they rarely reach high-level operators. With each step up the distribution ladder, causation is tougher to prove, so the typical investigation ends with the person who delivered the drugs. These sellers, like Maylia, tend to have no control over whether the pills are cut with fentanyl or, if they are, whether it’s a fatal dose.

When the person who provides the drug is a teen and the charge is homicide, most states allow or require the accused to be treated as an adult. These laws are a legacy of the 1990s tough-on-crime era, when criminologists and politicians warned of “super-predators” and an imminent “bloodbath” from teen violence. The prediction never materialized, but almost every state passed laws that made it easier to transfer minors into the adult system. In at least 31 states, a child charged with certain serious crimes, like rape or homicide, must be tried in adult criminal court, according to recent research by Juvenile Law Center. Eight additional states allow prosecutors to choose whether to file in juvenile or criminal court. (In some, like Wisconsin, defendants can request to be tried in the juvenile system.) In 2019, the last year for which there is data, an estimated 53,000 juveniles were charged in adult criminal courts because judges, prosecutors or state law transferred them there.

Once the homicide charge was filed against Maylia, under the law, she morphed from dealer to killer, then from juvenile to adult. In Wisconsin, anyone older than 9 charged with homicide — whether it’s violent or drug-induced — is automatically sent to adult criminal court. When the officer picked up Maylia at shelter care with a warrant for her arrest, he drove her to Brown County Jail.

“This is big-boy jail,” Maylia thought as she walked into the booking room, where adults sat on benches. It’s where Marianna was. Brown County Jail had no designated area for girls, so Maylia was led down a dark hallway into an adult section, where men in orange jumpsuits were housed. There, she was held in a separate cell with another girl. Instead of the board game marathons, arts and crafts afternoons and school days she’d grown used to in juvenile detention, Maylia got a deck of cards, permission to walk laps, and an hour or two of classes.

In February of 2023, Trisha Fritz, the attorney assigned to Maylia by the public defenders’ office, asked the judge to move the homicide case to juvenile court. She knew chances were slim, but in criminal court, Maylia would be subject to the same sentencing guidelines as adults, which are focused on retribution and deterrence; she could face up to 40 years in prison. The goal of most juvenile courts, by contrast, is to balance public safety with rehabilitation and the best interests of the child. In a juvenile correctional facility, teens get clinical counseling, skills classes, education and, through their participation, the chance to earn their return to the community.

The juvenile system is notoriously erratic, but there’s little question that a judge there would take into account the circumstances of Maylia’s childhood and whether child protective services had intervened. Before Maylia turned 1, CPS documented that her mother overdosed on cocaine and Adderall with seven children in her home. When she was 5, a caller told the agency that Maylia’s mom was “high as a kite” and her boyfriend was violent. The next year, a mandated reporter alerted CPS that there was “absolutely no food in the home” and that the kids witnessed their mother using heroin. When she was 7, there was a substantiated finding that a man “opened his pants, pulled out his penis and masturbated” in front of one of Maylia’s sisters. That same year, a woman overdosed on crack in the house; a social worker wrote that Maylia’s mom “would not call rescue or the police because [she] did not want her children removed.” An elementary school employee reported that Maylia missed half the school year. After Maylia turned 8, CPS noted that her mom allegedly started hitting her.

When social workers came to the front door, Maylia’s mom ignored them. She told the girls to lay down and be quiet. When the agency called, she let the phone ring to voicemail. (Maylia’s mom could not be reached for comment.) During Maylia’s childhood, 20 referrals were made to CPS. The agency’s policy directed staff to note when they tried to make contact with a parent, but there was no requirement to do anything more. CPS could only identify a “maltreater” if staff interviewed that person or found other evidence, like a police report. Workers kept noting that Maylia’s mom had “referrals in all areas of child protection; sexual abuse to her children allegations, neglect, homelessness, drinking, drug history, relationship issues,” but she refused to meet with them. Going no further, staff closed case after case.

Top photo: Maylia’s mom holds her in the hospital with her three older sisters. Bottom photo: Maylia as a baby. (Collage by Han Cao for ProPublica. Source images: Courtesy of Mariah Zimmer.)

When Maylia was 14, child protection workers saw that her mother was hallucinating, revealing a “detachment from reality,” and they decided that the girls should no longer be under her care. The agency, though, offered no assistance with counseling or school. Maylia and Maliasyn began shuttling between the homes of their older sisters and their grandmother. Imani Hollie, a former Brown County public defender who represented Maylia when CPS finally got involved, told me that she’d seen the agency fail to protect kids in all sorts of extreme situations, but Maylia’s case stood out. Social workers had ignored her needs since she was an infant, and when the state did act, it sent her directly to criminal court. “Everyone,” Hollie said, “wanted to back away and treat her as an adult, rather than, ‘This is a child who is in the system, who has lived through horrendous allegations, and who went 14 years without any intervention.’”

As Fritz was preparing for a hearing on moving Maylia’s homicide case to juvenile court, she was struck by two pages in the narcotics investigation report. The Brown County Drug Task Force had learned that Maylia was selling fentanyl three days before she sold to Jack, but they didn’t arrest her. They could have requested a search warrant for her phone. They could have continued surveilling her or notified child protective services. They could have brought her in for dealing. Why, instead, did they let a minor continue handling a potentially lethal substance?

The drug task force, like most law enforcement agencies, has no internal guidelines governing interactions with suspects under the age of 18. In a series of cases referred to as the Miller trilogy, named after the 2012 Miller v. Alabama decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that children are different in the eyes of the law. Relying on brain science and psychological research, it found that children “have limited ‘control over their own environment’ and lack the ability to extricate themselves from horrific, crime-producing settings.” They are more impulsive, more easily pressured, less capable of assessing consequences and more capable of change than adults. These rulings have led the country through major reforms in the juvenile justice system, particularly when it comes to sentencing. But they have not led to much change in law enforcement.

Nicholas Ronsman, who was 27 and a first-year narcotics investigator on the drug task force, had no issue treating a 15-year-old as he would an adult. He learned about Maylia when he asked an informant for a list of dealers along with their prices for blues; whoever charged the least, he reasoned, had the largest supply. The informant knew the girl by her Facebook name, and she was offering the best prices. Ronsman passed her profile page to an intel analyst, who found that it belonged to Maylia. “At first I was like, ‘She’s 15, she can’t be that big of a player,’” Ronsman told me. “But then I look at her family, her sister Marianna.”

Ronsman had worked Marianna’s case. His team had confiscated $11,329 and about 8,400 fake Percocet pills at her grandmother’s place while Maylia and Maliasyn were there. (Soon after, they seized $27,200 more from another apartment.) The drug task force has a protocol to report to CPS whenever they encounter minors who are living in a house with narcotics, but the officers never did. (“We were not aware of any kids in the house,” Matthew Ronk, the director of the task force, told me. Probation agents found the drugs, so when they called for task force assistance, he said, his officers saw no need to do their own room-to-room search.) By the time Maylia’s name came to Ronsman, she was no longer just a child deserving of safety but a suspect. “We figured, ‘Hey, she probably learned from her sister, she’s got to learn from somewhere.’ So that was my mindset: She’s 15, but she’s got connections, she probably might be a legitimate, larger target.”

Once the informant completed the buy, Ronsman believed that if he arrested Maylia, a juvenile intake worker would likely release her and she’d go back to selling. “The goal of juvenile justice isn’t to put juveniles in prison, which it shouldn’t be. It’s obviously to get them help,” he told me. “So, from my experience with selling a controlled substance, they would have let her out.” As a narcotics investigator, he is a mandatory reporter, but he didn’t think connecting her with social workers was the answer, either. “If I called CPS and they go talk to her, and she says, ‘No, I’m not selling fentanyl, blah blah blah,’ would that do anything? Who knows? Also, it would have interfered with any investigation.”

In the summer of 2023, six months after Maylia’s arrest, she was shuttled from jail to Brown County Circuit Court for her transfer hearing. Carrie sat in the gallery with Ryan and her parents. Ronsman took the stand. He testified that in a shoebox in Maylia’s bedroom, his team had found 775 pills and $3,976. He said he had gone through Maylia’s text messages and found that the average age of the customers he could identify was 18. When Wendy Lemkuil, the prosecutor, asked if Maylia was the largest known fentanyl dealer in Brown County schools, he said that she was.

Fritz cross-examined him. Ronsman had documented two instances in which Maylia had sold at West High School. “Yeah,” he said. She wanted to know how he would explain his decision to do nothing when he first discovered that Maylia was selling.

“So, fentanyl is dangerous?” she asked Ronsman in court.

“Correct,” he said.

“And the drug task force had information that Ms. Sotelo sold five fentanyl pills to somebody Nov. 29 of 2022, correct?”

“That’s correct.”

“And did not arrest her?”

“That’s correct.”

“Why?”

“It’s our common policy and procedure in the Brown County Drug Task Force to build a case, to show that there is a habit of selling drugs and that they just didn’t sell drugs one time.”

At first, Carrie thought she must have misheard. She noticed her body shaking, and Ronsman’s low-pitched voice — “build a case” — repeated in her head. She couldn’t comprehend that the officers knew Maylia was selling fentanyl days before Jack died and did not arrest her. The police department had been the first institution that appeared to believe that Jack’s life mattered. Jack’s school counselor had dismissed Carrie’s concerns, the local clinics were no help, the staff at Hazelden hadn’t provided guidance. The police had made it seem like this investigation was for Jack. Now she realized that he didn’t mean anything to the officers: He wasn’t a person to them but a piece of evidence to be used against Maylia.

After each hearing, Maylia turned on the news and watched herself in handcuffs. The anchors parroted the prosecutor’s language, calling her “the largest dealer of fentanyl in Brown County schools.” She wasn’t the largest — she knew bigger — and she hated any insinuation that she was malicious or uncaring. Still, she started to grasp how she came across to others. Maylia had never paid attention to the news before, and now she kept seeing segments on fentanyl, hearing there was an epidemic. She had assumed that only a mixture of many drugs could kill, but kids were dying from a single fake Percocet. “Before, it was like, ‘I’m doing drugs, they’re doing drugs, everybody does drugs,’” she told me.

Often, Maylia spoke about herself as if she were split in two. There was a former Maylia, who was rash and inattentive, and a present Maylia, who had insight. The first Maylia, as she saw it, had been so self-deluded or naive that she let herself believe that she wasn’t causing harm: Her buyers would find percs even if she wasn’t the one selling. She started off thinking she was helping Maliasyn and was soon seduced by the money. “I thought for a long time that the way out of this labyrinth was to pretend that it did not exist, to build a small self-sufficient world in a back corner,” she wrote in her journal. That version of Maylia hadn’t even considered the consequences for Marianna. “I don’t know why it didn’t click for me that she’d just got indicted,” she told me.

When the former Maylia got to jail, she blamed everyone around her. Her mother, who left her to fend for herself. The customer who snitched. Even Jack, who came back to Green Bay and decided to use. She couldn’t understand why he kept smoking percs after he’d had the chance to get sober. Maylia couldn’t blame Marianna — they carried the same unspoken memories, like veterans from the same squad. Each day on her way to class, Maylia passed Marianna, who was waiting in her cell. Behind glass, she curled her fingers into a heart and mouthed, “I miss you.” Maylia marveled at how pretty she looked.

The other Maylia, the one in the present, blamed herself and felt disgusted. When the judge quickly rejected her request to move the homicide case to juvenile court, she accepted that she would be going to prison, but she no longer saw herself as a victim. After Marianna was sentenced to eight years in federal prison, Maylia wasn’t outraged, either. It was a long time, she thought, but it could have been worse. She rarely brought up the violence in her home, and when she talked about it at all, she downplayed it. Her mom didn’t “strangle” Marianna, she just “grabbed her by the neck.” Her sisters always said that their mother was an addict, and while she didn’t think that was wrong, she hated when they said it. “She was just — she didn’t know how to be a mother.” Maylia wrote in her journal that while her upbringing had affected her decision-making, she could determine her own future. “I contributed to creating my current experience,” she wrote. “I can now make conscious choices which will bring the changes I want!”

Part of this shift came from reading; for the first time in her life, she could count on three meals a day, which allowed her to relax. She was attending Bible study and devouring books — Joyce Meyer’s “Battlefield of the Mind,” Oprah Winfrey’s “What Happened to You?” At night, she took notes on trauma’s effects on the brain and how to break a “generational curse.”

It was the stories of fellow inmates that transformed her perspective on addiction. She had always tried to keep distance from her customers, but in jail, many were incarcerated with her. She watched one teenager beg her mother to allow her back into her home — the pitch of her voice rising, banging the phone around, yelling she’d stop using — and get nowhere. She’d hear adults say that the first thing they planned to do when they got out was get high. She had previously thought that using was a choice; now she understood that the opioids were in control. She watched a 17-year-old girl try to sleep through withdrawals, too weak to stand to shower, peeing herself. Another had been found facedown in a snowbank, near dead. Often, she thought about Jack and how she wished she could tell him what she’d seen and what she’d learned. She hated that she had fed her customers’ darkest impulses. Many had childhoods similar to hers: parents with addiction, abuse in the home, the shame of abandonment. “They just took a different way out.”

In the 15 years before Maylia’s case, only one juvenile in Wisconsin had been charged in criminal court with drug-induced homicide — in that instance, the drug was heroin. Once the district attorney in Brown County charged Maylia, though, prosecutors across the state began to do the same. In Fond du Lac, after an 18-year-old overdosed on fentanyl, the district attorney brought homicide charges against three boys under 18, all in the adult system. (Two pleaded no contest, and the third is trying to raise money for a lawyer to represent him at trial.) In Rock County, south of Madison, a 15-year-old was charged in criminal court. He admitted to a detective that he delivered two percs to a boy who later died from fentanyl intoxication. The detective showed up at his house after a school police officer noticed him crying. “It’s all my fucking — it’s all my fault,” he told the officer. “I wish I would have never done that.” He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 19 months in prison.

It’s impossible to know how many teens in the country are being charged with drug-induced homicide. There is no national database, many states do not aggregate cases, and when prosecutors file in juvenile court, the records are sealed. As a result, there’s been almost no scrutiny of how these laws are used against kids, said Katie McCreedy, a Northeastern University doctoral researcher who studies these charges. “How can young people in media stories be simultaneously assumed to know nothing about how deadly the drugs are and also held accountable for homicide?”

Both drug-induced homicide charges and transfer laws have been presented as tools to deter crime, but there’s no clear evidence that either work. In fact, many scholars argue that drug-induced homicide prosecutions may lead to more overdose deaths, as they can reduce the chances that a witness will call 911. Most criminologists agree that charging and sentencing juveniles as adults has not been shown to reduce recidivism. A series of large-scale studies found that minors prosecuted in criminal court are more likely to be rearrested than similar offenders in the juvenile system; also, Black kids are disproportionately charged in criminal court. As adolescents continue to sell fentanyl, police and prosecutors are faced with the choice of whether to consider minors as the Supreme Court has cast them — kids who can’t compute consequences the way adults can — or as killers, subject to adult sentences.

States and counties play a major role in this calculation. In recent years, as pharmaceutical money from opioid settlements has been distributed, they have been charged with investing in evidence-based solutions. According to public records, Wisconsin has earmarked only a tiny percentage of funding for treating minors. Brown County has funneled most of its spending to the sheriff’s office. In addition to paying for fentanyl test strips and Narcan, a nasal spray that delivers an overdose-reversal drug, the county decided to hire two “overdose investigators” for the drug task force. Their mandate is to pursue all fatal overdoses as homicides.

In May of 2024, Maylia pled no contest to first-degree reckless homicide. She was convinced she’d lose her appeal to send the case to the juvenile system, and she was ready to stop fighting. She was also impatient to get to a facility where she could spend time outside. It had been more than a year.

Two months later, Maylia was driven to the courtroom for sentencing. Carrie had been unable to sleep for days. Her best guess was that she was panicked that the case was ending. At least there was purpose in showing up to each hearing. It was a way of keeping Jack alive.

In court, Lemkuil, the prosecutor, kept returning to what Maylia ought to have known. “Maylia had a crystal ball of what could happen to her if she delivered drugs just like her sister did,” she said. She asked the judge for 10 years of initial confinement, followed by 10 years of extended supervision. Fritz referred to Miller v. Alabama. The judge, seemingly unaware of the case, asked her to repeat the name. She explained how the court’s language reminded her of Maylia, who had an underdeveloped sense of responsibility and received almost no parenting. Fritz asked the judge for extended probation or a maximum sentence of five years of confinement.

For the first time in the 19-month-long case, Maylia spoke in court. In jail, her friends had coached her to appear remorseful but not to cry, because no one likes self-pity. Within seconds, she couldn’t stop herself. Sitting with her hands shackled in her lap, she choked on her words. Fritz held Maylia’s written testimony close to her face so she could read. She wasn’t asking for sympathy, she said, “because I know I’m not the one who deserves it. I am speaking today to assure you that I will do everything and anything to change.” She added, “I understand the seriousness of what I have done, and I understand that there will be consequences for my actions, and I will accept those.”

At the start of the investigation, Carrie wanted retribution, and she thought she knew what justice meant. She wasn’t so sure anymore. When she addressed the court, she talked about Jack, how loyal and opinionated he was, how she had dedicated her life to him, and how that life was now meaningless, devoid of a future. She called out the drug task force for continuing to allow Maylia to deal when investigators knew she was selling fentanyl. Ronsman, who was watching from the gallery, raised his eyebrows. He understood the impulse to play Monday morning quarterback but, he thought, he wouldn’t have done anything differently given what he knew at the time. Carrie continued: “I do believe that you, Maylia, are responsible for Jack’s death.” At the front of the courtroom, she forced herself to look at Maylia. “However, I also believe that you are deserving of forgiveness. I do forgive you, Maylia.”

The judge said that considering how much Maylia was selling, she was bound to kill at some point. He was disturbed by the photos of money on her phone. “In one of them, it’s almost like someone is bathing in the cash,” he said. Yes, she was young, but he needed to keep in mind “the substantial negative impact of drug trafficking on the community.” Young users in particular, he added, “don’t really have any idea what they’re doing or what they’re getting into when they start using.” He sentenced Maylia to 10 years in prison and 10 years of extended supervision.

That evening, Carrie leaned into the corner of her living room couch next to Ryan, facing the door to Jack’s bedroom, which remained almost exactly as he had left it. She had been hoping for some epiphany, for a grand finale, but there was none. She was struck by Maylia’s voice — she sounded like a little kid, not like the girl in the flashy photos she’d posted on social media. During the hearing, Carrie had watched Maylia’s mom on the opposite side of the gallery. She kept tossing her headband in the air, spitting loudly into napkins and walking up and down the aisle in a blue suit, fur-lined snow boots and a hard hat on an 83-degree day.

“I’ve never seen anything like that before,” Carrie said to Ryan, holding her face in her hand.

“A homicide case?”

“Well, that, of course, but I’ve never been exposed to that, I guess, that lifestyle. A child who grew up in a drug-trafficking home.”

Ryan didn’t see a reason to wish for a shorter sentence. Maylia would just be released back into the same circumstances. “This is where the problem was in the first place,” he said.

“But it’s what she knows, you know?” Carrie replied. All kids want to come home. “Look at Jack.”

She could trace the progression of her grief through the hearings in the case. How the anger had overwhelmed her at first, how she’d blamed herself for not doing more, how she had stopped wanting to live, how she had lost her trust in the police. Now she noticed a new sensation. She felt strangely protective of Maylia, and she couldn’t quite figure out why. How could CPS ignore what was happening in that home? She kept picturing Maylia’s limp face in the brief moment when they had looked at each other during the hearing.

“Maybe this is part of it,” she said. “I lost my son, my only child. And here is Maylia, who didn’t have a mother. So, it’s like, I’m childless, she’s motherless, and we’re in this situation together, but against each other.”

Carrie a year and a half after Jack’s death (Photo by Akilah Townsend for ProPublica. Photo illustration by ProPublica and Han Cao.) How We Reported This Story

Lizzie Presser interviewed scores of pediatricians, addiction specialists, counselors, teachers, lawyers, law enforcement officers, parents of kids with addiction, and teenagers in recovery. She reported from Baltimore, Denver, Monterey, California, and Green Bay, Wisconsin. She spent a week shadowing health care providers and meeting their patients. To reconstruct Maylia Sotelo’s path into the criminal justice system, she drew from hundreds of pages of child protective services and police records, court transcripts and statements, Maylia’s text messages, journals and letters, and interviews with Maylia, her sisters, people she met in jail, and those who had seen conditions in her home. (Her grandmother did not provide a comment.) To reconstruct Jack McDonough’s life, Presser drew from extensive medical records, school reports and emails, text messages, and interviews with his mother, other relatives, friends and girlfriend. Through public records requests, Presser established the timeline of the investigation into Jack’s death and the scope of drug-induced homicide charges brought against teens in Wisconsin.

by Lizzie Presser

ExxonMobil Accused of “Deceptively” Promoting Chemical Recycling as a Solution for the Plastics Crisis

6 months ago

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

In a landmark lawsuit filed this week, the California attorney general accused ExxonMobil of “deceptively” promoting chemical recycling as a solution for the plastics crisis, citing ProPublica’s recent reporting and expanding on our findings.

In June, we examined the oil giant’s claim that it had transformed discarded plastic into new fruit cups through an “advanced” chemical recycling technology called pyrolysis. We broke down the math to show just how little recycled content winds up in products made this way and how companies inflate that percentage in their marketing.

The lawsuit cited the fruit cup example alongside the attorney general’s own discoveries, which reveal an even more extreme gap between what ExxonMobil advertises and how much recycled plastic its products actually contain.

ProPublica reported that plastic made via pyrolysis can’t contain more than 10% recycled content. Because the technology is shrouded in secrecy, we could not determine the specific amount in ExxonMobil’s products.

Citing internal company documents, the lawsuit said ExxonMobil’s process yields less than 0.1% recycled plastic content.

Yet it marketed the cups as containing “30% ISCC PLUS certified-circular content” — shorthand for 30% recycled — through a controversial accounting method called mass balance, which allows recyclers to pump up the advertised recycledness of one product by reducing the advertised recycledness of other, less lucrative products.

The lawsuit cited ProPublica’s reporting on the first federal action against mass balance, taken last month when the Environmental Protection Agency prohibited its use in a voluntary program for sustainable products. The California lawsuit said mass balance is “widely criticized, including by some members of the plastics industry, precisely because it is deceptive to the public.”

ExxonMobil has a “massive financial interest” in ensuring that mass balance methods are “accepted broadly and even enshrined in law,” the lawsuit stated. “Indeed, continuing the public deception is ExxonMobil’s business model.”

During a press conference on Monday, California Attorney General Rob Bonta blasted the oil giant for “falsely touting ‘advanced recycling’” as a solution to the plastic crisis, calling it ExxonMobil’s “biggest greenwashing campaign.”

In a statement, an ExxonMobil spokesperson insisted that advanced recycling works. “To date, we’ve processed more than 60 million pounds of plastic waste into usable raw materials, keeping it out of landfills.” California officials have known for decades that the state’s recycling system isn’t effective, the statement said. “Instead of suing us, they could have worked with us to fix the problem.”

The California lawsuit does not focus solely on chemical recycling. It accused ExxonMobil of misleading the public for decades about the sustainability of plastic, first by promoting traditional recycling despite knowing that plastic is functionally not recyclable, and more recently by marketing advanced recycling as a cure-all. Unlike traditional recycling, advanced recycling uses heat or chemicals to break plastic down to its molecular building blocks. But it’s done little to improve America’s 5% plastic recycling rate and can’t solve the environmental damage or health problems caused by microplastics and toxic chemicals.

Plastic recycling is “a farce, a lie, a deceit,” Bonta said during the press conference. “One thing ExxonMobil actually does is recycle its lies.”

Judith Enck, founder of the advocacy group Beyond Plastics, called California’s action “the most consequential lawsuit in the country” in terms of holding the plastics industry accountable and told ProPublica it reminded her of the tobacco lawsuits from the 1990s, which eventually led to billions of dollars in settlements for deceptive advertising on the risks of smoking.

The lawsuit seeks an abatement fund to mitigate the harm caused by the company’s actions. Bonta told reporters that the fund — which he hopes will be “to the tune of billions of dollars” — will pay for efforts such as educating the public about the truth of plastic recycling. Enck said she wants the money to expand the refill-and-reuse infrastructure in California. That could include installing dishwashing equipment in schools and hospitals to reduce single-use plastic, or adding water bottle refill stations, which appear in airports but are rare in other public spaces.

Bonta’s lawsuit was filed on the same day as a separate lawsuit from four environmental groups, including the Sierra Club. The suit similarly accuses ExxonMobil of misleading the public about the recyclability of plastic. Bonta and the groups’ leaders spoke at the same press conference.

Enck said ProPublica’s reporting and other news outlets “created breadcrumbs for litigators.” The California lawsuit comes two years after Bonta’s office sent subpoenas to ExxonMobil and industry trade groups to investigate their “historic and ongoing efforts to deceive the public.”

The lawsuit also cited the company’s collaboration with trade groups like the American Chemistry Council. From 2020-2023, for instance, the company gave the council $19.4 million for an ad campaign and national policy work on advanced recycling. One video, which got more than 8 million YouTube views, declared: “Imagine a future where plastic is not wasted but instead remade over and over into the things that keep our food fresher, our families safer and our planet cleaner.”

This ad campaign, “with ExxonMobil at the helm, deceptively seeks to convince consumers that recycling, especially ‘advanced recycling,’ will save the day in order to continue saturating the public and the planet with single-use plastic,” the lawsuit said.

“It is disappointing that legal action has diverted time and resources away from our industry’s efforts to scale up a circular economy for plastics,” the American Chemistry Council said in a statement. “Regardless, we remain steadfast in our mission to advocate for effective policy, collaborate with communities, and invest in new technologies that help to increase plastics recycling and recycled plastic use in products, contributing to a more sustainable future.”

ExxonMobil’s ads are misleading because the company knows its advanced recycling process is not economically viable and can only handle small amounts of consumer waste, the lawsuit noted. In fact, only about 8% of the waste plastic fed into its advanced recycling system becomes new plastic; the rest gets burned up as fuel or becomes other nonplastic products. Even if ExxonMobil operated a potential future project that’s more efficient, it would only be able to turn 13% of the waste plastic into new plastic.

“The truth is ExxonMobil’s ‘advanced recycling’ program is less like a recycling program,” the lawsuit said, “and more like a waste disposal or destruction program akin to the incineration solutions advocated by ExxonMobil in the past.”

by Lisa Song

At Indigenous Sacred Sites, Seeing Things I’m Not Supposed to See

6 months ago

This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network in partnership with High Country News. Sign up for Dispatches to get stories like this one as soon as they are published.

I’m standing at an Indigenous sacred site, looking at something I’m not supposed to see. Signs of ceremony are all around: little animal skulls, ribbons, a stump of freshly burnt sage stems in ashes, tied together with red yarn. It looks like a ceremony happened in the last week.

I’m here with a source who wants their story told — who wants to expose the harm that the public and private sectors are inflicting on tribal cultures in pursuit of renewable energy development. But the source also wants to protect these cultural sites from public exposure. So I don’t take any photos. I don’t record it in my notes. I walk away and do not publish what I see.

Another month, in another part of the Pacific Northwest, I’m at a tribal community event, not reporting, exactly, but relationship building — an important component of establishing trust in Indigenous journalism. I overhear an elder talking about a ceremonial rite of passage that takes place at a location where I have been reporting, a location sited for renewable energy development. The public isn’t supposed to know about this ceremony, which means I’m not supposed to know either. So I pretend I didn’t hear.

I’m engaged in a yearlong investigation, a partnership between two newsrooms, documenting how proposed developments are threatening sacred lands and Indigenous cultural resources. I usually write for an Indigenous editor, but none of my editors are Native right now on this story. I return to the virtual newsroom, and they’re eager to hear about what makes these sites sacred; we need to be able to communicate this to readers, they say, particularly when we dig into the legal and political mechanisms threatening the sites.

I want the public to understand the importance of these places, and part of me wants to tell my editors everything. But if I do, and the information escapes, it will be on me. I’m Native, too, and I have to handle this information responsibly, without selling out my kin. In the Native world, we tend to view each other — and all living things — as relatives. At the same time, my tribe is not from here, and I’m still learning about the cultures I’m reporting on. Language that would bring the location vibrantly to life is right there in my mind, but I don’t feel right about using it. The most I seem to be able to tell my editors — speaking accurately and honestly while respecting cultural concerns — is that tribal leaders won’t share that information with me.

I mention some rock features. My editors ask what the features are used for. A variety of purposes, I say, thinking carefully — hunting, storage, cooking. I’m leaving information out, but everything I say is true. Even mentioning the archaeological features could endanger them, putting them in the crosshairs of looters and vandals. Write one too-specific article, and tribal historic preservation officers might find themselves fighting off new age gatherings of non-Natives appropriating Indigenous worship. Or worse: Western scientists destroying ancestral remains for anthropological “research.”

During our discussion, my editors seem to believe that sharing as much information as possible is a public good. It’s a value assumption of investigative journalism — a very American value, and one I sometimes share. Transparency is what empowers the watchdog press. And of course we aren’t withholding information that’s critical to the investigation. But tribal cultures don’t necessarily put such a premium on transparency. In many Indigenous cultures, information is carefully guarded by storytellers, shared orally and only with select people or at certain times, if at all.

I sit down at my laptop to write, thinking again about words. How do I write about plants and sites and ceremonies I can’t write about?

During my reporting, a tribal government sends me, at my request, a set of guidelines about cultural information it doesn’t want published, like the names or pictures of the first foods that grow where I’m reporting. On the one hand, I don’t work for tribal governments, so I don’t have to do what they say. And I’ve worked with neighboring tribes who publicly identify some of the very same plants, which are threatened by renewable energy development. Yet I know I’d be responsible to the community if that information got out.

My own tribal citizenship impacts the reporting process, too. “Toastie, where are you from originally?” began a conversation I recently had with a Chickasaw legal expert. “You’re Choctaw. We're kind of cousins.” I’m still taken aback sometimes when I hear a question like this from another professional. Normally, I wouldn’t feel obligated to talk about my family history at work. But this part of our conversation is how we recognize each other and orient ourselves in relational space. My conduct as a reporter will reflect on my community. So we talk like Natives a bit before settling into our official roles.

I sit down at my laptop to write, thinking again about words. How do I write about plants and sites and ceremonies I can’t write about? And then one of my editors forwards me a note from another, paraphrasing a third editor: “Readers may say: They are only roots. How do we get them to think beyond that?”

I leave my desk, play some guitar, go for a walk, trying to shake off frustration. I know my editors are speaking for a readership we can’t assume is educated about Native issues like food sovereignty — the ability of a people to govern its own food sourcing. But I have to walk a narrow line between educating and oversharing. I find myself wishing everyone in America, myself included, had learned more about Native issues in school. Then we could avoid situations like this.

The problem haunts me over the dinner stove. “Root gathering,” a phrase I’ve heard Natives use, might be the simplest language to choose. But it sounds primitive, like something hunter-gatherers do; “civilized” people “harvest vegetables.” I pace around my apartment, searching for wording that might clarify what’s at stake. Indignation flashes through my mind as I reflect on how terms like “heirloom” are applied almost exclusively to European foods — Italian tomatoes, say, even though tomatoes were originally engineered by Indigenous scientists in South America.

I find myself wishing everyone in America, myself included, had learned more about Native issues in school. Then we could avoid situations like this.

What would these Indigenous roots be called if they were in rustic-looking display crates at Whole Foods? Finally, I think I’ve found a solution: I write “endemic, heirloom, organic root vegetable harvests.” True, it’s a word salad, but the plants themselves remain anonymous, and non-Native readers could better understand why they’re valuable.

I Slack the phrase to one of my editors. She laughs, understanding the jab at bourgeois vernacular. Few of those modifiers will make it past top edits; what remains in the final draft is simply a “root vegetable harvest.” Not as obvious, but at least we avoided “root gathering.”

It’s difficult to write for Natives and non-Natives at the same time. If a non-Native editor puts the term “first foods” in quotes, that could alienate Native readers. But a non-Native reader may never have encountered the term, and the quotes might help explain that it’s a common phrase.

It’s even more difficult when terms mean different things to different audiences, like the word “sacred.” Natives use it a lot, but I’ve seen it spark scorn in some non-Natives. (“Sacred land? It’s 2024!” reads a social media comment on one of our most recent stories.) Others seem to use it with a shallow understanding.

Handling information amid these tensions, created by different value systems, is the challenge and responsibility of a journalist. Of course, we can’t get into all this in the draft itself. So the challenge remains: How do you write about a sacred site without saying why it’s sacred, in a way that will help non-Natives care? There’s no clear dividing line between too much information and not enough. It’s the liminal space in which a lot of Indigenous affairs reporting takes place.

by B. “Toastie” Oaster, High Country News

Caught in Texas’ Medicaid and Food Stamp Application Backlog? Know Someone Who Is? Help Us Report.

6 months 1 week ago

Hundreds of thousands of Texas families have been waiting months for the state to process their Medicaid applications. The median processing time is 79 days despite a federal requirement to do so in 45 days. We’ve heard from families who say they could not access critical care during that time, such as not being able to afford to reset their child’s broken nose. Health care providers have reported patients struggling to get lifesaving heart surgeries.

The delays worsened after the federal government lifted pandemic-era protections last year. Our reporting shows that Texas rushed through the process, removing more than 900,000 children not because they were ineligible, but for procedural reasons like their families failing to fill out a form.

The backlog for food benefits is not much better. The state most recently reported having nearly 97,000 applications to process for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP — often referred to as food stamps — and said that the median time it took was 33 days.

We are committed to reporting on long-standing issues with Texas’ social safety net and their root causes. We need help from those who know the delays firsthand and the harm they may cause: the families who rely on and are currently waiting for benefits. We want to show any failures to the people who are responsible for overseeing these systems — lawmakers, advocates, even the federal government — and explain where the state may be falling short of its obligations.

Please fill out the form below if:

  • You’ve been waiting more than a month to hear about your Medicaid or SNAP application and have faced medical or financial consequences.
  • You’ve worked with the state and can help us understand the reasons behind the persistent backlog, including IT glitches, staffing issues and funding shortages related to Medicaid or SNAP.
  • You help people apply for benefits, or you are a health care worker or other expert with insight on this issue.

Filling out the form is the best way to get in touch, but we understand that life gets busy and sharing details of your situation may be easier to do with a reporter by phone. Please indicate on the form below if that is what you’d prefer.

You can also call 602-848-9609 and leave us a voice message with your name, phone number and the best time to get in touch. We may call and ask you these same questions. The call should take about 10 minutes.

We appreciate you sharing your story, and we take your privacy seriously. We are gathering these stories for the purposes of our reporting and will contact you if we wish to publish any part.

If you would prefer to use Signal, an encrypted messaging app, see our advice at propublica.org/tips/#signal. You can also email our reporting team.

by Jessica Priest and Lomi Kriel, ProPublica and The Texas Tribune, and Eleanor Klibanoff, The Texas Tribune

Despite Persistent Warnings, Texas Rushed to Remove Millions From Medicaid. That Move Cost Eligible Residents Care.

6 months 1 week ago

This article is co-published with The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan local newsroom that informs and engages with Texans. Sign up for The Brief Weekly to get up to speed on their essential coverage of Texas issues.

For three years during the coronavirus pandemic, the federal government gave Texas and other states billions of dollars in exchange for their promise not to exacerbate the public health crisis by kicking people off Medicaid.

When that agreement ended last year, Texas moved swiftly, kicking off more people faster than any other state.

Officials acknowledged some errors after they stripped Medicaid coverage from more than 2 million people, most of them children. Some people who believe they were wrongly removed are desperately trying to get back on the state and federally funded health care program, adding to a backlog of more than 200,000 applicants. A ProPublica and Texas Tribune review of dozens of public and private records, including memos, emails and legislative hearings, clearly shows that those and other mistakes were preventable and foreshadowed in persistent warnings from the federal government, whistleblowers and advocates.

Texas’ zealousness in removing people from Medicaid was a choice that contradicted federal guidelines from the start. That decision was devastating in Texas, which already insures a smaller percentage of its population through Medicaid than almost any other state and is one of 10 that never expanded eligibility after the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

“The difference in how Texas approached this compared to a lot of other states is and was very striking. It wanted everybody off, anybody extra off, even though we knew that meant that state systems would buckle under the pressure,” said Erin O’Malley, a senior policy analyst with Every Texan, a left-leaning statewide advocacy group.

Medicaid rolls swelled nationally during the pandemic, with tens of millions of people added to the program and no one removed. In Texas, the number of people receiving Medicaid benefits grew by more than 50%, to 6 million. When the federal government stopped requiring continuous coverage in April 2023, states had to determine who was no longer eligible.

The question wasn’t whether to remove people but instead how to do it in a way that caused the least disruption and ensured those who qualified stayed on.

To that end, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services advised states to proceed slowly and rely heavily on existing government data to automatically renew eligible residents, steps the agency believed would prevent poor families from wrongly losing coverage. Congress gave states a year for the so-called “Medicaid unwinding.”

But Texas opted for speed, launching reviews of about 4.6 million cases in the first six months. It also decided against the more vigorous use of automatic renewals urged by the federal government, forcing nearly everyone to resubmit documents proving they qualified. Nearly 1.4 million of those who lost coverage were disenrolled for bureaucratic reasons like failing to return a form or completing one incorrectly, not because they weren’t eligible.

The decision to buck federal government guidelines was one of many that led to serious repercussions for Texas residents who rely on the program.

Among them were children forced to forgo or postpone lifesaving operations such as heart surgeries, said Dr. Kimberly Avila Edwards, an Austin pediatrician and Texas representative for the American Academy of Pediatrics. Children with severe diseases such as sickle cell anemia, as well as those with neurodevelopmental delays and autism, also unnecessarily lost critical care.

One of her colleagues treated a boy with a rare heart condition who lost Medicaid coverage in January after his parents failed to sign a form that even his caseworker was not aware the family needed to complete.

The boy’s parents couldn’t afford his $6,000 monthly pulmonary hypertension medication, nor could they pay for an ultrasound that would help determine whether he could survive without the drugs, said Avila Edwards, who declined to identify him because of medical privacy laws.

“If we have children who are less healthy, who are unable to get the preventative care they need for their chronic medical conditions, that fundamentally should raise concern for all of us,” she said.

The boy was eventually reenrolled in Medicaid after Texas pediatricians persuaded the state health agency to restore his coverage, Avila Edwards said. A Texas Health and Human Services Commission spokesperson said the agency would not restore coverage based on pediatricians’ intervention.

Thomas Vasquez, an HHSC spokesperson, acknowledged that the agency “learned many lessons” and is working to improve eligibility processes. HHSC representatives defended the rollout, saying that the agency conducted community outreach and hired more than 2,200 employees.

Texas’ approach to the Medicaid unwinding reflected the state’s long-standing conservative ideology regarding the government-subsidized program, said Simon Haeder, an associate professor at Texas A&M University’s School of Public Health.

As attorney general more than a decade ago, Gov. Greg Abbott helped lead a successful lawsuit against the federal government to ensure states didn’t have to cover more residents under Medicaid as part of the Affordable Care Act. Since then, Abbott and state lawmakers have continued to severely limit the program to mostly children, pregnant women and disabled adults. Poor adults aren’t typically eligible for Medicaid unless they have children. Parents of two kids must earn a combined income of less than $285 monthly to qualify for coverage.

A spokesperson for Abbott declined an interview on his behalf and did not respond to a request for comment on the state’s handling of the unwinding.

Texas’ stance during the unwinding, Haeder said, was, “We don’t do anything illegal, but we want to get our program as fast as we can down to what it was before the pandemic.”

Ignored Warnings

It was inevitable that the COVID-19 public health emergency would eventually end, as would the prohibition against pushing people off the rolls. Federal officials worried about the effects of the unwinding on vulnerable Americans almost from the start. In fact, the Biden administration repeatedly extended the emergency declaration, even after the peak of the crisis, to maintain safeguards that included keeping millions of low-income people on Medicaid.

Once the emergency officially ended in April 2023, states were free to cull their rolls. In preparation, federal officials advised states not to review more than 11% of their caseloads each month, cautioning that moving more quickly could overwhelm their systems and lead to the wrongful removal of eligible people.

But that was guidance, not a requirement, and Texas chose a far more aggressive plan.

In the first month of the unwinding, the state started the review process for about a million cases, or 17% of its caseload.

The federal government in May 2023 pressed Texas on why the state was moving so quickly. State officials downplayed the concerns, writing in an email obtained by the news organizations that they were frontloading people who most likely no longer qualified and were reviewing entire households at once.

Within the first four months of the unwinding, the state dropped more than 600,000 people from Medicaid. The vast majority were removed not because the state determined they were no longer eligible but for reasons such as failing to provide the proper documents in time.

That July, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra called on Texas and other states to increase the number of eligible people they automatically renewed with existing government data. He warned in a letter that his agency would take action against states that were not complying.

In the same week, a group of employees anonymously emailed HHSC Executive Commissioner Cecile Young and media organizations, claiming senior management had alerted them that tens of thousands of people had improperly lost Medicaid due to the agency’s poor handling of the unwinding. Young’s chief of staff responded in an email that she couldn’t address the allegations of unidentified whistleblowers.

Texas alerted the federal government days later that it had erroneously dropped nearly 100,000 people, according to records obtained by the news organizations.

In August 2023, CMS once again implored the state to stop requiring eligible people to resubmit paperwork proving they still qualified. The federal agency said it appeared that many people didn’t know they needed to reenroll, didn’t understand the forms or faced obstacles in submitting the required information.

Other states that had taken a similar approach, such as Pennsylvania and Maine, made significant changes. Not Texas.

The state agency flagged to CMS last September that more than 30,000 kids lost their coverage, even though most of them should have been moved from Medicaid to the Children’s Health Insurance Program, according to emails the news organizations obtained through the state’s Public Information Act.

State officials later told the news organizations that 95,000 people had been wrongly removed, instead of close to 130,000, as originally reported to CMS. Asked why the figures had decreased, a spokesperson said the agency “provided approximate numbers as we worked to resolve the issue.” Agency representatives said the state quickly reinstated coverage and implemented changes to prevent further improper denials. They did not provide specifics.

Alarmed by the deluge of disenrollments, advocacy groups, health providers and newspaper editorial boards began calling on the state last summer to pause the unwinding and ensure people were not incorrectly losing coverage. It did not do so.

In October, after Texas had already disenrolled more than 1.2 million people, the state gave about 400,000 people who likely qualified for Medicaid an extra month to submit paperwork, according to an agency spokesperson.

Still, problems persisted.

In December, Becerra appealed directly to Abbott and eight other governors of states with the highest shares of children who had lost coverage. Texas accounted for nearly a quarter of all children in the U.S. who had lost Medicaid or CHIP during the unwinding, Becerra wrote. He again urged the state to employ a series of actions, including automatically renewing eligible people.

Without providing details, Becerra said the federal government would not hesitate to take action against states that did not comply with federal requirements.

“A One-Two Punch”

Three months later, Micaela Hoops’ children lost the government-subsidized health insurance for which they had qualified their entire lives. After years of not having to renew their Medicaid coverage under the pandemic rules, the 37-year-old North Texas mother said she was confused about when she was required to reapply and missed the deadline to provide proof of the family’s income.

Hoops sifts through paperwork from the Texas Health and Human Services Commission at her home in Sherman, Texas. (Danielle Villasana for ProPublica and The Texas Tribune)

In other states, the kids might have been automatically renewed using other government information, like quarterly payroll data reported by employers to the state or federal tax records. Instead, Hoops had to frantically reapply seven days after the coverage lapsed in March, submitting 24 pay statements for her husband’s weekly wages as a marketing director for a real estate company. This put the family at the back of a monthslong waiting list.

During that time, Hoops, a stay-at-home mom who homeschools the children, had to take her eldest son to the emergency room for a debilitating migraine. The visit came with a $3,000 bill that she and her husband could not pay. A few months later, the 14-year-old broke his nose while playing with his brother on a trampoline. She paid a few hundred dollars out of pocket for the doctor but couldn’t afford the CT scan required to reset his nose.

More than 100 days after Hoops reapplied, the state restored her children’s coverage retroactively. She hopes Medicaid will cover the hospital visit, but her son’s nose remains crooked.

“My children didn’t deserve to go without insurance,” Hoops said. “They’re kids. They have medical emergencies, things happen, and they deserve to be taken care of.”

Coverage for Hoops’ children wasn’t restored until more than 100 days after she reapplied. (Danielle Villasana for ProPublica and the Texas Tribune)

While Hoops’ children got their Medicaid back, some families that believe they wrongly lost Medicaid are still waiting after being forced to reapply. Texas’ median processing time for Medicaid applications is almost three months, according to a recent agency briefing obtained by the news organizations. This exceeds the federal limit of 45 days for most cases.

The sudden suspension of health insurance for a population the size of New Mexico has had additional ramifications in Texas, including higher treatment costs for hospitals and clinics forced to take on more uninsured patients.

Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, the largest pediatric hospital in the country, laid off employees this year after significant budget shortfalls. A hospital spokesperson declined to comment, but, in a recent financial filing, the hospital attributed some of the challenges to losing Medicaid patients during the state’s unwinding process.

Across the state, some safety net clinics reported a 30% decrease in Medicaid revenue due to the unwinding, said Jana Eubank, who heads the Texas Association of Community Health Centers. She said the extra costs added to challenges for the already financially strapped facilities.

“Some centers are having to lay off staff. Some centers are furloughing staff,” Eubank said. “I’ve got a couple of CEOs that aren’t taking a salary right now. I’ve had centers that are unfortunately having to cut back certain services or extended hours, like behavioral health services, dental services, just because they can’t afford to continue to offer that care.”

Separately, some families that were pushed off Medicaid are also waiting more than a month for food assistance because Texas uses the same eligibility system to process applications for both.

San Antonio Food Bank CEO Eric Cooper said the nonprofit was crushed by demand this summer when families faced sudden medical bills, kids were out of school and the state had a backlog of more than 277,000 food stamp applications. The situation worsened when Texas declined to participate in a federal nutrition program, turning down an estimated $450 million that could have helped feed nearly 3.8 million poor children during the summer. HHSC officials said they could not get the program running in time.

“It’s felt like a one-two punch, the double whammy,” Cooper said.

“We haven’t really felt any relief since the Medicaid unwinding and the official end of the public health emergency,” he added. “It’s still an emergency. It’s still a crisis.”

Federal Investigation

In May, after Texas’ unwinding ended, the federal government launched an investigation into long waits faced by people who had applied for Medicaid coverage. Addressing these persistent delays was especially important because they affected eligible people who lost coverage in the past year, Sarah deLone, director of CMS’ Children and Adults Health Programs Group, wrote in a letter to the state.

Former federal officials and health policy experts called the probe a significant step by the agency, which typically works with states behind the scenes.

But CMS has few options to hold Texas accountable if it finds wrongdoing, said Joan Alker, executive director of the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. The Biden administration’s major enforcement tool is yanking federal funding, but that could cause low-income people to lose health insurance and invite a lawsuit from Texas, Alker said. And the investigation likely won’t go anywhere if Donald Trump wins in November, she said, since the former president previously encouraged states to restrict Medicaid access and promised to undo the Affordable Care Act entirely.

CMS spokesperson Stephanie Rossy declined to comment directly on its investigation or on Texas’ handling of the unwinding. But in a statement she wrote that “states’ choices have real consequences for eligible people’s ability to stay covered.”

Texas officials also declined to discuss the probe, but in a letter to the federal agency two weeks after the May investigation announcement, the state’s Medicaid director, Emily Zalkovsky, acknowledged that Texas experienced “severe operational and systems challenges” during the unwinding.

Although the federal probe was welcomed by advocacy groups, as well as some health care providers and Texas families, it’s unlikely to immediately help eligible people who lost Medicaid during the unwinding and are waiting to get back on.

While Hoops’ children have regained coverage, she believes that what her family endured reflects state leaders’ attitudes toward low-income people.

“Maybe they didn’t realize they were making cruel decisions,” she said. Still, she feels like the state’s mentality is basically, “Well, you just shouldn’t be dependent on us.”

Caught in Texas’ Medicaid and Food Stamp Application Backlog? Know Someone Who Is? Help Us Report.

Update, Sept. 27, 2024: This story was updated to include comment from the Texas Health and Human Services Commission about the case of a boy with a rare heart condition who lost Medicaid coverage.

by Eleanor Klibanoff, The Texas Tribune, and Lomi Kriel, ProPublica and The Texas Tribune

Desperate Times Led Wisconsin Tribe to High-Interest Lending, Dubious Partnerships and Legal Jeopardy

6 months 1 week ago

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 sprawling business empire created by tribal leaders in northern Wisconsin was born of desperate times, as the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians faced financial ruin. Its subsequent success would be built on the desperate needs of others far from the reservation.

The tribe had made some poor choices as it sought to expand its fortunes beyond a modest casino in its home state of Wisconsin two decades ago. Grand plans for a floating casino off Cancun, Mexico, collapsed, and a riverboat gambling venture in Mississippi required more cash than the tribe had on hand.

The resulting loans — $50 million in bonds issued in 2008 at 12% — proved crushing. Struggling to make debt payments, tribal officials soon were forced to slash spending for essential programs on the reservation and lay off dozens of employees.

Protests erupted, with demonstrators barricading themselves inside a government building and demanding audits and investigations. When angry tribal members elected a new governing council, it refused to pay anymore. The tribe defaulted on a loan it had come to regret.

The LDF tribe turned to the one asset that could distinguish it in the marketplace: sovereign immunity.

This special status allowed it as a Native American tribe to enter the world of internet lending without interest rate caps, an option not open to other lenders in most states. The annual rates it charged for small-sum, installment loans frequently exceeded 600%.

Business partners, seeing the favorable math, were easy to find. So, too, were consumers who had run out of options to pay their bills. Their decisions to sign up for LDF loans often made things worse.

ProPublica traced the key decisions that put LDF on the path to becoming a prominent player in a sector of the payday lending industry that has long skirted regulation and drawn controversy.

LDF did not just dabble in this type of lending; it fully embraced it. Like other tribes that have taken this route, LDF built its success on a series of complex business arrangements, with roles and motives difficult to unravel.

Over time, ProPublica found, LDF signed off on deals involving outsiders with histories of predatory practices — associations that carried profound implications for the tribe. Not only did they put the tribe’s reputation at risk, they generated a barrage of costly lawsuits and questions of whether LDF was allowing partners to take advantage of tribal rights to skirt state usury laws.

In Boston, Brian Coughlin initially had no idea that a Native American tribe was involved in the small loan he took out with a high interest rate. He only learned about LDF after he filed for bankruptcy to seek protection from his creditors.

“I was definitely surprised,” he said. “I didn’t think they operated things like that.”

During the bankruptcy process, an LDF partner still hounded him to pay, which Coughlin said pushed him to a breaking point and a suicide attempt. Federal law prohibits chasing debtors who have filed for bankruptcy, and Coughlin sued the tribe in a dispute that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Last year, the court — in a decision with far-reaching implications for tribes — ruled that LDF could be held liable under the Bankruptcy Code.

Brian Coughlin initially had no idea that LDF was involved in the small loan he took out with a high interest rate. He filed for bankruptcy, but an LDF partner still hounded him to pay. (Bob Croslin for ProPublica)

His and other consumer lawsuits paint LDF as a front for outsiders who take an oversized cut of the proceeds, leaving LDF with only dollars per loan. Interviews and ProPublica’s review of records also show how heavily LDF relies on its partners for most of the essential operations. These descriptions are disputed by LDF, which has told ProPublica that it merely is outsourcing for much-needed expertise while still maintaining control.

In a statement to ProPublica this year, John Johnson Sr., LDF’s president, described the tribe’s lending business as “a narrative of empowerment, ethical business practice, and commitment to community enrichment.” He has declined to be interviewed and did not respond to written questions for this story.

Over time, LDF has set up at least two dozen internet lending companies and websites, ProPublica determined. Its loans are so pervasive the LDF tribe showed up as a creditor in roughly 1 out of every 100 bankruptcy cases sampled nationwide, as ProPublica reported in August.

This year, LDF and some of its business affiliates agreed to a federal class-action settlement in Virginia that, if finalized, will erase $1.4 billion in consumer debt and provide $37 million in restitution. Tribal defendants are responsible for $2 million of that; the tribe in a statement has indicated that its business arm would pay.

Tribal officials have consistently denied wrongdoing. A newsletter to tribal members as LDF was starting up its venture said the tribe “is not practicing any type of predatory lending.” In his statements to ProPublica for the August story, Johnson stressed that the tribe complies with tribal and federal law, that its lending practices are transparent, that its collections are done ethically and that the loans help distressed borrowers who have little access to credit.

LDF leaders have not publicly stated any desire to alter their business practices, even as some community members express concern.

“Feeding greed with unscrupulous business practices is crushing us,” one LDF member recently wrote on a community Facebook page.

“The Money Is Dirty”

After the bond debacle in the 2000s, LDF leaders felt stung by their outside financial advisers, believing they were deceived about the terms of the transaction and risks involved.

Moving forward, they wanted someone they could trust. They found that in Brent McFarland.

McFarland was not a tribal member, but he grew up near the reservation and had friends on the Tribal Council. McFarland, an investment adviser who’d run a restaurant and worked in real estate, offered some helpful advice to the tribe, and the council eventually hired him for a wider role. He helped it establish the Lac du Flambeau Business Development Corporation in 2012, governed by a board answerable to the Tribal Council. And he looked for ways LDF could make money, apart from gaming.

“I ended up meeting some people that were doing online lending,” he said in an interview.

Tribes could get into the industry — attracting willing partners with expertise in lending — without putting up any capital because sovereign immunity was its own bounty.

But as certain as LDF was that state laws wouldn’t apply to its operations, the tribe took a careful approach. LDF decided it would not lend to people in Wisconsin, including its own members. “It keeps our relationship with the state of Wisconsin healthy,” McFarland told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Peter Bildsten, who ran the state Department of Financial Institutions then, remembers visiting the reservation as it was embarking on the new venture. He recalled that he met some of LDF’s business partners, who recognized that the lending operation would be extremely lucrative but also potentially controversial.

“They talked about yeah, we are doing it, and we know there’s virtually nothing you can do about it and especially if we don’t lend to any people in Wisconsin. You can’t do anything,” Bildsten said. “It was almost kind of a dare.”

Many tribes, still suffering from a legacy of racism and inadequate federal resources, struggle to find economic solutions for their people. McFarland, who no longer works for LDF but does consulting for tribes, defended LDF’s decision to move into high-interest loans as a legitimate option.

“The business is offering a service where the interest rates and cost of borrowing are well disclosed to consumers,” he told ProPublica in an email. “It’s expensive, but if used responsibly can be more affordable than many other options. The costs and risks are not hidden from consumers.”

Johnson, LDF’s president, has said there was a rational reason for the tribe’s business partnerships: It needed outside expertise as it entered a new industry.

“But let me be more specific: Zero I.T. enterprise architects, data analysts, or marketing strategists lived on the Lac Du Flambeau reservation when the Tribal Council decided to enter this industry,” he wrote in an email to ProPublica in August.

LDF’s partners run their operations far from tribal land. ProPublica identified several Florida lawsuits that allege a straight-forward process: “The LDF Tribe mints a new ‘tribal’ limited liability company, supposedly organized under Tribal law, for each new investor. Each new investor then runs his or her own ‘tribally owned’ website, offering consumers loans at interest rates between 450% and 1100% annually.”

Those cases were settled or dismissed without LDF addressing the allegations.

LDF does not publicly disclose its partners. ProPublica identified one of them as RIVO Holdings, a fintech firm based in a high-rise in downtown San Diego that has serviced two LDF websites.

First image: The Lac du Flambeau Business Development Corporation in Wisconsin. Second image: The office building where RIVO Holdings operates in San Diego. (First image: Tim Gruber for ProPublica. Second image: Philip Salata for ProPublica.)

RIVO is an acronym for respect, integrity, value and opportunity. The company’s founder and CEO is Daniel Koetting. His personal website touts his employment of “over 200 local employees at RIVO.” His brother Mark, of Kansas, managed a separate lending portfolio for the tribe.

The brothers entered the tribal lending industry after facing regulatory scrutiny for previous lending operations. In 2006, Califonia issued a cease-and-desist order to both men for unlicensed lending; Daniel Koetting received a similar demand from New Hampshire in 2011.

Initially, the Koettings partnered with the Big Lagoon Rancheria tribe in California to offer high-interest loans beginning in 2013. But that relationship began to fall apart several years later.

The tribe alleged that the Koettings surreptitiously pushed customers to new lending companies set up with LDF, and an arbitrator awarded Big Lagoon Rancheria $14 million in 2018. Years of litigation followed as the Koettings fought the decision. The case is still pending.

“I actually called Lac du Flambeau and warned them and informed them that they were getting into business with Big Lagoon’s client list,” Virgil Moorehead, Big Lagoon Rancheria’s chairperson, told ProPublica.

Joseph Schulte Jr., who once worked at RIVO, likened one area of the company’s San Diego office to a Wall Street trading floor, with exuberant staff celebrating short-term wins, such as meeting daily sales goals. To keep the staff pumped up, he said, management brought in pallets of free Celsius energy drinks.

“People were making a lot of money working there,” Schulte said of RIVO Holdings.

Although figures for LDF’s loan portfolios are private, Daniel Koetting’s previous venture with the Big Lagoon Rancheria amassed approximately $83 million in revenue over five years, according to a legal filing.

Court papers, including divorce filings, show Daniel Koetting enjoying a lavish lifestyle in recent years, living in a five-bedroom, five-bath house in La Jolla, an affluent seaside enclave of San Diego. He owned thoroughbred horses, drove a Porsche and dabbled in motion pictures. He and his wife had three children. In the divorce, he reported household expenses in 2021 that included an average of $7,000 a month on groceries and eating out, plus an additional $5,000 a month for “entertainment, gifts and vacation.”

Daniel and Mark Koetting did not reply to emails, calls or letters from ProPublica seeking comment.

Meanwhile, the two companies that RIVO and LDF run — Evergreen Services and Bridge Lending Solutions — are associated with more than 200 complaints from customers since 2019, frequently about onerous interest rates and payment terms. “I just don’t understand how people can do this,” a California resident protested to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “This is a predatory lender and I am a victim.”

Early on in LDF’s leap into lending, the large building on the corner of this shopping center housed a call center above a smoke shop. (Tim Gruber for ProPublica)

Bildsten, the former Wisconsin department head, believes that LDF tribal leaders are trying to help the reservation improve services, such as dental care, for its members and that the lending business is part of that laudable goal.

“They’re able to do some good stuff,” Bildsten said, “but the money is dirty.”

An Ill-Fated Loan With Profound Ramifications

Brian Coughlin lit a cigar. Sitting in his Chevy Malibu with the sunroof open to let out the smoke and a bottle of pills next to him, he wondered: When will this end?

He’d faced many hurdles in life, from serious physical and mental health issues to the loss of his father. He’d also used bad judgment, overspending and loading up on multiple credit cards as he blew through a decent paycheck as head of trash collection for the city of Boston.

Like many other Americans with little to no savings and poor credit scores, he was enticed by online pitches for quick cash — offers that came with exorbitantly high interest rates.

Months earlier, in December 2019, he’d filed for bankruptcy, expecting relief. There would be payment plans and a court injunction halting contact from creditors — a key protection laid out in U.S. bankruptcy law. But one creditor would not give up.

Lendgreen, one of LDF’s initial companies, had loaned Coughlin $900 at an annual percentage rate of 741%. At the time of the bankruptcy, he owed $1,595. The company continued to call, email and text him, fueling his anxiety. A phone log shows Lendgreen called Coughlin 50 times during one four-month period.

Brian Coughlin’s Three-Month Loan Came With a 741% APR Source: Brian Coughlin’s loan agreement. (Lucas Waldron/ProPublica)

“This is all for nothing,” Coughlin recalls thinking of the bankruptcy process.

That night in his Chevy, Coughlin took a fistful of pills and ended up in the hospital. Lendgreen still was calling him while he recovered. But now he was ready to fight.

Coughlin’s attorney filed a motion with the bankruptcy court in March 2020 asking a judge to order Lendgreen, the LDF tribe and LDF Business Development Corporation to stop harassing him.

The case was about more than just harassment, however. Coughlin wanted compensation for all that had happened. He asked the court to award him attorneys fees, medical costs, expenses for lost time from work while hospitalized and punitive damages.

Coughlin (Bob Croslin for ProPublica)

To Coughlin’s surprise, LDF told the court that sovereign immunity protected it even in a federal bankruptcy case, and the bankruptcy judge in Massachusetts agreed. When Coughlin took the case to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and won, the tribe appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

As they dug into who actually violated the collections ban, Coughlin’s attorneys needed to unravel the business relationships surrounding Lendgreen, which no longer has an active website. That led them on an international paper chase from Wisconsin to Ontario, Latvia and Malta, an island in the Mediterranean, where an entity that provided capital for Lendgreen appeared to be based.

In gathering evidence, Coughlin’s lawyers obtained an agreement between Lendgreen and another company — Vivus Servicing Ltd. of Canada — showing Vivus was to handle most all operations of issuing and collecting the loans made in Lendgreen’s name. It also would retain most of the profits.

For each new or renewed loan, the contract called for Vivus to share $3.25 with LDF as well as $3.25 per loan payment, or not less than $10,000 a month.

Vivus Servicing had subcontracted certain administrative functions of the Lendgreen loans to 4finance Canada, an affiliate company of a European lending conglomerate based in Latvia, court records show. An attorney who represents Vivus and 4finance declined to comment.

“There’s money flowing to all sorts of places,” Coughlin’s attorney Richard Gottlieb said.

As he began to better understand the web of connections, Gottlieb concluded that LDF’s role in its lending operations was minimal. The partners, he said, performed all the key functions — “from the creation of the loans themselves to the maintenance of the computer software and internet sites to the collections personnel to the customer service reps to the management.”

Even though LDF fought in court to be able to pursue collections against people in bankruptcy, internal documents indicate that the head of LDF Holdings, which oversees the tribe’s lending enterprise, was not pleased with how a business partner treated Coughlin.

“I Shouldn’t Be Getting Phone Calls”

Coughlin inquires with Lendgreen about why its phone calls have not ceased.

(Brian Coughlin)

Jessi Lorenzo, president of LDF Holdings at the time, communicated in May 2020 with 4finance Canada about Coughlin’s loan. Why had they not stopped soliciting repayment once notified that Coughlin had filed for bankruptcy, she asked in an email.

“Everything should have ceased then,” wrote Lorenzo, who was based in Tampa.

In a brief interview on her porch, Lorenzo declined to comment on the Coughlin case and said she did not want to be part of a tribal lending story that might be negative. Later, in an email, she wrote that she was proud to have worked for LDF as it “built a business that benefited their community, providing modern careers with upward mobility and good benefits in a remote part of Wisconsin.”

A Future Clouded by Legal Challenges

LDF tribal leaders don’t talk much about their business with outsiders. But there is little doubt that the lending business has altered the shape of the tribe’s finances, allowing LDF to move past its costly mistake of issuing $50 million in bonds for the Mississippi casino boat.

The Tribal Council agreed in 2017 to pay $4 million and finance an additional $23 million to settle claims against it after defaulting.

But the tribe and its partners continue to face new threats from a range of legal actions.

The attorneys in the Virginia case have promised future litigation against more LDF partners. And as LDF keeps lending, it opens its companies up to additional consumer lawsuits. Dozens of such cases have been filed since 2019, most of which end quickly, with undisclosed settlements.

McFarland takes issue with these types of cases against tribes. “The law firms filing class action lawsuits seek to paint tribes as either victims or villains in online lending,” he said in an email. “This approach has been employed against tribes since Europeans came to the Americas, whether Tribes are entering gaming, cannabis, selling tobacco, and a host of business opportunities.”

When Coughlin’s suit reached the Supreme Court, some of the issues involving tribal-lending partnerships were touched on, if only briefly.

During a hearing in April 2023, Justice Samuel Alito interrupted LDF’s lawyer as he was talking about sovereign immunity and the Constitutional Convention. Alito inquired about the tribe’s relationship with Lendgreen.

“Who actually operates this?” he asked.

“The tribe does, Your Honor,” replied attorney Pratik Shah, representing LDF. “This is not a rent-a-tribe situation.”

Shah said the enterprise employed 50 to 60 people working out of a headquarters on the reservation, though “they use third-party vendors, servicers and all, like any other business.”

Shah added: “This is a fully tribal operation.”

But the central issue was whether the tribe could be held liable for violating bankruptcy rules.

“What the tribe is saying is you can’t sue them for hundreds of thousands of dollars of actual damages,” Shah told the court. “That’s at the core of sovereign immunity.”

In June of last year, the high court sided with Coughlin, ruling 8-1 that there’s no sovereign immunity for tribes when it comes to the Bankruptcy Code.

Justice Clarence Thomas concurred in the ruling, not because of his reading of the Bankruptcy Code, but because he held that sovereign immunity does not apply to lawsuits arising from a tribe’s commercial activity conducted off-reservation.

Coughlin, far left, in front of the Supreme Court with his attorneys Terrie Harman, Richard Gottlieb, Gregory Rapawy and Matthew Drecun (Courtesy of Richard Gottlieb)

Back in Bankruptcy Court, Coughlin continued to pursue LDF and Lendgreen for damages and legal fees. In mid-August, in the midst of settlement talks, Coughlin asked the court to pause the process required to unmask the outside entities involved with LDF as all sides tried to resolve the dispute. In September, a judge approved a settlement in which the tribe and Lendgreen agreed to pay Coughlin $340,000. LDF denied liability as part of the agreement.

At the same time, pressure is mounting on the tribe’s business partners. As part of the deal, the tribe will give Coughlin documents “with respect to the culpability and responsibility” of the outside partners, according to the settlement. That will enable Coughlin’s lawyers to dig further. LDF also will make a corporate representative available to testify in legal actions against their former business allies, if necessary.

“I want to see all the actors that are actually part of this scheme brought to justice, in a way,” said Coughlin, who now lives in Florida.

“I don’t necessarily believe the tribe is the orchestrator of this whole mess. I think they’re a pawn, unfortunately.”

To do the best, most comprehensive reporting on this opaque industry, we want to hear from more of the people who know it best. Do you work for a tribal lending operation, either on a reservation or for an outside business partner? Do you belong to a tribe that participates in this lending or one that has rejected the industry? Are you a regulator or lawyer dealing with these issues? Have you borrowed from a tribal lender? All perspectives matter to us. Please get in touch with Megan O’Matz at megan.omatz@propublica.org or 954-873-7576, or Joel Jacobs at joel.jacobs@propublica.org or 917-512-0297. Visit propublica.org/tips for information on secure communication channels.

Mariam Elba contributed research.

by Megan O’Matz and Joel Jacobs

Neo-Nazi Telegram Users Panic Amid Crackdown and Arrest of Alleged Leaders of Online Extremist Group

6 months 1 week ago

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

This story is part of a collaboration between FRONTLINE and ProPublica that includes an upcoming documentary.

The recent crackdown on the social media platform Telegram has triggered waves of panic among the neo-Nazis who have made the app their headquarters for posting hate and planning violence.

“Shut It Down,” one person posted in a white supremacist chat on Tuesday, hours after Telegram founder Pavel Durov announced he would begin sharing some users’ identifying information with law enforcement.

With over 900 million users around the globe, Telegram has been both revered and reviled for its hands-off approach to moderating posted content. The platform made headlines this summer when French authorities arrested Durov, seeking to hold him responsible for illegal activity that has been conducted or facilitated on the platform — including organized drug trafficking, child pornography and fraud.

Durov has called the charges “misguided.” But he acknowledged that criminals have abused the platform and promised in a Telegram post to “significantly improve things in this regard.” Durov’s announcement marked a considerable policy shift: He said Telegram will now share the IP addresses and phone numbers of users who violate the platform’s rules with authorities “in response to valid legal requests.”

This was the second time in weeks that extremists had called on their brethren to abandon Telegram. The first flurry of panic followed indictments by the Justice Department of two alleged leaders of the Terrorgram Collective, a group of white supremacists accused of inciting others on the platform to commit racist killings.

“EVERYONE LEAVE CHAT,” posted the administrator of a group chat allied with the Terrorgram Collective the day the indictments were announced.

An analysis by ProPublica and FRONTLINE, however, shows that despite the wave of early panic, users didn’t initially leave the platform. Instead there was a surge in activity on Terrorgram-aligned channels and chats, as allies of the group tried to rally support for their comrades in custody, railed against the government’s actions and sought to oust users they believed to be federal agents.

Federal prosecutors in the U.S. have charged Dallas Humber and Matthew Allison, two alleged leaders of the Terrorgram Collective, with a slew of felonies including soliciting the murder of government officials on Telegram.

Humber has pleaded not guilty. She made a brief appearance in federal court in Sacramento, California, on Sept. 13, during which she was denied bail. Humber, shackled and clad in orange-and-white jail garb, said nothing. Allison, who has not yet entered a plea, was arrested in Idaho but will face trial in California.

Attorneys for Humber and Allison did not respond to separate requests for comment.

The two are alleged Accelerationists, a subset of white supremacists intent on accelerating the collapse of today’s liberal democracies and replacing them with all-white ethno-states, according to the indictment.

Through a constellation of linked Telegram channels, the collective distributes books, audio recordings, videos, posters and calendars celebrating white supremacist mass murderers, such as Brenton Tarrant, who in early 2019 stormed two mosques in New Zealand and shot to death 51 Muslim worshippers.

The group explicitly aims to inspire similar attacks, offering would-be terrorists tips and tools for carrying out spectacular acts of violence and sabotage. A now-defunct channel allegedly run by Humber, for example, featured instructions on how to make a vast array of potent explosives. After their arrests, channels allegedly run by Humber and Allison went silent.

But within days of the indictments, an anonymous Telegram user had set up a new channel “dedicated to updates about their situation.”

“I understand that some people may not like these two, however, their arrests and possible prosecution affects all of us,” the user wrote. The criminal case, they argued, “shows us that Telegram is under attack globally.”

The channel referred to Humber and Allison by their alleged Telegram usernames, Ryder_Returns and Btc.

A long-running neo-Nazi channel with more than 13,000 subscribers posted a lengthy screed. “We are very sad to hear of the egregious overreach of government powers with these arrests,” stated the poster, who used coded language to suggest that white supremacists should forcefully overthrow the U.S. government.

One group closely aligned with the Terrorgram Collective warned like-minded followers that federal agents could be lurking. In a post, it said that it had been in contact with Humber since her arrest, and that she gave them information about an undercover FBI agent who had infiltrated the Accelerationist scene.

“If this person is in your chats, remove them,” said one post, referring to the supposed agent. “Don’t threaten them. Don’t say anything to them. Just remove them from contacts and chats.”

Matthew Kriner, managing director of the Accelerationism Research Consortium, said the Terrorgram Collective had already been badly weakened by a string of arrests in the U.S., Europe and Canada over the past two years. “Overall, the arrests of Humber and Allison are likely the final blow to the Terrorgram Collective,” Kriner said.

In the U.S., federal agents this year have arrested at least two individuals who were allegedly inspired by the group. The first was Alexander Lightner, a 26-year-old construction worker who was apprehended in January during a raid on his Florida home. In a series of Telegram posts, Lightner said he planned to commit a racially or ethnically motivated mass killing, according to prosecutors. Court records show that agents found a manual produced by the Terrorgram Collective and a copy of “Mein Kampf” in Lightner’s home.

Lightner has pleaded not guilty to charges of making online threats and possessing an illegal handgun silencer. His attorney declined to comment.

This summer, prosecutors charged Andrew Takhistov of New Jersey with soliciting an individual to destroy a power plant. Takhistov allegedly shared a PDF copy of a different Terrorgram publication with an undercover agent. The 261-page manual includes detailed instructions for building explosives and encourages readers to destabilize society through murder and industrial sabotage. Takhistov has not yet entered a plea. His attorney did not respond to a request for comment.

Durov’s August arrest also sent a spasm of fear through the extremist scene. “It’s over,” one user of a white supremacist chat group declared.

“Does this mean I have to Nuke my Telegram account?” asked another member of the group. “I just got on.”

Their concerns grew when Telegram removed language from its FAQ page stating that the company would not comply with law enforcement requests regarding users in private Telegram chats.

Alarmed, Accelerationists on Telegram discussed the feasibility of finding another online sanctuary. Some considered the messaging service Signal, but others warned it was likely controlled by U.S. intelligence agencies. One post suggested users migrate to more obscure encrypted messaging apps like Briar and Session.

In extremist circles, there was more discussion about fleeing Telegram after Durov’s announcement this week. “Time is running out on this sinking ship,” wrote one user. “So we’re ditching Telegram?” asked another.

“Every time we have a success against one of them, they learn, they adapt, they modify,” said Don Robinson, who as an FBI agent conducted infiltration operations against white supremacists. “Extremists can simply pick up and move to a new platform once they are de-platformed for content abuses. This leaves law enforcement and intelligence agencies playing an endless game of Whac-a-Mole to identify where the next threat may be coming from.”

Do You Have a Tip for ProPublica? Help Us Do Journalism.

by A.C. Thompson, James Bandler and Brandon Roberts

Israel Deliberately Blocked Humanitarian Aid to Gaza, Two Government Bodies Concluded. Antony Blinken Rejected Them.

6 months 1 week ago

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

The U.S. government’s two foremost authorities on humanitarian assistance concluded this spring that Israel had deliberately blocked deliveries of food and medicine into Gaza.

The U.S. Agency for International Development delivered its assessment to Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the State Department’s refugees bureau made its stance known to top diplomats in late April. Their conclusion was explosive because U.S. law requires the government to cut off weapons shipments to countries that prevent the delivery of U.S.-backed humanitarian aid. Israel has been largely dependent on American bombs and other weapons in Gaza since Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks.

But Blinken and the administration of President Joe Biden did not accept either finding. Days later, on May 10, Blinken delivered a carefully worded statement to Congress that said, “We do not currently assess that the Israeli government is prohibiting or otherwise restricting the transport or delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance.”

Prior to his report, USAID had sent Blinken a detailed 17-page memo on Israel’s conduct. The memo described instances of Israeli interference with aid efforts, including killing aid workers, razing agricultural structures, bombing ambulances and hospitals, sitting on supply depots and routinely turning away trucks full of food and medicine.

Lifesaving food was stockpiled less than 30 miles across the border in an Israeli port, including enough flour to feed about 1.5 million Palestinians for five months, according to the memo. But in February the Israeli government had prohibited the transfer of flour, saying its recipient was the United Nations’ Palestinian branch that had been accused of having ties with Hamas.

Separately, the head of the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration had also determined that Israel was blocking humanitarian aid and that the Foreign Assistance Act should be triggered to freeze almost $830 million in taxpayer dollars earmarked for weapons and bombs to Israel, according to emails obtained by ProPublica.

The U.N. has declared a famine in parts of Gaza. The world’s leading independent panel of aid experts found that nearly half of the Palestinians in the enclave are struggling with hunger. Many go days without eating. Local authorities say dozens of children have starved to death — likely a significant undercount. Health care workers are battling a lack of immunizations compounded by a sanitation crisis. Last month, a little boy became Gaza’s first confirmed case of polio in 25 years.

The USAID officials wrote that because of Israel’s behavior, the U.S. should pause additional arms sales to the country. ProPublica obtained a copy of the agency’s April memo along with the list of evidence that the officials cited to back up their findings.

USAID, which is led by longtime diplomat Samantha Power, said the looming famine in Gaza was the result of Israel’s “arbitrary denial, restriction, and impediments of U.S. humanitarian assistance,” according to the memo. It also acknowledged Hamas had played a role in the humanitarian crisis. USAID, which receives overall policy guidance from the secretary of state, is an independent agency responsible for international development and disaster relief. The agency had for months tried and failed to deliver enough food and medicine to a starving and desperate Palestinian population.

It is, USAID concluded, “one of the worst humanitarian catastrophes in the world.”

In response to detailed questions for this story, the State Department said that it had pressured the Israelis to increase the flow of aid. “As we made clear in May when [our] report was released, the US had deep concerns during the period since October 7 about action and inaction by Israel that contributed to a lack of sustained delivery of needed humanitarian assistance,” a spokesperson wrote. “Israel subsequently took steps to facilitate increased humanitarian access and aid flow into Gaza.”

Government experts and human rights advocates said while the State Department may have secured a number of important commitments from the Israelis, the level of aid going to Palestinians is as inadequate as when the two determinations were reached. “The implication that the humanitarian situation has markedly improved in Gaza is a farce,” said Scott Paul, an associate director at Oxfam. “The emergence of polio in the last couple months tells you all that you need to know.”

The USAID memo was an indication of a deep rift within the Biden administration on the issue of military aid to Israel. In March, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Jack Lew, sent Blinken a cable arguing that Israel’s war cabinet, which includes Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, should be trusted to facilitate aid shipments to the Palestinians.

Lew acknowledged that “other parts of the Israeli government have tried to impede the movement of [humanitarian assistance,]” according to a copy of his cable obtained by ProPublica. But he recommended continuing to provide military assistance because he had “assessed that Israel will not arbitrarily deny, restrict, or otherwise impede U.S. provided or supported” shipments of food and medicine.

Lew said Israeli officials regularly cite “overwhelming negative Israeli public opinion against” allowing aid to the Palestinians, “especially when Hamas seizes portions of it and when hostages remain in Gaza.” The Israeli government did not respond to a request for comment but has said in the past that it follows the laws of war, unlike Hamas.

In the months leading up to that cable, Lew had been told repeatedly about instances of the Israelis blocking humanitarian assistance, according to four U.S. officials familiar with the embassy operations but, like others quoted in this story, not authorized to speak about them. “No other nation has ever provided so much humanitarian assistance to their enemies,” Lew responded to subordinates at the time, according to two of the officials, who said the comments drew widespread consternation.

“That put people over the edge,” one of the officials told ProPublica. “He’d be a great spokesperson for the Israeli government.”

A second official said Lew had access to the same information as USAID leaders in Washington, in addition to evidence collected by the local State Department diplomats working in Jerusalem. “But his instincts are to defend Israel,” said a third official.

“Ambassador Lew has been at the forefront of the United States’ work to increase the flow of humanitarian assistance to Gaza, as well as diplomatic efforts to reach a ceasefire agreement that would secure the release of hostages, alleviate the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza, and bring an end to the conflict,” the State Department spokesperson wrote.

The question of whether Israel was impeding humanitarian aid has garnered widespread attention. Before Blinken’s statement to Congress, Reuters reported concerns from USAID about the death toll in Gaza, which now stands at about 42,000, and that some officials inside the State Department, including the refugees bureau, had warned him that the Israelis’ assurances were not credible. The existence of USAID’s memo, Lew’s cable and their broad conclusions were also previously reported.

But the full accounting of USAID’s evidence, the determination of the refugees bureau in April and the statements from experts at the embassy — along with Lew’s decision to undermine them — reveal new aspects of the striking split within the Biden administration and how the highest-ranking American diplomats have justified his policy of continuing to flood Israel with arms over the objections of their own experts.

Stacy Gilbert, a former senior civil military adviser in the refugees bureau who had been working on drafts of Blinken’s report to Congress, resigned over the language in the final version. “There is abundant evidence showing Israel is responsible for blocking aid,” she wrote in a statement shortly after leaving, which The Washington Post and other outlets reported on. “To deny this is absurd and shameful.

“That report and its flagrant untruths will haunt us.”

The State Department’s headquarters in Washington did not always welcome that kind of information from U.S. experts on the ground, according to a person familiar with the embassy operations. That was especially true when experts reported the small number of aid trucks being allowed in.

“A lot of times they would not accept it because it was lower than what the Israelis said,” the person told ProPublica. “The sentiment from Washington was, ‘We want to see the aid increasing because Israel told us it would.’”

Aid trucks wait in Egypt at the border with Gaza on Sept. 9. (AFP/Getty Images)

While Israel has its own arms industry, the country relies heavily on American jets, bombs and other weapons in Gaza. Since October, the U.S. has shipped more than 50,000 tons of weaponry, which the Israeli military says has been “crucial for sustaining” the Israel Defense Forces’ “operational capabilities during the ongoing war.”

The U.S. gives the Israeli government about $3.8 billion every year as a baseline and significantly more during wartime — money the Israelis use to buy American-made bombs and equipment. Congress and the executive branch have imposed legal guardrails on how Israel and other partners can use that money.

One of them is the Foreign Assistance Act. The humanitarian aid portion of the law is known as 620I, which dates back to Turkey’s embargo of Armenia during the 1990s. That part of the law has never been widely implemented. But this year, advocacy groups and some Democrats in Congress brought it out of obscurity and called for Biden to use 620I to pressure the Israelis to allow aid freely into Gaza.

In response, the Biden administration announced a policy called the National Security Memorandum, or NSM-20, to require the State Department to vet Israel’s assurances about whether it was blocking aid and then report its findings to lawmakers. If Blinken determined the Israelis were not facilitating aid and were instead arbitrarily restricting it, then the government would be required by the law to halt military assistance.

Blinken submitted the agency’s official position on May 10, siding with Lew, which meant that the military support would continue.

In a statement that same day, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., criticized the administration for choosing “to disregard the requirements of NSM-20.”

“Whether or not Israel is at this moment complying with international standards with respect to facilitating humanitarian assistance to desperate, starving citizens may be debatable,” Van Hollen said. “What is undeniable — for those who don’t look the other way — is that it has repeatedly violated those standards over the last 7 months.”

As of early March, at least 930 trucks full of food, medicine and other supplies were stuck in Egypt awaiting approval from the Israelis, according to USAID’s memo.

The officials wrote that the Israeli government frequently blocks aid by imposing bureaucratic delays. The Israelis took weeks or months to respond to humanitarian groups that had submitted specific items to be approved for passage past government checkpoints. Israel would then often deny those submissions outright or accept them some days but not others. The Israeli government “doesn’t provide justification, issues blanket rejections, or cites arbitrary factors for the denial of certain items,” the memo said.

Israeli officials told State Department attorneys that the Israeli government has “scaled up its security check capacity and asserted that it imposes no limits on the number of trucks that can be inspected and enter Gaza,” according to a separate memo sent to Blinken and obtained by ProPublica. Those officials blamed most of the holdups on the humanitarian groups for not having enough capacity to get food and medicine in. USAID and State Department experts who work directly with those groups say that is not true.

In separate emails obtained by ProPublica, aid officials identified items in trucks that were banned by the Israelis, including emergency shelter gear, solar lamps, cooking stoves and desalination kits, because they were deemed “dual use,” which means Hamas could co-opt the materials. Some of the trucks that were turned away had also been carrying American-funded items like hygiene kits, the emails show.

In its memo to Blinken, USAID also cited numerous publicly reported incidents in which aid facilities and workers were hit by Israeli airstrikes even sometimes after they had shared their locations with the IDF and received approval, a process known as “deconfliction.” The Israeli government has maintained that most of those incidents were mistakes.

USAID found the Israelis often promised to take adequate measures to prevent such incidents but frequently failed to follow through. On Nov. 18, for instance, a convoy of aid workers was trying to evacuate along a route assigned to them by the IDF. The convoy was denied permission to cross a military checkpoint — despite previous IDF authorization.

Then, while en route back to their facility, the IDF opened fire on the aid workers, killing two of them.

Inside the State Department and ahead of Blinken’s report to Congress, some of the agency’s highest-ranking officials had a separate exchange about whether Israel was blocking humanitarian aid. ProPublica obtained an email thread documenting the episode.

On April 17, a Department of Defense official reached out to Mira Resnick, a deputy assistant secretary at the State Department who has been described as the agency’s driving force behind arms sales to Israel and other partners this year. The official alerted Resnick to the fact that there was about $827 million in U.S. taxpayer dollars sitting in limbo.

Resnick turned to the Counselor of the State Department and said, “We need to be able to move the rest of the” financing so that Israel could pay off bills for past weapons purchases. The financing she referenced came from American tax dollars.

The counselor, one of the highest posts at the agency, agreed with Resnick. “I think we need to move these funds,” he wrote.

But there was a hurdle, according to the agency’s top attorney: All the relevant bureaus inside the State Department would need to sign off on and agree that Israel was not preventing humanitarian aid shipments. “The principal thing we would need to see is that no bureau currently assesses that the restriction in 620i is triggered,” Richard Visek, the agency’s acting legal adviser, wrote.

The bureaus started to fall in line. The Middle East and human rights divisions agreed and determined the law hadn’t been triggered, “in light of Netanyahu’s commitments and the steps Israel has announced so far,” while noting that they still have “significant concerns about Israeli actions.”

By April 25, all had signed off but one. The Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration was the holdout. That was notable because the bureau had among the most firsthand knowledge of the situation after months of working closely with USAID and humanitarian groups to try to get food and medicine to the Palestinians.

“While we agree there have been positive steps on some commitments related to humanitarian assistance, we continue to assess that the facts on the ground indicate U.S. humanitarian assistance is being restricted,” an official in the bureau wrote to the group.

It was a potentially explosive stance to take. One of Resnick’s subordinates in the arms transfer bureau replied and asked for clarification: “Is PRM saying 620I has been triggered for Israel?”

Yes, replied Julieta Valls Noyes, its assistant secretary, that was indeed the bureau’s view. In her email, she cited a meeting from the previous day between Blinken’s deputy secretary and other top aides in the administration. All the bureaus on the email thread had provided talking points to the deputy secretary, including one that said Israel had “failed to meet most of its commitments to the president.” (None of these officials responded to a request for comment.)

But, after a series of in-person conversations, Valls Noyes backed down, according to a person familiar with the episode. When asked during a staff meeting later why she had punted on the issue, Valls Noyes replied, “There will be other opportunities,” the person said.

The financing appears to have ultimately gone through.

Less than two weeks later, Blinken delivered his report to Congress.

Do you have information about how the U.S. arms foreign partners? Contact Brett Murphy on Signal at 508-523-5195 or by email at brett.murphy@propublica.org.

Mariam Elba contributed research.

by Brett Murphy

Did a Georgia Hospital Break Federal Law When It Failed to Save Amber Thurman? A Senate Committee Chair Wants Answers.

6 months 1 week ago

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

The Georgia hospital that failed to save Amber Thurman may have broken a federal law when doctors there waited 20 hours to perform a procedure criminalized by the state’s abortion ban, according to Sen. Ron Wyden, chair of the Senate Finance Committee.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, requires hospitals to provide emergency care to stabilize patients who need it — or transfer them to a hospital that can. Passed nearly four decades ago, the law applies to any hospital with an emergency department and that accepts Medicare funding, which includes the one Thurman went to, Piedmont Henry in suburban Atlanta. The finance committee has authority over the regulatory agency that enforces the law.

In a letter sent Monday, Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, cites ProPublica’s investigation into Thurman’s death, which was found preventable by a state committee of maternal health experts. The senator’s letter asks Piedmont CEO David Kent whether the hospital has delayed or denied emergency care to pregnant patients since Georgia’s abortion ban went into effect. (Kent did not respond to requests for comment.)

“It is my duty to conduct oversight of potential violations of patients’ rights under these laws,” Wyden wrote. The senator asked for the hospital’s policies covering treatment of patients with emergencies that require abortion care. He also asked for a list of personnel involved in making those decisions. He gave the hospital a deadline of Oct. 24 to provide those and other requested records and answers.

Wyden sent the same letter citing ProPublica’s reporting on Thurman to seven hospitals in North Carolina, Florida, Missouri, Louisiana and Texas. One letter seeks information from a Texas hospital where Yeniifer Alvarez-Estrada Glick died in 2022 from complications of pregnancy including hypertension, as reported by The New Yorker. Other letters seek information from hospitals where women have reportedly been turned away or experienced delayed care.

The hospitals’ answers could lead to proposed legislation or executive actions to strengthen compliance. The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services investigates complaints and can take actions including levying fines against hospitals that violate EMTALA.

Wyden’s committee plans to hold a hearing on Tuesday, saying in a news release it will “examine how Donald Trump’s successful overturn of Roe v. Wade and subsequent state abortion bans have threatened access to life-saving medical care for women nationwide.”

Piedmont did not respond to multiple requests seeking comment about Wyden’s letter or whether it is aware of an investigation into an EMTALA violation. Doctors who handled Thurman’s care have previously declined to explain their thinking and did not respond to questions from ProPublica.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the regulatory agency that enforces the law, said in an email: “No woman or her family should have to worry that she could be denied life-saving treatment. While we can’t comment on complaints or investigations, we are committed to ensuring that every woman gets the care she needs.”

But some hospitals in abortion-ban states continue to deny or delay emergency care to pregnant women.

A recent Associated Press review of federal investigations found that more than 100 pregnant women in medical distress who sought help from emergency rooms were turned away or treated negligently since 2022, when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Last year, a federal investigation found that hospitals in Missouri and Kansas involved in the care of a patient, Mylissa Farmer, violated the law.

Vice President Kamala Harris has singled out Thurman’s case as evidence that a national law is needed to restore the right to abortion. Harris’ office didn’t respond to ProPublica’s questions about what federal actions she might pursue as president apart from signing a law, which would have to be passed by a divided Congress.

Former President Donald Trump has bragged about appointing three Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe. Project 2025, the controversial playbook and policy agenda for a right-wing presidential administration, calls for doing away with Biden administration guidance that EMTALA requires hospitals to provide abortion care in emergency situations, even in states that ban it, or transfer the patients to a hospital that can provide the needed care.

Trump’s campaign pointed to previous statements by the former president that Project 2025 does not represent his plans for a second term. Leavitt said the former president “has always supported exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother, which Georgia’s law provides. With those exceptions in place, it’s unclear why doctors did not swiftly act to protect Amber Thurman’s life.”

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, too, has said his state’s six-week ban has clear exceptions to protect the “life of the mother.” In a statement, he blamed “partisan activists and so-called journalists” for spreading “misinformation and propaganda that fostered a culture of fear and confusion.”

But doctors have warned for years that these laws use language not rooted in science and begged for clearer exceptions. The confusion is apparent: In the wake of the bans, some hospitals have refused to even issue written policies informing doctors when and how to provide emergency abortions.

Legal reproductive rights scholars told ProPublica they believe Thurman’s treatment is a clear violation of EMTALA.

“It’s not even a question,” said Sara Rosenbaum, a George Washington University health law and policy professor and former adviser to President Bill Clinton. She helped develop EMTALA while at the Children’s Defense Fund. “I think the hospital, like all hospitals in these situations, is caught between violating EMTALA and state prosecution,” she said.

Thurman was rushed to the hospital on Aug. 18, 2022, in need of immediate care. Days earlier, she had taken abortion medication to end her pregnancy but was facing a rare complication: Some of the tissue remained inside her body, causing a grave infection.

To clear the infected tissue, she needed a dilation and curettage, or D&C, a procedure used to empty the uterus for both abortions and routine miscarriage care. Medically speaking, Thurman’s pregnancy had already ended. But the state’s abortion ban had criminalized performing a D&C and threatened doctors with up to 10 years in prison if prosecutors decided they violated it.

Records obtained by ProPublica show doctors discussed the procedure at least twice as Thurman’s condition deteriorated over 20 hours. Experts on the state maternal mortality review committee agreed there was a “good chance” Thurman would have survived if the D&C was provided sooner.

After the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion, the federal government reminded hospitals and doctors they had to follow EMTALA and provide abortion procedures to patients if necessary in emergency situations, regardless of abortion bans. Some Republican officials have aggressively pushed back and said hospitals do not need to follow EMTALA, even for high-risk situations.

In Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton threatened to prosecute a doctor for providing an emergency abortion to a woman with a high-risk pregnancy, whose fetus had a fatal anomaly and whose pregnancy threatened her health and future ability to have children.

He argued in court that she did not meet the state ban’s criteria. He also filed a lawsuit arguing the federal government cannot force Texas to follow the guidance on providing emergency abortions to patients.

In an opinion written by a Trump-appointed judge, a federal appeals panel agreed. That means enforcement of EMTALA in emergency abortion cases is barred in that state.

The Supreme Court last summer considered a lawsuit brought by the Biden administration challenging Idaho’s abortion ban, which lacks health exceptions and appears to conflict with EMTALA. A lawyer for the state acknowledged that Idaho’s abortion ban was written to prevent doctors from offering abortions even if the woman could suffer a serious medical complication like losing an organ.

Conservative justices in that case raised arguments about the rights of the fetus. The court issued a ruling that meant the case would be returned to a lower court, which upheld EMTALA while the case continues.

Rosenbaum said the federal government is not doing enough to require hospitals to follow EMTALA in states that banned abortion: “The federal government has no resources. It was only recently that the Biden administration has made it clear how to file complaints. The complaints go uninvestigated or poorly investigated.”

Wyden’s letters sum up the perilous landscape for patients and doctors.

“Across the country, there are reports that women are being turned away by emergency departments when they seek emergency reproductive health care, even in instances where medical professionals determine that, without such care, the patient is at risk of serious complications, infection, or even death. These women are caught between dangerous state laws that are in clear conflict with — and preempted by — EMTALA.”

On Tuesday, Thurman’s sister, Cjauna Williams, visited Thurman’s grave near Atlanta. She arrived to find fresh flowers and birthday balloons left there by people she and her family had never met. Thurman would have turned 31 the day before, and the story of her desperate wait for the medical care she needed had reverberated across the country.

“Hopefully her death won’t be in vain and something good can come of it,” Williams said.

Kavitha Surana and Nydia Blas contributed reporting. Cassandra Jaramillo, Mariam Elba, Jeff Ernsthausen and Kirsten Berg contributed research.

by Ziva Branstetter

A Supreme Court Justice Warned That a Ruling Would Cause “Large-Scale Disruption.” The Effects Are Already Being Felt.

6 months 1 week ago

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

For headline-grabbing drama, few Supreme Court decisions could equal the justices’ July ruling that former presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for virtually all of their official acts. But a decision in the seemingly humdrum realm of administrative law could end up having far broader consequences, affecting vast areas of American life by slashing the power of federal regulatory agencies that police pollution, food safety, health care and countless other aspects of modern society.

Lower court judges have already cited the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision, in a case known as Loper Bright, to halt implementation of Biden administration rules on overtime pay and health care discrimination. In the past three months, Loper Bright also has been invoked to challenge regulations on everything from hidden airline fees to gun sales to abortion referrals.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was part of the conservative majority in Loper Bright, described it as placing “a tombstone” on a doctrine that had existed for 40 years. That doctrine, known as Chevron deference, was named after the 1984 Supreme Court case in which it emerged, and it offered an answer to a recurring question: What happens when Congress passes a law granting power to a federal agency but fails to precisely define the boundaries of that power?

In such situations, the doctrine of Chevron deference instructed federal judges to rely on the interpretations made by federal agencies, as long as those interpretations were reasonable, since agencies typically have greater expertise in their subject areas than judges. The Loper Bright decision erased that, commanding federal judges to “exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.”

Dissenting, Justice Elena Kagan noted that federal courts had cited Chevron deference 18,000 times, making it “part of the warp and woof of modern government, supporting regulatory efforts of all kinds — to name a few, keeping air and water clean, food and drugs safe, and financial markets honest.” She warned of “large-scale disruption.”

Legal experts view Loper Bright as a major transfer of power from agencies to judges. “You have incredibly technical areas of law for which the U.S. Supreme Court in Loper Bright has now paved a path for individual judges, or panels of three judges, to make decisions without having the technical expertise,” said Sanne Knudsen, a professor at the University of Washington School of Law, whose scholarship on deference doctrines has been cited by the Supreme Court.

Critics of the Chevron doctrine argued that letting agencies make legal interpretations led to constant uncertainty, with each presidential administration appointing new agency leaders who theoretically could change their interpretation of the law. But critics of the Loper Bright ruling counter that the same risk exists today — at the hands of judges rather than regulators.

Dan Weiner, director for elections and government at the Brennan Center for Justice, sees Loper Bright as the capstone of a series of recent Supreme Court rulings that limit agency power. Weiner called it the “culmination of a broader project to just cut the legs out from under government as we’ve known it since the New Deal.”

In theory, Congress could respond by writing more detailed legislation when it comes to federal agency power. But in the current political landscape, Knudsen said, that’s unlikely. As she put it, “cases like Loper Bright put more power in the hands of individual judges to decide policy questions, taking them further from the hands of the experts that Congress has otherwise delegated power to.”

Loper Bright has been celebrated by foes of regulation. The decision “gives us the thunder and lightning we need to beat back the aggressive anti-gun agenda of the rogue Biden Administration,” Gun Owners of America exulted in a press release after the ruling.

The advocacy group Democracy Forward counted 110 federal cases in which parties or judges have cited Loper Bright as of Sept. 6 — and that figure will only rise in the coming months and years. Here are some of the most consequential pending cases.

Labor Who is eligible for overtime pay?

It took only hours for the decision to ripple into a lower court. On June 28, the day Loper Bright was announced, a federal judge in Texas issued a preliminary injunction against a new Department of Labor rule expanding eligibility for overtime pay. The judge blocked the rule from being enforced against the state of Texas as an employer, explaining that his decision “carefully follows Loper Bright’s controlling guidance.”

Among other things, the regulation seeks to prevent employers from deeming someone an “executive,” and thus exempt from overtime pay, if that person’s salary is below $43,888 (or below $58,656 next year). “Too often, lower-paid salaried workers are doing the same job as their hourly counterparts but are spending more time away from their families for no additional pay,” acting Secretary of Labor Julie Su said when the regulation was announced in April. “That is unacceptable.”

Texas challenged the rule, arguing the DOL had exceeded the authority granted by Congress in the Fair Labor Standards Act; the judge wrote that he expects to reach a final decision “in a matter of months.”

Health Care Does Obamacare protect transgender people from discrimination?

On July 3, three federal judges in different states, all citing Loper Bright, issued orders blocking implementation of a new rule from the Department of Health and Human Services that would prohibit discrimination in health care based on gender identity.

Mary Rouvelas, legal advocacy director for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, said her group had supported the regulation because “nondiscrimination is critical for LGBTQ individuals, who suffer a disproportionate cancer burden.” However, the rule had become “a political football” amid debates over gender affirming care, Rouvelas said, and under Loper Bright federal judges no longer had to defer to HHS’ determination that gender identity is protected under the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits discrimination “on the basis of sex” but does not use the phrase “gender identity.”

Fifteen states sued in Mississippi federal court, arguing that HHS overstepped its authority. The states claimed the rule would force them to “use taxpayer funds to pay for unproven and costly gender-transition interventions through Medicaid and state health plans — even for children who may suffer irreversible harms.” District Judge Louis Guirola Jr. issued a nationwide injunction against the rule. The case will continue while the regulation is on hold, as will similar cases in Texas and Florida.

Transportation Can a federal agency force airlines to reveal fees?

The Department of Transportation issued a rule in April that requires airlines to, in the words of Secretary Pete Buttigieg, “inform you, before you buy a ticket, of fees they will charge you.” The rule specifies that baggage, change and cancellation fees must be disclosed the first time an airline quotes a price to a customer. At present, according to DOT court filings, “surprise costs” cause consumers to “overpay by half a billion dollars annually.”

In May, a group of airlines sued to stop the rule, claiming that the DOT exceeded its authority. According to the airlines, the agency can order them to halt unfair or deceptive practices after they’ve occurred, but it cannot tell them what their practices should be going forward. The airlines sought a stay. The DOT counters that its new regulation is based on “well-established” legal authority.

On July 1 — the Monday following the Friday issuance of the Loper Bright ruling — lawyers for the airlines cited the case, telling the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that “resolving this statutory-interpretation issue is a task for this Court, especially because, with Chevron overruled, only courts have ‘the power to authoritatively interpret the statute.’”

At the end of July, a panel of three 5th Circuit judges stayed the rule, concluding that the airlines had “made a strong showing that the Rule exceeds the agency’s authority.” They placed the case on an expedited path toward a final determination of whether the rule should be struck down.

Employment Can the FTC ban agreements that prohibit employees from joining a rival company?

In April, after six years of study, the Federal Trade Commission issued a rule banning noncompete agreements, which restrict workers from accepting employment with competitors for a period of time after leaving their current jobs. The FTC determined the rule was needed because such contracts impair “the fundamental freedom of workers to change jobs,” harm innovation and are “often exploitative.” Of the more than 26,000 comments the agency had received about the proposed ban, over 25,000 were supportive, the FTC said. A group of plaintiffs that includes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed suit in federal court in Texas, arguing the FTC had exceeded its authority.

On Aug. 20, citing Loper Bright, the judge in this case agreed with the plaintiffs and issued a final order that set aside the ban on noncompetes, declaring that the FTC had “promulgated the Non-Compete Rule in excess of its statutory authority.” The Chamber of Commerce called it a “significant win” in the group’s “fight against government micromanagement of business decisions.” An FTC spokesperson told ProPublica that the agency is “seriously considering a potential appeal” and added that the “decision does not prevent the FTC from addressing noncompetes through case-by-base enforcement actions.”

Guns Can the government require background checks for firearms sold at gun shows?

In April, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives issued a rule that would close a loophole through which guns are sold without background checks online and at gun shows. Attorney General Merrick Garland called it “one of the most significant gun regulations in decades.” Under the rule, he said: “It does not matter if guns are sold on the internet, at a gun show or at a brick-and-mortar store. If someone sells a gun predominantly to earn a profit, they must be licensed, and they must conduct a background check to ensure that the buyer is not barred by law from having a gun.”

In May, 21 states sued to block the regulation in federal court in Arkansas. The complaint noted that the Supreme Court would soon be hearing arguments in Loper Bright and contended the ATF had exceeded its authority in adopting the rule.

Another group of plaintiffs filed suit in the Northern District of Texas, also seeking to block the ATF rule. Those plaintiffs include the states of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Utah, as well as Gun Owners of America, which has called the rule “tyrannical.” On June 11, weeks before Loper Bright was decided, the judge in the Texas case, Matthew Kacsmaryk, issued a preliminary injunction banning enforcement of the rule against any of the plaintiffs in the Texas case. Kacsmaryk based his decision in part on his belief that the plaintiffs would likely succeed in proving, in further proceedings, that the ATF had exceeded its authority. The Justice Department appealed the preliminary injunction to the 5th Circuit.

On July 10, less than two weeks after the Loper Bright decision, the judge in Arkansas went the opposite direction from the judge in Texas, denying the request from the 21 other states that he block the ATF rule closing the gun-show loophole. In doing this, the Arkansas judge cited a passage in Loper Bright that he views as supporting the ATF’s authority to close the loophole.

Much remains to be argued in the Texas and Arkansas lawsuits; both injunction rulings are being appealed on multiple grounds. But the Arkansas judge’s use of Loper Bright to support an agency’s authority to regulate highlights the still-unsettled nature of the high court’s pronouncements in Loper Bright. As the U.S. Chamber of Commerce noted, there is a need for lower courts to “interpret” certain aspects of the decision going forward.

Abortion Can federal aid for family planning be withheld from states that prohibit abortion?

In 2021, HHS issued a rule related to Title X grants, which have existed since 1970 and are intended to fund family planning programs. This rule, as described by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, requires states receiving Title X grants to “provide neutral, nondirective counseling and referrals for abortions to patients who request it.” Tennessee had received Title X grants for more than 50 years. But after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Tennessee banned abortions with exceptions only to “prevent the death of the pregnant woman or prevent serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.” Tennessee said it would provide counseling and referrals only for abortions that are legal in the state. In response, HHS ended Tennessee’s Title X funding. The state sued, seeking an injunction to prevent the grant from ending and claiming that HHS exceeded its authority by requiring unbiased abortion counseling and referrals as a condition for Title X aid.

Just a year earlier, the 6th Circuit, in a similar case, had ruled that HHS did have the statutory authority to condition Title X funding in this manner. In doing so, the 6th Circuit relied on Chevron deference, finding that the new HHS regulation was based on a reasonable interpretation of this ambiguous statute. (The appeals court also cited a second precedent, a Supreme Court decision from 1991 that applied Chevron deference to the same Title X issue.)

Given the end of Chevron deference, should the 6th Circuit’s 2023 decision upholding HHS’ abortion counseling and referral rule be stripped of any precedential effect? Tennessee certainly thought so. But two judges from the 6th Circuit disagreed, pointing to a line in Loper Bright that says “we do not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework.” Therefore, the 6th Circuit reasoned, its 2023 precedent upholding HHS’ rule had withstood the death of Chevron deference and, as a result, the injunction requested by Tennessee was unwarranted. One judge on the 6th Circuit’s three-judge panel disagreed, however, citing different passages from Loper Bright to reach the opposite conclusion. The case is now continuing in the Tennessee district court where it was originally filed.

Taxes Can the FTC stop a tax-preparation company from making misleading claims?

In January, after an investigation prompted by ProPublica’s reporting, the FTC concluded that Intuit, the maker of TurboTax, used deceptive advertising to lure customers into paying for tax preparation services when they were eligible to file for free under a program sponsored by the government. Purchases by such customers generated roughly $1 billion in revenue for Intuit and other tax prep companies in 2019 alone, according to a government audit.

The FTC ordered Intuit to cease and desist from making any misleading “free” claims in its advertising. In response, Intuit appealed the FTC’s ruling to the 5th Circuit and asserted that Loper Bright had strengthened its argument for jettisoning the decision. “Whatever ‘deference’ the FTC claimed its interpretation of the FTC Act was due did not survive the Supreme Court’s intervening holding,” lawyers for the company wrote.

Intuit is also citing a recent Supreme Court decision that found the Securities and Exchange Commission can’t bring certain kinds of suits before its own administrative law judges; Intuit argues the decision, which focused on a securities fraud case in which civil penalties were sought, should apply to the FTC, too. The FTC disagrees, arguing that its action, originally brought before an FTC administrative law judge, is different from the relevant SEC action. For example, no civil penalties were involved in the action against Intuit. In a sign of how much rides on the outcome in this appeal, amicus briefs have been filed on both sides by a group of more than 20 states; numerous consumer advocate groups, including Public Citizen and the Consumer Federation of America; business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business; and the libertarian Cato Institute.

Immigration Can a judge review the revocation of an immigrant’s opportunity for citizenship by marriage?

During the Supreme Court’s next term, it will hear a case involving the intricate rules for becoming a U.S. citizen through marriage. The case, Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, asks the justices to consider a very specific scenario, in which a Palestinian national married a U.S. citizen named Amina Bouarfa, who then petitioned to make her new husband eligible for citizenship through marriage. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services approved Bouarfa’s petition but then, two years later, revoked that approval, saying the couple’s union had been “a sham marriage” for “the purpose of evading immigration laws.” The question in this case is whether that revocation is subject to judicial review.

The case also reveals an unexpected potential consequence of the Loper Bright ruling. It’s typically perceived as a victory for conservative foes of regulation, but liberals may be able to use the ruling to their advantage in certain areas. For example, in the realm of immigration, conservatives typically want more vigorous federal regulation. But in this case, liberal advocates of immigration reform are attempting to use Loper Bright to check the power of an immigration agency. “We’ll see whether the people who advanced Loper Bright might end up having a little bit of buyer’s remorse,” Weiner, of the Brennan Center for Justice, said.

Advocates for immigration reform have filed an amicus brief that supports Bouarfa’s right to judicial review by citing passages from Loper Bright. In addition, lawyers for Bouarfa have cited another major administrative law ruling last term from the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, which greatly expanded the possibilities for suing federal agencies. That ruling led dissenting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to warn that the “tsunami of lawsuits against agencies that the Court’s holding in this case and Loper Bright have authorized has the potential to devastate the functioning of the Federal Government.”

It’s too early to say whether a legal tsunami is coming, but with the Supreme Court set to open its new term in two weeks, it’s clear that a wave is already growing.

Eli Sanders won the 2012 Pulitzer Prize for feature writing and is a recent law school graduate.

by Eli Sanders for ProPublica, illustrations by Michael Haddid, special to ProPublica

The Department of Energy Promised This Tribal Nation a $32 Million Solar Grant. It’s Nearly Impossible to Access.

6 months 1 week ago

This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network in partnership with Oregon Public Broadcasting and with assistance from High Country News. Sign up for Dispatches to get stories like this one as soon as they are published.

The Department of Energy gave the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation what seemed like very good news earlier this year: It had won a $32 million grant for a novel solar energy project in Washington state. Built over a series of old irrigation canals, the proposed solar panels would generate electricity for tribal members without removing farm acreage from cultivation. The location would preserve the kinds of culturally sensitive land that have prompted concerns about other renewables projects.

Months after announcing the grant, the same department is making it nearly impossible for the tribal nation to access the money.

“It is because literally the feds cannot get out of their own way,” said Ray Wiseman, general manager of Yakama Power, the tribally owned utility.

The bureaucratic whiplash stems from the fact that while one part of the Energy Department hands out money for clean energy projects, another part decides which projects get access to the Northwest electrical grid. The Bonneville Power Administration’s process for approving connections comes with such exorbitant costs and is mired in such long delays that the federal grant could well expire before the tribe can touch a dime.

It’s a dilemma that persists despite the Biden administration’s explicit promise last year to help tribes create new sources of renewable power affordably and quickly.

Bonneville and the Energy Department blame the holdup on a glut of renewable energy proposals that are creating a need for massive transmission upgrades across the country. In a joint statement on behalf of Bonneville and its parent agency, Energy Department spokesperson Chris Ford said the government is required to put all energy proposals through the same process with the same costs.

But Ford added that federal agencies are “exploring different options within the law to both speed the process and reduce the costs the Yakama Nation would have to pay.”

It is because literally the feds cannot get out of their own way.

—Ray Wiseman, general manager of Yakama Power

The White House Council on Environmental Quality, which brokered the agreement pledging to help tribes build renewables, said in a statement the administration is coordinating with tribes and others in “taking action to deliver a clean, reliable electric grid and make federal permitting of new transmission lines more efficient.”

But council spokesperson Justin Weiss didn’t answer questions from Oregon Public Broadcasting and ProPublica about why the Yakama project was stalled and what specific steps the White House has taken to help speed tribal energy connections.

Renewable energy supporters say the Yakama solar case shows that if the White House can’t keep the federal bureaucracy from undermining its own goals, then it’s making promises it can’t keep.

Nancy Hirsh, who’s worked since the 1990s for a coalition that advocates for clean power in the Northwest, said the situation is exactly what she feared would happen after the tribal agreement was signed.

“This is just the thing that we need to fix,” Hirsh said, “the left hand not connected with the right hand.”

An Unprecedented Promise

The Yakama reservation in Central Washington bears the scars of the federal government’s energy policies.

Transmission lines stretching across tribal properties were built a century ago without permission. The country’s largest nuclear waste cleanup site, Hanford, has poisoned parts of the tribe’s ancestral land under the Department of Energy’s watch.

Families on the reservation were displaced from their homes along the river to make way for massive reservoirs and hydroelectric dams. Those dams nearly wiped out runs of wild salmon that are vital to Indigenous cultures and that the U.S. government swore in treaties it would preserve.

Even today, the development of renewable energy often risks encroaching on land held sacred by tribes, who have argued they are cut out of the decision-making process.

President Joe Biden seemed to offer a fresh approach to tribal sovereignty, declaring it a priority for his administration shortly after taking office in 2021.

Soon, the White House began negotiations to end a decades-old lawsuit by tribes and environmental groups who want some of the Northwest’s federal dams torn down to keep local salmon populations from going extinct.

The result of the talks was what the administration called a “historic” deal. The tribes would put their lawsuit on hold. In return, the White House promised to help tribes develop up to 3 gigawatts of renewable energy. That could power all the homes in a city roughly the size of Portland, Oregon. More significantly to the tribes, it’s enough to replace the output of the four dams on the lower Snake River deemed most detrimental to salmon.

“It will take all of us committing to this partnership now and for years to come to lift the words off the page and bring this agreement to life,” White House senior adviser John Podesta said at the signing of the agreement with Northwest tribes in February. “I want you to know that President Biden and Vice President Harris and the whole administration are committed to making that happen.”

Yakama Nation Chair Gerald Lewis also voiced hope when he signed the agreement with the Biden administration. “The last time energy was developed in the Columbia Basin, it was done on the backs of tribal communities and tribal resources,” Lewis said at the time. “Now we have an opportunity to do better.”

It will take all of us committing to this partnership now and for years to come to lift the words off the page and bring this agreement to life.

—John Podesta, White House senior adviser

The Yakama Nation’s proposal would seem to exactly fit the bill.

Its initial plan was to cover 10 miles of irrigation canals with solar panels and to outfit the canals themselves with small-scale hydroelectric turbines. That would generate enough electricity to power a few thousand homes on the reservation, which has a population of about 30,000.

In addition to avoiding the tribe’s culturally sensitive lands, the project wouldn’t encroach on any wildlife habitats. And covering the irrigation canals would shade the water so that less of it evaporates in the sun.

The Department of Energy awarded its $32 million grant for the project at the end of February. Soon after, the agency posted an interview about the plan with Lewis and Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm on its Facebook page bearing the caption, “Sometimes, the great ideas are the ones right in front of us.”

Washington’s U.S. senators, Democrats Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, each issued news releases announcing the grant and praising the project, saying the canals could boost water conservation by 20% and cut the reservation’s power bills by 15%.

But those ambitions quickly ran up against stark realities, according to the people directly involved in bringing the project to life.

“Everybody thinks that the federal government gave us 32 million bucks,” Wiseman, the general manager for Yakama Power, said. “They did not.”

Stuck in Bureaucracy

In its landmark accord with tribes, and in documents supporting the accord’s implementation, the White House promised more than money. It vowed to muster the full clout of the federal government to achieve the plan’s goals. Specifically, the agreement said the energy department, working with Indigenous leaders, would find “legal and regulatory options” for getting projects connected to the grid faster and for making them affordable for tribes.

That didn’t prevent the first tribal project to come along — the Yakama Nation’s — from getting caught in a snare of bureaucracy.

In addition to the grant from the Energy Department’s Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, Yakama Power was promised a nearly $100 million rural clean energy loan from the Department of Agriculture. But it cannot access any of the federal money without first obtaining a “power purchase agreement,” which essentially offers proof that the electricity the tribal utility plans to generate has a destination.

That’s hard for the tribe to do because it can’t get a purchase agreement until its project connects to the grid, which is owned by Bonneville, itself an arm of the Energy Department. Bonneville’s earliest estimate of when it will finish studying connection requests such as the Yakama Nation’s is 2027, but the federal agency says it could be longer.

That’s just one of many steps. The tribe can’t distribute electricity from the new solar project until Bonneville completes upgrades to the section of its transmission system that serves the reservation, including the installation of a new electrical substation.

The federal agency’s estimate for what it would charge for the substation alone: $144 million. Building transmission lines to and from the new solar array would drive the cost higher still, but Bonneville hasn’t done those estimates yet. The Yakama would have to bear those costs.

The tribe had counted on some rate increases to pay for the solar array, but covering the unexpectedly high cost of the upgrade would add hundreds of dollars more to a household’s monthly utility bill, Wiseman said. That’s on a reservation where nearly 20% of residents have incomes below the poverty line.

Another financial hurdle: Inflation has driven up construction costs for the solar array itself in the two years since the project was proposed.

Even if the tribe can come up with all the extra money needed, time is working against the project. Bonneville says it will take five to seven years to build the substation after it’s paid for.

All the delays will push the tribe up against a 2031 deadline to use or lose its $32 million grant and $100 million loan. They were funded under the bipartisan infrastructure bill and the Inflation Reduction Act, which both expire that year.

Wiseman is no longer confident of how many miles of canal, if any, the utility can cover with solar panels. He’s unsure whether Yakama Power will need to opt for a much smaller solar array that lacks the specialized hardware needed to suspend the panels above the irrigation canals.

“I have serious questions about whether or not these things will survive to go forward,” Wiseman said.

The Green Energy Traffic Jam

The Yakama Nation in many ways faces the same pressures that are holding back new wind and solar farms across the country.

The surge in such projects over the past decade has jammed up the system that grid operators like Bonneville Power Administration use when evaluating requests to connect to the grid. The onslaught of green power has also taxed a grid designed to carry much less energy. And yet the new supply is badly needed to meet soaring demand, driven in part by thearrival of energy-guzzling data centers in the past decade.

Bonneville is changing the way it studies energy proposals to streamline the process. But renewable developers, advocates and industry analysts have published a white paper with a list of more than 20 recommendations that they say can create the grid the Northwest needs and that, for the most part, they say Bonneville has not addressed.

In the meantime, despite the Biden administration’s agreement last year to help tribes, their projects have not moved to the head of the line.

Hirsh’s group, the clean and affordable energy coalition, was party to the lawsuit that the tribal deal was meant to settle. She said the government’s failure to deliver on its clean energy promises “could jeopardize the agreement.”

Yakama Nation leaders say because of the long history of energy development violating tribal rights, and because reservations were set up with marginal infrastructure, the federal government should not treat tribes the way it does any other energy developer.

The Department of Energy, however, says its lawyers have yet to find a way through federal energy regulations or treaty law to let the agency deal with tribal projects differently.

Wiseman continues to incur costs on behalf of Yakama Power, planning for the solar project while doubts linger over whether all the pieces will come together in time.

“If I can’t get the transmission access that we need — whether intentional, unintentional, whatever you want to call it — Bonneville will have single-handedly killed these projects,” Wiseman said. “And that’s why at this point, I feel incredibly frustrated, because beating them up doesn’t do me any good.”

Do You Have a Tip for ProPublica? Help Us Do Journalism.

by Tony Schick, Oregon Public Broadcasting