a Better Bubble™

ProPublica

Lawmakers Introduce Bill to Reform Controversial Contract-for-Deed Home Sales

9 months 3 weeks 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.

A pair of U.S. senators introduced a bill Thursday that aims to curtail the misuse of a home buying agreement known as contract for deed, a potentially predatory practice that has targeted immigrant communities.

The Preserving Pathways to Homeownership Act of 2024, introduced by Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn. and Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., would require states to enact laws that provide additional protections for home buyers and discourage exploitative behavior by sellers.

“It makes me so angry that people who are trying to pursue the dream of owning their own home” and that “those individuals would be exploited by these unscrupulous sellers, purely to make money off of them,” Smith said in an interview this week. “I mean, it’s just so outrageous.”

The senators drafted the bill in response to a 2022 investigation by ProPublica and Sahan Journal that identified a rising market in Minnesota for home sales using contracts for deed, an installment payment agreement made between the seller and the buyer without the involvement of a bank. While proponents say the contracts create a path to homeownership for those without good credit or substantial work histories, critics say that in Minnesota and other states, the deals lack key consumer protections.

Contract-for-deed sellers in Minnesota marketed their services directly to members of the Somali Muslim community. Many practicing Muslims avoid paying or profiting from interest, which effectively shuts them out of the traditional mortgage market.

In recent years, investors began promoting the contracts for deed as an “interest free” purchase agreement by first buying houses using traditional mortgages, then reselling them to contract buyers — often for tens of thousands of dollars above market price. The deals were frequently fast-tracked and conducted without the involvement of a lawyer and without an inspection or appraisal of the property.

Somali homebuyers told Sahan Journal and ProPublica that they were duped into contracts they did not understand, with exorbitant down payments and lump sums of hundreds of thousands of dollars due at the end of five-year contract terms. Housing rights advocates say immigrant homebuyers who lack financial literacy and may not read or speak English fluently are easy targets for unscrupulous sellers. Under Minnesota state law, buyers in default can be evicted in as little as 60 days and lose everything they’ve put into a purchase, leaving sellers free to flip the property to a new buyer.

The article sparked concern not only from lawmakers, but from law enforcement. The Minnesota Attorney General’s Office launched an investigation last year into whether sellers broke the law by targeting minority buyers or using deceptive tactics. That investigation is ongoing, according to Mark Iris, the assistant attorney general leading the inquiry. In a previous Senate subcommittee hearing on the contracts — also known as land installment contracts or land contracts — Smith characterized the deals as “designed to fail.”

If passed, the legislation from Smith and Lummis would standardize laws surrounding contracts for deed on residential properties, which vary widely from state to state. It would not apply to commercial or agricultural real estate sales, and sellers who used the property as their primary residence in the previous two years would likewise be exempted. The latter is an attempt to exempt contracts between, say, parents and an adult child.

The bill would require all contracts be filed by the seller with a recorder of deeds office within five days of their signing, a step that is not currently mandated in all states and would provide a “basic level of sunshine on the process,” said Smith. A lack of documentation can result in exploitative practices, like selling the same property multiple times.

The bill would also require that if a buyer defaults, they and the seller must go through state foreclosure procedures that apply to traditional mortgages. Such protections typically allow residents to remain in a home for a period of time before they must vacate. Smith said that there’s also interest in the House on a companion bill.

“It's kind of like a basic level of safety and consumer protection that ought to be available for everybody who is engaging in a purchase through a contract for deed,” she said.

Ron Elwood, supervising attorney at the Legal Services Advocacy Project, the policy advocacy arm of Legal Aid in Minnesota, said the legislation is also intended to create a “built-in speed bump” to discourage sellers who act in bad faith. He said he is working with state legislators on a “complete overhaul” of Minnesota contracts for deed law.

That effort is being authored by Rep. Hodan Hassan and Sen. Zaynab Mohamed, both Democrats who represent districts in south Minneapolis; according to Elwood, legislation will be introduced this session. Hassan and Mohamed did not respond to requests for comment.

Jeff Scislow, a real estate agent who has sold homes to many Somali clients using contract for deed, said he supports a requirement that all contracts be recorded but has reservations about adding a foreclosure process in cases of default. He said Minnesota has a six-month period before homeowners must vacate when they don’t need to make payments.

Because contract-for-deed sellers often take out a mortgage to purchase a home before selling it, Scislow wrote in an email, the prospect of an extended period of nonpayment “would heighten the risk for sellers and likely dissuade many from engaging in contract-for-deed transactions.” If the current 60-day cancellation period were extended, he added, it “could limit opportunities for buyers, especially those with poor credit, insufficient tax return history, or those seeking alternatives to traditional financing.”

But Farah Mohamed, owner of Gurisan Realty and a member of the Minneapolis Area Realtors’ Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion committee, said lack of regulation has allowed the market to go too far in the Somali community. One of the most troubling things he’s seen is how contracts have been promoted as “halal” by local religious leaders, making it difficult for buyers to separate the transactions from their religious principles.

Mohamed said he was approached by an investor seller to recruit buyers from his largely Somali clientele, but he refused. He is working to educate community leaders about the pitfalls of the contracts, but said he has encountered resistance. “Once you start in a religious place,” he said, “it’s tough to kill it.”

by Jessica Lussenhop

A Memorial for the Children Lost to Stillbirth

9 months 3 weeks ago

This story contains photos of stillborn babies.

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

Every year, more than 20,000 pregnancies in the U.S. end in a stillbirth, the death of an expected child at 20 weeks of pregnancy or more. For the past two years, ProPublica has been examining the failures that have led to the stillbirth crisis. While other wealthy countries have reduced their stillbirth rates, the U.S. lags behind. Black women are more than twice as likely as white women to have a stillbirth.

More than 200 people shared their stories with ProPublica. Over and over, they told us about the costs of failing to prioritize stillbirth prevention.

Many mothers neared or reached their due date only to be told their babies had died in their wombs.

We invited 60 families to share their baby’s name. This memorial — which highlights some of their stories — concludes with a list of all 60 names.

We offered parents the following prompts:

You were …

You made me …

You gave me …

In some cases, multiple families expressed the same feelings following a stillbirth. We grouped those submissions together to underscore the power of those responses.

Visit ProPublica.org to experience the full interactive memorial.

A Memorial for the Children Lost to Stillbirth

Each day in the U.S., about 60 babies are stillborn. Here, families share their child’s name and their lasting legacy.

You were perfect.

Several families referred to their babies as “perfect” and reflected on the profound impact their babies had on their lives.

Caleb Marcus Lens

— Jill and Josh Lens, Caleb’s parents, pictured with Hannah (left) and Gretchen

Stillborn in 2017 at 37 weeks Cooper Allen Dunlap

— Lexi and Joey Dunlap, Cooper’s parents

Stillborn in 2022 at 40 weeks Emilia Madeleine Rose Clough

— Charmel and Daniel Clough, Emilia’s parents

Stillborn in 2017 at 33 weeks Amelia Claire

— Caroline Kercheval and Renzo Barrientos, Amelia’s parents

Stillborn in 2020 at 34 weeks in 2020 Mason Joseph Bode

– Laura and Travis Bode, Mason’s parents

Stillborn in 2023 at 40 weeks

Despite the fatalistic acceptance that some babies just die, ProPublica found that not all stillbirths were inevitable. A lack of research and awareness creates significant barriers to better understanding and preventing stillbirths.

But even with these failings, there’s hope. The National Institutes of Health in March released a report listing a series of steps national and local agencies can take to lower the stillbirth rate. Congress is considering two stillbirth-prevention bills to help address the country’s stillbirth crisis. One has passed in the Senate. Parents continue to fight for change.

You made me a mother.

In response to the prompt “You made me,” many women said their babies made them a mother. Here are some of their entries:

D.J. Anderson

– Alishia Anderson, D.J.’s mother, pictured with Derrek Anderson

Stillborn in 2016 at 28 weeks Hank Justice Felker

– Allie Felker, Hank’s mother

Stillborn in 2020 at 31 weeks Giles Jones

– Ava Jones, Giles’ mother, pictured with Gregory Jones Jr.

Stillborn in 2019 at 39 weeks Lily Josephine Parncutt

– Janel Parncutt, Lily’s mother

Stillborn in 2023 at 34 weeks C.J. Spivey Hunsberger

– Ashley Spivey, C.J.’s mother

Stillborn in 2020 at 31 weeks Rhoan Osborne Bailey

– Erica Bailey, Rhoan’s mother

Stillborn in 2020 at 39 weeks Baby Beet Kessler

– Shanley Peterson, Baby Beet’s mother

Stillborn in 2021 at 36 weeks

The grief of a stillbirth is difficult to fully capture. It can last a lifetime. People who’ve lost a pregnancy often experience a crushing guilt, wondering if they could have done anything to save their baby. In some cases, their pain is followed by anger at a health care system that did not educate them on the risks of stillbirth, monitor them closely enough or listen to them when they said something felt wrong.

Mental health experts often advise parents grappling with grief to focus on a moment or a memory that gives them comfort. Some choose an image that makes them think of their baby or that highlights a milestone like a birthday or what would have been the first day of school. Others take walks at places they had envisioned visiting with their babies.

Visit ProPublica to experience the full immersive and interactive memorial. This feature provides an opportunity to read heartfelt tributes from families who have shared their stories. Join us in honoring the names of 60 stillborn babies.

Development by Jason Kao. Photo editing by Peter DiCampo.

by Adriana Gallardo and Duaa Eldeib, design by Zisiga Mukulu

Veterans Affairs Secretary Vows to Increase Staffing at Clinic Tied to Two Deadly Shootings

9 months 3 weeks 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 secretary of veterans affairs, Denis McDonough, visited a clinic in Chico, California, last week and personally pledged to address concerns about inadequate staffing in the VA facility’s mental health unit.

His visit came after a ProPublica investigation revealed serious lapses in the psychiatric care two veterans received at the clinic. After years of struggling to get adequate treatment, and in the midst of mental health crises, the veterans shot and killed their mothers within days of each other in January 2022. The ProPublica story grew out of an inquiry by the VA’s inspector general that examined the agency’s shortcomings in one of the deaths.

At the time of the shootings, the clinic hadn’t had a full-time, on-site psychiatrist in five years, and many of the telehealth providers had recently stopped seeing Chico patients. Clinic employees told ProPublica they had begged regional leaders for help, but the federal health system was slow to respond. The former site manager told ProPublica she had warned colleagues, “We are going to kill someone.”

On Thursday, McDonough, who previously served as White House chief of staff and principal deputy national security adviser during the Obama administration, held a roundtable discussion with front-line mental health workers as well as top leaders from the VA’s regional office in Northern California.

“This is an important opportunity for us to learn really important lessons, and part of my learning today was to come up here to meet with our team to hear directly from them what their experience is right now and what I need to do to make sure that I’m the best possible partner for them,” he told a local news reporter after the meeting. “In that regard, this was a very, very helpful event.”

McDonough said he assured employees “that they would not be unheard in their concerns” and that the VA would “continue to make progress on staffing issues.”

If you or someone you know needs help:

  • Call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 988
  • Text the Crisis Text Line from anywhere in the U.S. to reach a crisis counselor: 741741
  • If you are a veteran, call the Veterans Crisis Line: 988, then press 1

“We have a very fast-growing veteran population here in Chico,” he added. “We have to make sure that we are growing commensurate with that population so that they can get the timely access to care and the timely access to benefits that they have earned. We’re making progress on that, but there’s still more work to be done, and we will not rest until we get it done.”

In a statement about the visit, VA Press Secretary Terrence Hayes said, “we take the issues raised by the VA’s inspector general and ProPublica extremely seriously, and we appreciate the oversight — which helps us better serve our nation’s Veterans.”

Hayes declined to say anything more specific about the actions McDonough intends to take.

ProPublica examined the case of Julia Larsen, a 29-year-old woman who was honorably discharged from the Navy in 2016. Upon returning home to California, Larsen was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder from combat and military sexual trauma. She began experiencing psychotic symptoms soon after.

Marty Larsen displays a photo of his daughter Julia, which he keeps in his wallet. The photo was taken around the time of her boot camp graduation, just before deployment. (Loren Elliott for ProPublica)

Larsen sought help at the Chico clinic for several years, she told ProPublica and her medical records show. But she said the providers were too busy for talk therapy and focused instead on medications. In late 2021, a virtual nurse practitioner Larsen had never seen prescribed her two drugs that can trigger psychotic or manic symptoms when taken together. It isn’t clear which, if either, she took.

In January 2022, on a morning when Larsen was experiencing an extreme mental health crisis, a nurse at the Chico clinic mistakenly instructed Larsen’s mother to bring her in for an assessment. But the virtual nurse practitioner who was on call was booked and had no time for a consultation, violating VA rules that require patients to be seen in such situations. In addition, a social worker who was supposed to assess Larsen failed to follow protocols and sent her home.

Later that night, the sound of a far-off explosion frightened Larsen and prompted her to fire her handgun several times inside her parents’ home. One bullet pierced her mother in the thigh, damaging a large blood vessel and fatally wounding her.

Larsen’s case was the subject of a February 2023 report by the VA’s Office of Inspector General, which found the Chico clinic had failed to manage her medication, provide same-day access to care and assess her risk of violence. Larsen was later committed to a state-run forensic psychiatric hospital.

Andrew Iles, an Air Force veteran who was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, also struggled to get consistent treatment at the clinic, ProPublica found. His providers changed repeatedly. He was sometimes assigned to a pharmacist instead of a psychiatrist or psychologist.

A photo of Andrew Iles at boot camp is pictured at the home of his older sister, Ashley Hill. The family moved to Texas for a fresh start after Iles killed his mother. (Loren Elliott for ProPublica)

Over time, Iles’ delusions grew more extreme, and he came to believe his immediate family was trying to kill him. He shot his mother in January 2022, killing her in the home they shared.

After ProPublica’s investigation was published, Iles, 35, was found not guilty by reason of insanity. As a result, he will be committed to a state psychiatric hospital instead of facing prison time.

In a press release announcing the case’s resolution, the local district attorney, Michael L. Ramsey, linked to and cited ProPublica’s reporting, saying it showed Iles “had difficulty establishing consistent care with a mental health provider through the VA.”

In addition to the two cases, ProPublica analyzed more than 300 studies conducted by the agency’s inspector general over the last four years. The analysis found repeated failures in mental health care, some of which had fatal consequences.

Andrew’s older sister, Ashley Hill, said this week that she was disappointed the VA hadn’t reached out to her family directly or published an inspector general’s report on her brother’s case.

“If this leads to some kind of change,” she said of the secretary’s visit to Chico, “that’s the best thing my family can hope for.”

by ProPublica

Under Ken Paxton, Texas’ Elite Civil Medicaid Fraud Unit Is Falling Apart

9 months 3 weeks 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 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 years, an elite team of lawyers at the Texas attorney general’s office went toe-to-toe with some of the biggest pharmaceutical companies in the world, on a mission to weed out fraud and abuse in the Medicaid system.

And the team was wildly successful, securing positive press for the attorney general’s office and bringing in money for the state — lots of it. In a little more than two decades, the Civil Medicaid Fraud Division has helped recover a whopping $2.6 billion. Of that, $1 billion went to the state’s general fund, which pays for critical services like education and health care.

The cases the team handled weren’t necessarily the kind to rouse the conservative base of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who gained prominence for his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and for regularly suing the Biden administration. But still, they were legal victories Paxton touted amid a host of scandals that have dogged him since he was first elected in 2014.

“Paxton Recovers $26 Million for the State of Texas, Medicaid Program,” read one 2021 press release from his office, after the Civil Medicaid Fraud Division settled with the pharmaceutical manufacturer Apotex for reporting high drug prices to the state’s Medicaid program.

He praised the team again last fall, a couple of months after state senators acquitted him in a widely watched impeachment trial in which Paxton faced allegations of corruption and bribery.

“Our Civil Medicaid Fraud Division has done an outstanding job holding these pharmaceutical companies accountable,” a November news release quoted Paxton saying, about a lawsuit his office had filed against pharmaceutical giants Pfizer Inc. and Tris Pharma Inc. The suit accuses the companies of giving an ADHD drug to children on Texas Medicaid, despite evidence the substance had failed quality control tests. (Pfizer said in a statement it believes the state’s case has no merit; a spokesperson for Tris said the company does not comment on pending litigation.)

But over the last year, the team of lawyers responsible for pursuing this and other big lawsuits like it has shrunk to its smallest size since Paxton took office.

Nearly two-thirds of the lawyers who were on the team a year ago have quit. Despite some replacements, the division is down from 31 attorneys last January to 19 at the beginning of this year, according to an analysis of staffing records by ProPublica and The Texas Tribune. Together, those departing lawyers represented a combined 180 years of experience with the attorney general’s office.

The Number of Attorneys in the Civil Medicaid Fraud Division Decreased Sharply in 2023 Source: Texas Office of the Attorney General

The departures followed the ouster of the Civil Medicaid Fraud Division’s longtime and beloved chief, Raymond Winter, in November 2022. What precisely led to his departure was not made clear to his team. A December 2022 email from an associate deputy attorney general to the agency’s head of human resources, obtained by the news organizations, said Winter was notified that “a decision was made to change leadership” in the division. Winter was given the option to take a demotion and serve in either the agency’s Transportation Division or its Law Enforcement Defense Division. He instead chose to retire, the email said.

However, a former attorney from the division said agency higher-ups told Winter if he didn’t resign or take the demotion, he’d be fired. The attorney, like the multiple former Civil Medicaid Fraud attorneys interviewed for this story, asked ProPublica and The Texas Tribune not to use their name for fear of professional retaliation.

The news organizations spoke to 10 attorneys who worked in the division with Winter. They said his ouster came as a shock. Months earlier, Winter had received a $5,000 bonus “for consistently performing at a level of excellence,” a manager wrote, according to his employee file, which the news organizations obtained through a public information request. Gov. Greg Abbott has since appointed Winter to be the state’s inspector general.

Several attorneys said the exodus that followed Winter’s ejection is a sign of a state agency at a crisis point. The 19 lawyers who left the division last year constitute a significantly higher number than the seven who departed in 2022, one of whom moved to another unit within the attorney general’s office, the news organizations found.

The attorney general’s office did not respond to multiple interview requests or written questions.

Paxton’s agency has been beset by operational struggles in recent years. Last year, ProPublica and the Tribune reported on Paxton’s repeated refusals to defend state agencies in court. Austin-based television station KXAN disclosed how dysfunction in the office’s Crime Victims’ Compensation unit has resulted in significant payment delays to crime survivors. The Associated Press has covered the agency’s decision to drop human trafficking and child sexual assault cases because investigators lost track of a victim, as well as numerous other attorneys quitting because of internal dysfunction.

Paxton himself has been the subject of a whistleblower lawsuit filed by his former lieutenants, as well as a securities fraud investigation ongoing since before he was elected attorney general. Paxton recently moved to settle the whistleblower lawsuit, saying he no longer contests the facts, as part of his ongoing effort to avoid testifying in the case. He has pleaded not guilty in the securities fraud case, which is set to go to trial in April.

The attorney general has so far survived these personal and professional challenges, becoming even more emboldened since his impeachment acquittal in September. Days after his reinstatement, he publicly pledged to help unseat some of the lawmakers who voted to impeach him and has supported numerous primary challengers to sitting Republican legislators.

The personnel losses in the Civil Medicaid Fraud Division carry a different consequence because it is one of the departments at the attorney general’s office that generates money. In fiscal year 2000, the team’s first in existence, lawyers there helped bring in a little more than $5 million in recoveries. A decade later, the division regularly had years when it helped bring in more than $100 million. In fiscal year 2012, when Abbott was still attorney general, the division helped recoup more than $400 million in wasted Medicaid dollars. (The civil division is distinct from the attorney general’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, which conducts criminal investigations into fraud and abuse allegations against Medicaid health care providers.)

Besides the money that went to the state general fund, Paxton’s office also benefited, getting to keep a portion of attorney’s fees from its cases, money that goes to the agency as a whole. In fiscal year 2023, the division helped collect more than $14 million in those fees, almost triple the Civil Medicaid Fraud division’s annual budget, according to records ProPublica and the Tribune obtained through a public information request. The previous year, Civil Medicaid Fraud collected more in attorney’s fees than all other attorney general divisions combined.

Without the full crop of lawyers, achieving those kinds of wins will be significantly harder, former lawyers for the division said.

“When a lawyer who’s been there for years and has handled multiple lawsuits and built relationships with the feds, with other states, all of that — when that walks out the door, you start over, and that is not easily regained,” said Margaret Moore, a former Travis County district attorney who previously worked in the division under Winter.

Medicaid fraud cases can take years to complete, and money from legal settlements coming in this year is most likely the result of cases investigated and litigated under Winter’s leadership, a former attorney said. So it is too soon to know how the division’s ability to secure financial settlements will be affected by the loss of so many experienced attorneys. Last fiscal year, however, the Civil Medicaid Fraud Division opened only 56 cases, the lowest number since at least 2013, according to a review of annual reports jointly issued by the attorney general’s office, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission and the Office of Inspector General. The next lowest number of civil Medicaid fraud cases filed in that time frame was 73, in fiscal year 2022.

Winter declined to be interviewed for this story. The Office of Inspector General, which he now leads, regularly works with the attorney general’s Civil Medicaid Fraud unit on investigations. In a statement, Winter called the Civil Medicaid Fraud Division a “valued partner” and said that together they will “continue to aggressively fight Medicaid fraud using all available tools under the law.”

Medicaid fraud litigation is complex and requires a sharp understanding of state and federal law. The attorneys regularly take on big pharmaceutical companies with deep pockets. Often, the state faces off against multiple white-shoe law firms in a single case.

Another former Civil Medicaid Fraud attorney, who left the division last year, predicted it could take a decade to rebuild the unit because of the institutional knowledge that was lost.

“As a Texas citizen who happens to know more about the shady things that pharmaceutical companies and other entities do because of my job, I do feel less safe as a citizen knowing that CMF is not what it used to be and does not have the ability to hold those entities accountable in the way that they were,” she said.

A Close-Knit Team

Winter was the kind of hands-on leader who inspired uncommon admiration among his staff. In his earlier life, he’d been a member of Texas A&M University’s storied Corps of Cadets, then a paratrooper in the Army National Guard, all experiences that seemed to drive home his “team first” philosophy.

And it was a close-knit team in Civil Medicaid Fraud.

In 1999, then-Texas Attorney General John Cornyn, now a U.S. senator, started the unit as a small section inside the agency’s Elder Law and Public Health Division with the goal of stopping abuse of the Medicaid program. To do so, lawyers in the unit would use a state law passed in 1995 that empowered the attorney general’s office to prosecute fraud within the Medicaid system, a state and federal program that provides health care to financially needy individuals.

When Winter first started working on Medicaid fraud cases in 2000, there were only two other people on the team. They had few resources. Cynthia O’Keeffe, who was hired to work for the unit two years later, remembered a defense attorney asking her to send something to him by overnight mail. She told him she couldn’t because her team’s overnight mailing budget was already used up for the year. “He lost his mind,” she remembered. “He thought I was lying to him.”

But that quickly began to change. In 2000, Texas became the first state in the country to go after a pharmaceutical company for improperly reporting drug prices to the Medicaid program, according to a press release the attorney general’s office issued in 2013. This and subsequent lawsuits highlighted how pharmaceutical companies would sometimes misrepresent the prices of their products to the Medicaid program.

In 2003, the Civil Medicaid Fraud unit settled with Dey Inc. for $18.5 million in a drug-pricing case related to albuterol sulfate, which is used to treat asthma. At the time, O’Keeffe couldn’t fathom being part of a settlement for that much money. Then the next year, the division settled another drug-pricing case, this time with Schering-Plough Corp., for $27 million.

As the settlements grew, so did the unit’s reputation across the country, said Lelia Winget-Hernandez, a lawyer who previously worked with the attorney general of Virginia.

Texas Medicaid fraud attorneys were always willing to help and provide Winget-Hernandez guidance when she called with questions about pursuing similar Medicaid fraud lawsuits in her state. “I know they say Texas leads the way and don’t mess with Texas. That [Civil Medicaid Fraud] unit exhibited that all the time,” Winget-Hernandez said.

By 2007, Winter was the unit’s acting chief. The following year, Abbott, who was the state’s attorney general from 2002 to 2014, made it its own division.

The Civil Medicaid Fraud Division landed some of its biggest headlines when its attorneys joined a whistleblower lawsuit against health care behemoth Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary ​​Janssen Pharmaceutical LLC. The lawsuit accused the companies of fraudulently marketing the schizophrenia drug Risperdal for use in children and adolescents, including those on the Texas Medicaid program, though the U.S. Food and Drug and Administration had not yet approved it for pediatric patients. The Food and Drug Administration had also sent warning letters to the company over the years about its marketing practices and failures to disclose data to doctors about possible side effects of the drug. In children, those included diabetes, permanent uncontrollable movement disorders and the growth of lactating breasts in boys, O’Keeffe said.

The case went to trial in January 2012. In her opening statement to the court, O’Keeffe accused the companies of having engaged in a “systematic looting” of the state’s Medicaid program.

After roughly a week of the plaintiffs’ case, Johnson & Johnson agreed to settle for $158 million, the state’s largest ever Medicaid fraud recovery from a single defendant at the time. As part of the agreement, Johnson & Johnson admitted no wrongdoing.

Tommy Jacks, one of the private attorneys who worked on the case alongside the attorney general’s office, said in a recent interview with ProPublica and the Tribune that it was clear the important role Winter played for his team.

He “led by example, and was just completely trusted by the individuals who worked in the division,” Jacks said.

The team’s successes were a calling card for top-tier legal talent. The Civil Medicaid Fraud unit attracted law school stars and experienced private attorneys willing to take pay cuts in order to work for the state and for a mission they believed in, O’Keeffe said. “They wanted to come and work for us because we were on the right side of cases,” O’Keeffe said. “It was complex, high-profile work, and we were incredibly successful.”

When Abbott was still attorney general, job candidates sometimes asked in interviews about the politics of the agency and how that affected their work. “And we would say, ‘Hey, Greg Abbott doesn’t let that get to us,’” O’Keeffe said.

In November 2014, Abbott was elected governor. To replace him as attorney general, voters chose Paxton, another Republican and a state senator from McKinney.

Growing Pressure

Paxton’s first election didn’t initially change things in Civil Medicaid Fraud. The team kept securing settlements, and there was still a sense of a separation between the agency’s day-to-day operations and the politics, said Susan Miller, who led the division’s investigative unit from 2007 until 2020. She and her fellow attorneys didn’t have many interactions with Paxton, which was typical of the office.

The atmosphere started to shift sometime after Paxton was elected for a second term in 2018.

The differences were small at first. O’Keeffe, who also became a deputy chief in the unit, recalled higher-ups in the attorney general’s office asking her to meet with a woman whose health care company the Civil Medicaid Fraud Division was investigating, though lawyers had not yet decided whether to pursue the case in court. The woman wanted to know why lawyers were looking into her business. “She made it very clear she wanted me to back off,” O’Keeffe said.

Ultimately, nothing came of the interaction, and O’Keeffe said she doesn’t believe a case was ever filed against the woman’s company. Still, she couldn’t believe leadership at the attorney general’s office would even call such a meeting in the first place because of the potential precedent it could set. Lawyers don’t meet directly with potential defendants because it could influence the course of a case or investigation and because “it gives the person who’s being investigated the impression they are in charge, not you,” O’Keeffe said.

“I thought, ‘Greg Abbott would have never let this happen. John Cornyn would have never let this happen,’” O’Keeffe recalled.

Previously, the team had felt free from political pressure, Miller said. The lawyers were working for Republican attorneys general yet were still able to take on big business. Under Paxton, however, she said the higher-ups started asking more questions about certain cases the attorneys chose to pursue and how long they took. “We had to start justifying things more,” Miller said. O’Keeffe noticed Winter being cut out of discussions about certain matters and that executives weren’t always heeding his legal advice — partly, she believes, because he wasn’t in Paxton’s inner circle.

O’Keeffe left the agency in fall 2019, followed by Miller in August 2020. Shortly after, several of Paxton’s top deputies went to the FBI alleging the attorney general had misused the office in trying to aid his friend and donor, real estate investor Nate Paul. Paul, who now faces multiple charges in federal court that include making false statements to financial institutions, has denied bribing Paxton and pleaded not guilty to the charges.

One of the whistleblowers, David Maxwell Jr., later told Texas House of Representatives investigators that anyone who’d been close to him became a target at the agency — and that included Winter.

Former Texas Ranger David Maxwell Jr. testifies during Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s impeachment trial in the state Senate last year. (Bob Daemmrich for The Texas Tribune)

Maxwell, a former Texas Ranger, had been the attorney general’s director of criminal law enforcement. Part of Winter’s job with the state, separate from his leadership of the Civil Medicaid Fraud Division, was to defend Maxwell’s ratings of law enforcement officers who were terminated from the attorney general’s office.

Paxton ultimately fired Maxwell and gave him a general discharge, according to court filings, which indicates some kind of work performance problem or disciplinary issue. When Maxwell challenged the rating, wanting to upgrade to honorable discharge, the attorney general’s office asked Winter to defend its decision. Winter declined, according to Maxwell’s February 2023 interview with the House investigators, which was included in exhibits released ahead of Paxton’s impeachment trial. “He refused, and so they fired him,” Maxwell said, according to a transcript of that interview.

Maxwell declined an interview request for this story.

“Paxton has totally devastated the agency with good people that he’s gotten rid of because the criteria to get hired in the executive level is to plead your allegiance to him, not to the agency or not to the law,” Maxwell told the investigators.

Ultimately, Paxton fired four other whistleblowers. Another three of them quit, among them Paxton’s second in command, First Assistant Jeff Mateer. In the aftermath of his top deputies reporting him, Paxton “hired a whole new executive crew,” whistleblower Mark Penley told House investigators, “and sealed off access to the executive floor.”

Among Paxton’s new lieutenants was Brent Webster, a private practice lawyer the attorney general hired to replace Mateer as first assistant. Webster had previously come under scrutiny when working in Williamson County, where he was accused of failing to serve citations in dozens of asset forfeiture cases. Webster told the Austin American-Statesman in 2017 he did so because the office was short-staffed and so he prioritized criminal cases.

His first day with the state, Webster kicked out one of the other whistleblowers, Blake Brickman, from a meeting with Paxton, a lawsuit filed by the whistleblowers alleged. Later, Webster went to Brickman’s office escorted by an armed officer. Other employees complained that the armed officer “was an unprecedented attempt by Mr. Webster to intimidate senior members of OAG staff,” according to an internal whistleblower complaint filed by Brickman in October 2020 that was a precursor to the lawsuit he and others later pursued. Webster has never publicly addressed these allegations.

Unlike his predecessor in the first assistant role, Webster was far less enamored with Winter and his team, according to one attorney who used to work with the Civil Medicaid Fraud Division. Other officials in the agency suspected Webster didn’t appreciate any level of pushback on his ideas, the attorney said. But Winter was direct, the attorney said, and wouldn’t necessarily hold back his legal opinion about a case if he thought it necessary to share it.

Webster did not respond to requests for comment.

Winter did his best to shield the division from politics and turmoil in the executive offices, several attorneys said. But in 2022, the attorney general’s office and the Civil Medicaid Fraud Division joined a whistleblower lawsuit against Planned Parenthood, alleging the sexual health organization had improperly received Medicaid reimbursements while Texas’ challenges to its use of those funds were underway. Two attorneys interviewed by ProPublica and the Tribune said there were disagreements between Winter and the higher-ups about what legal approach to take on the $1.8 billion lawsuit, which threatens to bankrupt Planned Parenthood nationally. Planned Parenthood has called the lawsuit meritless.

One of the attorneys told the news organizations that in the months leading up to Winter’s ouster, there was a building sense of scrutiny, pressure and interference coming from the top of the organization, particularly when it came to the Planned Parenthood litigation. Executives were extremely focused on the case, a lot of resources were devoted to it and the entire tone of the division changed for the worse as a result, the attorney said.

The team kept trying to do its work. Then, in mid-November 2022, a handful of Paxton’s top deputies called the Civil Medicaid Fraud attorneys into a room. Word had already spread that Winter had been pushed out. The deputies confirmed the news. The room filled with an icy silence, but the anger was palpable, attorneys present said.

“Anyone who was being honest with themselves in the moment knew things were about to be really bad,” another former Civil Medicaid Fraud attorney said.

No One Was Safe

Winter’s departure was a seismic event. If he wasn’t safe, some of the division attorneys agreed, no one was.

By January 2023, six attorneys from the division resigned, three of them on the same day. Four more announced in February that they were quitting. The rest of the departures trickled in throughout the subsequent months and included an investigator, a legal assistant and an office manager. After Paxton’s acquittal but before year’s end, another three attorneys quit.

These reductions will hurt the division’s ability to detect Medicaid waste, said Charles Silver, the McDonald chair in civil procedure at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law.

“That’s the only effect it can possibly have,” Silver said. “The number of potential cases out there greatly exceeds the ability of either the states’ AG departments or the federal government to police it all.”

Some of the departing lawyers followed Winter to his new job at the Office of Inspector General. Others retired or went to work for other state offices.

Now, there are only a handful of attorneys left in the division with experience litigating Medicaid fraud cases.

And the resignations haven’t stopped. On Jan. 17, another Civil Medicaid Fraud attorney quit.

by Vianna Davila

Private Schools, Public Money: School Leaders Are Pushing Parents to Exploit Voucher Programs

9 months 3 weeks ago

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

Tara Polansky and her husband were torn about where to enroll their daughter when they moved back to Columbus, Ohio, a year and a half ago. The couple, who work for a nonprofit organization and a foundation, respectively, were concerned about the quality of the city’s public schools and finally decided to send her to Columbus Jewish Day School. It was a long drive out to the suburbs every day, but they admired the school for its liberal-minded outlook.

So Polansky was startled when, in September, the school wrote to families telling them to apply for taxpayer-funded vouchers to cover part of the $18,000 tuition. In June, the Republican-controlled state government had expanded the state’s private-school voucher program to increase the value of the vouchers — to a maximum of $8,407 a year for high school students and $6,165 for those in lower grades — and, crucially, to make them available to all families.

For years the program, EdChoice, targeted mostly lower-income students in struggling school districts. Now it is an entitlement available to all, with its value decreasing for families with higher incomes but still providing more than $7,000 annually for high school students in solidly middle-class families and close to $1,000 for ones in the wealthiest families. Demand for EdChoice vouchers has nearly doubled this year, at a cost to Ohio taxpayers of several hundred million additional dollars, the final tally of which won’t be known for months.

That surge has been propelled by private school leaders, who have an obvious interest: The more voucher money families receive, the less schools have to offer in financial aid. The voucher revenue also makes it easier to raise tuition.

“The Board has voted to require all families receiving financial assistance … to apply for the EdChoice Program. We also encourage all families paying full tuition to apply for this funding,” read the email from the Columbus Jewish Day School board president. She continued: “I am looking forward to a great year — a year of learning, growing, and caring for each other. Let’s turn that caring into action by applying for the EdChoice Program.”

Polansky bridled at the direction. She had long subscribed to the main argument against private school vouchers: that they draw resources away from public education. It was one thing for her family to have chosen a private school. But she did not want to be part of an effort that, as she saw it, would decrease funding for schools serving other Columbus children. Together with another parent, she wrote a letter objecting to the demand.

“For this public money to go to kids to get a religious education is incredibly wrong,” she told ProPublica. “I absolutely don’t want to pull money out of an underfunded school district.”

For decades, Republicans have pushed, with mixed success, for school voucher programs in the name of parental choice and encouraging free-market competition among schools. But in just the past couple of years, vouchers have expanded to become available to most or all children in 10 states: Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah and West Virginia. The expansion has been spurred by growing Republican dominance in many state capitals, U.S. Supreme Court rulings loosening restrictions on taxpayer funding for religious schools, and parental frustration with progressive curricula and with public school closures during the coronavirus pandemic. Many of the expanded programs are experiencing high demand, which voucher advocates are taking as affirmation of their argument: that families would greatly prefer to send their children to private schools, if only they could afford them.

But much of the demand for the expanded voucher programs is in fact coming from families, many quite affluent, whose children were already attending private schools. In Arizona, the first state to allow any family to receive public funding for private schools or homeschooling, the majority of families applying for the money, about $7,000 per student, were not recently enrolled in public school. In Florida, only 13% of the 123,000 students added to the state’s expanded school-choice program had switched from public school.

In Ohio, the effects of the move toward looser eligibility in recent years was clear even prior to last summer’s big expansion: Whereas in 2018, fewer than a tenth of the students who were newly receiving vouchers that year had not attended a public school the year before, by 2022, more than half of students who were new to EdChoice were already in private schools.

That ratio will climb much higher in Ohio, now that the vouchers are available for families at all income levels and private schools are explicitly telling parents to apply. The surge in applications this school year has been so dramatic that it’s nearing the total enrollment for all private schools in the entire state.

At St. Brendan’s the Navigator, on the other side of the Columbus beltway from the Jewish Day School, the missive arrived on the last day of July. The letter, signed by the Rev. Bob Penhallurick, called the expanded vouchers a “tremendous boon to our school families and Catholic education across Ohio” and said that all families were “strongly encouraged to apply for and receive the EdChoice scholarship.” He noted that, depending on their income level, families could receive up to $6,165 for each child — nearly covering the $6,975 tuition. “Even a small scholarship is a major blessing for you, the school, and the parish,” he wrote.

And then he added, in italics, that if a family did not apply for the vouchers, “we will respect that decision,” but that “supplemental financial aid from the parish in this case will require a meeting” with either himself or another pastor at the school.

Asked about the directive and parents who might have been reluctant to comply, Columbus diocesan spokesperson Jason Mays said, “Parents are not required to apply for EdChoice.” Asked about the EdChoice expansion’s effect on enrollment, he said, “We expect to see continued growth and demand in the upcoming school year.”

At Holy Family School near Youngstown, the directive arrived a few days later, on Aug. 3. “As you are aware, ALL students attending Holy Family School will be eligible for the EdChoice Scholarship. We are requesting that all families register their child/ren for this scholarship as soon as possible,” wrote the school’s leadership. And then it added in bold: “It is imperative that you register for EdChoice for each of your students. We are waiting to send invoices until your EdChoice Scholarship has been awarded.”

In an interview at the school, Holy Family principal Laura Parise said the push to apply for EdChoice had succeeded. “One hundred percent of our students are on it,” she said. “We made it that way — we made our families fill out the form, and we’re going from there.”

Parise said that some families had been reluctant to apply, but that the school told them that if they did not do so, they could not qualify for any of the school’s discounts from its $5,900 tuition, such as the ones Holy Family offers to second and third children from the same family. If parents still needed additional help beyond the vouchers, they could request it.

She said the school was not yet planning to raise tuition beyond what was already scheduled. “We didn’t want to take advantage of the situation,” she said. For now, she said, the state revenue that replaces some financial aid costs will simply make it possible for the school to spend more on other things. “We might be able to allocate some funds for other things curriculum wise to raise academics,” she said.

The expanded vouchers have not affected enrollment much yet, she said, since they had been made available after most families had already made school decisions for this year. “The true sign will come next year,” she said. “Our families from the previous year were coming anyway. We’ll see what happens next year, if we have an increase.”

Since private-school vouchers launched in Ohio nearly three decades ago, there has been a debate over who their true beneficiaries are. Then-Gov. George Voinovich, a Republican who had been mayor of Cleveland, pushed for the creation of a voucher program in that city in 1995, selling it as an outlet for disadvantaged families seeking an alternative to the city’s troubled schools.

But, within three years, while the program had grown to 4,000 students, private-school enrollment had grown by only 300, suggesting that most participating families were already enrolled in private schools. By 2001, the share of Black students among voucher recipients in Cleveland was 53%, below the 71% ratio of Black students in public school.

The program was the first in the nation to provide public money for tuition at religious schools, and by 2000, virtually all Cleveland voucher recipients were using them at a religious private school (mostly Catholic) rather than secular ones. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly rejected a challenge to the Cleveland vouchers; the court ruled that because the vouchers could be used for religious or nonreligious schools, they did not violate the constitutional prohibition against a state favoring religion. In the years that followed, vouchers spread to more districts around the state, taking on the name EdChoice. Initially, they were targeted at families in other districts deemed to be failing, but a decade ago, the state legislature — whose Republican majorities are buttressed by highly gerrymandered districts — made them available to lower-income students across the state.

Then came last year’s big expansion, eliminating income limits and raising the value of the vouchers. It offers major benefits even to many solidly middle-class families: A family of four at 451% of the poverty level, or $135,300 in household income, will receive $5,200 per year for a K-8 student and $7,050 per year for a high school student.

In the 2022-23 school year, before the expansion, EdChoice cost $354 million, on top of the $46 million for the Cleveland program, according to the state education department. That was already more than quadruple what EdChoice had cost a decade earlier.

The recent surge in applications will propel the price tag far higher. With the state still processing applications and accepting them until the end of June, it has not yet reported the total cost of the expansion, but in August legislative analysts projected that it would cost the state an additional $320 million for this school year. The EdChoice line item is folded within the state’s overall budget for K-12 education, which is roughly $13 billion, and the EdChoice line item is not capped: The more families apply, the more it will cost.

The program’s expansion in recent years has prompted another lawsuit, filed in 2022, this one from a coalition of 250 school districts. The suit argues that the vouchers worsen segregation, since private schools can choose their students (an analysis found that as of November, 90% of the new voucher recipients were white, far above the statewide share of white students, which is about two-thirds); that they violate the state Constitution’s bars against religious control of public school funds (the vast majority of EdChoice funds go to Christian schools); and that the vouchers undermine the Ohio Constitution’s promise of an adequate education for all by leaching money from public schools. Last month, a judge denied the state’s motion to dismiss the case, rejecting the state’s claims that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that all the claims have previously been decided by the state and U.S. supreme courts.

The leaching from public schools happens in two ways. Since public school funding formulas are based on enrollment, every student who uses a voucher to leave public schools means less money for them. But even if few students make that switch and most vouchers go to students already in private schools, the lawsuit’s supporters say, the soaring cost of the vouchers inevitably leaves less money in the state education budget for public schools.

“It’s soon going to be a billion dollars annually, and it’s coming right out of the school funds,” said William Phillis, the director of the coalition that filed the lawsuit and a former assistant state school superintendent. “It’s just an egregious violation of the Constitution.”

State Senate President Matt Huffman, a Republican from western Ohio who has led the push to expand vouchers, is blunt in his defense: Yes, the vouchers cost the state more money now, but they will save it money over time as families opt out of public schools, reducing the need to fund them. “In the long run, the taxpayer saves a lot of money," he said in an interview last fall. “I hope more people take advantage [of EdChoice] if they want to.”

Aaron Churchill, the research director at the Ohio branch of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a conservative-leaning education-reform think tank, said that even if more vouchers are going to families already enrolled in private school, those vouchers are still supporting school choice. These families have been paying taxes for years and not availing themselves of the schools those taxes paid for, he said, and it’s only fair that at least some of that money go toward the education they chose for their children.

“It does follow the basic principle that when we talk about funding education, we’re funding students, regardless of the choice their parents make,” he said. “These dollars are for the kids, regardless of whether it’s the public or private sector.”

Polansky, the Columbus Jewish Day School mother, found an ally in Micah Berman, a fellow parent of a third grader. “One of the reasons we went to this school is because it does have a strong emphasis on teaching students about caring for the broader community and in particular caring for those that have more needs,” he said. “And the idea that you would be putting some pressure on families to accept these vouchers that in effect take money out of school districts that need it strikes me as problematic and in conflict with that.”

Together, they penned a three-page letter to the school leadership. “We chose to send our children to CJDS in large part because of its commitment to tikkun olam, the Jewish obligation to build a better and more equitable world,” they wrote. “The Board’s policy: (1) puts pressure on CJDS families to betray their own values by requiring them to seek out vouchers that they may be morally and ethically opposed to in order to obtain any financial aid; and (2) sends a message to the parents, the public, and other private and public schools that CJDS endorses and is willing to benefit from the EdChoice program, even though the program runs counter to core Jewish values and basic tenets of social justice.”

They added, “We recognize that the Board has a responsibility to ensure the financial sustainability of CJDS and that doing so is no easy task … . But CJDS needs to live its values in the course of doing so.’”

Soon after they sent the letter, school leaders lifted the requirement that families on financial aid apply for the vouchers. But Polansky worried that the order had already had its desired effect in spurring applications. “Even though it was rescinded, my sense is that a lot of the damage was already done,” she said.

Berman said that many parents still may miss the broader picture. “It’s easy not to think of the systemic impact when you’re thinking about individual families or individual schools,” he said. “My fear is that this is sort of the point: to make this as attractive as possible for families to take more of the money, because it increases the incentive to keep taking money from the schools that need it.”

The school’s interim director, Rabbi Morris Allen, responded to inquiries with a brief statement: “We are aware of all Ohio educational guidelines. We work continually to ensure that our school can provide its unique pluralistic and accessible education to any student who desires to benefit from our Jewish vision and mission.”

Visits to both CJDS and St. Brendan to ask other parents what they made of the voucher debate, in the parking lot during school drop-off and pickup, were unsuccessful: At both schools, administrators (and a heavily armed guard at CJDS) came outside to tell this reporter to vacate the premises. Regardless of how much public funding the schools receive, they are, after all, private.

by Alec MacGillis

Did Drug Traffickers Funnel Millions of Dollars to Mexican President López Obrador’s First Campaign?

9 months 3 weeks ago

Leer en español.

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

Years before Andrés Manuel López Obrador was elected as Mexico’s leader in 2018, U.S. drug-enforcement agents uncovered what they believed was substantial evidence that major cocaine traffickers had funneled some $2 million to his first presidential campaign.

According to more than a dozen interviews with U.S. and Mexican officials and government documents reviewed by ProPublica, the money was provided to campaign aides in 2006 in return for a promise that a López Obrador administration would facilitate the traffickers’ criminal operations.

The investigation did not establish whether López Obrador sanctioned or even knew of the traffickers’ reported donations. But officials said the inquiry — which was built on the extensive cooperation of a former campaign operative and a key drug informant — did produce evidence that one of López Obrador’s closest aides had agreed to the proposed arrangement.

The allegation that representatives of Mexico’s future president negotiated with notorious criminals has continued to reverberate among U.S. law-enforcement and foreign policy officials, who have long been skeptical of López Obrador’s commitment to take on drug traffickers.

The case raised difficult questions about how far the United States should go to confront the official corruption that has been essential to the emergence of Mexican drug traffickers as a global criminal force. While some officials argue that it is not the United States’ job to root out endemic corruption in Mexico, others say that efforts to fight organized crime and build the rule of law will be futile unless officials who protect the traffickers are held to account.

“The corruption is so much a part of the fabric of drug trafficking in Mexico that there’s no way you can pursue the drug traffickers without going after the politicians and the military and police officials who support them,” Raymond Donovan, who recently retired as the Drug Enforcement Administration’s operations chief, said in an interview.

In their investigation, DEA agents developed what they considered an extraordinary inside source after they arrested the former campaign operative on drug charges in 2010. To avoid federal prison, the operative gave a detailed account of the traffickers’ cash donations, which he said he helped deliver. He also surreptitiously recorded conversations with Nicolás Mollinedo Bastar, the close López Obrador aide who the operative said had participated in the scheme.

Along with the sworn statements of other witnesses, the taped conversations indicated that Mollinedo was aware of and involved in the donations by one of the country’s biggest drug mafias, current and former officials familiar with the case said.

But some officials felt the evidence was not strong enough to justify the risks of an extensive undercover operation inside Mexico. In late 2011, DEA agents proposed a sting in which they would offer $5 million in supposed drug money to operatives working on López Obrador’s second presidential campaign. Instead, Justice Department officials closed the investigation, in part over concerns that even a successful prosecution would be viewed by Mexicans as egregious American meddling in their politics.

“Nobody was trying to influence the election,” one official familiar with the investigation said. “But there was always a fear that López Obrador might back away on the drug fight — that if this guy becomes president, he could shut us down.”

Since taking office in December 2018, López Obrador has led a striking retreat in the drug fight. His approach, which he summarized in the campaign slogan “Hugs, not bullets,” has concentrated on social programs to attack the sources of criminality, rather than confrontation with the criminals.

Yet with police and military forces generally avoiding confrontation with the biggest drug gangs, those mafias have extended their influence across Mexico. By some estimates, criminal gangs dominate more than a quarter of the national territory — operating openly, imposing their will on local governments and often forcing the state and federal authorities to keep their distance. The violence has hovered near historic levels, while the gangs’ extortion rackets and other criminal enterprises have metastasized into every layer of the economy.

The Mexican president’s chief spokesperson, Jesús Ramírez Cuevas, did not respond to numerous requests for comment.

The drug trade’s toll on Americans has never been more devastating. Fentanyl — most of which is produced in or smuggled through Mexico — is fueling the most lethal illegal-drug problem in American history. The estimated 109,000 overdose deaths recorded in 2022, most of them fentanyl-related, surpassed the fatalities from gun violence and automobile accidents combined.

The administration of President Joe Biden has been steadfast in its refusal to criticize López Obrador’s security policies, avoiding confrontation even when the Mexican president has publicly attacked U.S. law-enforcement agencies as mendacious and corrupt. The fentanyl explosion, while a growing political concern in Washington, remains less critical to Biden’s reelection prospects than blocking immigrants at the southern border — a challenge in which López Obrador’s cooperation is essential.

After asserting repeatedly that Mexico had nothing to do with fentanyl, López Obrador has recently taken a few modest steps to renew anti-drug cooperation. His government, though, continues to ignore U.S. requests for the capture and extradition of major traffickers, while Washington officials portray the relationship in rosy terms. At the end of a meeting with López Obrador in November, Biden turned to him and said, “I couldn’t have a better partner than you.”

A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment on details of the DEA investigation into López Obrador’s political campaigns, citing a long-standing policy. But she added that the department “fully respects Mexico’s sovereignty, and we are committed to working shoulder to shoulder with our Mexican partners to combat the drug cartels responsible for so much death and destruction in both our countries.”

For decades, U.S. law-enforcement officials have shied away from investigating Mexican officials suspected of protecting the drug mafias, saying that pursuing such cases is fraught in a country that is uniquely sensitive to American interference. U.S. agencies have been even more hesitant to dig into the gangs’ involvement in electoral politics, even as they have become a primary source of funding for Mexican campaigns and have murdered scores of municipal, state and national candidates.

In the case of López Obrador, the DEA was slow to act on information about his 2006 campaign’s possible collusion with traffickers, several officials said. When the agency finally began to investigate in 2010, it was largely at the initiative of a small group of Mexico-based agents working with federal prosecutors in New York.

The Americans’ initial source was Roberto López Nájera, a tightly wound 28-year-old lawyer who turned up at the United States Embassy in 2008 and asked to speak to someone from the DEA. The two agents who came down from their fourth-floor offices heard a compelling story: For the previous few years, López Nájera told them, he had been a sort of in-house counsel to one of Mexico’s more notorious traffickers, Edgar Valdéz Villarreal.

The Texas-born gangster had been nicknamed “Ken” and then “Barbie” when he was a square-jawed high school linebacker with dirty-blond hair. By the mid-2000s, he had become one of the Mexican underworld’s more brutal enforcers. He was also a major trafficker, working with a larger mafia run by the Beltrán Leyva brothers, who in turn were part of the alliance known as the Sinaloa Cartel. On the Mexican side of the border, he was known as “La Barbie.”

Witnesses told the Drug Enforcement Administration that the trafficker known as “La Barbie,” shown here after his arrest by Mexican authorities in August 2010, contributed some $2 million to the first presidential campaign of Andrés Manuel López Obrador. (Alfredo Estrella/AFP/Getty Images)

According to López Nájera, La Barbie insisted that he start at the bottom, washing the traffickers’ cars and doing other menial chores before he was entrusted with more important tasks. He eventually managed some political contacts, paying bribes to police commanders and politicians, and oversaw cocaine shipments through the Cancún airport. After several years, however, López Nájera began to have differences with his boss, who thought him something of a slacker, officials said. In 2007, he returned from a long vacation in Cuba to find that his brother had disappeared, an apparent victim of La Barbie’s wrath. Going underground, López Nájera began plotting his revenge.

López Nájera quickly established his bona fides with the Americans, telling them the Beltrán Leyva gang had planted a mole inside the embassy. The man turned out to be an employee of the U.S. Marshals Service who had wide access to intelligence about the Mexican criminals being sought by the United States. Lured to the Washington, D.C., area on the pretense of a training junket, he was arrested and charged with federal drug crimes before agreeing to cooperate, officials said.

The DEA moved López Nájera to the United States and debriefed him extensively. In keeping with the new law-enforcement partnership known as the Mérida accord, U.S. officials then invited their Mexican counterparts to interview their prized source.

The Mexican court filings that resulted would identify López Nájera only by the code name “Jennifer.” His revelations would become the primary engine of “Operation Clean-up,” a headline-grabbing effort by the government of President Felipe Calderón to purge corrupt officials from federal law-enforcement agencies and the military.

The DEA was somewhat slower to take full advantage of its informer. It was only in the spring of 2010, more than two years after López Nájera had begun cooperating with the agency, that it began to focus on one of his more striking disclosures. In an interview in San Diego that DEA agents set up for a senior Mexican prosecutor, López Nájera described how La Barbie had summoned him to a January 2006 meeting at a hotel in the Pacific Coast resort of Nuevo Vallarta.

The man who had arranged the gathering was Francisco León García, the 38-year-old son of a mining entrepreneur from the northern state of Durango. Known as “Pancho” León, he was launching his candidacy for the Mexican Senate as a representative of López Obrador’s leftist alliance. He was friendly with one of La Barbie’s lieutenants, Sergio Villarreal Barragán, a towering former state police officer known as “El Grande,” and the two men thought they might be able to help each other, the agents were told.

Another businessman joined León at the meeting. The two said they were there with López Obrador’s knowledge and support, López Nájera recounted. In return for an injection of cash, León said, the campaign promised that a future López Obrador government would select law-enforcement officials helpful to the traffickers.

According to accounts of the negotiation that U.S. investigators eventually pieced together from several informants, the traffickers were told they could help to choose police commanders in some key cities along the border. More importantly, U.S. officials said, the traffickers were also told that López Obrador would not name an attorney general whom they viewed as hostile to their interests — seemingly granting them a veto over the appointment.

La Barbie agreed to the bargain and assigned López Nájera to meet with campaign officials in Mexico City and arrange the payoffs. (López Nájera did not respond to numerous attempts to contact him.) Soon after, officials said, he was introduced to Mauricio Soto Caballero, a businessman and political operative who was heading up an advance team under the campaign’s logistics chief, Nicolás Mollinedo.

López Obrador, left, and Nicolás Mollinedo Bastar in 2006 (Marco Ugarte/AP)

In three deliveries over the next several months, the DEA was told, La Barbie’s organization gave Soto and others in the campaign about $2 million in cash. As the trafficker became more invested, López Nájera said, he provided support in other ways, too: Over the final weeks of the race, López Obrador traveled twice to the state of Durango for big, boisterous rallies organized by Pancho León, to which the gang donated heavily. One was so lavish — with a big-name band and thousands of partisans bused in from outlying towns and villages — that rival politicians demanded an investigation into León’s campaign funding.

The 2006 presidential race was a dead heat. When Mexico’s electoral tribunal declared Calderón the victor by half a percentage point, La Barbie was furious, López Nájera said. The drug boss came up with an impromptu plan to kidnap the president of the tribunal and force him to reverse the decision. A convoy of gunmen was dispatched to storm the court, turning back only when they discovered army troops guarding the area.

Having insisted he was the rightful winner, López Obrador rallied thousands of his supporters to Mexico City for a monthslong sit-in that covered a swath of the capital’s colonial center. According to López Nájera, La Barbie donated funds to help feed the protesters.

The DEA agents who heard López Nájera’s account understood that it would not be easy to build a criminal case, several officials said. Even if they could verify the allegations, high-level corruption cases were almost always hard to prove. Mexican officials used middlemen to insulate themselves from the traffickers who paid them. Politicians and criminals often protected one another; corroborating witnesses were usually reluctant to testify.

Most drug-related crimes also had a five-year statute of limitations. By the time the investigation got underway in earnest, some of the key events that López Nájera described had happened four years earlier.

The Mexican prosecutor who sat in on the López Nájera interview forwarded the allegations to more senior officials in Mexico City. But the Calderón government thought such a case would be too politically charged ahead of the 2012 election, former officials said.

DEA agents had better luck with the Southern District of New York, the powerful federal prosecutor’s office based in Manhattan. The head of the office’s international narcotics unit, Jocelyn Strauber, told them she thought the case was very much worth pursuing, current and former officials said. Strauber, who now leads the New York City Department of Investigations, declined to comment.

While the Southern District had rarely done Mexican drug-corruption cases, Calderón’s determination to work more closely with the United States gave the investigators some hope. U.S. agents had greater freedom to operate in Mexico than ever before; joint operations against traffickers had become commonplace. U.S. law-enforcement and intelligence agencies had helped the Mexican authorities arrest or kill leading figures of some big drug mafias, including the Beltrán Leyva organization. In May 2010, Mexico finally extradited Mario Villanueva, a former governor of Quintana Roo state, who eventually pleaded guilty in New York to funneling more than $19 million in traffickers’ bribes through U.S. accounts.

The investigators also recognized that López Nájera presented an unusual opportunity. Although he had been out of Mexico for more than two years, they thought he might be able to connect them to Soto, the former López Obrador campaign operative to whom he had delivered donations in 2006.

Soto was a gregarious, hustling business consultant with political ambitions of his own. He had worked in and out of government, finding angles and fixing problems with the bureaucracy. López Nájera said they had become friendly and that Soto had helped him with tasks unrelated to the campaign — acting as a front man for his purchase of an apartment in Mexico City’s tony Polanco neighborhood and helping him lease an office and renting a second apartment that La Barbie sometimes used on visits to the capital.

According to López Nájera, Soto had also introduced him to members of the 2006 campaign security team, connections that later proved useful when some of the men moved on to government security jobs. At one point, López Nájera recalled, Soto told him he might be interested in making money in the drug trade if the right opportunity arose.

With López Obrador preparing his second run for the presidency, Soto remained close to Mollinedo, who was still among the candidate’s most-trusted aides, officials said.

“Nico,” as Mollinedo was known, was something of a Mexican celebrity. Wherever López Obrador had gone during his five years as Mexico City’s mayor, Mollinedo had been beside him, at the wheel of the white Nissan sedan that López Obrador made a symbol of his contempt for the traditional excesses of Mexican politics. Mollinedo’s father had been a close friend and supporter of López Obrador’s since his days as a young activist in their native state of Tabasco.

Mollinedo had also been the subject of one of López Obrador’s first big political scandals, which erupted in 2004 with reports that the mayor’s driver earned the salary of a deputy secretary in the municipal cabinet. López Obrador brushed off “Nicogate,” as the newspapers called it, but made it clear that Mollinedo was much more than a chauffeur. He was the mayor’s personal aide and logistics coordinator and worked with his security team. Mollinedo acted as a sometime gatekeeper as well, filtering the people and proposals that clamored for the mayor’s attention.

By early 2010, a raft of Mexican officials had been arrested on López Nájera’s testimony, including a former top drug prosecutor and several senior police and military officials. His identity, though, remained a well-guarded secret, and he was confident that Soto believed he was still working for the narcos. They had last met in San Diego in late 2009, with DEA agents recording their conversation about whether Soto might want to get in on one of the drug deals López Nájera said he was putting together.

It made sense that López Nájera might be branching out on his own. La Barbie had stuck with the Beltrán Leyva brothers in what had been a two-year war with other factions of the Sinaloa Cartel. But now, as the Sinaloans gained the upper hand, La Barbie and the Beltrán Leyvas were fighting each other. The violence made headlines almost every day.

With the agents scripting his messages, López Nájera began texting Soto, officials familiar with the case said. In July 2010, they met at a hotel in Hollywood, Florida. Accompanied by an undercover DEA agent who posed as a Colombian cocaine supplier, López Nájera laid out his pitch: They had some deals in the works. They might need investors. The payoff would be big.

Soto said he was interested.

Weeks after the meeting in Florida, Soto flew to the Mexican-U.S. border to discuss a possible deal with the supposed Colombian trafficker and another undercover agent in McAllen, Texas. When he returned to McAllen in October, the two undercover agents told him they had 10 kilos of cocaine ready for him. But Soto balked, people familiar with the case said, insisting that he wasn’t ready to sell the drugs in the United States.

Needing some way to draw Soto back into their scheme, the undercover agents pressed him to safeguard the cocaine for several days until they could ship it to another buyer. As a reward, they would give him a kilo, worth about $20,000. The drugs were in a car parked nearby, one of the agents said, handing Soto a set of car keys. (There was no actual cocaine.) The conversation was recorded in its entirety.

Sometime after 2 o’clock the next morning, Soto returned to his room at a Courtyard Marriott. DEA agents were waiting.

On the wrong side of the border, without a lawyer or political connections, Soto did not take long to agree to cooperate. “He wasn’t the kind of guy who was ready to go to jail,” one official familiar with the case said. Later that day, after Soto waived his right to be prosecuted in Texas, he was flown to New York City on a commercial jet, sandwiched between a couple of agents in the back row.

Soto would thereafter become a confidential DEA source, known in the case file as CS-1. At the request of the DEA, ProPublica agreed not to identify him and other sources in the case. However, Soto was named in a Spanish-language article about the case published by DW News, the German state broadcast network.

After initially acknowledging messages from a ProPublica reporter, Soto did not respond to detailed questions about his role in the U.S. investigation.

Over several interviews with prosecutors from the Southern District, Soto confirmed that he had taken two deliveries of cash from López Nájera for the 2006 campaign and that a third delivery had been made by another envoy of La Barbie. Soto said the three contributions amounted to somewhat less than the $2 million that López Nájera had claimed, a discrepancy the agents attributed to customary skimming. Soto said he turned the money over to Mollinedo, people familiar with the case said.

In New York, Soto conferred with a court-appointed lawyer before agreeing to the government’s terms: If he continued to work secretly and speak truthfully with the investigators, he would be allowed to return to Mexico. His criminal conviction would remain sealed, and he would eventually be sentenced to the time he had “served” in federal custody — the several days he spent in McAllen and New York. Soto was brought before a federal judge and pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine.

U.S. officials understood that the arrangement posed serious risks. If Soto informed his colleagues in Mexico that he was being asked to set them up — or even if he just stopped returning phone calls — the Americans’ only leverage would be to expose his guilty plea and perhaps put out an international warrant for his arrest. But Soto would be able to expose their investigation.

The agents’ plan was to confirm the evidence they had gathered about the traffickers’ donations in 2006 and then to reenact a version of that scheme with López Obrador's incipient 2012 campaign — this time with recording devices in place. They called the investigation “Operation Polanco.”

López Obrador campaigning for the presidency in 2012 (John Moore/Getty Images)

To deploy Soto abroad as a covert or “protected-name source,” in the agency’s lexicon, the DEA had to submit its investigative plan to a group of Justice and DEA officials known as a Sensitive Activity Review Committee. A SARC (pronounced “sark”) is a screening process akin to a legal bomb squad. The panels examine undercover operations that involve the delivery of drugs or money to traffickers or the targeting of corrupt foreign officials; the lawyers try to deactivate the plans that might blow up on the department.

Although targeting the López Obrador campaign was an especially high-risk proposition, the SARC provisionally approved the plan in late 2010, officials said. The agents and prosecutors would have to return to the committee at least every six months for further review, and the scrutiny would intensify as they moved ahead.

The agents wanted to go big. They proposed offering the campaign $5 million in cash in return for promises that a López Obrador government would leave the traffickers alone. If Mollinedo or others in the campaign agreed, the agents would offer a down payment, maybe $100,000. They would then deliver the money to obtain hard evidence of the campaign’s complicity.

Some U.S. officials thought it was an auspicious moment for such a case. In August 2010, Mexican marines had captured La Barbie. Two weeks later, they took down El Grande, his lieutenant, who had attended the 2006 meeting in Nuevo Vallarta. Both men had been indicted on federal charges in the United States and, if extradited, might be enticed to cooperate in return for a reduction of their sentences. In a brief conversation after his capture, El Grande told a DEA agent he was willing to share information about corrupt Mexican officials, but only after he was moved to the United States, documents reviewed by ProPublica show.

But even as new pieces of the investigation came together, the Obama administration was growing concerned about the fallout from another undercover operation, what became known as “Fast and Furious.” Without informing Mexican officials, agents of the Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives allowed hundreds of high-powered weapons to be shipped illegally into Mexico so they could track them into the hands of drug gangs. The tracking failed, however, and the weapons were later tied to shootings that killed or wounded more than 150 Mexicans as well as the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent. The Calderón government was outraged, and the tensions seemed to threaten bilateral cooperation once again.

“Things just came under a different level of scrutiny after Fast and Furious,” a former Justice Department official said. “At that point, everybody was in self-preservation mode.”

Still, American officials had some reason to hope that Mexico’s leaders might countenance — and keep secret — their investigation. Their ultimate target, López Obrador, was Calderón’s hated political rival. The DEA chief in Mexico City would inform the president’s intelligence chief, who was considered particularly trustworthy, and ask him to discuss the case only with Calderón.

The next phase of the investigation began well. DEA agents learned that the businessman who had accompanied Pancho León to the 2006 Nuevo Vallarta meeting was traveling to Las Vegas. When confronted by agents at the Bellagio Hotel & Casino, the businessman confirmed much of what Soto and López Nájera had said. He even mentioned a striking detail that López Nájera had noted: At the 2006 meeting in Nuevo Vallarta, León had given La Barbie a gift. Having heard that the trafficker collected watches, he brought a $20,000 Patek Philippe as a token of his respect.

The prosecutors initially thought they did not have enough evidence to arrest the man, so the agents let him return home after he promised to testify as a witness in any future criminal trial. The investigators had no hope of getting to León: In February 2007, months after losing his Senate race, he disappeared — the rumored victim of a drug-mafia murder.

In Mexico City, DEA agents rehearsed Soto, fitted him with a recording device and, in April 2011, sent him to talk with Mollinedo. It was a disaster. “He was terrified,” a former official recalled. Whether Soto mishandled the equipment or deliberately turned it off wasn’t clear, but he returned with a truncated recording that was often unintelligible because of background noise.

A second attempt the following month yielded about an hour of tape. It was clear from that conversation that Mollinedo knew about the 2006 transaction, people familiar with the case said. He seemed worried about two former members of the campaign security team, who had recently been jailed and might be pressured to reveal what they knew about the traffickers’ contributions. The officials said Mollinedo also mentioned friends in the Mexican attorney general’s office who might help protect him and Soto.

Although it was clear the two men were talking about the 2006 donations, Soto did not press Mollinedo to be more explicit or to incriminate himself more directly. “He never said, ‘I don’t know what you’re talking about’ or ‘I don’t know any of those people.’ There wasn’t anything said that cleared him,” one former official said of Mollinedo. “But the tape did not freshen up the conspiracy as much as was needed.”

In an interview, Mollinedo denied that he had ever received donations from drug traffickers and disputed the idea that López Obrador would ever tolerate such corruption. “We didn’t manage money,” he said, referring to his logistics team, adding that it only handled funds it was given to spend on transportation and other campaign expenses.

After going over the recordings, the New York prosecutors were underwhelmed, former officials said. For such a sensitive and risky case, they felt the evidence needed to be nearly irrefutable. The agents nonetheless proposed to move ahead with the sting operation directed at Mollinedo and other López Obrador aides. How they proceeded from there — and whether they went after López Obrador and other politicians in his orbit — would depend on what the agents learned.

When the SARC met to review the case again, just before Thanksgiving 2011, Justice and DEA officials in Washington, D.C., were joined by video link with senior DEA agents in Mexico City and New York. This time, however, the questions were sharper, several people familiar with the meeting said. Even if U.S. Embassy officials informed only trusted Mexican officials, the information could easily leak out, some officials said, and it could be explosive.

DEA representatives at the meeting emphasized that they were not seeking to affect the Mexican election, officials familiar with the meeting said. But they also made the point that if Mexico elected a president who came to office in debt to powerful drug traffickers, the consequences could be catastrophic for the two countries’ law-enforcement partnership.

Not long into the meeting, the video link to Mexico City went down — a common occurrence with the technology of the time. Without the main DEA group working on the case, the tone of the discussion shifted, two people present said. Justice Department lawyers talked about the huge risks of the operation, the uncertain evidence and the still-volatile aftermath of the Fast and Furious scandal, which had prompted some Republicans in Congress to call for the resignation of Attorney General Eric Holder.

The agents and prosecutors got word of the SARC decision days later — the operation was being shut down.

In May 2012, the Mexican government extradited El Grande. When agents were able to ask him on U.S. soil about the donations to the López Obrador campaign, he confirmed that La Barbie had made them after the meeting in Nuevo Vallarta, two officials said.

Mauricio Soto Caballero, left, and Mollinedo in 2019, when they announced the launch of a new environmental political party (Tomás Martínez/Grupo Reforma)

López Nájera’s star turn as Jennifer in Operation Clean-up was short-lived.

When the Calderón government was replaced in December 2012, it was not by López Obrador and his leftist alliance but by the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, the political party that had held the country in a corrupt, authoritarian grip for more than 60 years until 2000. The new president, Enrique Peña Nieto, quickly pulled back from his predecessor’s close law-enforcement cooperation with the United States. Part of that shift was an effort by Peña’s attorney general, Jesús Murillo Karam, to disparage and reverse the previous administration’s prosecutions of corrupt officials.

According to three officials familiar with the events, Mexican prosecutors continued to interview López Nájera in the United States, but now they sought to exploit gaps and contradictions in his testimony. They asked him to corroborate new details of events he had described, sometimes suggesting specific dates, only to have other witnesses produce alibis for the dates López Nájera had confirmed.

A flurry of Mexican news stories, many of them driven by apparent government leaks, assailed López Nájera as a well-paid liar for the previous regime. Proceso, the country’s leading investigative magazine, revealed his identity with a cover photograph that U.S. officials said came from the Mexican attorney general’s office. Virtually all the officials jailed in Operation Clean-up were released after the charges against them were dropped.

Proceso, Mexico’s leading investigative newsmagazine, revealed in 2013 that the government’s best-known informant was a former drug lawyer named Roberto López Nájera. (Proceso)

What did not become public was that U.S. law-enforcement officials took the opposite view. While they noted that López Nájera had been inconsistent or mistaken on some points in his statements, almost everything else he had told them held up. So even as López Nájera became a symbol in Mexico of the justice system’s failures, the DEA judged him credible and continued to work with him.

Even before López Obrador took office in December 2018, U.S. officials began to review information from the DEA investigation as part of their effort to assess the new president’s willingness to work with them against the mafias, people briefed on the effort said. But the new Mexican leader soon answered that question himself.

First he sidelined the Mexican commando teams that had been the most trusted partner of U.S. law-enforcement and intelligence agencies. He then shut down a federal police unit that the DEA had trained and vetted to work with the Americans on big drug cases.

When DEA agents arrested a former Mexican defense minister, Gen. Salvador Cienfuegos Zepeda, on drug-corruption charges in October 2020, López Obrador turned on the agency even more forcefully. With the military high command pressing the president to act in Cienfuegos’ defense, Mexican officials made clear that counter-drug cooperation was at risk. After U.S. Attorney General William Barr dropped the case and repatriated the general, López Obrador declared the Mérida accord “dead” and pushed through strict new limits on how U.S. agents could operate inside Mexico.

López Obrador’s long-standing promises to carry out a crusade against political corruption have produced almost no meaningful results. Although a smattering of corruption charges were announced early in the administration — nearly all against the president’s political adversaries — almost none were successfully prosecuted.

However, López Obrador did call into question the previous administration’s discrediting of Operation Clean-up. In August 2022, his government arrested Murillo Karam on charges of helping cover up the 2014 disappearances of 43 students in the state of Guerrero. Months later, the government announced that the former attorney general would also face corruption charges in connection with more than $1.3 million in hidden income and illicit contracts from which he was said to have profited during his time in office. Murillo Karam has denied the charges.

The president’s former close aide, Mollinedo, left López Obrador’s side after the 2012 campaign to go into business. He later joined Soto in trying to establish a new political party focused on the environment. The effort fizzled out within a year.

Mollinedo told ProPublica that he remains deeply loyal to the president. Although he and his family have been accused of growing wealthy from their political connections, he said his business endeavors have been entirely aboveboard.

Update, Jan. 31, 2024: At his regular morning news conference following the publication of ProPublica’s article, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador denounced the story as “completely false.” He added, “There is not a shred of evidence.”

He suggested that ProPublica’s story was a product of “management of the media” by the U.S. State Department and other powerful government agencies. “The DEA must say if this is true, not true, what was the investigation, what proof does it have.”

by Tim Golden

We Found That Landlords Could Be Using Algorithms to Fix Rent Prices. Now Lawmakers Want to Make the Practice Illegal.

9 months 3 weeks ago

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

A group of senators are set to introduce legislation Tuesday that would make it illegal for landlords to use algorithms to artificially inflate the price of rent or reduce the supply of housing.

The proposed law follows a ProPublica investigation that found software sold by Texas-based RealPage was collecting proprietary data from landlords and feeding it into an algorithm that recommended what rents they should charge. Legal experts said the arrangement could help landlords engage in cartel-like behavior if they used it to coordinate pricing.

The software is widely used by competing landlords. In Seattle, for example, ProPublica found that 10 property managers oversaw 70% of all multifamily apartments in one neighborhood — and every single one used pricing software sold by RealPage.

“Setting prices with an algorithm is no different from doing it over cigars and whiskey in a private club,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., one of the leading sponsors of the new bill. “Although it’s my view that these cartels are already violating existing antitrust laws, I want the law to be painfully clear that algorithmic price fixing of rents is a crime.”

Lawyers for RealPage and other defendants have called the idea that the company and landlords formed a conspiracy “implausible.” In legal filings, they pointed to a company FAQ that said the recommendations from the software “may be followed, modified, or ignored by an apartment provider.”

After ProPublica’s investigation ran in 2022, tenants filed dozens of federal lawsuits against scores of the nation’s biggest landlords alleging violations of antitrust law. Congressional lawmakers called for an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, which later backed the tenants’ lawsuits. At a Senate hearing in October 2023, a former federal prosecutor encouraged lawmakers to consider antitrust enforcement reforms to close gaps that have occurred as technology has evolved.

The bill set to be proposed Tuesday, sponsored by Democrats including Wyden, Peter Welch of Vermont and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, would make it illegal for property owners to contract with companies that coordinate rent prices and housing supply information. The legislation would also bar two or more rental owners from coordinating on such information. Mergers between two information-coordinating companies that reduced competition would also be banned.

A statement released by Wyden’s office called out RealPage and a second property management technology company, Yardi, by name.

“Companies like RealPage and Yardi brand themselves as providing ‘property management software,’ but in reality they facilitate collusion by landlords to charge above-market rent,” the statement said. “This is exactly how a price-fixing cartel operates, but instead of using code names and secret meetings, the price-fixing is offered as a service.”

Algorithms are helping housing providers collude in the midst of “a crisis of housing availability and affordability” in which rents have risen by double digits since 2020 and homelessness is up, according to the statement. It said the proposed law — dubbed the Preventing the Algorithmic Facilitation of Rental Housing Cartels Act — would strengthen future legal cases, as well as prevent mergers that could push rents higher.

RealPage and Yardi did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The tenant lawsuits have been consolidated in federal court in Nashville, Tennessee, into a case that involves nearly 50 large landlords. RealPage and the other defendants have said that the complaint doesn’t show direct evidence of a conspiracy, such as “smoking gun” documents or recorded phone calls. “In sum, Plaintiffs have not alleged a plausible horizontal price-fixing conspiracy,” their legal filing said.

RealPage and the other defendants sought to have the cases dismissed. The court in December agreed to allow the main case involving rental apartments to proceed, but dismissed a related complaint involving student housing.

Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, said in a statement that if enacted the proposed law would “provide an important tool to stop predatory landlords from colluding with one another by using rent-setting software and algorithms to further inflate rents.”

by Heather Vogell

Police Say They Won’t Reopen Case of Alaska Woman Found Dead on Mayor’s Property

9 months 3 weeks ago

This story details allegations of violence against Indigenous women.

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

The police department in Kotzebue, Alaska, says it will not reopen its investigation into a woman’s death on the property of a former Northwest Arctic Borough mayor. The case had been the subject of an Anchorage Daily News and ProPublica investigation into the 2018 death of Jennifer Kirk and the death of another woman, who was found strangled on the same property two years later.

Kirk, 25, died May 23, 2018, at a home owned by then-Mayor Clement Richards Sr. According to police reports, the Alaska medical examiner’s office initially told a city police investigator that “signs of strangulation” had been found on Kirk’s body. The man who said he found her body — Anthony Richards, one of the mayor’s sons — had previously been charged with strangling Kirk and pleaded guilty to assaulting her, though he said he was not involved in her death.

Police eventually closed the case as a suicide. In an open letter to Kotzebue residents last week, police Chief Roger Rouse said neither the city nor state have plans to reopen the investigation. Rouse wrote that the Alaska Bureau of Investigation reviewed the case and told Kirk’s family that “nothing in the investigation as it stands would change the sad conclusions of the incident.”

The city posted the letter on Facebook. A spokesperson for the state Department of Public Safety said in an email that two state investigators reviewed the Kotzebue police investigation into Kirk’s death and found no leads that needed to be followed up on and no “suspicious elements” in the case.

But some of the Kotzebue police department’s new statements about the Kirk investigation contradict previous information provided by the police chief and city officials.

Rouse said in an email last fall, in response to the newsrooms asking when the Kotzebue police had closed the investigation into Kirk’s death, that the city investigator closed the case on May 24, 2018, a day after Kirk died. He also said that the case was closed before the department received the final autopsy report.

But in the new letter to the community, the chief of police wrote: “The Kotzebue Police Department investigator spent at least sixteen days interviewing witnesses, collecting evidence, and following up leads before closing the case.”

Asked about this contradiction, a spokesperson for the police department wrote that the investigation report was created, not closed, the day after Kirk’s death. “Following the creation of the report on May 24, there were roughly 16 additional days over the course of the next two months that involved KPD interviewing witnesses, connecting with the coroner and conducting other follow-up for the case,” the spokesperson wrote.

Another point of confusion is whether Kirk’s arms were long enough to reach the trigger of the gun that police say she used to kill herself.

According to the police report, the length from the tip of the rifle barrel to the tip of the trigger was 27 1/8 inches, slightly longer than the length of Kirk’s arm, which the investigator measured to be 26 3/16 inches. Robert Shem, a retired firearms expert for the state crime laboratory, told the Daily News and ProPublica that such measurements can be useful in determining whether a death is indeed a suicide, but in this case, more information would be needed.

“Before I would write it off as a suicide myself,” Shem said, “I would probably try to locate somebody of the same size and build and use that rifle, or one similar to it, with the same length barrel and configuration, demonstrate that it’s completely unloaded and see if the person can lean over and potentially get their thumb in position to pull the trigger.”

In the city’s letter to the community last week, Rouse wrote: “Some have expressed concern whether it would have been physically possible for Jennifer to fire the rifle. Measurements taken of both Jennifer’s body and of the firearm show that it was.”

He did not answer a follow-up question asking how the department had drawn that conclusion.

In the open letter to the community, the police chief wrote there was “no evidence that anyone other than Jennifer fired the gun that ended her life.” He did not say what steps police took to obtain any such evidence.

In a Nov. 16 letter asking police to reopen the case, Kirk’s family said they assumed police had tested Anthony Richards for gunshot residue as part of the death investigation. The city wrote in a Dec. 12 email to the newsrooms that police did not test Richards’ body or clothes.

Kirk’s sister, Lucy Boyd, said the police department failed to properly communicate with her family during the initial death investigation, failed to interview certain witnesses and has declined to provide police audio and video records from the closed investigation.

“It definitely took us by surprise again and it almost was like adding insult to injury,” Boyd said of the department’s letter last week to the community.

The Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons unit of the Alaska State Troopers is investigating the death of Susanna “Sue Sue” Norton, who was found beaten and strangled on Clement Richards Sr.’s property in 2020. The Kotzebue Police Department referred the investigation to the state.

In that case, the medical examiner determined Norton’s death to be a homicide caused by “asphyxiation due to obstruction of airways and compression of neck.” The autopsy also found that Norton had suffered “multiple blunt force injuries of head, neck and extremities.”

Amos Richards, another of the former mayor’s sons, had previously pleaded guilty to assaulting Norton. The sons and former mayor have not responded to multiple phone calls, in-person visits and certified letters asking for information about the deaths on the property. Since the investigation into Norton’s death remains open, police have not released their report on it.

Rouse has said that Norton’s death is the only unsolved homicide in Kotzebue. Some residents, including the current mayor, said they aren’t so sure that’s true. For example, multiple families said questions remain about the 2016 death of Bessie Ralston, who died from a gunshot wound to the chest. The police chief said in a Nov. 20, 2023, email to the newsrooms that the police department had asked the stateMissing and Murdered Indigenous Persons unit to review the Ralston case. According to the city spokesperson, the state declined to take the case.

Austin McDaniel, spokesperson for the state Department of Public Safety, said in an email that the police department never formally referred the case to state investigators. When the Kotzebue police were subsequently asked about the Department of Public Safety’s statement, the city spokesperson replied that the state agency was correct, meaning that contrary to the city’s earlier statement, the police department had not referred the Ralston case for review. The spokesperson did not explain why the chief incorrectly said that the case had been referred.

by Kyle Hopkins, Anchorage Daily News

Indiana Lawmakers Trying to Kill Historic Suit Seeking Gun Industry Accountability

9 months 3 weeks 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.

For nearly a quarter century, some of the world’s largest gunmakers have tried unsuccessfully to beat back a lawsuit brought by the city of Gary, Indiana, accusing them of turning a blind eye to illegal gun sales.

The lawsuit was one of dozens that cities filed against gun manufacturers in the late 1990s, but it is the only one to survive a barrage of legal challenges and legislation aimed at limiting the gun industry’s liability for crimes committed with their products.

Now, facing the prospect of turning over internal documents that gun-control advocates believe could contain damning evidence, the industry has returned to an important ally in a last-ditch effort to kill the suit: the state legislature.

Republicans, who hold supermajorities in both chambers of the Statehouse, are close to passing a bill banning cities from suing firearm manufacturers, dealers or trade groups. Instead, only the state could bring such a lawsuit. Significantly, it’s retroactive to Aug. 27, 1999 — three days before Gary filed its lawsuit.

The bill has strong backing from the firearms industry, which has dramatically ramped up its lobbying efforts at the Statehouse. The lawmaker who introduced the legislation, Rep. Chris Jeter, has made it no secret that the measure is intended to target Gary’s lawsuit.

“Really, this bill is an effort to take one last shot to try to eliminate this last pending case,” said Jeter, a Republican from Fishers, during a hearing on the bill this month. The bill was passed by the House last week and now moves to the Senate.

The effort is prompting anger in Gary, which is about 160 miles from Jeter’s largely suburban district. Mayor Eddie Melton called it “a morally bankrupt bill that protects the rights of manufacturers and disregards the lives of people in communities like Gary.”

“As someone who has experienced gun violence personally, I believe it is critical that we have the legal ability to hold bad actors accountable and to ensure the ongoing safety of our public,” he said in a statement. “Indiana House Bill 1235 removes the rights of Gary and any Indiana community to represent itself in a court of law.”

After years of legal wrangling, the Lake County judge overseeing the suit ruled last fall that the retailers and manufacturers who are defendants in the case must comply with the city’s requests to turn over decades of internal records as part of a legal process known as discovery. City attorneys are seeking thousands of documents detailing manufacturers’ market research, retailers’ firearms purchases and any communications about gun trafficking and straw sales — in which a gun is purchased with the intent to resell it to someone prohibited from buying firearms.

The House bill, set to take effect in July if signed by Gov. Eric Holcomb, appears aimed at preempting the exchange of those records. Writing in a Jan. 17 order, Judge John Sedia said the court will assess the impact of the bill if and when it becomes law but said the case will move forward for now.

Several pro-gun organizations have come out in support of the bill, at least one of which has direct interest in ensuring Gary’s suit does not progress.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, which conducts political lobbying on behalf of the firearms industry, represents several of the manufacturers named in the suit. “It’s unfair to the industry members to have to defend a case and incur tens of millions of dollars in legal costs and bills for nearly a quarter of a century,” NSSF Senior Vice President Lawrence Keane said.

The NSSF backed the legislature’s prior attempts to kill the lawsuit in 2001 and 2015. With state courts having upended those efforts, and the suit nearing the trial phase, the NSSF has thrown both influence and funding behind this new push to halt Gary’s suit.

After spending no more than a few thousand dollars on lobbying Indiana lawmakers in recent years, its expenditures skyrocketed in the run-up to the bill’s introduction. The group spent about $143,000 on lobbying efforts in 2023, according to the most recent disclosure reports.

That includes about $88,000 through Barnes & Thornburg, one of the most influential lobbying firms at the Statehouse. Jeter was an attorney at the firm until 2015. Barnes & Thornburg did not respond to inquiries from a reporter.

Rep. Chris Jeter, a Republican, introduced legislation that would ban cities from suing firearm manufacturers, dealers or trade groups. Instead, only the state could bring such a lawsuit. (Michelle Pemberton/IndyStar)

Jeter declined to be interviewed for this story. In presenting his bill on the House floor, he adopted many of the same talking points — and at times, even some of the same phrases — as a firearm industry lobbyist who testified on the bill during a committee hearing a week earlier.

In a statement sent through a spokesperson, Jeter did not address the similarity between his comments and those of the industry. He also said he was not aware of anyone from his former firm approaching him to discuss the bill.

“The Gary lawsuit has been ongoing for nearly 25 years, and this is the third time the General Assembly has tried to end this frivolous lawsuit,” he said. “This is the right policy to ensure that we’re protecting lawful Hoosier gun owners’ personal information and aligning Indiana with federal law, which has already affirmed the firearm industry should not be held liable for criminal acts committed with lawfully sold firearms.”

During a hearing on the bill, Jeter tried to undermine the motives behind the suit. “The very fact that the case has been in existence for 24 years, to me, is de facto evidence that it’s frivolous,” he said. “I think the point of the case was to get to the discovery phase, and to ensure that the gun manufacturers had to spend a lot of money, which has largely been successful.”

Democrats in the legislature have questioned Jeter’s concerns that the disclosure of retailer transactions could expose the personal information of lawful gun owners, noting that court orders typically protect such information in civil cases.

Rep. Ragen Hatcher, a Democrat whose father served as Gary’s first Black mayor, disputed Jeter’s characterization of the suit, saying the courts have affirmed its legitimacy. “After three dismissals and three appeals and to continue to be revived by the court, there’s nothing frivolous at all about this case,” she said.

Rep. Ragen Hatcher, a Democrat, defended the lawsuit by Gary, which would be jeopardized if the legislation were adopted. (Michelle Pemberton/IndyStar)

In 1999, Gary had a higher per capita murder rate than any other city in America, with most of the killings involving firearms. Gary was part of a national movement by mayors to take on industry practices and combat illegal firearms sales. Straw sales in Indiana have continued amid the court and legislative battles.

Gary spends millions each year to investigate and prosecute the crimes committed with those guns once they reach the streets, the city claims. Its suit targeted some of the most recognizable names in the industry, including Smith & Wesson, Glock and Beretta, as well as several gun shops in northwest Indiana.

With similar suits being filed around the country, the firearms industry mobilized legislative support at the state and federal levels to pass laws effectively immunizing gun retailers and manufacturers from civil lawsuits. One by one, the lawsuits died.

In Indiana, Republican state lawmakers tried in 2015 to halt the suit, amending an existing immunity statute to make it retroactive to days before Gary filed its complaint. Despite the law, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the city’s ability to pursue its claims, and the suit continued.

Former Gary Mayor Karen Freeman-Wilson, who was in office in 2015, called it “hypocritical” to blame the city for delays in the case, noting that state lawmakers’ efforts have led to a long appeals process as the industry sought to have the case dismissed.

“It is déjà vu all over again,” said Freeman-Wilson, who is now president and CEO of the Chicago Urban League.

“We were very adamant about not just going forward, but really developing the trace data that would support the claims of the lawsuit,” she said. “I believe then and now that it is a public safety issue. I support the Second Amendment and responsible gun ownership, but this is really about dealers that target communities.”

Freeman-Wilson, who served as Indiana’s elected attorney general two decades ago, said lawmakers are “irresponsible in their blind commitment to gun manufacturers and dealers.”

Efforts to put an end to the lawsuit have also extended to the executive branch. The administration of then-Gov. Mike Pence reached out to Freeman-Wilson during her time as mayor in an effort to broker a deal on the lawsuit, she said. At the time, Indiana was competing with other states to attract firearms and ammunition manufacturers that were looking to relocate from blue states, where gun laws were more restrictive. The lawsuit was seen as a barrier.

“They wanted to know what it would take for us to resolve it,” Freeman-Wilson recalled.

She said there were discussions about setting up a fund for victims of gun violence and to help pay for prevention efforts, but those ideas didn’t go anywhere. Instead, she said, gun industry advocates proposed a cartoon character campaign, akin to Smokey Bear, to teach firearm safety to young people.

The city is being represented in the case by the Brady Center, a gun violence prevention group. Representatives from the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit declined to comment on the new legislation.

The organization’s former president and CEO, Paul Helmke, said he believes the retroactive nature of the legislation can be successfully challenged in court, but at the very least it will set the case back for months or years.

“Now all of a sudden, once discovery has started and they’re getting ready to move to trial, they step in again to try to get extra protections that nobody else, no other business, no other industry in this country has except the gun industry,” said Helmke, a former Republican mayor of Fort Wayne.

He asked: “What are they afraid of?”

Jody Madeira, a law professor at Indiana University who teaches a course on the Second Amendment, said she believes that the legislation violates the city’s right to due process and that lawmakers are exceeding their constitutional powers and unlawfully encroaching on those of the judicial branch.

“This is the Indiana legislature’s latest attempt to jettison the longest-lasting gun lawsuit in U.S. history, thwarting the judicial process to ensure that the firearms industry remains above the law,” she said during a hearing on the bill. “Now old enough to drink, Gary’s lawsuit is the last of its kind. The Indiana Supreme Court has continuously affirmed Gary’s right to bring this lawsuit. It’s not frivolous.”

Supporters of the legislation, however, argue that the same constitutional arguments could be made of previous laws that granted immunity to the firearms industry.

“The state can, for solid policy reasons, foreclose certain causes of action or eliminate liability in certain areas,” said Guy Relford, a gun rights attorney who has helped write some of Indiana’s gun laws. “Its ability to do so has been upheld for generations, notwithstanding those kind of constitutional arguments.”

The legislation now heads to the Senate, where leader Rodric Bray, a Republican, said he expects it to receive a warm reception.

“We’re a strong Second Amendment caucus,” he said. “I suspect there is an appetite for that.”

Brittany Carloni of IndyStar contributed reporting.

by Tony Cook, IndyStar, and Vernal Coleman, ProPublica

Task Force to Consider “Restorative Justice” for Black Families Uprooted by Virginia University’s Expansion

9 months 3 weeks ago

This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network in partnership with the Virginia Center for Investigative Journalism at WHRO. Sign up for Dispatches to get stories like this one as soon as they are published.

The city of Newport News, Virginia, and Christopher Newport University are creating a joint task force to reexamine the destruction of a Black neighborhood to make way for the school’s campus starting in the 1960s, and recommend possible redress for uprooted families.

The new commission, announced Monday, will scrutinize four decades of the school’s property acquisitions, probing the decisions that led to locating and expanding its campus in the midst of a once-thriving Black community. It will also contact families displaced by Christopher Newport’s steady growth to ask what “restorative justice” would mean for them, and seek state assistance with potential relief for victims, according to a draft action plan.

The formation of the task force follows publication of a series by the Virginia Center for Investigative Journalism at WHRO and ProPublica, which revealed that Christopher Newport and other Virginia state universities grew by decimating thriving Black communities. It also documented race-based decision-making by the City Council by locating the school in a Black neighborhood despite having cheaper options and by seizing properties by eminent domain. CNU’s expansion has whittled down the Shoe Lane neighborhood in Newport News to just five houses.

In their announcement, Newport News Mayor Phillip Jones and Christopher Newport University President Bill Kelly said that the task force’s goals are to develop a “comprehensive understanding” of historical events and to ensure that residents are treated better in the future. “Understanding and acknowledging our past is important to moving forward in a transparent and thoughtful way. Christopher Newport is committed to this work,” Kelly said.

“I was deeply disturbed to know that this happened in our community,” Jones said. “I feel a personal obligation to ensure the city speaks to its role in displacing families and disrupting the sense of community in this historic area.”

The city will align itself with CNU’s plan to boost Black enrollment, according to the draft action plan obtained by VCIJ and ProPublica. Black people make up 44% of Newport News residents but only 8% of Christopher Newport students, down from 17% in 1996, VCIJ and ProPublica reported.

The announcement marks the latest and one of the broadest efforts in the country by a university and its host city to revisit their role in urban renewal and the disruption of once-stable Black communities. City and school reexamination of the historic displacement of marginalized communities has led to greater recognition of the plight of former residents near the University of Colorado Denver and the University of Georgia in Athens. The Denver university has also established a scholarship fund for descendants of families in the displaced Aurorian community.

Besides municipal and university action, the VCIJ-ProPublica series has also stirred a state legislative response. Delegate Delores McQuinn introduced legislation this month to create a commission to study how Virginia public colleges have uprooted Black communities and to explore routes of redress.

The first phase of the Newport News and CNU review will examine property records and assessments from 1958 to 1997 to determine whether property owners were properly paid for their land. The task force will also review city and university records, family archives and church documents to identify displaced families and calculate potential compensation, according to the draft action plan.

In the late 1950s, the Johnson family sold farmland in the Shoe Lane area to Black families for a new subdivision called Johnson Terrace. (Christopher Tyree/VCIJ at WHRO)

Additionally, the working group will survey affected families and consult with historians, lawyers and restorative justice experts. The task force will also suggest changes to the city’s policy for using eminent domain to seize properties.

The city has not released details about how many members would be appointed to the task force, when it would be expected to conclude its work or when findings would be released.

Newport News Vice Mayor Curtis Bethany and CNU Provost Quentin Kidd will co-chair the task force, which is expected to include representatives of the city, the university administration, alumni, students and the community, according to the action plan.

The ProPublica series detailed how universities have taken advantage of federal funding and court rulings to displace tens of thousands of families of color. A 1959 amendment to the Federal Housing Act gave colleges generous subsidies to join with cities to expand into stable neighborhoods, often by using eminent domain. While these efforts were promoted as ways to revitalize deteriorating neighborhoods, they frequently resulted in the destruction of Black middle-class communities. Christopher Newport and other Virginia state universities grew at the expense of Black neighborhoods.

Following the first story in the series, Kelly acknowledged in a message to faculty and staff that the university’s progress “has come at a human cost, and we must continue to learn about and understand our complicated history.”

Kelly also shared the series and a related documentary film with students, faculty and staff, and CNU hosted a panel discussion in November on its history. There, before an overflow crowd, panelists and audience members lashed out at the university. “A school that’s built on land that was taken from Black Americans should be more diverse,” said panelist Audrey Perry Williams, president of the Hampton Roads Association for the Study of African American Life and History.

Another panelist, professor Johnny Finn, chair of the Christopher Newport sociology department, floated the idea of reparations for affected families. “I think we need to think about materially, in addition to the symbolic and the representational, how we deal with this,” Finn said.

In 2019, Christopher Newport implemented the Community Captains program, designed to prepare students from Newport News high schools to enter the university and increase enrollment of Black students. Other Virginia universities have taken steps to rectify the historical displacement of marginalized communities caused by their campus expansions. Beginning in the 1960s, Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, took over part of the predominantly Black Lambert’s Point neighborhood. ODU has since worked to improve relations with remaining residents by increasing enrollment of students of color and awarding scholarships to residents of Lambert’s Point and nearby areas. The University of Virginia, which also dislodged Black residents, appointed two executive commissions to study its historical support for racist policies and has set a goal to create affordable housing for Charlottesville residents on university-owned properties.

Around 1960, the area bounded by Shoe Lane and three other streets was a growing Black middle-class neighborhood. Residents included teachers, dentists, a high school principal and a NASA engineer, and there were plans to develop farmland for additional housing. But an all-white Newport News City Council blocked those plans by seizing the core of the community in 1961 to establish a college. A former Christopher Newport University president said he was told that the goal was to “erase the Black spot,” in part because the area was near an all-white country club where city and business leaders gathered. The city paid the homeowners 20% less for the properties than the value set by an independent appraiser, council records show.

Even after the 1960s seizure, Black families continued to live around the perimeter of the college. However, Christopher Newport kept expanding. Between 1987 and 2019, it acquired at least 70 properties in the Shoe Lane area, according to an analysis of real estate records. Contending that the university’s expansion hurt their property values, because no one else would want to buy the property, homeowners unsuccessfully sued the university in federal court in 1989.

Paul Trible, CNU’s president from 1996 to 2022, said publicly he wouldn’t need to invoke eminent domain. But his administration used it as leverage to force at least one homeowner to sell in 2005, records show. That same year, the school’s governing board approved its use for three other properties that Christopher Newport said it ultimately acquired without resorting to eminent domain.

Dwayne Johnson, who grew up on Shoe Lane, urged the task force not only to compensate families for underpayments and loss of property value but also to pay them punitive damages. Johnson’s great-grandfather purchased 30 acres of land on Shoe Lane in the early 1900s.

“Do we want reparations? That would be nice,” Johnson said. “But do we think it will be meaningful in that it actually is reflective of our losses? I don’t know.”

by Brandi Kellam, Virginia Center for Investigative Journalism at WHRO

Amid Recall Crisis, Philips Agrees to Stop Selling Sleep Apnea Machines in the United States

9 months 3 weeks ago

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

Reeling from one of the most catastrophic recalls in decades, Philips Respironics said it will stop selling sleep apnea machines and other respiratory devices in the United States under a settlement with the federal government that will all but end the company’s reign as one of the top makers of breathing machines in the country.

The agreement, announced by Philips early Monday, comes more than two years after the company pulled millions of its popular breathing devices off the shelves after admitting that an industrial foam fitted in the machines to reduce noise could break apart and release potentially toxic particles and fumes into the masks worn by patients.

It could be years before Philips can resume sales of the devices, made in two factories outside Pittsburgh. The company said all the conditions of the multiyear consent decree — negotiated in the wake of the recall with the Department of Justice on behalf of the Food and Drug Administration — must be met first.

The move by a company that aggressively promoted its machines in ad campaigns and health conferences — in one case with the help of an Elvis impersonator — follows relentless criticism about the safety of the machines.

A ProPublica and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette investigation found the company held back thousands of complaints about the crumbling foam for more than a decade before warning customers about the dangers. Those using the machines included some of the most fragile people in the country, including infants, the elderly, veterans and patients with chronic conditions.

“It’s about time,” said Richard Callender, a former mayor in Pennsylvania who spent years using one of the recalled machines. “How many people have to suffer and get sick and die?”

Philips said the agreement includes other requirements the company must meet before it can start selling the machines again, including the marquee DreamStation 2, a continuous positive airway pressure, or CPAP, device heralded by Philips when it was unveiled in 2021 for the treatment of sleep apnea. The settlement, which is still being finalized, has to be approved by a court and has not yet been released by the government.

The FDA said it could not comment until the agreement is finalized and filed with the court. The DOJ could not be immediately reached for comment.

It remains unclear how the halt in sales will impact patients and doctors. The company’s U.S. market share for sleep apnea devices in 2020 was about 37% — behind only one competitor, medical device maker ResMed, according to an analysis by iData Research. Philips has dominated the market in ventilator sales, the data shows.

One global market report on Monday referred to the agreement as “very punitive” and noted, “It will be very difficult for Philips to recover its U.S Respironics market position.”

After the announcement, the company’s stock prices plunged by 7% in early trading.

Philips did not address the safety of the recalled devices in its announcement, but the company has previously said that new testing shows the foam causes no “appreciable harm” to patients. The FDA has challenged those claims, saying the company’s tests are not “adequate.”

The settlement comes just weeks after federal lawmakers called for an immediate criminal probe of Philips by the DOJ, and the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, said it will launch an inquiry of the FDA’s oversight of medical device recalls for the first time in years.

ProPublica and the Post-Gazette identified thousands of reported cases of cancer, respiratory illnesses and liver and kidney conditions among users of the recalled machines, as well as more than 370 reports of deaths.

The news organizations found that scientists inside Philips repeatedly raised concerns about the foam and that the company’s own testing called into question its safety claims.

The news organizations also reported that a new and different foam used in the DreamStation 2 and millions of other replacement machines sent out by Philips in the wake of the recall was found to emit dangerous chemicals as well, including formaldehyde, a known carcinogen. The company has said the new foam is safe, but scientists involved in the testing have again raised alarms and the FDA has said additional safety tests are still needed.

In its announcement, the company said it would provide ongoing service and parts for machines already in the hands of doctors and patients and continue selling its devices outside the United States subject to requirements in the agreement.

“Resolving the consequences of the Respironics recall for our patients and customers is a key focus area and I acknowledge and apologize for the distress and concern caused,” said Roy Jakobs, CEO of parent company Royal Philips. “We are fully committed to complying with the consent decree, which is an important step and provides a clear path forward.”

The announcement was the latest in a series of developments at Philips since the recall prompted a global health emergency that sent millions of patients scrambling to find replacement machines and assess the risk of long term exposure.

Philips has discontinued some of the recalled devices, including ventilators and, just last week, the widely promoted DreamStation Go, a portable CPAP.

In an online update and email to U.S. customers, Philips said the decision to pull the devices off the market in the United States was a “strategic” choice that “streamlined” its portfolio. The email reignited anger and frustration among patients and doctors.

“They used to be one of the most respected industry leaders,” said Dr. Radhika Breaden, a sleep medicine specialist in Oregon. “They have lost the trust of many of our sleep patients and many professionals in the sleep field.”

Michael Korsh of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette contributed reporting.

Update, Jan. 29, 2024: This story has been updated with additional information provided by the FDA.

by Debbie Cenziper, ProPublica, and Michael D. Sallah, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

How Georgia’s Small Power Companies Endanger Their Most Vulnerable Customers

9 months 3 weeks 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.

In early 2019, Tina Marie Marsden needed more time to pay her electric bill. A mother in her mid-40s who lived on a fixed income because of a medical disability, she tried to explain to the local utility that the prospect of having no electricity was more than just an inconvenience. A mechanical pump kept her heart beating, and the pump ran on batteries that needed to be frequently charged. If the batteries ran out, Marsden could die.

Marsden had recently moved nearly 40 miles south of downtown Atlanta to Griffin, Georgia, a city that provides electricity to more than 13,000 residents through the utility it owns. Griffin offered customers only a seven-day period to pay past-due bills before cutting off their power — regardless of their health.

Before moving to Griffin, Marsden had gotten her electricity from Georgia Power, the state’s largest utility. State energy regulators require Georgia Power to delay disconnecting a seriously ill customer for failing to pay if they provide proof of a medical condition. Customers are eligible to request a grace period of up to two months.

After seven days passed, the city shut off Marsden’s power. She called her family, pleading with her relatives to lend her money. She cobbled together enough cash to pay the city, and her power was restored before the day ended.

Her relief was short-lived. That spring, when Marsden again fell behind on her bill, she asked a Griffin employee to consider her need for consistent power due to her heart condition. But the employee warned her that her condition would not keep her from being disconnected for nonpayment. The following month, when she missed another due date, the city cut off her power — and did so multiple more times in the years that followed.

Georgia is one of more than a dozen states that require certain utilities to delay disconnections for seriously ill customers for 60 days or more, according to a National Consumer Law Center report. But Georgia’s regulation does not apply to its nearly 100 small electric utilities. These utilities, which are largely overseen by local elected officials or nonprofit board members, can choose to immediately disconnect seriously ill residents who fail to pay their bills on time. Only a handful of states, including Wisconsin and New York, have oversight of municipal utilities and require them to protect seriously ill customers.

“The theory of municipal utilities is ‘Oh, it’s run by the government, it’s got to be better for people,’” said Charlie Harak, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center, a nonprofit that specializes in consumer protection issues. “Few people are closely watching how they operate.”

As is the case in many states, no Georgia agency tracks how often utilities disconnect people who rely on electric-powered medical devices. ProPublica has identified examples of these kinds of shut-offs across the state. In the small south Georgia city of Fitzgerald, the municipally run utility shut off power eight times to a man receiving at-home dialysis treatment. Another utility in Palmetto, less than 25 miles southwest of downtown Atlanta, several times disconnected a woman reliant on a device to treat sleep apnea, even after she submitted a letter from her medical provider saying losing power could kill her. In the northeastern Atlanta suburbs, Lawrenceville’s utility disconnected a woman who used an oxygen concentrator to treat her chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, leading her son to file a complaint with the utility. “I didn’t know you could just keep shutting off power w a disabled person on oxygen,” he wrote.

Palmetto City Hall in Palmetto, Georgia (Alyssa Pointer for ProPublica)

Representatives for the cities of Fitzgerald and Palmetto told ProPublica that the cities have tried to help seriously ill customers, but noted that they don’t have formal policies addressing those customers. (Fitzgerald declined to respond to questions about the customer who was disconnected.) Lawrenceville has a policy stopping disconnections for customers who turn in documentation from a medical professional of a serious illness; utility officials told the son of the woman with COPD about the policy after he complained about the shut-off, according to emails ProPublica received in a records request.

Griffin Mayor Douglas Hollberg, along with the city manager, declined to answer questions about Marsden, even after she signed a document waiving her right to privacy so the city could discuss her account. In an interview, Hollberg said that his utility strives to accommodate seriously ill customers. However, he said, some people “want to abuse the system” and leave other taxpayers footing the costs.

“We're talking about someone that doesn't want to pay their power bill and thinks that we shouldn't shut them off because they don't want to pay their bill,” Hollberg said. “I'm tired of people wanting to have rights beyond anybody else's rights.”

Griffin Mayor Douglas Hollberg listens during public comment at a city commission meeting in December 2023. (Alyssa Pointer for ProPublica)

Dozens of Georgia’s other small utilities offered ProPublica a variety of explanations for why these kinds of disconnections are necessary. Some executives said that their utilities address people’s need to power their medical devices on a case-by-case basis, while others pointed to financial assistance programs they provide to help customers in need. One Georgia utility maintains an emergency fund supplied by contributions from its employees; another provides customers with a list of local charities that might be willing to cover their overdue bills.

Other officials expressed concern that allowing seriously ill people long periods of time to pay could cost utilities too much.

“There are people who will not be honest with the power provider, and they will use the medical thing to pretty much say, ‘You can’t cut my power off,’” said Mark Bolton, a spokesperson for Coastal Electric Cooperative, a utility that serves 22,000 customers in southeast Georgia. “But we can’t give you free power forever, either.”

Across the country, people who use electric-powered medical devices have died after their late payments triggered utility disconnections, and not all involved small utilities. In 2015, Lester Berry, a 70-year-old Texan with chronic pulmonary disease, died after a disconnection left him without the ability to use his oxygen-producing device. In 2018, a New Jersey utility with more than 2 million customers disconnected power for Linda Daniels, a 68-year-old piano teacher, who gasped for hours without her breathing machine. Daniels’ death led New Jersey legislators to pass “Linda’s Law,” which requires utilities to confirm with customers whether someone in their home relies on an electric-powered medical device before moving forward with a disconnection.

“No one should fear losing their life because their electricity bill is a few days overdue,” Gov. Phil Murphy said upon signing the law in 2019.

Consumer advocates and medical experts say that utilities — and the officials who regulate them — should protect customers whose health could be imperiled by a disconnection. A handful of smaller utilities in Georgia have adopted policies to postpone disconnections for seriously ill customers, according to information obtained by ProPublica through open records requests and survey responses. Experts and residents who spoke with ProPublica said the additional time allows people to apply for financial assistance from local nonprofits, borrow money from family or friends or negotiate a plan with the utility company to pay their bills.

“More time means I can come up with the money on my own,” Marsden said. “More time allows me to keep my pride, maintain my independence and not have to ask others for money.”

Dr. Peter Kahn, a pulmonologist and critical care fellow affiliated with Yale University’s medical school who studies the health impacts of disconnections, said patients of his who have asked their utilities for extra protections are not “looking for a free ride,” but rather seeking help for crucial needs.

“The cost of fighting with people who are looking for small protections over the long term is just not worth it,” Kahn said.

In 2019, around the second time that Marsden’s power was disconnected, she met a woman through a Facebook group called LVAD Friends, where people trade tips about their experiences with a type of heart pump known as a left ventricular assist device. The friend’s utility had threatened to disconnect her power after she fell behind on her monthly payments.

Concerned for her friend, Marsden traveled to Atlanta to seek help from the Georgia Public Service Commission. She thought her elected energy regulators could delay the city from cutting off her friend’s electricity. Instead, the PSC staff told her there was nothing they could do: The commission could help enforce protections for people who get electricity from Georgia Power but had no authority to oversee the disconnection practices of smaller utilities like the one that provided electricity to Marsden’s friend.

City-run power companies and nonprofit electric cooperatives initially sprang up as an answer to inequitable access to electricity in rural parts of the country. In the early 20th century, officials in rural Georgia built their own grids and farmers banded together to fund the construction of power lines that brought electricity to residents outside of major cities. By the 1950s, the vast majority of rural Georgia residents could light their homes, catching up with people living in larger cities like Atlanta and Augusta.

Over the decades that followed, the PSC heightened protections for seriously ill customers of Georgia Power. But in Georgia, as in a number of states across the country, cities lobbied legislators to fend off state oversight of their utilities. Soon after Marsden moved to Griffin, she realized that seriously ill Georgians outside of major cities were being left behind once again, subject to disconnection practices that threatened their quality of life.

In July 2020, Griffin cut off electricity at the home of Kenneth Parson, a retired trucker with diabetes who needed power to refrigerate his insulin. His wife begged city officials to reconsider their decision during the pandemic. The city said it could only restore power once he paid his bill. For more than two months that summer, Parson stored his insulin in a cooler packed with ice. Griffin later cut off power for Tracey Hardaway, who also needed electricity to store insulin pens. Hardaway said she and her husband had paid all but $30 of a more than $250 bill and promised city officials they would gather the remainder in a couple of days. “They would not keep the power on for those two days,” Hardaway said.

Following his disconnection, Kenneth Parson, a 65-year-old retired truck driver, filled a cooler with ice to keep his insulin cold. He did this for more than two months. (Alyssa Pointer for ProPublica)

In recent years, Griffin distributed small grants from a $250,000 program that was funded through the federal CARES Act, which provided emergency financial assistance to Americans during the pandemic. Griffin's city manager declined to answer questions about Parson or Hardaway or provide details about whether they received financial assistance from the city.

A few months after Marsden went to Atlanta to advocate for her friend, Griffin disconnected her power for the third time that year. The clock was ticking: Her heart pump’s battery lasted only 12 hours. When the latest disconnection left Marsden without power for three days, she kept the pump running with the help of a neighbor, who let her run an extension cord between their apartments to charge her batteries.

In June 2021, Marsden was only able to pay about three-quarters of her $365 monthly bill and was at risk of disconnection for a fifth time. Before living in Griffin, she had been accustomed to her local government charging her for water, sewer and garbage collection. Here, the city bundled its electricity charges and those other municipal services into a single monthly bill, which meant that she couldn’t choose to pay only for her electricity. After seven days of Marsden not paying the full bill, the city cut off her power again. “I need power to live,” she recalled thinking. “Is Griffin going to let me die over $80?”

That fifth disconnection spurred Marsden to take action. She tracked down disconnection policies of other small cities across the country and found that some were more forgiving than Griffin to people with electric-powered medical devices. She reached out to city officials to encourage them to adopt a better policy, arguing they were unfairly penalizing residents with disabilities.

Her advocacy prompted city officials to review the disconnection policies. In an internal email ProPublica obtained through a records request, a city attorney erroneously told other staffers that Griffin had “adopted the same policies as Georgia Power.” (A city spokesperson declined to comment about Griffin’s interpretation of Georgia Power’s policy.) The response that reached Marsden was disappointing: The city “will not alter this policy,” a city official wrote. But, that official said, Marsden was welcome to charge her heart pump batteries at City Hall.

Frustrated by Griffin’s response, Marsden decided to speak out at the city commission meeting that September. As she waited anxiously to face her elected officials, her heart raced so fast that she was zapped by her defibrillator, which shocks her heart whenever it beats faster than 220 beats per minute. She cried out loud enough for the commissioners to pause the meeting and for someone to call 911.

The paramedics urged Marsden to immediately go to a hospital for observation, but she insisted on speaking first during the public comment period. They reluctantly agreed. Too weak and out of breath to stand at the dais, Marsden sat in the front row of the audience. She criticized the city for its rigid disconnection policy and urged them to protect their most vulnerable residents.

“We are not asking not to pay,” Marsden said. She went on to ask Griffin to change its policies “so customers who need power to live are not at risk of disconnection, or risk loss of life due to disconnections.”

ProPublica surveyed about three dozen municipal utilities and electric cooperatives of various sizes across the state and found a variety of disconnection policies. About a third of those utilities had policies requiring them to delay disconnections for seriously ill customers. College Park, a small city near Atlanta’s airport, gives residents up to six months to pay their bill without disconnection if they submit a letter from a medical provider. The rest of the utilities that responded didn’t have a policy requiring delays in disconnection for those customers.

Palmetto, just southwest of Atlanta, is one of the municipal utilities without a policy, as 56-year-old Aleica Dockery found out in late 2022. Over a decade earlier, a car accident had killed her daughter and left Dockery using a wheelchair. Dockery provided city officials with a letter from a medical provider notifying them she needed continuous electricity to use her CPAP machine, a device that she used to treat her sleep apnea. The medical provider warned that a disconnection “could lead to catastrophic consequences up to and including death.”

Aleica Dockery uses an electric wheelchair and a CPAP machine that need charging. (Alyssa Pointer for ProPublica)

Palmetto disconnected her electricity anyway. Dockery at the time received $375 a month in disability payments, making it difficult for her to afford the 10% additional charge for paying her bill even a day late. With utility bills that often reached $350, plus a $30 service fee when Dockery was a week late, those charges added up quickly. Like Griffin, Palmetto provides residents with a single bill that includes water, sewer, trash and electricity; if they don’t pay the full bill on time, the city cuts off their electricity first. “That is the thing that people respond to quickly,” explained city clerk Cindy Hanson, though she added that she did not work for Palmetto when the policy was created decades ago.

Hanson said the small city relies on utility payments from its nearly 2,000 customers to balance its budget. The Georgia municipal utilities that ProPublica surveyed earn, on average, about 40% of their total revenue from providing electricity, though some individual cities’ percentages in recent years range from less than 20% to more than 60%. Local officials use that money to subsidize the costs of running their governments. They also use it to offset discounted power to large companies that set up shop in their cities. Griffin, for example, offers new businesses up to a 30% discount on utility rates for their first three years of operation.

Meanwhile, some utility representatives told ProPublica they were not able to provide automatic discounts or even extended grace periods to residents who use electric-powered medical devices. Instead, they said, they offer help on a case-by-case basis and encourage customers to take personal responsibility for paying their bills. Some cities, like Albany in southwest Georgia, recommend that customers with electric-powered medical devices acquire additional batteries or costly backup options such as a generator. Flint Energies, in central Georgia, does not have an official policy on disconnections for people with medical devices but provides a “courtesy call” to warn each customer that they might want to relocate to a place with electricity, such as a relative’s house, “when all options have been exhausted and a disconnection is unavoidable.”

Several smaller utilities offer advanced pay programs, which operate like a prepaid debit card — and allow a power company to immediately cut off power once a customer has reached their allotted amount of electricity. The utilities often market these plans to low-income customers as a way to help them avoid using more electricity than they can afford. But energy and utility law experts cite studies showing these programs can result in more exorbitant fees and more frequent disconnections than regular payment plans. Some utilities refuse to allow customers on prepaid plans to enter into payment plans, leaving them with limited options if they run out of money for electricity.

Coastal Electric Cooperative’s Bolton said the utility helps seriously ill customers facing disconnection pay bills with one-time donations from an emergency fund called “Helping Hands,” stocked by employees’ voluntary contributions. “That’s kind of an example of having policies that fit the people that you serve, and maybe not trying to be so big that you just have to have a uniform cookie cutter policy for everybody,” he said.

State Sen. Frank Ginn, a Republican who has led two legislative committees that oversee power companies, said smaller utilities work best when they regulate themselves. A former employee of smaller Georgia utilities, he has pushed for reduced state regulation of cities on a number of issues, arguing that such regulation ties the hands of local leaders and raises costs for residents. “We have somebody that’s just looking after the public, and that’s the elected officials,” he said.

Ginn said residents should advocate for themselves with their local elected leaders before reaching the point of being disconnected multiple times. “I guarantee you, if they were on top of the communications better, there would probably be a much better outcome,” he said.

On a chilly morning this past December, Marsden walked into City Hall, hopeful that Griffin was ready to change. After years of Marsden questioning officials, filing open records requests and writing formal complaints, the city was now unveiling proposed changes to its disconnection policy for the first time since she moved there. But as she sat in the audience, Marsden realized that the changes proposed were limited for seriously ill customers. The city was considering only an additional one-day extension for those customers to pay before getting disconnected, as well as a requirement for officials to “attempt to call” customers before disconnecting them.

After the meeting, Marsden approached one of the utility’s staff members to lobby for more protections but secured no promises to strengthen the proposal.

The overall proposal fell short of the best practices experts have identified for utilities seeking to protect seriously ill customers. A report published by the NCLC recommended that utilities give seriously ill customers at least 30 days to pay their bills before being disconnected, with the ability to have their payment period extended, and inform those customers ahead of time if they qualify for the protections.

That night, Marsden had one more chance to convince elected officials. During public comments at the city commission meeting, she urged her elected officials to consider something she’d recently learned through her ongoing research: Other utilities serving residents in Spalding County — where Griffin is located — had provided customers with more time to pay bills before being disconnected.

“I don’t know if you understand how embarrassing it is just to say, ‘I’ve been disconnected four or five times,’” Marsden said. But she said she was willing to share her story “to make sure that we have policies in place, that we’re going to look out for people and that we’re going to protect each other.”

Marsden speaks during public comment at the Griffin city commission meeting. (Alyssa Pointer for ProPublica)

Hollberg, a local insurance agent who serves as Griffin’s mayor, pushed back against Marsden’s plea. He said at the meeting that Griffin once used to lose around $3 million in uncollected bills each year. After cracking down on customers who hadn’t paid, the city now had a tenth that much in delinquent collections, he said. As Hollberg saw it, providing the extra accommodations sought by Marsden — even to the tiny fraction of Griffin’s customers who were seriously ill and facing economic hardship — went against what he believed were his “financial responsibilities” as an elected official.

Hollberg then called for a vote to approve the limited proposal. As Marsden watched from the front row, she strained to maintain her composure. She had fought hard for protections for herself and other Griffin residents and followed all the rules for public input, only to end up barely better off than where she started.

Within seconds, the proposal unanimously passed.

Hollberg, center, raises his hand during a vote at the December 2023 commission meeting. (Alyssa Pointer for ProPublica)

Mollie Simon contributed research.

by Max Blau and Aliyya Swaby

The American Museum of Natural History to Close Exhibits Displaying Native American Belongings

9 months 3 weeks 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 American Museum of Natural History, one of the country’s largest museums whose prestige was built in part on excavating Native American gravesites, is shuttering some of its longtime exhibits that display cultural materials that could be subject to return to tribal nations.

The move comes as the New York City museum and many others, including the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, consult with tribes and evaluate their compliance with new federal regulations intended to speed up the process of returning ancestral remains and sacred items under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. ProPublica published a series of articles last year, called “The Repatriation Project,” about the failures of museums to comply with the law in the past three decades.

Sean Decatur, president of the American Museum of Natural History, told staff in a letter on Friday that the “Eastern Woodlands and Great Plains Halls” will be closed to the public starting Saturday. The letter, provided to ProPublica, was first reported by The New York Times. Both exhibit halls, which contain numerous items from tribes in Montana, the Dakotas, Wisconsin and other states, are “severely outdated,” Decatur said.

“While the actions we are taking this week may seem sudden, they reflect a growing urgency among all museums to change their relationships to, and representation of, Indigenous cultures,” Decatur wrote to staff. “The Halls we are closing are vestiges of an era when museums such as ours did not respect the values, perspectives, and indeed shared humanity of Indigenous peoples.”

This month, the Field Museum also announced it would cover several displays of tribal items, as reported by Native News Online. In a statement, the Field Museum said it is “committed not only to compliance with NAGPRA but to consultation and collaboration with affiliated communities whose heritage is represented in our galleries.”

ProPublica’s reporting based on federal data shows at least 160 tribes may be eligible to claim ancestral remains, funerary items and other sacred objects from the American Museum of Natural History; for the Field Museum, at least 134 may make repatriation claims.

The new federal regulations, which went into effect this month, prohibit the display of items subject to NAGPRA without tribal consent and ban all research done without tribal consent. In addition, the regulations closed a loophole that had allowed museums such as the American Museum of Natural History to keep ancestral remains and burial items by claiming that they are “culturally unidentifiable” — meaning in their view they could not be connected to present-day Indigenous communities based on available evidence — and therefore could not readily be returned to tribes.

Museums will be required to determine, in consultation with tribes, which community can rightfully claim human remains or items in their collections. If a museum finds that it still cannot make a determination, it would have to say why in a notice filed in the Federal Register, Melanie O’Brien, manager of the National NAGPRA Program, an office within the Interior Department’s National Park Service, previously told ProPublica.

Although the American Museum of Natural History banned destructive research on human remains in 2020, ProPublica reported last year that long repatriation delays before then ultimately led to more federal funding for scientists to research the museum’s collections. ProPublica also reported how the museum has yet to return children’s toys taken from the massacre site at Wounded Knee in South Dakota.

Starting long before passage of NAGPRA in 1990, tribal nations have pushed for the return of their ancestors and sacred items held by America’s most prestigious museums and institutions.

ProPublica investigated influential museums that have delayed the return of human remains and sacred objects to tribes. Harvard’s Peabody Museum spent years exploiting NAGPRA loopholes to prevent repatriation to the Wabanaki people. The Metropolitan Museum of Art has displayed cultural objects of questionable provenance. And the Illinois State Museum for decades displayed the open graves of more than 230 Indigenous people. The museum closed the exhibit in the early 1990s and over the past two years removed funerary items from display. A new Illinois law, passed last year, bans museums from profiteering from the display of human remains and funerary objects.

Even before the new federal regulations, there were signs that pressure was building on museums to move faster. In 2023, in part because of the attention from ProPublica and tribal pressure, more ancestral remains were returned than at any other point since the law’s passage in 1990.

But many human remains and sacred objects still reside in their collections.

ProPublica reported in December that museums still hold at least 97,000 ancestors. And of the more than 600 institutions and federal agencies that must comply with NAGPRA, about 180 museums have reported that they have yet to repatriate any ancestors or belongings.

Federal data shows the American Museum of Natural History has made available for return 47% of the more than 3,500 Native American remains that it reported to the federal government. It still maintains control of at least 1,800 ancestors and more than 4,060 funerary items buried with those individuals.

Ash Ngu contributed reporting.

Correction

Jan. 26, 2024: This story previously misstated the number of funerary items still held by the American Museum of Natural History. It is more than 4,060, not more than 7,200.

by Logan Jaffe and Mary Hudetz

21 Bodycam Videos Caught the NYPD Wrongly Arresting Black Kids on Halloween. Why Can’t the Public See the Footage?

9 months 4 weeks 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.

I got my first real lesson in police accountability in 2019 on Halloween. My wife, Sara Pekow, and our daughter had watched an NYPD officer drive the wrong way up a Brooklyn street and hit a Black teenager. The police had been chasing him as a suspect in the theft of a cellphone. When the boy rolled off the car and ran away, the officers turned their attention to other nearby Black boys who seemed to be simply trick-or-treating. The police lined them against the wall of our neighborhood movie theater, cuffed them and took them away.

At the time, I was editing coverage of the Trump administration, not policing. But I was troubled and, frankly, curious. I ended up waiting outside the police precinct with the boys’ families. The boys were released hours later, with no explanation, no paperwork and no apology.

The next day I reached out to the NYPD’s press office and asked about what happened. Eventually, a spokesperson told me that nothing inappropriate had occurred. A police car hadn’t hit the kid, he said. The kid had run over the hood of the car.

I couldn’t get it out of my head. Not just what had happened, but the NYPD’s brazen denial of what my family and others had witnessed. Surely, I thought, that wouldn’t be the end of it.

I was wrong.

Over the past four years, I’ve learned how the police in New York and across the country are largely left to police themselves. Nothing shows that dynamic better than the failed promise of body-worn cameras.

New York City adopted body-worn cameras in 2017, against the backdrop of the Black Lives Matter movement that had emerged after the police killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. The cameras were supposed to bring transparency and accountability. But policymakers in most states, cities and towns left the police in control — with the power to decide what is recorded, who can see it and when.

Police have frequently used that power to withhold footage, not only from the public but also from civilian investigators.

Last year, I noticed a line in a story about the killing of Tyre Nichols. The New York Times mentioned that a number of the Memphis, Tennessee, officers knew their body cameras were on and pummeled Nichols anyway. The fact that they were being recorded didn’t deter them at all.

That’s when I decided to dive in. Over several months, I learned how the police have undermined the promise of transparency and accountability that accompanied the body-camera movement.

The result is a December story published in collaboration with The New York Times Magazine, detailing how departments across the country have routinely refused to release footage and frequently failed to discipline or fire officers even when cameras document abuse.

Three years before Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd by kneeling on his neck, body-camera video caught him kneeling on the necks of others. One victim was a 14-year-old Black boy whom Chauvin also hit in the head with a flashlight and choked. “Please, please do not kill my son!” the boy’s mother begged as she tried to reach out to help him.

Chauvin’s supervisor at the Minneapolis Police Department had access to the footage and cleared his conduct. Then the department fought against releasing the footage, even after Chauvin pleaded guilty to federal charges in the case.

After the global protests spurred by Floyd’s murder, the New York Police Department committed to publishing video from shootings and other critical incidents within 30 days. Of the at least 380 such incidents since then, the NYPD has published footage within a month exactly twice.

All of which brings me back to Halloween.

A city agency charged with handling complaints of police abuse did a thorough investigation. What the Civilian Complaint Review Board found was a long litany of misconduct: An officer did hit a kid with his car, another one had pointed his gun at one of the other boys and those boys were in fact arrested without justification.

After “extremely substantial delays” by the NYPD, the board had gotten footage showing exactly what happened. It had 21 videos from body-worn cameras. The CCRB concluded that five officers, including a precinct commander, should face disciplinary trials, which is the highest level of discipline within the department.

But in New York, the police commissioner can invoke an almost magical power: to “retain” a case, or take it back from the civilian review board. That’s exactly what the commissioner did in four of the cases. There would be no trials. There would be no significant punishment for the officers.

Instead, the department docked a few officers some vacation days. (The commissioner agreed that the fifth officer should face a disciplinary trial, for using offensive language.)

In response to my questions about the move, a spokesperson said, “As per a memorandum of understanding between the NYPD and the CCRB the Police Commissioner is authorized to retain cases in limited circumstances.”

And those 21 videos? None have been released to the public.

by Eric Umansky

Medicare Certifies Hospices in California Despite State Ban on New Licenses

9 months 4 weeks 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 year 2023 was a banner one for hospice reform. Spurred by media reports, letters from Congress and pressure from lobbying groups, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services increased oversight of end-of-life care. It retooled inspections to focus on quality of care. It made ownership data public for the first time. And, kicking off a plan to visit every hospice provider in the country, its staff made appearances at 7000 sites. Following the tour, the Medicare billing privileges for 46 nonoperational hospices were revoked.

In July, the agency also rolled out a special enforcement program to target hospices in Arizona, California, Nevada and Texas — states with alarming spikes in the number of providers. The increase in hospice numbers had raised concerns inside and outside the agency about fraudulent bills for unneeded services and market oversaturation. During its “period of enhanced oversight,” the agency said, it would scrutinize the claims from new hospices in these states before paying them.

These reforms, however, have done little to slow the region’s hospice boom. CMS data from last year shows that these four states continued to drive most of the growth of new Medicare-certified hospices in the country, with two-thirds of all certifications taking place there. The nation’s leading trade groups for end-of-life care have repeatedly recommended that Medicare impose a moratorium on certifying new hospices in counties that have seen an explosion in questionable startups. This would prevent bad actors from draining Medicare funds, the groups contend, while regulators can investigate fraudulent networks. In response to questions about this recommendation, CMS told ProPublica in a written statement that “if state officials believe there is a hospice issue in their state, they can pursue a state-based hospice license moratorium under their state laws/regulations such as what was done in California.”

California, however, offers an example of why this approach may not be working: Last year, the state temporarily banned new hospice licenses altogether after its auditors found evidence of “a large-scale, targeted effort to defraud Medicare,” with providers charging for patients who did not need hospice care or, in some cases, did not exist. But without a federal moratorium on certifications, the large crop of licensees that were established in the past three years can continue to bill Medicare. “The Department of Public Health is doing a fantastic job of trying to clean it up here in California, but they can’t clean it up fast enough if CMS keeps allowing new hospices to charge for patients,” said Sheila Clark, the president of the California Hospice and Palliative Care Association, a trade group for providers.

Indeed, the agency’s data shows that last year it continued to certify hospices located in buildings that have been flagged by auditors and journalists as potential fraud hot spots. In 2023, Medicare certified 15 more hospices at a two-story building in Los Angeles that is home to more than 100 hospices. It also certified three new hospices last year at a Phoenix address that purportedly houses dozens of providers, all of which have materialized in the past two years.

CMS said that without “evidence of sanctions” that would authorize it to deny certification, the agency cannot prevent these hospices from entering the program. In a recent blog post it added that “we take our role as stewards of the Medicare Trust Funds seriously, and we work to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent on high-quality, necessary care for each beneficiary.”

Hospice fraud doesn’t just drain Medicare reserves. It also harms patients who are not actually dying, since enrollment cuts them off from curative care. Karen Joy Fletcher, communications director at California Senior Medicare Patrol, which runs a hotline for patients and families, said that hospice fraud continues to be a big problem in the state despite the moratorium.

A few weeks ago, for instance, the hotline received a call from Anna Duran, whose mother has been in a nursing home in Los Angeles County since 2010. Duran was surprised to discover that her mother was unable to get her pacemaker checked because she’d recently been enrolled in hospice by a doctor she’d never heard of. Duran, who holds power of attorney for her mother, determined that no one at the nursing home had enrolled her mother — or thought, for that matter, that she was about to die. She had dementia and high blood pressure, but she was still walking. Each time Duran called the number for the hospice business, no one picked up. An analyst from Medicare has now been assigned to untangle the case, but so long as Duran’s mother is still on hospice, she no longer qualifies for her regular physical therapy appointments. Medicare, meanwhile, has paid the hospice more than $7,500. “Nobody knows how this happened,” Duran said.

by Ava Kofman

“We Buy Ugly Houses” Company Overhauls Policies in the Wake of ProPublica Investigation

9 months 4 weeks ago

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

HomeVestors of America, the self-described largest home buyer in the country, is continuing to reform some of its business practices in the wake of a ProPublica investigation last year that revealed predatory tactics used by the company’s franchises toward homeowners in vulnerable situations.

The company’s 1,100 “We Buy Ugly Houses” franchises will now be required to provide homeowners who sell to them with a simple disclosure. The disclosure provides a three-day window to terminate a sales contract — a safeguard that housing advocates say is critical to guarding against aggressive tactics often employed by cash homebuyers.

It also includes a resource for homeowners to evaluate their options for selling or keeping the home and encouragement to consult with a trusted family member or friend before finalizing a sale.

In addition, HomeVestors “made a series of updates” to its systems and standards, created an ethics hotline for franchise owners to report violations and changed how it trains its franchise owners, a company spokesperson told ProPublica. The company also created a team of “brand compliance auditors” to better police franchise activities, she said.

“HomeVestors takes very seriously the responsibility that comes with being the most recognized brand in residential real estate investing franchising,” the spokesperson said. “We will continue to work to ensure that our core values are reflected in everything we do.”

The changes come in response to ProPublica’s reporting last year that found some HomeVestors of America franchises used deception and aggressive sales tactics to persuade homeowners in vulnerable situations to sell their homes for far below market prices. Some franchises deployed legal maneuvers to make it nearly impossible to get out of a bad deal. While the company said at the time that it didn’t target homeowners based on age or other demographics, ProPublica found HomeVestors aimed its massive advertising apparatus at the types of houses often owned by people in desperate situations or who didn’t fully understand the value of their property.

HomeVestors said ProPublica’s reporting focused on a small fraction of the company’s overall transactions and that predatory behavior isn’t taught or tolerated. The company also moved immediately to prohibit franchises from recording notices on a homeowner’s title to make it more difficult for them to break a sales contract.

Its CEO, David Hicks, stepped down after the articles were published. Hicks said in a letter announcing his retirement that he had been planning it “for some time” but that “recent press” coverage had taken a “personal toll.”

HomeVestors’ new CEO, Larry Goodman, declined to speak with ProPublica. In an interview this month with Franchise Times, Goodman said the company has “formally prohibited franchisee advertising activities that are intrusive.”

The company’s spokesperson did not respond when asked for details on what kind of advertising is no longer allowed. She also declined to provide specifics on how its franchise training has changed under the new standards.

HomeVestors relies on ubiquitous billboards and broadcast and digital advertising. ProPublica’s reporting also found the company repeatedly sent mailers to people who had recently divorced or had a death in the family. Franchise owners also were taught to build relationships with nursing home administrators, divorce lawyers and probate officers to find people who may feel pressed to sell their home.

Burn scars, water shutoff notices, boarded-up windows and police tape represented opportunities to buy low, according to the company’s training materials. So did belongings piled on the curb: “Quickly pursue the property where the trash pile indicates eviction,” its manual instructed.

Ben Ahern, a former Los Angeles franchisee and chair of the company’s Franchise Advisory Council, called the new policies “good moves” that will “probably improve the overall health of the organization.”

"HomeVestors did seem to kind of move over the years into this lackadaisical approach to franchises that needed to be either reprimanded or booted out of the system," he said.

One housing advocate cautioned that the effectiveness of the new disclosure will depend on whether franchisees ensure homeowners fully understand the document. Sarah Bolling Mancini, co-director of advocacy at the National Consumer Law Center, said the disclosure and the cooling-off period are “positive developments.” She added that disclosures aren’t necessarily a panacea. (The disclosure is to be given to homeowners who aren’t represented by a real estate agent, but not more sophisticated sellers such as banks and real estate investors.)

“Context matters,” she said. “Written documents can only go so far. What they are told orally is very important. It’s still possible to give people a document, but to give them, overall, a misimpression of what the transaction is.”

The HomeVestors spokesperson said the single-page disclosure is an addendum to the contract that must be signed separately.

“By making this an addendum to the real estate contract, it keeps the content of the addendum from getting lost or misunderstood in the home sale process,” she said.

ProPublica’s reporting prompted calls from policymakers for better oversight of the cash-homebuying industry. U.S. Sens. Tina Smith, D-Minn., and Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., wrote a letter to the National Association of Attorneys General asking for more coordinated policing of the industry and passage of state-level homeowner protection laws.

While the cash-homebuying industry is subject to few federal or state regulations, some local governments have implemented tougher protections for homeowners. In Philadelphia, for example, cash homebuyers are required to provide a three-day cooling off period and make disclosures similar to what HomeVestors is now mandating.

Mollie Simon contributed research.

by Anjeanette Damon and Byard Duncan

FTC Orders Maker of TurboTax to Cease “Deceptive” Advertising

9 months 4 weeks 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 Federal Trade Commission has ordered the maker of TurboTax to stop what it called years of widespread deceptive advertising for “free” tax-filing software.

The order, released Monday, was accompanied by a 93-page opinion that harshly criticized Intuit, the Silicon Valley company behind TurboTax. Intuit’s “deceptive ad campaign has been sufficiently broad, enduring, and willful to support the need for a cease-and-desist order,” the commission’s opinion stated.

The order caps off a process that started four years ago when the FTC launched an investigation in response to a series of ProPublica stories documenting Intuit’s ad tactics. ProPublica revealed how millions of Americans were lured into paid tax preparation products even though they were eligible to file for free through a government-sponsored program. Huge sums of money are at stake: In a single year, tax prep companies led by Intuit generated $1 billion in revenue from customers who should have been able to file for free, according to one analysis.

In a statement, Intuit said it planned to appeal the order in federal court. “There is no monetary penalty in the FTC’s order, and Intuit expects no significant impact to its business,” the statement said, adding that the company “has always been clear, fair, and transparent with its customers.”

Sam Levine, the director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a statement that the order was intended to send a message to all companies: “‘free’ means free — not ‘free for a few’ or ‘free for some.’ Businesses can expect an FTC enforcement action if they harness the power of ‘free’ in the dishonest way Intuit did.”

Apparently in anticipation of the FTC’s order, Intuit recently changed how it touts “free” tax prep.

Here, for example, is how Intuit’s ads used to look. This is taken from Intuit’s website in 2019:

A screenshot from the TurboTax website in 2019

Ads in that period simply stated the product was “FREE Guaranteed.” Other ads took this message even further. The company’s “free, free, free” TV ad campaign featured scenes of people just saying the word “free” for 30 seconds. Intuit pulled its “free, free, free” ads in 2022, after the FTC and all 50 state attorneys general began investigating Intuit’s advertising, but the company continued to tout free tax prep.

Of course, for most customers, TurboTax wasn’t free. A list of conditions (like having student loan interest or unemployment benefits) would disqualify customers from the free offering and force them to pay, often over $100, to have their tax returns filed. People often found this out only after having entered much of their tax information and did not want to start the process over again.

Today, TurboTax ads state that only about 37% of taxpayers will qualify:

A TurboTax ad that ran online Tuesday

The FTC order requires clear disclosures in the company’s ads. TurboTax must inform consumers that most filers won’t qualify.

When ads have the space, Intuit is also required to provide full details of who qualifies to file for free. On the TurboTax website, a link details what “Form 1040 & limited credits only” means: Filers with student loan interest do now qualify, for example, but those with unemployment income do not.

The FTC’s order also has a more general requirement, prohibiting TurboTax from “misrepresenting any material fact.” This “ensures that Intuit does not make other false claims about Intuit’s products to consumers,” the FTC wrote in its opinion.

The fact that Intuit has changed its advertising doesn’t mean it agrees with the FTC. The company raised a host of objections during the process. Intuit argued that forcing the company to tell consumers that its product is not free for a majority of taxpayers would violate the company’s First Amendment right to free speech. It also protested that having to disclose the terms of who would qualify would lead consumers to suffer from “information overload.”

The FTC swept those arguments aside in its opinion, as it did Intuit’s complaint that it was unfair to prevent TurboTax from touting “free” tax prep when its competitors continued to do so. “Courts have long held that it is not defense to an order against unlawful practices that others in a marketplace are similarly engaging in unlawful practices,” the commission wrote.

Not having succeeded at the FTC, Intuit plans to take its arguments to a federal appeals court. Derrick Plummer, a company spokesperson, criticized the FTC as “biased” and said, “we believe that when the matter ultimately returns to a neutral body Intuit will prevail.”

by Justin Elliott and Paul Kiel

Applications Open for ProPublica Investigative Editor Training Program

10 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.

For the second year, ProPublica will invite up to 10 news editors from media companies across the country to participate in a yearlong investigative editing training program, led by the newsroom’s award-winning staff.

Applications are now open for the ProPublica Investigative Editor Training Program. Submissions are due Monday, March 11.

As the nation’s premier nonprofit investigative newsroom, ProPublica is dedicated to journalism that changes laws and lives and to advancing the careers of the people who produce it. The goal of this program is to address our industry’s critical need to diversify the ranks of investigative editors. Building a pipeline of talent is a priority that serves us and our industry.

“ProPublica has made real strides since it was established 15 years ago in building an investigative newsroom, but it has struggled, like our competitors across the country, when it comes to finding journalists with the investigative chops to become editors,” said Ginger Thompson, chief of correspondents and an architect of the editor training program. “Rather than sitting around lamenting the problem, we decided to try to do something to fix it.”

When we announced this program last year, we were overwhelmed by the interest. We chose our inaugural cohort from a stacked field of 159 applicants who were eager to develop their skills as investigative editors.

Then we brought them to New York for an intensive weeklong boot camp featuring a curriculum developed by Thompson and Deputy Managing Editor Alexandra Zayas that breaks down how ProPublica crafts its investigations for maximum impact.

“When reading ProPublica stories, I often wondered how the reporter and editor even thought to do them,” said Brendan Klinkenberg, a member of the inaugural cohort and, now, senior editor at The New York Times. “And in our first course, I started to see in really clear terms how ProPublica thinks about investigations. It was a real curtain-peeled-back moment.”

Members of the inaugural 2023 training cohort gathered in ProPublica’s headquarters for the intensive weeklong boot camp. (Hatnim Lee for ProPublica)

In addition to the sessions, which focus on every aspect of editing from story selection and memos to managing the reporting and digging into the first draft, participants also get to learn from one another.

“Everyone was more open than I expected them to be,” said Lillian M. Ortiz, a member of the inaugural cohort and managing editor at Shelterforce. “I took a lot away from the training session that I’ve brought back to my newsroom. It was also eye-opening to hear about the similar challenges other editors are facing or have faced — especially in newsrooms that are much larger than mine.”

Tracy Jan, deputy health and science health editor at The Washington Post, said, “I left with not only inspiration but also concrete, practical steps I can take as an editor to help our team achieve ambitious, rewarding work.”

This year’s program will begin in June 2024 with a weeklong boot camp in New York that will include courses and panel discussions on how to conceive of and produce investigative projects that expose harm and have impact. The editors will also get training in how to manage reporters who are working with data, documents and sensitive sources, including whistleblowers, agency insiders and people who have suffered trauma. The program continues with a yearlong mentorship pairing and virtual continuing education sessions.

This program is funded through the generous support of the Jonathan Logan Family Foundation, which supports organizations in journalism, film and the arts whose work is dedicated to social justice and strengthening democracy.

Frequently Asked Question What is this?

The ProPublica Investigative Editor Training Program is designed to help expand the ranks of editors with investigative experience in more newsrooms across the country, with a focus on people from underrepresented backgrounds.

What kind of experience can you expect?

The program kicks off with a five-day intensive editing boot camp in New York, with courses and panel discussions led by ProPublica’s senior editors, veteran reporters and other newsroom leaders. The boot camp will include hands-on editing exercises and opportunities for participants to workshop projects underway in their own newsrooms.

Afterward, participants will gather virtually every two months for seminars and career development discussions with their cohort and ProPublica journalists. Each of the participants will also be assigned a ProPublica senior editor as a mentor for advice on story and management challenges or on how to most effectively pursue their own professional aspirations.

What skills should I expect to learn?
  • How to evaluate story ideas and determine the right scope, length and time for getting the work done.
  • How to manage a reporter through a complicated accountability story and communicate feedback in ways that build trust and confidence.
  • How to edit investigative drafts, spot holes in reporting logic, organize a narrative and guide the reporter through the fact-checking process.
  • How to work collaboratively with research, data and multimedia teams to elevate an investigative project.

When is the boot camp?

The five-day, all-expenses-paid boot camp will be held June 2-6, 2024, in New York, with remote sessions via Zoom throughout the year.

Is there a virtual option for the boot camp?

We are planning for the 2024 boot camp to be held in person and will not have a virtual option.

Will I be responsible for my expenses in New York?

ProPublica will cover participants’ expenses for meals, travel and lodging during the boot camp.

How many participants will be selected each year?

Up to 10 journalists.

What if I can’t make it this year?

ProPublica plans to offer this training in 2025 as well.

Who is eligible?

The program is open to all, but we especially encourage people from traditionally underrepresented communities to apply, including women, people of color, LGBTQ+ people and people with disabilities. As part of the application, participants will be asked how their inclusion in the program will help to diversify the editing ranks of investigative journalism.

The ideal participants will have:

  • A minimum of five years of journalism experience, either as an editor or as a reporter primarily doing work with an investigative or accountability focus.
  • A strong grasp of the basics of editing, storytelling, structure and framing.
  • Experience managing a team of journalists or a complicated multipronged reporting project.
  • An accountability mindset: You don’t have to have been on the investigative team, but we are looking for people with an eye for watchdog reporting and editing.

Am I eligible if I live outside of the United States?

Our program is open to all, but our goal is to improve the diversity of investigative editors in the United States and we’ll focus participation accordingly.

How do I apply?

The application period opens on Jan. 23, 2024, and closes on Monday, March 11, at 11:59 p.m. ET. You can apply via this link.

How can I learn more about the program?

We’ll be hosting an informational webinar on Monday, Feb. 5, 2024. You can register and submit questions in advance here.

What if I have other questions?

Send an email to Assistant Managing Editor Talia Buford at talent@propublica.org.

by Talia Buford

How Chicago Became an Unlikely Leader in Body-Camera Transparency

10 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.

A decade ago, the Chicago Police Department drew national outrage after an officer shot and killed 17-year-old Laquan McDonald. Officials had refused to disclose footage of the murder while officers worked to cover it up. But the fallout from the case has also led to a lesser-known and surprising outcome: The city is now a leader in using body-camera footage to deliver transparency.

Notably, an independent accountability office — not the police department — decides what footage from police shootings and other serious incidents is released to the public. That seemingly straightforward setup, the product of the city’s policing reforms, appears to put Chicago in a league of its own.

“I’m not aware of any other civilian agency that does what Chicago does on releasing video,” said Florence Finkle, vice president of the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement. “Transparency is key to accountability.”

As ProPublica reported last month, police departments across the country have been left in sole control of the video from body-worn cameras, a power that has enabled them to undermine the promise of the technology to bring transparency and accountability. The departments have frequently kept footage from public view — and even from civilian investigators, who can find themselves hamstrung without key evidence in a case. In New York, for example, a disciplinary case against officers involved in the killing of a man in crisis recently collapsed after the NYPD withheld footage of the incident for more than a year.

Chicago, of course, has a long history of brutal, violent policing — abuse that’s often been accompanied by a code of silence.

After the McDonald shooting in October 2014, the police initially reported that he had lunged at officers with a knife. But then a whistleblower reached out to a local law professor. “They told me there’s video and it’s being covered up,” recalled University of Chicago’s Craig Futterman, who pushed for the release of the dashcam footage. The city, under then-Mayor Rahm Emanuel, refused. A year after the shooting, a judge finally forced the city’s hand, and Chicagoans saw for themselves that McDonald had been walking away from officers when he was shot 16 times. As he lay on the road bleeding, a knife lay beside him, folded.

The footage triggered sweeping change. The officer who killed McDonald was convicted of murder. The police chief resigned. The federal government investigated, and police oversight in Chicago was reimagined. The city created the Civilian Office of Police Accountability, and tasked it with not only investigating misconduct but also disclosing footage from shootings and other serious incidents.

Chicago committed to releasing footage within 60 days of an incident. “The people of the City have an undeniable, and in some cases paramount, interest in being informed, in a timely fashion and based on the most accurate information possible, about how their police force conducts its business,” the new policy stated. It also committed the city to giving family members of those shot an opportunity to see footage first.

Jamie Kalven, a Chicago journalist and advocate who helped reveal what had happened to McDonald, said, “That case changed public expectations and norms in Chicago. Releasing the video became the new expectation.”

In most other cities, civilian oversight agencies have to ask police departments for footage, which often isn’t shared. Chicago initially had that kind of cumbersome setup too. “We used to have to file paper forms for a video,” said Shannon Hayes, COPA chief of investigations. But a year after the agency began, and in line with the demands for change, it got the ability to log into the system that stores footage. Allowing investigators to search for footage themselves “was huge,” said Hayes. “It’s night and day.”

In New York, home of the nation’s largest police force, local lawmakers have been seeking the same kind of access for the Civilian Complaint Review Board, the city’s equivalent of COPA. “Transparency is essential to improve public safety and community trust,” City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams said on X, citing ProPublica’s reporting. The legislation, however, has stalled amid opposition from the NYPD. A department official told lawmakers last year that the department “does not fear transparency,” but argued that it would be an “insurmountable obstacle” to give the review board direct access while following state confidentiality laws.

In Chicago, the civilian agency has used its access to do thorough investigations. “They’re the highest quality I’ve ever seen in Chicago,” said University of Chicago’s Futterman, who has long been critical of the city’s policing oversight. Those investigations have, on occasion, resulted in officers being fired.

COPA’s release of footage has also undermined the Police Department’s attempts to spin narratives around shootings.

In early 2021, a Chicago officer responding to a report of gunfire shot and killed 13-year-old Adam Toledo. The police initially referred to it as an “armed encounter.” An adult suspect had allegedly handed a gun to Toledo as police arrived. Two weeks after the shooting, the police released edited footage from the officer’s body-worn camera. The video included an added arrow, pointing to Toledo’s hand, saying, “Firearm.”

Two weeks after a Chicago police officer shot and killed 13-year-old Adam Toledo, the department released edited and annotated footage from the officer’s body camera. (Chicago Police Department)

But that same day, COPA released the full, unembellished footage, along with other records from the case. The video appears to show that Toledo dropped the gun and raised his empty hands in the air moments before Officer Eric Stillman shot him.

The full, unedited body-camera footage, released the same day by the Civilian Office of Police Accountability, shows Toledo raised his empty hands moments before the officer shot him. (Chicago Police Department)

A local prosecutor declined to press charges against Stillman, saying that he had responded to a “perceived threat.” (Neither a lawyer for Stillman nor the Police Department responded to requests for comment.)

COPA did its own investigation and found that the officer should not have shot Toledo and should be fired.

But the case also highlights the limits of the changes in Chicago. While COPA can recommend discipline, it can’t impose it. Instead, discipline is decided by a separate civilian board. Cases often take years to wind through the system. Nearly three years after the shooting, Stillman’s recommended firing is still pending a decision from the board. (The board declined a request to comment.)

There are other ways in which Chicago’s setup is far from perfect, said Kalven, the local journalist. He has been pushing for Chicago to commit to releasing footage more quickly than the 60 days the city committed to long ago — and he says it should be “all body-camera footage of all officers at the scene,” as opposed to all “relevant” footage, a determination made by COPA. The changes, said Kalven, should be enshrined in law.

Chicago’s main police union, however, has pushed for less transparency. The Fraternal Order of Police’s new contract negotiated last year includes a variety of restrictions on the use of the cameras. “Post-incident conversations” captured by cameras cannot be used in discipline cases, nor can videos captured by “inadvertent camera activation.” (Officers in Chicago have a history of failing to turn on their cameras.) The union did not respond to a request for comment.

Still, policing does seem to be changing in Chicago. Shootings by officers are down in recent years, as are incidents of officer use of force.

“I think Chicago may have more civilian oversight than other police forces in the country right now,” said Arewa Winters, a Chicago community organizer. “But there is a lot of resistance. There is still a lot of work to do.”

Winters’ 16-year-old nephew was killed by officers in 2016, a trauma that “catapulted” her into activism. There was footage of what happened, but the police and city didn’t release it, claiming confidentiality because he was a minor. “Now, because of oversight, they don’t have a choice,” she said.

by Eric Umansky

How Patients and Doctors Are Navigating the Fallout of the Massive Recall of Philips Breathing Machines

10 months 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.

In 2021, Philips Respironics recalled its DreamStation breathing machines, along with other sleep apnea devices and ventilators, leaving millions of customers worldwide waiting for replacements. Foam inside the machines could crumble in heat and humidity, sending potentially carcinogenic materials into the lungs of patients.

I spent eight months making a film about this, following sleep apnea patients through airports to doctor appointments. I recorded their home lives, their bedtime routines. I tried to capture the claustrophobic details of the mask that fits tightly over the nose and mouth.

In February 2023, when I first began having conversations with the reporting team investigating the recall about making a film about sleep apnea, I wondered how I would visualize sleep. I could use interviews to spell out the intricacies of what went wrong, but how would I bring the reality of restricted breath to the screen? And why would someone who doesn’t have sleep apnea choose to watch this?

I got part of that answer from one of the film’s participants, Dr. Carol Stark, who said: “Sleep isn’t a luxury. It isn’t optional.”

(Video by Liz Moughon/ProPublica)

What these patients need help doing — breathing while sleeping — is something that I took for granted before making this film. As I learned more about the patients who relied on the DreamStation machine and other Philips devices, the heart of the film surfaced at a crossroad between two impossible decisions: continue using something that could be harmful or stop using it and risk heart attacks, strokes or even death.

An investigation by ProPublica and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette found that the company received thousands of warnings over the span of 11 years but withheld them from the government and the public. In statements, the industry giant said that it acted as soon as it learned of the “potential significance” of the problem and that the machines are unlikely to cause harm.

I have been making documentaries and photo essays for over a decade, and a guiding principle is that if you’re able to capture a person’s day to day, no matter how unrelated it is to the issue, viewers might see them as people not so different from themselves. So I chose to introduce the patients with their histories and hobbies; I reused footage from a professional drummer’s archival videos and captured a couple lap swimming in their 70s. It was important to me to frame the participants as people first — not defined by their health condition. We don’t need to have sleep apnea to connect with them.

How many of us have experienced something unjust done to us but we had to pick up the shards ourselves? “You can do everything right and the people who should be taking care of things are not,” Carol’s husband, Dr. Allen Stark, who also has sleep apnea, said.

Mark Edwards, another patient, demonstrated profound acceptance in order to move through this recall. At times, he heatedly talked about the company, still angry at how its actions have impacted thousands of people; other times, he expressed his belief that the more he suffers the closer he gets to God. “I have one foot in the next life and one foot in this life,” he said, heaving after only minutes of walking.

The film follows these three patients and a sleep medicine specialist, Dr. Radhika Breaden, who described the chaos of the first few days of the recall. Thousands of her patients angrily called with questions that could not yet be answered. “We don’t know what to do,” she said, as bewildered as them. I tried to capture these moments with 14 drone shots that populate the screen in just eight seconds. These rapid clips, both rural and urban landscapes to represent the locations of people affected worldwide, were intended to make the viewer feel the tension and desperation of the moment.

It was crucial to show the disintegration of the foam inside the machine, so I researched YouTube for archival videos from other users. The most disturbing one reveals a once-intact block of foam dissolved into loose, messy particles. To visualize metaphors of these particles, I filmed water droplets spewing out of a sprinkler and details of puddles lit by street lamps.

The most moving sequence to me is of Carol and Allen Stark picnicking and hiking with their grandchildren because it’s tenderly paired with Carol describing her fear: no longer being alive with her grandchildren. It’s a real possibility that tomorrow she could learn that she has a health complication. After all, many other people who used these machines died, developed cancer or came down with respiratory complications that they or their loved ones believe were related to the use of these machines. The Starks are treating their sleep apnea to be able to live, and it was important to show how they want to live.

But my initial challenge — how do you visualize sleep? — still remained. We all sleep. We all breathe. So I looked for metaphors in our world that are universal. Fog representative of breath. Sunset preceding the nighttime rest. A reflection of pillows on a bed. Vistas of waves, mountains and a coastline when Breaden describes REM sleep as “the most stunning, beautiful thing in the world.”

I hope you watch this film because it’s a story for everyone who sleeps.

by Liz Moughon