a Better Bubble™
ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.
During the year’s busiest season of charitable giving, donors may wonder whether the nonprofits they are considering donating to are going to be good stewards of their money.
ProPublica’s Nonprofit Explorer already allows users to thoroughly research charities, and now we’re adding more features to help you understand the financial health of organizations. Starting Monday, you can search for organizations that have reported a significant theft, as well as those that have had auditors flag serious financial issues.
Although tax forms are the primary documents we make available on Nonprofit Explorer, we have also added audits available since 2017. Federal and state regulators use them to get a more nuanced look at the financial management and governance of an organization, including information about financial controls and compliance with government grant programs.
With this update, you can search for all 33,400 organizations that filed audits with the federal government because they spent more than $750,000 in federal funds in a given fiscal year.
We’ve also made it possible to easily scan findings where auditors raised a variety of concerns, the most serious being a “going concern” flag; that is, the possibility that the organization won’t be able to meet its financial obligations in the near future. This may signal that the organization’s expenses have outstripped its revenue, or it may indicate other issues, like risky investments or financial mismanagement.
There are other findings you can search for as well, like “material noncompliance,” “material weakness in internal controls” and “significant deficiency in internal controls” — all of which are findings that donors or researchers may want to investigate further. Findings from the organization’s most recent audit will also appear as flags on an organization’s page to make them easy to find.
Our search also now includes the option to see organizations that reported a significant diversion of assets on their most recent tax filing. This is a rare but serious issue, in which the organization has discovered an unauthorized diversion of either 5% of an organization’s assets or $250,000, whichever is smaller.
To search for any organization that matches these criteria without knowing their name, just click the search button without filling in any text and you can view the entire set of nonprofits. You can use the tools on the right of the screen and hit the “apply” button to filter.
We have lots of ideas for future improvements and additions to Nonprofit Explorer. If you have feedback on these improvements or features you’d like to see added to the site, please get in touch! We’d love to hear from you.
And as always, if you use Nonprofit Explorer and value the information it provides, please consider donating. It’s support from people like you that lets us keep updating and improving this app!
ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.
As Donald Trump’s nominee to run the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Scott Turner may soon oversee the nation’s efforts to build affordable apartments, protect poor tenants and aid the homeless. As a lawmaker in the Texas House of Representatives, Turner voted against those very initiatives.
Turner supported a bill ensuring landlords could refuse apartments to applicants because they received federal housing assistance. He opposed a bill to expand affordable rental housing. He voted against funding public-private partnerships to support the homeless and against two bills that called merely to study homelessness among young people and veterans.
Behind those votes lay a deep-seated skepticism about the value of government efforts to alleviate poverty, a skepticism that Turner has voiced again and again. He has called welfare “dangerous, harmful” and “one of the most destructive things for the family.” When one interviewer said receiving government assistance was keeping recipients in “bondage” of “a worse form to find oneself in than slavery,” Turner agreed.
Such views would seemingly place Turner at odds with the core work of HUD, a sprawling federal agency that serves as a backstop against homelessness for millions of the nation’s poor, elderly and disabled. With an annual discretionary budget of $72 billion, the department provides rental assistance to 2 million families, oversees the country’s 800,000 public housing units, fights housing discrimination and segregation and provides support to the nation’s 650,000 homeless. If Turner’s record indicates how he will direct the agency’s agenda, it is those clinging to the bottom of the housing market who have the most to lose, researchers and advocates said.
“It just doesn’t seem to me like this is someone who is at all aligned with what the values of that agency should be,” said Cea Weaver, director of the advocacy group Housing Justice for All. “It’s a deregulatory agenda, and it’s an anti-poor people agenda.”
Shamus Roller, executive director of the National Housing Law Project, said Turner’s views, if translated into policy, could increase homelessness. “If, at a fundamental level, you believe that people getting assistance with their rent when they’re very poor and struggling, if you think that’s actually dependence and a bad thing, you’re going to try to undermine those programs,” he said.
One former colleague offered a more optimistic view of Turner’s stewardship of HUD. “My sense of him is he will try to help people,” said Richard Peña Raymond, a Democratic Texas House member who served on a committee with Turner. “I do think he’ll do a good job.”
Turner did not respond to detailed questions. A spokesperson for the nominee said: “Of course ProPublica would try and paint a negative picture of Mr. Turner before he is even given the opportunity to testify. We would expect nothing less from a publication that solely serves as a liberal mouthpiece.”
The Trump transition team and HUD did not respond to requests for comment. Trump’s announcement of Turner’s nomination praised him for “helping lead an Unprecedented Effort that Transformed our Country’s most distressed communities” as head of a White House council that promoted opportunity zones, a plan to spur investment in low-income neighborhoods by offering generous tax breaks, during Trump’s first administration. “Under Scott’s leadership,” the announcement went on, “Opportunity Zones received over $50 Billion Dollars in Private Investment!”
Turner is hardly the only Trump cabinet nominee to display skepticism or outright hostility toward the work of agencies they may lead. But, while other nominees have faced intense scrutiny in recent weeks, Turner has attracted little public attention and said even less about his intentions, beyond vowing to “bring much-needed change” to HUD, as he wrote on Facebook last month. ProPublica pieced together his views on housing through a review of legislative records and of Turner’s public speeches, podcast appearances and sermons at the Plano, Texas, megachurch where he is a pastor.
A possible HUD agenda for Turner can be found in Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s recommendations for a conservative presidential administration. The report calls for cutting funding for affordable housing, repealing regulations that fight housing discrimination, increasing work requirements and adding time limits for rental assistance and eliminating anti-homelessness policies, among other changes. The Project 2025 chapter on HUD lists Ben Carson, the department secretary during the first Trump administration and a mentor to Turner, as its author. Carson, as secretary, was involved in efforts to end an anti-segregation rule, add work requirements for housing assistance and make it harder to prove housing discrimination.
Turner’s views appear to be deeply rooted in his upbringing outside Dallas, where he was, as he later put it, “a young kid from a broken home, from a poor family.” His parents’ relationship was “filled with violence, domestic violence, abuse, a lot of anger [and] alcohol.” Years later, as a legislator, Turner said that his sister had been “on state assistance and wasn’t feeding [Turner’s] nephew while she was on drugs.” (ProPublica was unable to locate Turner’s sister for comment.)
Football proved an escape. Turner received a scholarship to play for the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and then he went on to a nearly decadelong career in the National Football League. He began transitioning into politics while still in the league, interning for California Rep. Duncan L. Hunter. After an unsuccessful run for a California congressional seat in 2006, Turner moved back to Texas and was elected in 2012 to the state House of Representatives, where he served for four years.
There, Turner solidified his position as a deeply conservative member opposed to many government interventions into the housing market, legislative records show. He voted against supporting foreclosure prevention programs. He opposed legislation to help public housing authorities replace or rehabilitate their property (although he voted for a minor expansion of that bill two years later). He also sought to require drug testing for poor families applying for government assistance, the Houston Chronicle reported at the time. Turner did support some modest housing assistance measures, such as bills helping housing developments for seniors and in rural areas seek low-income housing tax credits.
During his time in office, Turner was the lead author of 17 substantive bills. None were related to housing, and none of them became law.
“He’s a very nice guy,” but “he didn’t really make much of a legislative impression,” said a former high-ranking Republican Texas lawmaker, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about a former colleague. “He didn’t leave a deep footprint.”
That did not stop Turner, however, from mounting an audacious bid for the House speakership, a move reportedly backed by Tim Dunn, a West Texas pastor and oil billionaire who has used his fortune to push the state Legislature far to the right. Turner’s speaker campaign failed, but it helped solidify his position within Texas’ deep-red Christian political milieu, where he has remained ever since.
Turner is an associate pastor at Prestonwood Baptist Church, a political force in Texas that has counted numerous statewide elected officials as congregants. Jack Graham, the church’s senior pastor, prayed over Trump at an event in October and praised his electoral victory from the pulpit in November. Turner’s skepticism about government assistance has found its way into his sermons there, where he has derided the “perverse incentives created by the government and the welfare system, which in turn creates an epidemic of fatherlessness in our country.”
Turner or his political staffers also used campaign money to attend three conferences held by WallBuilders, an organization that seeks “to reveal the historical truths” about the “Christian foundation of our nation,” campaign finance records show. In 2016, Turner gave a $10,000 gift to WallBuilders from his campaign account.
Turner’s allies on the Christian far right also include Ziklag, a secretive network of ultrawealthy Christian families and religious influencers that support Trump. As ProPublica reported, Ziklag has raised millions of dollars as part of a larger mission to help Christian leaders “take dominion” over key areas of American society, from education and business to media and government. This year, Ziklag spent millions of dollars to mobilize Republican-leaning voters in swing states despite being a tax-exempt charity that isn’t allowed to intervene in politics. (A lawyer for Ziklag previously told ProPublica that the organization does not endorse candidates for political office.)
In June 2019, Turner and his wife, Robin, attended a private Ziklag conference at the Broadmoor luxury resort in Colorado Springs, Colorado, according to photos of the event posted by an attendee. At the time, Turner was working in the first Trump administration as executive director of the White House Opportunity and Revitalization Council, where he served as a public salesman for the opportunity zones initiative. Turner has praised the program as a way to improve neighborhoods with high poverty and unemployment rates. Previous reporting by ProPublica found that the program was exploited by wealthy, politically connected investors, which drew scrutiny from members of Congress.
Internal documents obtained by ProPublica and Documented show that Ziklag members sought to take advantage of the program; in May 2019, Ziklag said in one of its newsletters that members of the group had met with three administration officials about opportunity zones. “The administration informed the group they are in a state of listening and learning about the program,” the document reads. “Ziklaggers are exploring additional avenues to make an impact on the program moving forward.”
After leaving the Trump administration, Turner started a nonprofit that promotes “Christ-centered reading enhancement programs” for children and helps people get driver’s licenses. He also became “chief visionary officer” at the multifamily housing developer JPI.
Now, if confirmed, Turner will be in charge of an agency with some 10,000 employees at a critical time. “We’re dealing with a pretty terrible housing crisis all across the country,” said Roller, of the National Housing Law Project. HUD will be “essential to any effort” to solve it.
Jesse Coburn covers cities, housing and transportation for ProPublica. He’s interested in how the second Trump administration will reshape federal policy in those areas, particularly at the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation. If you work for one of those agencies or are affected by their work, he’d like to hear from you. You can email him at jesse.coburn@propublica.org, or reach him via phone, Signal or WhatsApp at 917-239-6642. His mailing address is: Jesse Coburn, ProPublica, 155 6th Avenue, 13th Floor, New York, NY 10013.
CorrectionDec. 24, 2024: This story originally misidentified the member of Congress for whom Scott Turner interned. It was Rep. Duncan L. Hunter, not his son, Rep. Duncan D. Hunter.
ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.
More than a decade ago, loan financier Matt Martorello was worried that the golden days for his high-interest lending venture were over.
In an email to his accountants, he detailed how attorneys general in multiple states were sending cease-and-desist letters to the online enterprise he operated with a Native American tribe based in Michigan. Major banks wanted nothing to do with the business, which offered small-dollar loans at exorbitant interest rates far above limits set by many states. Federal regulators were suing his competitors.
The pressure was getting to be too much. Martorello feared the federal government seeking “every $ I have” in restitution, he wrote in the December 2012 email.
He was expecting his firm, then based in the Virgin Islands, to be audited by the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and worried about the agency’s ability to put the tribal lending industry out of business. The federal agency was leaning hard on loan operations that formed alliances with tribes to claim sovereign immunity and bypass state laws that protect consumers.
“Bottom line is, this business will simply not exist in 2 to 3 years anything like it does right now,” Martorello wrote.
But none of that came to pass. In the 12 years since, the tribal loans kept flowing, fueling a multibillion-dollar industry built on punishing loan terms aimed at people who can least afford them.
How did the industry survive?
ProPublica found that tribal lending benefited from more than just sovereign immunity.
Powerful allies in the financial sector and payday loan industry, which encompasses all forms of short-term lending, have served as protectors at key junctures. Even as many states kicked out storefront payday and auto title lenders, online tribal lending flourished. Industry lobbyists helped beat back congressional plans for consumer protections, while payday industry lawyers dragged the CFPB to court and hindered the agency.
At the same time, differing approaches over three presidential administrations saw crackdowns on tribal lending excesses rise, then falter. Coming off a successful case that devastated one major tribal-affiliated operator, the Federal Trade Commission’s consumer protection bureau has been sidetracked by competing demands and a 2021 Supreme Court decision that constrained the agency’s ability to recover money from companies.
An FTC staff attorney who handled lending cases across a variety of industries told ProPublica that the agency monitors complaints but “can’t sue every bad actor.”
“We’re a small agency of limited resources. We have to pick and choose where we think we can make the greatest impact,” said Gregory Ashe, the attorney.
A wavering commitment at the federal level provided just enough leeway for the tribes to adapt and thrive. The consequences for consumers have been catastrophic.
Using a sample of personal bankruptcies nationwide over a three-year period, ProPublica found nearly 5% included unpaid high-interest loans linked to tribes. That translates to an estimated 19,000 cases on average per year.
“They gave me the money quick, but they also empty your pockets just as fast,” said Bobbie J. Williams, a sheet-metal worker from Rhode Island and father of four who needed an infusion of cash when he was sick with COVID-19. His 2022 bankruptcy petition included two tribal loans.
Since 2019, ProPublica found, on average more than 1,800 consumer complaints per year are routed to the FTC about these types of loans, which can carry annual percentage rates of over 600%. Complaints came from people in dire need, including single parents, people crushed under medical debt and others trying to stave off homelessness.
Consumer advocates do not expect that the second Trump administration will do anything to crack down on abusive lending practices linked to tribes or any other form of predatory lending. The billionaire Elon Musk, Donald Trump’s close adviser, posted “Delete CFPB” on X in November, signaling that the nation’s primary consumer watchdog could be on the chopping block in the new administration.
“We would like to see more enforcement action by both federal and state authorities,” said Lauren Saunders, associate director of the National Consumer Law Center, which has advocated for tougher measures on payday lenders.
Martorello, who lives in Texas, declined through an attorney to comment for this story, citing “ongoing and pending litigation.” In the email to his accountants, which was later revealed as part of a civil suit, Martorello stressed he was operating legally and acting on the advice of major law firms. “I don’t want you to think that we are doing anything wrong, we certainly are NOT,” he wrote.
With Martorello’s fears about regulation unrealized, the website affiliated with his tribal partners — Big Picture Loans — is still online offering short-term installment loans. The tribe, which split with Martorello, charges APRs between 160% and 699%, it told ProPublica.
“We’ve helped more than 400,000 people experience a smarter way to borrow!” the website boasts.
A Powerful IndustryFor more than a decade, U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley has tried to protect consumers from outrageous lending rates.
Over and over again — seven times in 12 years — the Oregon Democrat has proposed a bill to force internet lenders, including Native American companies, to comply with state interest rate caps and to register with the CFPB. Year after year the effort fails.
On the Senate floor in 2016, he pressed his colleagues for their support, explaining the reality of high-interest online loans. “These payday loans pull families into a vortex of debt from which they cannot escape, and this vortex destroys them financially,” he said.
U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley argues for his SAFE Lending Act in this 2016 video posted to Facebook. (Sen. Jeff Merkley/Facebook)Merkley got only 13 co-sponsors that year: all Democrats and one independent, Vermont’s Bernie Sanders. The current version before the Senate has even fewer: 10.
His legislation has never even made it out of committee, a fate he attributes to the considerable influence of “the payday loan industry and big banks,” he told ProPublica in a prepared statement.
Payday lenders spent $4.9 million lobbying Congress in 2023, according to OpenSecrets, an organization that tracks money in politics. That includes $1.3 million laid out by the Online Lenders Alliance, a trade group that includes tribal lenders. “For Tribes involved in consumer lending, these enterprises have become a critical part of their economic development efforts as Tribes rely on business enterprises to provide essential government services to their members,” the Online Lenders Alliance told ProPublica in an email.
“This is a very entrenched industry with a lot of dollars at stake,” said University of New Mexico law professor Nathalie Martin, who has studied tribal lending.
Ellen Harnick, executive vice president of the Center for Responsible Lending, a nonprofit that works to end abusive financial practices, said the payday industry hires high-priced, experienced lobbyists who ingratiate themselves with state and federal lawmakers through campaign contributions, dinner invitations and casual meetings while roaming the halls of power. The access gives them opportunities to argue that high-cost loans are beneficial for people who find it hard to obtain credit.
The result, she said, is that even legislators who would never counsel anyone they love to take on such burdensome debt nonetheless decide, “I’m not going to shut it down.”
Reform measures have been opposed by the Native American Financial Services Association, which represents tribal lenders, and a larger industry group: the American Financial Services Association, which advocates for the consumer credit industry and does not include tribal lenders.
Congressional action is a direct threat to tribal lending because while tribes claim immunity from state laws, they must comply with federal lending laws. Merkley’s bill would have given the federal government a means to force tribes to abide by state interest rate caps. The Online Lenders Alliance is against such caps, arguing they block some consumers from getting smaller loans necessary to make ends meet.
Currently, there is no federal interest rate cap, with one notable exception: Payday lenders cannot charge active-duty service members and their families more than 36% annually.
In every congressional session since 2008, separate from Merkley’s efforts, lawmakers have unsuccessfully sought to extend that cap to all Americans.
Although banks and credit unions generally don’t charge over 36% for credit cards or other products, the larger financial industry has strongly opposed a cap. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 2021 also formally opposed the legislation, arguing that it would harm consumers by limiting access to credit. Proponents of the cap say that 36% is high enough to facilitate lending and that unconscionable rates lead to major debt traps.
At times the role of Native Americans in the industry has been used to beat back the 36% cap. At a 2021 hearing, U.S. Sen. Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat, acknowledged the need to protect consumers from “bad actors and unscrupulous practices.” But he said the Senate also had to consider “the sovereignty issue” of Native Americans and the “good-paying jobs” the tribal lending industry provided in his state.
He suggested that the committee “massage this bill” to make it better, fearing that the bill as written could have negative impacts on tribes. The legislation never passed.
Federal Regulators Lose Their WayThe Scott Tucker case, with its tales of lavish spending and colorful deception, temporarily brought attention to some of the questionable practices and partnerships associated with tribal lending.
Tucker controlled AMG Services Inc., an online payday lender that grew into a billion-dollar business. Inside the call center in Overland Park, Kansas, employees were instructed to pretend they were on tribal lands somewhere else in the country. They were given out-of-state weather reports to help play up the ruse in their small talk with customers.
AMG’s success helped fuel Tucker’s splashy lifestyle that included a side venture: Level 5 Motorsports, a professional auto racing team.
But Tucker’s life in the fast lane — complete with luxury homes, a Lear jet, and a fleet of Ferraris and Porsches — came to a screeching halt. In early 2016, a federal grand jury indicted him on charges related to collecting unlawful debts and failing to truthfully disclose loan terms. It claimed he entered into “sham business relationships” with three tribes and “systematically exploited” more than 4.5 million borrowers.
Tucker and his lawyer were convicted of participating in a racketeering enterprise, wire fraud and other charges. A judge sentenced Tucker to 200 months in prison and his lawyer to 84 months.
Tucker’s spectacular downfall, the subject of an episode of TV’s “American Greed,” sent waves of fear around the industry. Federal prosecutors also indicted a Philadelphia-area tribal lender and his lawyer around the same time as Tucker, but then brought no major criminal cases against others in the industry in the years that followed.
“I’m not aware of additional cases, and wouldn’t be able to comment on any ongoing investigations that may or may not exist,” U.S. Department of Justice spokesperson Wyn Hornbuckle told ProPublica.
Scott Tucker, who faced wire fraud and other charges as result of his loan operations, exits a federal court in Manhattan in 2016. No other major criminal cases were brought in later years involving the tribal lending industry. (Brendan McDermid/Reuters)Earlier in the Obama administration, in an initiative dubbed Operation Choke Point, regulators sought to “choke off” fraud by pressuring bank executives and payment processors to scrutinize their relationships with industries deemed “high risk,” particularly payday lenders.
The effort briefly stalled tribal lending as the companies disabled lenders’ access to customers’ bank accounts, effectively incapacitating their operations.
But Republican lawmakers cried foul, seeing it as an attempt to stifle legal businesses. They hauled regulators into congressional hearings and chastised them. Faced with an uproar, regulators began to back off.
“I view it as tragic that it kind of blew up politically,” said Dru Stevenson, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston who studied the firestorm around Operation Choke Point.
He believes that although the program’s image suffered from a few overly aggressive officials, if it had run its course, “tribal lending would be in a different place, where it would be less abusive and less exploitative.”
The fallout likely had a long-term effect on enforcement, he said. “There’s too many people at these agencies who lived through the backlash of Operation Choke Point and it’s not worth the risk of having that come up again.”
The Trump administration officially ended Operation Choke Point and set a new, friendlier tone across agencies.
Trump’s appointee to head the CFPB, Mick Mulvaney, wrote in the CFPB’s five-year strategic plan in 2018 that the bureau would refrain from “pushing the envelope,” so as not to trample on the liberties of citizens or interfere with the sovereignty or autonomy of Native American tribes. That year he killed a case against Golden Valley Lending, a tribal lender based in California.
The CFPB, under Trump, also repealed a rule requiring payday lenders to determine whether borrowers had the ability to repay.
Another tribal lending operation in California continued for about a decade before being shut down by the FTC in May 2020 for deceptive practices. By then it had issued 285,700 consumer loans, totaling nearly $60 million. With fees and interest, borrowers had repaid a whopping $175 million. By the time the FTC acted, most of the profits had been spent or transferred overseas by nontribal business partners. The government ultimately returned less than $1 million to borrowers.
Regulation never ramped up again under President Joe Biden. In part that’s because the CFPB was hamstrung by an unfavorable appellate court ruling in a case brought by the payday lending industry that challenged the agency’s constitutionality. In May, the U.S. Supreme Court handed CFPB a major victory, upholding its funding mechanism and, therefore, its existence.
Empowered once again, the CFPB vowed to pursue predatory lenders and restart a dozen or so cases that stalled during the court fight. No tribal lender, however, appeared on that list. The CFPB, via a spokesperson, declined to comment for this story.
Defeated But DefiantMatt Martorello, the Texas man who in 2012 feared the U.S. government stomping out tribal lending, ended up in court, but not because of any federal action.
A Virginia law firm, Kelly Guzzo PLC, filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of borrowers in 2017 against Martorello and council members of Michigan’s Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians. Also named in the suit was Big Picture Loans LLC, which is owned by the tribe. The suit challenged the legality of the loans, given Virginia’s longstanding policies capping interest rates, and was followed by additional civil suits across the country.
Big Picture Loans settled in 2020 for $8.7 million in restitution for customers and $100 million in debt relief. Martorello, however, refused to give in.
His company, Eventide Credit Acquisitions LLC, unsuccessfully sued Big Picture Loans and its parent company to prevent it from settling. “It was a massive waste of everyone’s time and money,” the tribe told ProPublica in an email.
The tribe said it has no current relationship with Martorello following the 2016 purchase of a Martorello company that had been servicing its loans.
A judge ruled against Martorello in 2023 and ordered him to pay tens of millions to Virginia borrowers. That same judge also found that Martorello had been the “de facto head” of the tribe’s lending business, a finding he has vigorously disputed.
Earlier this year, Martorello agreed to a $65 million settlement with borrowers across the nation. But he later filed for bankruptcy and couldn’t raise enough money to fund the settlement by an agreed-upon deadline, voiding the deal. His legal battle challenging the 2023 judgment now will continue in a federal appeals court.
Eventide, the company he founded, also has filed for bankruptcy.
As part of that case, it has argued that if online tribal lending was not appropriate and violated state lending laws, then “Congress, the CFPB, and other federal agencies would have shut it down a long time ago.”
To do the best, most comprehensive reporting on this opaque industry, we want to hear from more of the people who know it best. Do you work for a tribal lending operation, either on a reservation or for an outside business partner? Do you belong to a tribe that participates in this lending or one that has rejected the industry? Are you a regulator or lawyer dealing with these issues? Have you borrowed from a tribal lender? All perspectives matter to us. Please get in touch with Megan O’Matz at megan.omatz@propublica.org or 954-873-7576, or Joel Jacobs at joel.jacobs@propublica.org or 917-512-0297. Visit propublica.org/tips for information on secure communication channels.
Mariam Elba contributed research.
stLouIST
