by Cassandra Jaramillo and Lizzie Presser

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

The Texas Senate has unanimously passed legislation that aims to prevent maternal deaths under the state’s strict abortion ban.

Written in response to a ProPublica investigation last year, Senate Bill 31, called The Life of the Mother Act, represents a remarkable turn among the Republican lawmakers who were the original supporters of the ban. For the first time in four years, they acknowledged that women were being denied care because of confusion about the law and took action to clarify its terms.

“We don’t want to have any reason for hesitation,” said Republican state Sen. Bryan Hughes, who authored the state’s original abortion ban and sponsored this reform with bipartisan input and support. Just last fall, he had said the law he wrote was “plenty clear.”

The bill stops short of removing what doctors say are the ban’s biggest impediments to care, including its major criminal penalties, and doesn’t expand abortion access to cases of fetal anomalies, rape or incest. Sen. Carol Alvarado, the Democratic lawmaker who co-authored the bill, said that its limits were a “real hard pill to swallow” but that it could still make a difference. “I believe this bill will save lives,” she said.

ProPublica’s reporting showed how doctors in states that ban abortion have waited to intervene in cases where women ultimately died of high-risk complications.

To address that problem, Senate Bill 31 states that a life-threatening medical emergency doesn’t need to be “imminent.” It also says doctors can terminate ectopic pregnancies, which occur when the fertilized egg implants outside of the uterine cavity. It would allow for a pregnant patient to receive cancer treatment, Hughes said, even if doing so threatened the viability of a fetus.

The bill also clarifies that medical staff or hospital officials can discuss termination with patients without violating a provision of the law that criminalizes “aiding and abetting” an abortion. It had been unclear to doctors whether simply discussing the option could lead to steep criminal penalties; patients have reported not being able to get straight answers from their providers about their prognosis and options for treatment.

It remains to be seen how the bill, if made law, would be interpreted by doctors and hospitals, and whether risk-averse institutions would still delay care during pregnancy complications.

Many reproductive rights advocates are skeptical given that the bill does not explicitly address many high-risk pregnancy complications. The most common one in the second trimester, previable premature rupture of membranes, or PPROM, occurs when someone’s water breaks early. In these cases, the chance of the fetus surviving is low, but delaying a pregnancy termination leaves the patient at risk of infection, which can lead to sepsis, a potentially deadly condition. Since the state banned abortion, lawyers at many hospitals across Texas have advised physicians not to empty the uterus until they can document signs of infection — an indication of a life-threatening emergency.

The death of Josseli Barnica, which ProPublica reported last year, reveals the dangers of forcing miscarrying patients to wait for care. Diagnosed with an “inevitable” miscarriage at 17 weeks, she showed symptoms similar to PPROM without an official diagnosis — her water had not yet broken. While stable, she was made to wait 40 hours until the fetal heartbeat ended before doctors induced delivery. She later died of sepsis, which medical experts say she likely developed because of the wait.

In addition to documenting cases in which women died of sepsis, ProPublica has shown how rates of the potentially deadly complication spiked by more than 50% statewide in second-trimester pregnancy-loss hospitalizations after Texas banned abortion.

Officials with the Texas Medical Association, the Texas Hospital Association and major anti-abortion groups — Texas Right to Life, Texas Alliance for Life and the American Association of Pro-Life OB-GYNs — told ProPublica they believed that this bill would now allow doctors to offer a termination at the point of a PPROM diagnosis, before infection set in.

Dr. Zeke Silva, chair of the Texas Medical Association’s Council on Legislation, included PPROM on a list of potentially life-threatening conditions he believed may fall under the bill’s clarified exception. The list, which is not exhaustive, includes preeclampsia, renal failure, liver failure, cardiac disease, pulmonary hypertension and neurological conditions. He added that decisions to intervene because a medical condition could be life-threatening “are, by definition, subjective, based on multiple clinical considerations” and must be based on “sound medical judgment.”

However, ProPublica spoke with six legal experts who said they were unsure whether hospitals, wary of litigation or penalties, would interpret the bill to mean that doctors can offer a termination to patients with PPROM.

Some PPROM patients can remain pregnant for weeks and not develop infections, while others can contract an infection and deteriorate very quickly, noted Molly Duane, a senior staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights. “I could see some doctors saying this means, ‘I have more leeway to intervene in all PPROM cases,’ and others saying, ‘I still don’t know, so I’ll wait until signs of infection.’”

The largest association of OB-GYNs, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in an emailed statement that it did not support the bill: “This bill would keep Texas’ abortion ban in place and we strongly oppose the abortion ban and will continue to do so.”

Yesterday, the Texas Senate also passed Bill 2880, which would authorize civil lawsuits against anyone in or outside of Texas who distributes or provides abortion medication to someone in the state. It is expected to face pushback in the state House.

The Life of the Mother Act now goes to the House, where it must be voted out of committee before it heads to the House floor. Both chambers would need to agree on a final version before the governor could sign it into law.

ProPublica

ProPublica announced on Thursday that Gus Garcia-Roberts has been hired as a national reporter.

Garcia-Roberts comes to ProPublica from The Washington Post, where he published investigations into the overdose death of Los Angeles Angels pitcher Tyler Skaggs; the sexual abuse allegations against Los Angeles Dodgers pitcher Trevor Bauer and Major League Baseball’s secretive system in examining domestic abuse and sexual assault; and how the NFL has failed in hiring Black coaches, part of a series that won the Associated Press Sports Editors top prize for projects and the Online Journalism Awards’ prize for excellence in sports reporting.

Before joining the Post, Garcia-Roberts worked on investigative teams at Newsday, the Los Angeles Times and USA Today. At Newsday, he was a part of the team whose series on hidden police misconduct was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for public service. He is the author of “Jimmy the King: Murder, Vice, and the Reign of a Dirty Cop” and the co-author of “Blood Sport: Alex Rodriguez, Biogenesis, and the Quest to End Baseball’s Steroid Era.”

“We are so thrilled to welcome Gus and his enviable reporting and writing chops to ProPublica and excited to turn ProPublica’s lens on the world of sports,” said managing editor Tracy Weber. “Stay tuned.”

“I’m beyond excited to be joining ProPublica, an institution whose mission and work I’ve admired for years,” said Garcia-Roberts. He starts next week.

by Rob Davis

This article was produced by ProPublica in partnership with The Oregonian/OregonLive. Sign up for Dispatches, to get stories like this one as soon as they are published.

In Phnom Penh’s hot season, when the Cambodian capital’s sweltering, subtropical air routinely soars to 100 degrees, more workers than usual visited the infirmaries inside a factory that made baby clothes for Nike, the world’s largest athletic apparel brand.

As many as 15 people a month typically became too weak to work in May and June, according to a medical worker employed by the factory. Even at other times of year, she said, eight to 10 workers wound up in the clinic monthly because they felt weak, including one or two a month who fell unconscious and needed to go to the hospital.

Other former employees told ProPublica they sometimes saw two or three people a day taken to an on-site clinic. One described how he carried workers too weak to walk. Another said she saw thin workers being taken to the clinic, their faces pale and eyes closed.

Y&W Garment’s employees — at one time numbering around 4,500 — operated sewing machines and packaged clothing in cavernous buildings with fans but no air conditioning. The fans sometimes broke and weren’t fixed, one worker said. Another said the inside of the factory could get hotter than it was outdoors. “It’s so hot,” said Phan Oem, 53, who started working there shortly after the factory opened in 2012. “I’m sweaty. It’s too hot.”

Phan Oem said it was “so hot” inside the Y&W Garment factory. She started working in the factory shortly after it opened in 2012. (Sarahbeth Maney/ProPublica)

Workers have fainted for years inside Cambodia’s garment factories, where more than 57,000 people now produce Nike goods. People at Nike’s suppliers fainted en masse in 2012, 2014, 2017, 2018 and 2019, according to news reports at the time, part of a string of events in which thousands of Cambodians got sick, vomited or collapsed on the job. (The term “fainting” in Cambodia is used for conditions that range from losing consciousness to becoming too dizzy or weak to work.)

Nike had moved into Cambodia in 2000, just two years after co-founder Phil Knight promised to end labor abuses that accompanied its push into Southeast Asia.

Nike took action after faintings made headlines. It sent executives on a fact-finding mission in 2012. It asked for international labor officials to investigate. Nike in 2017 told The Guardian, “We take the issue of fainting seriously, as it can be both a social response and an indication of issues within a factory that may require corrective action.”

Yet for all the measures Nike says it relies on to keep workers safe, which include heat standards in factories, internal and external audits, announced and unannounced visits, Y&W workers said fainting persisted during the two years Nike products were made there.

Jill Tucker, who led the U.N.-backed oversight group Better Factories Cambodia from 2011 to 2014, said she was not surprised to hear that workers regularly fainted at Y&W Garment.

The problem is “a consequence of low wages and poor working conditions that continue, even after decades of work on this issue,” Tucker said. “People work very hard for very little pay.”

Workers at closely packed tables stitch hats for babies in the Y&W Garment factory, which produced clothing for Nike and other brands. The photo was provided by a former employee who asked not to be identified.

Representatives of Y&W Garment and its parent company, Hong Kong-based Wing Luen Knitting Factory Ltd., did not respond to emails, text messages or calls.

It’s unclear what Nike knew about working conditions at the Phnom Penh factory. Better Factories Cambodia, whose audits Nike has said in the past it relied on to monitor suppliers, told ProPublica it did not know workers were fainting at Y&W. ProPublica previously reported on low wages at Y&W, where just 1% of workers made what Nike says is typical of workers in its supply chain.

Nike didn’t answer ProPublica’s questions, including about whether it stopped working with the Y&W factory because of any violations of its code of conduct. Y&W Garment stopped making Nike apparel in late 2023, shortly before going bankrupt, workers told ProPublica. Nike said in a statement that it is “committed to ethical and responsible manufacturing” and sets clear expectations for its suppliers through its code of conduct.

Workers said Nike garments at Y&W were produced under the auspices of Haddad Brands, a private New York company whose website says it produces Nike children’s clothing and enforces Nike’s code of conduct. Haddad did not respond to repeated emails; someone who answered its phone hung up on a reporter who called, and no one responded to a subsequent voicemail.

On its website, Haddad says it works directly with its factories “to ensure that each of our suppliers has the ability to not only manufacture our product, but to do so responsibly — for the workers, for the environment, and for our customers.”

At Y&W Garment, a set of corrugated metal buildings along both sides of a busy road in rapidly developed southern Phnom Penh, two workers said faintings were so frequent that they were no longer surprising. The medical employee interviewed by ProPublica blamed overtime hours and workers not sleeping much or eating enough.

If employees fell unconscious, they went to the hospital, the medical worker said. Otherwise, they were given calcium pills and allowed to rest on a thin mat spread on a metal cot.

Then, she said, they typically went back to work.

Y&W is not an isolated case. The Cambodian government reported more than 4,500 faintings in factories between 2017 and 2019, according to news reports, a problem it has attributed to pesticide spraying, chemicals used in manufacturing, heat, poor nutrition and inadequate ventilation. Media reports also quoted the government citing psychological factors, such as workers’ beliefs in supernatural forces.

Bill Clinton set out to alleviate harsh working conditions in Cambodia’s factories in 1999, when as president he signed a trade deal that greatly expanded Cambodian garment exports to the United States.

Cambodia’s emerging industry at the time was helping to shore up the country’s economy as it recovered from war and the 1970s Khmer Rouge genocide. A few months after the trade deal was signed, an incident illustrated why labor issues were a concern. More than two dozen exhausted workers fainted at a Phnom Penh garment factory. A union representative told a local newspaper they’d been working 14-hour days, fearful they’d be fired.

The Clinton trade agreement called for creating a labor monitor to bring Cambodia’s factories up to international standards. If the manufacturers improved their working conditions, the United States would expand its import quotas. Better Factories Cambodia, which is part of the United Nations’ International Labor Organization and has been funded by the U.S. Labor Department, began operating in 2001.

Police and unionists told Agence France-Presse that at least 500 garment workers, mostly women, fainted at work on Oct. 12, 2009. The factory where a police official said the incident occurred was not part of Nike’s supply chain, according to Nike’s factory list at the time. (AFP via Getty Images)

The group would ensure “American companies like Gap or Nike feel safe placing orders in Cambodia, knowing that factories comply with human rights, labor laws and good working conditions,” Van Sou Ieng, then-president of the Cambodian garment industry’s trade association, told Vogue in 2002.

Nike, which had withdrawn from the country when a BBC investigation in 2000 found children as young as 12 working for a Nike supplier, returned after Better Factories Cambodia launched. The company has repeatedly pointed to Better Factories Cambodia as an essential part of its factory oversight over the years. In 2012, Nike said that it relied on the group’s factory audits, rather than conducting its own, to ensure adequate working conditions in the country. (Nike did not respond when asked about Better Factories Cambodia’s current role in auditing.)

Unlike workplace safety regulators in the United States, Better Factories Cambodia was not given enforcement power to fine or shut down problem factories. In addition, industry and government made up two-thirds of the organization’s advisory committee. That gave them much more influence than workers, according to Tucker.

In 2012, Better Factories Cambodia took on mass faintings with something called the One Change Campaign. It followed a string of media reports that prompted a frantic search for solutions, Tucker said. The idea was to get each factory owner to do one thing to reduce fainting that the law didn’t already require. It might be free lunches, snacks or twice-daily paid exercise programs to combat fatigue and monotony — aerobics for workers who were at risk of being malnourished.

“It was just lame,” said Tucker, who was the organization’s leader at the time. She said she came to realize that the agency was taking the wrong approach, focusing on short-term initiatives instead of tackling the root causes of problems.

Better Factories Cambodia has had a mixed record since then.

It has called attention to the failure of Cambodian factories to obey labor standards. The organization in February reported that almost half of the more than 350 factories it inspected in 2023 made employees work excessive overtime hours, while two-thirds of factories were hotter than the organization’s recommended 90 degrees Fahrenheit. The report didn’t identify the factories.

Daramongkol Keo, a Better Factories Cambodia spokesperson, said the organization has seen meaningful improvements in wage compliance, gender equality, working hours and workplace safety while it has been operating. He said the group has consistently monitored and reported fainting incidents in Cambodia.

For all the issues it’s uncovered, though, labor advocates say its inspectors miss many more.

A 2024 report from the Center for Alliance of Labor and Human Rights, a Cambodian legal aid group, found that Better Factories gave perfect marks for labor union compliance even at factories where employees said union busting was pervasive.

If Better Factories’ findings don’t reflect actual working conditions, the report said, “then everyone is participating — whether willingly or not — in a large-scale whitewashing scheme.”

When asked for a response to the criticism, the leader of Better Factories Cambodia, Froukje Boele, told ProPublica, “we appreciate the report’s focus and emphasis on working conditions, freedom of association and collective bargaining.”

Cambodia’s garment industry praises Better Factories Cambodia’s work. Ken Loo, the current head of the industry’s trade group, said the program complements government and industry efforts “to ensure high levels of social and labor compliance.”

Better Factories Cambodia was unaware of the incidents at Y&W Garment that former workers described to ProPublica, according to Keo, the spokesperson. That’s despite conducting four inspections from March 2020 through July 2023.

The organization acknowledged some shortcomings of its two-day, unannounced audits in a report this year. It said problems like sexual harassment and efforts to interfere with union organizing are hard to verify.

“If fainting incidents were known but not adequately addressed at the factory level,” Keo told ProPublica, “it underscores the broader challenges of enforcement and accountability within the industry.”

Had the issue of faintings been confined to Cambodia, the shortcomings of Better Factories Cambodia might explain Nike’s failure to rid its supply chain of the problem. That wasn’t the case, according to findings of a labor monitoring group in Vietnam in 2016.

That year, the Worker Rights Consortium described numerous faintings at a Vietnamese supplier of Nike and other Western brands. Workers at Hansae Vietnam in Ho Chi Minh City told the group that pressure to meet production targets in the un-air-conditioned factory was so high that they didn’t drink water to save time visiting the toilet. Hundreds of workers went on strike, twice.

The Worker Rights Consortium reported in 2016 that workers at Hansae Vietnam were skipping breaks and avoiding drinking water even as temperatures in the factory soared. (Obtained and highlighted by ProPublica)

The consortium called in a certified industrial hygienist, Garrett Brown, to conduct an independent investigation.

It was months before Brown was allowed to enter the 12-building factory complex that employed roughly 10,000 people. Inside, he and another colleague recorded temperatures as high as 95 degrees, he said.

“It was goddamn hot inside those plants, for sure,” Brown told ProPublica. By the end of the day, he said, he was exhausted.

“You’re sweating profusely, walking between the buildings and in the buildings as well,” he said. “And we were just doing it for eight hours — and a lot of workers were going for 10, 12, 14 hours.”

Hansae, which didn’t respond to emails from ProPublica, developed a remediation plan to fix the problems Brown and others had identified. It included installing cooling systems and shutting off the electricity in production areas to ensure that workers took lunch breaks. Nike no longer produces at the factory.

Temperatures came down far faster in 2021 when Nike was confronted with an employee complaint about dizziness and dehydration at Nike’s retail store in downtown Portland, which sits not far from the company’s suburban corporate headquarters.

Unlike in Vietnam, the complaint was about temperatures in the low 80s — “super hot,” one worker told an inspector from the Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Division — not the mid-90s that Brown measured in Ho Chi Minh City. And unlike in Vietnam, it took days, not months, for workplace safety inspectors to get inside.

According to a state report, the inspectors quickly discovered that the problem was already being addressed, at least temporarily. Nike had brought in five portable air conditioners, spending what a company official would later estimate was $40,000 to get the summer heat under control.

Keat Soriththeavy and Ouch Sony contributed reporting and translation. Kirsten Berg of ProPublica and Matthew Kish of The Oregonian/OregonLive contributed research.

by Jessica Schreifels, The Salt Lake Tribune

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

Josh Dallin spends his workdays talking to Utahns who raise cattle and grow crops, and knew that many were in distress. Everyone from neighbors to fertilizer dealers to equipment suppliers were telling him they were worried that a farmer or rancher they knew was at risk of suicide.

Then in 2023, with money allocated by Congress, Dallin had new help to offer: As executive director of an agriculture center at Utah State University Extension, he had scores of $2,000 vouchers that Utahns working in agriculture could use to get free therapy.

Dallin feared no one in the typically stoical farming community would take him up on the federally funded offer. He was wrong.

Farmers and ranchers across Utah quickly accepted the money, which ran out in just four months — well before he expected — and his office had to start turning people away. It convinced Dallin of the deep need in the state’s agricultural communities, and people’s openness to getting help when cost is not a barrier. “I want you to know,” he recalled one voucher recipient telling him, “that this saved my life.”

“It was heartbreaking,” he said, to have to put “the brakes on the program.”

The money for the vouchers was part of a one-time $28 million allocation sent to states to help Americans producing food handle the extra stresses of the coronavirus pandemic. Any state that applied to the U.S. Department of Agriculture was awarded up to half a million dollars — which was used to hold trainings, start hotlines staffed by mental health workers and, like in Utah, provide therapy.

With that funding now mostly spent, leaders in some states have tapped state funds or leaned on private donors to ensure mental health support continues.

Josh Dallin helped run a program that used federal money to connect Utah farmers and ranchers to free therapy. (Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune)

Utah has not — and, at least according to one legislator, has no intention to do so.

Republican state Sen. Scott Sandall, a third-generation rancher and farmer who is the Executive Appropriations Committee vice chair, criticized Congress for creating a program with a one-time boost of money, saying that without ongoing funding it was destined to fail.

“The way they set it up,” he said, “was eventually to have it go away.”

The Salt Lake Tribune and ProPublica reached out to Gov. Spencer Cox — himself a farmer who has advocated for better mental health resources in the state. In 2022, he acknowledged in a Utah Farm Bureau article that poor mental health was a problem affecting the state’s farmers and said he hoped investments in rural mental health could better support the agriculture industry. His office did not respond to interview requests for this story.

If You or Someone You Know Needs Help

Although Utah does not currently have funds to pay for therapy for the agricultural industry, there is still support available.

You can dial 988 to reach the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. If you live in Utah, it will route you to the Utah Crisis Line, which is staffed by certified crisis workers at the Huntsman Mental Health Institute. The call is free and confidential, and you can reach someone at any time of day.

Another hotline, 1-800-FARM-AID, has staffers who can talk with you about what you are going through and connect you to resources.

Utah State University Extension has other resources available as well. You can listen to its podcast, “AgWellness,” which organizers say is aimed at teaching you to open up about what concerns you and how to help others who feel stressed. There are also free online courses that can teach you how to find relief from stress, or learn what to say and how to help if you know someone else who is struggling.

Farmers in the United States are 3.5 times more likely to die by suicide than the general population, according to the National Rural Health Association. Utah’s suicide rate has consistently been among the nation’s highest, and farmers and ranchers struggle with the volatility that comes with working in the dry mountain region. They die by suicide at the third-highest rate by vocation in the state, according to state data, behind miners and construction workers.

Fluctuating market prices, unpredictable weather and a stigma that farmers should be “tough” and can handle their mental stress themselves were constant pressures described by more than a dozen people The Tribune and ProPublica interviewed — farmers and ranchers, their families and those who support mental health programs for them.

The American Farm Bureau has emphasized in recent news releases that the Trump administration’s shifts in policy around tariffs and federal grant funding have increased the uncertainty faced by America’s farming communities — a population that overwhelmingly backed President Donald Trump in the 2024 election, according to an analysis by the nonprofit newsroom Investigate Midwest.

Trump acknowledged in his March speech to Congress that tariffs in particular may bring “a little bit of an adjustment period” for America’s farmers but said that he believes they will ultimately help by reducing competition from producers in other countries.

President Donald Trump said during an address to Congress in March that he thinks new trade policies will benefit American farmers. (Win McNamee/Pool Photo via AP)

“Our farmers are going to have a field day right now,” Trump said. “So, to our farmers, have a lot of fun. I love you, too.”

Federal funding to support farmer mental health is tied up with ongoing debates over the Farm Bill, a sweeping package of legislation that Congress has been unable to move forward since it expired in 2023. The USDA said it will be ready to implement mental health programs if federal lawmakers appropriate more money for them.

Sandall, the state legislator, said he knows that the stress of working in an unpredictable industry like agriculture can cause anxiety and mental health challenges. But when he was presented with the data about the high suicide rates in Utah agricultural communities, he said he doesn’t think Utah lawmakers would be interested in funding a program intended to help one specific profession. There is “so much demand” for mental health support throughout the state, he said, adding that targeting certain professions would create a “battle for funding.”

“Whether they’re a mechanic,” he said, “or whether they’re a school teacher, or a doctor, or someone in agriculture, I just think it would be a little hard to start separating out and creating just mental health programs for individual industries.”

“We Carry the Burden” Mitch Hancock, owner of NooSun Dairy in Corinne, Utah (Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune)

The stress of owning a dairy fell on Mitch Hancock’s shoulders overnight after his father-in-law died by suicide in 2014. Hancock’s father-in-law hadn’t shared with his family that he was in crisis.

Mental health, Hancock said, isn’t a topic discussed often among farmers. “I think we struggle in quiet.”

For Hancock, too, there was no time for him to grieve. It was early August, and there were still two more cuttings of alfalfa that needed to be made, another month of harvesting corn and the daily needs of milking cows.

He had been involved with the dairy because his father-in-law had been hoping to transition into retirement, Hancock said. Still, “I had never driven a tractor,” he said. “Never driven a semi in harvest, never driven a chopper. Never done any of that. So it was very much, ‘Well, let’s figure it out as we go.’”

That was more than a decade ago. Hancock and his wife have run NooSun Dairy since on 2,400 acres of land in Box Elder County, where the snow-capped Wasatch Mountains stretch to the east and the Great Salt Lake can be seen past acres of fields and homes looking west.

When he speaks, Hancock is taciturn and straightforward, a trained civil engineer who takes a pragmatic approach to running the dairy farm. But he has new insight now into what his father-in-law faced, he said, a weight far heavier than just having a successful business. He has employees who need these jobs and neighbors who count on him to buy their crops to feed his cows.

“We carry the burden to make sure that we can take care of all of those around us like we always have,” he said, “even in times of low milk prices.”

But being able to pay the dairy’s bills can be challenging, Hancock said, because the price he can sell at can fluctuate. Milk price regulations are set by a complex government process that can cause prices to change as often as daily. When prices are volatile, Hancock said, “it’s hard to look past the doomsday.”

NooSun Dairy (Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune)

Like fluctuating market prices, farmers face other elements of their work they can’t control: the price of fertilizers and equipment, how much it rains or whether animals get sick. And their workdays are long.

In addition, in Utah and the arid West, farmers and ranchers worry about water, said Craig Buttars, the outgoing Utah Department of Agriculture and Food commissioner. In one recent year when rainfall was particularly scarce, he recalled, ranchers scrambled to find enough feed and had to haul water to cattle — many of which graze on remote public lands.

“That just added another level of stress,” he said. “It seems like those things can just add on to one another. And at some point, producers, sometimes they just feel like, ‘Why am I doing this?’”

Some farmers have also felt villainized by the public for their water use, including by a recent study that suggested that farmers need to cut back or stop growing altogether in order to help stop the shrinking of Utah’s Great Salt Lake. This takes a toll, said Caroline Hargraves, the marketing director with the state agriculture department. “I can’t tell you how often I hear people say that farmers should just quit. Like we shouldn’t even grow our own food,” she said. “Just really demonizing anyone for their water use.”

Chris Chambers is an alfalfa and hay farmer in northern Utah who sells his crop to local cattle producers. He said it’s frustrating to read online comments posted in response to news articles about declining lake levels from people who think farmers should give up their water rights or stop farming.

“It’s your livelihood,” he said. “Water is the key, and we’ve got the senior priority rights to use the water from the state of Utah. And now we’re bad guys for doing it? We feel like we’re doing a good service for feeding people.”

In Rural Utah, Few Therapists and More Guns

In a state that has consistently higher rates of self-reported depression than the rest of the United States, residents in rural areas — where many farmers and ranchers live — face unique challenges in getting help. In the two counties that have the highest amount of farmland in the state, each has about one therapist for every 550 people, according to County Health Rankings, which pulls data from the National Provider Identification registry. (The national ratio is one therapist for every 300 people.)

Without that type of specialized care, doctors in rural areas often rely only on prescription medications, said Tiffany McConkie, a rancher in northeastern Utah who also works as a nurse at a clinic in the town of Altamont, in a three-room medical office decorated with photos of sun-drenched farm landscapes. It’s where people can go for general medical care in their own town in the Uintah Basin, a rural area known for its oil production and agriculture.

But if someone is seeking behavioral health treatment from that same medical system, Uintah Basin Healthcare, the only two therapists on staff work at a larger medical clinic that’s about 20 miles away, according to the health care system’s online provider list.

McConkie said some people hesitate to ask for mental health care, telling her that they are afraid of being medicated or that health care workers will call the police and they’ll be put into a “mental home.”

“And that’s not the case,” she said. “We just want to get them the help they need.”

Where rural Utah lacks easy access to therapists, there is also an abundance of firearms — and a higher suicide rate compared with urban areas, according to a 2018 Harvard study. That study found that the elevated suicide rate in rural Utah is not because people there attempt suicide more often but because they are using guns, which are more lethal than other methods.

“We all feel like we’re tough, right?” said Tiffany McConkie, a Utah rancher and a nurse. “I just feel like we still have that stigma that we can’t say that we’re struggling. We can’t go for help.” (Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune)

In the basin where McKonkie lives, the local state-run mental health clinic has responded to those statistics by focusing on gun safety, handing out gun locks and secure ammo boxes at gun shows. They also travel to oil fields to do suicide prevention trainings with workers, an effort to meet their most at-risk population — middle-aged men — where they are.

“It has required some creativity on our part,” said Catherine Jurado, who works at Northeastern Counseling Center, adding that being in a smaller rural area allows them better opportunities to create relationships. “Who else in the United States thinks, ‘I need to go to a beef expo to do suicide prevention?’”

Seeking a Way Forward

The shortfall in funding for farmer mental health has been going on for years. In 2008, Congress created the federal Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network but, for more than a decade, put no money into it. The network eventually was funded as part of the 2018 Farm Bill, but its annual $10 million covers the entire country across four regional offices and today generally does not support individual therapy.

Since the Farm Bill expired in September 2023, Congress has been unable to agree on a new legislative package, nor did it pass a proposed bill last year to give $5 million more in funding for the Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network. Right now, the network has continued to be funded through temporary extensions.

When the pandemic-era funding injected a new surge of money at the state level in 2021, Utah’s agriculture department and Utah State University Extension — the state’s land-grant university — jumped at the opportunity.

The two organizations used some of the money at first for an educational podcast and online stress courses. And in 2023, they paid for therapy for about 240 farmers and ranchers. There are about 33,000 producers in Utah, according to 2022 Census of Agriculture data, most of whom work other jobs besides farming, which makes up nearly 3% of the state’s economy. As is the case throughout the United States, most Utah farms are family-run.

Buttars, the Utah agriculture department commissioner, said he was surprised by how many people sought the therapy vouchers.

“It really did wake me up to the number of people we have in the state, in our agricultural community, that felt the need for this type of program,” he said.

Dallin, with Utah State, said health care providers reported that those using the vouchers were improving, and that they were receiving positive feedback from those who went to therapy. But the money ran out more than a year ago, and the program has been halted.

In the absence of federal funds, some states have locked in state funding or private donations to keep supporting their farmers.

In Michigan, a program offering free therapy and online stress courses has been in place for nearly a decade, according to Remington Rice with Michigan State University Extension. He said state agriculture leaders advocated for the program after seeing distress among dairy farmers.

“Agriculture is a pillar of society,” Rice said. “No farmers, no food. … And so we need to address an issue that threatens our food supply.”

More recently, he said, a private business — a company that makes cherry products — reached out to donate a portion of its sales to help pay for therapy.

In Washington, a private donor — from a farming family who lost someone to suicide — has provided funding for no-cost therapy sessions for farmers and ranchers, said Don McMoran, who works at Washington State University Extension and is the Western regional lead for the national Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network.

In Utah, those who ran the therapy voucher program have been hesitant to approach lawmakers for state support.

Hargraves, with the state’s agriculture department, said it can be tough to get state legislators to fund new programs. And Dallin said his office has shied away from approaching legislators because the money would be earmarked as part of the higher education budget due to its association with the university. Utah’s legislative leadership has cut $60 million in funding from the public higher education system this year — the biggest budget cut to schools here in at least a decade.

Since the therapy voucher program ended, USU Extension has continued to run awareness campaigns encouraging farmers to invest in their mental health care. And the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food has also introduced mental health workshops into some certifications and courses that farmers and ranchers enroll in.

Dallin said his office has also been working with the University of Utah — a health research university that runs its own hospital system — to try to collect survey data to prove the voucher program’s effectiveness as they try to drum up more money in the future. He said he hopes by partnering, they can lean on the other university’s medical expertise and designation as a health care system.

“I honestly believe,” he said, “that if the government or if some organization were to give us a million dollars a year, I think we could spend it.”

by Tim Golden

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

In the spring of 2019, as a new Mexican government shut down most of its cooperation with the United States in the fight against drug trafficking, a small group of American drug agents decided to confront the problem in a different way.

Sifting through databases and court files, they compiled dossiers on Mexican officials suspected of colluding with the mafias. Months later, federal prosecutors used the evidence to indict a former security minister, Genaro García Luna, the most important Mexican figure ever convicted on U.S. drug corruption charges.

The senior agent who led the team, Terrance C. Cole, was not rewarded for his efforts. He sought a promotion to run the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Mexico City office but was passed over. Frustrated with the agency’s direction and his own career trajectory, he retired in 2020 to take a job with a software company before becoming Virginia’s secretary of public safety in 2023.

Five years later, Cole is returning to run the DEA, having emerged as President Donald Trump’s unexpected choice for the position.

Unlike other former agents who have led the DEA, Cole never rose to its top ranks or even ran one of its 23 domestic field divisions. His most significant leadership experience has been overseeing police, prisons and emergency response agencies under Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Trump ally who championed Cole for the DEA post.

But with the White House promising an all-out fight against the traffickers who have flooded U.S. markets with fentanyl and other illegal drugs, Cole would bring an unusual background to the job. That includes some searing experiences with the corruption that sustains the drug trade, and a conviction that the United States cannot successfully fight the traffickers without also taking on the officials who abet their operations.

“The Mexican drug cartels work hand-in-hand with corrupt Mexican government officials at high levels,” Cole said in an interview with the far-right news site Breitbart shortly after his retirement. “If the average taxpayer had a basic understanding of how these two groups work together still — to this minute — they would be sickened.”

The Trump administration has warned that it is prepared to take unilateral actions against drug mafias in Mexico if the government there does not greatly escalate its own efforts. But current and former officials said White House discussions have been more focused on the tactics it could use against the traffickers — from drone strikes to cyber operations — than on any longer-term strategy to weaken them.

The administration may also have set in motion a new era of interagency competition on the issue, with the CIA and the Defense Department presenting proposals to expand U.S. intelligence collection on traffickers in Mexico and try to disrupt their operations in ways that may or may not complement the efforts of the DEA and other law enforcement agencies.

How U.S. officials might confront Mexico’s endemic corruption remains an open question. But after decades in which the problem has been mostly subordinated to other U.S. interests, it is likely to command a higher priority in American policy — and to unsettle the U.S. relationship with Mexico.

In its first announcement of punitive tariffs on Mexico, the White House cited “an intolerable alliance” between the government and the drug trade. “This alliance endangers the national security of the United States, and we must eradicate the influence of these dangerous cartels,” it said.

Hoping to avoid an economic calamity, Mexico has conspicuously intensified its own drug enforcement efforts since then. But when asked about Cole’s nomination, President Claudia Sheinbaum warned that she would uphold the sharp restrictions on DEA activities in Mexico imposed by her predecessor, Andrés Manuel López Obrador.

“We will never permit interventionism or violations of our sovereignty,” Sheinbaum said. “It will not be like before President López Obrador, no.”

Privately, some DEA veterans have lobbied against Cole. Those former officials, most of them associated with the agency’s Special Operations Division, have questioned Cole’s qualifications for the job in discussions with Senate staff aides, but they have been unwilling to air their criticism publicly.

A former college lacrosse player, Cole was described by colleagues as a driven, competitive and sometimes abrasive agent and supervisor. As a rookie agent in McAlester, Oklahoma, Cole made enough of an impression to be sent in 2002 to Bogotá, Colombia, in the early years of the billion-dollar U.S. aid program known as Plan Colombia.

The ambitious U.S. effort sought to help Colombia transform its criminal justice system, root out corruption, and combat the interwoven threats of drug gangs, leftist guerrillas and right-wing paramilitary groups. At the center of the plan was the creation of elite police teams, vetted and trained by the DEA, that operated alongside U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

The team that worked with Cole and several other agents was among Colombia’s most effective, former DEA officials said. In Bogotá, it made a series of arrests and drug seizures that struck at the Norte del Valle Cartel and its leader, Diego Montoya. It also uncovered evidence that the cartel had co-opted high-level officials in both the police and military, they said.

“We were doing amazing things,” Cole recalled last year on a podcast with Republican former U.S. Rep. Mary Bono. “Working some of the biggest corruption cases, against some of the highest-level Colombian government officials. But on May 22, 2006, that’s when it all came crashing down for me.”

That day, an informant walked into the Colombian team’s offices in Cali offering a tip that Montoya’s men had stashed some cocaine in the nearby town of Jamundí. After seeking approval from senior police officials but not the DEA, agency officials said, the team leader gathered nine of his agents and drove off with the informant to investigate.

As they pulled up to the isolated location, the police came under a barrage of gunfire. The shooting continued for 20 minutes until all 10 agents and their informant were dead. When Cole arrived at the scene that night with the Colombian attorney general and the head of the national police, they found the agents’ bodies on the ground; the Colombian army soldiers who attacked them were still on the hillside above them.

Cole was devastated.

“Those guys worked very closely with him,” his supervisor, Matthew Donahue, said. “We depended on them, and they depended on us. It was like having your partner killed.”

Although the army claimed that the shootings were a tragic accident, the attorney general found that the informant had been planted by the traffickers and that the lieutenant colonel who led the troops had organized the ambush. In 2008, he and 14 soldiers were convicted of aggravated homicide.

A few months after the killings, Cole went ahead with a planned tour of duty in Afghanistan. There, he found again that U.S. allies in the war were sometimes as involved in the drug trade as the Taliban insurgents they fought.

In 2008, Cole moved to Dallas, where he earned a reputation as a sharp-elbowed group supervisor who pushed his agents to get their photographs on the office wall by making the biggest cases and seizing the biggest loads. He was regarded highly by his superiors, several former colleagues said, but less popular with some of his peers.

By 2010, Cole’s squad was focused on the Texas distribution network of the Zetas, then widely seen as the most violent of Mexico’s drug mafias, and one of its leaders, Miguel Treviño Morales.

By leveraging the cooperation of traffickers facing prosecution, one of Cole’s agents obtained a list of cellphone numbers being used by Treviño; his brother, Omar; and their lieutenants. It was a coup — a way to perhaps intercept the Zeta leaders’ calls and encrypted text messages or even track their movements in real time.

On March 9, 2011, government records show, Cole entered the eight numbers and a PIN code for one of the phones into a secure agency database. He then forwarded them to the DEA’s Special Operations Division, which could sometimes intercept or geolocate cellphones overseas with the help of U.S. intelligence agencies.

Cole also sent the numbers to the DEA offices in Mexico City and Nuevo Laredo, where other agents were investigating the Zetas, officials said. Ten days later, gunmen led by the Treviño brothers roared into the Mexican border town of Allende, where the DEA’s informants had been operating. The traffickers began torturing and murdering anyone who they suspected might be connected to the men they thought had betrayed them, killing as many as 200 men, women and children.

In a 2017 article, ProPublica reported that Cole’s forwarding of the numbers to U.S. agents in Mexico — who then shared them with a DEA-trained Mexican police unit that warned the Zetas — led to the Treviños’ rampage. Only years later did the DEA, prodded by Congress, even review its files on the case; it never investigated its possible role in the massacre.

Cole declined to be interviewed for ProPublica’s article, and a White House spokesperson said he could not comment on the case now because the Treviño brothers, who were handed over to the United States by Mexico on Feb. 27, are facing prosecution for trafficking, murder and other crimes. They pleaded not guilty last month in a Washington, D.C., federal court.

A home in the Mexican border town of Allende eight years after it was destroyed by the Zetas cartel (Eduardo Verdugo/AP Images)

The White House spokesperson said “of course” Cole and other DEA officials considered the sensitivity of sending the Zetas’ phone information to Mexico but followed standard protocols in doing so. A former deputy head of the DEA office in Dallas, Daniel Salter, said he and the special agent in charge there made that decision, not Cole.

At least three senior Mexican police officials who might have had access to the phone numbers shared by the DEA have since been charged in the United States with colluding with the traffickers. But officials said that subsequent DEA reporting also pointed to another reason why the Treviños might have turned on the informant who was their primary target in Allende: He owed them some $30 million and was blamed for some earlier U.S. seizures of drugs and cash.

After Dallas, Cole spent four years at the agency’s Washington-area headquarters, watching as U.S. law-enforcement agencies struggled with the Mexicans to hunt down well-protected drug bosses, like Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, without making any substantial impact on the flow of drugs.

But even that halting cooperation came to an end as Mexico’s new president, López Obrador, took office promising to fight the drug trade with “hugs, not bullets.” He sidelined police teams trained by the DEA, shut down a Mexican marine commando unit that had been the country’s most effective weapon against the traffickers and even refused to grant visas to DEA agents assigned to Mexico.

Former officials said Cole, who arrived in Mexico City in late 2018 as a deputy director of the DEA’s regional office, soon proposed a radical solution: If the agents couldn’t get Mexican officials to work with them to pursue the traffickers, what about going after the corrupt officials who were protecting the traffickers’ operations?

For decades, U.S. investigators had generally avoided such targets, lest they be seen as interfering in internal Mexican politics. But the extradition of high-level Mexican traffickers over the previous decade had created a pool of criminals eager to reduce their sentences by helping U.S. prosecutors, and many were willing to testify about the officials they had bribed.

A team of DEA agents pulled together files on some 35 possible targets, ranging from police and military commanders to Mexican cabinet officials. One target that stood out was García Luna, the once-powerful security minister who had worked closely with U.S. officials.

While the Biden administration hailed García Luna’s prosecution in 2023 as proof of its mettle in pursuing corruption, it also worked assiduously to avoid drug enforcement actions that might antagonize López Obrador and jeopardize his help in controlling illegal migration.

Cole was by then gone from the DEA, having left Mexico City after just a year. He had once hoped to succeed Donahue there but was not seriously considered for the post. He retired from the agency after 22 years.

Matthew Donahue, right, Cole’s former superior, and Cole, left, with the former head of the Colombian National Police, Gen. Jorge Eliécer Camacho (Courtesy of Matthew Donahue)

As Virginia’s secretary of public safety and homeland security, Cole focused on trying to limit fentanyl trafficking, an effort that drew the attention of Trump supporters. While he kept a fairly low public profile, Cole’s tough rhetoric on Mexico was also very much in line with Trump’s.

“Mexico has been a failing state for years,” he told Bono. Referring to the reported recruitment of foreign mercenaries by the drug gangs, he added, “Now we’re seeing Mexico turn into a terror training camp similar to what we saw in the Middle East years ago.”

Although the Trump administration’s attention to the drug issue has raised the DEA’s profile, Cole will, if confirmed as the administrator, likely have to fight for its place in a growing bureaucratic scrum.

Already, officials said, the FBI and Homeland Security Investigations have been pushing to lead the Trump administration’s campaign against trafficking groups that it has designated as terrorist organizations. The CIA and the Defense Department have also expanded their efforts to collect intelligence on the traffickers and put forward options for more aggressive actions to strike at their operations.

With Sheinbaum still attacking the DEA as a symbol of American interventionism, all four of those competing agencies may have an easier time rebuilding trust with the Mexican government. But while Mexican leaders insist they will act on hard evidence of corruption in their ranks, many U.S. officials remain skeptical that they will be able to make a serious push for such action without upending the two countries’ relationship.

by Jake Pearson

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

A federal employee who is helping the Trump administration carry out the drastic downsizing of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau owns stock in companies that could benefit from the agency’s dismantling, a ProPublica investigation has found.

Gavin Kliger, a 25-year-old Department of Government Efficiency aide, disclosed the investments earlier this year in his public financial report, which lists as much as $365,000 worth of shares in four companies that the CFPB can regulate. According to court records and government emails, he later helped oversee the layoffs of more than 1,400 employees at the bureau.

Ethics experts say this constitutes a conflict of interest and that Kliger’s actions are a potential violation of federal ethics laws.

Executive branch employees have long been subject to laws and rules that forbid them from working on matters that “will affect your own personal financial interest.” CFPB employees are also required to divest from dozens of additional, specific companies that engage in financial services and thus either are or could be subject to agency supervision, rulemaking, examination or enforcement.

The CFPB oversees companies that offer a variety of financial services, including mortgage lending, auto financing, credit cards and payment apps.

Two of the companies in which Kliger is invested — Apple and Tesla — are on the CFPB’s list of prohibited holdings. Two others — Bitcoin and Solana — aren’t on the list but are nevertheless barred under agency guidance on investing in cryptocurrency firms.

Court records show that Kliger was among a small handful of top CFPB and administration officials discussing the implementation of the layoffs in emails. Separately, a federal employee who works on the layoff team said that Kliger “managed” the firings of about 90% of the bureau’s staff earlier this month, according to a sworn declaration filed by lawyers opposing the administration.

The employee, using the pseudonym Alex Doe for fear of retaliation, said they learned of Kliger’s role from colleagues and described Kliger keeping the CFPB employees “up for 36 hours straight to ensure that the notices would go out,” the declaration states. “Gavin was screaming at people he did not believe were working fast enough” and “calling them incompetent.”

Among those fired were the bureau’s ethics team, according to an agency lawyer, who wrote in an April 25 court filing that “I am not aware of anyone remaining at the CFPB who has the requisite expertise to fulfill the CFPB’s federal ethics requirements.”

Ethics experts said that getting rid of government regulators who oversee companies and set industrywide rules could impact the share price of the businesses subject to that regulation, since doing away with oversight can free companies from compliance costs and the exposure that stems from enforcement actions.

“Destroying the CFPB is likely to have, I believe, a direct and predictable effect on his financial stock,” Kathleen Clark, an expert on government ethics at the Washington University in St. Louis, said of Kliger.

Unionized bureau employees have sued the agency’s acting director, Russell Vought, to stop the administration’s efforts to wind down its operations and reduce its staff. The subsequent months of litigation have been head-spinning.

At the end of March, a district court judge issued a sweeping stay on the administration’s actions. Then on April 11, an appeals court in Washington, D.C., partially lifted that stay. In its order, the panel wrote that bureau leaders must conduct a “particularized assessment” before firing workers.

Days later, most of the agency’s staff was notified that they were being fired.

The bureau’s chief legal officer, Mark Paoletta, and two other lawyers conducted the court-ordered review, the government said in legal papers. In a recent filing, Paoletta wrote that the administration is attempting to achieve a “streamlined and right-sized Bureau.” Instead of 248 enforcement division employees and 487 in the supervision division, he wrote, he planned to keep 50 workers in each.

But on Monday evening, amid vigorous dispute over the legality of the firings and the definition of “particularized assessment,” the appeals court backtracked, upholding the trial court’s initial stay on the mass layoffs as the case plays out. The CFPB then notified the more than 1,400 employees who’d been laid off that their firings were being rescinded. The lawsuit is ongoing, with oral arguments before the appeals court scheduled for next month.

Kliger didn’t respond to voicemails or emails seeking comment for this story. The CFPB didn’t respond to a request for comment.

In a statement, the White House said that “these allegations are another attempt to diminish DOGE’s critical mission.”

Kliger “did not even manage” the layoffs, the statement said, “making this entire narrative an outright lie.”

Asked to clarify Kliger’s role in the administration's cuts, a spokesperson said, “You have 90 days from the start date to divest which is May 8th — it is only April 28th.” It’s unclear what rule the White House was referencing; the spokesperson did not respond to follow-up questions. But ethics experts said there are two scenarios that could apply: Sometimes, high-level government officials pledge to divest their holdings by a certain date to avoid conflicts of interest. And at the CFPB in particular, regulations give employees 90 days to divest prohibited holdings.

In either case, though, the employee is required to recuse themselves from any actions that could affect their investments.

Delaney Marsco, a government ethics expert at the Campaign Legal Center, said Kliger’s holdings and his involvement in winding down the agency erode the public’s faith that government officials are serving its best interests.

“When you have these facts, it raises the question, which is just as bad as when you have the actual violation because it makes the public question,” she said.

Kliger owns between $15,000 and $50,000 of stock in Apple, which the CFPB regulates. The company agreed to pay a $25 million civil penalty last October following a bureau investigation into Apple Card, a credit card in the company’s software. The bureau said that Apple did not have a proper transaction dispute system when it launched and also that it misled some customers about its financing. The company ​​agreed to the consent order, records show, “without admitting or denying any of the findings of fact or conclusions of law.” In a statement at the time, Apple said that “while we strongly disagree with the CFPB’s characterization of Apple’s conduct, we have aligned with them on an agreement.”

Kliger also owns between $100,000 and $250,000 of Tesla stock. The company, founded by DOGE boss Elon Musk, falls under the bureau’s purview because it offers financing, a key area of scrutiny for the CFPB.

Kliger also owns cryptocurrencies: between $1,000 and $15,000 of Solana and between $15,000 and $50,000 of Bitcoin.

Any federal worker who “holds any amount of a cryptocurrency or stablecoin may not participate in a particular matter if the employee knows that particular matter could have a direct and predictable effect on the value of their cryptocurrency or stablecoins,” according to a legal memo issued in July of 2022, under then-President Joe Biden, by the independent federal agency tasked with advising executive branch employees on how to avoid conflicts of interests.

An internal notice to CFPB employees the following month instructed anyone with such a holding to “immediately recuse yourself from working on any Bureau particular matter,” report the ownership and divest within 90 days, records reviewed by ProPublica show.

Since the beginning of President Donald Trump’s second presidency, the administration has sought to significantly reduce the size, scope and nature of America’s consumer watchdog, which was created in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.

ProPublica reported last month that dozens of investigations the agency had launched were stalled amid stop-work orders.

In a recent court filing that supplements a newly released policy memo, Paoletta wrote that, in recent years, “the Bureau has also engaged in intrusive and wasteful fishing expeditions against depository institutions and, increasingly, non-depository institutions” and that it had “pushed into new areas beyond its jurisdiction such as peer-to-peer lending, rent-to-own, and discrimination as unfair practice.”

by Corey G. Johnson

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

A group representing firearms owners has asked three federal agencies to investigate how the gun industry’s main lobbying group secretly used the intimate details of weapons buyers for political purposes.

In making the request, Gun Owners for Safety cited a ProPublica investigation that detailed how the National Shooting Sports Foundation turned over sensitive personal information on gun buyers to political operatives while presenting itself as a fierce advocate for the privacy of firearms owners. The letter — sent last week to the FBI, the Federal Trade Commission and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — called the NSSF’s secret program that spanned nearly two decades "underhanded.”

“Gun owners’ privacy is not a partisan or ideological issue,” wrote Malcolm Smith, a Gun Owners for Safety member. “No matter the industry, exploiting customers’ private data like their underwear size and children’s ages in a secret scheme is reprehensible and cannot be permitted.”

Gun Owners for Safety has been operated since 2019 by the gun violence prevention organization Giffords, which was co-founded by Gabby Giffords, the Arizona lawmaker who survived an attempted assassination in 2011. It has chapters in nine states and consists of gun owners and Second Amendment supporters who believe in what they call “common sense” measures to reduce gun-related deaths like safety locks and improved background checks on firearm purchases.

The ATF acknowledged receiving the letter but had no other comment. The FBI, FTC and NSSF didn’t respond to ProPublica’s questions and requests for comment.

The NSSF previously defended its data collection, saying its “activities are, and always have been, entirely legal and within the terms and conditions of any individual manufacturer, company, data broker, or other entity.” The organization represents thousands of firearms and ammunition manufacturers, distributors and retailers, along with publishers and shooting ranges. While not as well known as the chief lobbyist for gun owners, the National Rifle Association, the NSSF is respected and influential in business, political and gun-rights communities.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., told ProPublica he agreed with Smith’s call for an investigation. Last November, Blumenthal, then chair of a Senate subcommittee on privacy, asked the NSSF for details on the companies that contributed information to the trade group’s database, the type of customer details that were shared and whether the data is still being used. The trade group did not answer the senator’s questions.

“The NSSF’s disturbing, covert data collection raises serious safety and privacy concerns,” Blumenthal said. “And the American people deserve answers.”

It’s unclear how successful any request for an investigation will be under the Trump administration, especially given the NSSF’s past political support for the president.

ProPublica’s investigation identified at least 10 gun industry businesses, including Glock, Smith & Wesson and Remington, that handed over hundreds of thousands of names, addresses and other private data — without customer knowledge or consent — to the NSSF, which then entered the details into what would become a massive database. The database was used to rally gun owners’ electoral support for the industry’s preferred candidates running for the White House and Congress.

Privacy experts told ProPublica that companies that shared information with the NSSF may have violated federal and state prohibitions against deceptive and unfair business practices. Under federal law, companies must comply with their own privacy policies and be clear about how they will use consumers’ information, privacy experts said.

A ProPublica review of dozens of warranty cards from those gun-makers found that none of them informed buyers that their details would be used for political purposes. (Most of the companies named in the NSSF documents declined to comment or did not respond to ProPublica. One denied sharing customer data, and the new parent company of another said it had no evidence of data sharing with the NSSF under prior ownership.)

In 2016, as part of a push to get Donald Trump elected president for the first time and to help Republicans keep the Senate, the NSSF worked with the consultancy Cambridge Analytica to turbocharge the information it had on potential voters. Cambridge matched up the people in the database with 5,000 additional facts about them that it drew from other sources. The details were far-ranging. Along with the potential voters’ income, debts and religious affiliation, analysts learned whether they liked the work of the painter Thomas Kinkade and whether the underwear women had purchased was plus size or petite.

ProPublica obtained a portion of the NSSF database that contains the names, addresses and other information of thousands of people. ProPublica reached out to 6,000 people on the list. Almost all of those who responded, including gun owners, expressed outrage, surprise or disappointment over learning they were in the database.

In his letter seeking an investigation, Smith noted that the FBI’s new director, Kash Patel, has spoken out in favor of protecting gun owners’ privacy rights.

“Surely, then,” Smith wrote, “the FBI understands the importance of ensuring no organization or government agency maintains a secret database of firearm customers and gun owners. As many high-profile hacks and data leaks have shown, private data can easily be mishandled and exploited for nefarious purposes.

Smith, a 69-year-old retired executive of J.P. Morgan bank and registered Republican, told ProPublica his love of guns started as a teen when his father bought him a Remington rifle for bird hunting. The passion intensified over the years, and Smith started collecting guns heavily in response to political efforts to restrict gun access.

“Anytime I heard Nancy Pelosi not like something, I felt like I had to have it,” Smith said.

But he joined Giffords in 2020 after growing uncomfortable with extremism in gun rights circles. More recently, he said, the Department of Government Efficiency’s attempt to grab large amounts of confidential citizen data from the Social Security Administration and IRS inspired his request for government action. (DOGE officials did not respond to a request for comment.)

“The initial disclosures about the National Shooting Sports Foundation was an alarm bell. But now this is a four-alarm fire,” Smith said. “We’re supposed to have some sort of privacy in our lives, and apparently the NSSF decided I didn’t have to have it. And DOGE really thinks I’m not entitled to it.”

by Andy Kroll and Jeremy Kohler

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

When President Donald Trump chose Ed Martin, the Missouri lawyer and political operative, to be the top U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., the decision came as a shock to current and former federal prosecutors as well as outside legal experts. Martin had no prosecutorial experience. He was best known as a conservative activist, the former right-hand man to influential anti-feminist icon Phyllis Schlafly and a loyal Trump surrogate.

Since taking charge of the office in January, Martin has launched controversial investigations, rushed to defend Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency and vowed to change how his office prosecutes crime in the District of Columbia.

His actions have been met with fierce pushback from Democratic lawmakers, watchdog groups and legal experts. There have been at least four disciplinary complaints filed against him with the D.C. and Missouri bars. One of the D.C. complaints has been dismissed; the other three appear to be pending. If Martin has responded to the complaints, his statements have not been made public.

Martin did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Here are some of Martin’s most contentious moves so far.

Jan. 6 Retribution

At Trump’s direction, Martin has presided over the dismissal of outstanding cases that were part of the Justice Department’s investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, riots at the Capitol.

But Martin got tripped up by what should have been a legal formality: In one of the cases he dismissed, he was still listed as counsel of record for the defendant, a possible conflict of interest. The incident prompted bar complaints against Martin in D.C. and Missouri. (The D.C. bar’s disciplinary panel dismissed the complaint, saying Martin had been acting at the behest of the president. The Missouri complaint appears to be pending.)

Martin fired more than a dozen federal prosecutors who worked on Jan. 6 cases. He demoted seven senior lawyers in his office, including the two prosecutors who led the Jan. 6 team, to low-level roles in D.C. Superior Court, which handles local prosecutions. (Most of the affected attorneys have not commented publicly, but those who have are critical of Martin’s tenure.)

Martin has opened an investigation into supposed leaks related to Jan. 6 cases, saying the information was used “by the media and partisans as misinformation.” He also ordered an investigation into past charging decisions made as part of the Jan. 6 cases. In 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the DOJ’s use of an obstruction statute in those prosecutions. In an office-wide email obtained by ProPublica, Martin quoted an unnamed contact who compared the DOJ’s use of the obstruction statute to President Franklin Roosevelt’s decision to imprison more than 100,000 Japanese Americans in internment camps during World War II.

DOGE Enforcer

Martin has published several open letters to Musk on the Musk-owned social media platform X.

In the first letter, dated Feb. 3, Martin asked Musk to “utilize me and my staff” to protect the people and the work of DOGE. He vowed to take “any and all legal action against anyone” who impeded DOGE’s work.

“We will not act like the previous administration,” Martin added, “who looked the other way as the Antifa and BLM rioters as well as thugs with guns trashed our capital city.”

In his second letter, dated Feb. 7, Martin expanded on his pledge to his office’s legal powers in support of Musk and DOGE’s work. “Please let me reiterate again: If people are discovered to have broken the law or even acted simply unethically, we will investigate them and we will chase them to the end of the Earth to hold them accountable,” Martin wrote.

He urged his employees to respond to Musk’s demand that all federal employees list five things they accomplished that week, adding: “DOGE and Elon are doing great work! Historic.”

And when DOGE employees attempted to seize control of the U.S. Institute of Peace, a private nonprofit that receives government funding, Martin and his office assisted so that DOGE could take over and wind down the nonprofit.

“We Will Defend You”

The U.S. attorney’s office for D.C. is unique in that it prosecutes both federal and local crimes. In his tweets and public statements, Martin has vowed to “Make D.C. Safe Again,” even though violent crime has broadly declined in the District in recent years.

While his public safety agenda is light on details so far, he has pledged to be a stalwart defender of the D.C. police. In yet another open letter posted on X, Martin wrote that the “radical ‘Defund the Police’ movement by Black Lives Matter is over” and that it was “time to get back to protecting and supporting our law enforcement officers.”

“At every turn, we will defend you,” he said.

Yet current and former federal prosecutors in D.C. say Martin’s actions so far have undercut morale in the office while his proposed reforms could make it harder, not easier, for prosecutors to do their jobs.

In February, Martin removed the chief and deputy chief of the Federal Major Crimes section, which oversees cases involving drugs, firearms possession, child exploitation, human trafficking and immigration violations. The two lawyers, who had decades of experience between them and were widely respected, were demoted to low-level roles; the more senior of the two, Melissa Jackson, resigned soon afterward. (Jackson declined to comment; her deputy did not respond to requests for comment.)

Martin also said he was “rewriting” the office’s policy for the so-called Lewis list, a repository of police officer disciplinary records. Prosecutors consult the Lewis database when they decide whether to put a police officer on the witness stand. They also use the Lewis list to identify officers about whom they need to disclose information to defense attorneys that bears on a witness’s credibility or potential bias to fulfill their constitutional obligations.

Martin framed his decision to reform the Lewis list as part of a broader shift to be more pro-police. “USAO will no longer allow judges or others to gratuitously damage your careers because of the outsized impact of inexact characterizations,” he wrote.

Michael Romano, a former federal prosecutor in the D.C. office, said that any effort to weaken or eliminate the Lewis list will only make it harder for prosecutors to argue and win cases because it would deprive them of information that they must disclose in court. “Gutting the Lewis list,” Romano told ProPublica, “makes it less likely that prosecutors will obtain convictions at trial, makes it more likely that convictions will be reversed on appeal and puts prosecutors’ licenses to practice law at risk.”

Investigating Democrats

Martin has initiated multiple inquiries into critics and opponents of Trump.

Martin asked Rep. Eugene Vindman, D-Va., for information about a business that Vindman and his brother, Alexander, started to support Ukraine in its war against Russia, The Washington Post reported. Vindman and his twin brother, Alex, both blew the whistle on Trump’s attempt to withhold military aid to Ukraine while pressuring the country’s leader to investigate the family of President Joe Biden. Eugene Vindman said that Martin’s letter was part of Trump’s “retribution campaign” and that those who wrote the letter and “encouraged this weird attempt at intimidation are lying.”

Biden’s family members and former officials from his administration received letters from Martin’s office related to the ex-president’s decision to grant pardons to people close to him, The New York Times reported. Trump has pushed an unproven theory that Biden’s actions weren’t valid because he wasn’t mentally competent.

He also sent letters to Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York and Rep. Robert Garcia of California, both Democrats, asking them to answer questions about incendiary public comments they had made. The inquiries appeared to have fizzled out and did not result in any charges.

Targeting Medical Journals

On Apr. 14, Martin sent a list of questions to the editor of Chest magazine, a medical journal published by the American College of Chest Physicians. The letter accused the journal and others like it of “being partisans in various scientific debates” and asked a series of contentious questions, such as “How do you clearly articulate when you have certain viewpoints that are influenced by your ongoing relations with supporters, funders, advertisers, and others?” and “How do you handle allegations that authors of works in your journals may have misled readers?”

Two other medical journal publishers received similar letters, The New York Times reported. The letters have raised grave concerns about curbing free speech and government intimidation of scientific publications.

by William Turton, Avi Asher-Schapiro, Christopher Bing and Andy Kroll

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

A Treasury Department inspector general is probing efforts by President Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency to obtain private taxpayer data and other sensitive information, internal communications reviewed by ProPublica show.

The office of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration has sought a wide swath of information from IRS employees. In particular, the office is seeking any requests for taxpayer data from the president, the Executive Office of the President, DOGE or the president’s Office of Management and Budget.

The request, spelled out in a mid-April email obtained by ProPublica, comes as watchdogs and leading Democrats question whether DOGE has overstepped its bounds in seeking information about taxpayers, public employees or federal agencies that is typically highly restricted.

The review appears to be in its early stages — one document describes staffers as “beginning preplanning” — but the email directs the IRS to turn over specific documents by Thursday, April 24. It’s not clear if that happened.

The inspector general is seeking, for instance, “All requests for taxpayer or other protected information from the President or Executive Office of the President, OMB, or DOGE. Include any information on how the requestor plans to use the information requested, the IRS’s response to the request, and the legal basis for the IRS’s response,” the email says.

The inquiry also asks for information about requests for access to IRS systems from any agency in the executive branch, including the Department of Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration and DOGE.

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration office, known as TIGTA, is led by acting Inspector General Heather M. Hill. When Trump fired 17 inspectors general across a range of federal agencies in January, those working for the Treasury Department were not among the ones axed.

The White House, DOGE, OMB and Musk did not respond to requests for comment Friday.

Previously, the administration has said, “Those leading this mission with Elon Musk are doing so in full compliance with federal law, appropriate security clearances, and as employees of the relevant agencies, not as outside advisors or entities.”

A TIGTA spokesperson, Becky D’Ambrosio, said the agency “does not disclose specific details of ongoing work or timelines.” She said the office has received multiple requests from Congress. “When possible, we are incorporating these requests into our ongoing work providing independent oversight of IRS activities.”

The April 15 request follows concerns expressed by some within the IRS that DOGE employees under Musk’s direction have improperly accessed taxpayer information or shared it with other government agencies, said multiple people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation.

Earlier this month, a group of Democratic senators urged the Treasury inspector general to investigate whether the Trump administration was “violating strict taxpayer privacy laws” by giving DOGE personnel wide access inside the agency.

“Taxpayer data held by the IRS is, by design, subject to some of the strongest privacy protections under federal law, the violation of which can trigger civil and criminal sanctions,” the lawmakers wrote in their request.

In March, three senators said they were troubled by reports the IRS had entered into a sharing agreement to help the Department of Homeland Security “locate suspected undocumented immigrants.” Trump has promised deportations on a massive scale.

A spokesperson for Sen. Ron Wyden, one of the signees of both requests, declined to comment. DHS referred a request for comment from ProPublica to the Treasury Department, which did not respond.

The inspector general examination comes amid major upheaval at the Treasury Department and the IRS, as the administration moves to fire thousands of agency workers and DOGE digs deeper into IRS databases. Melanie Krause resigned as the acting commissioner of the IRS after the agency reached an agreement to share taxpayer data with the DHS.

A former senior official at TIGTA told ProPublica the review could lead to a criminal investigation if reviewers find evidence of lawbreaking. The same official said it’s possible those leading the review could face political repercussions, as have scores of prosecutors, FBI agents, law firms and others who have questioned Trump’s actions.

Emails from the inspector general to IRS employees earlier this month asked them to provide copies of any written agreements to share taxpayer data with entities including the Department of Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration, DOGE, the Office of Personnel Management or other agencies.

It also seeks a full list of non-IRS employees who are part of DOGE or its affiliates. This year, ProPublica has been profiling the figures working for DOGE.

Danielle Citron, a leading privacy legal scholar at the University of Virginia, said the email suggests that the inspector general may be probing for violations of the Privacy Act, which requires agencies to safeguard citizens’ information and only share it across the government in specific cases. The kind of blanket data-sharing agreement the Trump administration is seeking with the IRS, she said, is “exactly what the Privacy Act is designed to avoid.”

CNN and Wired have reported that DOGE is attempting to build a master database that combines information from the IRS, DHS, Social Security Administration and other agencies. The database would be used for immigration enforcement, the outlets reported.

This is not the first time Trump administration decisions at the IRS have prompted an inspector general inquiry.

As ProPublica reported, a senior IRS lawyer warned the agency’s leaders in late February that its plan to terminate nearly 7,000 probationary employees based on poor performance was untrue and a “fraud.” The IRS proceeded with the firings, which have since been challenged in federal court.

After the firings, the IRS inspector general began scrutinizing the mass terminations, said a person familiar with the effort who wasn’t authorized to speak with reporters. The status of the probe is not known.

by Richard A. Webster, Verite News

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

A Louisiana judge this week set aside the first-degree murder conviction and death sentence of Jimmie Chris Duncan, whose 1998 conviction for killing his girlfriend’s 23-month-old daughter was based in part on bite mark evidence that experts now say is junk science.

The decision comes after a Verite News and ProPublica investigation in March examined the questions surrounding Duncan’s conviction as Gov. Jeff Landry, a staunch death penalty advocate, made moves to expedite executions after a 15-year pause.

Judge Alvin Sharp, of the 4th Judicial District in Ouachita Parish, pointed to new testimony during a September appeals hearing that such bite mark analysis presented by a once-heralded forensics team is “no longer valid” and “not scientifically defensible.”

The original analysis came from forensic dentist Michael West and pathologist Dr. Steven Hayne, whose longtime partnership as state experts fell under legal scrutiny after questions emerged about the validity of their techniques.

Over the past 27 years, nine prisoners have been set free after being convicted in part on inaccurate evidence given by West and Hayne. Three of those men were on death row.

Duncan was the last person awaiting an execution based on the pair’s work, which Sharp said in his ruling appeared “questionable at best.”

Other expert witnesses said that Hayne’s autopsy and his findings were “sloppy in practice” and “inadequate overall.”

“It is worth noting that the qualifications of Dr. Hayne were lacking in certain ways to an extent that called into serious question” the pathologist’s “expert designation,” Sharp wrote in his ruling.

Sharp also stated in his ruling that he found “very compelling” the September testimony of an expert medical witness who said that the child’s death was not the result of a homicide but of an accidental drowning.

It remains unclear when — or if — Duncan will walk free.

Robert S. Tew, district attorney for the 4th Judicial District, can choose to appeal the decision, retry Duncan on the murder charge or a lesser offense or accept the court’s ruling and set him free. Tew did not respond to requests for comment. Duncan’s legal team declined to comment.

Louisiana has a long record of convicting and sentencing to death people later found to be innocent. In the past three decades, the state has exonerated 11 people facing execution, among the highest such numbers in the country, according to The National Registry of Exonerations.

Duncan, 56, has maintained his innocence for more than three decades, while prosecutors continued to insist that Duncan committed the murder and should be executed without delay.

Duncan was babysitting Haley Oliveaux, his girlfriend’s daughter, at the house they shared in West Monroe, Louisiana, on Dec. 18, 1993. He said he had left her alone in the bathtub while he washed dishes. At some point, he said he heard a loud noise from the bathroom. When he went to check on Haley, he found her floating face down in the water. She was pronounced dead a few hours later.

While Duncan claimed it was a tragic accident, authorities charged him with first-degree murder after Hayne and West examined the girl’s body and determined there was evidence she was sexually assaulted and intentionally drowned. After about two weeks of testimony in 1998, the jury found Duncan guilty and sentenced him to death.

Years later, Duncan’s post-conviction attorneys uncovered evidence that was not presented at trial that, they said, proves his innocence. This includes a jailhouse informant who wrote to prosecutors offering to share Duncan’s confession to the crime in what the defense claims was an exchange for leniency (the informant later recanted his trial testimony); past head injuries Haley suffered that might explain her death; and a video in which West can be seen grinding a cast of Duncan’s teeth into Haley’s body. West later claimed those bite marks, which the defense says the forensic dentist manufactured, were a match for Duncan’s teeth.

Dr. Lowell Levine, a defense expert, testified in a September hearing as part of Duncan’s post-conviction appeal over the death of his girlfriend’s daughter. He is quoted in a brief summarizing Duncan’s case following his appeal hearing. (Obtained by Verite News and ProPublica. Highlighted by ProPublica.)

Hayne died in 2020. West did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the ruling.

West has previously said he was simply using what he called a “direct comparison” technique, in which he presses a mold of a person’s teeth directly onto the location of suspected bite marks because it provides the most accurate results, according to a 2020 interview with Oxygen.com.

West said he no longer believed in bite mark analysis in a 2011 deposition in a different post-conviction appeal, saying, “I don’t believe it’s a system that’s reliable enough to be used in court” and admitted to making mistakes in previous cases. But he told The New Republic in a 2023 interview that his methods are valid because other people have used them.

In this week’s ruling, Sharp also noted the September testimony of Detective Chris Sasser, who investigated Haley’s death. Sasser said there was “no blood, no signs of struggle, no cleaning rags and no cleaning agents” in the bathroom or house where the alleged crime occurred. This undermined the state’s assertion that there was “massive blood loss,” the ruling said.

In addition, Sharp found that Duncan’s trial attorney, Louis Scott, provided ineffective counsel. Sharp pointed to a witness who testified that Scott failed to “investigate or present evidence that was available at the time of the trial,” that he did not “develop a coherent theory of defense,” and that he failed to disclose a conflict of interest.

Scott’s wife told Verite News and ProPublica that he has suffered significant health problems including memory and speech impairment and declined to comment on the judge’s ruling.

Duncan is among 55 people on death row in Louisiana, though until very recently he and the others were not in imminent danger of being executed as the state hadn’t put anyone to death since 2010 due to the unavailability of execution drugs. That changed with Landry’s 2023 election.

Landry has made clear his intention to carry out these death sentences as soon as possible, having recently approved the use of nitrogen gas, a controversial method allowed in only three other states.

This cleared the way for the state’s first execution in more than 15 years, as Jessie Hoffman was put to death on March 18 using nitrogen gas.