a Better Bubble™

ProPublica

Alaska Says It’s Now Legal “in Some Instances” to Discriminate Against LGBTQ Individuals

2 years 1 month ago

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

In June 2020, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workplace discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity was illegal, Alaska quickly moved to follow suit.

It published new guidelines in 2021 saying Alaska’s LGBTQ protections now extended beyond the workplace to housing, government practices, finance and “public accommodation.” It updated the website of the Alaska State Commission for Human Rights to explicitly say it was illegal to discriminate against someone because of that person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

The executive director for the state commission co-wrote an essay describing the ruling as a “sea change under Alaska law for LGBTQ+ individuals’ rights to be free from discrimination.”

But a year later, the commission quietly reversed that position. It deleted language from the state website promising equal protections for transgender and gay Alaskans against most categories of discrimination, and it began refusing to investigate complaints. Only employment-related complaints would now be accepted, and investigators dropped any non-employment LGBTQ civil rights cases they had been working on.

The Alaska State Commission for Human Rights website previously stated, “In Alaska it is illegal to discriminate … because of … sexual orientation / gender identity or ‘expression.’” As of Aug. 18, 2022, the site removed the language saying it was illegal to discriminate against LGBTQ people. A reference that was added lower on the page now says it is illegal to discriminate for those reasons “in some instances”. (Highlights added by ProPublica for emphasis)

An investigation by the Anchorage Daily News and ProPublica found the decision had been requested by a conservative Christian group and was made the week of the Republican primary for governor, in which Gov. Mike Dunleavy was criticized for not being conservative enough. The commission made the change on the advice of Attorney General Treg Taylor and announced it publicly via its Twitter feed — which currently has 31 followers — on Election Day.

The LGBTQ advocacy nonprofit Identity Alaska called the reversal “state-sponsored discrimination.”

The group noted that discrimination against LGBTQ people can occur in a variety of domains, including housing, financing and other decisions by the state. “The real-world consequences of these policies are harms to LGBTQIA+ Alaskans,” Identity Alaska’s board said in a written statement to the Daily News and ProPublica.

“Without regard to sexual orientation or gender identity, all Alaskans should be protected against discrimination at the Alaska State Commission for Human Rights,” the statement said.

Robert Corbisier, who has been executive director of the Alaska State Commission for Human Rights since 2019, said the attorney general directed him to make the change in an email, though Corbisier said he would not provide the news organizations with a copy of it. He said that Taylor said the Supreme Court case, known as Bostock v. Clayton County, was limited to employment discrimination and therefore the agency should limit its own enforcement to employment matters, unless the state Legislature expanded its authority.

Taylor is Dunleavy’s third attorney general appointee. The governor’s first choice, Kevin Clarkson, resigned in August 2020 when the Daily News and ProPublica reported he sent hundreds of unwanted texts to a colleague. Dunleavy’s next nominee to lead the Alaska Department of Law, Ed Sniffen, resigned as the newsrooms were preparing an article about a woman who had accused him of sexual misconduct that occurred in 1991. (Based on those accusations, the state charged Sniffen with three felony counts of sexual abuse of a minor. He has pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial.)

Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor, foreground, appears before the House Judiciary Committee for a confirmation hearing in 2021 in Juneau. (Becky Bohrer/AP Photo)

Taylor refused to be interviewed. In response to questions about the timing and purpose of his communications with the commission, his office provided a written statement.

“The Department of Law’s role is to provide legal advice to state government based on the law. The department does not make policy. Policy decisions are left up to the department’s clients, which include most executive branch departments, divisions, agencies, boards and commissions, including ASCHR,” Taylor said. “As necessitated by changes in the law or the need to correct prior advice, the department will update the advice it has previously provided to its clients.”

The office noted that Alaska joined other states in suing the federal government in August 2021 to block the application of the Bostock decision to LGBTQ people in schools and government jobs. A federal judge sided with the states and issued a preliminary injunction last year; the federal government is appealing.

Dunleavy declined interview requests. In a written statement, a spokesperson said, “The Governor’s office was not involved in the Department of Law’s legal advice on LGBTQ+ discrimination cases.”

Asked why the commission changed its policy based on a brief communication from the attorney general, Corbisier said, “The attorney general is counsel to the agency. And, I mean, I’m a lawyer. I’ve been in private practice. I think you should do what your lawyer tells you to do.”

The human rights commission describes itself as an impartial, nonpartisan arm of state government. Dunleavy ordered an investigation into the former executive director in 2019, for example, after she made a post to the agency’s Facebook page criticizing a “black rifles matter” sticker as racist.

The post drew an outcry from Alaska conservatives and gun owners, and the director was suspended for 15 days. She soon resigned, followed by the commission chairman, a gay Black man. Both said at the time that they hoped their departures would help the commission put the controversy to rest and allow it to resume its work.

The current commission chairperson said he once filed an equal opportunity employment complaint claiming he had been passed over for a job in the U.S. Army because he is a man. He has in the past year posted tweets questioning the validity of transgender identity.

“So this Roe v. Wade leak is said to be a preview of an attack against women. To the Left, what’s a woman,” the chair, Zackary Gottshall, tweeted on May 3, 2022. Two months later he retweeted a statement by Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, saying, “Crazy this needs to be said, but men can’t get pregnant.”

Asked by the Daily News and ProPublica about his views on transgender issues, Gottshall wrote: “As per my religious beliefs and convictions, I believe in the family unit as a whole, that being a primary social group consisting of parents and children. Everyone has the right to define themselves and/or identify themselves as they see fit. Everyone also has the right to respectfully disagree based upon the protections under the 1st Amendment.”

Gottshall’s wife, Heather Gottshall, served as campaign field director for Kelly Tshibaka, who lost to incumbent Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski last year. As a Harvard Law student, Tshibaka wrote in support of an organization that advocated for gay conversion therapy, stating that “unlike race or gender, homosexuality is a choice.” Heather Gottshall also is one of three registered directors for a nonprofit called Preserve Democracy, created by Tshibaka in December.

The commission reelected Zackary Gottshall as chairman at its annual meeting on Feb. 22.

State law does not explicitly offer civil rights protection to gay and transgender people.

But under federal law, Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 “prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.”

With the Bostock ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court found sex discrimination includes discrimination against people based on sexual orientation or gender identity. In Alaska, the state Supreme Court has found that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act provides the framework for Alaska’s civil rights laws.

It was based on that precedent that the Alaska State Commission for Human Rights began accepting all categories of anti-LGBTQ discrimination complaints in 2021.

“The guidance we received from the Department of Law was, ‘You should be taking all LGBTQ cases’” in the areas in which the commission has jurisdiction, Corbisier said in a recent interview. “So employment, public accommodation, sale and rental of real property, credit and financing, and government practices. Retaliation is also a covered jurisdiction.”

That legal advice, he said, came from Kevin Higgins, an assistant attorney general assigned to advise the commission.

Neither Higgins nor Corbisier would provide the written advice, saying it was covered by attorney-client privilege.

Even so, the advice from the state Department of Law suggested that the Bostock decision had broader implications for LGBTQ rights in Alaska.

“We started thinking we had the ability to take cases across the board,” Corbisier said.

Jim Minnery, the president of the conservative Christian group Alaska Family Council, became aware of the new policy. The family council does not hesitate to criticize Republican candidates for what it considers to be too liberal a view of LGBTQ issues.

“The AK State Commission on Human Rights is simply another bureaucracy trying to seize power to make its own laws. This can’t pass in Juneau through elected office holders so they’re trying to pull an end run,” Minnery said in a text message.

Minnery said his group informed the Dunleavy administration in the beginning of 2021 that “the ASCHR was trying to use the Bostock ruling to circumvent having to pass legislation.”

The attorney general’s office said Minnery’s group did not influence its guidance.

What is clear, however, is that around the time of last year’s primary election, the attorney general personally got involved.

Unlike in most states, the Alaska attorney general is appointed by the governor rather than elected.

Dunleavy appointed Taylor as acting attorney general after Sniffen resigned in January 2021. Taylor had twice run unsuccessfully for local political office. Since becoming attorney general, he has appeared on public records as the director for a group that paid for attack ads on Democratic candidates during the 2022 election cycle and is advertised as the host for a $15,000-a-head fundraiser the group is planning this summer.

Dunleavy entered the summer facing two well-funded Republicans who positioned themselves as more conservative than the incumbent.

On a July 8 talk radio show in Kenai, host Bob Bird called on the governor’s spokesperson to explain why Dunleavy had settled a federal lawsuit that now allowed public funds to be used for transgender surgeries and hormone treatments.

What would Dunleavy do, Bird hypothesized, if the Supreme Court “ruled that white males were not fully human,” according to an account by the conservative faith-based news website Alaska Watchman.

“At what point would say a governor, a so-called conservative governor, say we’re just not going to obey that because white males are human beings?” Bird asked, according to the website.

The Dunleavy spokesperson, Dave Stieren, said he had asked the same question in an effort to understand the state’s choices for paying for gender-affirming surgeries, the site reported. He said his understanding, at the time, was that Alaska’s federal Medicaid funding was at risk if the state refused the payments.

Bird at one point told the governor’s spokesperson: “The people will rally to somebody who shows spine.”

On July 11, the commission received a briefing on the status of LGBTQ protections in Alaska at the request of Gottshall. According to a copy of the briefing, provided by Gottshall, the commission at that time was still investigating all categories of discrimination against Alaskans based on gender identity and sexual orientation.

Within the next few weeks, the director for the state human rights commission received a new email about the Bostock ruling and LGBTQ rights law in Alaska. This time it was from the attorney general himself, Corbisier said in a phone interview.

He said the email was “not a formal AG opinion.”

“The substance of it was, you know, ‘Your jurisdiction is for LGBTQ, is just employment,’” he said.

The Department of Law has not yet responded to a records request for the email.

It’s unclear when Taylor sent the email, but Corbisier said it was just before the commission posted a note about the change to Twitter and Facebook on Aug. 16, the day of the primary election.

“Based upon updated legal advice, ASCHR will only be able to take LGBTQ+ employment discrimination cases filed under AS 18.80.220. Our position that LGBTQ+ discrimination applied to places of public accommodation, housing, credit/financing, and government practices is void,” the social media posts said.

The agency issued no press release saying it was rolling back enforcement of equality laws. There was no essay or editorials. The human rights commission’s social media posts reached only a smattering of followers on the day of the statewide primary elections.

The commission also began deleting language from its website.

The homepage, as of Aug. 15, had stated, “In Alaska it is illegal to discriminate in employment, places of public accommodation, sale of rental or real property, financing and credit, practices by the state or its political subdivisions because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation / gender identity or ‘expression,’ national origin, physical disability.”

According to the Internet Archive, the page was changed sometime between Aug. 16 and Aug. 18 to remove the words: “sexual orientation / gender identity or ‘expression’” from the list of reasons it is illegal to discriminate against someone.

A line was added lower on the page saying that it is “in some instances” illegal to discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Elsewhere on the website, the commission removed a link to a document called “ASCHR LGBTQ Discrimination Guide.”

In the meantime, the commission stopped accepting complaints of LGBTQ discrimination except for those that are workplace related.

It’s unclear how many non-workplace complaints the commission received during the year it was accepting those cases. At first, Corbisier said he couldn’t provide that number because complaints are confidential under state law.

When reminded that the commission does publish an annual report that provides the number of complaints received based on the category of discrimination, Corbisier said, “You might have just caught me because I know we started tracking LGBTQ (complaints) when that jurisdiction originally changed.”

The director later called back to say no statistics would be available on the number and nature of anti-LGBTQ complaints the commission received because that information was not tracked within its database. (Any such complaints would have been filed under the more broad category of sex discrimination, he said.)

The commission’s 2022 annual report showed 134 complaints were filed in 2022, including 25 based on sex.

Brandon Nakasato served on the human rights commission from 2016 to 2019. He resigned as chairman around the same time the former director was suspended for publicly criticizing the “black rifles matter” sticker she saw on a truck in the agency’s parking lot.

Alaska State Commission for Human Rights members Marcus Sanders, left, David Barton, middle, and Brandon Nakasato at a meeting of the panel in 2019. “I think legislators need to hear how this lack of protection is hurting people,” Nakasato said. (Mark Thiessen/AP Photo)

It hasn’t been a smooth ride since. The agency made headlines in November 2022 when its former executive director, a black woman, sued the state saying that she was subjected to a hostile work environment, underpaid compared with past directors and fired because of her gender, race and status as a military veteran. The state denied the claims in a November answer to the lawsuit; the case is awaiting trial in federal court.

Nakasato had been part of an effort in 2016 to try and convince the Alaska Legislature, unsuccessfully, to change state law to enshrine civil rights protections for gay and transgender people so that the commission wouldn’t have to rely on the whims of judges.

“I think legislators need to hear how this lack of protection is hurting people,” he said. “I was one of those little gay kids that considered killing themselves, living in a rural area, who believes that they were the weirdest person on earth. And there are teens like that in the (Alaska) Bush right now who need to hear that their leaders are caring for them too.”

Have you filed or tried to file a complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity with the Alaska State Commission for Human Rights? If so, we’d like to hear about your experience. Please email us at alaska@propublica.org.

by Kyle Hopkins, Anchorage Daily News

New Bill Could End Police Ticketing in Illinois Schools

2 years 1 month ago

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

This story is a collaboration between ProPublica and the Chicago Tribune.

A new bill in the Illinois House aims to stop schools from working with police to issue students tickets for minor misbehavior, a harmful and sometimes costly practice that many districts have continued despite pleas to stop from the state’s top education officials.

An investigation by ProPublica and the Chicago Tribune revealed last year that school-based ticketing was rampant across Illinois, with police writing citations that can result in a fine of up to $750 for conduct once handled by the principal’s office.

A 2015 Illinois law prohibits schools from fining students as a form of discipline; school officials instead have been referring students to police, who then ticket the students for fighting, littering, theft, possessing vaping devices and other violations of local ordinances.

The new legislation, introduced last month, would amend the state’s school code to make it illegal for school personnel to involve police to issue students citations for incidents that can be addressed through a school’s disciplinary process.

“We have to close that loophole and end school-based ticketing,” said Rep. La Shawn Ford, a Democrat from Chicago who is sponsoring the legislation. “There is no place for this type of system to be in our schools.”

Ford’s legislation deals only with school tickets, which are issued for civil violations of local laws and often are adjudicated in administrative hearings. The bill is not intended to stop police from arresting students for crimes. It would also not prevent schools from seeking restitution from students for lost, stolen or damaged property.

After the Tribune and ProPublica began publishing the investigative series “The Price Kids Pay” in April 2022, then-state education Superintendent Carmen Ayala urged schools to stop working with police to ticket students and “consider both the cost and the consequences of these fines.”

The investigation documented about 12,000 tickets written to students over three school years and also found that, in places where information was available on the race of ticketed students, Black students were twice as likely to be ticketed as their white peers. (Use our interactive database to look up how many and what kinds of tickets have been issued in an Illinois public school or district.)

Some school districts heeded Ayala’s plea or scaled back on ticketing, but new reporting shows that many others have continued the practice into this school year.

Over the last seven weeks, ProPublica and the Tribune sought new ticketing records for roughly 60 Illinois schools in districts that had some of the highest numbers of citations in previous years. Reporters have been able to obtain ticket records in 37 of those schools so far and found that students in 26 — or 70% — of them have been ticketed this school year, though some districts have scaled back the practice.

Ticketing has continued even in District U-46, the state’s second-largest district, where then-Superintendent Tony Sanders had been shocked to learn of the practice and told his administrators and police working in district schools to stop ticketing students. At the same time, he tweaked the student code of conduct to limit when schools should involve police in student incidents.

Sanders, who took over last week as the new state superintendent, said Wednesday he was “appalled and saddened” to learn that students are still being cited by school-based police, known as resource officers, in some of the district’s schools.

At South Elgin High School in U-46, students have not received any tickets this year, compared with 83 last school year. But police have ticketed students at the district’s Bartlett High School, most often for fighting and possession of cannabis, with fines between $50 and $250. At the two U-46 high schools in the city of Elgin, students have been ticketed, but city officials initially assigned them to counseling or another community program instead of a fine.

“I tried to do it by saying, ‘Effective immediately, we’re not doing it any longer.’ That clearly didn't work,” Sanders said in an interview. “I think legislation is needed. I think professional development for staff in schools and school resource officers is needed. You can’t just say, ‘No more ticketing,’ and have that be effective.”

The Illinois State Board of Education supports Ford’s legislation, Sanders said, and is helping shape the language of the final bill.

U-46 district spokesperson Tara Burghart said administrators have been told they cannot sign tickets as complainants. She said the schools don’t decide whether to ticket and fine students; the police and municipalities do.

Ticketing students is also still routine at McHenry Community High School in McHenry, Amos Alonzo Stagg High School in Palos Hills and Plainfield South High School on the border of Plainfield and Joliet, for example. At Stagg, police have written students more tickets so far this school year than they did in all of the 2021-22 school year. Most of the tickets were for tobacco vaping devices or for cannabis, records show.

A spokesperson for Consolidated High School District 230, which includes Stagg, said the district believes that school officials “are obligated to inform local police” when a city ordinance is violated.

“If a student is smoking or vaping while at school, they are still breaking the law and there are consequences to those actions. Smoking at school does not preclude police from enforcing the law,” spokesperson Jennifer Waterman wrote in an email. “We take all offenses seriously. We want our halls to be clean, safe and secure.”

Amos Alonzo Stagg High School (Brian Cassella/Chicago Tribune)

In East Peoria Community High School District 309, where students this year have continued to get tickets for theft, for fighting and for possession of cannabis and vape materials, Superintendent Marjorie Greuter said the school still refers students to police for tickets so the school doesn’t become a place where young people can break the law without consequences.

“This would, in effect, make the school a ‘safe’ zone for breaking an ordinance,” she said.

East Peoria police records show that officers ticket young people at the high school more than anywhere else in the city.

At schools throughout the state, students and their families have continued to pay a high price. McHenry High School students have been issued more than 50 tickets so far this school year, and the city has imposed at least $7,500 in fines and fees, records show. High school students in Oswego got more than 40 tickets totaling over $7,000. At Jacobs High School in Algonquin, police have written 28 tickets at $100 each, police records show. In all, at 11 high schools in McHenry, Palos Hills, Oswego, Algonquin and Plainfield, the fines for about 250 tickets totaled more than $36,000. (Oswego, McHenry, Algonquin and Plainfield school officials did not respond to requests for comment.)

“It is not an effective tool when you write these tickets. Children are children. They don’t pay. It drives the parents deeper in debt and causes them to be responsible. It is just a total economic injustice,” Ford said.

Ayala similarly said in her letter to school officials last April that issuing tickets does not lead to positive changes in behavior. “There is no evidence that tickets lead to fewer fights or less vaping,” she wrote.

The steep costs associated with ticketing drew the attention of Debt Free Justice Illinois, a coalition of advocacy groups working to end fines and fees for youths in the justice system. That group is behind efforts to change Illinois law in response to the Chicago Tribune-ProPublica investigation.

“There’s an increasing recognition of the financial penalties that go along with this and the impact of those financial penalties,” said Lisa Jacobs, an associate director with the legislation and policy clinic at Loyola University Chicago School of Law. Jacobs has been working with the coalition.

Some communities have scaled back how often students were ticketed and for what reasons. Last school year, for example, police in Woodstock, northwest of Chicago, wrote 87 tickets to students in Woodstock Community Unit School District 200, mostly for tobacco and cannabis possession. This school year, they have issued 10 tickets, all but one for fights, police records show.

In some places, such as Bloom Township High School District 206 in the suburbs south of Chicago and Naperville Community Unit School District 203 in the western suburbs, records from the districts and police show no citations issued to students this school year. Last school year, police issued nearly 60 tickets to Bloom Trail students and about 30 tickets to Naperville high school students, records show.

Bloom officials said last spring that they would end the practice of ticketing, while Naperville police said they have shifted to less punitive forms of discipline.

“While our emphasis was never solely on citations, our policy now focuses even more closely on restorative justice measures, which is likely responsible for the decrease in tickets,” Naperville Police Chief Jason Arres wrote in a statement. He said police department rules call for “fair and consistent” handling of incidents involving young people, “and we will remain committed to that moving forward.”

Naperville, however, has continued to prosecute a former Naperville North student who received a citation for theft in 2019 after she said she mistakenly took another student’s AirPods. Now a college student, Amara Harris has maintained her innocence and has refused to pay a fine. Her case is expected to go to trial this year.

Illinois Senate Majority Leader Kimberly Lightford, a Democrat from suburban Maywood, said she supports Ford’s legislation. Lightford was the chief sponsor of the 2015 law, known as Senate Bill 100, that broadly overhauled school discipline in the state, including a ban on fining students as punishment.

Lightford lamented that some school districts have found ways to get around the 2015 law, which did not penalize school districts for noncompliance.

“School districts have to be accountable for laws that we pass that they do not implement,” Lightford said.

Ford’s new bill, however, includes no oversight or enforcement measures for any districts that continue having students ticketed at school.

Students from Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism contributed to this reporting by filing public records requests.

by Jodi S. Cohen, ProPublica, and Jennifer Smith Richards, Chicago Tribune

How to File Taxes for Free Without TurboTax

2 years 1 month ago

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

Intuit, the Silicon Valley software giant behind TurboTax, doesn’t provide the only way to file your taxes electronically, but it has captured the market share like no other.

For over two decades, Intuit waged a campaign to prevent the federal government from making filing taxes simple and free for most taxpayers. The company spent millions of dollars on lobbying to restrict the IRS from creating its own free filing system, all while growing its multibillion-dollar franchise.

If you made $73,000 or less in 2022, you can file your federal taxes for free through the IRS Free File program. You must start at the IRS Free File page to get the correct tax products.

Why Do I Have to Pay TurboTax?

Intuit once participated in the IRS Free File program, a public-private partnership between the IRS and tax software companies to provide free tax filing services to millions of lower-income Americans. But it left the program in 2021 after ProPublica detailed the many ways TurboTax tricked Americans into paying to file their return.

Never miss the most important reporting from ProPublica’s newsroom. Subscribe to the Big Story newsletter.

TurboTax made its free version difficult to find, deliberately hiding its Free File landing page from search engines. (The code that enabled this has since been removed.) Through “dark pattern” web design tricks, it directed customers away from TurboTax’s Free File software in favor of a paid option. Meanwhile, it marketed some tax software options as “free” but would later charge taxpayers fees to finish the process.

After ProPublica reported on TurboTax’s deceptive campaign to stop Americans from filing for free, the FTC began investigating Intuit and last year sued to stop TurboTax’s “free” ad campaign. In May 2022, the company reached a $141 million settlement with state attorneys general to pay lower-income Americans who were “unfairly charged” for filing their taxes. Intuit did not admit any wrongdoing in the settlement.

Today, TurboTax continues to advertise a “free” version but notes it’s only for simple tax returns — defined by Intuit as IRS Form 1040 only “with no added complexity.” The FTC said only one-third of all tax filers in 2020 qualified for TurboTax’s “simple return.”

How to Do Taxes for Free Without TurboTax

If you made less than $73,000 in 2022, you can file for free with the IRS Free File program. You must start at the IRS Free File site to access the truly free version of the tax software.

According to a recent report by the Government Accountability Office, about 70% of taxpayers were eligible to file for these free guided tax preparation programs during the 2020 tax year, but less than 3% of eligible taxpayers used the program.

There are two ways you can file your taxes through the program: You can use guided tax preparation (provided by partner companies) or use IRS fillable forms.

Guided Tax Preparation

If you’ve used TurboTax before, you’re familiar with the guided tax preparation process. The IRS offers 11 free guided tax preparation options delivered by participating tax preparation companies. The software will ask you simple questions and compute all the math for you.

Each free option has different requirements to use them for free. Some tax preparers will charge for state tax filings, for example, while others only offer free services for those making under $60,000. The IRS created a tool to browse free file options based on your adjusted gross income, filing status, age, state of residence, eligibility for the earned income tax credit and military status.

Free Fillable Forms

You can also choose to do the work yourself directly on the IRS website by filling out Free File Fillable Forms, which are essentially electronic versions of IRS paper forms. Anyone, regardless of income, can file their taxes for free with these forms. With this method, you don’t get step-by-step guidance, and you’ll have to work on your state tax return separately.

Step by Step: How to File Your Taxes Through the IRS Free File Program

1. Gather your tax documents. Before you begin guided tax preparation, find all documents related to your income so you can easily fill out your tax return. These forms and information could include:

  • All income statements like W2s or 1099s.
  • Any information about adjustments to your income you’ll need to make.
  • Dependent and spouse information, such as Social Security numbers.
  • Your adjusted gross income from 2021 and self-selected personal identification number from the 2021 tax year.

A full list of necessary paperwork can be found here, but this information will get you started on selecting a free file option.

2. Browse free file options. Use the IRS Free File Online Lookup Tool to direct you to the offers you qualify for based on your adjusted gross income, filing status, age, state of residence, eligibility for the earned income tax credit and military status.

Or you can browse the 11 free file programs offered by On-LineTaxes, 1040Now, ezTaxReturn.com, FileYourTaxes.com, TaxAct, FreeTaxUSA and TaxSlayer.

3. Choose the program that meets your needs. Now, select the program that you want. It will take you to the chosen IRS partner’s landing page, where you will need to create a new account or sign into an existing account. From there, the program will guide you through e-filing your tax return.

Important: To receive the free file option, you must begin your guided tax preparation at IRS.gov. If you go directly to a company’s website, you may not receive the benefits offered through the IRS Free File program.

About this guide: ProPublica has reported on the IRS, the Free File program and other tax topics for years. ProPublica’s tax guide is not personalized tax advice. Speak to a tax professional about your specific tax situation.

Kristen Doerer is a reporter in Washington, D.C. Her writing has appeared in PBS NewsHour, The Guardian and The Chronicle of Higher Education, among other places. Follow her on Twitter at @k2doe.

by Kristen Doerer for ProPublica

Colorado Lawmakers Consider Reforms to the Way Family Courts Handle Abuse Allegations

2 years 1 month ago

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

Colorado lawmakers are considering two bills that would reform the way family courts in the state handle cases involving allegations of domestic abuse, saying ProPublica’s reporting on the issue has catalyzed efforts to change the state’s custody evaluation system.

Rep. Mike Weissman, an Aurora Democrat and the chair of the state House Judiciary Committee, praised ProPublica’s investigation, which found that four custody evaluators on the state-approved roster last year had been charged with harassment or domestic violence. In one case, the charges were dismissed. One case — that of psychologist Mark Kilmer — led to a conviction. In the two others, it is unclear how the charges were resolved.

Rep. Meg Froelich, a Democrat representing Englewood and a co-sponsor of one of the bills, said she gave a copy of the article to every judiciary committee member before the legislative session got underway.

“We don’t usually see in-depth coverage on this kind of thing,” Weissman said.

Meanwhile, Kilmer, who was suspended from working as a custody evaluator following publication of ProPublica’s story, is being sued by six plaintiffs over his involvement in their cases.

ProPublica’s story revealed that Kilmer was appointed to evaluate custody disputes involving allegations of domestic abuse despite Kilmer himself being charged with assault in 2006, after his then-wife said he pushed her to the bathroom floor, according to police reports. He pleaded guilty to harassment in 2007. Kilmer told ProPublica that his guilty plea was a result of poor legal representation and that his ex-wife made false allegations to get him arrested.

Kilmer was quoted in the story saying he did not believe about 90% of the claims of abuse he encountered in his work — an estimate he said was based on experience, not scientific research.

The bill co-sponsored by Froelich would require experts who advise the court on custody proceedings to have expertise in domestic violence and child abuse and would restrict judges from ordering forced “reunification” treatments that cut a child off from their protective parent, meaning the parent who expressed concerns about abuse or neglect. Court-ordered reunification “camps” often prohibit contact between minors and the protective parent as part of “therapeutic” treatment.

Among those testifying on behalf of the legislation was Elina Asensio, a teenager who was featured in the ProPublica article. Elina’s father was charged with felony child abuse and pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault after dragging her up a flight of stairs. Kilmer was appointed to evaluate the case and recommended that she remain under the authority of her father. The parties ultimately resolved the custody dispute through arbitration and Elina remains partially under her father’s authority.

“The system failed me. My voice did not matter,” Elina, 17, told the committee. “My childhood has been taken for me. To this day, I still don't know what peace feels like.”

Through his lawyer, Elina’s father, Cedric Asensio, told ProPublica that while the initial charge of felony child abuse against him was “very serious,” the case’s ultimate resolution — a misdemeanor assault plea — indicated “there is much more to the story.”

The second bill, which passed the House Judiciary Committee and is pending budget approval before the Colorado General Assembly this week, would create a task force to study training requirements for judicial personnel on the topics of domestic violence and sexual assault, among other crimes.

The plaintiffs suing Kilmer, who include Elina’s mother, Karin Asensio, allege fraud and breach of contract related to his work on their cases. They accuse Kilmer, who is licensed as a psychologist in Colorado, of violating the American Psychological Association’s code of conduct by advising the court on matters related to domestic violence and child abuse despite his history of domestic violence.

The plaintiffs claim they would not have hired Kilmer had they known his personal history and views about abuse allegations, which they learned of from ProPublica’s reporting, according to the complaint.

In Colorado, the fees for parental responsibility evaluations — expert psychological assessments intended to inform judges’ custody decisions — are paid by the parties to a case. Fees are not capped and typically range between $12,000 and $30,000 for a custody evaluation, with some Colorado parents reporting that they paid over $50,000.

Kilmer didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Following his suspension last fall, Kilmer wrote to the court and criticized ProPublica’s investigation as the work of a “nonsense journalist” and apologized to his colleagues “for any inconveniences my well-intentioned interview may have caused for party/client relations past, present and future.”

“I have little experience with the print media, personally or professionally,” Kilmer told the court in an email obtained through a public records request. He said he had been willing to publicly discuss his work as a custody evaluator because “I assumed that it might help the practice here in Colorado, as it is an esoteric world that most people have little or no idea of how it works. Inadvertently, I entered into a political maelstrom that I did not understand existed.”

Since his suspension, Kilmer has continued to testify on cases to which he was previously appointed by Colorado courts. In one February hearing, Kilmer told a judge that the suspension was informal and he was continuing his state appointment.

Jaime Watman, who oversees custody evaluators for the Colorado State Court Administrator’s Office, told ProPublica that Kilmer has been removed from the rosters of custody evaluators, but the decision about whether he completes the appointments he was previously given “is at the discretion of the appointing court.”

Lauren May Woodruff, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, also testified about her experience with Kilmer at the House Judiciary Committee hearing on the bill to require courts to consider past evidence of abuse before allocating custody.

Kilmer completed his evaluation of Woodruff’s case in January, months after his suspension, according to court records. In his report, Kilmer advised the court that Woodruff should share custody and decision-making power with her daughter’s father, despite multiple mandatory reports to Colorado’s Department of Human Services — including one filed by Kilmer himself — that the father had endangered the child through reckless driving, including driving over 100 mph at night. Custody orders in the case are pending.

Woodruff’s soon-to-be-ex-husband, William F. Woodruff, said in a statement: “None of these allegations have been founded by DHS or the Court.”

In his evaluations, Kilmer routinely cites parental alienation, a disputed psychological theory in which one parent is accused of brainwashing a child to turn them against the other parent. In email correspondence between Kilmer and Jennifer J. Harman, an associate professor of psychology at Colorado State University and a parental alienation scholar, Harman sympathized with Kilmer after ProPublica’s report was published.

“I can tell the article is part of a larger strategy,” Harman wrote.

At the legislative session, a handful of individuals voiced opposition to the bills, including Katie Rubano, who runs a parental alienation support group for parents in Colorado. Rubano, citing Harman’s research on the subject, argued that “passing this bill would not solve the problem of child abuse in Colorado.”

“We need experts but we need them to be better and be trained in all forms of child abuse, including parental alienation,” she said.

Froelich’s bill would align Colorado with federal efforts to encourage family court reform. Last year, President Joe Biden signed a law that allocates additional federal funds to states that update their child custody laws to better protect at-risk children.

Weissman said he has felt momentum on family court reform gathering in Colorado over the past few years and said he “wouldn’t be surprised” if the state was one of the first to pass an equivalent to Kayden’s Law, a Pennsylvania act named for a child who was killed by her father during court-ordered unsupervised custody time, which he was granted despite his history of violence. Last March, Biden included provisions of Kayden’s Law in the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, committing federal funding to states that update family court laws to better protect children.

Colorado has frequently been a “leader in all manner of policy areas,” Weissman said, including legalizing cannabis and regulating ride-sharing companies. “We’re a place where we try new things when it becomes evident that they need to be tried.”

Update, March 2, 2023: This story has been updated to include a statement from William F. Woodruff.

by Hannah Dreyfus

Were You Affected by the Massive Wildfire in Northern New Mexico? We Want to Hear From You.

2 years 1 month ago

Eric Maestas didn’t have much time to spare on an afternoon in April when he stepped out of the old Memorial Middle School gymnasium with an armful of food, water and an extra pair of slippers.

The supplies were for his parents, waiting for him at a nearby campground. They’d been evacuated from their Cleveland home, threatened by what was becoming the biggest wildfire in New Mexico history. His parents were elderly, his father on oxygen. They feared their home had been consumed by flames.

Yet Maestas took a few moments to tell me, a reporter he didn’t know, what it was like to flee that home, that land, that village full of history and memories.

“Everybody was panicking,” he said, placing the slippers on top of boxes in the back seat of his sedan. “They shut down all the electricity. They shut down all the cellphones. There was nothing. And everybody was fighting to get gas and get out of there. It was pretty crazy.”

The blaze he was fleeing was the result of two planned fires, ignited by the United States Forest Service, that escaped containment lines and became the biggest wildfire in New Mexico history. The Hermits Peak-Calf Canyon Fire ultimately burned more than 340,000 acres, destroyed at least 900 structures, including 400 homes, and forced about 15,000 people to flee. Then, monsoon rains fell on the scarred earth and floods further damaged rural homes, ranches, forests, watersheds and centuries-old waterways.

As a reporter with Source New Mexico, I’ve relayed similar tales about this disaster dozens of times since that Saturday afternoon in April.

Across more than 100 articles Source New Mexico has published since that first day, we’ve kept elected officials and state and federal agencies aware that the crisis here is still unfolding. With your help, we’ve revealed how the Forest Service barely met its own requirements for one of the prescribed burns, how the Federal Emergency Management Agency delayed aid for acequias — the waterways that have irrigated the land for generations — and how FEMA denials for housing aid have hurt families.

In order to hold the federal government accountable for how it is handling a crisis it sparked, I need to hear from you about how things are going. If you’ve got a few minutes, please reach out.

I was born and raised in New Mexico. I recently moved to Las Vegas, New Mexico, to dedicate all of my time to speaking to my new neighbors about the fire, the flood and the aftermath. I’ve partnered with ProPublica, a national nonprofit news organization that has provided resources and expertise to help me investigate the government’s response to the fire. I want to speak with as many of you as I can about what you’ve been through, whether you’ve gotten what you need and how the government has handled this.

The people working on this project are not lawyers, contractors or consultants who stand to make a profit off this disaster. We are journalists who will listen to you and investigate what happened.

Here’s how to reach me:

Phone: (505) 933-9013

Email: PLohmann@SourceNM.com

Or you can answer a few questions on this short form so I can learn about your experience and get in touch. Thank you.

We take your privacy seriously. We are gathering these stories for the purposes of our reporting and will contact you if we wish to publish any part of your story. We are the only ones reading what you submit.

Byard Duncan contributed reporting.

by Patrick Lohmann, Source New Mexico

Arizona Child Welfare Director Dismissed Amid GOP Attacks Speaks Out

2 years 1 month ago

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

Arizona’s newly elected Democratic governor, Katie Hobbs, has given up on another of her Cabinet nominees in the face of misleading attacks from Republicans in the state Legislature. Matthew Stewart was forced out last Wednesday after serving just a month and a half as Hobbs’ director of the Department of Child Safety, the state child protective services agency.

When Hobbs selected Stewart in December, she called him one of “the best minds Arizona has to offer” and a leader on racial justice issues who would “transform” a child welfare system that ProPublica and NBC News had found investigated the families of 1 in 3 Black children in metro Phoenix during a recent five-year period.

Now, Hobbs has forced Stewart to leave his post before he could defend his record in a public hearing.

In an interview with ProPublica, the first since his ouster, Stewart said the Republicans’ attacks on him are inaccurate and reputation-damaging. More than a dozen current and former DCS employees, all of whom were contacted independently by the news organization and not at Stewart’s recommendation, confirmed that the allegations about him that have since been circulating in the news media are unfounded.

“If you believe change is needed, and you make a decision to bring in a person who will create change, then you stand behind that person,” Stewart said of the governor abandoning him. “I’m an example of someone willing to take a risk going into a bureaucratic, deeply ingrained system trying to bring new thinking, new energy.”

“I wanted to have the opportunity to go through [the confirmation process] and defend myself,” Stewart said, adding that dismissing him was a “way for the governor to stay safe.”

It all started with a vaguely worded news release issued Wednesday by state Sen. Jake Hoffman, a Republican who has been banned from social media platforms for spreading misinformation and running an online troll farm. He has also denied Hobbs’ legitimacy as governor.

Hoffman chairs the Arizona Senate Committee on Director Nominations, a panel for vetting Cabinet appointments that was formed after Hobbs’ November victory over Republican Kari Lake and that never existed before 2023.

In his statement, Hoffman said that “Katie Hobbs openly touted skin color as her seemingly only priority in the search for the next potential DCS director.”

Stewart is Black and the son of the longtime senior pastor of Phoenix’s most prominent Black church. He previously worked at DCS for over a decade as a case manager and training supervisor before quitting over the racial disproportionality he saw in the agency’s enforcement.

Hoffman also said, without providing supporting detail, that Stewart had committed insubordination and taken an unauthorized absence during his prior stint working at the agency.

DCS disciplinary records, obtained by ProPublica from the department, show Stewart received this reprimand (his only complaint during his more than a decade on the job) because he asked to work from home in the spring of 2020, at the onset of the pandemic. His daughter is severely asthmatic, and a doctor had warned him against going in to the office.

Stewart said he informed Hobbs about this when he interviewed with her team, and they said it wasn’t a problem.

Hoffman, the Republican lawmaker, also cast aspersions on Stewart’s recent decisions to dismiss four top DCS officials — adding that some of those who’d been let go are “openly gay.”

According to an internal email obtained by ProPublica from DCS employees independent of Stewart, he did inform the staff on Jan. 20 that he was dismissing the department’s deputy director of field operations, its chief of the office of child welfare investigations and two top program administrators in Maricopa County, where Phoenix is located.

Matthew Stewart (Screenshot from an NBC Nightly News interview)

But Stewart had already told ProPublica in multiple interviews over the last year that those individuals were part of an institutional culture that had led to the agency’s high rate of investigations and separations of low-income families as well as its problem with turnover among overworked caseworkers — and that for DCS to change direction, they would have to go.

Trying to reform any agency, he has consistently said, requires replacing people in leadership positions.

Stewart said in an interview Sunday that his decisions to part ways with the four officials were run by the governor’s office and went through normal HR channels at the Arizona Department of Administration, and that he didn’t know each of the individuals’ sexual orientation.

Five current and former DCS employees who identify as LGBTQ also said in interviews or emails with ProPublica that Stewart has consistently supported them and worked closely with them, and that the implication of any discrimination by him is, in their view, without merit.

The governor’s office agrees that none of the issues brought up by the Republican committee had anything to do with Hobbs dismissing Stewart.

“Completely baseless,” said Ben Henderson, the governor’s director of operations, of the implication that there was anti-LGBTQ bias in Stewart’s personnel decisions.

Henderson told ProPublica that the real reason for forcing Stewart out was that while he had the “vision” to change the direction of DCS, he didn’t have the day-to-day administrative acumen to run an agency with a billion-dollar budget and thousands of employees.

The governor’s team declined to specify what exactly Stewart wasn’t capable of as an administrator or how a month and a half was enough time to know that he wasn’t up to the task.

Stewart said it is “news to me” that there was any issue with his performance, and that the governor’s office had never contacted him about this. He said that on Wednesday morning, they scheduled a meeting and told him it was clear to them that his confirmation wouldn’t make it past Republican opposition, and that they would therefore be withdrawing his nomination.

Nothing substantive about his record or managerial abilities was mentioned then or at any point in the past month and a half, Stewart reiterated, saying that he’d only received positive if sparse feedback from Hobbs’ office on his hiring and other executive decisions.

The version of events from the governor’s office “sounds like controlling the narrative,” Stewart said.

In an email Tuesday, C. Murphy Hebert, the governor’s spokesperson, said that Hobbs has “so much respect for Mr. Stewart” that she doesn’t want to challenge his experience of what happened last week. And the issue of his likely not getting through the committee process “was definitely part of the larger conversation.”

“The bottom line, Cabinet members serve at the pleasure of the Governor, and this is a decision that was made in everyone’s best interest,” Hebert said.

The governor’s staff said they’re having internal conversations about repairing the reputations of both Stewart and Dr. Theresa Cullen, who too was recently pulled from consideration as head of the state’s health department after similar attacks from Hoffman and his committee.

In Cullen’s case, several supporters of Stewart pointed out, the governor did at least issue a statement defending her.

After Stewart’s dismissal Wednesday, he was sent back to the DCS office to pack up his belongings and go home. Later that day, Hoffman, the Republican legislator, released his statement taking credit for the governor’s decision to remove Stewart and citing it as evidence of the need for his new Cabinet nominee vetting committee.

Claire Louge, executive director of the child maltreatment prevention organization Prevent Child Abuse Arizona, said she met with Stewart the morning before he was forced to leave. She said she asked him what he was looking for in the high-level positions he had dismissed people from.

Part of his answer was that he really wanted DCS leadership to have optimism and “show up differently” in the lives of struggling families, Louge said.

“What did they expect?” she said of the governor’s office. “Matthew Stewart is a known visionary, a known advocate, who did not have extensive administrative experience. They knew that.”

DCS staffers — some of whom took jobs at the agency since Stewart was hired because they wanted to work with him — say they are upset by the way he was treated, as are many people in Arizona’s Black community.

Dustin Sallaz, a case manager and later supervisor at DCS from 2017 to 2022 who is openly gay and has worked extensively with Stewart, said Stewart was always an “amazing” and “communicative” DCS colleague who took time to get to know the families he worked with — and that he was right to fire the people he fired.

Samantha Aiello was a case manager and program specialist at DCS from 2016 to 2022, when she left the department to work with Stewart’s nonprofit organization, Our Sister Our Brother, which advocates for vulnerable families caught up in the child welfare system. She also identifies as LGBTQ, noting that Stewart knew this and sent her an Edible Arrangement for her wedding.

“Matt is the most compassionate person I’ve ever had the chance to work for,” she said.

The current and former DCS employees interviewed by ProPublica agreed that the officials whom Stewart fired, all key figures in charge of the department’s day-to-day operations, were widely known for contributing to long-standing problems at the agency, including staff retention.

ProPublica has requested that DCS provide documentation of the officials’ complaints about Stewart but has not received the records.

The four officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

In an interview, Kim Quintero, director of communications for the Arizona Senate Republicans, said the allegations about Stewart came from a whistleblower whose identity Hoffman and his team are protecting. “We have attorneys that review these things before they even go out, so we did everything legally accurate,” she said, referring to documentation she said the committee reviewed.

Regarding the allegation that discrimination had something to do with Stewart’s decisions about which DCS officials to dismiss, Quintero said that “obviously, an investigation hasn’t been done.”

Meanwhile, Hoffman, the committee chair, is leading a group of conservatives who plan to sue Hobbs for issuing an executive order guaranteeing equal employment opportunities for LGBTQ people working at state agencies. He also wrote a bill that would have banned books from schools that depict “acts” of “homosexuality.”

Stewart said that many of the changes he made in the short time he was director “were ones that needed to happen for years, maybe decades,” adding that his goal was to reshape “what the community experiences when DCS knocks on their door.”

He also said that during his initial interviews with Hobbs’ team, he was asked what it would mean to the public if he were picked as DCS director. “I said it would mean she wants change,” Stewart said of the governor.

“That was my charge,” he said. “I believe that is why I was hired.”

Lynn Dombek contributed research.

by Eli Hager

How an Anti-Abortion Law Firm Teamed Up With a Disgraced Kansas Attorney to Dispute the 2020 Election

2 years 1 month ago

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

For decades, lawyers at the Thomas More Society have backed provocateurs and long shot causes in hopes of winning severe restrictions on abortion in the U.S.

As others in the anti-abortion movement distanced themselves from clinic protestors accused of trespassing, vandalism and sometimes violence, the Thomas More Society defended them in civil and criminal court. The legal nonprofit once sided with a Wisconsin pharmacist who refused to fill a birth control prescription on religious grounds.

More recently, the Chicago-based organization has embraced a far different but equally divisive undertaking — relentlessly questioning the integrity of elections. Leaping into the 2020 “Stop the Steal” frenzy, which was consistently discredited, the Thomas More Society aggressively pursued scores of lawsuits and complaints across the country.

Yet for all the scrutiny given to election denialism and its champions — including Rudy Giuliani, Mike Flynn and Sidney Powell, former advisers to President Donald Trump — the significant role played by the Thomas More Society has received little attention.

One of its strategists, Phill Kline, tried to convince state legislatures in swing states to hold off on certifying Joe Biden’s electors, a maneuver that drew the notice of the House Jan. 6 committee. Kline is the former attorney general of Kansas whose law license was suspended indefinitely a decade ago by the state Supreme Court over ethical violations. Interviews and records examined by ProPublica show how closely aligned Kline has been with the Thomas More Society.

Phill Kline (Topeka Capital-Journal/Thad Allton/AP Photo)

With the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the fight over abortion is increasingly playing out at the state level and local elections for legislators and judges have taken on added weight. “That’s why it’s doubly important for pro-life advocates to ensure the integrity of state and local elections,” one of the group’s attorneys wrote in an op-ed last summer.

Thomas More’s role in the push to change election law should not be underestimated, say abortion rights groups familiar with the legal society’s tactics and record.

An examination by ProPublica of Thomas More’s 2020 election-law initiative shows it helped fuel skepticism over President Joe Biden’s victory and the fairness of elections in numerous states.

The legal machinations haven’t led to big victories in court so far, and in fact Thomas More’s efforts have sometimes drawn ridicule from the bench. In one such rebuke, a judge concluded that the real goal of a Thomas More attorney’s request was “the undermining of a democratic election for President of the United States.”

But these persistent legal challenges mirror the approaches used in the fight over abortion: Never stop pushing for the cause in court or legislatures. Play the long game.

Ilyse Hogue, former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, does not doubt the willingness of the Thomas More Society or other anti-abortion forces to stick with a strategy for years, even decades, until they’re successful.

“One win erases a dozen losses,” she said. “We saw that time and again on abortion.”

Other anti-abortion groups have likewise become more involved in influencing voting laws. The Election Transparency Initiative is a project, in part, of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, which works to elect anti-abortion lawmakers. The initiative, established in early 2021, targeted federal voter rights legislation for defeat. In recent months, it successfully lobbied Ohio lawmakers to enact a strict voter photo ID law.

Through its efforts, the Thomas More Society raised its profile in Republican circles and broadened its appeal beyond its foremost cause of outlawing nearly all abortions. Contributions to the Thomas More Society jumped 82% between 2019 and 2020 to nearly $17.4 million, financial documents filed with the IRS show. (The organization does not release the names of its donors.)

Contributions to the Thomas More Society Leapt Up in 2020 (Source: IRS, 990 forms)

Initially, the group — which is run by staunch Catholics and named for a Catholic saint and lawyer — focused on defending people in the anti-abortion movement. Its most well-known cause was the decades long defense of Joe Scheidler, founder of the Pro-Life Action League, against the National Organization for Women.

NOW accused him and others of conspiring to close down clinics through extreme measures, including blockades and mob violence; it sought a permanent injunction forbidding the groups from engaging in illegal conduct. Lawyers for Thomas More made three trips to the U.S. Supreme Court in the clash, ultimately winning a 2006 decision in which the court held that the protests couldn’t be barred under extortion or racketeering statutes.

Lawyers for the society, in recent years, also have brought legal action opposing vaccine mandates, gay marriage and transgender rights. Then came Trump and an obsession among his followers with proving that he lost due to election fraud, and a new mission emerged.

Alliance Leads to New Strategy

Long before the Thomas More Society and Kline joined together on election law, they had a different kind of relationship. Kline was a client.

Kline needed help in Kansas, beginning in about 2010, fighting professional misconduct charges arising from his investigation of abortion clinics as attorney general and later as a county district attorney. The state Supreme Court ultimately suspended his law license indefinitely in 2013 for 11 violations of professional conduct rules, including misleading a judge and grand jury.

Tom Brejcha, right, president of the Thomas More Society, stands by while Phill Kline speaks to reporters in 2011. (John Hanna/AP Images)

Kline considered the case against him to be political and denied acting unethically. Throughout the struggle, he had a key ally from Chicago: attorney Tom Brejcha, president of the Thomas More Society. According to a 2014 press release, the Thomas More Society underwrote Kline’s appeal of his suspension. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider it.

“We’ve known Phill Kline. He’s been a client of ours for a long time. We respect him terribly, ” Brejcha said in a 2020 webinar.

Kline, who now teaches law at the evangelical Liberty University, told ProPublica he approached the society in 2018 about working together to publicize alleged election vulnerabilities. “He brought it to us. We adopted it,” Brejcha is quoted saying in the Catholic publication Our Sunday Visitor.

At the time, the integrity of voter rolls was very much in the news. Early in 2018, Trump had disbanded a controversial White House commission he’d set up to investigate voter fraud after numerous state election agencies refused to supply requested voter information. The president made baseless claims that millions of ballots were cast illegally in 2016, causing him to lose the popular vote.

At the society, Brejcha and Kline agreed on a contract that covered 2018 through 2021, Kline said. They called their initiative the Amistad Project, a reference to an 1839 mutiny aboard a slave ship of that name. References to slavery are common in the anti-abortion movement, where the historical denial of personhood to Black people is likened to not treating a fetus as a person. Kline had already been working on a project called The Amistad Journey in his anti-abortion efforts and later incorporated a for-profit company by that name in January 2020, listing his home as its principal office.

An IRS form shows the Thomas More Society paid Kline’s firm more than $1.4 million in consulting fees in 2020. Kline said the fees were for the full length of the contract and helped cover hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses, including payments to contractors he employed.

The society declined repeated requests from ProPublica for an interview or to answer specific questions. It provided a three-page memo, however, highlighting some of its strategic initiatives and stating: “The core traditional values that the Thomas More Society fights to protect — the right to life, family values, and religious liberty — can be preserved only if elections are fair and secure.”

In the 2020 webinar, Brejcha described the society’s crossover into election lawyering as “a natural progression” of its work opposing what it considers government abuse of religious freedom, such as the forced closing of churches during COVID-19 lockdowns. “We are nonpartisan, we’re bipartisan, but we want the laws to be enforced so that the democratic process is not distorted and destroyed,” he said.

As director of the election project for Thomas More, Kline couldn’t argue the legal cases himself because of his ethical violations in Kansas, but he oversaw investigators and analysts, hired litigators and devised strategies.

Together, the society and Amistad moved aggressively. They targeted cities, counties, county commissioners, mayors, governors and election officials for legal action, focusing on key states Trump lost in 2020 — Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Minnesota.

Asked whether his work regarding elections had any relationship to his moral objections to abortion, Kline said in an email to ProPublica, “Only in the general sense that any unjustified disparate treatment under the law represents an assault on the inherent value of the individual.”

One of the Amistad Project’s chief arguments in 2020 was that election officials in swing states adopted pandemic-related measures — such as the use of drop boxes for absentee ballots — that disproportionately aided turnout in Democratic strongholds. The society contended that those local governments placed their “thumb on the scale” by accepting tens of millions of dollars in private grants for election administration from a nonprofit backed by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. The money was awarded to communities across 47 states to pay for more staff, training, equipment and outreach to voters on how to safely cast their ballots.

“We have a corporate oligarchy that’s trying to control this election process,” Kline alleged on former Trump strategist Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast on Dec. 14, 2020.

After receiving complaints unconnected to the Amistad Project, the Federal Election Commission reviewed the grants last year and determined that Zuckerberg did not violate campaign finance laws, concluding that the grants were awarded to many jurisdictions and did not suggest any partisan motive.

A Litany of Judicial Criticism

In case after case over the Zuckerberg grants, judges found no merit in the arguments presented by lawyers associated with Kline and Thomas More. They were subjected to often stinging rebukes.

In tossing one of the Amistad Project’s suits in Wisconsin, U.S. District Judge William C. Griesbach wrote that they offered “only a political argument” and “their brief is bereft of any legal argument” that would support their claim.

Another Wisconsin judge, in state court, rejected the Thomas More Society’s lawyer’s characterization of the grants as “election bribery,” calling the assertion “ridiculous.”

Likewise, a federal judge in Iowa ruled in a case brought by the Thomas More Society that “the record contains no evidence” supporting accusations that the grants “pose an actual risk of shaping the outcome of any election or of favoring any particular party or candidate.”

Kline said he strongly disagreed with the judges’ opinions and believed the cases were valid.

In Wisconsin, the uproar over the grants became a central element of a taxpayer-funded, partisan review of the 2020 election, led by Trump supporter Michael Gableman, a former state Supreme Court justice. Erick Kaardal, a Thomas More Society attorney, worked closely with Gableman, who was appointed by the speaker of the state Assembly, a Republican.

Much of Gableman’s final report, released in March 2022, echoed the society’s assertions about private election grants and one of its other chief concerns: the validity of some votes from nursing homes. The state Assembly speaker later shut down the inquiry and Gableman got a job with the Thomas More Society.

Erick Kaardal, who often litigates for the Thomas More Society, speaks to the Wisconsin State Assembly elections committee. (John Hart/Wisconsin State Journal)

Despite the court losses, the society considers its assault on the Zuckerberg funds to be a major success because it “blazed the trail” for two dozen states to ban private funding of election administration, according to the memo Thomas More provided.

The organization also considers its efforts to ban ballot drop boxes in Wisconsin a success. It did not win through court action, but as increasing attention was paid to the drop boxes, the state Supreme Court ruled their use unlawful. Five cities embroiled in suits brought by Thomas More then abandoned their support for the boxes and the cases were dismissed.

In a slew of related legal actions in Wisconsin and other states, the Thomas More Society also raised the possibility that some nursing home residents had been able to vote despite having been declared mentally incompetent; challenged signature verifications for absentee ballot applications; and questioned COVID-19 restrictions that limited some large gatherings, such as campaign crowds, but not others, such as Black Lives Matter protests.

Kaardal filed at least 18 administrative complaints with the Wisconsin Elections Commission, beginning shortly before the 2020 election. Two are still pending and the others were denied, dismissed or withdrawn, according to the commission.

Kaardal also filed at least seven lawsuits against the agency, beginning just before the 2020 election. Only one is still pending; the rest were voluntarily dismissed or ended in defeat, according to the commission.

He did not respond to requests for comment.

One Democratic member of the bipartisan elections commission thought the Thomas More Society “nitpicked issues” in the midst of a deadly pandemic.

Said Mark Thomsen: “My overall sense is they filed things that were redundant and repetitive and served no legitimate purpose, in my mind, other than trying to wear down the staff and waste precious resources.”

Trying to Overturn the 2020 Results

Plenty of names associated with Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 results are well known by now. Kline’s is not one of them.

But records and interviews show he played a prominent role, working largely behind the scenes, in attempting to stall the certification of Biden’s victory.

In the weeks leading up to the Capitol insurrection, Kline led a group of investigators and litigators working out of a northern Virginia hotel, trying to prove that unlawful activity had influenced the election.

In a Dec. 1, 2020, press conference, Kline talked about Amistad’s efforts to uncover fraud, saying it had attorneys “in virtually every swing state that are working on our behalf.”

Trump’s legal team was making similar efforts, and that team included Jenna Ellis, a former Thomas More Society attorney. Kline told ProPublica that the Amistad Project did not coordinate with Trump’s group, and the Jan. 6 committee revealed no evidence to the contrary.

But records do show Kline and the Trump camp communicated with each other. Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik told the committee that Kline briefed Giuliani on an allegation about a postal truck carrying completed ballots across state lines, a claim that was later debunked by postal inspectors working with the FBI.

“Amistad shared the results of its investigations and analysis with numerous organizations who requested it, including the media,” Kline told ProPublica.

Kline pushed hard on the idea that state legislatures could ask Congress to delay the electoral certification to allow for time to investigate whether laws were faithfully followed.

The Amistad Project produced an eight-page report titled “Set in Stone?” in which it argued that the “only Electoral College deadline specifically required by the Constitution is noon on January 20,” which is Inauguration Day. The memo stated that all other deadlines — including the Jan. 6 date for certifying election results — were established long ago in federal law for ease of travel and are “largely not relevant to a time when electors do not have to ride horses to Washington, D.C. to vote.”

“For the sake of American democracy and to strengthen our fraying social fabric, it is preferable to address the fraud issues before determining who is the next President. The investigations will be rigorous and continue whether or not the Electoral College vote is held December 14,” the report states.

In late November 2020 in Michigan, which Biden won, Amistad attorney Ian Northon petitioned the state Supreme Court to take control of all ballots to allow for a “constitutionally sound audit of lawful votes” and give the state Legislature time “to finish its constitutionally-mandated work to pick Michigan’s electors.”

The state’s high court refused. Northon then tried to help a set of unauthorized Republican electors enter the Michigan state Capitol on Dec. 14, 2020, to sign documents purporting to certify Trump the winner. They were blocked by police.

Talking to reporters that day, Northon said: “I’m representing a charity called the Amistad Project, it’s a 501(c)(3), and it’s affiliated with another charity called the Thomas More Society out of Chicago. We filed several preelection lawsuits on election integrity.”

But Kline and Northon told ProPublica that Northon was not, in fact, working for Amistad at that moment. Northon said that he was called to the state Capitol by several lawmakers who were clients and were locked out of the building. They had previously joined an Amistad suit he handled. “I tried to help them talk to the police,” he said in an emailed response. “That does not mean I was acting on behalf of Amistad, I wasn’t.”

On Jan. 2, 2021, Kline hosted a conference call with 300 state legislators in an “attempt to disseminate purported evidence of election fraud,” according to a subpoena issued to him by the Jan. 6 committee.

The briefing included Giuliani; John Eastman, the attorney behind the theory that Vice President Mike Pence could reject the Electoral College results; White House trade adviser Peter Navarro; economist John Lott; and Trump, who reportedly told the lawmakers they were more important than the courts and had the power to change the results.

That evening, Kline sent an email to participants on the call encouraging them to sign on to a joint letter to Vice President Mike Pence urging him to postpone the counting of the electoral vote. The letter asked for at least 10 days.

Jan. 6 committee records show Kline asked those willing to sign the letter to reply to a woman who worked for a communications firm founded by Mark Serrano, a paid consultant to Trump’s 2020 campaign. Serrano had touted legal efforts supported by Thomas More on Bannon’s podcast, in December 2020, when he talked about a lawsuit in Washington, D.C., regarding “the ecosystem that caused this fraud on a massive level to take place.”

Bannon applauded that action. The judge, however, was not as pleased.

U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg later fumed that Kaardal, the Thomas More Society attorney, filed in the wrong court and failed to even serve the complaint to his adversaries in the suit. The judge also expressed shock at the scope of the request — to have numerous state and federal election laws declared unconstitutional and an injunction issued that would prevent Pence and Congress from ratifying the electoral votes in key battleground states.

In denying the request, Boasberg ruled that it relied on “a fundamental and obvious misreading of the Constitution.”

“It would be risible were its target not so grave: the undermining of a democratic election for President of the United States.”

“It Was a Big Scam”

In its final report, the Jan. 6 committee did not cite the Thomas More Society or the Amistad Project by name. But it lumped Kline in the same bucket as Giuliani, Powell, Eastman and Trump attorney Cleta Mitchell — saying that in response to Congressional subpoenas, none offered any proof of widespread fraud.

“Not one of them provided evidence raising genuine questions about the election outcome,” the report states. “In short, it was a big scam.”

Though subpoenaed, Kline did not testify before the committee, a congressional source confirmed. The committee, which had a Democratic majority, was disbanded this year as Republicans reclaimed control of the House.

Kline told ProPublica that he gave the committee over 12 gigabytes of data, including 107,563 pages of documents, in response to the subpoena. “I do not believe the committee reviewed these materials, as they declined to schedule an interview with me, where I was happy to discuss the materials,” he said in an email.

He added that he agrees with the committee’s assessment that there was not sufficient proof of fraud to overturn the election. “That generally is the case, but that doesn’t mean there’s not evidence that requires further investigation and effort and I believe there is.”

The society and Kline no longer have a formal contract. The society’s election integrity initiative is now headed by its Executive Vice President Thomas Olp.

In January of last year, Brejcha wrote that his group will continue to work with and support Amistad but touted “decisive new initiatives.”

“Rest assured,” he added, “we mean to press this cause of election integrity to the hilt, as is our trademark.”

Going forward, the team plans to work on various election fronts, including preventing ineligible people from voting, according to the memo the society provided to ProPublica. The memo expressed concerns that noncitizens and other people who don’t have the right to vote might sway a close election, even though there is no evidence that demonstrates widespread voter fraud in modern elections. In Wisconsin, the Thomas More Society is also challenging the ease of obtaining absentee military ballots.

Kline, meanwhile, is aligned with the American Voters’ Alliance, a nonprofit led by his daughter, Jacqueline Timmer. It is pushing “model legislation” to states that would radically alter how elections are handled.

The 23-page blueprint calls on legislatures to set up bipartisan standing committees that would issue a report recommending whether to certify election results. These panels would have the power to investigate elections, determine whether laws were broken, force local officials to fund forensic audits “by disappointed candidates,” stay election results when appropriate and even place localities into receivership to ensure elections are run properly.

Kline told ProPublica that U.S. elections are “among the least transparent and accountable in the world.”

“So far,” he said, “the proper steps have not been taken.”

Help ProPublica Investigate Threats to U.S. Democracy

by Megan O’Matz

Minnesota May Chart Its Own Path Dealing With Anti-Abortion Counseling Centers

2 years 1 month ago

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

Do you have an experience to share related to new abortion laws in your state? Our reporters want to hear from you. Contact us on Signal at 646-389-9881.

Anti-abortion counseling centers, often called “crisis pregnancy centers,” may soon face an existential choice in Minnesota: Leave behind their explicit agenda of dissuading people from having abortions or risk losing state funding.

While some center operators could see that as a nonstarter, state Democrats may leave the door open for them to continue receiving taxpayer dollars — albeit under a battery of rules some Minnesota lawmakers hope could expand services for pregnant people amid the country’s rapidly shifting abortion landscape.

For nearly 20 years, Minnesota’s public funding stream for the centers has flown mostly under the radar. In 2005, then-Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican, signed into law a program to give grants to nonprofits that provide pregnancy and parenting services that do not “encourage or affirmatively counsel a woman to have an abortion.”

By wide margins, the state Legislature approved the Positive Abortion Alternatives statute, pitched by anti-abortion leaders as providing money for prenatal health care and adoption services. The measure even garnered votes from Democrats who supported abortion rights but wanted to fund more services for pregnant people.

The heated political climate since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade has put a new spotlight on public funding for anti-abortion centers. At least a dozen states use taxpayer money to fund the centers, and some Democratic-led states have already defunded, or are considering defunding, them altogether.

In 2019, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer used a line item veto to cancel $700,000 of funding for the chain of Real Alternatives counseling centers in her state, and she has vetoed spending on similar centers in the years since, calling them “fake health centers.” In Pennsylvania, which in the mid-1990s became the first state to provide public money for anti-abortion centers, Democratic members of the House Women’s Health Caucus have called for an end to funding through state and federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families dollars.

Minnesota Democrats won sweeping victories in the 2022 midterm elections, and control the state House, Senate and governor’s office. They have acted quickly to pass a raft of legislation further protecting abortion in the state, which has become an island of access in the Midwest. The Republican minority can do little to stop them.

As a part of this coordinated effort, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has proposed defunding the state’s grant program. But some Democrats support another option.

“I believe that this grant program has a purpose,” said Rep. Liz Olson, a Democrat from Duluth who is sponsoring a bill to change the 2005 Positive Abortion Alternatives statute into a Positive Pregnancies statute. “With changes, I do believe it should be funded.”

Abortion rights supporters say anti-abortion organizations have used state money to establish pseudo-medical facilities to convince or even trick clients into carrying their pregnancies to term, often using medically inaccurate information. Counseling center leaders say that the money has gone towards a variety of services for pregnant people, like parenting classes and free diapers, clothes and cribs.

Minnesota Democrats appear at least willing to hear that argument. Olson and a coalition of reproductive rights advocates supporting her bill are now trying to walk a tricky line: continuing to attack centers’ more misleading tactics while acknowledging that they may offer services that contribute to good birth outcomes for mothers and an array of services for families.

“It never made sense to me that we would take resources away from pregnant and parenting people who need support,” said Megan Peterson, executive director of Gender Justice, a St. Paul-based legal and policy advocacy nonprofit that supports abortion rights and helped craft Olson’s bill. “There’s hospitals that have obstetrics programs closing, especially in rural Minnesota. There’s parts of Minnesota where people have to drive six hours to give birth. We have an issue where CPCs are maybe the only place you can get a free ultrasound.”

Although Walz’s proposed 2023 budget would completely cut funding for the Positive Alternatives Grant Program, which last year distributed about $3.4 million to 27 groups at 33 sites around the state, a spokesperson for the governor said that he would be “open to discussing” Olson’s approach.

Roughly two-thirds of Minnesota’s CPCs do not receive state grant funds, so the majority would be unaffected by the legislation. Some grantees rely on the money for a substantial amount of their operating budgets.

Minnesota, according to the Associated Press, has spent more than $37 million on the grant program since 2010. It ranks fifth in the nation for such spending behind Texas, Pennsylvania, Missouri and Florida.

Efforts to defund anti-abortion counseling centers follow in the wake of a yearslong conservative campaign to defund Planned Parenthood, which has pointed out that its clinics provide a slew of health care services beyond abortion, including maternal care, cancer screenings and contraceptive access.

There are nine abortion providers in Minnesota and an estimated 90 CPCs, many of them in rural areas far from major health care systems. Ashley Underwood, director of Equity Forward, an organization that produces investigative research on gender equity, reproductive health and other issues, said she believes proposals like Olson’s could be a way to convert existing centers into places where pregnant people can go for free health care, minus the agenda.

“People should have access to care that is unbiased and medically sound,” Underwood said. “We absolutely can design a better path forward, and I think that Minnesota is really taking the lead and being an example of how to do that.”

Anti-abortion counseling centers first proliferated in the 1990s and early 2000s; before the end of Roe, one report estimated that nationally they outnumbered abortion clinics 3-to-1. Abortion advocates have accused many of them of a deceitful mimicry: setting up shop close to abortion clinics under remarkably similar names and creating the feel of a medical office by offering services like pregnancy tests and ultrasounds. Some centers are also known to promote the medically unfounded “abortion pill reversal” procedure, or claim abortion is linked to infertility and breast cancer. Free diapers and car seats, detractors said, are just a means to lure in poor pregnant people.

Olson’s Positive Pregnancies Support Act would maintain the centers’ eligibility for public money, so long as they agreed to provide “evidence-based, accurate information” and “ensure that none of the money provided is used to encourage or counsel a person toward one birth outcome over another.”

The measure would allow organizations that provide abortions and affirmative abortion counseling to apply for grants to provide services to pregnant people and new parents. It would require that services such as ultrasounds be provided and interpreted by a licensed medical professional. It stipulates that food, clothing, housing assistance or similar services be provided in a manner that is not predicated on an agreement to view an ultrasound or enroll in certain classes or counseling. And it further shores up privacy protections for clients.

Crucially, it requires that grantees provide referrals for an abortion on request. At a House health policy and finance committee meeting on the bill in January, leaders of groups that currently receive state funds testified that this would be in direct opposition to their mission.

“If we are forced to provide referrals for abortion, we will no longer be able to receive this grant,” said Jill King, executive director of Lakes Life Care Center in Forest Lake, who testified that state grant money makes up 40% of her budget. “A woman who wants an abortion does not need a referral from us. She already knows where to go. If she comes to us, she's looking for a different option.”

Julie Desautels, treasurer for Life Connections in Alexandria, said in an interview that while she is skeptical about the intent of the proposal, her board of directors may be open to applying for the grant.

Desautels said her organization — while founded on “pro-life” principles — is not religiously or politically affiliated and makes clear to its clients that it is not a medical facility; there is no abortion clinic in Alexandria. She said most of her clients are low-income, minority and LGBTQ pregnant people and parents living in a relatively rural part of the state. Life Connections hosts a support group with free childcare called MomTalk; Desautels said it has paid clients’ rent and utilities, and distributed thousands of dollars in gas cards, as well as cribs and car seats. She said it was so well-stocked with formula that it saw clients through the 2022 shortage.

“We had women in our lobby crying because they went from store to store and could not find formula,” Desautels said. “I would say it averages about one person a week that we help ward off eviction or get their utilities turned back on. I’ve got two right now on my table I have to send checks out to.”

Olson said that her biggest hope for the law is not that it keeps existing counseling centers in business, but that it expands the pool of eligible organizations and creates more centers that provide free services around birth — whether they provide abortion services or not. Part of that hope came from her own personal experience.

In 2015, as she neared her due date with her first child, Olson learned from her midwife that her blood pressure was unusually high, a possible symptom of preeclampsia. When she couldn’t get an appointment for an ultrasound to make sure the baby was alright, her midwife mentioned that one option would be to visit a crisis pregnancy center.

Olson decided to wait for an appointment at the hospital and, days later, gave birth to a healthy baby girl. But the experience stuck with her. She imagined what it would mean for pregnant people with no money and no insurance to walk in off the street and be given free prenatal health care. It frustrated her that only facilities with an anti-abortion agenda were getting state money to do such a thing.

“There’s so much wrong with how we do pregnancy and delivery and postnatal care in our country,” she said. “The context, for me, is less about the CPCs and more about expanding access to care through this grant program to make sure that people are getting these types of services in a medically accurate way with trained professionals.”

by Jessica Lussenhop

The Democratic Insider Who Fought the Trump Administration

2 years 1 month ago

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

As chief U.S. House counsel for four years, Douglas Letter advised then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi through tense legal standoffs with the Trump administration. He helped shape strategy for the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, leading to contempt of Congress charges against Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro and subpoenas for five sitting members of Congress.

Never miss the most important reporting from ProPublica’s newsroom. Subscribe to the Big Story newsletter.

Now, Letter, a Justice Department attorney for 40 years, has begun a new role as legal counsel for the Brady campaign, defending victims of gun violence and taking on gun laws, such as a local statute in Highland Park, Illinois, that restricts assault weapons like one used in a July 4 parade massacre. Letter said he carries with him lessons learned counseling House Democrats as they faced growing partisan hostilities and concerns for their safety.

In recent interviews, Letter talked about the highlights of his years as House general counsel and his reasons for joining forces with Brady. These interviews have been condensed and edited for clarity.

You led the court fight for release of President Trump’s tax returns and served as counsel on the certification of Joe Biden’s presidential election. Which of the many cases you handled do you consider the most legally significant?

You’re asking me to choose among my children? One is the census case. The Trump administration illegally attempted to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. And during litigation, lots of evidence was put in the record that they were doing so for a very bad purpose, which was to keep down the count of Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans. So we joined a batch of states and others who were challenging the validity of that. I argued before the Supreme Court, and it’s an interesting opinion. The Supreme Court ruled in our favor, upholding the lower courts, and wrote a fairly narrow opinion but one that is quite meaningful. This was the first time that the Supreme Court had ruled that it did not trust the explanation given by the executive branch. The lower courts had held that the executive branch had acted in bad faith in making it seem like there was a valid justification for doing this. And the evidence showed that that was not true — that the Commerce Department folks who are in charge had asked the Justice Department to basically cook up a rationale. The Supreme Court affirmed and said that the citizenship question had to be stricken. I was very proud of that.

What about Trump v. Mazars, the fight by the House Ways and Means Committee to win the release of six years of President Trump’s personal and business tax returns? That litigation began in 2019 and dragged on until late 2022, just before Congress changed hands.

That’s where we sought private financial information about the president through his accountants and through his bankers. He argued that the House absolutely could not do that. The Supreme Court rejected that argument and said, “That’s absolutely wrong.” The Supreme Court then set a new test that the House had to meet in order to get these materials but did not say we couldn’t get them. Remember, we’re talking about the personal information of the president, and we ended up getting much of the material we wanted. So for us, that was a major victory. The problem was it just took too long.

After Trump left office, you guided legal strategy for the Jan. 6 select committee. What lessons did you learn fighting Trump supporters for documents and testimony?

After the Trump administration ended, the Jan. 6 committee asked the National Archives for the official records of the Trump White House. A federal law passed during Richard Nixon’s time said that those records belong to the people of the United States. President Biden determined that much of the Trump material in the archives was not protected by executive privilege or any other privileges. President Trump disagreed. His argument was completely rejected by the D.C. Circuit Court, a very fast, very thoughtful opinion. And again, the Supreme Court in its shadow docket refused to issue a stay. So all sorts of extremely relevant material was then made available in tranches to the Jan. 6 committee over the next couple of months. That reconfirmed what we already knew, which was that these papers belong to the people of the United States.

You defended Pelosi in a lawsuit brought by three GOP members who were fined for failing to pass through a magnetometer at the House entrance. What did that case — which was thrown out but is now being appealed — reveal about partisan tensions in the House?

Well, It scares me that some members apparently think that it’s okay to bring guns onto the floor of the chamber of the House. If you’re in the House chamber, with all sorts of safety restrictions, you shouldn’t have a major need for self-defense. On more than one occasion, I saw what looked like some members who might go after each other, including during the recent election of Speaker McCarthy. But people intervened, and cooler heads prevailed.

I successfully defended the magnetometer case. But then the new Republican leadership of the House decided to change the policy. That’s their call. We live in a democracy. But Speaker Pelosi, I thought very justifiably, put those measures in place for the protection of other members and staff and security people.

What convinced you to join the Brady campaign?

I was talking to my daughter one morning, and she said she was terrified to send her kids to preschool. Now there are a number of reasons schools can be scary to kids — social reasons — but to be scared because they could get murdered? I’d be stunned if there are many parents in the United States today who don’t have that feeling at one time or another.

And one thing that Brady has pointed out is that Jan. 6 taught us that gun laws work. Some of the crowd were not just people who got carried away by the moment. These were people who had a definite plan set when they came to Washington. And they knew that D.C. had significant gun restrictions. These people cached their weapons in Virginia, across the river. What that meant was that these groups, heavily armed people with very dangerous weaponry, their guns were not at hand because of D.C.’s restrictions. So think about how much worse Jan. 6 — which was horrible — could have been if these people had had their substantial weaponry nearby.

Were you surprised by the catcalls from some Republican members in the House gallery during President Biden’s State of the Union address?

I’m appalled that this is the way the president of the United States would be treated by certain members of Congress as he is speaking. There are rules of decorum, right? I don’t want to sound like some old curmudgeon, you know, “the kids these days.” It seems to me that there are rules of decorum that are to be followed, just as in the military. The Joint Chiefs behave themselves, and, overwhelmingly, the Supreme Court justices behave themselves during the State of the Union. I would expect the members of Congress to do so as well.

Help ProPublica Investigate Threats to U.S. Democracy

Gabriel Sandoval contributed research.

by Marilyn W. Thompson

How We Found That Sites of Previous Ebola Outbreaks Are at Higher Risk Than Before

2 years 1 month ago

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

As a devastating outbreak of Ebola spread to Tommy Garnett’s homeland of Sierra Leone in 2014, the conservationist had a hunch.

Garnett long lamented the deforestation from farming, mining and logging in the region and wondered if tree loss had anything to do with the outbreak that had swept into Sierra Leone from a forested area of Guinea. With activities in his country at a standstill due to the outbreak, Garnett asked the ERM Foundation, the nonprofit arm of a sustainability consulting firm in London, to help him analyze patterns of deforestation.

Their findings suggested Garnett’s hypothesis was valid: A particular pattern of deforestation seemed to explain a number of Ebola outbreaks they studied, including the one that began in Meliandou, Guinea.

The majority of emerging infectious diseases originate from wildlife, but understanding how, why and when a pathogen will jump from one species to another, including humans — a phenomenon called spillover — continues to be studied by academics and scientists worldwide.

One study analyzing historical outbreaks found that land-use change — such as clearing forests for agriculture — was the biggest driver of spillover, exceeding factors like climate change and the consumption of meat from wild animals.

We wondered: Is it possible to calculate the risk of a spillover event happening because of deforestation? So we set out to examine how clearing trees can increase the likelihood of such an event, using Ebola as an example pathogen.

Never miss the most important reporting from ProPublica’s newsroom. Subscribe to the Big Story newsletter.

We found that the risk of another spillover due to forest loss has increased within the past two decades in the locations of five previous Ebola outbreaks — including the site in Guinea where the largest Ebola outbreak in history began.

As part of the reporting process, ProPublica journalists consulted with biologists, ecologists and infectious disease experts to model how the risk of spillover events has changed over time. Our analysis was based on two peer-reviewed scientific models, generating completely new results. One of the researchers we interviewed said that the analysis ProPublica performed is exactly what they would have liked to do, had they more time and resources.

Here’s how we did it.

The deforestation model: a link between spillover and forest loss

Our inquiry began with an academic article that was a direct result of Garnett and the ERM team’s study from 2015. The ERM researchers had pitched their work to academics, hoping it could be validated and expanded in a rigorous, peer-reviewed study. Their findings caught the attention of a nonprofit scientific research institute specializing in forest science and its academic collaborators, biologists at the University of Málaga, Spain. Led by Jesús Olivero, a biologist specializing in geographic distributions of animals, the group continued exploring the link between spillover and forest loss.

Olivero and the team focused on five main categories of factors: forest loss, forest fragmentation, human population, geographic location and a measure of the possibility that Ebola was circulating in wildlife based on the environmental features of a particular area. They tested more than 100 variables related to those five factors. They did not examine other factors that may have played a role, such as how often residents came into contact with wildlife, hygiene practices or accessibility of health care.

In a 2017 journal article, the team found that a handful of variables about forest loss in the two years leading up to an outbreak were best able to explain the pattern of where and when recent spillover-induced Ebola outbreaks have occurred. They used the variables to create a model, which identified seven Ebola outbreaks that were significantly related to forest loss.

We were curious about the outbreak locations that had been singled out by Olivero’s deforestation model. We wanted to know: Has deforestation gotten worse in those places? And if so, did the loss of forest increase the risk of another spillover event occurring?

To answer the first question, we used satellite image data to quantify the degree of deforestation over time. For each of the seven outbreak locations, we defined a circular area with a radius of 20 kilometers, or about 12.5 miles, and calculated the amount of forest loss in each year from 2001 to 2021, the range of time for which data is available.

In all seven locations, deforestation had increased since the previous outbreaks occurred. But to understand how these trends in deforestation might affect spillover risk, we needed another model.

The epidemiological model: an incorporation of changes in forest loss into spillover risk over time

Around the same time Olivero’s team developed the deforestation model, a different group of researchers, led by Christina Faust at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, created an epidemiological model that calculates an area’s spillover risk by using information about its deforestation over time. This model, unlike the deforestation model, doesn’t only consider changes to forests in aggregate, but it also takes into account how the patterns of tree loss might impact risk.

It is an adaptation of a classic epidemiological model that tracks how populations of susceptible, infected and recovered individuals change over time as a virus spreads. Crucially, it incorporates information about the degree and type of deforestation that’s occurring in an area over time.

When we think of deforestation, we might picture large swaths of forest clear-cut for acres of industrial agriculture. But deforestation often occurs on a smaller scale. Activities like clearing trees for subsistence farming or gathering wood for charcoal can result in many smaller patches of tree loss, rather than huge clearings. When deforestation occurs in small patches, the total area around the “edge” — the border area around clearings where humans and potentially disease-carrying animals can interact — will often exceed the total area of cleared forest.

The researchers found that the highest risk of spillover occurs at intermediate levels of forest loss. That’s because there’s just enough disturbed forest left for adaptable species like bats to survive. At the same time, the total amount of edge around those deforested patches — the places where people are most likely to come in contact with wildlife — is at its peak. When the scale tips beyond that intermediate level of habitat loss, there isn’t as much forest to support the wildlife, resulting in less total edge where humans and animals can collide.

Using the same satellite image data that we relied on to quantify forest cover over time, we calculated the edge area for each location each year between 2001 and 2021. Then, we calculated trend lines linking total edge area to degree of deforestation for each location. We refer to these lines as “deforestation trends.”

The epidemiological model assumes a direct relationship between deforestation and the susceptibility of humans and wild animals to viral infection. As forest is destroyed, the transmissibility of a virus among wild animals is assumed to decrease, simply because there is less habitat, and thus fewer animals that can sustain the virus. Conversely, as animal habitats are destroyed, the model assumes that the number of humans increases proportionally, since the increased ability to grow food can support a larger population.

In sum, the model takes in deforestation trends and characteristics about human and wildlife populations, and it translates these inputs into risk of spillover over time.

Combining the models showed that deforestation trends have consistently increased spillover risk to levels higher than when the previous outbreaks occurred.

We took the deforestation trends calculated for the seven locations from the deforestation model and combined them with the epidemiological model. We also customized the epidemiological model code with parameter values specific to the particular Ebola strains that each location encountered. The parameters included a range of transmissibility of Ebola among humans, estimated from known Ebola outbreaks, and an estimate of transmissibility of Ebola among bats, the presumed host species for the virus.

In six out of the seven locations, deforestation over the past 20 years was significant, reaching a maximum degree of forest loss between approximately 10% and 30%. We excluded one location from our analysis, a village called Inkanamongo-Boende in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where an Ebola outbreak occurred in 2014 yet deforestation has remained minimal, below 4%.

Deforestation trends varied between the six remaining locations. In some locations, increasing deforestation has been accompanied by a steady increase in total edge area. This is consistent with forest being cleared in numerous small patches. In other locations, deforestation has progressed to a point where remaining patches of forest are so spread out and isolated, overlap between the patches leads to less edge area than at lower levels of deforestation.

In all six locations, the maximum total edge area resulting from deforestation was at least twice the area of intact forest, and in some locations, it was more than three times as much. In other words, the areas where humans and wild animals were likely to interact was up to three times larger than the areas that animals have left to live in.

Integrating the deforestation trends into our customized version of the epidemiological model showed that in five of the six locations, spillover risk in 2021 — the most recent year for which data was available — was higher than during the years the original outbreaks occurred.

We observed qualitative differences in deforestation trends between locations that had experienced outbreaks of the Ebola Sudan strain versus the Ebola Zaire strain. Despite these differences, our analysis shows that local land-use change has consistently led to an increased risk of Ebola spilling over from wild animals to humans.

Deforestation trends don’t tell us everything about spillover risk, but it’s information that’s currently not used enough by global public health agencies.

It’s worth keeping in mind that these findings are based on a theoretical model, and that all models, including this one, have limitations.

We chose this model because it directly translates deforestation trends into spillover risk. However, the model does not consider other factors, like how humans are consuming or interacting with wildlife, whether multiple types of wildlife may be present or how humans are using the forest. As mentioned above, the model assumes a direct relationship between the amount of forest available and the sizes of human and wildlife populations that can be sustained.

For that reason, we cannot interpret the model’s results as a measure of absolute risk. The experts we consulted said it was best used to compare risk over time for the same location, rather than among different locations. This is why we did not use the model’s results to compare risk levels between different countries or between different locations within the same country. Instead, we reported on relative increases in risk.

Finally, the model does not tell us why, how or when a spillover event might occur.

Despite these caveats, we felt it was important to conduct this analysis because it helps to crystallize trends in spillover risk due to deforestation in these key locations. Hamish McCallum, professor of infectious disease ecology at Griffith University in Australia and co-author of the epidemiological model, noted that results like ours are important because they help to “make explicit what’s essentially intuition.”

The science clearly shows that deforestation should stop, but that doesn’t take into account the realities of the people living in these areas. Residents in Meliandou are subsistence farmers. Besides growing rice, they also venture into the forest to gather fruit from oil palms and burn trees to make charcoal to sell. Fertilizer, different crop rotations and help from agricultural specialists could improve their rice yields, but our reporting found that residents don’t have access to those things. And when there are poor harvests, like residents said they had in 2021, they are forced to continue cutting down trees to sustain their families. As governments and global agencies debate how to best prevent the next pandemic, some experts are calling for more funding to prevent spillover from happening, not just improving our preparation and response to an outbreak after it begins. Analyses like ours can highlight locations that may be prime for ecological interventions by helping us better understand the role land-use change plays in driving spillover events.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the following people for the time and expertise they shared in reviewing our work. Their review does not constitute an endorsement of our methods or our discussion, and any errors are our own.

Christina Faust, research fellow at the University of Glasgow

Jesús Olivero, associate professor in the department of animal biology at the University of Málaga, Spain

Heather Lynch, professor of ecology and evolution at Stony Brook University and ProPublica data science adviser

More technical details are available in the version of this article on ProPublica’s website.

Caroline Chen contributed reporting.

by Irena Hwang and Al Shaw

On the Edge

2 years 1 month ago

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

This story discusses pregnancy loss.

We’re investigating the cause of viruses spilling over from animals to humans — and what can be done to stop it. Read more in the series.

Generations ago, families fleeing tribal violence in southern Guinea settled in a lush, humid forest. They took solace among the trees, which offered cover from intruders, and carved a life out of the land. Their descendants call it Meliandou, which elders there say comes from words in the Kissi language that mean “this is as far as we go.”

By 2013, a village had bloomed where trees once stood — 31 homes, surrounded by a ring of forest and footpaths that led to pockets residents had cleared to plant rice. Their children played in a hollowed-out tree that was home to a large colony of bats.

Nobody knows exactly how it happened, but a virus that once lived inside a bat found its way into the cells of a toddler named Emile Ouamouno. It was Ebola, which invades on multiple fronts — the immune system, the liver, the lining of vessels that keep blood from leaking into the body. Emile ran a high fever and passed stool blackened with blood as his body tried to defend against the attack. A few days later, Emile was dead.

On average, only half of those infected by Ebola survive; the rest die of medical shock and organ failure. The virus took Emile’s 4-year-old sister and their mother, who perished after delivering a stillborn child. Emile’s grandmother, feverish and vomiting, clung to the back of a motorbike taxi as it hurtled out of the forest toward a hospital in the nearest city, Guéckédou, a market hub drawing traders from neighboring countries. She died as the virus began its spread.

Etienne Ouamouno, whose toddler Emile was the first to die. He lost two children in eight days, then his wife died.

Emile was patient zero in the worst Ebola outbreak the world has ever seen. The virus infiltrated 10 countries, infected 28,600 people and killed more than 11,300. Health care workers clad head to toe in protective gear rushed to West Africa to treat the sick and extinguish the epidemic, an effort that took more than two years and cost at least $3.6 billion. Then, the foreign doctors packed up and the medical tents came down.

This has long been the way the world deals with viral threats. The institutions we trust to protect us, from the World Health Organization to U.S. agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, focus on responding to epidemics — fighting the fires once they have begun, as if we could not have predicted where they would start or prevented them from sparking.

But looking back, researchers now see that dangerous conditions were brewing before the virus leaped from animals to humans in Meliandou, an event scientists call spillover.

The way the villagers cut down trees, in patches that look like Swiss cheese from above, created edges of disturbed forest where humans and infected animals could collide. Rats and bats, with their histories of seeding plagues, are the species most likely to adapt to deforestation. And researchers have found that some bats stressed out by habitat loss later shed more virus.

Researchers considered more than 100 variables that could contribute to an Ebola outbreak and found that the ones that began in Meliandou and six other locations in Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo were best explained by forest loss in the two years leading up to the first cases.

It is now clear these landscapes were tinderboxes for the spillover of a deadly virus.

Villagers prepare a meal as they take a break from farming on the slopes of Meliandou, Guinea.

We wondered what the world had done to keep disaster from striking again. Had global health leaders channeled money into stopping tree loss or deployed experts to help communities learn how to sustain themselves without cutting down the forest?

To get a sense of the current risk of spillover from deforestation at these sites, ProPublica consulted with a dozen researchers for its own analysis, which was unprecedented in its quest for specific, real-world findings. Using a theoretical model developed by a team of biologists, ecologists and mathematicians, we applied data on tree loss from historical satellite images taken between 2000 and 2021 — the most recent year available — and tested tens of thousands of infection scenarios.

The results were alarming: We found that the same dangerous pattern of deforestation has increased around Meliandou in the past decade, putting its residents at a greater risk of an Ebola spillover than they faced in 2013, when the disease first ravaged their village.

Never miss the most important reporting from ProPublica’s newsroom. Subscribe to the Big Story newsletter.

We ran the model for five other epicenters of previous Ebola outbreaks in Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. In four of the locations, that telltale pattern of tree loss got worse in the years since those outbreaks, raising their chances of facing the deadly virus again.

“I think this is very powerful,” said Raina Plowright, a professor of disease ecology at Cornell University and senior author of the model, who reviewed ProPublica’s findings. “Even though we know the fundamental driver of these outbreaks, we have effectively done nothing to stop the ignition of a future outbreak.”

ProPublica traveled to Meliandou, where on the ground, a stark picture emerged. It’s not just that the same conditions remain that primed Meliandou to kindle the worst Ebola outbreak in history.

We found they’ve gotten worse.

It takes a half-hour to walk from the homes of Meliandou through the forest to the denuded mountainside where each family is assigned a plot of land to farm. The cacophony of village life gives way to the hum of insects as residents trek up the dirt path, some balancing basins of water on their heads. Not even the children are exempt from the work it takes to clear the ground for planting. It goes on from dawn to dusk, every day but Sunday, heedless of the heat. You know you’re close to the farms when you start to hear the sound of metal striking the earth.

One day last summer, a 7-year-old boy beat a piece of scrap metal between two rocks, forming it into the head of a hoe, then raced up the slope to join other young workers. Jiba Masandouno, the village chief, followed them, sprinkling rice seed where the land was freshly bare.

Village Chief Jiba Masandouno sprinkles rice seed. Sia Irandouno pulls weeds to clear the ground for planting.

Watch video ➜

These are not the terraced rice paddies that rise like stairs for giants in postcards from Asia. Farming here is very time consuming and difficult, with steep slopes prone to erosion. Many farmers in the U.S. use controlled irrigation, mechanization, fertilizers and products to kill pests and disease. In Meliandou, everything is done by hand, and farmers are at the mercy of the weather and depleted soils, with no room for error. If a field produces a decent harvest one year, they’ll plant it again the next. If it doesn’t, the farmers cut down or burn another patch of forest.

The majority of emerging infectious diseases originally came from wildlife. Many might picture places with caged animals as the spots most primed for a novel virus to spread to humans. After all, one of the leading theories about the origin of COVID-19 is that the virus jumped to humans at a market that sold wild animals in Wuhan, China, and health authorities now are worried about the pandemic potential of a bird flu that swept through a mink farm in Spain last fall. But scientists have shown that land-use change, especially clearing forests for agriculture, is the biggest driver of spillover.

In Borneo, deforestation has brought macaques closer to humans; researchers believe that’s seeding outbreaks of what’s known as monkey malaria. In Australia, the clearing of eucalyptus trees pushed bats closer to homes and farms, spurring the spread of the brain-inflaming Hendra virus. And Nipah, another virus that causes the brain to swell, killed more than 100 people in Malaysia in the late 1990s, after slash-and-burn agriculture forced bats closer to hog farms, and the virus jumped first to pigs and then to humans. That horrific outbreak was fictionalized in the movie “Contagion.”

Researchers have also found that it’s not just the amount of forest cut down but the pattern of deforestation that matters. Models have shown that the more patchy a forest gets, the more edges are created at the borders of clearings where virus-carrying animals can come into contact with humans, until so much forest is cut down that it can’t sustain wildlife anymore. The theoretical model we worked with encapsulates this concept to assess risk by considering the amount of “edge” produced by deforestation. Cutting one big chunk out of a forest would create less edge than cutting out many holes.

The chance of spillover is higher where people and animals overlap, which the model assumes is along the edge of cleared forest patches. We estimated the size of these “mixing zones” within a radius of 20 kilometers, or about 12.5 miles, from Meliandou. Experts told us this was a reasonable distance for a person there to cover on foot or bicycle. We found that as the forest around Meliandou got more fragmented, the mixing zone area increased sharply, by 61% from 2013, the year the epidemic began, to 2021.

Meliandou’s Forests Have Become Patchier Since the Last Ebola Outbreak The forest, shown in green, around Meliandou declined and became more patchy between 2013 and 2021. According to our analysis, the amount of edge bordering these patches increased by 61%, meaning that wildlife and humans had many more opportunities to encounter and potentially spark a spillover. (Graphic by Al Shaw. Source: Hansen/UMD/Google/USGS/NASA, OpenStreetMap.)

While the model does not calculate the absolute risk of spillover — factors like population density and human behavior are not considered — it shows that the potential for an outbreak starting has increased due to growing patchiness of the surrounding forest. (For more details, read our methodology.)

Last summer, the mountainsides around Meliandou were dotted with light green rice shoots punctuated by tree stumps. The elders there reminisced about the lush forest they grew up in. They hated to see it shrinking, but they said the trees were a necessary sacrifice. The 2021 harvest was meager, so the village did not have money from rice sales to buy fertilizer or pesticide for the crop planted in 2022. Fearful of famine, they cleared more of the forest for farming. Some families also supplement their income by chopping down even more trees to make charcoal they can sell.

Despite the billions spent on recovery from the outbreak that began here, no one has helped the farmers adopt methods that could lessen their risk of spillover.

ProPublica shared with rice farming experts photos of the Meliandou villagers at work and asked what could be done to help them grow food without constantly clearing more of the forest. Mamadou Billo Barry, a retired researcher with the Agronomic Research Institute of Guinea, said those subsistence methods yield only about 1 metric ton of rice per hectare. In neighboring Mali, where the environment is kinder to rice growers, average yields are 4 to 6 metric tons per hectare with potential for 10. What’s more, 75% to 80% of the cultivated land in Africa is degraded; in Meliandou, the fragile soil can lose essential nutrients and organic matter after a year or two of planting.

Girls walk into the forest to wash laundry at a nearby river.

Experts said that one way to improve the soil’s fertility is to plant cover crops, which add nitrogen to the soil, are left to decay in the fields and slow soil erosion. Erika Styger, a professor of tropical agronomy at Cornell University, said the villagers could divide the fields into sections and rotate what’s planted in each area — rice one year, cassava the next — then let that section rest with cover crops for several years. This, along with targeted fertilizer application, could increase the organic matter in the soil and gradually triple or quadruple their yields compared with what they’re harvesting now.

The bigger expense would be to support an agricultural specialist to build trust with the farmers and figure out what works best so they can avoid clearing more of the forest. A program in Madagascar, which set out not to prevent spillover but to save trees, has succeeded in doing this.

The world has produced more than 40 reports on what went wrong during the epidemic that began in Meliandou and how to avoid similar disasters in the future. Yet Barry, the Guinean farming expert, said the authors of those reports never asked him or his colleagues for advice.

First image: Residents cook as the sun sets over Meliandou. The village has no electricity, but some people have solar-powered lights. Second image: Masandouno, the village chief

But the link between farming and health is always on the mind of Masandouno, the village chief, whose brow seems permanently furrowed in an expression of concern. As he strides up and down the slope, flinging handfuls of rice seed, he is aware that any excess crop can be sold to pay for medications. He remembers neighbors who have died in recent years of appendicitis and hernias and during childbirth, unable to afford going to the hospital because their harvest was too bare. He knows that villagers, especially children, catch rodents in the forest to fill their bellies, despite the fact that rats in Guinea can carry Lassa fever, which can cause deafness and death.

“We are suffering,” Masandouno said with a tired gaze. “The government has forgotten us. The international community has forgotten us.”

The failure to imagine ways to prevent spillover is rooted in who gets a chance to weigh in when it’s time to make policies and spend money to protect the world from the next big one.

After the Ebola epidemic, Suerie Moon, co-director of the Global Health Centre at the Geneva Graduate Institute, helped lead one of the more influential studies of what needed to change to avoid another epidemic. The 2015 report focused on preparing for and responding to outbreaks, she said, because that was the expertise of the people in the room, including policy wonks fluent in global crises, infectious disease epidemiologists and a representative from Doctors Without Borders, the nonprofit that sent medical workers to the epicenter of the outbreak. Experts in agriculture, conservation and ecology — those most attuned to the forces that drive spillover — were not present, and they are largely excluded from conversations about how to spend pandemic prevention money.

Though the research tying deforestation to outbreaks has piled up since then, the mindset hasn’t changed. The Biden administration’s pandemic preparedness plan, published in September 2021 after COVID-19 had ripped across the globe, identified five areas for action — all of which focused on responding to an outbreak that has already begun. And the International Health Regulations, established by the WHO to govern how the U.S. and nearly 200 other countries address infectious threats, are “largely built on the assumption that disease outbreaks cannot be prevented, only contained and extinguished,” Moon and her co-authors wrote in an article calling for more investment in prevention.

The U.S. has invested in preventing spillover, but its most notable projects haven’t attempted to stop the kind of deforestation that can lead to outbreaks.

In 2009, the U.S. launched what became a 10-year, $207 million project called PREDICT to serve as an early warning system for contagions emerging from the wild. The idea was to identify possible threats and give the world a head start in responding if one of those pathogens jumped to humans. The project discovered 949 novel viruses extracted from bats and other wildlife, trained thousands of people to do disease surveillance and strengthened more than 60 labs across Africa and Asia. Though it assessed risks of deforestation, PREDICT wasn’t designed to stop tree loss. After Ebola burned through West Africa, the program searched for wildlife that transmit the virus and, to help communities reduce their risk, created and distributed a picture book called “Living Safely with Bats.”

A bat hangs from a tree in Conakry, the bustling capital of Guinea.

Watch video ➜

Despite its emphasis on virus hunting, PREDICT didn’t identify the coronavirus that sparked the COVID-19 pandemic. And one of its core partners became embroiled in controversy for collaborating with researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China on risky experiments that manipulated coronaviruses to gauge their spillover potential, using a grant from the National Institutes of Health.

A federally funded successor program called Stop Spillover briefly considered planting trees in one Ugandan district to entice bats away from homes to prevent Ebola and a related virus called Marburg. But potential problems emerged, among them that bats pollinate the cacao crops that villagers rely on for income and drawing them too far away could hurt the harvest. Instead, the program has focused on decreasing contact between people and bats, partly by teaching residents how to keep the creatures and their excrement out of food, water and homes.

Whether it’s Ebola or COVID-19, the way the world responds when viruses ricochet across the globe has a predictable rhythm. In public health circles, this is known as the “cycle of panic and neglect.” At the end of every major outbreak, nations panic and vow to do what’s needed to do better the next time. But after the shock fades, so too does the commitment. The pot of money often winds up far smaller than what was initially recommended, leaving various groups to fight over the scraps.

After the Ebola epidemic, the world invested in virus-testing equipment and training scientists so that African countries could identify contagions as soon as cases popped up. Guinea’s lab infrastructure has improved dramatically; elsewhere, capacity dwindled as resources faded. Dr. Marcel Yotebieng, a New York City infectious disease researcher who often works in the Democratic Republic of Congo, said he often arrives to find equipment in need of maintenance due to a lack of sustained funding. At a lab where he does HIV testing, samples from infants have been known to sit for two years.

First image: A newborn receives a blessing during a church service in Meliandou. Second image: Malé Dembadouno washes clothing in the forest.

There are signs the cycle is repeating now in the denouement of the COVID-19 crisis. G20 countries last year agreed to set up a global fund for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. The World Bank and the WHO estimate that $10.5 billion is needed annually, and the fund is expected to run for eight years. But as the world focuses on returning to pre-pandemic life, countries and major philanthropies so far have pledged just 15% of the original goal.

At first, it looked like prevention might finally get its day. In a report last fall, staff at the World Bank championed investments in preventing spillover, including suggestions for curtailing deforestation in biodiversity hot spots around the globe. But the World Bank announced in December that the first round of money in the Pandemic Fund will go to the usual things: disease surveillance, laboratories and hiring public health workers.

The jockeying for money began early. Experts convened at the request of the WHO acknowledged that deforestation was leading to more collisions between humans and wildlife, but last June, they argued that spending much of the fund on spillover would be a waste of money. The “almost endless list of interventions and safeguards” needed to do so, they said, was so vast, it was akin to “attempting to boil the ocean.”

Scientists warn that this defeatist attitude is setting our world up for another catastrophe. Studies have shown that spillover events are increasing. In Guinea and other parts of Africa, new roads are being built every day, making it easier for someone to travel from a remote village to a major city. The chances of a spark igniting a multicountry blaze is higher than ever.

The experts convened by the WHO are not wrong about the gargantuan effort it would take to reduce the chances of spillover worldwide. Some researchers have estimated that putting a dent in global deforestation alone would cost up to $9 billion a year, but they argue that the expense would be a drop in the bucket compared with the hundreds of billions of dollars in economic losses from outbreaks each year, not to mention the cost of lives lost.

Meliandou is surrounded by a ring of forest with patches cleared over the years for subsistence farming.

Nobody knows how many other Meliandous are out there, swaths of forest pocked with enough holes, and shared by enough people and wildlife, for a virus to break into humanity. But we do have a rough sense of where these places might be. The World Bank and the United States government have funded heat maps that can be used to target such places for long-term research and resources.

Instead of worrying about doing everything everywhere, the international community could have started small. A medical desert frequented by disease-carrying bats, Meliandou could have been a testing ground, a chance to make an outsized impact.

A visitor would think that the world invested heavily in Meliandou. At its entrance, a long-departed aid group erected a sign that boasts of the village’s recovery, listing accomplishments including “community resilience to epidemic diseases, the sustained resumption of education, community protection of vulnerable children, the restoration of social cohesion and economic recovery.”

Those who live there consider the sign a bitter joke. Though the group helped them build a school, there’s still no running water or electricity. Etienne Ouamouno, whose toddler Emile was the first to die, is tormented by the reality that, should one of his surviving children get sick today, Meliandou remains just as ill-equipped to help.

Ouamouno stands at the door of his home in Meliandou.

Before the disease struck, Ouamouno was known in the village as a charismatic young man, someone the elders said they could count on to lead work projects. But there is only so much pain someone can take. “Emile was everything to me,” he said, a long-awaited son after four daughters. He lost two children in eight days. Then his pregnant wife began to bleed. The midwife shooed him out of the house. Grasping for hope, Ouamouno thought that perhaps the stillbirth could mean his wife, his childhood sweetheart, would be spared. But, he said, “I learned from the cries of the women that my wife had also died.”

Ouamouno became “like a fool,” he said, tempted to run but with nowhere to go. He felt abandoned by everyone. His neighbors shunned him, terrified that they would be next. They only called on him to help bury their dead. Then, the foreign aid groups who promised all sorts of help moved on as Ebola spread into more populous towns.

Today, his resting face is grim; his demeanor, anxious and withdrawn. He didn’t make it to the village chapel on a Sunday last summer as the preacher said, “God is the only one who can give us support when we are abandoned by all.” He didn’t participate in the moment of silence the congregation held that day for their dead, as they have every Sunday in the nine years since Ebola arrived. Ouamouno wanted to hear nothing more about the virus that destroyed his life. He disappeared into the forest, heading to his farm.

Sia Irandouno, Ouamouno’s second wife, washes rice before cooking a midday meal.

Watch video ➜

Ouamouno works on his farm. Ouamouno’s daughter Kani, 6, looks out from a shelter on her family’s farmland.

If Ebola or another deadly disease emerges from that forest today, it will fall to Catherine Leno to spot it. The 25-year-old midwife, with a sweet voice and a warm, motherly demeanor, is the sole health care provider for Meliandou and also sees patients from more than 20 neighboring villages. The job comes with serious risks: One of her predecessors died of Ebola. Her clinic has three patient beds and a birthing room with a bare mattress, stirrups and a single IV pole. There are a couple of solar-powered lights, which Leno uses sparingly. Outside is the only bathroom in Meliandou, an outhouse with tiles placed around two holes in the ground.

When patients arrive, they wash their hands in the same bucket. Leno weighs them, takes their temperature and jots details of each visit by hand in a record book with a tattered yellow cover. Medication is stacked in a wooden cabinet: malaria treatments, one kind of antibiotic and common remedies for fever, dehydration and stomach troubles, as well as medicines to control excess bleeding in childbirth. She obtains the medicines on credit from Guinea’s Health Ministry, sells them to patients, then pays back the ministry at the end of the month. Leno said she picks drugs that she knows people can afford, eschewing treatments that are more effective but more expensive. She worries they will expire in her cabinet if patients can’t pay for them, leaving her on the hook for the bill.

First image: Midwife Catherine Leno in the birthing room at the village health clinic. She is the sole health care provider for Meliandou and also sees patients from more than 20 neighboring villages. Second image: The Meliandou clinic’s supply cabinet. Leno said she chooses affordable drugs, eschewing treatments that are more effective but too expensive.

Magassouba N’Faly, the former head of the hemorrhagic fever lab in Conakry, a full day’s drive away from Meliandou, told ProPublica he was optimistic that Guinea could respond quickly to a new outbreak of Ebola or other infectious diseases. There are 38 infectious disease treatment centers now, he said, one for each district, stocked with personal protective equipment and syringes. Guinean health authorities were able to intervene quickly when lab workers in 2021 detected a case of Marburg virus, a cousin of Ebola. “For our country, we are quite ready to respond to anything,” N’Faly said. Though he still works as a technical adviser to the lab, last summer a new director was installed after a military coup.

Leno’s clinic looks nothing like the new treatment centers — she has no such PPE. During a visit to the clinic last June, there weren’t even any masks in her cupboard; the ones she distributed to villagers earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic were used up long ago. “We’re not prepared,” she said. “If I have certain equipment, I can try my best to a certain level, but if not, I will call for an ambulance.”

The ambulance from Guéckédou can take up to an hour to arrive, slowed by the jolting dirt road. Sometimes it doesn’t come, and Leno’s only option is to take the patient herself, calling a motorbike taxi to carry her and a patient together into town — potentially setting off the same chain of transmission that allowed Ebola to tumble unannounced into the more populous areas of the country.

One thing in Meliandou has changed. The hollowed-out tree is gone, set ablaze by the community. Its decayed stump has been swallowed by the forest. But the bats remain. Hundreds of them return to Meliandou every fall after the rainy season. They found a new tree, this one even closer to the residents’ homes. It towers by the entrance to the village, a few paces off the dirt path, just opposite the sign that promises that after Ebola, everything got better.

A sign at the entrance of Meliandou, erected by an aid group around the time of the Ebola outbreak, boasts of the village’s recovery.

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

Lylla Younes and Gabriel Kamano contributed reporting. Translation by Youssouf Bah, Gabriel Kamano, Zujian Zhang, Sia Maria Justine Teinguiano. Photo editing by Peter DiCampo. Design and development by Anna Donlan. Illustrations by Katherine Lam.

by Caroline Chen, Irena Hwang and Al Shaw, with additional reporting by Lisa Song and Robin Fields; Photography by Kathleen Flynn, special to ProPublica

Barricaded Siblings Turn to TikTok While Defying Court Order to Return to Father They Say Abused Them

2 years 1 month ago

This story describes in detail the sexual abuse of children.

Two siblings in Utah have barricaded themselves in a bedroom at their mother’s home in defiance of a judge’s order to return to the custody of their father, despite state child welfare investigators determining that he had sexually abused the children.

The judge has authorized police to use “reasonable force” — including entry into locked rooms — against Brynlee Larson, 12, and Ty Larson, 15. Ty has spent the last month livestreaming on TikTok to call attention to their case.

The showdown is the fallout from the latest family court battle over “parental alienation” — a disputed psychological theory in which one parent is accused of brainwashing a child to turn them against the other parent.

“My own word does not matter, and they don’t believe my truth,” Ty said in a video posted to TikTok last month that received more than 370,000 views. “The court system isn’t trying to save us, nobody’s trying to keep us safe. I am the one that’s going to have to choose my own safety.”

Police visited the home in December and attempted to remove the siblings but decided not to break down the door despite the father’s request that they do so, according to police reports. Given the “potentially combustible situation,” officers have asked for clarification from the court before carrying out Judge Derek P. Pullan’s order, according to court records.

In 2018, Utah’s Division of Child and Family Services found that the father, Brent Joel Larson, had sexually and emotionally abused his children. Investigators categorized the abuse as “severe & chronic.” The findings led to Larson’s parenting time being restricted to a handful of supervised monthly visits, as well as a 150-day restraining order that prohibited him from having any other contact with the children.

This month, the Salt Lake County District Attorney’s office said there is an ongoing criminal investigation into Larson related to new allegations against him, according to an office spokesperson who declined to comment further. A previous criminal investigation stalled in February 2021, when prosecutors determined they did not have enough evidence to lead to a probable conviction.

Two Utah police departments, Herriman and Lone Peak, are investigating Larson for child abuse, according to spokespersons for the departments.

The view from Ty and Brynlee’s Utah bedroom (Kim Raff for ProPublica)

Larson, through his attorney Ron Wilkinson, disputed the 2018 finding that he had abused the children.

In response to the new allegations, Wilkinson said in a statement: “There have been similar false claims — repeatedly, for years. The stories continue to change and expand each time — always about the same events.”

Larson has accused the children’s mother, Jessica Zahrt, of sabotaging his relationship with Ty and Brynlee through a campaign of “parental alienation.”

Mainstream scientific groups, including the American Psychiatric Association, which compiles the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and the World Health Organization, which publishes the International Classification of Diseases list, have rejected the theory and said it is not a legitimate diagnosis. It has also been shunned by the National Center for Juvenile Justice for failing to meet court evidentiary standards.

That has not stopped some courts across the country from recognizing parental alienation and mandating treatments to reverse it.

In a January order, Pullan found Zahrt's “campaign” of parental alienation to be the cause of the children’s “abuse narrative” and ordered that Ty and Brynlee undergo “reunification therapy” at an out-of-state facility to address the alleged harm. Pullan also determined that switching custody to their father is the “only way to recover the children from this psychological battlefield.”

Ty and Brynlee’s mother, Jessica Zahrt, in her Utah home. (Kim Raff for ProPublica)

Despite ordering the children placed back in their father’s legal custody, Pullan prohibited Larson from having unsupervised parenting time with the children or spending overnights with them, instead ordering Ty and Brynlee to be separately housed at their paternal relatives’ homes pending further court orders.

“The children are being maltreated by their mother. It is heartbreaking,” Wilkinson, Larson’s attorney, told ProPublica. “All that is hoped for is that the children can recover from the damage their mother has inflicted upon them.”

Ty said the claim that their mother is brainwashing them to disclose abuse is “100% fake — and if you don’t see that you’re as blind as a bat.”

Zahrt said since she and Larson split in 2012, she has supported her children having a healthy relationship with their father.

The Utah Attorney General’s office has received a slew of complaints about the court order and pleas for authorities to intervene, mostly from people who have learned about the case on social media, public records show. Last week, about 50 people, including advocates for family court reform, gathered at the Utah Capitol to protest the court’s handling of the case.

A small crowd, including Ty and Brynlee’s grandmother, protests the Utah family court’s handling of the children’s case. (Kim Raff for ProPublica)

A court spokesperson said Pullan is prohibited from commenting on the case. “I know Judge Pullan spent many, many hours going through evidence and testimony before he made his ruling,” the spokesperson told ProPublica in an email.

Ty spoke to ProPublica from his barricaded bedroom with his TikTok livestream on but his mic muted. Brynlee sat nearby on a futon mattress eating ramen that she prepared using hot water from a bathroom sink. To access the bathroom without entering the hallway, Ty said, he used a drill to cut a hole in the wall without telling his mother.

“I’m scared for my life,” the teen told ProPublica, who left school in December to avoid being forced into his father’s custody. Ty told child welfare investigators in 2018 that his father had threatened him by saying, if he told anyone about the abuse “he would kill his mother and sister.”

Larson, through his attorney, denied the allegation and described the claim as “inconsistent with prior claims.”

Brynlee, who has also left school to avoid returning to her father, said the court is “controlling my life.” “I could be in the middle of playing with my friends right now,” she said.

Brynlee makes ramen in the sink of the bathroom. Her brother barricaded the bathroom door and cut a hole in the wall to connect it to their bedroom. (Kim Raff for ProPublica)

In the order to remove the children from their mother’s home, Pullan wrote, “The children do labor under the misperception that they are in the driver’s seat and are free to determine when, where, and on what terms parent-time will occur. They are not.”

The judge criticized Zahrt for continuing to “wash the children’s clothes and to bring food to the barricaded room” because it enabled their continued rejection of their father.

Zahrt said the children would starve if she didn’t bring them food.

Pullan, citing the opinion of a court-ordered reunification therapist, chastised Zahrt for weaponizing the children in a “social media campaign aimed at achieving her desired end” and found her in contempt of court for failing to facilitate her ex-husband’s visitation on one occasion. Pullan ordered Zahrt to be jailed for five days, but will allow the contempt filing to be purged if she participates in a high-conflict parenting course.

Dr. David Corwin, a professor and director of pediatric forensic services at the University of Utah and the past president of the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, said parental alienation — which he described as “an ideology that is not based upon adequate research” — is too often an “easy sell” to courts seeking an alternative explanation for abuse claims.

“It really is one of the best defenses against accusations of sexual abuse,” said Corwin, who co-authored a position statement for his society in January warning professionals against its use in child custody decision-making. “Claiming that a child has been programmed or coached by the other parents creates enough uncertainty for a court to believe the easier narrative: that a parent would lie, rather than that a parent would sexually abuse a child.”

Jessica Zahrt talks to her children through their barricaded bedroom door. She has been criticized by the judge for enabling the children’s rejection of their father by bringing them food and washing their clothes. (Kim Raff for ProPublica)

Larson first accused Zahrt of parental alienation a few months after Brynlee accused her father of sexually abusing her in May 2018. Zahrt said when she heard the phrase “parental alienation,” she had to look it up. “I literally had to wrap my brain around what I was even being accused of,” she told ProPublica. “I’ve watched them create this story about me, and it doesn’t matter what the truth really is.”

The so-called reunification camp that Ty and Brynlee have been ordered to attend with their father, Turning Points for Families, is run by Linda Gottlieb, a New York-based social worker who markets her program as a “therapeutic vacation.”

Gottlieb’s services include taking the children to an undisclosed location for a four-day “sequestration period.” During treatment, the children meet with the “unjustifiably rejected” parent. Afterward, they remain in the alienated parent’s custody for 90 days and are prohibited from having contact with the other parent or related family members.

In an interview with ProPublica, Gottlieb said she is dismayed at how social media is being used to attack her program and others like it.

“We can’t have what happened in Utah happen again,” said Gottlieb, who said she will be requesting that courts that refer minors to her program issue orders prohibiting parents and children who resist from speaking publicly about their cases.

In his January ruling, Pullan postponed enforcing his order for the siblings to attend Turning Points and said a hearing might be necessary first.

Pullan’s rulings did not mention the 2018 DCFS findings that substantiated the children’s allegations of emotional and sexual abuse by their father.

Brynlee was 7 years old when she first began disclosing details of the abuse to her mother, according to state records. Zahrt reported her daughter’s claims to the local police department and DCSF, which opened a case. In subsequent forensic interviews, Brynlee told investigators that her father had penetrated her anus with his finger and touched her inappropriately, resulting in significant pain, according to child welfare records. She told a police detective that her father did not take her to a doctor when she complained about the pain. According to police reports, Larson expressed “shame” for not bringing her to the doctor. On April 3, 2018, DCFS found Brynlee’s allegations of sexual abuse against Larson to be “supported.”

Brynlee, now 12, first started reporting abuse to her mother in early 2018. Shortly thereafter, DCFS found her allegations of sexual abuse against her father “supported.” (Kim Raff for ProPublica)

In November 2018, Ty, then 11, disclosed that his father was emotionally and sexually abusing him, after his mother brought him to the pediatrician for severe anxiety and panic attacks, according to child welfare reports. He disclosed that when he was about 4 years old, his father held his head under water in the bathtub while running the faucet in his anus until he couldn’t breathe. He reported that around age 7 his father put soap and a water gun in his anus while he was in the shower. Around age 8, he said, several times a month his father would come into his room and touch his penis while he was asleep. He said that when he confronted his father about it his father threatened to kill his mom and family if he told them about the abuse. On Nov. 29, 2018, DCFS found Ty’s allegations of sexual and emotional abuse against Larson to be “supported.”

Records show police corroborated DCFS’ findings, but did not arrest the father. Police records do not explain why, and the department would not comment further.

According to child welfare reports, two other minors who are connected to Larson also alleged he sexually abused them. A DCFS investigation found those accusations “unsupported.” In April 2018, the children’s mother petitioned the court for an ex parte child protective order against Larson.

Larson, via his attorney, told ProPublica that “these years-old claims have previously been addressed.”

Michelle Jones, a reunification therapist appointed by the court to work with Ty and Brynlee, told ProPublica that the children’s allegations of abuse are a “false narrative.” Asked about state welfare workers finding chronic and severe sexual abuse, Jones said “sometimes they accidently make a substantiation.”

She declined to detail how she reached that conclusion, citing therapist-patient confidentiality.

Jones’ conclusions were contradicted by a forensic psychologist hired by both parents in 2019 to evaluate the case. Monica D. Christy, who holds a Ph.D. in development and clinical psychology, wrote in a report that “at the very least” she found Larson’s behavior to be “unusual and inappropriate.” “Whether or not these were sexually-motivated actions and constitute child sexual abuse is for the Court to decide,” she wrote. Christy did not respond to ProPublica’s request for comment.

Jones told ProPublica she is frequently appointed by the court to advise on cases involving abuse allegations. She is also a vocal defender of parental alienation and presents on the subject at national conferences. A slide from a 2013 presentation Jones gave depicts a mother speaking to a child, “Now that we falsely accused Daddy in Family Court, we can have ice cream for supper, play video games and go to the park all day, and wait for the support checks to roll in!”

Daniel Eyre, a guardian ad litem assigned by the court to represent Ty and Brynlee’s interests in the case, also found parental alienation to be the cause of the children’s claims of abuse and supported sending them to the reunification camp. Eyre declined to speak with ProPublica.

Some defenders of parental alienation claim an absence of abuse or neglect is necessary for the diagnosis, but others, including Gottlieb and Jones, accept cases involving allegations of abuse, including when abuse has been substantiated by authorities, like in the Larson case.

Gottlieb said determining child abuse has occurred is the responsibility of the courts.

“Turning Points only accepts cases by court order,” said Gottlieb, adding that demand from courts has prompted her to scale up operations and open two new locations in Texas and California. “The court had to have already made the determination that the child is safe with the alienated parent and that abuse didn’t occur — or that it was so long ago, it was remediated.”

Ty partially attributes the court’s decision to delay sending him and Brynlee to Turning Points to his online activism. He livestreams around the clock, including while he sleeps. He calls the followers who “stand guard” while he sleeps his “dream catchers.”

“I know this is happening to so many kids,” Ty said. “What separates me is that I have hundreds of people watching.”

Signs in Ty and Brynlee’s window calling for a stop to abuse (Kim Raff for ProPublica) Has “Parental Alienation” Played a Role in Your Family Court Case?

If so, tell us about it through our newsroom’s tip line below. We can’t follow up on everything, but your voice and story are important to us.

window.jQuery || document.write('') This form requires JavaScript to complete. Powered by CityBase Screendoor. // Uncomment this line and set it to the CSS class that your website uses for buttons: // FormRenderer.BUTTON_CLASS = ''; new FormRenderer({"project_id":"kXWizETDWItPozdp"});

Mollie Simon and Mariam Elba contributed research.

Correction

Feb. 27, 2023: This story originally misspelled the last name of the mother of the barricaded siblings. She is Jessica Zahrt, not Zhart.

by Hannah Dreyfus

Help Us Report on Assisted Living Facilities in Maine

2 years 1 month ago

In Maine, the number of nursing home beds is declining even as the state’s population grows older and medical needs continue to rise. Assisted living facilities have expanded their presence across the state, attempting to meet the demand. The Maine Monitor and ProPublica would like your help in reporting on how well these facilities are run, especially in looking after people who need a high level of medical care, and whether the state is doing enough to ensure that residents’ needs are being adequately met. If you have firsthand experience of living, working or caring for someone in one of these facilities, we would appreciate your help and perspective.

We are focusing on large residential facilities, classified as Level 4, that have seven or more beds in private or semiprivate rooms, as well as common living and dining areas.

We want to hear from residents or their family members about the medical care provided by Maine’s Level 4 assisted living facilities. We’d also like to hear from Mainers who are struggling to find an assisted living facility that they can afford or that provides adequate care.

We also are hoping to hear from workers in the Level 4 assisted living facilities, as you understand the challenges that accompany the rising demand for care.

We take your privacy seriously. We are gathering these stories for the purposes of our reporting and will contact you if we wish to publish any part of your story. We are the only ones reading what you submit.

We may not be able to respond to everyone, but we read each submission, and they all help inform our work.

by Rose Lundy, The Maine Monitor

A Christian Health Nonprofit Saddled Thousands With Debt as It Built a Family Empire Including a Pot Farm, a Bank and an Airline

2 years 1 month ago

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

Bonnie Martin kept the bleeding secret for as long as she could. Her sisters, boyfriend and sons knew nothing of her illness until suddenly, during a family gathering in October 2018 at a diner in Annapolis, Maryland, she began hemorrhaging.

A tumor had burst through the wall of her uterus. Doctors performed an emergency hysterectomy and removed what cancer they could reach. She needed multiple rounds of chemotherapy and radiation, expensive stuff. As her family grew fearful, Martin walked that fine line between resilience and denial — she’d beat this, she said. She focused instead on fun things ahead, a trip to Ireland with her boyfriend and sisters, for instance, and a Rolling Stones concert.

Luckily, or so Martin thought, she had placed her trust — and her money — in Liberty HealthShare. Liberty is what’s known as a health care sharing ministry, a nonprofit alternative to medical insurance rooted in Christian principles. Hundreds of thousands of people rely on such organizations for basic health coverage. They promise no red tape, lower costs and compassion for the sick. Although Martin wasn’t religious, she found comfort in Liberty’s pledge to “carry one another’s burdens.”

Martin received treatment that pushed her cancer into remission. But 18 months later, it returned, this time in her lungs. She was dying.

Liberty covered her bills at first, but then, without warning or explanation, the payments stopped. Suddenly, she faced $10,000 in unpaid charges. Her whole life, she’d had pristine credit. Now creditors called constantly and sent harassing letters.

Martin refused to accept that her cancer was terminal. She was going to survive, and when she was rid of it, she needed those bills paid. She spent hours pleading over the phone with Liberty, straining to focus as the toxic drugs she was taking sapped her energy. Martin’s long, auburn curls fell out, and her memory was slipping.

Martin forwarded the overdue notices to Liberty, writing on one in pen, “WHY HAS THIS NOT BEEN PAID?” In emails Martin’s family shared with ProPublica, she pleaded, “I am asking for your help and compassion. Help me, I don’t know what else to do. … I CANNOT deal with this stress and fight cancer. You say you are a ministry and want to help people. THEN HELP!!!”

Bonnie Martin, a Liberty HealthShare member who was left with unpaid bills for her cancer treatment, was remembered in photographs at her memorial service. (Rich-Joseph Facun, special to ProPublica)

Martin died in July 2022 at age 63. Liberty never settled the bills that she had begged them to pay.

What Martin didn’t know when she joined Liberty was that she was sending her money to members of a family with a long and well-documented history of fraud.

For generations, members of the Beers family of Canton, Ohio, have used Christian faith to sell health coverage to more than a hundred thousand people like Martin. Instead they delivered pain, debt and financial ruin, according to an investigation by ProPublica based on leaked internal documents, land records, court files and interviews. They have done this not once but twice and have faced few consequences.

Patriarch Daniel J. Beers, 60, lies at the center of the family network. He was a leading figure in a scheme in the 1990s involving a health care sharing ministry that fraudulently siphoned tens of millions of dollars from members, court records show. Two decades later, he played a key role in building Liberty into one of the nation’s largest sharing ministries, several of the nonprofit’s current and former employees told ProPublica.

Four years after its launch in 2014, the ministry enrolled members in almost every state and collected $300 million in annual revenue. Liberty used the money to pay at least $140 million to businesses owned and operated by Beers family members and friends over a seven-year period, the investigation found. The family then funneled the money through a network of shell companies to buy a private airline in Ohio, more than $20 million in real estate holdings and scores of other businesses, including a winery in Oregon that they turned into a marijuana farm. The family calls this collection of enterprises “the conglomerate.”

Beers has disguised his involvement in Liberty. He has never been listed as a Liberty executive or board member, and none of the family’s 50-plus companies or assets are in his name, records show.

From the family’s 700-acre ranch north of Canton, however, Beers acts as the shadow lord of a financial empire. It was built from money that people paid to Liberty, Beers’ top lieutenant confirmed to ProPublica. He plays in high-stakes poker tournaments around the country, travels to the Caribbean and leads big-game hunts at a vast hunting property in Canada, which the family partly owns. He is a man, said one former Liberty executive, with all the “trappings of large money coming his way.”

Despite abundant evidence of fraud, much of it detailed in court records and law enforcement files obtained by ProPublica, members of the Beers family have flourished in the health care industry and have never been prevented from running a nonprofit. Instead, the family’s long and lucrative history illustrates how health care sharing ministries thrive in a regulatory no man’s land where state insurance commissioners are barred from investigating, federal agencies turn a blind eye and law enforcement settles for paltry civil settlements.

The Ohio attorney general has twice investigated Beers for activities that financial crimes investigators said were probable felonies. Instead, the office settled for civil fines, most recently in 2021. It also required Liberty to sever its ties to some Beers family members.

The IRS has pursued individual family members for underreporting their income and failing to pay million-dollar tax bills. But there’s no indication that the IRS has investigated how several members of one family amassed such substantial wealth in just seven years by running a Christian nonprofit.

The agencies’ failure to move decisively against the Beers family has left Liberty members struggling with millions of dollars in medical debt. Many have joined a class-action lawsuit accusing the nonprofit of fraud.

After years of complaints, health care sharing ministries are now attracting more scrutiny. Sharity Ministries, once among the largest organizations in the industry, filed for bankruptcy and then dissolved in 2021 as regulators in multiple states investigated its failure to pay members’ bills. In January, the Justice Department seized the assets of a small Missouri-based ministry, Medical Cost Sharing Inc., and those of its founders, accusing them of fraud and self-enrichment. The founders have denied the government’s allegations.

Those leading the Beers family enterprise have already moved on to its next health care venture. This time, it involves a bank in the Ozarks that family members hope will generate millions of dollars each year. Business filings lay out plans that would further shield sharing ministries from oversight.

Two weeks after Martin’s death, ProPublica reporters traveled to Canton to sit down with Brandon Fabris, chief operating officer of one of the family’s companies that has received tens of millions of dollars from Liberty. Dan Beers had declined the meeting.

Ten minutes into the interview, though, Beers parked his Ford F-150 Platinum edition in front of the building, blocking the driveway. He marched into the vast foyer with its cathedral windows, turned right past the receptionist and barged into the conference room as if, well, he owned the place.

Wearing worn jeans, Beers delivered a beefy handshake, sank into a chair, pushed his silver hair back and grinned. For the next two hours, he waved away suggestions that he was the mastermind behind everything.

“I’m just not smart enough to do it,” he said, brushing his goatee with his hand. “I’m not the kingpin here.”

Beers and Fabris acknowledged that Liberty failed to pay medical bills for its members but said it was because the ministry’s fees weren’t high enough. The pair confirmed many of the details ProPublica had uncovered about how the family got rich from Liberty members, but they denied any legal wrongdoing.

“There’s profit,” Beers said. “Absolutely there’s profit.”

“Nobody’s here to not make money,” Fabris said.

Attorneys representing Beers, his sons Danny and Ronnie, Fabris and his father, Tom, disputed ProPublica’s finding that they controlled or influenced the sharing ministry. Liberty’s contracts with the family-run businesses were legal, “arm’s-length” transactions, they said, and they performed work for the nonprofit at market rates or better. ProPublica sent dozens of detailed questions to members of the Beers and Fabris families and their lawyers but did not receive answers.

ProPublica repeatedly asked Liberty and members of the Beers family to provide the ministry’s contracts with the businesses, but all declined. The family members’ attorneys cited the confidentiality of the contracts, while Liberty officials said they could not release the documents because of the ongoing litigation.

During the interview in Canton, Beers joked that regulators and creditors and law enforcement have been chasing him for alleged misdeeds “since birth.” One after another, Fabris added, they’ve all come up short.

“Nobody can catch Dan Beers,” he said.

Tens of thousands of people paid Liberty HealthShare monthly fees for medical coverage. Controlled by members of the Beers family of Ohio, the sharing ministry was marketed as a Christian alternative to health insurance.

Watch video ➜

The nonprofit promised to use the money to pay for members’ medical bills.

Watch video ➜

But Liberty started directing tens of millions of dollars a year to two for-profit companies that members of the Beers family also controlled: a marketing firm and a billing-management company, according to IRS filings and interviews.

Watch video ➜

The marketing and billing companies then transferred much of that money to shell companies that the family members created.

Watch video ➜

That money was used to set up or buy private businesses, such as butcher shops, an airline, a wedding venue, a marijuana farm and a bank.

Watch video ➜

When Liberty’s members needed to pay their medical bills, the ministry’s funds had been largely depleted.

Watch video ➜

The Brotherhood Blueprint

To understand the rapid rise and fall of Liberty HealthShare and the devastation it wrought for thousands of members, it helps to understand the family’s first foray into the business of health care sharing ministries.

Health care sharing ministries have existed since the early 1900s, primarily among Mennonites and the Amish. The idea was simple: Members chip in what they can to help cover a neighbor’s costs when someone breaks a leg, say, or falls ill. It was the financial equivalent of a potluck dinner, with everyone contributing something to the table and sharing the spread.

Few outside those communities knew or cared that health care sharing ministries existed. They were tiny, didn’t advertise for new members and posed no threat to corporate insurance. Most importantly, no one envisioned making money from a ministry.

This would all change with Dan Beers’ uncle and mentor, an Ohio preacher named Bruce Hawthorn.

Bruce and Phyllis Hawthorn in front of the Barberton Rescue Mission shortly after they opened the halfway house for men struggling with alcoholism in 1965. (Akron Beacon Journal/USA TODAY NETWORK)

In the mid 1960s, Hawthorn founded the Barberton Rescue Mission, serving men struggling with alcoholism, in a rundown brick hall along a dirt road just outside of Canton. As the Akron Beacon Journal would note, the townsfolk snickered at the irony. The building had previously been a nightclub called the Lazy L Ranch, which a local sheriff described as “a notorious one-stop tavern and bordello.” (As an homage, or perhaps an inside joke, the phrase “Lazy L” would surface again and again, tucked into the name of many Beers family enterprises.)

The mission was a shoestring operation, sustained by small cash donations. In the fall of 1981, though, tragedy would transform Hawthorn and lead to the creation of the modern health care sharing ministry.

Hawthorn was driving his family to Michigan when a truck broadsided the car, killing his wife and 4-year-old daughter and seriously injuring three older children. Hawthorn faced tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills. When he spread the news in the mission’s newsletter, his followers responded by mailing him handwritten prayers — and money, often in the form of cash folded into cards and letters. The outpouring continued for weeks and covered the family’s expenses.

Hawthorn had an epiphany. Could he build on this sort of generosity? Maybe he could serve as an intermediary, connecting people who’d never met but who might have nodded their heads from a pew to the edict of Galatians 6:2: “Bear ye one another’s burdens.”

The next year, Hawthorn launched the Christian Brotherhood Newsletter, which charged subscribers a fee, originally $75 a month. He called it a “share,” but it was functionally what insurance calls a premium. A subscriber with a medical bill would write to the Brotherhood, and other subscribers would receive instructions to send money directly to the person in need. More than 90% of the subscription fees went toward health care expenses, with the mission taking the rest to cover administration and publishing costs.

After a decade of slow growth, the Brotherhood decided to expand and began partnering with independent “sponsors,” paying them cash incentives for every new subscriber they brought into the organization. The more people they recruited, the more commissions they made. By the early ’90s, the Brotherhood had added tens of thousands of members, making it a nationwide purveyor of something that looked a lot like health insurance. Dan Beers began working in the nonprofit’s marketing department, helping to sell its coverage.

The Brotherhood wasn’t following the few laws that applied to sharing ministries, and state regulators started to notice. Arkansas’ attorney general warned citizens that the nonprofit had “all the earmarks of a phony con job.”

Hawthorn hired a lobbyist to fight back. Insurance companies pool customer premiums to offset costs. The Brotherhood argued that its health plan was not insurance because members had individual control of their funds. Any crackdown, they insisted, amounted to religious persecution. By 1994, 10 states had effectively exempted health care sharing ministries from oversight. Beers’ uncle had created an entire industry for an insurance-like business that was unregulated. And now the family was free to exploit it.

In the early days of the Brotherhood, the ministry handled little of the money because members sent payments to one another through the mail. But this changed in 1995, when the Brotherhood began directing many members to send their monthly fees to a bank account that Beers and Hawthorn had set up under the name of Beers’ wife, Theodora. The nonprofit wasn’t just pooling money; Beers and Hawthorn now had control of members’ fees.

The day after opening the account, Beers and a cousin started a business called Benevolent Health Systems, which the Brotherhood soon hired to negotiate with hospitals and doctors to lower bill amounts. In return, Beers claimed his business would pocket 15 cents of every dollar saved.

But Ohio financial crimes investigators later found no correlation between Benevolent Health Systems’ revenues and the services it provided to the Brotherhood. In late 1997, Beers began automatically transferring $55,000 a week from the Brotherhood to Benevolent Health Systems, according to bank records reviewed by state investigators. In three years, Beers’ firm collected at least $23 million from the charity.

Hawthorn also raided the Brotherhood’s funds to reward himself and his relatives, using money intended to cover members’ medical bills to buy an airplane, a tour bus and several Honda Gold Wing motorcycles, court records show. During the early 1990s, Hawthorn directed the nonprofit to purchase hundreds of acres of ranchland along the Tuscarawas River, north of Canton. The ranch became a family compound as Hawthorn signed over houses and wooded parcels to relatives through complex transactions. County property records show that Beers and his wife received a 5,000-square-foot house on the estate and paid nothing for it.

“A Criminal Enterprise”

A few directors on the nonprofit’s board began to question the way Hawthorn was spending the organization’s funds on gifts to friends and family, court and law enforcement records show. The board, however, was unaware that in the Brotherhood’s annual disclosures to the IRS, the ministry hid the money it was paying directly to Benevolent Health Systems.

With subscribers’ fees going elsewhere, medical bills began to go unpaid. Members complained, and many left, shrinking the flow of cash. Brotherhood officials acknowledged a backlog of $15 million in overdue bills from 1997 alone. Beers and Hawthorn blamed subscribers. “The problem we have is that the giving by the partners has not kept up with the climb in bills,” one issue of the newsletter said.

Responding to complaints from inside the Brotherhood, the Ohio attorney general’s charity division launched an investigation in March 1997. After two years, investigators had compiled a dossier, obtained by ProPublica, that detailed “acts of theft, theft by deception, money laundering and conspiracy.” The dossier reveals that state forensic accountants recommended 65 felony counts of fraud and theft against Beers — offenses that carried the threat of yearslong prison sentences. The Brotherhood organization “is a criminal enterprise,” state investigators wrote, and top executives were “engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity.”

By law, the attorney general’s office had to refer the criminal case to prosecutors in Summit County, where the Brotherhood was based. In April 2000, the Ohio attorney general sent the dossier to the county prosecutor, seeking criminal fraud charges against eight of the Brotherhood’s executives, including Beers; Theodora; Beers’ brother-in-law Randy Abel; and Hawthorn. Theodora Beers declined to answer questions, and Abel did not respond to requests for comment. 

No charges were ever filed.

Christine Croce was an assistant criminal prosecutor in Summit County and part of the team on the Brotherhood case. Multiple police agencies were investigating the charity in 2000, she said, working to flip witnesses, gather evidence and secure search warrants. But Croce’s boss lost his reelection bid that fall, and many high-level prosecutors were forced out, including Croce. “I couldn't tell you where the investigation went awry,” she said, “or why it stopped.”

(Michael Callahan, the county prosecutor who lost his office, did not respond to requests for an interview. James Pollack, a spokesperson for the Summit County Prosecutor’s office, said that no public records from the Brotherhood investigation remain in its possession, and no one there knows why the case languished.)

The attorney general’s office, however, continued to pursue a civil case against Beers, Hawthorn and their wives. When it went to trial in 2004, jurors unanimously held Beers liable for fraud and unjust enrichment. He and Benevolent Health Systems were ordered to pay $9.6 million in damages to the Barberton Rescue Mission. Hawthorn was also hit with a $4.6 million judgment. The jury did not find Theodora Beers or Hawthorn’s wife liable; the state did not name Abel as a defendant.

The Christian Brotherhood Newsletter foundered, its members saddled with millions of dollars in medical debt.

Hawthorn died in 2012 without ever paying. Beers dodged the judgment for almost 20 years but negotiated a new settlement with the charity, paying it $210,000 early last year. The verdict “doesn’t mean what we did was wrong,” he told a local newspaper the day the jury read its finding.

Over the next decade, Beers continued to find himself at the center of allegations of fraud, though on a smaller scale. He lost his family’s home to creditors and was convicted of bouncing a $50 check written to “cash” at a grocery store. He was convicted of a felony, motor vehicle theft, and sent to prison for several months. (Beers later persuaded a judge to expunge the felony conviction and seal records from the case.) While he was incarcerated, Theodora divorced him; she and their seven kids moved in with one of his brothers-in-law.

After his release, Beers returned to Canton, talking his way into small construction jobs. Beers lost several lawsuits accusing him of running an array of scams between 2007 and 2013, according to Ohio court records. A former landlord accused him of owing more than a year in back rent and, when he was evicted, of stealing window coverings, a riding lawn mower and a paddle boat.

Louis Smith, a property manager in the Akron area, hired Beers to install carpet, replace roofs and make other renovations. Beers convinced Smith to pay him upfront, then left most of the work unfinished. Smith won a $46,000 judgment against Beers but said he wasn’t paid for another five years.

“That guy,” Smith said, “he’s slicker than grease.”

Reboot

In the wake of the Christian Brotherhood Newsletter scandal, a group of health care sharing ministries formed a trade organization. By 2008, the Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries had convinced five additional states to pass laws shielding ministries from regulation.

An even bigger coup came in 2010 with the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The act required that all Americans carry health insurance — a provision called the individual mandate — or face a fine. But with help from Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, a conservative lobbyist working for the Alliance managed to slip in an exemption, which gave anyone who belonged to a health care sharing ministry a pass on the mandate.

The exemption — 200 words in a 900-page bill — didn’t just save the industry. It propelled it. Health care sharing ministries now offered a legal and financially attractive alternative for consumers. They drew thousands of members who were opposed to President Barack Obama’s hallmark legislation, but they also appealed to many more who wanted a better deal than what they could find on the new insurance marketplace. Before Obamacare, maybe 40,000 people belonged to health care sharing ministries. Four years later, the Alliance boasted that the number of people enrolled in ministries had jumped to a million.

Beers and his family seized on the opportunity, incorporating Liberty HealthShare as a nonprofit in 2014. (Although called “Liberty,” it was actually a combination of two nonprofits, Gospel Light Mennonite Church Medical Aid Plan and the National Coalition of Health Care Sharing Ministries.) It had all the makings of a Hollywood reboot — the old Brotherhood crew getting back together for a new but familiar caper, only this time with some kids and novel technology thrown in.

Liberty’s CEO was Dale Bellis, Dan Beers’ close friend and business partner and the former communications director for the Brotherhood. Bellis and Beers are also connected through marriage; Bellis’ sister was married to Beers’ uncle.

Beers’ sister, Drudy Abel, another Brotherhood alum, was Liberty’s vice president; she later became CEO and a member of its board of directors. Abel did not respond to requests for comment.

Then there was Beers himself, who was as involved in Liberty as he was in the Brotherhood, according to interviews and documents.

Fabris, the leader of one of the family’s companies, lives with Abel’s daughter and is a longtime friend of Beers’ sons, Danny and Ronnie. They all live on neighboring parcels of the family ranch.

Liberty resembled the Brotherhood in another way: It soon began contracting out services to companies owned and operated by family members and friends.

Liberty outsourced bill negotiations to a company called Medical Cost Solutions LLC, which was owned by Liberty CEO Bellis before he sold it to Fabris’ father. Between 2015 and 2021, the ministry paid at least $35 million to Medical Cost Solutions, but the true amount is likely higher. Liberty masked payments that were going to the company by reporting that those millions of dollars were spent on members’ medical costs, ProPublica found by comparing internal accounting records with IRS filings from 2017 to 2019.

Liberty also contracted with a firm called Cost Sharing Solutions to bring in new members. The company was owned by Brandon Fabris and Danny and Ronnie Beers. Between 2015 and 2021, Liberty paid $105 million for its marketing services, according to the nonprofit’s IRS disclosures.

Medical Cost Solutions and Cost Sharing Solutions derived all of their revenue from Liberty, Fabris told ProPublica.

In an interview last fall, Bellis said Liberty awarded exclusive contracts to Cost Sharing Solutions and Medical Cost Solutions solely because they were the best options. Bellis said the board had used an open bidding process and considered other companies, but he was unable to name them.

Both Beers and Fabris said they never worked for Liberty, but interviews, photos, emails and other records reveal the two were key figures in Liberty’s founding and growth. Former employees told ProPublica that Beers attended Liberty executive meetings and had access to the ministry’s bill processing offices, which held members’ private medical information. When an executive voiced concern about how much Liberty was paying to Cost Sharing Solutions, Beers later approached him and yelled at him for raising questions, according to a complaint filed with Ohio fraud investigators.

Fabris was an official at Liberty at the same time as he helped determine how much it paid to Cost Sharing Solutions, his own company, records show. Emails from 2014 to 2017 identified Fabris as a Liberty employee. In one 2014 message to firms selling coverage plans, Bellis, the CEO, wrote, “If you have any questions in regards to the changes to the compensation structure please contact: Brandon Fabris.” Bellis included Fabris’ Liberty HealthShare email address.

Fabris said he kept Cost Sharing Solutions “at arm’s length” from the nonprofit.

Beers and Fabris also traveled to pitch the ministry to churches, fraternal organizations like the Loyal Order of Moose and conservative groups like the Conservative Political Action Coalition, or CPAC. The men urged audiences to join Liberty and make money selling coverage to their friends and flock, according to interviews, records and photographs obtained by ProPublica. Liberty spent more than $200,000 a year between 2017 and 2021 to be a top sponsor at CPAC, vaulting the sharing ministry and its chief executive to the main stage of the high profile conservative political event. Bellis was given a prime speaking slot in 2018, following Fox News host Laura Ingraham. At the next year’s conference, then-President Donald Trump famously hugged a U.S. flag as he took the stage for his keynote address, with a large Liberty logo to his right.

Liberty’s logo appears beside President Donald Trump at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2019. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

Craig Berens, a sales consultant in Michigan, said he worked closely with Beers and Fabris and connected them to the Christian Coalition of Michigan as part of a membership drive. “Oh yeah, he was my pipeline to Liberty,” Berens said, referring to Fabris. “Him and Dan Beers were at the top of the organization.”

When ProPublica presented its findings to Beers and Fabris, their lawyers responded. Rick Arnold, the family’s longtime attorney, and Laura Mills, who is representing the family in the class-action lawsuit, said the relationship between Liberty and the two companies did not constitute a conflict of interest under IRS standards.

“Just because you’ve got a family member on a board and you may have a vendor does not mean that’s an improper transaction, as long as those people recuse themselves, make it known as well,” Arnold said.

Beers and Fabris’ sales efforts were an extraordinary success. Liberty enrolled 50,000 members in its first two years, more than the entire industry had covered before the Affordable Care Act. Marketing flyers from that era show Liberty urging people to “join the movement” and “opt out of Obamacare.” Money came flooding in as Liberty offered cheap plans — about $160 a month for an individual and $400 a month for families.

Between 2015 and 2021, Liberty collected at least $1.9 billion in revenue, according to tax filings and internal audits. But ProPublica found that Liberty did not report more than $1 billion of those payments to state and federal tax agencies on its financial balance sheet. Instead, Liberty noted it had possession of hundreds of millions of dollars in an obscure text field tucked deep in its tax filing each year. This pot of money, the nonprofit said, was under the control of its members.

Nonprofit experts told ProPublica that the practice was dubious at best and potentially illegal. “If they have the discretion to redirect the money, then it’s revenue,” said Marcus Owens, former director of the IRS’s nonprofit division.

An attorney representing members of the Beers family did not directly respond to questions about Liberty’s accounting practices.

Echoing a strategy used by the Brotherhood, Liberty recorded its finances in two ways. One was the company’s bank account, which showed actual transactions — member fees received, medical providers paid. Only a small number of executives and staff could see those transactions, including Drudy Abel, according to interviews with former Liberty employees.

The second way was designed for Liberty members’ eyes. The company developed in-house software that purported to show members’ individual accounts and track their personal medical bills and monthly payments, according to Fabris. He called these “hypothetical accounts.” In other words, this software created a facade; it tracked accounts that didn’t exist and reflected transactions that may or may not have been completed.

The hypothetical accounts accomplished two things, according to current and former employees. They gave the appearance that Liberty was sending far more money to medical providers than it was, and they gave Liberty cover from regulations. If Liberty was pooling members’ funds into bank accounts, insurance commissioners could argue that the company was selling insurance. The software, however, made it look as if each person had an individual account. In reality, Liberty controlled every dollar.

The Conglomerate

With money from Liberty flowing into Cost Sharing Solutions and Medical Cost Solutions, corporate filings show Danny and Ronnie Beers and Fabris created a dizzying array of businesses, real estate holding companies and shell companies — entities that conduct no business but hold assets and move money.

The family reclaimed much of the Beers family compound that had been lost in the collapse of the Brotherhood. One of the newly formed shell companies, Ohio Lazy L Ranch Ltd., paid $4.2 million for 140 acres of Hawthorn’s old ranch. This included a 4,000-square-foot house that overlooks the expanse of rolling hills where Beers made his new home. The family formed additional shell companies and over the next two years spent $6 million for neighboring parcels, including a wedding venue and a commercial horse stable.

Other Lazy L businesses popped up: Lazy L Ranch Trucking, Lazy L Ranch Meats, Lazy L Ranch Cattle and Lazy L Ranch Leasing.

Danny Beers launched Dan’s Wholesale Carpet in an old brick building down the road from the ranch and then opened four more locations around Canton and Akron in two years.

After the family acquired a popular chicken restaurant, Beers explained to the local newspaper how the businesses all fed off one another. The wedding venue ordered cakes from the bakery. The butcher shops got cattle from the ranch. “My son wanted a place he could sell steaks,” Beers said, “so we bought a restaurant.”

Dan Beers, second from left, Ronnie Beers, second from right, and Brandon Fabris, far right, at Tapawingo Lodge in Alberta, Canada, one of many ventures that members of the family have invested in or purchased (Via the Alberta Adventures website)

The family acquired a one-quarter interest in Tapawingo Lodge, a hunting and fishing camp in Alberta, Canada, through Next Level Adventures LLC, which is registered to Ronnie Beers. Next Level’s mailing address, however, is Dan Beers’ home. The lodge’s promotional website shows multiple photos of Beers family members.

Through a common arrangement that kept their names out of public records, family members purchased a controlling stake of Ultimate Air Charters, a boutique airline that specializes in shuttling passengers from Canton to gambling locales such as Atlantic City. (Ultimate Air Charters recently made headlines when Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis used the company to shuttle immigrant families to Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts.)

In Oregon, Fabris and his father purchased an 80-acre vineyard outside of Medford for $1.8 million. The hillside property had produced syrahs and pinot noirs. Fabris decided to grow a different crop. He hired a local contractor to tear out the grape vines, dig lines and run electrical wiring and conduits to power an industrial marijuana farm. There are now five greenhouses and a 16,000-square-foot metal barn tucked into that valley.

Brandon Fabris and his father purchased a southern Oregon vineyard, which they converted into a marijuana farm. (Jordan Gale, special to ProPublica)

In all, the Beers family set up at least 35 companies in six states in seven years. The full extent of their holdings is likely greater, but it can’t be determined because transaction details between private businesses aren’t typically made public.

A Chorus of Complaints

In its first two years, Liberty gained a reputation for paying most bills promptly, bringing in new members and hundreds of millions of dollars in fees. Then, beginning in late 2016, that reputation began to fall apart. Liberty started rejecting claims and lowballing doctors, leading some to return checks, which Liberty staff stuffed in boxes and stacked in a storage room, according to several former employees directly involved. Internal data and records obtained by ProPublica show that at least 50 hospitals refused to work with Liberty’s bill negotiators to settle unpaid charges. A memo from June 2017 shows Utah’s Intermountain Healthcare system, one of the largest in the western United States, refused to negotiate with the ministry and its billing contractor, leaving many members to fend for themselves.

At the same time, Liberty stopped reimbursing members for charges they paid out of pocket. This led to a massive backlog in bills, with both members and health care providers waiting months and years to be paid, if they were paid at all.

ProPublica spoke at length with nearly a dozen current and former employees familiar with Liberty, Cost Sharing Solutions and Medical Cost Solutions. They confirmed that the spending binge on the conglomerate drained money from member funds.

David Chalman paid monthly fees to Liberty, but his medical bills were sent to collections. (Rachel Woolf for ProPublica)

In Colorado, David Chalman joined Liberty in 2016 because he disliked Obamacare, hadn’t had any previous health issues and ran his own small business. Two years later, he suffered a heart attack, which left him with a stent above his right ventricle. After many months of calls and letters, Liberty eventually paid for that. But then, in 2018, while driving to a job outside of Cañon City, he turned to his son and said, “I think I’m having another heart attack.”

Thinking the stent might have failed, he and his son rushed to a rural clinic, where a doctor called for a helicopter to transport him to a hospital in Pueblo. The flight, an aortic valve replacement and checkups cost more than $150,000.

As Liberty instructed all its members to do, he told the hospital he would pay out-of-pocket and then submitted the bills to Liberty. The ministry never sent him money, the bills were referred to a collection agency, and Chalman’s credit score dropped from 750 to 600. Due to the supply chain chaos wrought by the pandemic, Chalman’s windshield repair business went under. He then hoped to buy a truck and become a commercial driver, but no banks would give him a loan because of his credit rating.

Still, fear kept him paying into Liberty. Until the end of 2022, he paid his $400 a month share because he worried that, if he left, Liberty would never reimburse him. Dozens of current and former members told ProPublica they felt stuck in this predicament, as Liberty executives had said in newsletters that the organization prioritized paying new bills for current members. “I’ve thought about suing, but the lawyers don’t know what to do,” Chalman said. “They’re not an insurance company.”

Debt collection notices piled up when Liberty failed to pay bills for Chalman’s heart treatments. (Rachel Woolf for ProPublica)

ProPublica contacted nearly 300 current and former Liberty members and spoke with more than 70 who described extended periods of stress, harassment by bill collectors and financial ruin.

Heidi Dunfield of Salt Lake City said that after Obamacare costs “went sky high,” she signed her family up with Liberty. One year, she had more than $10,000 in bills sent to collections after her husband was seen for back problems and her daughter broke two limbs. Dunfield said she fought for months, calling Liberty repeatedly to get reimbursed. She is still waiting.

Like hundreds of other Liberty members, she found a Facebook group where users shared complaints and raised questions about the people behind the ministry. She sifted through court records and found the Brotherhood case and the Ohio attorney general’s allegations of theft and money laundering. How, she asked, was this ministry any different?

“It became almost like a second job,” she said. “So I started looking into it and realized that it was kind of a family that was just scamming people. It was kind of genius in a way.”

In South Dakota, Marilyn Breck needed a colonoscopy and cancer screening. The charge came to about $20,000, which Liberty never paid even after she went through months of submitting claims and paperwork. Breck said she couldn’t stop the bill from going to collections and wrecking her credit because she was in the middle of a divorce and had lost her job.

“My daughter and I — we were going to the food bank to get food, so I couldn’t deal with Liberty anymore or the collections company,” said Breck, who now lives with her mother in a mobile home in Florida. “It really made a big impact in my life.”

Citing health privacy laws, current Liberty executives declined to comment on individual members’ bills.

It is not a coincidence that many of Liberty’s members ended up in collections. It was part of a strategy by Liberty to reduce medical bills, according to interviews and social media statements by current and former billing staff.

While many hospitals and doctors stopped negotiating with Liberty, collection agencies did not. Medical Cost Solutions, Liberty’s billing contractor, found it could convince those agencies to close out cases for pennies on the dollar.

Members have complained to the Better Business Bureau, state insurance departments and their state attorneys general. Many found their way to the Ohio attorney general’s office, which has fielded hundreds of complaints from consumers living in 44 states. The complaints are unambiguous. More than 40 people told the Ohio attorney general that they’d been forced into collections. More than a dozen complaints specifically referred to Liberty as a “shell game” or a “fraud.”

“I believe this company is a total PONZI SCHEME,” reads one complaint, from Georgia. “Shameful that a company as deceitful as this portrays itself as a Christian-based company. As a Christian myself, this façade is deplorable.”

The complaints and scathing online consumer reviews contributed to a decline in members and income. By 2017 that reduction in revenue, sources said, had further strained Liberty’s ability to pay its obligations.

Another blow to revenue came later that year when Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate effectively eliminated the individual mandate. This wiped out health care sharing ministries’ primary selling point. When the change took effect in 2019, many people who had bought into the insurance alternative found they no longer had reason to stay.

There is no national data showing how much health care sharing ministries spend on members’ medical bills. However, as scrutiny of sharing ministries increased in recent years, some states have begun to require financial disclosure. Data published by the Massachusetts’ insurance board shows that Liberty spent about 56 cents of every dollar it took in from members in that state on medical expenses in 2019 and 2020, a figure that would be scandalous if it were an insurance company. The federal government requires insurance companies to spend at least 80 cents of every dollar on direct care.

“Remarkably Similar to the Brotherhood”

Dr. John Hunt became Liberty’s chief medical officer in 2017. He joined the ministry in the hope of serving a Christian alternative to a health care system he viewed as rigged against consumers. He soon learned he’d misplaced his faith. Hunt was disturbed to find that nearly all of Liberty’s top executives had worked at the Christian Brotherhood Newsletter, and he saw that Dan Beers, the person at the center of that scam, was clearly involved in running Liberty.

Hunt pressed his bosses for details about Liberty’s contracts with Cost Sharing Solutions and Medical Cost Solutions, arguing they constituted a clear conflict of interest and had to end. Bellis, Liberty’s CEO, rebuffed him, he said, and denied the arrangements were inappropriate. Bellis declined to answer ProPublica’s questions about Hunt, citing the civil lawsuit.

In late November 2017, Hunt wrote a three-page memo detailing what he knew as well as what he suspected about Liberty’s finances and sent it to the Ohio attorney general’s office.

“Large sums of money are going to the friends and family that in my opinion are excessive and should be examined,” he wrote. Liberty followed “a pattern that is remarkably similar to the Brotherhood,” he wrote, “except that I expect that Dan Beers (of Brotherhood fame) will assert that he is not currently involved.”

Hunt’s letter added urgency to the growing number of complaints the Ohio attorney general had received from Liberty members. A month after receiving Hunt’s whistleblower memo, the attorney general’s charity section opened an investigation into Liberty and its contracting companies for potential self-dealing and fraud.

Court records indicate the attorney general’s office investigated how the Beers family network had obtained funds for the 700-acre ranch, the chain of carpet stores, the airline, the marijuana farm and more. Fabris told ProPublica that the family cooperated with the state’s lawyers.

The attorney general refused to release files from its investigation into Liberty, Cost Sharing Solutions and Medical Cost Solutions, citing a state law that makes charity investigations confidential. Unlike in its earlier probe of the Brotherhood, there is no evidence the attorney general’s office asked other law enforcement agencies for help securing records or witnesses. The office refused to answer questions regarding Liberty and whether it had investigated potential crimes.

What is clear is the state’s attorneys didn’t even entertain the argument that Dan Beers wasn’t involved in running Liberty. In April 2021, the attorney general opened settlement talks with Beers, his sons Danny and Ronnie, and the Fabrises. Seven months later, a deal was struck, with that group agreeing to pay $6.4 million to the state, most of it intended to help Liberty members with their medical expenses. (The family has not yet made the $540,000 payment that was due in January. An attorney for Fabris and Beers said they are renegotiating the payment schedule.) That figure appears to have done little for members who were sent into debt by the ministry’s failure to reimburse them, and it’s far less than the fines levied against the Brotherhood nearly two decades earlier.

The attorney general wrote in the settlement that it believed the three organizations had broken state law. None of the defendants admitted wrongdoing.

As the two sides finished settlement talks, the IRS put a lien on Danny Beers’ house for $1.2 million in unpaid federal income tax. Records indicate he had $3.6 million in taxable income in 2019. Danny Beers paid the debt in full and had the lien removed three weeks later.

The extent to which the IRS has examined the family’s sudden wealth, if at all, is unknown. The IRS denied ProPublica’s request for records related to any investigations of Liberty, Cost Sharing Solutions, Medical Cost Solutions or any member of the extended Beers family.

As part of the settlement, Liberty’s new board severed any relationship with the Beers family. The nonprofit now has a new board of directors and new management.

Once again, Beers was kicked out of the health share he helped build.

Rochelle Glasgow, left, Donna Landry, center, and Joanne Gabris attended the memorial for their sister Bonnie Martin, who died after a long battle with cancer in 2022. She spent her last months begging Liberty to pay her medical bills. (Rich-Joseph Facun, special to ProPublica)

A group of Liberty members have banded together in a class-action lawsuit that names Liberty and some of the Beers family. That case is led by the sisters of Bonnie Martin, who unsuccessfully fought Liberty over her unpaid bills. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss, which is pending.

The new Liberty CEO, Dorsey Morrow, told ProPublica that the organization is chipping away at its massive backlog of unpaid bills to make its members whole. Numerous members continue to file formal complaints to the state of Ohio and express frustration on social media about unpaid bills. Morrow said he and a new team are doing all they can to avoid the worst-case scenario: Liberty going into bankruptcy and never paying people’s bills.

Morrow confirmed that Liberty no longer works with Cost Sharing Solutions; severing those ties is a central part of the strategy to save the sharing ministry. It now performs the work in-house or uses other vendors for the services the Beers family company previously provided.

Immediately, he said, Liberty achieved “significant savings.”

The nonprofit’s contract with Medical Cost Solutions is set to end in May.

The Bank

In early 2018, as the Ohio attorney general’s office began its investigation, Danny and Ronnie Beers and Brandon Fabris and his father paid $7.3 million to buy Farmers State Bank, a small chain that served rural communities at the foot of the Missouri Ozarks. Brandon Fabris told ProPublica that the group pulled together the available cash in the conglomerate’s various accounts to cover the cost.

The bank is the linchpin of the family’s next business venture.

They renamed the chain LimeBank and applied for federal approval to take control. The filing included a letter from Liberty’s board committing to shift the nonprofit’s money to LimeBank.

Members of the Beers and Fabris families bought a small chain of banks in Missouri to launch a new health care sharing ministry business. (Bruce E. Stidham, special to ProPublica)

Red flags went up immediately. An official at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis read an article about the Brotherhood civil trial and asked the applicants if they had any connection to Dan Beers. The agency redacted most of the application records before releasing them to ProPublica; the documents do not include responses from Beers or the Frabrises.

The Federal Reserve typically approves or denies ownership changes within 60 days, according to its website. It examined the LimeBank purchase for much longer — 441 days — before signing off. The agency declined to answer ProPublica’s questions about the application.

In their filings, the Beerses and the Fabrises explained that the bank would use special software to create accounts for Liberty’s members, track their funds and make thousands of transfers every day to pay bills.

For the first time, Liberty would follow the letter of the law and not pool funds together, like an insurance company does. Instead of using “hypothetical accounts,” the health care sharing ministry would give individual members real bank accounts.

However, there was a catch: Members would have to sign power of attorney for the account over to Liberty. Again, the nonprofit would control their money.

Liberty was supposed to be only the beginning. The application details plans to sell the service to all sharing ministries, which now claim a combined 865,000 members and $1 billion a year in revenue.

The plan was simple. Liberty would open an account for each member. LimeBank would charge $16.50 for every new account and then a $6.50 monthly fee on every existing account, several former bank employees told ProPublica. Liberty’s membership alone in 2019 would have generated more than $7 million a year in bank fees.

Fabris filed for a U.S. patent on the software that was designed to manage multiple health care sharing ministries through one bank. But the Beerses’ in-house technology never functioned properly and has been scrapped, the former LimeBank employees said.

Liberty had planned to shift its money to the bank in late 2021, but the Ohio attorney general’s office blocked the move in its settlement with the nonprofit.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the agency that insures people’s bank deposits, is currently examining LimeBank’s sharing ministry division to determine whether it follows federal rules intended to protect account holders’ money, former employees said.

Meanwhile, the bank has lost a slew of key executives. Midway through 2021, Fabris fired Thane Kifer, who’d led the bank for more than a decade, and replaced him with Lee Keith, Missouri’s former top bank official. Keith had approved the Beerses’ acquisition as state finance commissioner. Keith resigned in July 2022, just a year after he took the job. John Kopecky, LimeBank’s chief financial officer, left at the same time because he said he was uncomfortable with his new bosses’ disregard for bank regulations.

Kifer declined to comment. Keith did not respond to ProPublica’s interview requests.

Michael Elliott, LimeBank’s security officer whose job was to monitor for money laundering, also quit in 2022. Elliott said he did not witness illegal activity while working for the Fabrises and the Beerses, but he wanted out nonetheless.

“They have a very unique way of running things, a very unique business model,” Elliott said, “and I did not feel comfortable continuing in the role for which they hired me.”

How Do You Pay Your Bills, Dan?

During the interview at Cost Sharing Solutions’ headquarters in Canton last summer, Dan Beers acted like the man in charge.

As he settled into his chair, Brandon Fabris caught him up.

“They’re asking about our conglomerate — me and the boys,” Fabris said, referring to Beers’ sons, Ronnie and Danny.

Wearing a polo shirt emblazoned with the Lazy L Ranch logo, Beers nodded.

For the next two hours, Beers answered questions and provided details about numerous businesses and transactions he claims he had nothing to do with. At times, he’d slip and take credit, saying “we,” only to correct himself and attribute all the success to his children — “they.”

Multiple times, when a question was posed to Fabris, Beers interjected. Asked about a real estate deal that effectively transferred close to a million dollars from Liberty to Cost Sharing Solutions, Beers said, without offering any evidence, “The documents are wrong.” County property records show that when Cost Sharing Solutions sold the building that is now Liberty’s headquarters, the nonprofit paid nearly $1.6 million. Just two weeks before that deal, Cost Sharing Solutions had bought the building for $650,000.

Asked if he had a bank account in his name, Beers responded, “I do. Maybe. Yeah, I do have a bank account.”

Beers was more assertive when he spoke at a 2019 event sponsored by CPAC. In a video from that conference, Beers described how he’d ascended from convicted felon to a magnate overseeing “23 businesses.”

He misspoke at that conference, he now claimed.

“I was referring to our family — not me,” he said. “I don’t own a single company.”

He corrected himself to add that he owns Dan Beers Construction Company. A search of Ohio business filings revealed no business with that name.

ProPublica has it all wrong, he said. He’s just a father to some savvy and successful kids who took an old idea — the health care sharing ministry — and evolved it with software and a banking solution. With the bank they purchased in the Ozarks, they’re about to grow the conglomerate even more. They’re not hiding anything.

“I can’t even send an email, dude,” Beers said. “They’re a technology company. Try to pin that one on me, you’re going to fail miserably on that one.”

While he seemed unfazed by most of the exchange, it was the simplest of questions that agitated Beers.

How do you pay your bills, Dan?

“How do I pay my bills?” he responded. “I get paid.”

By whom?

“I get paid by a lot of people.”

By?

“Just different entities that I work for.”

Who do you work for?

“I work for myself.”

Asked about the many similarities between Liberty’s funneling of cash to family companies and the activities of the Christian Brotherhood Newsletter, which investigators had alleged two decades earlier constituted conspiracy and money laundering, Beers rejected the question.

“There’s no money laundering,” he said. “Zero. It’s not even worth discussing. There’s no money laundering.”

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

Andrea Suozzo contributed research. Additional design and development by Lucas Waldron.

by Ryan Gabrielson and J. David McSwane, graphics by Kolin Pope

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Fines TitleMax $15 Million for Predatory Lending

2 years 1 month ago

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

A federal consumer watchdog group has fined one Georgia-based company $15 million for predatory lending practices. TitleMax, which is headquartered in Savannah, offers short-term loans — at exorbitant interest rates — in exchange for a lien on the title of the borrower’s car.

In its order, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said TitleMax had intentionally evaded laws meant to protect military families from predatory lenders and, separately, charged illegal insurance fees to more than 17,000 customers.

The federal regulator found that the company used deceptive means, including falsifying information, to issue 2,670 so-called title loans over a five-year period to military members or their dependents in violation of the Military Lending Act and in contravention of the company’s own internal guidelines.

The operations of TitleMax, the nation’s largest title lender and the dominant industry player in Georgia, have been the subject of a yearlong investigation by The Current and ProPublica. The news organizations revealed for the first time the scope and scale of the industry in the state. The stories also revealed TitleMax’s questionable practices in Georgia, which has one of the most permissive local regulatory environments for the title lending industry. Due to a loophole in state law, title lenders there are allowed to charge triple-digit interest rates that would be illegal for any other financial lender.

The 53-page CFPB Consent Order repeatedly castigated the company for a lack of meaningful internal oversight in its pursuit of revenue. Federal law caps annual interest rates at 36% for financial products sold to military members and their families. TitleMax, which counts more than 293,000 customers nationwide and posted $910 million in revenue in 2019, emphasizes in its own internal training manuals that employees should not lend to service members.

But the company did anyway. Between Oct. 3, 2016, and Sept. 17, 2021, the CFPB said, the company sold 2,670 loans to military members and their families, sometimes by falsifying personal information of the borrower to conceal the fact that they were a military member or a dependent covered by the Military Lending Act. The company lacked internal controls to catch or stop such behavior, according to the consent order.

“TitleMax’s violations were caused by intentional misconduct, a lack of internal and system controls, and no meaningful monitoring or oversight,” the consent order said. “TitleMax did not conduct any periodic monitoring or audits of its origination activity to ensure compliance with the MLA, allowing intentional misconduct and problematic practices to go unchecked.”

TMX Finance, the parent company of TitleMax, denied the allegations of wrongdoing. In a statement, the company said it agreed to pay the fine to avoid costly and lengthy litigation, saying it “would be a distraction for the Company’s core business of providing best-in-class services to its customers.” It also noted that the violations documented by the CFPB have not been proved.

The CFPB ordered that $5 million of the fine be made in restitution to consumers affected by the illegal activities and $10 million be paid to the government as a civil penalty for all the violations cited in the consent order. It also voided all the 2,670 contracts identified in the consent order as having violated the Military Lending Act.

The $15 million fine is the CFPB’s second ruling against the company. In 2016, the agency fined TitleMax $9 million after documenting deceptive practices in Georgia, Tennessee and Alabama, and the company has remained under investigation ever since.

TitleMax boasts around 1,000 storefront locations across the United States, including more than 200 in Georgia. It has publicly touted its legal and compliance teams as a “stellar example” for the industry. In commercials, it boasts that its streamlined appraisal process can approve loans in 10 minutes for people who have been written off as credit risks by traditional lending institutions but need financing to pay for life’s basic needs.

Congress passed the Military Lending Act after a 2006 Department of Defense report concluded that predatory lending “undermines military readiness” and “harms the morale of troops and their families.” Over the last decade, multiple states have moved to pass similar interest rate caps for all consumers. TitleMax and other title lenders have ceased operations in states that have passed such caps, arguing that they could not be profitable in such an environment.

Georgia, which accounts for 20% of TitleMax’s current business operations, has bucked this trend. Earlier this month, however, the chairman of the state House of Representatives Committee on Defense & Veterans Affairs introduced a bill that would end the legal loophole for title lenders that has allowed them to charge triple-digit annual interest rates to consumers and evade Georgia’s usury laws.

In an interview last week, Rep. Josh Bonner, a Republican from Fayetteville, said that protections for Georgia-based service members from predatory lenders should be granted to all Georgia residents. The bill is co-sponsored by five other representatives hailing from various parts of the state, but has not yet been endorsed by the state Republican leadership.

“If protections are good enough for our military members, they are good enough for all of us,” Bonner said.

In a second set of findings, the CFPB also cited a lack of internal oversight that allowed TitleMax store managers to charge illegal or unnecessary fees to approximately 15,000 customers. These fees were associated with the filing and canceling of liens placed on the vehicles being held as collateral in exchange for TitleMax financing.

Additionally, the CFPB has ordered the company to enact new oversight protocols, including the hiring of an outside consultant and the creation of a new internal compliance committee that includes the company president and chief executive officer. It is unclear what these requirements will cost.

TitleMax financed its own national growth through private corporate bond placements. The company has around $400 million in debt coming due in April. Its current credit ratings reports cite the ongoing federal regulatory investigation as well as increasing state regulation of title lending as cause for concern for investors.

by Margaret Coker, The Current

Prosecutors and Judges Push for Conviction Reviews, Ban on Junk Science of 911 Call Analysis

2 years 1 month ago

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

Text STORY to 917-905-1223 to get the next installment in this series as soon as it publishes. Standard messaging rates apply.

Revelations that a new type of junk science known as 911 call analysis has infiltrated the justice system have triggered calls by prosecutors, judges and defense attorneys nationwide to ban the use of the technique, review past convictions in which it was used and exact sanctions against prosecutors who snuck it into court despite knowing it was inadmissible.

The actions follow a two-part ProPublica investigation published last year that many judges and other court officers said took them by surprise. “I never anticipated that prosecutors — officers of the court — would engage in systematic organized frauds,” a judge in Ohio wrote in an email to ProPublica. She said she had alerted fellow judges to be on the lookout for 911 call analysis, which ProPublica found to be pervasive throughout the justice system: “I’m sure that some will care and share my outrage that innocent people are going to prison.”

The technique’s chief architect, Tracy Harpster, developed a program to spread his methods and says police and prosecutors who take his training will learn how to identify guilt and deception from the word choice, cadence and grammar of those calling 911. So far, researchers who have tried to corroborate Harpster’s claims have failed.

Last year, ProPublica documented more than 100 cases in 26 states where law enforcement has employed his methods. Those responsible for ensuring honest police work and fair trials — including the FBI — have instead helped 911 call analysis metastasize. The investigation revealed that some prosecutors knew 911 call analysis would not be recognized as scientific evidence but still disguised it in trial against unwitting defendants anyway.

During the reporting for the two stories, Harpster at first defended his program but then did not respond to repeated interview requests or detailed lists of questions. Supporters of his work in law enforcement have said 911 call analysis is a valuable investigative tool but not decisive evidence on which to base a conviction.

On Wednesday, he and Susan Adams, who co-authored the original study the technique is based on, sent a letter to ProPublica and argued its coverage had “presented an inaccurate narrative” and listed material they claimed to be omissions and misrepresentations. They asked that their letter be published. ProPublica is also publishing a point-by-point response.

Last October, ProPublica reported on the case of Jessica Logan, a young mother convicted of killing her baby after a detective trained by Harpster testified about his analysis of Logan’s 911 call. Shortly after the story was published, the Supreme Court of Illinois agreed to take another look at Logan’s case.

In addition, attorneys from the Exoneration Project and the Center for Integrity in Forensic Sciences offered to represent her. One of her new lawyers is Josh Tepfer, who was recently profiled by BuzzFeed News for helping exonerate 288 wrongfully convicted people, “making him among the most prolific exoneration attorneys since anyone began keeping track.”

Hope Bradford, who is a mother figure to Logan, said she’s encouraged by the recent developments but is reserving optimism. “I never thought it would even get this far,” she said. “I’m just waiting for her to come home — that’s all.”

Faulty scientific disciplines, including misleading testimony, are the second most common factor in wrongful convictions, according to the Innocence Project. “The criminal legal system can add 911 call analysis to the junk pile of fake scientific theories contributing to this statistic,” said Nellie King, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. She called the business of 911 call analysis “dangerous and insidious.”

“Most bothersome is the fact that justice agencies — police officers and prosecutors alike — are buying what he is selling,” King added. “Harpster’s impact on case outcomes is devastating to those falsely accused based on his claims.”

North Carolina’s Office of Indigent Defense Services issued a warning to attorneys across the state to be on the lookout for appearances of 911 call analysis. Fair and Just Prosecution, a network of elected prosecutors, called on its members to review past cases, as well: “Prosecutors must guard against these practices and correct the past injustices they’ve caused through post-conviction review processes.”

At a recent summit of prosecutors in Austin, Texas, Miriam Krinsky, the group’s president, presented ProPublica’s reporting to warn new district attorneys about 911 call analysis. In an email, Krinsky said her organization, in partnership with the Innocence Project, “is concerned about this issue and looking at where and how elected prosecutors can engage to guard against these and other practices that undermine the integrity of convictions.”

In recent weeks, dozens of readers, including defense attorneys and prosecutors, have reached out to ProPublica to inquire about the other jurisdictions where 911 call analysis has surfaced.

Reporters canvassed a sample of about 50 departments and training associations nationwide where records show Harpster’s methods appear to have surfaced over the past 10 years. These agencies, which range from Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, have either hosted him for seminars, sent officers to attend, used his methods in actual cases or did a combination of all three.

Eleven of the 50 agencies responded, and the rest did not answer questions about whether or not they’d continue to support Harpster’s work. Those that did reply either distanced themselves from the program or minimized its role in past cases.

“We’ve never been of the opinion that 911 call analysis should be anything more than a potential investigative lead,” Susan Medina, chief of staff with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, said in an email, adding that the department “would never advocate for 911 call analysis to be a deciding factor of an arrest or conviction.”

Some of those agencies that responded to ProPublica’s survey didn’t know about their past involvement with the program.

For example, Melaney Arnold, a public information officer with the Illinois State Police, said that department leaders were unaware of 911 call analysis or anyone who’s been trained in it. ProPublica then sent her emails and attendance lists documenting personnel who have attended the program or consulted with Harpster.

“Let me circle back with staff,” Arnold replied in an email. “They may have only been looking at 911 call analysis and not the concept in general.”

Two notable agencies that did not respond to questions are the Westchester County, New York, and Orange County, California, district attorneys offices.

A prosecutor in Westchester once wrote to Harpster to thank him for his consultation, which, he said, “proved to be an invaluable aid in understanding the defendant’s 911 call and greatly assisted in the successful prosecution.”

In Orange County, the district attorney charged a woman with murdering her boyfriend 26 years ago. The arrest came last spring, after prosecutors and detectives consulted with Harpster. “It significantly helped our district attorney to realize the indicators of guilt in the phone calls,” the lead detective told Harpster in an email, “as well as suggestions on how to introduce the 911 calls to the jury during trial.”

Public Defenders and Defense Attorneys: Help ProPublica Report on Criminal Justice

by Brett Murphy

ProPublica Promotes Reporter Michael Grabell to Senior Editor

2 years 1 month ago

ProPublica announced Friday that Michael Grabell will be promoted from reporter to senior editor for its Local Reporting Network.

Grabell was one of ProPublica’s first staffers, joining in 2008 from The Dallas Morning News. As a reporter, he wrote stories about economic issues, labor, immigration and, more recently, the food safety system. He expanded his reporting on the 2008-09 economic stimulus into a book, “Money Well Spent?” Most recently, Grabell edited “Invisible Schools,” a collaboration with The Seattle Times co-authored by Lulu Ramadan, a distinguished fellow with the Local Reporting Network.

Grabell has won two George Polk Awards and has twice been a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize — in 2021, as part of a team covering COVID-19, and in 2019, with Ginger Thompson and Topher Sanders, for stories that helped expose the impact of family separations at the border and abuse in shelters for immigrant children. The latter work also won a Peabody Award and was a finalist for the Goldsmith Prize for Investigative Reporting.

“Michael is a world-class journalist who has done some of ProPublica’s finest reporting since our inception,” said Charles Ornstein, managing editor, local. “We’re so thrilled to welcome him in this new role and are excited for him to work with our local partners as they pursue ambitious accountability journalism.” “Since joining ProPublica, I’ve had the opportunity to travel the country and parts of the world to tell stories that spotlight critical issues and amplify voices that are too often ignored,” Grabell said. “I’m excited to use that experience to help other reporters do their best work and fill the need for more investigative journalism in our communities.”

by ProPublica

After a Decade of Tracking Politicians’ Deleted Tweets, Politwoops Is No More

2 years 1 month ago

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

Politicians haven’t stopped deleting some of their most cringeworthy tweets, but Politwoops, our project that has tracked and archived more than half a million deleted tweets from candidates and elected officials since 2012, is no longer able to track them.

Since Elon Musk took over Twitter, the platform has disabled the function we used to track deletions — and the new method that Twitter says should identify them appears to be broken. We have been unable to find anyone who can help us, and with Twitter surprising developers by announcing a move to a paid model for gathering tweet data, it’s no longer clear that Twitter is a stable platform on which to maintain this work. It seems fitting to give Politwoops a sendoff, a farewell to not exactly a friend but an odd part of our national political discourse for a decade.

Originally built by the Sunlight Foundation, Politwoops always had a tenuous existence. Born in 2012, it received its first eulogy just three years later after Twitter pulled the plug, only to come back just in time for the 2016 presidential election. (Now-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy welcomed it back, then deleted that tweet.) When Sunlight closed up shop, ProPublica took over the app, which is when I started to maintain it.

Politwoops was built on the idea that what elected officials and candidates said on Twitter mattered, at least a little. Like most users of Twitter, politicians usually tweet pretty mundane stuff: celebrations of victories mixed with jeers for opponents, some local flavor and attempts to jump into trending conversations. Most of the deletions are for mistakes any Twitter user could make: typos, forgotten or incorrect images, bad URLs. The occasional seems-like-a-toddler-grabbed-the-phone posts. Truly forgettable stuff.

But for those politicians who really embraced Twitter as a place where they could be themselves, the deletions sometimes spoke volumes. Some deleted posts are hard to forget, like one from then-President Donald Trump in the early evening of Jan. 6, 2021, not long after a mob invaded the U.S. Capitol and assaulted police officers in an attempt to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election:

Trump had perhaps the most-watched Twitter account during my time running Politwoops. While he was in office, Trump’s tweets got a ton of attention, but they seldom were a departure from other things he said in public. I would often get emails from reporters asking whether he had, in fact, deleted some alleged tweet they had seen, and mostly he had not; other accounts would post images of fake tweets that never appeared on his timeline. Politwoops became an integral resource for checking whether viral (and often poorly photoshopped) tweets were fake.

All the while, other politicians were posting — and deleting — interesting, newsworthy and bizarre things on the platform. Running Politwoops for the past six years has, strangely enough, made many elected officials seem more human to me. They, and not Trump, are what I’ll remember most about the site.

Sometimes deleted messages appear to be offhand remarks that politicians have instantly thought better of: When political scientist Larry Sabato wrote, “You have to admit, Biden is on fire,” referring to then-Vice President Joe Biden’s debate performance against Republican Paul Ryan in October 2012, Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn retweeted it. And then deleted it 11 seconds later.

Other examples of this genre include Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie’s deletion of this somewhat cryptic tweet about men and war a minute after posting it, while New York Democratic congressional candidate Nate McMurray did the same for this hot take about The Buffalo News in October 2020.

In other cases, it was harder to tell why a tweet was deleted. Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, famous for his use of abbreviations and sparsely worded posts, is a known booster of the University of Northern Iowa, his alma mater. In November 2021 he posted that UNI was trying to recruit a local volleyball player. Fourteen hours later, he deleted the tweet. That athlete did, in fact, sign with UNI a year later.

As Twitter grew in popularity among politicians, its use became more professional, with staffers posting news and pictures. That led to some interesting conversations as staffers who had access to multiple accounts, including their own personal ones, sometimes clicked the wrong button. I’ve gotten more than one email or phone call asking if a tweet posted by mistake to the wrong account and then deleted could be removed entirely from Politiwoops. (Answer: We don’t do that.)

In December 2020, I got an email from someone who worked on the campaign of then-Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, D-N.Y. The congressman had posted and deleted a tweet that showed up on Politwoops, and would we consider removing it? It’s very rare that we would do that — that’s the whole point of the site — but when I brought up the deleted tweet I saw why he was asking: Maloney had mistakenly sent a public tweet that should have been a direct message, because it included his personal cell phone number. After some conversation, we decided to redact the number.

After the 2016 election, when Twitter became an important part of fundraising for political campaigns, I started to notice a very strange pattern: some accounts, especially long-shot candidates running against high-profile incumbents, dramatically increased the number of their deletions. A good example of this was Kim Mangone, a California Democrat then running against McCarthy for a House seat. Mangone’s deletions consist mostly of her own retweets, which seems like a weird thing to do until you discover that Twitter prevents users from reposting identical tweets or retweets over and over in a short time span. The only way around that restriction is to delete the earlier post and then repost it.

Perhaps the most interesting political deleter is Sen. Brian Schatz, a Hawaii Democrat active on the platform. Like many of his colleagues, Schatz deleted typos and some retweets of others’ posts. But he often posted an informal message — almost always without a link or mentioning other accounts — that gave you a glimpse into his actual thinking. Here’s an example where Schatz could have tagged some of the pundits he was criticizing, but didn’t. And another one in that vein. Or this one with early COVID advice on mask-wearing. Sometimes he’d even acknowledge the deletions, or provide an explanation for doing it. Most politicians do not do this.

Other senators are famous for their folksier tweets — Grassley excels at this — and there are some lawmakers who can be equally blunt on the platform. But I’d like to believe that I learned something about how Schatz thinks that would be hard for me to know otherwise, given that we’ve never met.

That’s one of the things I’ll miss most about running Politwoops: getting a glimpse behind the carefully crafted images that politicians present to the public. ProPublica would be happy to continue running this service, so if anyone at Twitter wants to help out, please get in touch. That includes you, Elon. politwoops@propublica.org

Correction

March 1, 2023: This story originally misidentified who sent a profane tweet, later deleted, from Rep. Chuy Garcia’s account. After publication, a Garcia spokesperson said the tweet was sent by a staffer who was dismissed the next day, not by the representative himself. The text referring to that tweet has been removed.

by Derek Willis

Tennessee Lobbyists Oppose New Lifesaving Exceptions in Abortion Ban

2 years 1 month ago

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

Join us for an upcoming live virtual event, “Post-Roe: Today’s Abortion Landscape.”

In Tennessee, Republican lawmakers are considering whether patients should be forced to continue dangerous pregnancies, even while miscarrying, under the state’s abortion ban — and how close to risking death such patients need to be before a doctor can legally intervene.

At a legislative hearing last week, a lobbyist who played a dominant role in crafting the state’s abortion legislation made his preference clear: A pregnant patient should be in the process of an urgent emergency, such as bleeding out, before they can receive abortion care.

Some pregnancy complications “work themselves out,” Will Brewer, who represents the local affiliate of the anti-abortion organization National Right to Life, told a majority-male panel of lawmakers Feb. 14. When faced with a patient’s high-risk condition, doctors should be required to “pause and wait this out and see how it goes.”

Top Republicans like Gov. Bill Lee have defended the state’s abortion law, one of the strictest in the country, as providing “maximum protection possible for both mother and child.” But currently, the ban has no explicit exceptions, not even for the pregnant patient’s health.

It only includes an “affirmative defense” for emergencies, a rare legal mechanism that means the burden is on the doctor to prove abortion care was necessary because the patient risked death or irreversible impairment to a major bodily function.

The penalties for getting it wrong are three to 10 years in prison and up to $15,000 in fines. Doctors could expect to lose their medical license just for being charged. Concern over how the unprecedented law will be interpreted by prosecutors and the courts has already resulted in patients with high-risk conditions having to rush across state lines for care.

Some Republicans are proposing a modest change. An amendment to the law introduced in the House Population Health Subcommittee last week would remove the affirmative defense and clarify that it is not a crime to terminate a pregnancy to prevent an emergency that threatens the pregnant patient’s life or health, among other provisions.

“No one wants to tell their spouse, child or loved one that their life is not important in a medical emergency as you watch them die when they could have been saved,” said Republican Rep. Esther Helton-Haynes, a nurse and the bill’s sponsor.

But the word “prevent” is a sticking point for the anti-abortion groups who wrote the law.

“That would mean that the emergency hasn’t even occurred yet,” Brewer told the committee. He made a distinction between immediate, urgent emergencies — “A patient comes into the ER bleeding out” — and what he calls “quasi-elective” abortions.

Brewer, who has no medical experience, defined those as “abortions that aren’t necessary to be done in the moment but are still performed in an effort to prevent a future medical emergency.” He called for an “objective” standard.

When reached for comment, Brewer said his statements as summarized by ProPublica had been mischaracterized but did not provide additional details. “Ending the life of the baby should not be used as treatment for non-life-threatening conditions or to prevent some unknown possibility in the future,” he said. He did not respond to follow-up questions seeking clarification.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said laws that try to limit or define medical exceptions are dangerous because they interfere with a doctor’s ability to assess fast-moving health indicators in unpredictable situations and don’t account for people’s different thresholds for risk.

Kim Fortner, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist practicing in Tennessee for more than 20 years, testified to the committee and pushed back on Brewer’s characterizations. She described a patient she saw recently whose water broke too early — the fetus still had a heartbeat, but there was virtually no chance it would survive and a very high risk the patient would get an infection.

But because of the law, the woman was sent home without the option of abortion care. She came back with emergency bleeding and sepsis, a life-threatening infection.

“It is not always so clear, and things don’t always just work themselves out,” Fortner said. “It is a significant, in my mind, misuse of resources, if she did not need to have six units of blood that could have gone to the trauma victim or the gunshot wound. Blood is a limited resource. Just because she can wait and come back in and she still lives to talk about it today — one, that won’t always happen, and two, it also is a significant misuse of an ICU bed. It is a preventable occurrence.”

Andy Farmer, a Republican state representative, agreed with her.

“These things need to be addressed early on,” he said, adding that he didn’t want doctors to feel they needed to consult a lawyer before offering care that could stop a condition from progressing into an emergency.

Brewer, however, said he believed giving doctors that kind of power would be too subjective. “Once one doctor is let off the hook in a criminal trial, it would be open season for other doctors who wanted to perform bad faith terminations,” he said.

Brewer’s position appears to be out of step with public opinion on abortion, even in a deeply red state. A recent poll found about 75% of Tennesseans support abortion exceptions, including for pregnancies caused by rape and incest.

Yet his organization exerts outsize influence on Republican state politics. Tennessee Right to Life issues an annual scorecard rating lawmakers on their fealty to “pro-life” positions and plows money into primary campaigns to unseat candidates viewed as insufficiently loyal. Already, they retracted the endorsement of one Republican lawmaker who publicly advocated for clear medical exceptions.

Signs of frustration emerged over the course of the hearing as lawmakers grilled Brewer on how his preferred positions may harm pregnant patients and accused him of trying to intimidate legislators.

“You’ve made a statement that you are fine with the current trigger law as it is, and nothing more needs to be done,” said Republican state Rep. Sabi Kumar, a retired surgeon, referring to the state’s abortion ban. “Did you believe that?”

Brewer responded: “That is our most preferential position, although we would accept an objective standard.”

Kumar said he was surprised Brewer did not appear to be taking into account other changes the bill addresses that are not in the current law, such as exceptions for cases of fatal fetal anomalies, where a baby is not expected to survive, and ectopic pregnancies, which implant outside the uterine cavity, are non-viable and can lead to rupture and death.

“Those things need to be corrected,” he said. “In the face of that, it is difficult for you to say that that is your preferential thing.”

Kumar also asked Brewer to consider the plight of doctors. Physicians carry malpractice insurance, but Kumar noted it doesn’t cover costs associated with criminal charges, which can be financially ruinous. Kumar didn’t think they should be threatened with prison time for acting to avoid an emergency.

“I would have liked to see you, as a friend, be as concerned about a physician who was under that degree of emotional stress and pressure, trying to save the life of a baby and worried about being prosecuted,” he said. “I would have liked you to be gushing with sympathy for that.”

He and others pointed out that the bill’s changes would not affect the vast majority of pregnancies, where abortion would continue to be outlawed. The bill explicitly states abortions are prohibited for mental health reasons, such as a patient threatening suicide, and it has no provisions allowing abortion for pregnancies due to rape or incest.

But Brewer suggested that lawmakers who vote in support of the bill might stand to lose the endorsement of Tennessee Right to Life.

“I would not consider this a pro-life law,” Brewer said. “And in discussions with our [political action committee], they have informed me that they would score this negatively for those members that wish to vote for it.”

Brewer’s invocation of the anti-abortion group’s scorecard provoked a strong response. As the hearing wrapped up, Tennessee’s House speaker, Cameron Sexton, appeared in the chamber.

“Something happened that I’ve never experienced in my time down here, which was somebody on a committee testifying tried to intimidate our members by telling them they’re gonna score them a vote,” he said. “You can have those conversations in your room, you can have those conversations in email. But to do it in the committee — to try to intimidate this committee to go a certain direction — is uncalled for.”

The rare public rebuke of an anti-abortion activist by a top Republican lawmaker may be a sign of growing GOP support for the modest amendments to the law. However, the bill’s path is not guaranteed. It will need to pass in three more committees before reaching final votes in the state’s House and Senate.

Republican state Rep. Bryan Terry’s reaction provided a preview of potential challenges ahead. He was the only member of the committee to vote against the amendment, and he leads the House Health Subcommittee, where the bill is headed next week.

In an email to ProPublica, Terry said that he does want to see changes to the law, but that the word “prevent” would need to be removed or redefined in the measure before he could consider voting for it.

“There are a multitude of medical emergencies that can occur during a pregnancy, but they usually never materialize,” Terry, who is an anesthesiologist, said. “A concern with the current amendment language is that an abortion could be performed in an instance when it wasn’t ‘medically necessary treatment.’”

ProPublica followed up to ask if he would consider conditions such as premature rupture of membranes, preeclampsia, cancer or heart conditions “medically necessary” reasons for abortions. He did not respond.

Three days after the hearing, Tennessee Right to Life sent a “legislative alert” obtained by ProPublica to its members, calling on them to oppose the bill at the next hearing.

The email described changes in the bill as “loopholes” making the current law “unenforceable.”

“Tragically, some pro-life legislators are currently supporting this bill,” the email read. Below, it listed the nine lawmakers who voted in favor of it.

Are You in a State That Banned Abortion? Tell Us How Changes in Medical Care Impact You.

by Kavitha Surana

How Unemployment Benefits Are Taxed in 2023

2 years 1 month ago

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

While unemployment benefits can be a huge help when you’ve lost your job, at tax time, they can leave you with more questions than answers. Here’s what you should know about your unemployment benefits when it comes to filing your taxes.

Are Unemployment Insurance Benefits Taxed by States and the Federal Government?

Generally, yes. The federal government will tax your unemployment benefits, and most states will as well. Unemployment benefits count toward your income and are taxed by the federal government at rates according to the IRS’ tax brackets.

It’s a bit more complicated when it comes to state taxes. Most states fully tax unemployment benefits just like they would for regular income. Some states don’t tax unemployment income at all, while others only partially tax the benefits. See how your state taxes unemployment benefits here.

Can I Have Taxes Withheld From Unemployment Payments?

Yes. State unemployment agencies allow you to have federal and state taxes taken out of your unemployment checks. The IRS recommends you do this to avoid surprise tax bills. You can set this up when you first apply for unemployment, or at any point while you are receiving it, by filing Form W-4V and sending it to your state’s unemployment agency. You will also have to fill out your state’s withholding form to have state taxes withheld from your benefit. Most states also allow you to do federal and state withholding online via their unemployment websites.

Never miss the most important reporting from ProPublica’s newsroom. Subscribe to the Big Story newsletter.

When you sign up for voluntary withholding, your benefits will be withheld at a federal flat rate of 10%, no matter your income bracket. If you choose to not sign up for voluntary withholding, you can also make quarterly estimated tax payments to avoid surprise tax bills.

Important: If you are receiving unemployment benefits, setting up a withholding now may save you from a surprise tax bill next year.

If I Collected Unemployment, What Paperwork Do I Need to File My Taxes?

States that gave you unemployment benefits should send you a Form 1099-G. For those who don’t receive it in the mail, you may need to access the form on your state’s website. This form calculates all the unemployment income you received and tells you how much (if any) was withheld for taxes. This should help you calculate your income when filing your taxes. The IRS also provides special directions for those who repaid part of their 2022 unemployment.

What If My Form 1099-G Is Wrong? If you receive an incorrect Form 1099-G, the IRS recommends contacting the state agency that issued the unemployment benefits to request a revised form. If you’re unable to obtain a corrected Form 1099-G before Tax Day, you should still file an accurate tax return and only report the income you actually received.

In some cases, an incorrect Form 1099-G might indicate that you have been the victim of unemployment fraud, which has been a growing problem. Here is how to recognize if this has happened to you.

Do I Have to Pay to Prepare or File My Taxes If I Receive Unemployment?

It depends on your income and how you choose to prepare your taxes.

If you made under $73,000 in 2022, you are eligible to file your taxes for free. But remember, your unemployment benefits count toward your adjusted gross income. Even if your income surpasses $73,000, some tax preparation services now include a Form 1099-G as part of a “simple” tax return, which they will let you file free of charge. And the IRS offers its free fillable forms — an electronic version of IRS paper forms — to anyone, regardless of income.

Important: So-called free tax preparation websites are often trying to push you to pay them more money. You can find truly free filing options on the IRS website.

Do I Have To Pay Unemployment Back?

No. Unemployment benefits are yours to keep, except for the amount you may owe in taxes. But make sure you’re getting the right amount.

In a few cases ProPublica found, simple mistakes have led states to overpay unemployment recipients and then demand huge sums of money back. A bill to remedy this was proposed in 2020, but as of January it’s still in committee.

Did the Stimulus Bill Change How Unemployment Is Taxed?

Yes, but only for 2020 unemployment benefits. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 changed the tax code so that the first $10,200 of unemployment benefits you received in 2020 was free of federal taxes. That meant that only the money you received over $10,200 counted toward your taxable income.

Congress did not renew this tax relief after 2020. As a result, all unemployment benefits, except for those received in 2020, are treated as income and taxed.

About this guide: ProPublica has reported on the IRS, the Free File program and other tax topics for years. ProPublica’s tax guide is not personalized tax advice. Speak to a tax professional about your specific tax situation.

Kristen Doerer is a reporter in Washington, D.C. Her writing has appeared in PBS NewsHour, The Guardian and The Chronicle of Higher Education, among other places. Follow her on Twitter at @k2doe.

by Kristen Doerer for ProPublica