The Trump administration has accused journalists from ProPublica of inappropriate conduct while they pursued a story about the Department of Education’s efforts to undermine public education. This accusation arose during a summer investigation, which highlighted the ongoing tension between government officials and the press.
ProPublica’s Midwest team, led by reporter Megan O’Matz, sought to interview key figures within the Department of Education in August regarding their policies. O’Matz initially contacted the department’s press office and specific officials, including Lindsey Burke, deputy chief of staff for policy and programs, and Meg Kilgannon, director of strategic partnerships, for comment on their findings.
In response to O’Matz’s outreach, department spokesperson Madison Biedermann instructed her to direct all media inquiries to the department’s general press email. When O’Matz later reached Biedermann by phone, she indicated that she would look into the request. However, subsequent attempts to secure comments were met with silence. The press office’s published phone number was reportedly unreachable, often providing a recorded message that it was “temporarily closed.”
O’Matz persisted, sending multiple emails and leaving messages for both Biedermann and Burke. On August 29, Kilgannon briefly answered O’Matz’s call but declined to comment before hanging up. After weeks without a response, O’Matz escalated her efforts to reach the department’s chief of staff on September 8.
By September 17, Biedermann had responded to O’Matz’s inquiries, expressing that the outreach to officials’ homes and personal contacts was “highly inappropriate and unprofessional.” She further described the attempts to contact officials as bordering on intimidation, stating that they had the right to choose whether to respond.
ProPublica defended its approach, asserting that reaching out to subjects of stories is a fundamental aspect of journalism. O’Matz emphasized that it is their professional obligation to seek comments before publication, rather than after. Biedermann countered, stating, “You are not entitled to a response from us, or anyone, ever.”
The article in question was published on October 8, 2023, approximately two months after ProPublica first attempted to engage the Department of Education. This incident illustrates a growing concern about the relationship between the press and government officials, particularly in the current political climate.
The situation reflects broader trends observed in government interactions with the media. The Trump administration has frequently labeled the press as “fake news,” which has contributed to a culture of hostility towards journalists. This hostility has been noted by other reporters, including Doug Bock Clark, who faced similar accusations while investigating the North Carolina Supreme Court. Clark’s inquiry into Chief Justice Paul Newby encountered resistance, with officials labeling the reporting as part of a partisan agenda.
Another case involved Vernal Coleman, a reporter focusing on the Department of Veterans Affairs, who was accused of stalking after visiting a potential source’s home. Coleman explained his identity and purpose, but the visit was met with backlash from VA Secretary Doug Collins, who publicly condemned the action.
These incidents raise vital questions about the boundaries of journalistic inquiry and the rights of federal employees to engage with the press. Court rulings have consistently upheld the First Amendment rights of employees to speak with journalists without fear of reprisal.
As ProPublica prepares for future investigations, the organization remains committed to transparency and accountability in its reporting. The expectation of accurate and fair journalism persists, and public interest in these stories continues to drive the need for thorough reporting.
In the face of adversity, ProPublica’s journalists exemplify the commitment to uphold the integrity of the press, striving to tell impactful stories that serve the public interest.