The Trump administration has accused journalists from ProPublica of stalking while they pursued a story regarding the Department of Education’s efforts to undermine public education. This situation unfolded during the summer of 2023, as reporters sought comments from key officials associated with the department.
ProPublica’s investigation began when reporter Megan O’Matz reached out to the Department of Education’s press office in mid-August. Along with her inquiries to the press office, she also contacted senior administration officials, including Lindsey Burke and Meg Kilgannon, who play critical roles within the agency. In response to O’Matz’s outreach, department spokesperson Madison Biedermann instructed her to direct all media inquiries to a generic email address, which proved unresponsive.
Despite multiple attempts to gain insights, including follow-up emails and phone calls, the department provided no feedback. O’Matz’s persistent efforts included contacting Burke and Kilgannon directly, but the officials remained uncommunicative. On August 29, Kilgannon abruptly hung up on O’Matz when approached for comments about the impending article.
As the weeks progressed, O’Matz escalated her attempts to engage with department officials. On September 8, she reached out to the department’s chief of staff, seeking assistance in arranging an interview with Secretary of Education and Dr. Burke. A week later, ProPublica sent a letter via FedEx to Burke’s home, outlining the findings of the reporting thus far and inviting her to provide any corrections or additional context.
On September 17, Biedermann responded sharply, claiming that the use of home addresses for contact was inappropriate and labeling the outreach as disturbing. She asserted that journalists should not contact individuals at their homes regarding work matters, framing the situation as intimidation.
In a reply, O’Matz defended ProPublica’s approach, stating that it is standard practice for journalists to reach out to people they are writing about, emphasizing their obligation to ensure fairness and accuracy. Biedermann countered, asserting that journalists were not entitled to a response and that the department had chosen not to engage with ProPublica’s inquiries.
The article eventually published on October 8, 2023, two months after the initial contact with the department.
This scenario underscores a broader trend in which journalists face hostility while attempting to report on government activities. The Trump administration has frequently characterized its approach as the most transparent in history, yet actions such as deleting datasets and dismissing inquiries raise concerns about accountability and access to information.
The challenges faced by O’Matz are not isolated. Doug Bock Clark, another ProPublica reporter, encountered similar resistance while investigating Paul Newby, Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court. When Newby declined to comment, Clark interviewed over 70 individuals connected to him. His outreach to Newby’s daughter prompted a response from the North Carolina Republican Party’s communications director, who accused ProPublica of waging a “jihad” against the party.
Similarly, Vernal Coleman, a reporter in ProPublica’s Midwest office, has reported on the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and its struggles under the administration’s policies. Coleman approached a potential source at home, which led VA Secretary Doug Collins to accuse him of stalking the employee. Journalists have long utilized door-to-door inquiries as a legitimate method of seeking information, a practice upheld by First Amendment rights.
As the political landscape evolves, ProPublica remains committed to uncovering stories that serve the public interest while offering subjects an opportunity to respond. The expectation for accurate reporting and accountability in government remains paramount as the organization navigates an increasingly challenging environment.
