Investigative outlet Hunterbrook accused The New York Times on Sunday of using elements of its earlier reporting without proper credit in a front-page investigation into President Donald Trump’s environmental rollbacks, pointing to similarities in pollution modeling, photographs and sources.
The allegations followed the Times’ Saturday investigation into how Trump exempted more than 200 industrial facilities from stricter clean-air regulations. Hunterbrook claims portions of the report closely resemble two investigations it published months earlier into chemical pollution at plants in Texas and Virginia. The Times’ article now includes an acknowledgment of Hunterbrook’s previous coverage, though it does not specifically credit the outlet’s individual findings or reporting methods.
In a series of posts on X, Hunterbrook pointed to its May investigation into an April accident at Sterilization Services of Virginia, where a faulty valve released 580 lbs. of ethylene oxide, a cancer-causing gas. Both newsrooms used the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s HYSPLIT modeling system to illustrate how the chemical spread into nearby communities.
Hunterbrook also highlighted similarities between the Times’ reporting and its February investigation into Indorama Ventures’ chemical plant in Port Neches, Texas, which received an exemption from federal pollution rules despite a history of chemical releases.
The outlet shared side-by-side photographs appearing to show the same Texas home overlooking the Indorama plant, taken from similar vantage points. Both images feature the house in the foreground and industrial smokestacks in the background, though they were taken by different photographers.
Hunterbrook further pointed to interviews with Joseph Goffman, a former senior Environmental Protection Agency official quoted by both newsrooms, although the quotations published by each differed.
Hunterbrook publisher (and former Biden speechwriter) Sam Koppelman further stated that his newsroom raised concerns with the Times before going public and questioned the newspaper’s explanation for the similarities. “We gave the Times the chance to do the right thing yesterday,” he wrote on X, arguing that the similarities were too specific to dismiss as coincidence.
“They wrote a great story,” Koppelman added. “Obviously, we care about the subject deeply. It’s just a huge bummer for our team and the reporters who worked relentlessly on these stories.”
The Times acknowledged Hunterbrook in its investigation, noting that pollution concerns surrounding the facilities had previously been covered by organizations including ProPublica and Hunterbrook, which it described as an investigative outlet affiliated with an investment firm.
The acknowledgment’s timing is one of the outstanding questions surrounding the dispute, including whether it appeared when the investigation was initially published or was added after concerns were raised.
The newspaper said its journalists reviewed more than 10,000 pages of government documents and interviewed more than 70 people. Its Virginia plume simulation cited state environmental records and NOAA, the same publicly available sources underlying Hunterbrook’s earlier analysis.
The NY Times did not immediately respond to TheWrap’s requests for comment.
