Stephen Engelberg

While investigative journalists immerse themselves in minutiae to identify waste and fraud, Elon Musk’s team has taken a chainsaw approach to spending based on cursory examinations. That might help explain some of their well-publicized stumbles.

Historians have hindsight when they look into the past; journalists have the facts on the ground and context to help them look ahead. That means we can sometimes be surprised by how prescient a story turns out to be.

A “survey of our niche audience for our niche audience” was the source for the claim that only 6% of federal employees are working full time in their offices. The number isn’t true. Why do administration and elected officials keep relying on it?

As Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy prepare for their roles as co-heads of the Department of Government Efficiency, they might look at the wasteful practices and spending by federal agencies ProPublica reporting has surfaced.

We’ll be devoting a significant part of our staff to detailing what are expected to be dramatic changes in the role of the federal government in the lives of Americans.

As investigative journalists, we focus on the substance of issues, the process of elections and the behind-the-scenes forces that stand to benefit from particular outcomes.

ProPublica’s mission statement encourages “using the moral force of investigative journalism to spur reform through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing.” Recently, that impact has been significant — and a bright spot in a dark media landscape.

After we wrote about a suspected cartel donation to the Mexican president’s 2006 campaign, he’s gone on the attack against reporter Tim Golden. Golden won’t be attending AMLO’s press conferences, but here, we respond to some of his questions.

The Journal editorial page accused ProPublica of misleading readers in a story that hadn’t yet been published.

The 1973 Watergate hearings changed popular opinion after Richard Nixon’s landslide win. Here’s what is — and isn’t — different today.