The nonprofit should apply its journalistic approach to itself
By Peter Navarro | Washington Times | June 16, 2026
For years, ProPublica has built its reputation on a simple premise: Follow the money.
Whenever ProPublica investigates a corporation, a politician, industry or public policy initiative, its first questions are usually the same: Who benefits, who pays and what interests may be operating behind the scenes?
That is a legitimate journalistic approach. It is also a litmus test that should be applied to ProPublica itself.
Consider ProPublica’s recent investigative attention toward two emerging companies central to America’s effort to rebuild domestic critical mineral and rare earth supply chains: ReElement and Vulcan.
These are precisely the kinds of small, innovative companies the United States must develop if it hopes to reduce its dangerous dependence on China for materials essential to advanced manufacturing, energy systems, defense production and artificial intelligence.
One would expect a nonprofit investigative newsroom committed to the public interest to recognize the strategic importance of this effort.
Instead, ProPublica weaves a flimsy web of suggested cronyism from anonymous government sources, unproduced government agency records and insinuation — and then quietly concedes, between the lines, that the public evidence does not prove the charges.