What has ProPublica published from the leaked tax records and how does it compare with The New York Times’ reporting?
Executive summary
ProPublica used the trove of leaked IRS files to publish an extended investigative series exposing how the nation’s wealthiest often pay little or no federal income tax and offering new metrics like a “true tax rate,” while The New York Times used records provided by the same leaker to produce targeted reporting on Donald Trump’s personal tax history — notably the 2020 disclosure that he paid $750 in federal income tax in 2016 and 2017 [1] [2]. The scope, focus and public reaction to the two newsrooms diverged: ProPublica emphasizes structural patterns among billionaires and says it only used information about the ultra-rich, while the Times’ Trump reporting was narrow, explosive and central to electoral scrutiny [3] [1].
1. ProPublica’s scope and central claims: systemic patterns among the ultra‑rich
ProPublica’s projects mined years of confidential IRS information to produce dozens of published pieces documenting how some of the richest Americans paid little or no federal income tax in multiple years, producing comparative analyses and a “true tax rate” metric to show taxes paid relative to wealth growth rather than reported income [3] [4]. ProPublica has described the data it used as “a massive trove” but has repeatedly said it does not know the identity of the leaker and that it only received tax information pertaining to the top .001% of individuals — a claim at odds with later IRS disclosures about the overall number of records accessed [5] [4].
2. The New York Times’ focus: Trump’s returns and electoral stakes
By contrast, The New York Times’ reporting based on the leak centered on President Trump’s personal returns, revealing that he reported only $750 in federal income tax in key years and reported losses that erased taxable income in many others — reporting the Times framed as central to voters’ understanding of a president’s financial conflicts and tax behavior [1]. That reporting was narrower but high-impact: it became a touchstone in public debates about presidential transparency and formed part of congressional and political pressure to scrutinize Trump’s finances [1].
3. Overlap, source attribution and the Littlejohn confession
Court and reporting records show the same contractor, Charles (or Charles Edward) Littlejohn, admitted to leaking Trump’s returns to the Times and thousands of other wealthy taxpayers’ records to ProPublica; Littlejohn pleaded guilty to disclosure of tax return information and was later sentenced [2] [1]. Media coverage and Trump’s recent lawsuit assert the Times produced at least eight articles from those disclosures and ProPublica at least 50, a tally invoked in legal filings alleging reputational and financial harm from the leaks [6] [7].
4. Contested scale, editorial defensibility and legal politics
Disputes persist about the volume of records in ProPublica’s possession and what the outlets published: the IRS later reported over 400,000 taxpayers’ records were inappropriately accessed, while ProPublica maintains it only used data about a tiny slice of the very richest and denied possessing the broad scope the IRS notification suggests [4]. ProPublica and the Times both defended their public‑interest judgments; ProPublica’s editors argued the constitutional protections for reporting are relevant even when source activity is unlawful, while critics — including Republican lawmakers — have demanded probes and argued leaks undermined taxpayer privacy and IRS credibility [3] [8] [9].
5. What this means for readers and for accountability reporting
The two newsrooms did related but distinct types of journalism: ProPublica pursued systemic analysis of wealthy taxpayers and tax policy implications, building datasets and cross‑subject narratives; the Times pursued a high‑stakes exposé about a sitting president’s tax behavior that shaped electoral narratives [3] [1]. Both have been drawn into legal and political conflict — from congressional inquiries to lawsuits by Trump alleging false and damaging claims — and both say they did not solicit the leak but relied on journalistic vetting and public‑interest reasoning in deciding what to publish [5] [10].