Stephen Engelberg was the founding managing editor of ProPublica from 2008–2012, and became editor-in-chief on January 1, 2013. He came to ProPublica from The Oregonian in Portland, where he had been a managing editor since 2002. Before joining The Oregonian, Mr. Engelberg worked for The New York Times for 18 years, including stints in Washington, D.C., and Warsaw, Poland, as well as in New York. He is a member of the Pulitzer Prize Board.
Mr. Engelberg’s work since 1996 has focused largely on the editing of investigative projects. He started the Times’s investigative unit in 2000. Projects he supervised at the Times on Mexican corruption (published in 1997) and the rise of Al Qaeda (published beginning in January 2001) were awarded the Pulitzer Prize. During his years at The Oregonian, the paper won the Pulitzer for breaking news and was a finalist for its investigative work on methamphetamines and charities intended to help the disabled. He is the co-author of “Germs: Biological Weapons and America’s Secret War” (2001).
Las Vegas Sands has insisted for more than a year that it needed approval from Macau authorities to turn over documents sought by federal investigators and a former employee suing the company for wrongful termination. Now, the company owned by the biggest single Republican donor acknowledges that many of the documents have been in the United States all along.
In just a few years, the chairman and CEO of Las Vegas Sands created a gambling empire in Macau that made him one of the world’s richest men. Now, Sheldon Adelson’s business methods are under expanding scrutiny by federal and Nevada investigators.
Several steps could solve the racial disparity in presidential pardons that our joint project with The Washington Post has exposed -- starting with a requirement that any member of Congress who writes on behalf of a pardon applicant disclose campaign donations.
Justice Department concedes no liability in deal with family of Robert Stevens, averting a trial that could have brought to light secrets about U.S. bio-defense efforts.
The Army laboratory identified by prosecutors as the source of the anthrax that killed five people in the fall of 2001 was rife with such security gaps that the deadly spores could have easily been smuggled out of the facility, outside investigators found.
In response to a joint investigation by PBS' Frontline, McClatchy and ProPublica, Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley and two congressman said that it is unlikely that the FBI will reopen its investigation into the anthrax cases.
FBI and Justice Department investigators say the Army microbiologist submitted a deceptive sample of anthrax to cover up his role as perpetrator of the 2001 anthrax letter attacks. But records found by PBS Frontline, McClatchy and ProPublica show Ivins made available three other samples of his spores, each of which matched those used in the letters.
Federal prosecutors say sound science connected U.S. Army scientist Bruce Ivins to the anthrax letter attacks in 2001. But a former FBI official involved in the case now says more research was needed to make the scientific evidence strong enough to be used in court.
The FBI still insists it had the right man in Bruce Ivins, an Army biologist who committed suicide in 2008 before being charged with the mailings that killed five people. But an in-depth look by ProPublica, PBS and McClatchy found new evidence challenging the government’s claims.
Senior Republican asks Attorney General and FBI Director to explain why civil lawyers initially filed court papers questioning a key aspect of case against Army researcher.
The Justice Department initially asserted flatly that Army researcher Bruce Ivins, whom the FBI accused of manufacturing the anthrax, lacked the specialized equipment needed to produce the deadly powder at a U.S. bio-weapons lab.
The resignation of Oregon Congressman David Wu provides a compelling argument for why news organizations should aggressively pursue allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct—even old ones.
In an order issued Monday, U.S. District Judge Daniel Hurley of West Palm Beach, Fla., said the government must "show good cause" before he will allow it to change the original filing, which lawyers for the department’s Civil Division made in an eight-year-old case brought against the government by the family of one of the five victims.
Conflicting court filings and a retraction could undermine the Department of Justice’s credibility in a $50 million wrongful death lawsuit filed by the family of photographer Robert Stevens, first victim to die in the 2001 anthrax letter attacks.
The unusual seven-page correction, hurriedly filed in federal court in Florida, does not erase testimony from government scientists who challenged the FBI's finding that Bruce Ivins mailed anthrax-filled letters that killed five people in 2001.
The Justice Department has called into question a key pillar of the FBI's case against Bruce Ivins, the Army scientist accused of mailing the anthrax-laced letters that killed five people and terrorized Congress a decade ago.
Thank you for your interest in republishing this story. You are are free to republish it so long as you do the following:
You have to credit ProPublica and any co-reporting partners. In the byline, we prefer “Author Name, Publication(s).” At the top of the text of your story, include a line that reads: “This story was originally published by ProPublica.” You must link the word “ProPublica” to the original URL of the story.
If you’re republishing online, you must link to the URL of this story on propublica.org, include all of the links from our story, including our newsletter sign up language and link, and use our PixelPing tag.
If you use canonical metadata, please use the ProPublica URL. For more information about canonical metadata, refer to this Google SEO link.
You can’t edit our material, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. (For example, “yesterday” can be changed to “last week,” and “Portland, Ore.” to “Portland” or “here.”)
You cannot republish our photographs or illustrations without specific permission. Please contact [email protected].
It’s okay to put our stories on pages with ads, but not ads specifically sold against our stories. You can’t state or imply that donations to your organization support ProPublica’s work.
You can’t sell our material separately or syndicate it. This includes publishing or syndicating our work on platforms or apps such as Apple News, Google News, etc.
You can’t republish our material wholesale, or automatically; you need to select stories to be republished individually. (To inquire about syndication or licensing opportunities, contact [email protected].)
You can’t use our work to populate a website designed to improve rankings on search engines or solely to gain revenue from network-based advertisements.
We do not generally permit translation of our stories into another language.
Any website our stories appear on must include a prominent and effective way to contact you.
If you share republished stories on social media, we’d appreciate being tagged in your posts. We have official accounts for ProPublica on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
Copy and paste the following into your page to republish:
