Today's #ListenFirst Friday video focuses on the importance of overcoming political divides and coming together to combat climate change.
Video: #ListenFirst Friday Ellis Watamanuk
#ListenFirst Friday Ellis Watamanuk

Most customers carry a particular image of Campbell's Soup: the red-and-white label stacked on a pantry shelf, a touch of nostalgia, and the promise of a dependable bargain. It's food for snow days, tight budgets, and the middle of the week. For generations, the brand has positioned itself as a companion to working families, offering "good food" for everyday people. The company cultivated that trust so thoroughly that it became almost cliché.
Campbell's episode, now the subject of national headlines and an ongoing high-profile legal complaint, is troubling not only for its blunt language but for what it reveals about the hidden injuries that erode the social contract linking institutions to citizens, workers to workplaces, and brands to buyers. If the response ends with the usual PR maneuvers—rapid firings and the well-rehearsed "this does not reflect our values" statement. Then both the lesson and the opportunity for genuine reform by a company or individual are lost. To grasp what this controversy means for the broader corporate landscape, we first have to examine how leadership reveals its actual beliefs.
The facts are straightforward. Robert Garza, a former cybersecurity analyst, has sued Campbell's, alleging that Martin Bally, then a vice president and Chief Information Security Officer, insulted Indian workers, disparaged Campbell's foods as "s--- for f---ing poor people," and mocked consumers—all during a meeting intended to address Garza's compensation. The lawsuit claims Bally also bragged about coming to work under the influence of marijuana and repeatedly used explicit racial slurs. According to Garza, the recording supports his claims. After Garza reported the incident to his supervisor, Bally was dismissed.
Campbell acknowledged the recording's authenticity, condemned Bally's remarks as "vulgar, offensive, and false," and severed ties with him. The company now faces a state-level investigation concerning product quality and questions about possible retaliation.
What's most striking about Bally's alleged remarks isn't just the crude language or the ignorance. It’s the confidence with which he shared them. To belittle food that millions depend upon as "slop for the poor" reveals not only personal arrogance but internalized elitism and a profound disconnect from both consumers and the company's declared values. If this is how executives view their products and those who rely on them, no marketing campaign can bridge that gap.
For employees, especially those targeted by bigotry or scapegoating, the harm runs even deeper. Corporate culture doesn't merely flow downward; it seeps into everyday behavior, from missed advancement to subtle exclusion. When employees see that reporting misconduct can lead to retaliation, as Garza alleges, trust erodes quickly, and the damage lingers.
Consumers sense this contempt too. In an era of economic strain, the realization that leaders quietly mock customers' realities is more than a PR challenge; it's a breach of the social contract. It signals that the promise of a fair exchange is negotiable and all too fragile. If contempt destroys trust, the usual cycle of corporate contrition does little to repair it.
Crisis management has become rote: issue a statement, insist the offensive behavior doesn't represent the company, fire the offender, and announce an internal review. Campbell's followed this script and reaffirmed its commitment to quality. These actions matter, but they fall short of addressing deeper failures.
No executive rises to senior leadership in a vacuum. Bally's conduct was possible because a culture allowed him to advance while his attitudes went unchallenged or unnoticed. Such reality should prompt a more honest question: if a workplace can absorb and overlook contempt of this magnitude, what else has it normalized? What day-to-day habits have become so ingrained that the system itself sustains arrogance and exclusion?
If these questions expose the limits of routine corporate apologies, the next step is to consider what real accountability would require. Authentic accountability demands transparency that goes beyond formulaic statements and crisis scripts. Campbell’s, or any company, must move from symbolic gestures to real, structural change: independent audits of workplace culture, genuine opportunities for employees to reach senior leaders without fear of retaliation, and real consequences when retaliation occurs.
Diversity and anti-bias training may help, but they mean little without independent reporting channels, third-party oversight, and steadfast whistleblower protections. Recruitment and advancement should prioritize those who understand the realities of workers and consumers, not just candidates who fit the old leadership mold. Most challenging of all, product and marketing decisions should involve the consumers who actually use the brand. Respect is genuine only when it is participatory.
If Campbell's is sincere in its supposed gratitude for its customers, the first step toward repair is a willingness to share influence with those very people. Consumers hold more power than they realize. They can demand more than apologies and short-term fixes. Public trust isn't a performance; it's a responsibility. When leaders betray that trust, the only credible response involves actual culture change and consequences that reach into the structure of leadership.
Boycotts and social media outrage apply pressure. But real consumer advocacy expects independent review, measurable equity commitments, and transparency in hiring, retention, and advancement. It supports companies that protect whistleblowers and uphold these standards long after the headlines vanish. With all this in mind, the final question is whether redemption is possible—and if so, what it must look like.
The Campbell's scandal isn't just a corporate misstep; it points to a broader breach between the powerful and those who trust, labor for, and support them. If companies seek redemption, it won't come through slogans or glossy advertisements. It will have to emerge through actions that honor dignity in tangible, lasting ways.
If leaders can't replace contempt with genuine respect, self-reflection, and a humility fitting their responsibilities, the divide between the influential and everyday people will only widen. The consequences will outlast brand reputation or quarterly profits. They ripple through the moral integrity of public life. That growing divide is a test of who we are and what we're willing to accept from those who shape the literal and symbolic bread of our daily lives.
Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson is a spiritual entrepreneur, author, scholar-practioner whose leadership and strategies around social and racial justice issues are nationally recognized and applied.

When ego replaces accountability in the presidency, democracy weakens. An analysis of how unchecked leadership erodes trust, institutions, and the rule of law.
What has become of America’s presidency? Once a symbol of dignity and public service, the office now appears chaotic, ego‑driven, and consumed by spectacle over substance. When personal ambition replaces accountability, the consequences extend far beyond politics — they erode trust, weaken institutions, and threaten democracy itself.
When leaders place ego above accountability, democracy falters. Weak leaders seek to appear powerful. Strong leaders accept responsibility.
Americans want leaders who embody honesty, humility, and respect — values we teach our children. When leaders abandon these qualities, the nation’s character suffers.
The president’s public behavior is defined by bullying and humiliation — mocking governors as “fat” or “ugly,” calling citizens “pigs,” and ridiculing reporters on live television. These are not displays of strength but symptoms of insecurity. Research shows ethical leaders demonstrate humility and accountability, not cruelty (Frontiers in Psychology).
The pandemic revealed the cost of ego. In October 2020, when hospitalized with COVID‑19, the president staged a balcony moment by removing his mask after leaving Walter Reed (BBC). What could have modeled humility became a performance of ego instead.
Ego unchecked is most dangerous in matters of war and peace. Leaders who bypass Congress or claim unilateral authority erode constitutional balance (Congressional Research Service). Oversight is not an obstacle; it is a safeguard.
A healthy ego gives courage. An inflated ego breeds arrogance, stifles collaboration, and destroys accountability. True accountability requires humility and the willingness to admit mistakes. Instead, ego‑driven leaders pursue personal ambition — as seen in legislation like the Big Beautiful Bill or the reversal of Roe v. Wade (NPR Illinois), both ignoring the voices of millions.
These actions reveal a deeper problem: when presidents face no effective checks, they learn to exploit gaps in accountability. Long before he came to the White House, Trump had already mastered the art of loopholes — in business, in taxes, and in government. He bragged about finding ways around rules, and each time institutions failed to enforce boundaries, his ego grew stronger, and his disregard for responsibility deepened.
Trump is a master of loopholes. In the past, he has bragged about it. He entered the White House with an already inflated ego and the practiced skill of exploiting gaps in accountability. He has never apologized or taken responsibility — he sues and moves on. If citizens could sue him directly, he would drown in lawsuits.
Ego is not confined to the presidency. Members of Congress who evade accountability and justices who fail to uphold their oaths also reveal how inflated egos corrode trust. When legislators place loyalty above courage, or when judges prioritize ideology over integrity, democracy suffers. This is not a partisan problem — it is a bipartisan failure of character.
The consequences of loopholes are not abstract. In a dialysis center, patients and nurses feel the weight of policies shaped by ego and neglect. When leaders exploit gaps in accountability, the result is cuts to care, understaffed facilities, and exhausted professionals. Citizens see firsthand that when ego drives decisions, it is their health, dignity, and trust that suffer.
History reminds us that unchecked leaders rarely stop at one abuse of power. When accountability is absent, ego expands. Past presidents who evaded responsibility left scars on the nation, proving that democracy cannot survive without boundaries.
Chaotic governance is not just embarrassing; it is dangerous. Spectacle displaces stewardship, and ego replaces service. Fiscal spectacle had consequences, with record deficits documented by ConsumerAffairs and the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. These numbers reflect chaos rather than disciplined governance.
The damage extends beyond budgets. Ego corrodes institutions, dampens morale, and erodes trust. Staff and advisors navigate a hostile environment where flattery is demanded and honesty punished. Citizens disengage, exhausted by insults and spectacle.
Accountability requires courage from those closest to power. Cabinet members must stop offering fake praise simply to inflate the president’s ego. He nominated a cabinet for loyalty, not competence — a chorus of enablers feeding his insecurity. Weak leaders demand applause; strong leaders accept responsibility. Cabinet officials must replace flattery with honesty and confront ego rather than enable it.
We have observed citizens switching the television channel when governance becomes a spectacle of insults. This disengagement is not apathy; it is a reaction to chaos that undermines trust. The spectacle of insults is well documented, with dozens of personal attacks directed at officials, citizens, and reporters.
Americans want leaders with a healthy ego — one grounded in confidence, humility, and service. A healthy ego empowers others, listens to experts, and accepts responsibility. An unhealthy ego demands applause, silences dissent, and rewards flattery.
Finding solutions will not be easy. It will take persistence, courage, and vigilance because the president has rarely been checked. Ego, this inflated, resists boundaries. However, Congress is not powerless. Through its power of the purse, it can curb reckless spending. Through hearings and subpoenas, it can expose misconduct. And through its confirmation authority, the Senate can demand integrity in appointments. Oversight is not obstruction; it is the safeguard of democracy.
The Supreme Court must also act. Judicial review is not obstruction; it is a safeguard against ego‑driven overreach. The Court can revisit or overturn immunity doctrines that shield presidents from accountability. By reaffirming that no leader is above the law, the Court can restore balance and protect the integrity of our democracy.
The call is clear: Citizens must reclaim democracy. Your voice, your vote, your vigilance — these are the tools we must employ to restore integrity to leadership and help the president check his own ego. Accountability is not punishment; it is patriotism. Integrity is not optional; it is the cornerstone of a free society.
And citizens must go further: demand that your senators and representatives at the local, state, and national levels hold the president accountable. Democracy cannot survive if elected officials remain silent or complicit.
The presidency is not a stage for ego. It is a trust, sworn by oath, to serve the people. When leaders abandon accountability, they abandon democracy itself. Democracy will survive only if citizens persist, demand courage, enforce accountability, and refuse to be silenced.
Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and advocate for ethical leadership and government accountability.
America is being damaged not by strong leaders abusing power, but by weak leaders avoiding responsibility. Their refusal to be accountable has become a threat to democracy itself. We are now governed by individuals who hold power but lack the character, courage, and integrity required to use it responsibly. And while everyday Americans are expected to follow rules, honor commitments, and face consequences, we have a Congress and a President who are shielded by privilege and immunity. We have leaders in Congress who lie, point fingers, and break ethics rules because they can get away with it. There is no accountability. Too many of our leaders operate as if ethics were optional.
Internal fighting among members of Congress has only deepened the dysfunction. Instead of holding one another accountable, lawmakers spend their energy attacking colleagues, blocking legislation, and protecting party leaders. Infighting reveals a failure to check themselves, leaving citizens with a government paralyzed by disputes rather than focused on solutions. When leaders cannot even enforce accountability within their own ranks, the entire system falters.
Transparency in Congress has become a forgotten word. Leaders not only spin and change the subject, but they spread conspiracies, cover up, and deny—traits they apparently learned from the President to evade the truth and protect and shield him when he abuses power. President Trump has wielded hundreds of executive orders that test constitutional boundaries, including attempts to restrict birthright citizenship and expand presidential authority beyond constitutional limits, which legal experts warn could undermine checks and balances (ABC News; Tennessean). He has also used government powers to target more than 100 perceived enemies—through ICE arrests, investigations, and firings—in what NPR described as a sweeping campaign of retribution (OPB/NPR). Who dares to check the President? Who dares to hold him accountable for his actions that diminish our Republic?
Speaker Mike Johnson has likewise evaded truth and accountability. During a protracted government shutdown, he refused to reconvene the House, effectively holding Congress hostage and preventing members from voting on critical legislation. Analysts described this as a dereliction of duty that undermined representative government (BentGent). Johnson also faced bipartisan pressure over the release of Jeffrey Epstein investigation files, publicly claiming transparency while simultaneously shutting down the Rules Committee and canceling votes, a move criticized as an effort to avoid scrutiny (Politico; Southwest Journal).
With no accountability, Americans can see the quid pro quos, pay‑for‑play arrangements, favors extended to political allies, and the deference shown to billionaires and special interests. This visibility should trigger reform. Instead, it exposes a deeper failure: a political culture so hollowed out by privilege and immunity that consequences simply no longer apply. Recent scandals illustrate this pattern, from Miami’s no‑bid concession deal benefiting a national party finance chair to multimillion‑dollar checks securing Cabinet appointments in what watchdogs describe as Trump’s pay‑to‑play administration.
The Supreme Court has not fared better. Justices have accepted luxury trips, gifts, and favors from wealthy benefactors, raising questions about impartiality and ethics. Investigations by ProPublica have detailed undisclosed travel and relationships that test the boundaries of judicial ethics, while rulings on presidential immunity reported by SCOTUSblog have reshaped checks and balances in ways that embolden abuses of power. Accountability has been replaced by privilege, and the Court itself has become entangled in pay‑for‑play politics.
Underlying all of this is the outsized influence of billionaires and money in politics. In the 2024 elections, 150 of the wealthiest families contributed nearly $2 billion to influence outcomes, including Elon Musk ($133 million to Republicans) and Michael Bloomberg ($45 million to Democrats), as reported by the Washington Post. Research by Princeton shows that economic elites and organized interests have far more influence on policy outcomes than average citizens, while Pew Research documents the resulting collapse of public trust in government. Leaders fear accountability because it would expose these transactions, strip away privileges, and return power to the people.
When accountability is absent, the damage extends beyond leaders to citizens themselves. Trust erodes, corruption weakens institutions, and the government loses the ability to pass laws, enact policies, or respond to crises. Public services are destroyed, voices go unheard, and votes are suppressed. Citizens disengage, stop caring, and withdraw from civic life. Inequality and injustice deepen, social unrest grows, and the rule of law collapses. Democracy cannot survive when accountability is ignored.
Yet accountability is not punishment—it is a tool. Leaders must view accountability as a way to improve their leadership, sharpen decision‑making, build trust, and even strengthen approval rates. As a leader, I held myself accountable—the buck stopped with me. It was never difficult to confront my flaws and weaknesses because strong self-esteem and a genuine desire to serve led me to accept responsibility for outcomes. Accountability enhanced my leadership skills, making me stronger, more effective, and better equipped to make sound decisions, solve problems, and achieve organizational goals. Ignoring accountability was never an option. But leaders should not only hold themselves accountable; they must also hold one another accountable, including the President and the Supreme Court. Accountability will only work when it exists across all three branches of government.
Americans cannot afford to look away. If we want to dismantle dysfunction, we must confront the money behind it and demand accountability at every level of government. Only then can we restore integrity, enforce checks and balances, and reclaim democracy as for the people, by the people.
Ethics codes and transparency rules must be enforced. Checks and balances must be restored and reinforced. Campaign finance reform and stricter lobbying rules must limit billionaire influence. Citizens must vote, speak out, attend town halls, write letters, sign petitions, and participate in peaceful protests. Accountability makes for a fully functioning Congress that passes laws, enacts policies, and does the work of the people without chaos, obstruction, and self‑interest. Leaders should be judged not by how fiercely they cling to power, but by how courageously they accept responsibility.
Leaders may fear accountability, but without it, democracy cannot survive. When accountability is present, corruption recedes, transparency expands, and trust is restored. Free and fair elections, independent media, and ethical leadership will no longer be ideals on paper but realities in practice. Only then will democracy endure — and only then will government truly be for the people, by the people.
C. Goode is a retired educational leader and advocate for ethical leadership and health care justice.

One of the two Palm Beach, Florida, homes that Donald Trump signed a mortgage for in the mid-1990s. The Mar-a-Lago tower appears behind the house.
For months, the Trump administration has been accusing its political enemies of mortgage fraud for claiming more than one primary residence.
President Donald Trump branded one foe who did so “deceitful and potentially criminal.” He called another “CROOKED” on Truth Social and pushed the attorney general to take action.
But years earlier, Trump did the very thing he’s accusing his enemies of, records show.
In 1993, Trump signed a mortgage for a “Bermuda style” home in Palm Beach, Florida, pledging that it would be his principal residence. Just seven weeks later, he got another mortgage for a seven-bedroom, marble-floored neighboring property, attesting that it too would be his principal residence.
In reality, Trump, then a New Yorker, does not appear to have ever lived in either home, let alone used them as a principal residence. Instead, the two houses, which are next to his historic Mar-a-Lago estate, were used as investment properties and rented out, according to contemporaneous news accounts and an interview with his longtime real estate agent — exactly the sort of scenario his administration has pointed to as evidence of fraud.
At the time of the purchases, Trump’s local real estate agent told the Miami Herald that the businessman had “hired an expensive New York design firm” to “dress them up to the nines and lease them out annually.” In an interview, Shirley Wyner, the late real estate agent’s wife and business partner who was herself later the rental agent for the two properties, told ProPublica: “They were rentals from the beginning.” Wyner, who has worked with the Trump family for years, added: “President Trump never lived there.”

Despite signing a mortgage that pledged he would live in each house, Trump listed both homes as rentals. Palm Beach Daily News via Newspapers.com. Redactions by ProPublica.Mortgage law experts who reviewed the records for ProPublica were struck by the irony of Trump’s dual mortgages. They said claiming primary residences on different mortgages at the same time, as Trump did, is often legal and rarely prosecuted. But Trump’s two loans, they said, exceed the low bar the Trump administration itself has set for mortgage fraud.
“Given Trump’s position on situations like this, he’s going to either need to fire himself or refer himself to the Department of Justice,” said Kathleen Engel, a Suffolk University law professor and leading expert on mortgage finance. “Trump has deemed that this type of misrepresentation is sufficient to preclude someone from serving the country.”
Mortgages for a person’s main home tend to receive more favorable terms, like lower interest rates, than mortgages for a second home or an investment rental property. Legal experts said that having more than one primary-residence mortgage can sometimes be legitimate, like when someone has to move for a new job, and other times can be caused by clerical error. Determining ill intent on the part of the borrower is key to proving fraud, and the experts said lenders have significant discretion in what loans they offer clients. (In this case, Trump used the same lender to buy the two Florida homes.)
But in recent months, the Trump administration has asserted that merely having two primary-residence mortgages is evidence of criminality.
Bill Pulte, the Federal Housing Finance Agency director who has led the charge, said earlier this year: “If somebody is claiming two primary residences, that is not appropriate, and we will refer it for criminal investigation.”
Trump hung up on a ProPublica reporter after being asked whether his Florida mortgages were similar to those of others he had accused of fraud.
In response to questions, a White House spokesperson told ProPublica: “President Trump’s two mortgages you are referencing are from the same lender. There was no defraudation. It is illogical to believe that the same lender would agree to defraud itself.”
The spokesperson added, “this is yet another desperate attempt by the Left wing media to disparage President Trump with false allegations,” and said, “President Trump has never, or will ever, break the law.”
The White House did not respond to questions about any other documents related to the transactions, such as loan applications, that could shed light on what Trump told the lender or if the lender made any exceptions for him.
At the time Trump bought the two Florida properties, he was dealing with the wreckage of high-profile failures at his casinos and hotels in the early 1990s. (He famously recounted seeing a panhandler on Fifth Avenue around this time and telling his companion: “You know, right now that man is worth $900 million more than I am.”) In December 1993, he married the model Marla Maples in an opulent ceremony at The Plaza Hotel. And in Florida, he was pushing local authorities to let him turn Mar-a-Lago, then a residence, into a private club.
Trump bought the two homes, which both sit on Woodbridge Road directly north of Mar-a-Lago, and got mortgages in quick succession in December 1993 and January 1994. The lender on both mortgages, one for $525,000 and one for $1,200,000, was Merrill Lynch.
Each of the mortgage documents signed by Trump contain the standard occupancy requirement — that he must make the property his principal residence within 60 days and live there for at least a year, unless the lender agreed otherwise or there were extenuating circumstances.
But ProPublica could not find evidence Trump ever lived in either of the properties. Legal documents and federal election records from the period give his address as Trump Tower in Manhattan. (Trump would officially change his permanent residence to Florida only decades later, in 2019.) A Vanity Fair profile published in March 1994 describes Trump spending time in Manhattan and at Mar-a-Lago itself.
Trump’s real estate agent, who told the local press that the plan from the beginning was to rent out the two satellite homes, was quoted as saying, “Mr. Trump, in effect, is in a position to approve who his neighbors are.”
In the ensuing years, listings popped up in local newspapers advertising each of the homes for rent. At one point in 1997, the larger of the two homes, a 7-bedroom, 7-bathroom Mediterranean Revival mansion, was listed for $3,000 per day.
Even if Trump did violate the law with his two primary-residence mortgages in Florida, the loans have since been paid off and the mid-1990s is well outside the statute of limitations for mortgage fraud.

In 1993, Trump signed a mortgage for a “Bermuda style” home in Palm Beach, pledging that it would be his principal residence. Just seven weeks later, he got another mortgage for a seven-bedroom, marble-floored neighboring property and attested that it too would be his principal residence. Obtained by ProPublicaA spokesperson for Bank of America, which now owns Merrill Lynch, did not answer questions about the Trump mortgages.
“It’s highly unlikely we would have original documents for a 32-year-old transaction, but generally in private client mortgages the terms of the transactions are based on the overall relationship,” the spokesperson said in a statement, “and the mortgages are not backed by or sold to any government sponsored entity.”
Trump’s two mortgages in Palm Beach bear similarities to the loans taken out by political rivals whom his administration has accused of fraud.
In October, federal prosecutors charged New York Attorney General Letitia James over her mortgage. James has been one of Trump’s top targets since she brought a fraud lawsuit against the president and his company in 2022.
A central claim in the case the Trump Justice Department brought against her is that she purchased a house in Virginia, pledging to her lender that it would serve as her second home, then proceeded to use it as an investment property and rent it out. “This misrepresentation allowed James to obtain favorable loan terms not available for investment properties,” according to the indictment.
Trump’s Florida mortgage agreements appear to have made a more significant misrepresentation, as he claimed those homes would be his primary residence, not his secondary home as James did, before proceeding to rent them out.
James has denied the allegations against her, and the case was dismissed last month over procedural issues, though the Justice Department has been trying to reindict her.
The circumstances around Trump’s mortgages are also similar to the case his administration has made against Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
Trump declared he was firing Cook earlier this year over her mortgages, as he has sought to bend the traditionally independent agency to his will and force it to lower interest rates. Cook, who denied wrongdoing, has sued to block the termination and continues to serve on the Fed board as that legal fight continues.
In a letter to Cook, Trump specifically noted that she signed two primary residence mortgages within weeks of each other — just as records show he did in Florida.
“You signed one document attesting that a property in Michigan would be your primary residence for the next year. Two weeks later, you signed another document for a property in Georgia stating that it would be your primary residence for the next year,” Trump wrote. “It is inconceivable that you were not aware of your first commitment when making the second.”
He called the loans potentially criminal and wrote, “at a minimum, the conduct at issue exhibits the sort of gross negligence in financial transactions that calls into question your competence and trustworthiness.”
The Trump administration has made similar fraud allegations against other political enemies, including Democrats Sen. Adam Schiff and Rep. Eric Swalwell, both of whom have denied wrongdoing.
In September, ProPublica reported that three of Trump’s Cabinet members have called multiple homes their primary residences in mortgage agreements. Bloomberg also reported that Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent did something similar. (The Cabinet members have all denied wrongdoing.)
Pulte, the Federal Housing Finance Agency head, has denied his investigations are politically motivated. “If it’s a Republican who’s committing mortgage fraud, we’re going to look at it,” he has said. “If it’s a Democrat, we’re going to look at it.”
Thus far, Pulte has not made any publicly known criminal referrals against Republicans. He did not respond to questions from ProPublica about Trump’s Florida mortgages.
Trump’s Own Mortgages Match His Description of Mortgage Fraud, Records Reveal was first published on ProPublica and republished with permission.
Justin Elliott is a ProPublica reporter covering business and politics.
Robert Faturechi is a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter at ProPublica.
Alex Mierjeski is a research reporter at ProPublica based in New York.