The News
When ABC News removed a story about Donald Trump’s sons from its website without explanation on Thursday, an unnamed company source told media reporters the article had been published “prematurely.” Nathan Lee, the investigative reporter who wrote the original piece, used the same language in emails to Powerus and Anduril, two of the companies at the center of the piece.
But emails between ABC News and its subjects, provided to Semafor, show the network seeking to downplay its errors by misrepresenting its own processes.
On Oct. 7, ABC News published an investigation into a new $6.6 billion deal between defense contractor Anduril and the US Navy to build a new high-tech submarine shipyard in Maryland. The piece largely focused on the financial ties between President Donald Trump’s son and defense companies, noting that Donald Trump Jr. is a partner at investment firm 1789 Capital, which “claimed a major stake in Anduril in June 2025 from a $2.5 billion investment into the company.”
After the piece was published, a spokesperson for Anduril reached out to Lee with several urgent requests for correction. The company — which had not responded to ABC News’ inquiries prior to its publication, according to an Anduril source — wanted the network to clarify connections between Anduril and 1789, noting that the firm had invested $50 million in Anduril’s latest round, a small percentage of the $2.5 billion total.
“Today, 1789 owns approximately 0.13% of Anduril and has no major investor rights. Any suggestion that 1789 financed the round or holds significant ownership, governance position or ‘major stake’ in Anduril is inaccurate,” Anduril’s spokesperson wrote to Lee, according to emails obtained by Semafor.
After the story was published on Wednesday, Lee told Anduril that the network was slightly tweaking the language in its piece, but it was otherwise standing by its story.
“I have spoken to my editors and we have updated the story for accuracy,” Lee said in a note. “We had pulled the ‘major stake’ language from previous reporting. 1789 Capital did claim a stake from the $2.5 billion investment your company received, so we are standing by our language to that extent.”
Anduril’s PR team was not satisfied, and continued to press the network to clarify its story, saying that the piece misstated 1789 Capital’s investment in Anduril’s fundraising round.
“It’s still not clear. I read your text and it reads as if they invested the full $2.5b. Would be much more accurate to list their actual investment of $50m and even more accurate to share that they own less than a percentage point in Anduril,” a spokesperson wrote.
In another email later Wednesday afternoon, Lee said ABC News’ editors had reviewed the language and were standing by the piece.
“Apologies, but my editors said we are standing by the language. I’ll make sure to reach out to both of you directly for any future stories,” Lee said.
But by Thursday, the network had changed its mind. The network removed the piece without explanation, and Peter Charalambous, an ABC News producer in New York, reached out to Anduril and Powerus, a drone contractor mentioned in the story, saying the story had been “published prematurely and removed from our website.”
On Friday evening, ABC News republished a new version of the story re-reported by Charalambous, now without a byline. An editor’s note did not include language that the initial piece was published early.
“Editor’s Note: CORRECTION: A version of this story published on Oct. 7 contained errors in the description of certain company investments, government contracts and event chronologies. After subsequent reporting, this version contains corrected information and additional context regarding some of those investments, contracts and events.”
A network source told Semafor: “We always review every situation in a thorough and thoughtful manner and will not be providing further comment at this time.” The source also noted that it was extremely rare for ABC News to remove a story.
Status reported Sunday that the article was mentioned during the network’s regular 9 am editorial call the day it was published, “suggesting at least some staffers were aware of its publication,” and it “circulated it through its usual email distribution without raising any immediate alarms.”
Max’s view
ABC News’ suggestion that its initial story was published prematurely is familiar spin to anyone who has dealt with crisis PR. It minimized the company’s mistakes and made the situation seem like an accident.
But at a time when distrust in the news media continues to rise, deflections like this can damage the credibility of mainstream, nonpartisan American journalism. Tellingly, the network seemed to know the difference in its official response, acknowledging that the original piece contained errors.
Brett Velicovich, co-founder of Powerus, another company mentioned in ABC News’ initial piece, complained that the network’s handling of the story reinforced his frustration with much of the media coverage of his company and the president’s administration.
“It’s destroying the integrity of what reporting is all about,” Velicovich said. “The damage is already done.”
The Trump family’s mix of business and governing, unprecedented in recent history, is an important reporting target, as journalists attempt to understand how companies and countries are attempting to influence policy by investing in Trump businesses or bringing the Trumps on as partners themselves. But ABC News’ decision to remove its story without explanation while misleadingly telegraphing that it was simply published on accident gave the president’s son and many on the right another opening to criticize mainstream news outlets.
If more and more people continue to believe that news organizations are willing to mislead or fail to take full accountability for mistakes, will they listen when outlets have legitimate stories?
Room for Disagreement
Remove the numbers, and the most basic version of the story — the Pentagon is paying very large sums to a defense contractor in which the president’s sons have invested, and whose co-founder, Palmer Luckey, is a high-dollar Trump donor — is correct. It also follows a pattern congressional Democrats have promised to investigate should they retake power after the midterms.