New Documents Show Why Scott Pruitt Wanted a “Campaign-Style” Media Operation

“The EPA had a very weak claim for awarding this contract on a no-bid basis.”

Tom Williams/Congressional Quarterly via ZUMA

Internal records from the Environmental Protection Agency reveal the agency had hired a Republican firm last December to “directly support” Administrator Scott Pruitt and senior EPA officials with “an aggressive style of campaign-style” media monitoring. The EPA wanted the firm to focus on national outlets, a number of right-wing outlets, and media coverage in Pruitt’s home state of Oklahoma.

In December, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt approved a $120,000 no-bid contract with the Republican opposition research firm Definers Corp., which is part of an overtly partisan America Rising network founded by longtime Republican operatives Matt Rhoades and Joe Pounder. The contract was short-lived. It was mutually canceled by the EPA and Definers a few days after Mother Jones first exposed its existence and more details emerged about the firm’s efforts on researching EPA career employees who spoke out against their boss, Pruitt.

Records obtained by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) in a Freedom of Information Act request provide more details on the justification the EPA used to approve the contract without soliciting competitive bids, and what services it had hoped the firm would provide. The records seem to contradict the EPA’s defense that the firm was only offering a basic service to provide media clips. 

According to the arrangement with Definers, the news clippings service would at a minimum have included real-time monitoring of a set list of publications that included the Tulsa and Oklahoma City papers, as well as conservative outlets like the Daily Caller, Breitbart Media, the conservative blog Hot Air, the Trump-friendly Independent Journal Review, and the website PJ Media. It also included the NTK Network, a conservative website that runs un-bylined content and shares overlapping staff and offices with Definers Corp. and America Rising. Pruitt’s EPA has been particularly responsive to the press coverage from these kinds of outlets. The agency has amplified any positive Pruitt coverage from the EPA accounts and has granted exclusive interviews to Breitbart and radio host Hugh Hewitt (whose son works in the EPA’s public affairs office).

Meanwhile, Pruitt’s press team has lashed out at reporters at various outlets like the New York Times and the Associated Press. The EPA’s contentious relationship with the press came to a head this week when an EPA guard grabbed an AP reporter by the shoulders and shoved her out of the building when she arrived for a national summit on contaminants in water. The agency also barred other reporters from the two-day event. Following the backlash, the EPA opened the event to the press when Pruitt’s address was over, though on Wednesday they were back to closed-door sessions, barring reporters from the building again

The recently released records also indicate the EPA’s special interest in how Pruitt is portrayed in Oklahoma. Pruitt has been seen as a possible contender to succeed Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe, who is up for re-election in 2020.

The EPA has maintained that Definers offered services that were cheaper than other vendors. In response to a request for comment Wednesday evening, EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox emailed Mother Jones: “The Definers contract was for news clip compilation. The contract award was handled through the EPA Office of Acquisition Management and was $87,000 cheaper than our previous media monitoring vendor while offering 24-7 news alerts once a story goes public.” 

But in the documents, the EPA justified soliciting the contract from a single source because they say it was the only service capable of providing what the EPA needed. “The EPA team can be automatically notified that allows the Office of Administrator extensive media monitoring with a product that is an aggressive style of campaign-style delivery of real-time coverage.” A form completed by the Office of Public Affairs suggests the EPA considers press coverage of Pruitt’s work to be filled with inaccuracies:  

“…OPA works to achieve articles that accurately represent EPA’s perspective. In order to accomplish this goal, OPA must constantly monitor media coverage and respond to inaccurate or incomplete stories. OPA may choose a number of methods to address these stories, including contacting reporters and editors to request corrections. OPA’s ability to successfully address inaccurate or incomplete before the stories influences other reporters or are widely read is largely dependent on its ability to identify these stories shortly after publication…”

“The EPA had a very weak claim for awarding this contract on a no-bid basis,” said POGO’s director of investigations Nick Schwellenbach, who obtained the documents using a FOIA request. “The EPA relied solely on information provided by Definers to determine whether the cost was ‘fair and reasonable.’ They should have engaged in market research, i.e., learning what others are charging for comparable services, at a minimum.”

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate