White House Edits Mischaracterized Moratorium Report

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


The White House misrepresented conclusions included in an Interior Department report to suggest that independent experts supported a six-month moratorium on offshore drilling the administration enacted following the Deepwater Horizon disaster, a report from Interior’s Inspector General finds. The IG report points to the office of White House Energy and Climate adviser Carol Browner as the source of the mistaken information.

On May 27, 2010, an email sent at 2:13 a.m. from one of Browner’s included two edited versions of the executive summary of a report President Obama had requested about deepwater drilling safety. The draft versions were very similar, and both made it appear that seven outside experts had peer-reviewed and endorsed the six-month moratorium Secretary Ken Salazar issued later that day. The version of the report made public with Salazar’s annoucement of the moratorium included the line, “The recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.”

But while the reviewers had looked at the conclusions of other experts and exmaned the Interior’s recommendations on how to proceed with offshore drilling, they had not in fact been asked to weigh in on the whether to establish the 6 month moratorium, contrary to what the report edited by Browner’s office implied. The IG report (first obtained by Politico) concludes:

Both versions, however, revised and re-ordered the Executive Summary, placing the peer review language immediately following the moratorium recommendation causing the distinction between the Secretary’s moratorium recommendation—which had not been peer-reviewed—and the recommendations contained in the 30-Day Report—which had been peer-reviewed—to become effectively lost.

After the report’s release, one of the reviewers, an engineer from the National Academy of Engineering, raised concerns about the misrepresentation in a letter to Louisiana Senators Mary Landrieu (D) and David Vitter (R), and Gov. Bobby Jindal. The letter was co-signed by several other members of the panel.

Salazar later held teleconference with the concerned reviewers to apologize for the mischaracterization, indicating it been a simple error rather than a proactive attempt to mislead. The engineer who initially raised concerns said he accepted the explanation that it “was a mistake rather than an intentional attempt to use the peer-reviewers’ names to justify a political decision.”

But this isn’t the first time that Browner’s office has been fingered for misrepresenting a conclusion related to the oil spill as “peer-reviewed.” Browner also mischaracterized a report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on the location of the oil from the spill, saying it had been peer-reviewed when in fact the individuals listed as reviewers said they never saw the final product.

While Browner’s role is indeed interesting, perhaps most telling in the IG report is what it says about who wasn’t in the loop about the decision to extend the moratorium—specifically, Elizabeth Birnbaum, who was at the time head of the Minerals Managment Service, which oversees offshore drilling. The report states that Birnbaum “had no knowledge that Secretary Salazar planned on recommending the moratorium in the Executive Summary of the 30-Day Report to the President.” Birnbaum was dismissed from that post on May 27, the same day that report was released. But even if she was on her way out the door, you’d think she would have at least been brought into the discussions seeing as she was the head of the division overseeing offshore drilling.

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