ABC News republishes Trump sons investment story with lengthy correction after $2.5bn Anduril error

ABC News has republished an online story about investments by President Donald Trump's sons in companies holding government contracts, after removing the original without explanation and later appending a lengthy correction.

The article, published on 7 October, stated that 1789 Capital, the venture firm where Donald Trump Jr is a partner, had made "a $2.5 billion investment" in the defence technology company Anduril. The actual investment was $50 million. The piece contained other inaccuracies, according to the Columbia Journalism Review.

Removal and return

Editors took the story down on 8 October; its link led to an error page. A source at the company initially described it as "published prematurely", which a source later clarified meant it had not met editorial and reporting standards, not that a technical fault had occurred. On 9 October the article returned without a byline, carrying a correction citing errors in the description of certain company investments, government contracts and event chronologies, and stating that the new version contained corrected information and additional context.

The political response

Senator Bernie Moreno called for the Federal Communications Commission to investigate, and the FCC chairman, Brendan Carr, reportedly agreed. As the Columbia Journalism Review noted, the story never aired on ABC's broadcast network and the FCC does not regulate online content. The matter is reported to remain under internal investigation at ABC.

Why it matters

The underlying subject, the commercial interests of a sitting president's family in companies that win government business, is entirely legitimate and in the public interest. That is exactly why accuracy matters so much. Overstating an investment fifty-fold does not merely get a number wrong; it hands those with an interest in dismissing the whole line of inquiry a ready-made reason to do so.

The handling compounded the error. Removing a story silently, so that readers encounter a dead link, is the opposite of transparent correction. It invites speculation, and in a political climate where regulators have shown willingness to pursue broadcasters, it creates an opening that a prompt, explicit correction would have closed. The eventual correction was thorough, but it arrived after a day in which the absence of any explanation was itself the story.

The CJR's verdict, a lesson in how not to handle a mistake, is hard to argue with. Getting a figure wrong is ordinary. Making it disappear is a choice.