ProPublica debunks Susan Collins' claims about FBI anti-corruption probe
Collins said the Justice Department had cleared her, while the article says she was referring to an earlier inquiry.
SOURCE CHECK
TAP FOR WHYCredibility rates Lewiston Sun Journal, which republished this story. The other scores rate the article itself.
The page is published by an established local newspaper, but the reporting is attributed to ProPublica rather than presented as original Sun Journal reporting. The underlying investigation is extensively sourced, though the page does not establish whether the republication was licensed.
- Source type — Established local-news publisher; the page carries reporting attributed to ProPublica.
- Author attribution — Named authors are credited, and the article repeatedly identifies ProPublica as the reporting source.
- Transparency — The article describes the records, interviews and corroborating materials behind the investigation.
- Editorial standards — The publisher is a local newspaper, but this page provides limited evidence about its correction practices.
The article describes documentary evidence, interviews and corroboration, distinguishes the earlier inquiry from the later investigation, and includes responses from Collins’ representatives and the super PAC’s head. Its account is substantially based on ProPublica’s investigation rather than separate reporting by the page’s publisher.
HOW WE SCORE ↗The article gives Collins’ and her representatives’ claims and responses, then tests them against FBI records, emails and other reporting. The investigative evidence receives substantially more space than the defense, but the competing account is included.
- Counterarguments presented — Includes Collins’ claims and comments from her deputy chief of staff, campaign manager and the super PAC’s head.
- Source diversity — Describes records, emails, interviews, an FBI spokesperson and people familiar with the investigation.
- Omitted context — The article gives limited detail about the defense beyond the quoted statements, while explaining the earlier and later investigations.
- Loaded language — Some framing is pointed, but the central claims are connected to documents and attributed reporting.
The article’s framing is critical of Collins’ account and notes the Trump administration’s role in ending the later inquiry. Its claims are presented through documents, named sources and attributed responses rather than overtly partisan language.
- Framing — Centers on claims by Collins and her aides that the article characterizes as incorrect or misleading.
- Source selection — Emphasizes investigative records and sources supporting the account, while also including responses from Collins’ representatives.
- Language tone — Uses critical but largely reportorial language, including attributed descriptions of the inquiry and the administration’s personnel actions.
Republished with credit
Republished from Portland Press Herald, with credit to the original publisher.
76 stories · 78–79 · updated Oct 6, 2026
This is Portland Press Herald's own score, and this article is credited to Portland Press Herald. The host score in the Source Check is Lewiston Sun Journal's.
ProPublica reported that the FBI continued examining Susan Collins’ ties to Navatek and its former CEO Martin Kao into 2025, after an earlier inquiry found nothing implicating her. The article challenges Collins’ and her aides’ claims that the later investigation had cleared her years earlier and says the review ended after the Trump administration removed investigators.
ProPublica reported that the FBI’s later investigation concerned allegations Martin Kao made between 2022 and 2024, and that agents were still examining his relationships with Susan Collins, her staff and a pro-Collins super PAC in early 2025. The article distinguishes that inquiry from an initial investigation that began in 2021 and found nothing implicating Collins or her campaign. It says the later review ended after the Trump administration removed agents and Justice Department attorneys assigned to the case.
Collins and her representatives said the FBI and Justice Department had cleared her years earlier. ProPublica reported that FBI documents showed agents corroborated some of Kao’s claims, and described emails related to a $150,000 donation to the super PAC. Collins’ campaign manager said the campaign had no record she called Kao, while noting that thanking donors would not be unusual. The super PAC’s head said he did not speak to Collins about Kao.
Community verdict
27 VOTES
People in this story
SWIPE →Senator whose claims about the FBI investigation are challenged
President whose administration removed investigators assigned to the Kao case
Former president whose Justice Department was cited in Collins’ account of the earlier inquiry
Part of a bigger story
34 OUTLETSProPublica reported that FBI agents pursued a broader corruption inquiry that included allegations involving Susan Collins and Navatek; Collins denied wrongdoing, and the reported effort stalled after investigators were removed during the Trump administration. Left-leaning outlets emphasize the alleged bribery and the Trump administration’s role in disrupting the inquiry. Center outlets frame the story more as disputed allegations and political claims, pairing Collins’s denial and FBI responses—including statements that earlier inquiries found nothing implicating her—with coverage of the investigation’s interruption.
- ARTICLES
- 47
- OUTLETS
- 34
- AVG CRED
- 75
Discussion · 0
Loading comments…