Left-wing nonprofit ProPublica is facing renewed scrutiny after an email exchange related to its recent unpublished story on Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth was released on Thursday.

A media firestorm began earlier this week when Hegseth revealed on X that ProPublica, which he called a “Left Wing hack group” was planning to publish a “knowingly false report” that he was not accepted by West Point in 1999. Attached to the post was a photo of Hegseth’s acceptance letter signed by West Point Superintendent Lieutenant General Daniel Christman, U.S. Army.

ProPublica editor Jesse Eisinger responded to the post, explaining that West Point public affairs had told the outlet twice that Hegseth hadn’t applied.

“We reached out,” Eisinger wrote. “Hegseth’s spox gave us his acceptance letter. We didn’t publish a story. That’s journalism.”

After intense criticism from conservatives online, with some questioning why ProPublica did not press West Point on the inaccurate information and publish a story on that aspect, Eisinger posted a lengthy X thread outlining the steps ProPublica had taken researching the story claiming and touting how they “care about accuracy” and being “intellectually honest” and had given Hegseth a “fair chance to respond to all of the salient facts in the story.”

Questions about ProPublica’s journalistic standards intensified shortly afterward when Daily Caller published an email from reporter Justin Elliot reaching out to Hegseth’s lawyer, giving him an hour to respond to the allegation that he never went to West Point and asking, “Why did Mr. Hegseth say he got into West Point when that is not true?”

“How can Mr. Hegseth be Secretary of Defense given that he has made false statements about getting into the military’s most prestigious academy?” Elliot asked.

That email drew the ire of many on social media, who took issue with the accusatory tone of the email and the small window to respond to such a serious allegation, which suggested the story had already been completed without hearing Hegseth’s side.

“ProPublica did not contact Pete Hegseth to get the full story,” Red State writer Bonchie posted on X. “They contacted him to claim he was a liar while demanding a response within one hour not to offer his side, but to ask why he ‘lied’ and what else he ‘lied’ about.”

“This isn’t ‘journalism.’ It’s unethical garbage.”

“***Nothing*** in Jesse’s 11-tweet thread even hinted that ***this*** is how ProPublica actually approached the story— taking the falsehood from West Point, repeatedly asserting to Hegseth that he was a liar & implying he is unfit for SecDef, & giving him just one hour to respond,” journalist Jerry Dunleavy posted on X.

“ProPublica’s Editor-in-Chief claimed that they gave @PeteHegseth a fair chance to respond to the West Point story because they ‘care about accuracy,’” Trump 2024 Rapid Response Director Greg Price posted on X. “According to this unhinged email obtained by @reaganreese, they straight up accused him of being a liar and gave him a one hour deadline to respond.”

In a statement to Fox News Digital, a ProPublica spokesperson said, “Reporters do their job by asking tough questions to people in power, which is exactly what happened here. Responsible news organizations only publish what they can verify, which is why we didn’t publish a story once Mr. Hegseth provided documentation that corrected the statements from West Point.”

Fox News Digital reached out to West Point asking whether any disciplinary actions had been taken against the staffers for providing false information and why procedures had not been in place to prevent that kind of error.

West Point directed Fox News Digital to its previously issued statement.

“A review of our records indicates Peter Hegseth was offered admission to West Point in 1999 but did not attend. An incorrect statement involving Hegseth’s admission to the U.S. Military Academy was released by an employee on Dec. 10, 2024.  Upon further review of an archived database, employees realized this statement was in error. Hegseth was offered acceptance to West Point as a prospective member of the Class of 2003. The academy takes this situation seriously and apologizes for this administrative error.”

In a letter to West Point this week, Republican Congressman Jim Banks wrote, “It is outrageous that West Point officials would so grossly interfere in a political process and make false claims regarding a presidential nominee.”

“Even in the unlikely scenario of OPA mistakenly making false claims not once but twice, it is an unforgivable act of incompetence that OPA did not make absolutely sure their information was accurate before sharing it with a reporter.”

This week’s ProPublica controversy comes after the nonprofit, which has received millions of dollars from liberal foundations, faced strong criticism for its reporting on conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, which critics referred to as “hit pieces.”

“Journalistic inquiry into the private dealings of public officials is essential for our democracy. But honest inquiry applies the same standard to all people rather than single out those with whom one disagrees,” Gretchen Reiter, senior vice president of communications at Stand Together, told Fox News Digital last year regarding ProPublica’s reporting on Thomas.

ProPublica’s reporting on Alito prompted the justice to write a Wall Street Journal op-ed where he wrote, “ProPublica has leveled two charges against me: first, that I should have recused in matters in which an entity connected with Paul Singer was a party and, second, that I was obligated to list certain items as gifts on my 2008 Financial Disclose Report. Neither charge is valid.”

ProPublica stood by its reporting on Alito but acknowledged there are “lessons for ProPublica in this experience.”