ABC News Issues Correction After Appearing To Quietly Delete Story About Don Jr’s Business Dealings

ABC News on Friday published a corrected version of an apparently deleted article from earlier that week which drew conclusions about the business dealings of President Donald Trump’s eldest sons.

Without an immediately clear public explanation, ABC News appeared to take down from its website an Oct. 7 report which attributed a $2.5 billion investment into U.S. defense contractor Anduril to 1789 Capital, a venture capital firm for which Donald Trump Jr. serves as a partner.

The retracted piece, which ABC News originally headlined “Trump sons’ investments have won billions in Pentagon contracts since his election,” was apparently republished after being revised under a new headline, “New shipyard announced amid earlier Democratic concerns about potential conflicts of interest.”

In addition, an editor’s note was included in the revision published online, reading, “CORRECTION: A version of this story published on Oct. 7 contained errors in the description of certain company investments, government contracts and event chronologies. After subsequent reporting, this version contains corrected information and additional context regarding some of those investments, contracts and events.”

The Daily Caller News Foundation reached out to ABC News for comment.

A spokesperson for 1789 Capital told Fox News that the revised article also clarified that Trump Jr. is not on the three-member committee responsible for making the firm’s investment decisions.

The revisions by ABC News came amid 1789 Capital spokesperson Alexa Henning’s stating the firm “does not have a ‘major stake’ in Anduril,” according to Fox News.

“Here’s a small lesson, that I also explained to ABC, the ‘reporter’ who is a complete idiot conflated raising funds with investment by 1789. Those are two separate actions,” Henning reportedly stated.

CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter wrote in an X post Friday that he was told ABC News’s original piece was “published prematurely,” but also predicted there was more to come because that was “obviously not a sufficient explanation.”