So GSA said Trump's lease was valid on March 23rd: Faulty info or lying to curry favor?

[Jonny Appleseed]

But GSA contracting officer Kevin Terry wrote that reaching "simplistic 'black and white' conclusions regarding the meaning" of the contract's ban on elected officials was not appropriate. He determined the lease is valid because Trump moved his interests in the building to a revocable trust, which is being managed by Trump's oldest sons and other associates. Trump is the sole beneficiary of that trust.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/23/521283505/gsa-says-trump-d-c-hotel-lease-is-valid-despite-ban-on-elected-officials

Yet this happened on February 10th

ProPublica said that previously unreported changes to a trust document, signed on February 10, stipulated that it “shall distribute net income or principal to Donald J Trump at his request” or whenever his son and longtime attorney “deem appropriate”.

The news site said there is nothing requiring Mr Trump to disclose when he takes profits from the trust, which could go directly into his bank or brokerage account. That’s because both the trust and Trump Organisation are privately held.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-anti-trust-rules-remove-money-business-not-tell-us-public-us-president-family-sons-a7664826.html?

So what's the verdict? Why aren't people reporting on this? Is it too much to ask for journalists to be able to link stories that broke only days apart (when that link requires a basic level of cognition at best)?