radiofree.asia

Category: Debunking Viral Claims

  • Lee, Others Spread Baseless Claims About Political Affiliation of Minnesota Gunman

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and others posted unfounded claims on social media about the political affiliation of the gunman arrested in the June 14 fatal shootings of a Democratic Minnesota lawmaker and her husband and the wounding of another Democratic state lawmaker and his wife.

    Lee and Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio referred to the suspect as a Marxist or member of the “extreme left” hours after the shootings, but friends told news outlets he was a supporter of President Donald Trump and held conservative beliefs.

    Lee’s posts linking the shooter to Marxism, on his personal X account, were deleted on June 17.

    Authorities said that when he was captured on June 15 after an extensive manhunt, the suspect had a list of elected officials he intended to target, all of them Democrats.

    Vance Boelter, 57, of Green Isle, Minnesota, has been charged with stalking and murdering state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark Hortman, and shooting state Sen. Mark Hoffman and his wife, Yvette Hoffman.

    “According to the charges, the defendant had a list of possible targets and went to the homes of public officials to conduct violent attacks,” FBI Director Kash Patel said in a June 16 press release. Joe Thompson, acting U.S. attorney for the district of Minnesota, said in the press release that the shootings were “targeted political assassinations.”

    Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz also said the shootings appeared to be a “politically-motivated assassination.”

    At a June 16 press conference, commenting on the list found in Boelter’s car, Thompson said, “They were all elected officials. They were all Democrats. Beyond that, I think it’s just way too speculative for anyone that’s reviewed these materials to know and to say what was motivating him in terms of ideology or specific issues.”

    But in their posts on social media, Lee and others made baseless claims about Boelter’s political loyalties. In a June 15 post on X on his personal account, Lee reshared a post with a photo of Boelter and added the comment, “Marxism is a deadly mental illness.” In another post with an image of Boelter, Lee wrote, “This is what happens. When Marxists don’t get their way.” Those posts and others by Lee about the Minnesota shootings were deleted on June 17, after Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer urged Lee to remove them and Sen. Tina Smith of Minnesota spoke to Lee about them.

    Hours after the shootings on June 14, Moreno, a Republican, reshared a post referring to the killing of Hortman and a photo of fliers about the “No Kings” demonstrations found in Boelter’s car. Numerous “No Kings” protests were held on June 14 around the U.S. to protest Trump’s policies. Moreno wrote on X, “The degree to which the extreme left has become radical, violent, and intolerant is both stunning and terrifying.”

    Also on June 14, Elon Musk wrote on X, “The far left is murderously violent.”

    But, as we said, Boelter’s victims were all Democrats and the posts provide no evidence that he ascribed to Marxist or left-leaning politics, other than photos of “No Kings” fliers. The “No Kings” events occurred hours after the early morning attacks on the Minnesota lawmakers. Fearing “No Kings” rallies may have been a potential target rather than something Boelter supported, Minnesota State Patrol requested the public not attend any of the protests in the state “out of an abundance of caution.”

    Asked by a reporter on June 17 whether he had called Walz about the shootings, Trump responded that he would not be calling the Minnesota governor and, referring to Boelter, said Walz “appointed this guy to a position.”

    Boelter was appointed to the Minnesota Governor’s Workforce Development Board by then-Gov. Mark Dayton in 2016, the New York Times reported. Boelter was later reappointed by Walz to the board, which has 41 members who work to improve the state’s business development.

    Minnesota voters do not reveal their political affiliation when registering to vote, and state reports related to the workforce board listed Boelter’s affiliation as “none or other” in 2016 and “no party preference” in 2020, the Times reported.

    Boelter was registered to vote as a Republican while he was living in Oklahoma in 2004, the Associated Press reported. 

    A close friend of Boelter’s, David Carlson, told the Times that Boelter voted for Trump last year.

    Paul Schroeder, a longtime friend of Boelter’s, told the AP that Boelter was conservative and religious. “He was right-leaning politically but never fanatical, from what I saw, just strong beliefs,” Schroeder said.

    We reached out to the offices of Lee and Moreno for information supporting their claims on social media, but we did not receive responses.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, P.O. Box 58100, Philadelphia, PA 19102. 

    The post Lee, Others Spread Baseless Claims About Political Affiliation of Minnesota Gunman appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Online Posts Make Baseless Claim Linking Protesters to Craigslist Ad

    Q: Is there an ad in Craigslist to hire people to riot in L.A.?

    A: No, there has been no such ad on Craigslist. Some social media posts cited a Craigslist ad to falsely claim it showed that people protesting the immigration raids in Los Angeles were being paid for their actions. But a pair of podcasters told the Associated Press they placed the ad as a prank for their show, and it had nothing to do with the protests.

    FULL ANSWER

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    An unfounded claim that people protesting immigration raids in Southern California and elsewhere are being paid for their participation has spread on social media, with posts sharing screenshots of a short-lived Craigslist ad as evidence. The strangely worded ad seeking “BRAVE MEN” for well-paid but unspecified duties makes no mention of protests — and was actually a prank ad placed by podcasters.

    Several readers have asked us about the ad and the social media posts.

    The posts were aimed at participants in protests that began June 6 in Los Angeles, where Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers stepped up workplace raids and arrests of people in the U.S. illegally. The Trump administration has deployed National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles to support federal law enforcement and protect federal buildings during the demonstrations. The protests also have spread to other cities throughout the U.S.

    Without providing evidence of his claim, President Donald Trump has called the protesters “Paid Insurrectionists!” and “paid troublemakers” in Truth Social posts. Speaking to reporters on June 10, Trump said of the protesters, “I believe many of them are paid,” adding later, “Let me tell you, when you watch these agitators break up concrete and hand it out to people as they stood on line to get it, these have to be paid troublemakers.”

    Social media users seized on a Craigslist ad posted June 5 in the Los Angeles area, and with similar language in Austin, to support the claim that the protesters had been hired. “Looking for the toughest badasses in the city (los angeles),” the ad said. “SEEKING EXTREMELY TOUGH, BRAVE MEN FOR NEW CREW IM BUILDING,” it read, but never mentioned participation in protests or demonstrations — or any specific activity at all. The ad offered $6,500 to $12,500 a week.

    One Threads post was captioned: “LA ‘protests’ Craigslist ad searching for members. Follow the money.” The accompanying video, which was shared by conservative commentator David J Harris Jr. on Facebook, tied the ad to the anti-Trump protest group No Kings. Another post on X said, “Craigslist ad hiring protesters in L.A.”

    But the ad, which was removed from Craigslist in Los Angeles and Austin on June 9 and 10, according to the fact-checking website Snopes, was not placed by anyone who was “hiring protesters.”

    A Prank by Podcasters

    The bogus ad was a prank placed by a pair of podcasters, Joey LaFleur and Logan Quiroz, the Associated Press reported on June 10. The ad was intended as part of their show, “Goofcon1,” and had nothing to do with the anti-ICE protests. “I literally had no idea it was ever going to be connected to the riots. It was a really weird coincidence,” LaFleur told the AP.

    On June 6, the podcasters livestreamed their conversations with people who had answered the ad. 

    The No Kings organization had no ties to the Craigslist ad, contrary to some social media posts.

    The No Kings “About” page says, “No Kings is a nationwide day of defiance. From city blocks to small towns, from courthouse steps to community parks, we’re taking action to reject authoritarianism — and show the world what democracy looks like.” The site mainly calls for protests around the country on June 14, the day of a military parade in Washington, D.C., marking the Army’s 250th birthday and the president’s 79th, but also provides dates for organizing sessions, “marshal training” and other preparation for protest events.

    The website includes a note at the bottom saying, “A core principle behind all No Kings events is a commitment to nonviolent action. We expect all participants to seek to de-escalate any potential confrontation with those who disagree with our values and to act lawfully at these events. Weapons of any kind, including those legally permitted, should not be brought to events.”

    The site does not mention financial support for the protests. There is a long list of partners listed on the website, but no information about any funding they might provide for the organization.

    We reached out to the No Kings organization for comment on the social media posts and whether the organization funds protest activities, but did not receive a response. We also sought comment from Craigslist about the ads, but did not get a response.

    Claims that protesters are paid actors is a familiar social media refrain. Baseless claims that counterprotesters were recruited through a Craigslist ad circulated after the 2017 white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, as we’ve written. Similar false claims about paid participants spread online in 2020 during the social justice protests following the death of George Floyd.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, P.O. Box 58100, Philadelphia, PA 19102. 

    The post Online Posts Make Baseless Claim Linking Protesters to Craigslist Ad appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Was Record of Heroic Nurse Wiped from Defense Department Archives?

    Q. Did President Donald Trump call military nurse Ruby Bradley a “loser,” and were there orders for her service history to be removed from Department of Defense archives?

    A. There’s no evidence for these claims. We could find no record of Trump referring to nurse Ruby Bradley, who received 34 medals for her service during World War II and the Korean War. A Pentagon spokesperson told us that there was “nothing deleted and/or taken offline related to Ruby Bradley” and “we have not received any guidance requiring the removal of content” related to her.

    FULL ANSWER

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Among President Donald Trump’s early executive actions in his second term was an order titled “Restoring America’s Fighting Force,” which called for the secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security to “abolish every DEI office” within their departments, referring to diversity, equity and inclusion programs based on “race and sex preferences within the Armed Forces.”

    In the weeks that followed Trump’s order, and a subsequent memo from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth calling for a “digital content refresh,” the Department of Defense deleted websites and social media pages that highlighted the historic roles of women and some ethnic and racial groups in the military.

    The angry blowback from military families, lawmakers and the public in general led to the Defense Department’s reassessment and restoration of some, but not all, of the content. A page about baseball star Jackie Robinson’s military experience was restored, but content about other Black players talking about their military service was deleted, NBC News reported.

    Photo via VA News

    Ripples of distrust following the digital purge continue, including an unfounded claim circulating on social media regarding a heroic World War II nurse. We received numerous emails asking about the claim, including one reader who said: “I recently saw a social media post claiming that President Trump called WWII Veteran Ruby Bradley a ‘loser’ for being captured and ‘woke’. Additionally, it claimed that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is wiping her military records. Is this true?”

    We found no evidence for such claims. We could find no record of Trump referring to Bradley in his social media posts or public remarks. And a Pentagon spokesperson told us in an email, “nothing deleted and/or taken offline related to Ruby Bradley. Also confirmed that we have not received any guidance requiring the removal of content featuring Ruby Bradley. Looks like the rumor is just that.”

    In fact, we found a U.S. Army page devoted to women in the Army Medical Department, which included a spotlight on the heroic actions of Bradley, who was taken prisoner by the Japanese in the Philippines during World War II, and returned to combat duty during the Korean War.

    According to that webpage, “Maj. Ruby Bradley would remain in service after the war and find herself in combat again in Korea as chief nurse for the 171st Evacuation Hospital. At the end of November 1950, the 171st was ordered to evacuate its patients and withdraw from Pyongyang where it was located. The overall evacuation of Eighth Army from North Korea outpaced the 171st’s ability to clear its area. Bradley was ordered to leave but remained with her patients until all were evacuated. As she boarded a plane to depart the area an enemy shell destroyed the ambulance she had been using to ferry patients to the airfield. Bradley demonstrated bravery under fire in two wars, and by the time she retired from the service in 1963 she had received 34 medals and citations for bravery and was reportedly the most decorated woman in the military.”

    Bradley was promoted to colonel before she retired from the military. She died in 2002 and is buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

    The reference in the social media posts to Trump calling prisoners of war “losers” harks back to comments he made as a presidential candidate in 2015. Speaking about Sen. John McCain, who was held captive for over five years during the Vietnam War, Trump said that McCain “was a war hero because he was captured. … I like people who weren’t captured.”

    “He lost and let us down,” Trump also said, referring to McCain’s failure to win the presidential race in 2008. “I don’t like losers,” Trump said.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, P.O. Box 58100, Philadelphia, PA 19102. 

    The post Was Record of Heroic Nurse Wiped from Defense Department Archives? appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Legal Scholars Dispute Constitutional ‘Loophole’ for a Third Trump Term

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    President Donald Trump said in a March 30 interview that “there are methods” for him to serve a third term in the White House, and a Daily Mail article referred to a “loophole” in the 22nd Amendment that would make it possible. But legal experts told us the “loophole” legal argument is “implausible” and “defeats the clear intent” of the amendment.

    Full Story

    In a March 30 interview with NBC News, President Donald Trump said he could possibly serve a third term — as he has suggested before — even though a third presidential term is prohibited by the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.

    Asked by a reporter whether plans for an additional term have been presented to him, Trump said, “There are methods which you could do it.” NBC News asked Trump whether he was referring to “a possible scenario in which Vice President JD Vance would run for office and then pass the role to Trump,” and the president responded that “that’s one” method. “But there are others, too,” Trump said.

    As we’ve written, the 22nd Amendment addresses presidential term limits, stating, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” The amendment was ratified in 1951 in response to President Franklin D. Roosevelt being elected four times and a consensus that there should be term limits on future presidents.

    But a story published in the Daily Mail, a British tabloid, on March 29 revives a legal argument from 1999 in the Minnesota Law Review to suggest a “loophole” in the 22nd Amendment would allow Trump to serve more than two terms. A March 30 Instagram post shared the Daily Mail headline, “Revealed: How Trump could be president until 2037 due to a simple loophole in the Constitution.”

    The 1999 law review article, co-authored by Bruce Peabody, who was a graduate student at the time and is now a professor of politics at Fairleigh Dickinson University, argued that the 22nd Amendment has been misunderstood and a president who had already served two terms is not prohibited from serving a third.

    The “loophole” is the use of the word “elected” in the 22nd Amendment, the Daily Mail said, citing the law review article’s contention “that the Twenty-Second Amendment proscribes only the reelection of an already twice-elected President.”

    “It is argued that means a twice-elected president would not be barred from later reassuming the office due to the resignation, or death, of another president,” the Daily Mail article continued. “Trump could therefore run for Vice President, with Vance as an openly recognized nominal figure at the top of the ticket. Once he is sworn in Vance could then resign, allowing his Vice President — Trump — to step into the office.”

    The Daily Mail noted that the Minnesota Law Review article said an earlier constitutional amendment, the 12th Amendment, also would not stop Trump from returning to the White House for a third term. That amendment, ratified in 1804, states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

    Because the 12th Amendment was written before the 22nd Amendment, it “could not have originally meant to preclude someone from being Vice President who had been elected President twice,” the Minnesota Law Review paper argued.

    Amendments’ Meaning and Intent

    Legal scholars told us the “loophole” argument is “implausible.”

    David A. Super, a professor of law and economics at Georgetown University Law Center, said the legal argument in the Daily Mail article “is implausible, primarily because of its clear misinterpretation” of the 12th Amendment.

    In an email to us, Super said that before the 12th Amendment, “the Constitution provided for the vice president to be whomever received the second-most votes for president. Although in practice everyone knew that George Washington was running for president and John Adams was running for vice president, as a legal matter both were running for president. …The Twelfth Amendment changed that by establishing separate elections for president and vice president but retained (in its last sentence) the rule that no one could run for either office without being eligible to run for president,” Super said.

    “It is, of course, true that we had no Twenty-Second Amendment when the Twelfth Amendment was ratified, but its effect is to make the qualifications for the two offices identical,” he said.

    Paul Gowder, a professor at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, also told us in an email that the “loophole” argument is “pretty implausible.”

    First, the argument “defeats the clear intent of the 22nd Amendment,” Gowder said. “The guy who wrote the text that got adopted as the amendment stated, on the record, his understanding of what Congress was trying to do in drafting it: to ‘prevent a man’s deliberately using the office of President in order to perpetuate himself in office; that is, for more than two terms.’ And if you believe in the loophole, not only does it mean that Trump could have more than two terms, it means that Trump could be president for life, just so long as he could keep finding people to occupy the top of the ticket.”

    Second, Gowder said, “we often use the practice of prior officials as a guide to interpreting the Constitution, particularly when it comes to interpreting the powers of the presidency. … I think we should count it as strong evidence for a constitutionally meaningful consensus that no president after the 22nd Amendment was enacted has to my knowledge ever even seriously floated the idea of running for a third term.”

    And third, Gowder said, “it’s just too tricky — this is a real constitutional point. One of the things that makes the Constitution different from other kinds of law is that it’s meant to be enacted by and understood by (and ultimately enforced by) the people. … It’s a kind of category mistake to read the Constitution the way you might read the tax code, looking for loopholes that the drafters snuck in to trick ordinary people into dictatorship. Instead, we read it in the context of the collective goals that its terms are intended to pursue,” Gowder said.

    He added that “the Constitution wasn’t written to be an airtight formal logic proof. But that doesn’t mean that it’s proper to take a provision that obviously means ‘no more than two terms’ and cook up a Bond-villain-esque scheme to interpret it to mean ‘yes more than two terms.’”

    Circumventing the 22nd Amendment

    Any attempt to repeal the 22nd Amendment would be extremely difficult, Kermit Roosevelt, a constitutional law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, told us in an interview in November.

    “I don’t think there’s any realistic possibility that the 22nd Amendment could be repealed,” Roosevelt said. “That would take another amendment (like the 21st, repealing the 18th) and I don’t think it would get 2/3 of both houses of congress, much less 3/4 of the states.”

    To add a constitutional amendment, the House and the Senate both must approve a joint resolution with a two-thirds majority, and 75% of the states must then ratify the amendment. 

    An attempt to circumvent the 22nd Amendment — such as Trump ascending from vice president to president — would face challenges in court. “I think the odds of that [being successful] are extremely low,” Roosevelt told us.

    “Obviously the concern the 22nd Amendment is addressing is that someone who serves more than two terms as president might accumulate too much power,” Roosevelt said. “That concern has nothing to do with how the person takes office the third (or fourth, or fifth) time.” 

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Meta to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Meta has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Allen, Nick. “Revealed: How Trump could be president until 2037 due to a simple loophole in the Constitution.” Daily Mail. 29 Mar 2025.

    Cillizza, Chris. “Believe it or not, Donald Trump says he should get a third term.” CNN. 18 Aug 2020.

    Constitution Annotated. “Twelfth Amendment.” Congress.gov. Accessed 1 Apr 2025.

    Constitution Annotated. “Twenty-Second Amendment.” Congress.gov. Accessed 31 Mar 2025.

    Gowder, Paul. Professor of law, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law. Email to FactCheck.org. 2 Apr 2025.

    Kiely, Eugene. “Can Trump Serve a Third Term?” FactCheck.org. 15 Nov 2024.

    Ronald Reagan Presidential Library & Museum. “Constitutional Amendments — Amendment 22 — ‘Term Limits for the Presidency.’” Accessed 31 Mar 2025.

    Super, David A. Professor of law and economics, Georgetown University Law Center. Email to FactCheck.org. 31 Mar 2025.

    Ward, Myah. “Trump at NRA convention floats 3-term presidency.” Politico. 19 May 2024.

    Welker, Kristen and Megan Lebowitz. “Trump won’t rule out seeking a third term in the White House, tells NBC News ‘there are methods’ for doing so.” NBC News. 30 Mar 2025.

    The post Legal Scholars Dispute Constitutional ‘Loophole’ for a Third Trump Term appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Viral Posts Share Phony ‘Leaked’ Audio of Vance Criticizing Musk

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    Vice President JD Vance has said White House adviser Elon Musk has made “mistakes” in his work with the Department of Government Efficiency. But social media posts are sharing what experts said is a manipulated audio clip that purports to be Vance making much harsher remarks about Musk. The vice president’s spokesperson called the clip “100% fake.”

    Full Story

    In an interview with NBC News aboard Air Force Two on March 14, Vice President JD Vance said that White House adviser Elon Musk has made “mistakes” in his role with the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, which has been tasked with reducing the federal workforce and government spending.

    “Elon himself has said that sometimes you do something, you make a mistake, and then you undo the mistake. I’m accepting of mistakes,” Vance told NBC News. “I also think you have to quickly correct those mistakes,” the vice president said.

    More recently, viral social media posts have shared a purportedly “leaked” audio clip of Vance expressing much harsher criticism of Musk and his work with DOGE. Experts told us the clip is “likely inauthentic,” and Vance’s spokesperson said it is “100% fake.”

    A March 23 Instagram reel that has received nearly 87,000 likes is titled, “LEAKED JD VANCE AUDIO ON ELON MUSK 3/23/25,” and shows side-by-side photos of Musk and Vance. The voice on the reel, which sounds somewhat like Vance, says, in part: “Everything that he’s doing is being criticized in the media. And he says that he’s helping, and he’s not. He’s making us look bad. He’s making me look bad. … He has the audacity to act like he is an elected official. I am an elected official. I am the important one in this situation, not him.”

    The social media posts do not provide the source of the recording — a sign that the content of the posts is not authentic.

    Newsweek reported that the bogus audio clip appeared to originate from the account Joseiitalia on TikTok, where it received 1.5 million views, and was shared to X where it received more than 500,000 views.

    ‘A Growing Trend of Fabricated Leaks’

    We asked GetReal Labs, a company that analyzes manufactured content, whether it could determine the authenticity of the recording. Emmanuelle Saliba, chief investigative officer at GetReal, told us in a March 24 email, “Our team conducted a detailed forensic analysis of the audio. We tracked down the highest-quality version available, isolated the voice and removed background noise. Based on our review,  we believe the audio is likely inauthentic. 

    “The cadence and intonation are not consistent with Vice President Vance’s typical speech patterns. In addition, although we have not performed a full biometric analysis, the identity of the voice in the audio does not sound like Vance,” Saliba said. “The unusually low audio quality — a common trick to conceal evidence of manipulation/synthesis — is also highly suspicious.”

    Responding to the social media posts, the vice president’s spokesperson, William Martin, said in a March 23 post on X, “This audio is 100% fake and most certainly not the Vice President.”

    Saliba told us, “Audio deepfakes are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and there’s a growing trend of fabricated leaks targeting high-profile politicians and journalists,” including Donald Trump Jr. and James Waterhouse of the BBC. “In both cases, the manipulated audio was traced back to Russian Telegram channels,” she said. 

    We recently wrote about social media posts sharing a fake audio clip of Trump Jr. generated using artificial intelligence.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Meta to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Meta has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Gomez, Henry J. “Vance discusses Elon Musk’s ‘mistakes’ and ‘incremental progress’ on the economy in NBC News interview.” 14 Mar 2025.

    Jaffe, Alan. “Posts Share Bogus Audio of Donald Trump Jr. Supporting Arms for Russia, Not Ukraine.” FactCheck.org. 27 Feb 2025.

    McFall, Marnie Rose. “Is ‘Leaked’ JD Vance Audio on Elon Musk Real? What to Know.” Newsweek. 24 Mar 2025.

    Saliba, Emmanuelle. Chief investigative officer, GetReal Labs. Email to FactCheck.org. 24 Mar 2025.

    Tuquero, Loreben. “Audio of a BBC reporter making a snide comment about the Trump-Zelenskyy meeting is fake.” Poynter. 13 Mar 2025.

    The post Viral Posts Share Phony ‘Leaked’ Audio of Vance Criticizing Musk appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Posts Fabricate Claims About Trump’s Response to Duterte’s Arrest

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    In 2017, President Donald Trump expressed admiration for Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s deadly war on drug suspects. But social media posts have falsely claimed that Trump has ordered Duterte’s release from the International Criminal Court, where he faces charges of crimes against humanity. We could find no response from Trump regarding Duterte’s arrest.

    Full Story

    Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte was arrested by police in Manila on March 11 and was flown to The Hague, where he faces charges of crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court.

    A March 12 ICC press release said the court “found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Duterte is individually responsible as an indirect co-perpetrator for the crime against humanity of murder, allegedly committed in the Philippines” between November 2011 and March 2019.  

    ICC judges “found that there was an attack directed against a civilian population pursuant to an organisational policy while Mr Duterte was the head of the Davao Death Squad (DDS), and pursuant to a State policy while he was the President of the Philippines. Moreover, there are reasonable grounds to believe that this attack was both widespread and systematic: the alleged attack took place over a period of several years and resulted in thousands of deaths,” the press release said.

    The ICC charges refer to Duterte’s anti-drug war during his years as mayor of Davao and as Philippine president, when more than 6,000 suspects were killed without trial by Duterte’s police during anti-drug operations.

    Duterte has said he did not authorize extrajudicial killings, but he “openly threatened drug suspects with death and ordered law enforcers to shoot suspects, who threaten them with harm,” the Associated Press reported in a 2022 article.

    Duterte’s war on drugs drew the admiration of Donald Trump during his first term as president. The New York Times reported that Trump told Duterte in a 2017 phone call, “I just wanted to congratulate you because I am hearing of the unbelievable job on the drug problem. Many countries have the problem, we have a problem, but what a great job you are doing and I just wanted to call and tell you that,” Trump said.

    But since Duterte’s extradition to the Netherlands by the ICC, social media posts have fabricated claims about Trump’s response to Duterte’s arrest.

    A March 13 Facebook post falsely claimed, in part, “President Donald Trump has reportedly signed an executive order demanding the immediate release of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte from the custody of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. Sources close to the White House claim that Trump, calling Duterte ‘a great friend and a tough guy,’ acted swiftly after Duterte’s arrest.”

    The post went on to wrongly claim there was an “Executive Order 2025-03: Restoration of Justice for Allied Leaders,” saying that it “declares that the ICC has ‘no right to meddle in the affairs of strong leaders doing their jobs.’ The document allegedly mandates that U.S. forces stationed in Europe ‘extract and return’ Duterte to the Philippines within 48 hours, threatening economic sanctions against the Netherlands if the ICC fails to comply.”

    Another Facebook post — which includes an image of Trump with Duterte generated with artificial intelligence — refers to the same fictional executive order and claims it calls for the deployment of “a specialized unit of U.S. Navy SEALs” to the Netherlands to extract Duterte “with all necessary equipment, firepower, and authority to get the job done.”

    But there is no record of any such executive order or presidential action by Trump related to Duterte’s arrest. One red flag in these posts is the number of the supposed EO: “2025-03.” That’s not how executive orders are numbered. The Federal Register publishes all executive orders, and they are easily searchable through the American Presidency Project’s website. 

    In addition, we could not find any reports of Trump issuing a statement in response to the ICC arrest of the former Philippine president. We reached out to the White House for comment on the social media claims but did not receive a response.

    The Philippines-based fact-checking website Vera Files debunked similar social media claims that were misleadingly presented as if they were from a BBC News report. Vera Files said, “There are no verified records of Trump or any other official U.S. government agency” expressing support for Duterte following his arrest.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Meta to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Meta has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Gomez, Jim. “Drug killings leave agony, savage facet to Duterte’s legacy.” Associated Press. 29 Jun 2022.

    Gomez, Jim. “Philippine ex-leader Duterte is being flown to The Hague to face charges of crimes against humanity.” Associated Press. 11 Mar 2025.

    Guinto, Joel. “Philippines’ Duterte in The Hague after ICC arrest over drug war.” BBC. 12 Mar 2025.

    International Criminal Court. Press release. “Situation in the Philippines: Rodrigo Roa Duterte in ICC custody.” 12 Mar 2025.

    Reuters. “What happened in Philippine drug war that led to Rodrigo Duterte’s arrest?” 11 Mar 2025.

    Sanger, David E. and Maggie Haberman. “Trump Praises Duterte for Philippine Drug Crackdown in Call Transcript.” New York Times. 23 May 2017.

    Vera Files. “FACT CHECK: Trump statement on Duterte arrest FAKE.” 18 Mar 2025.

    White House. Presidential Actions. whitehouse.gov. Accessed 19 Mar 2025.

    The post Posts Fabricate Claims About Trump’s Response to Duterte’s Arrest appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Study Focused on Feminine Hygiene Products, Not Transgender Men

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    The Department of Agriculture announced the cancellation of a $600,000 grant to study the development of feminine hygiene products made of natural fibers. The USDA, Department of Government Efficiency and social media posts misleadingly claimed the study was of “menstrual cycles in transgender men.” The university behind the study said it was focused on making safer products to “benefit all biological women.”

    Full Story

    Southern University in Baton Rouge was awarded a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 2024 to research and develop feminine hygiene products made of natural, healthy and safe materials grown in Louisiana, as opposed to synthetic products. The project completion date was scheduled for April 14, 2027.

    But on March 7, newly sworn-in Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins announced the government had revoked the grant, posting on X, “CANCELLED: $600,000 grant to study ‘menstrual cycles in transgender men’ Keep sending us tips. THANK YOU, @approject! The insanity is ending and the restoration of America is underway.” Rollins’ announcement was reposted by the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, which had cancelled the grant, CBS News reported.

    In her post, Rollins thanked the American Principles Project, a “pro-family” organization, for bringing the Southern University grant to the USDA’s attention. APP spokesperson Cailey Myers told CBS News, “This grant clearly denies biological reality — men don’t menstruate.”

    A USDA spokesperson said in a statement to CBS News that the grant “prioritized women identifying as men who might menstruate” and that “certainly does not align with the priorities and policies of the Trump Administration, which maintains that there are two sexes: male and female.”

    President Donald Trump has signed a series of executive orders affecting transgender people, including an order that states, “It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female.” In response to Trump’s executive orders, many government websites have removed references to transgender people, NBC News reported. A transgender person is someone whose gender identity doesn’t match their sex assigned at birth. A transgender man is someone who is assigned female at birth and identifies as male.

    But the American Principles Project and the USDA mischaracterized the reference to transgender men in the Southern University grant.

    That misrepresentation of the study also has been shared across social media, including in an Instagram post of a Fox News headline. A Threads post said, “DOGE has cancelled a $600,000 grant to Southern University and A&M College. The money was going to fund a study on the menstrual cycles of transgender men.” The caption on another Threads post said, “You literally can’t make this sh*t up.”

    A Study of Products, Not Menstrual Cycles

    The claims about the study are based on one reference to transgender men in the grant proposal and misrepresent the purpose and focus of the project.

    In response to the cancellation of the grant, Southern University issued a statement on March 9 saying, “Recently, the Secretary of Agriculture announced the cancellation of a $600,000 grant titled, ‘Project Farm to Feminine Hygiene: Enhancing the Textiles Lab for Research, Extension, a Scientific Instrumentation for Teaching at Southern University.’ The purpose of this grant was to research, process, and utilize three alternative natural fibers — regenerative cotton, regenerative wool, and industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa) — in the development of sustainable, reusable, and disposable feminine hygiene products (FHP) including pads, liners, and underwear for women and girls that can be grown in Louisiana.

    “This grant, which was reviewed by researchers from throughout the country, is not a study on or including research on menstrual cycles. The term ‘transgender men’ was only used once to state that this project, through the development of safer and healthier FHPs, would benefit all biological women,” the university said.

    The single reference to “transgender men” occurred at the beginning of the summary of the project proposal, which said: “Menarche, the first occurrence of menstruation, occurs at approximately 12 years of age and ends with menopause at roughly 51 years of age. … A woman will have a monthly menstrual cycle for about 40 years of her life averaging to about 450 periods over the course of her lifetime. … It is also important to recognize that transgender men and people with masculine gender identities, intersex and non-binary persons may also menstruate.”

    So the Southern University project was not a study of the “menstrual cycles in transgender men,” as the USDA secretary and others claimed, but an attempt to develop healthier products for “all biological women.”

    We’ve written about other examples in which DOGE, in its purported efforts to reduce government spending, has misrepresented the scale of improper Social Security payments, made unsupported claims about corruption at the U.S. Agency for International Development, and made baseless claims about funds diverted to New York City for immigration-related services.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Meta to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Meta has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    American Principles Project. “About.” Americanprinciplesproject.org. Accessed 12 Mar 2025.

    Associated Press. “Things to know about how Trump’s policies target transgender people.” NBC News. 3 Feb 2025.

    Cohen, Ben. “Trump, Musk Exaggerate Scale of Improper Social Security Payments to the Dead.” 21 Feb 2025.

    Gore, D’Angelo. “Musk Misleads on FEMA’s Migrant-Related Payments to New York City.” 13 Feb 2025.

    Hale Spencer, Saranac. “No Basis for Corruption Accusations About USAID Administrator.” 21 Feb 2025.

    Ruetenik, Dan. “DOGE mischaracterizes a study as transgender, and USDA cancels it.” CBS News. 10 Mar 2025.

    Southern University Agricultural Research & Extension Center. “SU Ag Center’s Statement on the Project Farm to Feminine Hygiene Grant.” 9 Mar 2025.

    U.S. Department of Agriculture. Research, Education & Economics Information System. “Project Farm to Feminine Hygiene: Enhancing the Textiles Lab for Research, Extension and Scientific Instrumentation for Teaching at Southern Univeristy.” Apr 2024.

    White House. Presidential Actions. “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government.” 20 Jan 2025.

    Yurcaba, Jo. “Government agencies scrub LGBTQ web pages and remove info about trans and intersex people.” NBC News. 3 Feb 2025.

    The post Study Focused on Feminine Hygiene Products, Not Transgender Men appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • White Nationalist Group Is Still Active, Contrary to Social Media Claims

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    Social media posts, some pointing to comments by podcaster Joe Rogan, are spreading unsupported claims that members of the Patriot Front are federal agents and that the group disbanded after the recent leadership change at the FBI. But days after Kash Patel was confirmed as FBI director, the Patriot Front had two public rallies, and its website refutes the claims.

    Full Story

    The Patriot Front has been identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a “white nationalist hate group” that splintered off from another organization, Vanguard America, following the “Unite the Right” rally held in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Aug. 12, 2017. On the second day of that rally, counterprotester Heather Heyer was killed and dozens were injured when Alex Fields Jr., a white nationalist, drove his car into the counterprotesters.

    The Anti-Defamation League says the Patriot Front “falls into the alt right segment of the white supremacist movement but presents itself as a ‘patriotic’ nationalist group.” George Washington University’s Program on Extremism identifies the group’s founder as Thomas Rousseau, and says the organization is “known for its propaganda campaigns, including distributing flyers, staging marches, and defacing public art, all aimed at spreading its white nationalist message.”

    But social media posts have made other, unsupported claims about the membership and current status of the Patriot Front.

    Some posts have shared a clip from podcaster Joe Rogan’s March 5 show, in which Rogan repeats a previous, unfounded claim he’s made that the Patriot Front members are federal agents. “Where’s the fat people? They’re all wearing the same uniforms. … These are feds,” Rogan says, referring to the khaki pants, dark blue jackets and masks most members wear at their public rallies. Rogan also wrongly claims, “the day after Kash Patel gets in [as FBI director], they disband.”

    Rogan made similar claims during his Feb. 28 show with guest Elon Musk, an adviser to President Donald Trump. On that episode, Rogan showed a screengrab of a Dec. 16 Substack article with the headline, “Shocker: ‘Patriot Front’ Disbands One Day After FBI Director Chris Wray Resigns — Updated.”

    Rogan suggested that the Patriot Front members were actually undercover FBI agents, and they “disbanded” after the change in the bureau’s leadership.

    Wray resigned in January, and Patel was confirmed on Feb. 20.

    That same day, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah pushed these ideas, retweeting an X post that said, “Who wants to bet ‘Patriot Front’ disappears now that Kash Patel has been confirmed as Director of the FBI?” Lee added the comment: “I hope @Kash_Patel fires the ‘Patriot Front’ wing of the FBI before tomorrow morning.”

    But the Patriot Front did not disband after the leadership change. Two days after Patel’s confirmation, one chapter of the group marched around the Iowa Capitol Complex in Des Moines, and other members rallied near the Massachusetts State House in Boston, according to local news reports.

    The Patriot Front responded to Rogan’s claims in a post on its website on March 3, saying, “Patriot Front discussed on The Joe Rogan Experience by Rogan and Elon Musk. In the video, Rogan justifies his ‘fed’ accusation by referencing the high level of fitness standards and organization in PF. Rogan then proceeds to claim that Patriot Front disbanded, showing a substack post based on an article published by a satirical website.”

    The Patriot Front post later says, “Rogan and other social media influencers will have to invent increasingly elaborate narratives to justify PF’s continued activity despite their misinformed claims that PF has disbanded.”

    It’s worth noting that the FBI has extensive investigative records on the Patriot Front. We asked the FBI for comment on the claims made by Rogan and others but did not receive a response.

    We also reached out to Rogan for any other evidence that federal agents are members of Patriot Front or that the group recently disbanded, but we did not get a response.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Meta to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Meta has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Anti-Defamation League. “Patriot Front.” Accessed 6 Mar 2025.

    Farrar, Molly. “White supremacist group marches in downtown Boston with ‘Reclaim America’ banner.” Boston.com. 23 Feb 2025.

    Federal Bureau of Investigation. FBI Records: The Vault. “Patriot Front.” Accessed 6 Mar 2025.

    George Washington University. Program on Extremism. “Patriot Front.” Accessed 6 Mar 2025.

    PBS News. “Man who drove into Charlottesville protest, killing Heath Heyer, convicted of first-degree murder.” 7 Dec 2018.

    Pelley, Scott, et al. “FBI Director Christopher Wray on why he’s resigning and the threats facing America.” CBS News. 12 Jan 2025.

    Southern Poverty Law Center. “Patriot Front.” Accessed 6 Mar 2025.

    Tucker, Eric. “Trump loyalist Kash Patel is confirmed as FBI director by the Senate despite deep Democratic doubts.” Associated Press. 20 Feb 2025.

    The post White Nationalist Group Is Still Active, Contrary to Social Media Claims appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Posts Spread False Claim About DOGE Halting Supposed Obamacare ‘Royalties’

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency have been tasked by President Donald Trump with slashing federal spending. But social media posts falsely claim that as part of that effort, DOGE stopped “royalties” to former President Barack Obama related to the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. The claim came from a satirical website.

    Full Story

    On Jan. 20, his first day in office, President Donald Trump established by executive order the new Department of Government Efficiency “to implement the President’s DOGE Agenda,” which has included efforts led by billionaire Elon Musk to reduce government spending and cut the federal payroll.

    But as we’ve written, some of the claims made by DOGE and the Trump administration about overpayments in the Social Security system have been exaggerated, and some claims about spending by the U.S. Agency for International Development have been inaccurate or unsupported.

    In recent days, some social media posts have repeated a fabricated claim that DOGE had halted millions in supposed royalty payments to former President Barack Obama.

    A Feb. 27 Threads post falsely claimed, “DOGE stopped an annual payment to Barack Obama for $2.6 million for ‘royalties associated with Obamacare.’ He’s been collecting it since 2010, for a total of $39 million in taxpayer dollars.”

    The posts are referring to the Affordable Care Act, the health care law enacted in 2010 under Obama that became known as Obamacare.

    But the claim that the former president had been receiving royalty payments for the health care law he championed was the invention of America’s Last Line of Defense, or ALLOD, which publishes fabricated political stories and claims on its websites and social media pages that it describes as satirical. ALLOD posted the claim about Obama this month, and the image shared on social media included a stamp labeling the claim as satire.

    The ALLOD website says, “Everything on this website is fiction. It is not a lie and it is not fake news because it is not real. If you believe that it is real, you should have your head examined.”

    The other social media posts sharing the claim did not identify the content as satire.

    We could find no evidence that DOGE had stopped any payments to Obama, who as a former president does receive an annual pension payment from the government. Obama has received about $10.5 million from his presidential pension and other government benefits, such as travel and office space, since leaving the White House, The Hill reported. Since he left office at the end of his first term, Trump had received more than $3 million.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Meta to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Meta has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    America’s Last Line of Defense. The Dunning-Kruger Times. “About Us.” Accessed 28 Feb 2025.

    Cohen, Ben. “Trump, Musk Exaggerate Scale of Improper Social Security Payments to the Dead.” FactCheck.org. 22 Feb 2025.

    Hale Spencer, Saranac. “Sorting Out the Facts on ‘Waste and Abuse’ at USAID.” FactCheck.org. 8 Feb 2025.

    Jaffe, Alan. “Trump Administration Makes Unsupported Claim About $50 Million for Condoms to Gaza.” FactCheck.org. 30 Jan 2025.

    Johnson, Rich. “Here are the benefits all US presidents get when they retire.” The Hill. 19 Nov 2024.

    Pichi, Aimee. “What is DOGE? Here’s what to know about Elon Musk’s latest cost-cutting efforts.” 12 Feb 2025.

    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “About the Affordable Care Act.” Accessed 28 Feb 2025.

    U.S. General Services Administration. “Allowances and Office State for Former Presidents.” Fiscal Year 2024 Congressional Justification. Accessed 28 Feb 2025.

    White House. Executive Order. “Establishing and Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency.’” 20 Jan 2025.

    The post Posts Spread False Claim About DOGE Halting Supposed Obamacare ‘Royalties’ appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Posts Share Bogus Audio of Donald Trump Jr. Supporting Arms for Russia, Not Ukraine

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    A fake audio clip of Donald Trump Jr. saying that the U.S. should have sent weapons to Russia instead of Ukraine was shared across social media. Deepfake experts said the audio was apparently generated using artificial intelligence. A spokesperson for Trump Jr. said the audio clip is “100% fake.”

    Full Story

    President Donald Trump has been reaching out to Russian President Vladimir Putin in recent weeks in an attempt to improve relations and arrive at a deal that will end Russia’s war with Ukraine, which began when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, as we’ve written.

    The U.S. has appropriated about $174.2 billion in military and humanitarian aid in its support for Ukraine, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service, as we’ve also written. 

    But in remarks on Feb. 18, Trump claimed that Ukraine “started” the war and suggested it could have avoided the conflict by giving up portions of the country to Russia.

    Now, social media posts are spreading a fake audio clip purportedly of the president’s oldest son, Donald Trump Jr., saying, in part, “I honestly can’t imagine that anyone in their right mind picking Ukraine as an ally when Russia is the other option. … The U.S. should have been sending weapons to Russia.”

    Following the purported quote from Trump Jr., one post said, “America is officially siding with our enemies. Make sure everyone sees this.” A Threads post said, “Statements like this are really easy to understand when you realize that Jr’s daddy is a Russian asset.”

    ABC News reported that FactPostNews, an official account of the Democratic Party, also shared the fake audio clip on X and then deleted it.

    The audio was apparently generated using artificial intelligence, according to Hany Farid, chief science officer at GetReal Labs, a company that analyzes manufactured content.

    Farid emailed a statement to us explaining that the audio shared in the posts was analyzed with two models used to distinguish natural from AI-generated voices.

    “Each model, which looks for different patterns in AI-generated voices, classifies the voices with high confidence as AI-generated,” said Farid, who is also a professor of digital forensics at the University of California Berkeley. Based on that analysis, he said, the audio clip “appears to be AI-generated.”

    “This was not a simple voice cloning as it involved the interplay between two voices. I’ve been seeing this trend recently and it is somewhat expected as the technology gets better and the adversary becomes more proficient and sophisticated in their use of these AI tools,” Farid said.

    The audio post shared on social media was presented as if it were a clip from a Feb. 25 episode of Trump Jr.’s podcast, “Triggered with Donald Trump Jr.,” and makes it seem as if Trump Jr. was responding to a caller on his show, which is aired on Rumble. But the audio in the social media posts doesn’t match any segment on the actual Rumble episode.

    Andrew Surabian, a Republican strategist and spokesperson for Trump Jr., in a Feb. 26 post on X, later reshared by Trump Jr., said: “This is 100% fake AI generated audio.”

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Meta to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Meta has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Congressional Research Service. “U.S. Direct Financial Support for Ukraine.” Updated 31 Jan 2025.

    Robertson, Lori and Robert Farley. “Trump’s False and Misleading Ukraine Claims.” FactCheck.org. 20 Feb 2025.

    Rubin, Olivia and Chris Looft. “Amid Russia-Ukraine negotiations, fake audio circulates of Donald Trump Jr. supporting Russia.” ABC News. 26 Feb 2025.

    Vasilyeva, Nataliya. “Putin Praises Trump for Working to Thaw U.S.-Russia Tensions.” New York Times. 27 Feb 2025.

    The post Posts Share Bogus Audio of Donald Trump Jr. Supporting Arms for Russia, Not Ukraine appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Online Posts Misconstrue Data on Social Security Numbers

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    Elon Musk shared a chart on X purportedly showing more than 398 million eligible numbers in the Social Security database. Online posts misconstrued the figures to wrongly claim they showed how many people are receiving benefits, which would exceed the U.S. population. The Social Security Administration reported more than 68.4 million recipients in 2024.

    Full Story

    Elon Musk, acting as a senior adviser to President Donald Trump and working with the Department of Government Efficiency, posted data on X, his social media platform, that he said show the numbers of “eligible” Social Security numbers by age group.

    In a Feb. 17 post, Musk shared a chart from the “Social Security database,” which displayed a series of age ranges.

    When added together, the data in Musk’s chart show more than 398 million people. The United States’ total population is 341 million, according to the Census Bureau.

    In a subsequent X post on Feb. 17, Musk said, “Yes, there are FAR more ‘eligible’ social security numbers than there are citizens in the USA. This might be the biggest fraud in history.”

    Previously, we’ve addressed Musk’s and Trump’s comments about people who are likely dead receiving Social Security benefits. As we wrote, improper payments are a legitimate concern, but the number of dead recipients still being sent benefits is likely in the thousands. In September 2015, the Social Security Administration began a process that automatically designates individuals aged 115 and older as deceased and ends payments to them.

    Some social media posts misconstrued the data in Musk’s posts to wrongly claim the numbers reflected the total number of people in the U.S. who were actually receiving Social Security payments.

    A Feb. 17 Facebook post said, “BREAKING – Elon Musk and DOGE have discovered that there are 394 million Social Security recipients in the U.S…. Yet the country has only 334 million citizens: a discrepancy of more than 60 million. Who’s cashing those checks & how fast can we lock them up?”

    Another post repeated the figures and said, “Think you’ve seen fraud? You’ve seen nothing yet.”

    Contrary to the social media claims, annual data compiled on the Social Security Beneficiary Statistics page show more than 68.4 million total beneficiaries in 2024.

    Last year, 54,348,229 retired workers and their dependents received Social Security payments; 5,785,602 survivors received payments, and 8,322,142 disabled workers and their dependents received benefits.

    Jeff Brown, a professor of finance at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, told us, “Elon’s 394 million is not the number of people receiving benefits. It is the number of people with Social Security numbers.”

    Brown told us in an email that without access to the data cited by Musk, it’s difficult to fully address the discrepancy between the number of eligible Social Security numbers and the total U.S. population. Brown said some factors that may account for the discrepancy are people issued Social Security numbers who died outside the U.S.; people who were issued numbers because they temporarily worked in the U.S. and then returned to their home country; U.S. expatriates; people issued multiple Social Security numbers due to identity theft; coding errors in the SSA’s system; and fraudulent requests.

    “It does not matter if there are dead people or ex-pats or even fictitious people with fake SSNs in their system as long as they are not awarded benefits,” Brown said. “It is when one goes to award benefits at retirement or for disability that it becomes important to verify that there is a real person.”

    Who Receives Social Security Benefits

    The SSA has two primary tasks: assigning Social Security numbers at birth and administering the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance, or OASDI program, which provides a source of income when an individual retires or can’t work due to a disability.

    American employees pay into the program by having money withheld from their paychecks, and must have done so for at least 10 years prior to eligibility at age 62. The amount of a Social Security retirement benefit depends on average indexed monthly earnings. In addition, those who are disabled and have worked for at least five of the prior 10 years may qualify for Social Security disability payments. Spouses and children of disabled people may also qualify for benefits.

    Figures from a Social Security Administration fact sheet report that “Social Security benefits represent about 31% of the income of people over age 65.”

    An SSA report from the Office of the Inspector General in July said that the administration issues more than $1 trillion in benefit payments annually. “Even the slightest error in the overall payment process can result in billions of dollars in improper payments. For example, from FYs 2015 through 2022, SSA paid almost $8.6 trillion in benefits and made approximately $71.8 billion (0.84 percent) in improper payments, most of which were overpayments,” the report said.

    We reached out to the Social Security Administration for comment on the claim in the social media posts, but did not receive a response.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Meta to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Meta has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Brown, Jeff. Professor of finance, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Emails to FactCheck.org. 25 and 26 Feb 2025.

    Cohen, Ben. “Trump, Musk Exaggerate Scale of Improper Social Security Payments to the Dead.” 21 Feb 2025.

    Doge.gov. “Home.” Accessed 18 Feb 2025.

    Investopedia. “Social Security.” Accessed 18 Feb 2025.

    Social Security Administration. “Basic Facts.” Accessed 18 Feb 2025.

    Social Security Administration. “OASDI Benefits.” Accessed 18 Feb 2025.

    Social Security Administration. Office of the Inspector General. “Numberholders Age 100 or Older Who Did Not Have Death Information on the Numident.” Audit Report. Jul 2023.

    Social Security Administration. Program Operations Manual System (POMS). “Overview of the age 115 or older termination process.” Accessed 27 Feb 2025.

    Social Security Administration. “Retirement Benefit Information.” Accessed 18 Feb 2025.

    Social Security Administration. “Who can get Disability.” Accessed 21 Feb 2025.

    United States Census Bureau. “USA Population.” Accessed 18 Feb 2025.

    The post Online Posts Misconstrue Data on Social Security Numbers appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Trump, Online Posts Misrepresent Government Subscriptions to News Services

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    Both the Biden and Trump administrations subscribed to Politico and other news services. But President Donald Trump and online posts have misleadingly claimed the media outlets were being funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development. The payments from USAID and other federal departments or agencies were for subscriptions.

    Full Story

    The Trump administration’s efforts to reduce spending by the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, and other government departments has fueled misleading and unsupported claims about the recipients of the assistance, the funding sources and the amounts of federal aid spent, as we’ve written.

    Now, claims by President Donald Trump and social media posts have spread misinformation about money spent by the government on media resources, misrepresenting subscriptions to news services as a “payoff” or as “funding” for media outlets. An examination of government spending records shows that media subscription services targeted by Trump also were used and paid for by his administration during his first term in office.

    In a Feb. 6 post on X, Trump misleadingly said, “LOOKS LIKE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS HAVE BEEN STOLLEN AT USAID, AND OTHER AGENCIES, MUCH OF IT GOING TO THE FAKE NEWS MEDIA AS A ‘PAYOFF’ FOR CREATING GOOD STORIES ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS. THE LEFT WING ‘RAG,’ KNOWN AS ‘POLITICO,’ SEEMS TO HAVE RECEIVED $8,000,000. Did the New York Times receive money??? Who else did??? THIS COULD BE THE BIGGEST SCANDAL OF THEM ALL, PERHAPS THE BIGGEST IN HISTORY!”

    Trump amplified his misleading claims about the government payments to media outlets on his platform Truth Social on Feb. 13, saying, “Why was Politico paid Millions of Dollars for NOTHING.”

    Other social media posts have made similar claims. Conservative commentator Benny Johnson said in an Instagram post: “Now we learn Politico — ‘a news company’ — which spent the last 10 years trying to destroy the MAGA Movement was being massively funded by USAID.” The post received more than 100,000 likes. Another post claimed, “And now we find out the regime was funneling tens of millions of dollars of our money to Politico?”

    Rob Smith, who identifies himself as “The OG Black Gay Republican Icon,” posted an Instagram video citing Johnson’s post and claiming, Politico is “COMPLETELY FUNDED BY USAID!”

    Rather than being “completely” or “massively funded” by USAID, Politico received two payments specifically through that government agency in 2023 and 2024 totaling $44,000, according to USA Spending, a U.S. government website that tracks federal spending.

    Politico did receive more than $8 million in fiscal year 2024 from other federal departments and agencies, USA Spending records show. Whether that amounts to wasteful spending is a matter of opinion, and we take no position on that. The money, however, was to pay for Politico subscriptions and access to Politico Pro, which provides “non-partisan news, real-time intelligence, in-depth analysis, government directories, stakeholder management solutions, policy monitoring tools” and other customized services, according to its website.

    In total, the USA Spending database reported 646 transactions between the federal government and Politico since fiscal year 2015. The transactions are classified as contracts, not as grants, loans or direct payments, which are types of government spending categories on the site.

    Politico CEO Goli Sheikholeslami and Editor-in-Chief John F. Harris responded to the claims on social media with a statement on Feb. 6, saying, “POLITICO is a privately owned company. We have never received any government funding — no subsidies, no grants, no handouts. Not one dime, ever, in 18 years. … It is supported by advertising and sponsorships.”

    “POLITICO Pro is different,” the statement continued. “It is a professional subscription service used by companies, organizations, and, yes, some government agencies. They subscribe because it makes them better at their jobs — helping them track policy, legislation and regulations in real-time with news, intelligence and a suite of data products.”

    The federal government constitutes a small portion of Politico Pro’s subscriber base. In a Feb. 6 interview, Mathias Döpfner, CEO of Politico’s parent company, Axel Springer, told CNN that Politico Pro currently has about 5,000 subscribers, about 6% of whom work in government.

    Politico does not report the cost of each Politico Pro subscription. We asked Politico for the range of subscription costs, but did not get a response.

    Some transactions listed on USA Spending include the number of subscriptions purchased, allowing us to estimate the cost of single subscriptions. For example, the Federal Trade Commission spent $45,378 to renew 14 annual subscriptions to Politico Pro Plus in October 2024, at a cost of about $3,200 per person for an annual subscription. The Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, spent $143,203 in June 2024 to renew 49 annual subscriptions to Politico Pro, at a cost of about $2,900 per person per year.

    In recent days, the Trump administration has terminated multiple contracts between the federal government and Politico initiated by the Biden administration. The subscriptions purchased by HHS were terminated on Feb. 5. The New York Times reported on Feb. 6 that the Department of Agriculture canceled its Politico Pro subscriptions, and Fox News reported on Feb. 10 that the Department of Veterans Affairs also canceled its Politico Pro subscriptions.

    Payments During Trump’s First Term

    Subscriptions to Politico Pro were not unique to the Biden administration. The government also paid for subscriptions in fiscal years 2017 through 2020, when Trump was in office. (The government’s fiscal year is from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30, so FY 2017 included nearly four months under the Obama administration.)

    According to USA Spending, during Trump’s first term, the federal government agreed to $10.2 million in contract obligations to Politico.

    While total spending on Politico by USAID was relatively minuscule under the Biden administration and nonexistent under Trump’s, both presidents’ executive offices agreed to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to Politico during their respective terms. The Executive Office of the President includes the set of offices and agencies that support the agenda of the executive branch, such as the Council of Economic Advisors, the National Security Council and the Office of Management and Budget.

    Under the first Trump administration, the Executive Office of the President accrued $880,000 in obligations to Politico. The other government agencies spending the most on Politico subscriptions in fiscal years 2017 through 2020 were HHS, whose obligations to Politico totaled about $3.2 million, followed by the Department of Energy, which spent more than $710,000.

    Payments During Biden’s Term

    By comparison, total federal obligations to Politico were more than twice as high during President Joe Biden’s administration as compared with Trump’s first administration. In FY 2021 through 2024, the federal government accrued $22.8 million in total financial obligations to Politico. (FY 2021 included nearly four months under the Trump administration.)

    HHS also spent the most money among all government departments on Politico during the Biden administration, with obligations totaling $3.5 million in FY 2021 through 2024. The next highest spending agencies during this period were the Department of the Interior ($3.4 million), the Department of Energy ($2.9 million) and the Department of Agriculture ($2 million). The Executive Office of the President’s total obligations reached $1.3 million during the Biden years.

    As we said, USAID’s spending on Politico during the Biden administration was small by comparison. In total, the agency purchased $44,000 in subscriptions to E&E News, a subsidiary of Politico focused on energy and environmental issues, in FY 2023 and 2024.

    To analyze total federal spending on media organizations during the Biden and first Trump administrations, we collated total financial obligations for transactions reported on USA Spending. To classify the date of each transaction, we used the fiscal year of each transaction’s base action date, defined by USA Spending as “the date the action being reported was issued / signed by the Government or a binding agreement was reached.”

    This classification means that contracts initiated under the Trump administration that extended into the beginning of the Biden administration count as spending under the Trump years, and contracts initiated during the Biden administration that continue to the present count as obligations under the Biden years.

    We also collated federal spending on the New York Times, Associated Press and Reuters using the same methodology.

    In total, the federal government’s obligations to the Times totaled $1.3 million under the Biden administration, as compared with $610,000 under the Trump administration. Obligations to the Associated Press totaled $6.8 million under Biden and $24 million under Trump. Obligations to Reuters totaled $9.7 million under Biden and $1.5 million under Trump.

    Subscription Contracts, Not Grants

    As opposed to funding or a financial award, the federal government’s payments to Politico under the Trump and Biden administrations constituted a contractual agreement to provide a service in exchange for a subscription fee.

    Politico’s statement explains, “Government agencies that subscribe do so through standard public procurement processes — just like any other tool they buy to work smarter and be more efficient. This is not funding. It is a transaction — just as the government buys research, equipment, software and industry reports. Some online voices are deliberately spreading falsehoods. Let’s be clear: POLITICO has no financial dependence on the government and no hidden agenda.”

    Similarly, the $2 million in obligations to the New York Times accrued by the federal government since FY 2017 were also contracts in exchange for subscriptions, and not funding. A Feb. 6 statement posted on X by the Times said, “Federal funds received by The Times are payments for subscriptions that government offices and agencies have purchased to better understand the world.” The statement also said, “There are no federal grants made to The Times.”

    Associated Press spokesperson Lauren Easton said on Feb. 6 that “the U.S. government has long been an AP customer — through both Democratic and Republican administrations. It licenses AP’s nonpartisan journalism, just like thousands of news outlets and customers around the world. It’s quite common for governments to have contracts with news organizations for their content.”

    Subscriptions to news media are valuable tools for government employees, Steven Kelman, a professor of public management at Harvard University, told us in an email. “These are ways for government officials to learn more about things going on in the government in general, which helps them do their jobs better,” Kelman said.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Meta to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Meta has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Hale Spencer, Saranac. “Sorting Out the Facts on ‘Waste and Abuse’ at USAID.” FactCheck.org. 8 Feb 2025.

    Jaffe, Alan. “Trump Administration Makes Unsupported Claim About $50 Million for Condoms to Gaza.” FactCheck.org. 30 Jan 2025.

    Sheikholeslami, Goli and John F. Harris. “Note to Our Readers.” Politico. 6 Feb 2025.

    USASpending.gov. Payments from U.S. Agency for International Development. Recipient: Politico. Accessed 10 Feb 2025.

    USASpending.gov. Definitive Contract, PIID 29FTC122C0002. Accessed 10 Feb 2025.

    USASpending.gov. Purchase Order, PIID 75F40120P00453. Accessed 10 Feb 2025.

    Mullin, Benjamin and Flavelle, Christopher. “White House Cracks Down on News Subscriptions.” New York Times. 6 Feb 2025.

    Hagstrom, Anders. “Department of Veterans Affairs cancels $178K in subscriptions to Politico Pro”. Fox News. 10 Feb 2025.

    USASpending.gov. Prime Award Results, Politico, LLC. Accessed 7 Feb 2025.

    USASpending.gov. Prime Award Results, Politico, The New York Times, Reuters, AP. Accessed 7 Feb 2025.

    “Executive Office of the President.” White House Archives, President Barack Obama. Accessed 11 Feb 2025.

    NY Times Communications. X. 6 Feb 2025.

    Bauder, David. “Trump promotes misleading claims about federal government’s media subscriptions.” AP News. 6 Feb 2025.

    Kelman, Steven. Professor of public management, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Email to FactCheck.org. 10 Feb 2025.

    Forbes. Mathias Doepfner. Accessed 12 Feb 2025.

    Reilly, Liam. “CEO of Politico’s parent company to Trump: ‘It’s not subsidies; it’s capitalism.’” CNN. 6 Feb 2025.

    The post Trump, Online Posts Misrepresent Government Subscriptions to News Services appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Social Media Posts Misidentify Pilot Killed in Midair Collision Over D.C.

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    The U.S. Army identified one of the Black Hawk helicopter pilots killed in the midair crash with a passenger jet on Jan. 29 as Capt. Rebecca M. Lobach. But social media posts have falsely identified two different women to claim the pilot was either a transgender woman or a former White House press aide.

    Full Story

    During his first weeks in office, President Donald Trump issued executive orders that placed a freeze on hiring federal employees, banned transgender people from serving in the military and ended any federal programs or policies aimed at diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI.

    As we’ve written, diversity initiatives and Trump’s executive orders have been cited, without evidence, by the president and social media posts as factors in the midair collision of a passenger jet and a U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport on Jan. 29. All 64 people aboard the jet coming from Wichita, Kansas, and the three soldiers in the helicopter were killed.

    Partisan politics and references to Trump’s policies have surfaced again in social media posts that have misidentified one of the helicopter pilots killed in the crash.

    In the days immediately after the collision, online posts falsely claimed that one of the dead helicopter pilots was a transgender woman named Jo Ellis. “Was this … why Trump said what he said?” a Threads post asked.

    Ellis, a helicopter pilot who has served for 15 years in the Virginia Army National Guard, took to social media herself to show that she was not involved in the collision, sharing a “proof of life” video and statement on her Facebook page on Jan. 31. In addition, Ellis appeared in an interview with commentator Michael Smerconish on CNN on Feb. 1.

    Also on Feb. 1, the U.S. Army issued a statement identifying a female pilot killed in the helicopter as Capt. Rebecca M. Lobach of Durham, North Carolina. The statement said Lobach had served as an aviation officer in the Army since July 2019 and was assigned to the 12th Aviation Battalion, Ft. Belvoir, Virginia. Lobach’s awards included the Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, National Defense Service Medal and Army Service Ribbon.

    The other two soldiers killed in the crash, both men, were identified by the Army as Staff Sgt. Ryan Austin O’Hara, a helicopter repairer, and Chief Warrant Officer 2 Andrew Loyd Eaves, a pilot.

    Misidentified Again Online

    Despite the Army’s Feb. 1 statement identifying Lobach and sharing her photo, subsequent social media posts included a photo of another woman and wrongly claimed she was the soldier killed in the crash.

    A Feb. 2 Threads post claimed, “It’s being reported that the Blackhawk pilot responsible for killing 64 civilians in DC on Wednesday night is Rebecca Lobach. She worked for Karine Jean-Pierre in the Press shop at the White House during the Biden administration. She was not a full-time pilot.”

    The post gets the pilot’s name right, but Lobach did not serve in the White House press office, and she does not appear in a photo in the Threads post that shows former President Joe Biden and White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre with a group of young people.

    A Feb. 3 Instagram post shows the same photo of young people with Biden, with a red circle around one young woman. The text on the post says, “BLACK HAWK PILOT: She spent the last two years at the White House instead of flying? Why?”

    The photo was indeed included in a Jan. 2 Instagram post by Jean-Pierre, who said, “Here’s to the best team in the business. I couldn’t do it without you. … Let’s run though the tape!”

    But the fact-checking website Lead Stories identified the woman highlighted in the Feb. 3 Instagram post photo as Chloe Kellison, whose LinkedIn and Instagram accounts identify her as a press assistant at the White House.

    While Lobach is not the woman in the photo shared in the social media posts, she did serve as a White House military social aide. Social aides assist with “diplomatic protocol at state events, at annual meetings with the leaders of Congress and the federal judiciary, and at other significant social events,” according to the White House Historical Association website.

    A statement from the Lobach family included with the Army’s Feb. 1 statement said: “Rebecca was a warrior and would not hesitate to defend her country in battle. But she was as graceful as she was fierce: in addition to her duties as an Army aviator, Rebecca was honored to serve as a White House Military Social Aide, volunteering to support the President and First Lady in hosting countless White House events, including ceremonies awarding the Medal of Honor and the Presidential Medal of Freedom.”

    The family’s statement also said, “Rebecca began her career in the United States Army as a distinguished military graduate in ROTC at the University of North Carolina, and was in the top 20% of cadets nationwide. She achieved the rank of Captain, having twice served as a Platoon Leader and as a Company Executive Officer in the 12th Aviation Battalion, Davison Army Airfield, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. With more than 450 hours of flight time, she earned certification as a pilot-in-command after extensive testing by the most senior and experienced pilots in her battalion.”

    Social media posts highlighted a former White House press aide, Chloe Kellison, (left) and misidentified her as Capt. Rebecca Lobach (right), a pilot killed in the Jan. 29 midair collision, seen in a photo provided by the U.S. Army.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Meta to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Meta has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    CNN. “Trans Army Pilot: ‘I was not surprised by the hate. This is my reality.’” Smerconish. 1 Feb 2025.

    Hale Spencer, Saranac and D’Angelo Gore. “No Evidence for the Political Finger-Pointing Over D.C. Plane Crash.” FactCheck.org. 31 Jan 2025.

    Raby, John. “What is known about the deadly collision between a passenger jet and Army helicopter.” Associated Press. 4 Feb 2025.

    Shapiro, Emily. “DC plane crash live updates: Crews hope to recover cockpit on Tuesday.” ABC News. 4 Feb 2025.

    Simmons-Duffin, Selena. “Trump issues order to ban transgender troops from serving openly in the military.” NPR. 28 Jan 2025.

    Thompson, Stuart A. “Virginia Pilot Responds After She Is Falsely Targeted Over Black Hawk Crash.” New York Times. Updated 3 Feb 2025.

    U.S. Army. “Army identifies Third Soldier involved in Helicopter Crash.” Army Public Affairs. 1 Feb 2025.

    White House Historical Association. “White House Military Social Aides.” Accessed 4 Feb 2025.

    White House. Presidential Actions. “Hiring Freeze.” Executive Order. 20 Jan 2025.

    White House. Presidential Actions. “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs.” Executive Order. 20 Jan 2025.

    White House. Presidential Actions. “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness.” Executive Order. 27 Jan 2025.

    The post Social Media Posts Misidentify Pilot Killed in Midair Collision Over D.C. appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Trump Administration Makes Unsupported Claim About $50 Million for Condoms to Gaza

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    President Donald Trump said his administration blocked $50 million for condoms to be sent to Gaza through its pause on foreign aid. But it has provided no evidence that $50 million was ever directed toward condoms for Gaza. The contractor identified by the State Department said it has not used U.S. aid “to procure or distribute condoms.”

    Full Story

    At her first official briefing as White House press secretary on Jan. 28, Karoline Leavitt defended President Donald Trump’s pause on funding for foreign aid.

    As an example of why a freeze on aid to other nations was needed, Leavitt told reporters that the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, and the Office of Management and Budget “found that there was about to be 50 million taxpayer dollars that went out the door to fund condoms in Gaza. That is a preposterous waste of taxpayer money. So, that’s what this pause is focused on: being good stewards of tax dollars.”

    White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt takes questions during a briefing in the White House on Jan. 28. Photo by Roberto Schmidt/AFP via Getty Images.

    Trump repeated the claim the next day.

    “We identified and stopped $50 million being sent to Gaza to buy condoms for Hamas,” Trump said. “They’ve used them as a method of making bombs.”

    Social media posts widely shared a clip of Leavitt’s press briefing and echoed the claim, “President Trump had to stop $50 million in American dollars from going to Gaza to fund condoms. NO, this is NOT a joke.”

    But the Trump administration has not provided any evidence that $50 million was ever directed by the U.S. government for the purchase of condoms for the war-torn Gaza Strip. The contractor identified by the government as the recipient of the funding said it provides hospital services in Gaza and has not used U.S. funds “to procure or distribute condoms.” Other U.S. agencies provide little to no funding for condoms in the Middle East.

    Funds for Medical Services, Not Condoms

    Pressed for the source of her information by the Washington Post Fact Checker, Leavitt cited a Fox News story, which stated that an unnamed White House official said the State Department had “halted several million dollars going to condoms in Gaza this past weekend,” but not $50 million.

    A White House official directed reporters to X posts by State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce, who wrote on Jan. 28, “American taxpayer dollars spent overseas should be spent wisely, and for the benefit of Americans. The pause in foreign assistance has allowed the @StateDept to prevent unjustified and non-emergency spending.”

    The first example Bruce offered: “Condoms. Prevented $102 million in unjustified funding to a contractor in Gaza, including money for contraception.”

    Bruce did not name the contractor in her posts. But the Washington Post reported that Bruce’s office said she was referring to “$102,236,000 to fund the International Medical Corps in Gaza.”

    Todd Bernhardt, a spokesperson for the International Medical Corps, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit that responds to emergency medical needs around the world, emailed a statement to us addressing questions about its services.

    The organization has received more than $68 million from the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, to support IMC’s medical operations in Gaza since the start of the Israel-Hamas war on Oct. 7, 2023, the statement said. That funding has supported the operation of two field hospitals that treat about 33,000 patients each month.

    Since January 2024, the statement said, the organization “has provided healthcare to more than 383,000 civilians who had no other access to services or treatment, including performing about 11,000 surgeries, with one-third of those categorized as major or moderate procedures. We have assisted in the delivery of some 5,000 babies, about 20% of them via cesarean section. In addition, International Medical Corps has screened 111,000 people for malnutrition, treated 2,767 for acute malnutrition, distributed micronutrient supplements to 36,000 people, and more.”

    “No government funding was used to procure or distribute condoms,” the statement said.

    The pause in aid from the U.S. would stop IMC’s work in Gaza’s hospitals, including delivering babies and caring for vulnerable newborns, assistance to malnourished children, surgeries and emergency room services, the statement also said.

    Support for Global Contraceptive Aid

    The Washington Post noted that the U.S. has a program, the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, which distributes condoms in other countries to help prevent the spread of HIV infection. But PEPFAR does not work with any nations in the Middle East.

    Contraceptives and condoms also are delivered around the world through the support of USAID. The most recent report issued by the agency in April 2024 said the total value of contraceptives and condoms provided internationally in the previous fiscal year amounted to $60.8 million.

    The report said 89% of the funding for contraceptives went to Africa, 9% to Asia and 2% to Latin American countries. One country in the Middle East, Jordan, received a shipment valued at $45,681.

    So it’s unlikely that a shipment in the amount of $50 million in condoms would be directed to Gaza in 2025, as the Trump administration has claimed. We reached out to the White House press secretary’s office for further comment, but we did not receive a response.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Meta to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Meta has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Bernhardt, Todd. Senior director of global communications, International Medical Corps. Email to FactCheck.org. 29 Jan 2025.

    Ingram, Julia. “What we know about Trump’s claim that the U.S. planned to spend $50 million on condoms for Gaza.” CBS News. 29 Jan 2025.

    International Medical Corps. “International Medical Corps Operation in Gaza.” Press release. 29 Jan 2025.

    Kessler, Glenn. “$50 million for condoms in Gaza? There’s no evidence for the White House claim.” Washington Post. 29 Jan 2025.

    Roll Call. “Press Briefing: Karoline Leavitt Holds a Press Briefing at The White House – January 28, 2025.” 28 Jan 2025.

    USAID. “Overview of Contraceptive and Condom Shipments. FY 2023.” Apr 2024.

    U.S. Department of State. U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Where We Work. Accessed 30 Jan 2025.

    Wallace, Danielle. “State Dept pulls millions in funding for ‘condoms in Gaza,’ as Trump admin looks to trim spending.” Fox News. 28 Jan 2025.

    White House. Presidential Actions. “Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid.” Executive Order. 20 Jan 2025.

    Wong, Edward and Apoorva Mandavilli. “U.S. Halt to Foreign Aid Cripples Programs Worldwide.” New York Times. 28 Jan 2025.

    The post Trump Administration Makes Unsupported Claim About $50 Million for Condoms to Gaza appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Trump Order Didn’t Reverse All of Biden’s Measures to Lower Drug Costs

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    President Donald Trump rescinded an executive order issued by former President Joe Biden aimed at finding new models for lowering drug costs. Trump’s action didn’t affect the caps on seniors’ drug costs or Medicare price negotiations that Biden signed into law. But social media posts have wrongly claimed otherwise.

    Full Story

    As we’ve written, in August 2022 then-President Joe Biden signed the sweeping Inflation Reduction Act into law, which included several measures aimed at reducing prescription drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries. The law required the federal government to negotiate the price of some Medicare drugs, capped monthly insulin copays at $35, capped seniors’ out-of-pocket costs at $2,000 a year for Medicare’s prescription drugs and made vaccines free.

    To further curb medical costs, in October 2022 Biden issued executive order 14087, “Lowering Prescription Drug Costs for Americans,” which directed the secretary of Health and Human Services to “consider whether to select for testing by the [Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation] new health care payment and delivery models that would lower drug costs and promote access to innovative drug therapies for beneficiaries enrolled in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.” 

    Then-President Joe Biden signs the Inflation Reduction Act with (from left) then-Sen. Joe Manchin, then-Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer, then-House Majority Whip James Clyburn, Rep. Frank Pallone and Rep. Kathy Castor in the White House on Aug. 16, 2022. Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images.

    On his first day in office, President Donald Trump, in an effort to reverse health care policies supported by his predecessor, revoked Biden’s executive order.

    Trump’s revocation of Biden’s 2022 order ends the testing of three new models to lower drug costs. But it doesn’t reverse the Inflation Reduction Act provisions, contrary to some social media posts. Experts also told us there isn’t much of a direct impact from Trump’s action, since the new models hadn’t been implemented yet. But social media posts have exaggerated the impact. 

    A Jan. 21 Facebook post wrongly claimed Trump “just reversed all the cost caps Biden negotiated for anyone on Medicare or Medicaid, over 120 MILLION Americans.”

    An Instagram post claimed, “Trump has rolled back a Biden order that mandated negotiations to the lower cost of drugs for people using Medicare and Medicaid,” wrongly linking Trump’s action to price negotiations under the Inflation Reduction Act. “Medicare had just announced 15 more drugs whose prices they were going to bring down in negotiations with Big Pharma,” the post said.

    Rescinding Biden’s order has not “reversed all the cost caps Biden negotiated” through the IRA. In fact, Trump’s action “is unlikely to change anything directly,” Stacie Dusetzina, a professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, told us.

    What Biden’s EO Did

    Biden’s executive order in 2022 included several ways to possibly lower prescription drug costs beyond what was included in the Inflation Reduction Act, explained Juliette Cubanski, deputy director of the Program on Medicare Policy at KFF, a nonpartisan healthy policy research organization.

    “There were three ideas that were floated in that executive order,” Cubanski told us in a phone interview.

    One idea was to create a list, referred to as the “$2 drug model,” which would give beneficiaries access to a set of low-cost generic drugs for common conditions at a flat copay of $2 available through Medicare Part B plans. “The idea was basically to encourage more utilization of these lower-cost medications,” Cubanski said.

    A second model was “designed to facilitate greater access through Medicaid programs to expensive cell and gene therapies” through multistate purchasing agreements, Cubanski said. “They are right now really difficult to purchase on an individual need because of the expense of these medications.”

    The third model was called the “accelerating clinical evidence model. It was engineered I think to encourage pharmaceutical companies who had had their drugs approved by the FDA … to move more quickly through the confirmatory clinical trials that are needed in order to get full approval from the FDA,” Cubanski explained. The accelerated approvals would make some drugs available to patients faster and at a lower price.

    “The bottom line is that none of these models were actually in the implementation stage. They were in development,” she said. “So they weren’t off and running.”

    Impact of Trump’s Action

    On the one hand, Cubanski said, “you can look at Trump’s action to rescind Biden’s executive order as not really being all that meaningful, because they’re not pulling back on much that actively happened to lower drug costs under these three models. Savings haven’t yet materialized for people on Medicare or for states or for others who may have been able to benefit from these models.”

    But, Cubanski added, “if President Trump is abandoning these efforts, I think that signals that he’s walking away from these specific efforts to reduce prescription drug prices.”

    The president’s action, however, is “not so broad as to cancel out other provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act that are part of laws and have already been implemented,” Cubanski said.

    Dusetzina, the Vanderbilt health policy professor, said Trump’s revocation of Biden’s order may indicate Trump’s interest in “more efforts to roll back these policies in the future. But the changes to date aren’t likely to directly impact patients.”

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Meta to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Meta has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Congress.gov. “H.R. 5376 — Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.”

    Cubanski, Juliette. Deputy director, Program on Medicare Policy, KFF. Phone interview with FactCheck.org. 27 Jan 2025.

    Dusetzina, Stacie B. Professor of health policy, Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Email to FactCheck.org. 27 Jan 2025.

    Joseph R. Biden Jr. Executive Order 14087. “Lowering Prescription Drug Costs for Americans.” Federal Register. 14 Oct 2022.

    Lovelace, Berkeley Jr. “Trump reverses Biden policies on drug pricing and Obamacare.” NBC News. 21 Jan 2025.

    Robertson, Lori. “Medicare Prescription Drug Provisions of Inflation Reduction Act.” FactCheck.org. Updated 18 Aug 2022.

    White House. “Initial Rescissons of Harmful Executive Order and Actions.” Executive Order. 20 Jan 2025.

    The post Trump Order Didn’t Reverse All of Biden’s Measures to Lower Drug Costs appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • No Evidence Officer Who Shot Ashli Babbitt Was Pardoned by Biden

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    In his final hours as president, Joe Biden issued preemptive pardons for House committee members who investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and the police officers who testified before that committee. Online posts make an unfounded claim that Biden pardoned the officer who shot and killed protester Ashli Babbitt. The officer, who was cleared of wrongdoing, wasn’t among those who testified. 

    Full Story

    As the presidential transition took place this week, both former President Joe Biden and President Donald Trump issued pardons concerning the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. 

    Biden issued an Executive Grant of Clemency on Jan. 19 to preemptively pardon the members of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, the committee’s staff, and the officers of the Metropolitan Police Department and the U.S. Capitol Police who testified before the committee.

    In a statement, Biden said he granted the unconditional pardon for the committee members, staff and witnesses because “those who perpetrated the January 6th attack” have tried to “seek revenge, including by threatening criminal prosecutions.”

    Biden said: “The issuance of these pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgment that any individual engaged in any wrongdoing, nor should acceptance be misconstrued as an admission of guilt for any offense.”

    Among the police officers who testified before the committee were Harry Dunn and Aquilino Gonell of the U.S. Capitol Police, and Michael Fanone and Daniel Hodges of the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department, according to news reports at the time and the committee’s report. Biden’s pardon doesn’t give specific names, but says that the pardon is for “the U.S. Capitol and D.C. Metropolitan police officers who testified before the Select Committee.” 

    But social media posts that went up the day after Biden issued the preemptive pardons claim with no evidence that Michael Byrd, the Capitol Police officer who shot and killed protester Ashli Babbitt, was pardoned by Biden. Byrd shot Babbitt when protesters “were forcing their way toward the House Chamber where Members of Congress were sheltering in place,” according to a Jan. 7 statement from then-U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund.

    A Jan. 20 Facebook post by commentator Christina Aguayo claimed, “#BreakingNews Biden Has pardoned Michael Byrd, Byrd Shot & KILLED Ashli Babbitt…. The pardon applies to every police officer interviewed by the J6 Committee for ALL crimes committed before, on, or after J6.” The post shows photos of Babbitt and Byrd. 

    A similar post on X on Jan. 20 said, “Ashli Babbitt was an Air Force veteran who served this country for 12+ years and won awards for her Iraq service. Ashli was 5’2″, 115 pounds, unarmed. Lt. MICHAEL BYRD shot her in the neck. Biden just pardoned him.”

    Contrary to the claims on social media, there is no evidence that Biden pardoned Byrd or that Byrd testified before the House committee on the Jan. 6 attack. Byrd is not mentioned in the select committee’s final report, and he isn’t among those in the report’s “full list” of committee witnesses.

    The Shooting of Ashli Babbitt

    On Jan. 6, 2021, rioters descended on the U.S. Capitol with the intention of disrupting a joint session of Congress that was certifying the 2020 election results. During the attack on the Capitol, more than 140 police officers were assaulted, and government property was destroyed. According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, 1,583 people were charged with crimes associated with the attack, including “assaulting, resisting, or impeding law enforcement,” entering a restricted area with a deadly weapon, theft of government property, and seditious activity.

    In an August 2021 interview with NBC News, Byrd described his actions during the Jan. 6 attack. He was an officer in charge of defending the House of Representatives chamber, where 60 to 80 representatives were taking cover. When rioters broke through the glass door outside the Speaker’s Lobby, which leads to the House chamber, Babbitt attempted to climb through the door before Byrd shot her in the shoulder. Babbitt, a Trump supporter, died from her injuries.

    In April 2021, the Department of Justice said it would not pursue criminal charges against Byrd and closed its investigation into Babbitt’s death. The DOJ said, “Specifically, the investigation revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber.” 

    People place flowers and candles for Ashli Babbitt, an Air Force veteran who was shot and killed in the U.S Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021. Photo by Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images.

    The U.S. Capitol Police released a statement on Aug. 23, 2021, following an internal investigation that found Byrd’s “conduct was lawful and within Department policy, which says an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that action is in the defense of human life, including the officer’s own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury.”

    But Trump has claimed Babbitt’s shooting was unwarranted, and he has been critical of Byrd’s actions. Trump said on Truth Social in 2023 that Byrd “was not a hero but a COWARD, who wanted to show how tough he was,” adding, “ASHLI BABBITT WAS MURDERED!!!”

    During his first day in office, Trump pardoned or commuted the sentences of individuals convicted of offenses “related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, to time served as of January 20, 2025.” The pardons he issued on Jan. 20 apply to more than 1,500 people who were convicted or charged, and he commuted the sentences of 14 individuals. 

    In January 2024, Babbitt’s family filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California seeking $30 million over her death, which the government has moved to dismiss.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Meta to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Meta has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Biden, Joseph R., Jr. “Executive Grant of Clemency.” 19 Jan 2025.

    Cooper, Jonathan J. “Who does Trump see as ‘enemies from within’?” Associated Press. 26 Oct 2024.

    Dixon, Matt, Henry J. Gomez and Garrett Hakke. “Trump’s last-minute decision to go big on Jan. 6 pardons took many allies by surprise.” NBC News. 22 Jan 2024.

    Feldman, Brian. “4 Officers Who Responded to Capitol Riot Will Deliver 1st Testimonies to New Panel.” NPR. 27 July 2021.

    Lee, Ella. “Trial in Ashli Babbitt family’s lawsuit over Jan. 6 death set for 2026.” The Hill. 20 Sep 2024.

    Lee, Jazmin. “Trump’s Expansive Jan. 6 Pardons a Last-Minute Decision.” NBC News. 19 Jan 2025.

    “Donald Trump Press Conference Announcement Transcript: Sues Facebook, Twitter, Google Over Censorship Claims.” Rev. 7 Jul 2021.

    Schapiro, Rich, Anna Schecter and Chelsea Damberg. “Officer who shot Ashli Babbitt during Capitol riot breaks silence: ‘I saved countless lives.’” NBC News. 26 Aug 2021.

    Shabad, Rebecca. “Biden issues pre-emptive pardons for Jan. 6 committee and witnesses, Anthony Fauci and Mark Milley.” NBC News. 20 Jan 2025.

    Sonmez, Felicia. “Trump says ‘there was no reason’ for officer to shoot rioter who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6.” Washington Post. 7 Jul 2021.

    Stark, Matt. “Ashli Babbitt’s Mother Files Wrongful Death Lawsuit Over Capitol Shooting.” CBS News. 19 Jan 2025.

    U.S. Capitol Police. “Statement of Steven Sund, Chief of Police, Regarding the Events of January 6, 2021.” Press release. 7 Jan 2021.

    U.S. Capitol Police. “USCP Completes Internal Investigation of January 6 Officer-Involved Shooting.” 23 Aug 2021.

    U.S. Department of Justice. “Department of Justice Closes Investigation into Death of Ashli Babbitt.” United States Attorney’s Office, District of Columbia. 14 Apr 2023.

    U.S. Department of Justice. “Pardons Granted by President Joe Biden (2021-Present).” Office of the Pardon Attorney. Accessed 23 Jan 2025.

    White House. “Granting Pardons and Commutation of Sentences for Certain Offenses Relating to the Events at or Near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.” 20 Jan 2025.

    Wise, Alana. “What You Need To Know About The Officers Testifying Before Jan. 6 Committee.” NPR. 27 Jul 2021.

    The post No Evidence Officer Who Shot Ashli Babbitt Was Pardoned by Biden appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Canada and Mexico Are Helping to Fight California Fires, Contrary to Meme

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    Canada and Mexico have sent firefighting crews to help battle the blazes in the Los Angeles area, and Ukraine also has offered assistance. But social media posts misleadingly claim “$00,000,000” in “foreign aid” has been offered to the U.S. to help with the Southern California disaster.

    Full Story

    Wildfires that began on Jan. 7 continued to burn in Southern California this week, propelled by strong winds and drought-like conditions. As of Jan. 16, the fires have ravaged about 40,000 acres, destroyed more than 12,000 structures and prompted evacuation orders for more than 100,000 people. At least 25 people have died.

    The Palisades Fire, which began as a brush fire in the Pacific Palisades in Los Angeles County on Jan. 7, remains the largest blaze. The Eaton and Hurst Fires in Los Angeles County and the Auto Fire in Ventura County have also caused substantial damage, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

    About 88,000 residents of Los Angeles County were still under evacuation orders as of Jan. 16, as more than 16,000 personnel work to contain the flames and coordinate recovery, according to state officials.

    But social media posts have spread false characterizations of the fire response efforts. One recent meme misleadingly suggested that California has received no assistance from foreign countries.

    The meme circulating on social media depicts firefighters responding to a hillside blaze and says: “$00,000,000,000 THE AMOUNT OF FOREIGN AID FLOWING IN FROM UKRAINE, ISRAEL, EUROPE, MEXICO AND CANADA TO HELP.”

    One Instagram user, whose bio labels the account as “satire,” received more than 9,000 likes for the meme. The post itself isn’t labeled as satire, and the meme has been shared by many other social media users. 

    While other nations have not sent money to assist Southern California, Canada and Mexico have sent firefighting crews to the Los Angeles area, and Ukraine has offered to help fight the fires. 

    Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “offered Canada’s full support to assist California’s firefighting efforts,” according to a Jan. 10 press release from Trudeau’s office. “Fire crews, aircraft, and equipment from Canada, including from British Columbia and Quebec, were some of the first on scene to help battle the fires.”

    Members of the Mexican Army rescue team coordinate efforts in Malibu, California, on Jan. 14, as they assist in the aftermath of wildfires that devastated the region. Photo by David Pashaee/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images.

    On Jan. 11, Trudeau posted a video on X with the caption, “Canadian aerial firefighting aircraft readying for another pass over the Southern California wildfires.” Trudeau announced the deployment of 60 firefighters to California the next day and subsequently confirmed Canadian assistance in the region in posts on X. 

    “Canadian firefighters are on the ground, working shoulder to shoulder with American crews, helping wherever they can,” Trudeau wrote. “More Canadian crews are on the way. We’re proud to help our American friends, and grateful for the first responders working in the toughest of conditions to save homes and keep people safe.”

    The Canadian government said in a press release that it continues to work with provinces and territories to prepare personnel and other resources should California request additional support. 

    Mexico has also mobilized aid to California. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo announced in a news conference on Jan. 10 that the Mexican secretary of foreign affairs had talked with California Gov. Gavin Newsom and President Joe Biden about providing a support team to the region, the Arizona Republic reported.

    Newsom announced that 72 Mexican firefighters and disaster relief workers from the National Forestry Commission and Ministry of Defense landed in Los Angeles on Jan. 11. 

    “We are a generous and supportive country,” Sheinbaum wrote on X of the deployment. “You carry with you the courage and heart of Mexico.”

    According to a press release from Newsom’s office, ​​​​​​the Mexican firefighters will form crews to assist in the fire response. “Emergencies have no borders – we are deeply grateful to our neighbors in Mexico for their unwavering support during one of our greatest times of need,” Newsom said. “Thank you to President Claudia Sheinbaum for lending the best of the best.”

    In a Jan. 12 post on X, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said his country also offered aid to California. “Today, I instructed Ukraine’s Minister of Internal Affairs and our diplomats to prepare for the possible participation of our rescuers in combating the wildfires in California. The situation there is extremely difficult, and Ukrainians can help Americans save lives,” he said.

    “This is currently being coordinated, and we have offered our assistance to the American side through the relevant channels,” Zelenskyy said. “150 of our firefighters are already prepared.”

    The California National Guard was quick to respond to Zelenskyy’s post: “Ukraine’s offer of support to California during these devastating wildfires is nothing short of extraordinary. President Zelenskyy’s leadership and the preparation of 150 Ukrainian firefighters are a testament to the power of global partnerships.”

    We reached out to Newsom’s office to find out whether Ukrainian firefighters were assisting the efforts in Southern California, but we did not receive an answer.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Meta to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Meta has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Stelloh, Tim, et al. “California wildfires: What we know about L.A.-area fires, maps, what caused them, who is affected and more.” NBC News. 14 Jan 2025.

    NBC News. “California wildfire live updates: Los Angeles area on alert as high winds fan flames.” 15 Jan 2025.

    California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. “Current Emergency Incidents.” Accessed 15 Jan 2025.

    Lynch Baldwin, Sarah, et al. “L.A. Fires Live Updates: ‘Particularly dangerous’ winds warning yet again for Southern California.” CBS News. 16 Jan 2025.

    Governor Gavin Newsom. “Governor Newsom mobilizes L.A. debris removal teams to begin work immediately once cleared for safety.” 14 Jan 2025.

    Jaffe, Alan. “Oregon Fire Trucks Fighting L.A. Blazes Didn’t Require ‘Emissions Testing.’” FactCheck.org. 13 Jan 2025.

    Jaramillo, Catalina, et al. “Trump’s Blame Claims About Wildfire Responses.” FactCheck.org. 10 Jan 2025.

    Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau. “Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaks with Governor of California Gavin Newsom.” 10 Jan 2025.

    Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau). “Canadian aerial firefighting aircraft readying for another pass over California fires.” X. 12 Jan 2025.

    Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau). “Canada is deploying 60 firefighters.” X. 12 Jan 2025.

    Government of Canada. “Update on Canada’s response to the wildfires in California.” 14 Jan 2025.

    Government of Canada. “Government of Canada’s response to the wildfires in California.” 10 Jan 2025.

    Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo (@Claudiashein). “En este momento sale el grupo de ayuda humanitaria a Los Ángeles, California.” X. 11 Jan 2025.

    Gobierno de México. “México envía ayuda a Los Ángeles: contingente mexicano llega para combatir incendios en California.” 13 Jan 2025.

    Torres, Miguel. “Canada, Mexico to send firefighting help to Los Angeles. What to know.” Arizona Republic. 10 Jan 2025.

    Governor Gavin Newsom. “Governor Newsom welcomes firefighters from Mexico to boost firefighting capacity.” 11 Jan 2025.

    Governor Newsom (@CAgovernor). “72 firefighters and emergency personnel have arrived from Mexico to help.” X. 11 Jan 2025.

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy (@ZelenskyyUa). “Today, I instructed Ukraine’s Minister of Internal Affairs and our diplomats to prepare.” X. 12 Jan 2025.

    California National Guard. “Ukraine’s offer of support to California during these devastating wildfires is nothing short of extraordinary.” X. 12 Jan 2025.

    The post Canada and Mexico Are Helping to Fight California Fires, Contrary to Meme appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • $770 Payments Are Just One Form of Federal Aid to L.A. Fire Victims

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    President Joe Biden said victims of the California fires are eligible for a $770 payment for necessities like food and fuel. Social media posts misleadingly suggested the payment would be the only federal aid for those affected by the fires. Federal aid available to the fire victims includes help with home repair or replacement, medical expenses and other assistance.

    Full Story

    The wildfires burning in Southern California since Jan. 7 have killed at least 24 people and destroyed thousands of homes and other buildings, displacing about 180,000 people.

    Among the federal assistance programs available to victims of the California wildfires is a $770 emergency payment to cover the cost of immediate necessities like food, fuel and baby formula.

    Those payments are available through the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s new Serious Needs Assistance program, which President Joe Biden referenced during a briefing with federal officials on Jan. 13.

    Later that evening, an X account managed by President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee posted a clip from the briefing and highlighted the portion of Biden’s comments that said, “People impacted by these fires are gonna receive one-time payment of $770. One-time payment.”

    Khaled Fouad and Mimi Laine embrace as they inspect a family member’s property that was destroyed by the Eaton Fire on Jan. 9 in Altadena, California. Photo by Justin Sullivan via Getty Images.

    That clip was reposted by some widely followed conservative accounts that misleadingly compared the emergency payments of $770 for California’s wildfire victims to either millions or billions in U.S. aid for Ukraine. Those posts leave the misleading impression that the emergency payments would be the only aid available to those affected by the fires, implying that U.S. aid to people in another country unfairly outpaced domestic aid. The clip of Biden racked up about 7 million views between two of these posts and the RNC’s alone.

    The suggestive claim that victims of the fires would receive only $770 from the federal government soon migrated to other platforms, where users compared the emergency relief payments to funding for the war in Ukraine and Israel’s war in Gaza.

    But, as we said, the $770 emergency payment is just one of the federal aid programs available to victims in California.

    The emergency payment is available through the Serious Needs Assistance program that was introduced in January 2024.

    “Serious Needs Assistance is a flexible, upfront payment that can be used to pay for emergency supplies like water, food, first aid, breast-feeding supplies, infant formula, diapers, personal hygiene items, or fuel for transportation,” according to a fact sheet published by FEMA in October.

    “This is only one form of assistance the Federal Emergency Management Agency offers,” Jayce Genco, a spokesperson for FEMA, told us in a phone interview. “It’s not the only assistance that folks could be eligible for.”

    Genco provided a list of other programs available to California fire victims, including rental assistance, home repair or replacement, and medical expense assistance.

    And, for those interested in the full context of Biden’s remarks, he first specified that federal agencies would help pay for general costs associated with fighting the fires and addressing their destruction.

    “The federal government is going to cover 100% of the cost, for the next 180 days, for things like firefighter overtime pay, debris removal, temporary shelters,” he said. “It’s going to cost tens of billions of dollars to get Los Angeles back to where it was, so we’re going to need Congress to step up to provide funding.”

    The president then mentioned the emergency program available to individuals who are affected.

    “I want to be clear — we’re not waiting until those fires are over to start helping the victims. We’re getting them help right now, as you all know,” he said. “People impacted by these fires are going to receive a one-time payment of $770 — one-time payment — so they can quickly purchase things like water, baby formula and prescriptions. So far, nearly 6,000 survivors have registered to do just that and $5.1 million has gone out.”

    This isn’t the first time that political influencers have suggested that the federal government was providing only one form of assistance to disaster victims. We wrote about similar claims that circulated in October following the devastation from Hurricane Helene. The claims aren’t correct this time around either.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Meta to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Meta has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Los Angeles Times. Fires. Accessed 14 Jan 2025.

    Federal Emergency Management Agency. Press release. “Biden-Harris Administration Reforms Disaster Assistance Program to Help Survivors Recover Faster.” 19 Jan 2024.

    Federal Emergency Management Agency. Fact sheet. Serious Needs Assistance. Oct 2024.

    C-SPAN. “President Biden Hosts Briefing on California Wildfires.” 13 Jan 2025.

    Genco, Jayce. Spokesman, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Telephone interview with FactCheck.org. 14 Jan 2025.

    Federal Emergency Management Agency. Fact sheet. FEMA Individual Assistance (California, 2025). Accessed 14 Jan 2025.

    Keefe, Eliza. “Posts Misrepresent Federal Response, Funding for Hurricane Helene Victims.” FactCheck.org. 8 Oct 2024.

    The post $770 Payments Are Just One Form of Federal Aid to L.A. Fire Victims appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Oregon Fire Trucks Fighting L.A. Blazes Didn’t Require ‘Emissions Testing’

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    Oregon has sent hundreds of firefighters, 75 fire engines and other equipment to help battle the blazes in Southern California. But social media posts falsely claim Oregon’s firefighting vehicles were “being held in Sacramento for emissions testing.” California and Oregon officials said the trucks only go through quick safety inspections.

    Full Story

    The wildfires raging since last week in the Los Angeles area have killed at least 24 people, consumed over 62 square miles, destroyed thousands of homes and displaced more than 150,000 people. The National Weather Service predicted severe wind gusts again this week in Los Angeles and Ventura counties that could intensify and spread the fires, the Los Angeles Times reported.

    To assist its neighbor, the Oregon State Fire Marshal has sent 370 firefighters, 75 fire engines, 30 water tenders that carry water to a fire line and other equipment to Southern California.

    But social media posts have spread the false claim that California has delayed the deployment of Oregon’s equipment in order to inspect the trucks’ emissions and ensure they meet state environmental requirements.

    Conservative activist Dinesh D’Souza, who has previously spread election misinformation, posted on X on Jan. 11 claiming, “Oregon sent 60 fire trucks to California to help with the fires, but they’re being held in Sacramento for emissions testing. You can’t make this up! What is going on?!” The post, which included a video of a man attributing that information to a publication called the Santa Monica Observer, received more than 1.3 million views as of Jan. 13, according to the platform.

    The Santa Monica Observer, which has posted false news and dubious information in the past, according to the Los Angeles Times, wrote that its “original story was based on a tweet that has since been deleted” and said that it “can verify that there are fire fighters and vehicles from all over the Western US, fighting fires on the Westside now.”

    A Jan. 12 Threads post also claimed, “The state of Oregon sent 60 fire trucks to California to assist with the wild fires. However they have not arrived. Why? All 60 fire trucks were stopped in Sacramento because (get this) they [didn’t] have a California Smog Emission test. So they are all currently in Sacramento, awaiting a smog test and have not gotten it yet. California is dead serious.”

    A factsheet compiled by the office of California Gov. Gavin Newsom to address misinformation about the fires said D’Souza’s claim is wrong. The factsheet says, “out-of-state fire trucks take part in 15 minute safety & equipment inspection to ensure no issues with the vehicle. At the time of the original post, the Oregon firefighting teams were already in the Los Angeles area battling the blazes.”

    In addition, Newsom said in a Jan. 11 post on X, “Oregon has courageously sent CA some of their best firefighters and equipment — all have been here for days fighting these blazes. To say otherwise is not only incorrect, it’s offensive to the brave men and women who are fighting on the frontlines right now.”

    The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or CAL Fire, posted a video on Jan. 11 showing the safety inspection process for out-of-state vehicles assisting in the firefighting efforts.

    Salem, Oregon Engine 15 helps extinguish an attic fire in Southern California on Jan. 10. Photo courtesy of Oregon State Fire Marshal.

    In an email to FactCheck.org, Kassie Keller, a spokesperson for the Oregon State Fire Marshal, also said the social media claim “is not true; no emissions testing took place.”

    Keller directed us to a Jan. 12 statement on Facebook issued by the Oregon fire marshal, which said, in part: “We want to clear up confusion about our Oregon firefighters and equipment sent to California to help with the wildfires. There is misinformation spreading on social media and from some news outlets claiming our equipment had to pass emissions tests and our equipment and firefighters were turned away or delayed. TO BE CLEAR: THIS IS FALSE.

    “Our firefighters left Oregon mid-morning on Wednesday (1/8) from various locations in the state. These strike teams traveled to Sacramento where they stayed the night. On Thursday (1/9) at 6 a.m., they went through a routine safety check with CAL Fire to make sure the engines were mechanically sound. CAL Fire posted on their social media channels detailing the process.

    “Our strike teams were scheduled to arrive in Southern California on Thursday. There was no delay in the process or travel. Our equipment is held to the highest safety standard to ensure the safety of our firefighters. This equipment also does not regularly travel hundreds of miles at a time. Firefighter safety is our number one priority.

    “No engine was turned away. They all completed the safety check, and all 15 strike teams arrived in Southern California on Thursday and began their 24-hour shift early Friday morning,” the Oregon fire marshal’s statement said.

    The state of California has some of the strictest vehicle emissions requirements in the U.S., according to the Kelley Blue Book. But the state has not required the Oregon fire equipment to undergo smog tests before assisting in the battle against the Los Angeles area wildfires, as some social media posts have claimed.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Meta to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Meta has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    “California Fire Facts.” Gavinnewsom.com. Accessed 13 Jan 2025.

    Harter, Clara, et al. “Weather services issues its most severe fire warning for parts of L.A. area as winds pick up.” Los Angeles Times. 13 Jan 2025.

    Keller, Kassie. Public affairs director, Oregon State Fire Marshal. Email to FactCheck.org. 13 Jan 2025.

    Oregon State Fire Marshal. “Clearing Up Misinformation.” 12 Jan 2025.

    Oregon State Fire Marshal. “Oregon State Fire Marshal sending additional support to California.” 11 Jan 2025.

    Weber, Christopher and Holly Ramer. “24 dead as fire crews try to corral Los Angeles blazes before winds return this week.” Associated Press. 13 Jan 2025.

    The post Oregon Fire Trucks Fighting L.A. Blazes Didn’t Require ‘Emissions Testing’ appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Republicans Wrongly Tie New Orleans Attack to Illegal Immigration; Suspect Was a Citizen

    Federal law enforcement officials have identified an Army veteran, who was born in the United States, as the sole person responsible for the Jan. 1 terrorist attack in New Orleans that killed 14 people and injured many more. But some Republican politicians and social media posts have wrongly claimed or suggested that the attack was the result of illegal immigration.

    An inaccurate report the morning of Jan. 1 from Fox News led some, including President-elect Donald Trump, to suggest a link to immigration at the border between the U.S. and Mexico. Even after Fox News had corrected its report, Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson continued to make statements suggesting an unsupported connection between the attack and illegal immigration.

    In this article, we provide information currently known about the alleged attacker, and we cover what some Republicans have said about the attack.

    What We Know About the Suspect

    Authorities identified Shamsud-Din Jabbar, 42, of Texas, as the man who drove a Ford F-150 pickup truck into a crowd of New Year’s revelers on Bourbon Street in New Orleans shortly after 3 a.m. Central time on Jan. 1. Fourteen people were killed and more than 35 were injured, according to the FBI, which classified the incident as an act of terrorism.

    Members of the National Guard monitor a blocked off section of the French Quarter, after authorities said Shamsud-Din Jabbar killed 14 people during an attack early in the morning on Jan. 1 in New Orleans. Photo by Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images.

    Jabbar shot at police and was pronounced dead at the scene, according to the FBI.

    Jabbar was born in Texas, the FBI said. According to the Beaumont Enterprise, which interviewed family and high school classmates, he grew up in Beaumont, a small city near the Louisiana state line.

    He joined the U.S. Army in 2007 and worked in human resources and information technology until 2015 when he joined the Army Reserve as an IT specialist, a spokesperson for the U.S. Army told FactCheck.org in a statement. He served in Afghanistan for about a year in 2009.

    Jabbar had three marriages that each ended in divorce, according to research from ABC News, and he recently had been living in the Houston area.

    In videos that Jabbar posted online in the hours before the attack, he said he had joined the Islamic State group before this summer, FBI Deputy Assistant Director Christopher Raia said at a Jan. 2 press conference.

    On Dec. 30, Jabbar picked up an F-150 pickup truck in Houston that he had rented through the car-sharing app Turo and then drove to New Orleans on the evening of Dec. 31, Raia said.

    Jabbar posted five videos to his Facebook account shortly before the attack, and he explained in one of them that “he originally planned to harm his family and friends, but was concerned the news headlines would not focus on the ‘war between the believers and the disbelievers,’” Raia said.

    Investigators also found an ISIS flag in the truck, and they initially considered that others may have been involved in the attack. The investigation, however, concluded that Jabbar acted alone, Raia said.

    “We’ve had 24 hours now to go through media, to go through phones, to interview people, to analyze those videos, analyze other databases, and after all of that … we’re confident, at this point, that there’s no accomplices,” he said.

    False Connection to Illegal Immigration

    But federal authorities did not confirm that Jabbar was a U.S. citizen until after some inaccurate reporting from Fox News suggested that the attack may have been committed by someone in the country illegally.

    Initially, a Fox News anchor, citing two of the network’s national correspondents, wrongly said that the suspect “came through Eagle Pass, Texas, two days ago.” Eagle Pass is on the border with Mexico. However, minutes later, one of the reporters the anchor mentioned in the segment, David Spunt, clarified that it was not clear that the suspect was the person driving the truck when it crossed into the U.S. from Mexico.

    “To be clear, we don’t 100% know that this man … was the person driving that crossed the border. That is unclear at this point,” Spunt said. “We just know that the actual license plate was picked up by a reader at a border crossing. This is per two federal law enforcement sources to Fox News.” Spunt added that “the other thing that’s not entirely clear right now is the status, the immigration status of this driver.”

    But Spunt incorrectly reported that the vehicle had entered the U.S. “two days” before the attack.

    Despite Spunt’s caveats about the identity of the driver, the reporting led some Republican politicians to falsely claim or suggest that the attack was related to illegal immigration at the southern border.

    Soon after the Fox News report, Trump posted on Truth Social: “When I said that the criminals coming in are far worse than the criminals we have in our country, that statement was constantly refuted by Democrats and the Fake News Media, but it turned out to be true. The crime rate in our country is at a level that nobody has ever seen before. Our hearts are with all of the innocent victims and their loved ones, including the brave officers of the New Orleans Police Department. The Trump Administration will fully support the City of New Orleans as they investigate and recover from this act of pure evil!” (Note: The U.S. violent crime rate isn’t at its highest level; it’s less than half the rates in the early 1990s.)

    In addition, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who posted a 38-second clip from the Fox News report, wrote on X: “New Orleans terrorist attacker is said to have come across the border in Eagle Pass TWO DAYS AGO!!! Shut the border down!!! Who did our government bomb lately that is taking it out on innocent Americans?”

    In a post prior to that one, Greene wrote: “Terrorist attack in NOLA similar to the one in the German Christmas market. What did we expect would happen with wide open borders and millions of gotaways?”

    More than an hour after the first Fox News report, Spunt updated his earlier reporting, adding that the truck the suspect was driving did enter the U.S. through Eagle Pass – but it was about two months ago, in November, not “two days ago.” He also said that he was told by his federal sources that the suspect “was not the person driving the truck” at the time.

    “The truck did change some hands, so they’re working on the provenance of that truck and how it got to New Orleans,” he said.

    But after Fox News corrected its earlier report, Trump and others continued to suggest a connection between the attack and illegal immigration.

    In a Jan. 2 Truth Social post, Trump wrote: “With the Biden ‘Open Border’s Policy’ I said, many times during Rallies, and elsewhere, that Radical Islamic Terrorism, and other forms of violent crime, will become so bad in America that it will become hard to even imagine or believe. That time has come, only worse than ever imagined.”

    In addition, on Jan. 2, House Speaker Mike Johnson, in two media appearances, wrongly linked the terrorist attack to President Joe Biden’s immigration policies.

    “I don’t know if enough attention is being paid to this, but we all know that for the last four years, the Biden administration has been completely derelict in its duty,” Johnson said on “Fox & Friends” while discussing the attack. “The congressional Republicans, we here in the House and the Senate, have repeatedly asked the [Department of Homeland Security] under the Biden administration about the correlation, the obvious concern about terrorism and the wide open border. The idea that dangerous people were coming here in droves and setting up potentially terrorist cells around the country, we have been ringing the alarms. We impeached DHS Secretary Mayorkas in the House over that very issue and others related to it. So, this is a big concern.”

    Later, on Fox Business, when host Larry Kudlow asked for Johnson’s thoughts on the attack, Johnson said that the Biden administration had “tried to convince us that the greatest threat to the homeland was racially motivated extremism, when we all looked at the wide open border and thought logically that that might lead to terrorist attacks in the future.”

    We asked Johnson’s office why he has continued to suggest that the attack was connected to illegal immigration, but we have not received a response.

    We posed the same question to Trump’s transition team, and we were sent the following statement from his communications director, Steven Cheung: “President Trump rightfully highlighted that criminals crossing the border have committed some of the most heinous crimes this country has witnessed in its history. That is a factual statement, and it is a big reason why Americans overwhelmingly voted for him and gave him a massive mandate. It is also true that radical Islamic terrorism and its warped ideology have crossed into our country and infected those looking to spread hate and violence.”

    However, there is no indication that illegal immigration played a role in the Jan. 1 attack. As we said, the sole person accused of committing that crime was born in the U.S.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. 

    The post Republicans Wrongly Tie New Orleans Attack to Illegal Immigration; Suspect Was a Citizen appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Gun Charges Against Hunter Biden Didn’t Come from 1994 Crime Bill

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter Biden from serving time for gun- and tax-related crimes. But contrary to claims on social media, Hunter Biden’s gun charges did not stem from a 1994 “crime bill authored” by then-Sen. Joe Biden.

    Full Story

    President Joe Biden kept his son Hunter Biden from serving time for gun- and tax-related charges and other offenses “which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024,” when he issued a pardon on Dec. 1.

    The pardon — which was a reversal of the president’s previous commitment not to offer his son clemency — sparked condemnation and some misleading claims online.

    For example, Kim Klacik, a conservative commentator who ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 2020 and 2024, posted on X and Instagram, “In 1994, a crime bill authored by @JoeBiden locked Black men up for years for the same gun charge he just pardoned Hunter Biden for today.”

    Another post on Facebook similarly said, “In 1994, a Crime Bill authored by Joe Biden passed Congress becoming a law that locked up 10’s of thousands of Black Men for years for the same crime he just PARDONED HUNTER BIDEN FOR!”

    But Hunter Biden’s gun charges didn’t stem from the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Rather, he was charged and convicted under the Gun Control Act of 1968, Andrew Willinger, executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law, told FactCheck.org in an interview.

    Biden, who was the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman at the time, played a key role in the drafting and passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. That law “increased mandatory minimum sentences for a number of criminal offenses, including some involving the use of firearms, and instituted a federal assault weapons ban,” Willinger said. “I’m not aware that it made any changes to the sentencing minimums or guidelines for Hunter Biden’s offenses of conviction.”

    Hunter Biden hadn’t yet received a sentence for his gun-related convictions when the pardon was issued. Sentencing had been scheduled for Dec. 12. He faced up to 25 years in prison for the gun charges, according to the New York Times, although adding that he would likely “serve, at most, a small fraction of that time.”

    In June, a federal jury in Delaware convicted Hunter Biden of three felony counts related to lying about using drugs on a form to purchase a gun.

    He had been charged under sections 922, which lays out criminal acts related to gun possession, and 924, which lays out associated penalties, of Title 18 of the United States Code. Each was enacted in 1968, following the passage of the Gun Control Act.

    “Generally, these charges are quite rare,” Willinger said. He noted that the primary charge for Hunter Biden was made under section 922(g)(3), which prohibits those who are addicted to drugs from possessing a gun, and is particularly rare.

    According to a 2022 report from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, in fiscal year 2021 there were 6,549 people who were sentenced for convictions under section 922(g) and only 5.3% of them, or less than 350 people, had been convicted under the drug addiction subsection, 922(g)(3).

    It’s usually difficult for prosecutors to prove that a person has been using or is addicted to drugs, unless they have prior convictions or admitted their drug use to police, Willinger said, explaining why the convictions are rare.

    So, the lead charge that Hunter Biden was convicted of is rarely pursued and did not come from the 1994 crime bill that his father shepherded into law.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Meta to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Meta has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Farley, Robert. “What Biden Left Out of Pardon Statement.” FactCheck.org. 6 Dec 2024.

    White House. Press release. “Statement from President Joe Biden.” 1 Dec 2024.

    U.S. Congress. H.R.3355 – Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. As adopted 13 Sep 1994.

    Public Law 90-618. Gun Control Act of 1968. 22 Oct 1968.

    Robertson, Lori. “Biden on the 1994 Crime Bill.” FactCheck.org. 12 July 2019.

    Norwood, Candice and Mariel Padilla. “The complicated legacy of the 1994 crime bill.” The 19th. 16 Sep 2024.

    Willinger, Andrew. Executive director, Duke Center for Firearms Law. Interview with FactCheck.org. 6 Dec 2024.

    U.S. v. Robert Hunter Biden. Case no. 1:23-cr-00061. Jury verdict. U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. 11 Jun 2024.

    U.S. v. Robert Hunter Biden. Case no. 1:23-cr-00061. Indictment. U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. 14 Sep 2023.

    18 USC 922: Unlawful acts. uscode.house.gov. Accessed 10 Dec 2014.

    18 USC 924: Penalties. uscode.house.gov. Accessed 10 Dec 2014.

    United States Sentencing Commission. “What Do Federal Firearms Offenses Really Look Like?” Jul 2022.

    The post Gun Charges Against Hunter Biden Didn’t Come from 1994 Crime Bill appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Posts Wrongly Conflate U.S.-China Prisoner Swap with Biden’s Recent Pardons

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    President Joe Biden granted pardons and commutations to more than 1,500 individuals on Dec. 12. Social media posts wrongly claim those pardoned included a Chinese national, Shanlin Jin, imprisoned for child pornography. Jin was granted clemency as part of a prisoner swap last month that freed three Americans held for years in China.

    Full Story

    On Dec. 12, President Joe Biden granted 39 pardons and 1,499 commutations, less than two weeks after granting his son Hunter “a full and unconditional pardon” for any crimes “he has committed or may have committed” from Jan. 1, 2014, through Dec. 1, 2024.

    Hunter Biden’s pardon dealt with three felonies related to his purchase and possession of a gun in 2018 as an active drug user, and lying about his drug use on a federal form necessary to purchase the gun. The sentencing for the case was scheduled for Dec. 12. The president’s son also pleaded guilty in September in federal court to nine tax-related charges, including three felonies and six misdemeanors, and faced sentencing in that case on Dec. 16.

    Separately, the White House said the Dec. 12 act of clemency was for people “who were placed on home confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic and who have successfully reintegrated into their families and communities. He [Biden] is also pardoning 39 individuals who were convicted of non-violent crimes. These actions represent the largest single-day grant of clemency in modern history.”

    But as social media users responded to Biden’s flurry of clemency actions that day, some have misrepresented one unrelated clemency issued last month. A Dec. 12 Instagram post from conservative commentator Benny Johnson said, “BREAKING: Joe Biden pardoned 39 people today including Chinese spies and an individual convicted of possessing child p*rnography. Oh, and the White House says they were individuals convicted of ‘non-violent’ crimes.”

    A similar post on Instagram on Dec. 12 said, in part, “BREAKING NEWS Joe Biden just provided a Chinese national with clemency who was convicted of having 47,000 child p*rnography images in his possession. Shanlin Jin was sentenced to 97 months in prison after pleading guilty.”

    But Jin’s clemency was not part of the pardons issued by Biden on Dec. 12, and his name does not appear on the list of clemency recipients announced that day.

    Rather, Jin had been part of a widely reported prisoner swap with China that was announced by the U.S. on Nov. 27. In exchange for Jin and two other Chinese nationals, three Americans — John Leung, Kai Li and Mark Swidan — were released to the U.S. following months of diplomatic efforts, the New York Times reported. Leung had been imprisoned in China for three years, Li for eight years, and Swidan for more than 10 years.

    The social media posts make no mention of the prisoner swap, leaving unanswered why Biden gave clemency to Jin.

    The Financial Times identified Jin in a Nov. 29 article as one of the Chinese nationals released by the U.S. in the prisoner exchange. Jin had been a doctoral student at Southern Methodist University in Texas, and was sentenced in 2022 for possessing child pornography, the Dallas Morning News reported.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Meta to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Meta has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Bruggeman, Lucien. “Hunter Biden’s sentencing on gun charges pushed back 1 more week.” ABC News. 26 Sep 2024.

    Chase, Randall, et al. “President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, is convicted of all 3 felonies in federal gun trial.” Associated Press. 11 Jun 2024.

    Executive Grant of Clemency. Shanlin Jin. 22 Nov 2024.

    Goldman, Adam, et al. “3 Americans, Including F.B.I. Informant, Are Freed in Prisoner Swap With China.” New York Times. 27 Nov 2024.

    Hansler, Jennifer. “US secures release of 3 Americans in prisoner swap with China.” CNN. 27 Nov 2024.

    Krause, Kevin. “Doctoral student connected to Chinese Communist Party gets 8 years for child porn.” Dallas Morning News. 14 Jul 2022.

    McMorrow, Ryan. “China hails US release of citizen convicted over child pornography.” Financial Times. 28 Nov 2024.

    U.S. Department of Justice. “Robert Hunter Biden Convicted on Three Felony Tax Offenses and Six Misdemeanor Tax Offenses.” 6 Sep 2024.

    White House. “Clemency Recipient List.” 12 Dec 2024.

    White House. “FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces Clemency for Nearly 1,500 Americans.” 12 Dec 2024.

    White House. “Statement from Joe Biden.” 1 Dec 2024.

    Williams, Abigail, et al. “3 Americans detained in China are released.” NBC News. 27 Nov 2024.

    The post Posts Wrongly Conflate U.S.-China Prisoner Swap with Biden’s Recent Pardons appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Fox News Commentator Had Aggressive Cancer Before COVID-19 Vaccines Were Available

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    SciCheck Digest

    Fox News health commentator Dr. Kelly Powers was diagnosed with glioblastoma, an aggressive form of brain cancer, in July 2020, months before COVID-19 vaccines were made available in the U.S. But social media posts are baselessly linking her death on Dec. 4 to the vaccines. There is no evidence that the vaccines cause or worsen cancer.

    Full Story

    Studies have shown that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna are very effective in preventing severe cases of the disease and death, saving millions of lives across the world. 

    Clinical trials involving thousands of people, numerous studies and close monitoring of hundreds of millions of doses have found the vaccines to be safe. As we’ve written, serious side effects are rare. 

    Despite the evidence, a growing number of people have become skeptical of the effectiveness of the vaccines and believe false conspiracy theories that they are killing large numbers of people.

    There is no evidence supporting a link between the COVID-19 vaccine and cancer, as we’ve reported. Both the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society have said there’s no information suggesting the vaccines cause cancer, make it more aggressive, or lead to a recurrence of cancer. 

    But vaccine opponents have tried to make that connection, claiming vaccines can cause a particularly fast-growing cancer, coining the term “turbo cancer” to describe the supposed phenomenon. It is not backed by evidence, as we’ve reported. 

    After Dr. Kelly Powers died on Dec. 4 at age 45, posts on Facebook and Instagram baselessly suggested her cancer was caused or worsened by the COVID-19 vaccine. Powers, a podiatric surgeon and health commentator for Fox News and Fox Business, was diagnosed with glioblastoma, an aggressive form of brain cancer, in July 2020, months before the vaccines were first distributed in the U.S. in December 2020.

    Posts on Facebook and Instagram included a screenshot of a headline from a Dec. 4 article by the People’s Voice, a website that often publishes vaccine misinformation. The headline read: “Fully Vaccinated Fox News Doctor Kelly Powers, Who Survived On-Air Heart Attack, Dies From Turbo Cancer.”

    A Dec. 4 Instagram post, which shared a screenshot of the headline, wrote: “But probably not related, right?”

    Another Facebook post shared a screenshot of a different article from the People’s Voice, headlined: “Scientists Warn Turbo Cancer That Killed Kelly Powers Will Soon ‘Spread Like Wildfire’ Among General Population.”

    “Terrible: Scientists have predicted that the vaccinated population will soon see a sharp rise in turbo cancer diagnoses in the next few years,” the post read. “Experts are worried there will be more cases like Dr Powers in the coming decades because glioblastomas are on the rise among all age groups. Diagnoses are expected to rise by up to 75 percent by 2050.”

    No Evidence Supporting Link to Cancer

    While COVID-19 vaccines can cause minor and short-lived side effects, such as fatigue and soreness at the injection site, there is no evidence that the vaccines cause cancer or worsen cancer in people who already have it.

    Vaccine opponents point to some studies they claim show such a link. For instance, social media posts, including an April 16 Facebook post by America’s Frontline Doctors, a group that has repeatedly spread misinformation about the pandemic, has highlighted a review article published in the International Journal of Biological Macromolecules to claim that “COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could aid cancer development.”

    But the review paper, as we’ve written, was based on other published articles and did not contain original research. Experts told us that the review misinterpreted several studies about the role of a particular mRNA modification used in the mRNA vaccines. There is no evidence the modification increases cancer growth.

    Posts in 2023 made similar false claims, citing a study that they said “proves Pfizer mRNA induced turbo cancer.” The posts claimed that a mouse in the study “died suddenly,” echoing incorrect beliefs that large groups of people have died from the vaccine.

    However, one of the co-authors of the study in question told us their case report had been misinterpreted. The 2023 study, published in Frontiers in Oncology, described a single mouse that died from lymphoma out of 14 mice that were given a high-dose Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine injected directly into a vein. That’s not the method used to give vaccines to people, and the study did not actually show the mouse’s blood cancer was related to the vaccine.

    The authors later published an addendum to their paper noting that after injecting more than 70 mice, they only ever observed the one mouse with any kind of blood cancer. They also emphasized that as a case report, their study did not establish a causal link between vaccination and cancer nor did it in any way change the vaccine’s “overwhelming benefit-risk profile.” They added that they wished to “unequivocally disassociate” themselves from the made-up term of “turbo cancer.”

    Glioblastoma Is Inherently Aggressive

    The type of brain cancer that Powers had is rare and difficult to treat, and there is little known about what causes it, as we’ve reported. Glioblastoma is a stage 4 brain cancer and is inherently aggressive. As the Glioblastoma Foundation explains, it’s an invasive and fast-growing cancer with a poor prognosis. With treatment, the median survival is about 15 months, according to the foundation, although women and younger patients typically live longer.

    A GoFundMe fundraiser for Powers created in June notes that she was diagnosed “with one of the deadliest forms of brain cancer” and explains that her cancer returned this year after “three brain surgeries, multiple rounds of radiation, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy.”

    COVID-19 vaccination is especially important for people with cancer. “Some people with cancer are at increased risk of serious illness if they get COVID-19, because their immune systems have been weakened by the cancer and/or its treatments,” the American Cancer Society explains on its website. Vaccination is one of the most important ways of reducing a person’s risk.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Meta to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Meta has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “COVID-19 Vaccines.” 11 Oct 2024.

    World Health Organization. Press release. “COVID-19 vaccinations have saved more than 1.4 million lives in the WHO European Region, a new study finds.” 16 Jan 2024.

    Van Beusekom, Mary. “Global COVID vaccination saved 2.4 million lives in first 8 months, study estimates.” CIDRAP. University of Minnesota. 31 Oct 2023. 

    Trang, Brittany. “Covid vaccines averted 3 million deaths in U.S., according to new study.” Stat. 13 Dec 2022. 

    Watson, Oliver J., et al. “Global impact of the first year of COVID-19 vaccination: a mathematical modelling study.” Infectious Diseases. 23 Jun 2022.

    CDC. “Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines.” Updated 30 Oct 2024.

    Jaramillo, Catalina. “Still No Evidence COVID-19 Vaccination Increases Cancer Risk, Despite Posts.” FactCheck.org. 3 May 2024. 

    Van Beusekomm, Mary. “Survey reveals growing American distrust in vaccines for COVID, other infectious diseases.” Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. University of Minnesota. 29 Aug 2024. 

    Yandell, Kate. “No Evidence Excess Deaths Linked to Vaccines, Contrary to Claims Online.” FactCheck.org. 17 Apr 2023.

    McDonald, Jessica. “As Trump Taps RFK Jr. for Health Secretary, a Look Back at Kennedy’s Claims.” FactCheck.org. 22 Nov 2024.  

    Yandell, Kate. “COVID-19 Vaccines Have Not Been Shown to Alter DNA, Cause Cancer.” FactCheck.org. 26 Oct 2023.  

    National Cancer Institute. “COVID-19 Vaccines and People with Cancer.” NIH. Accessed 9 Oct 2024.

    American Cancer Society. “COVID-19 Vaccines in People with Cancer.” Accessed 9 Oct 2024.

    Yandell, Kate. “COVID-19 Vaccines Have Not Been Shown to Cause ‘Turbo Cancer’.” FactCheck.org. 31 Aug 2023. 

    Ruberg, Sara. “Kelly Powers, 45, Dies; Fox Health Commentator Told of Her Cancer.” New York Times. 4 Dec 2024. 

    FactCheck.org. “How safe are the COVID-19 vaccines?” Updated 17 May 2022. 

    Jaramillo, Catalina. “Autopsy Study Doesn’t Show COVID-19 Vaccines Are Unsafe.” FactCheck.org. 21 Dec 2022. 

    Eens, Sander, et al. “B-Cell Lymphoblastic Lymphoma Following Intravenous BNT162b2 mRNA Booster in a BALB/c Mouse: A Case Report.” Frontiers in Oncology. 1 May 2023.

    Eens, Sander, et al. “Addendum: B-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma following intravenous BNT162b2 mRNA booster in a BALB/c mouse: a case report.” Frontiers in Oncology. 20 Oct 2023.

    Glioblastoma Foundation. “Information about Glioblastoma.” Accessed 11 Dec 2024.

    Glioblastoma Foundation. “Overview.” Accessed 11 Dec 2024.

    Glioblastoma Foundation. “What is the Prognosis of Glioblastoma?” Accessed 11 Dec 2024.

    American Cancer Society. “Questions About COVID-19 and Cancer.” Accessed 11 Dec 2024.

    The post Fox News Commentator Had Aggressive Cancer Before COVID-19 Vaccines Were Available appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Posts Falsely Question Citizenship of Trump’s Children Under His Birthright Plan

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    President-elect Donald Trump has renewed his call to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. whose parents are not in the country legally. Online posts falsely claim this would strip four of Trump’s children of citizenship because of their mothers’ citizenship status when they were born.

    Full Story

    President-elect Donald Trump revived talk of abolishing birthright citizenship during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Dec. 8, saying he was “absolutely” going to end the policy. Trump also raised the issue in his first presidential campaign in 2016, but he never followed through with a promised executive order to challenge the longstanding  interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.”

    Host Kristen Welker asked Trump whether he still planned to end birthright citizenship through “an executive action” that reinterprets the 14th Amendment — as he promised in a 2023 campaign video — rather than through a constitutional amendment, as most legal scholars believe it would require.

    “Well, we’re going to have to get it changed,” Trump said. “We’ll maybe have to go back to the people. But we have to end it.”

    Recent social media posts wrongly claim that if Trump is successful, four of his own children would not be U.S. citizens.

    “Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship would mean 4 of his children wouldn’t be considered US citizens,” a Dec. 9 Threads post says. The post shows photos of the four adult children and the years they were born: Don Jr. in 1977, Ivanka in 1981, Eric in 1984, and Barron in 2006.

    The post notes that Trump’s first wife, Ivana Trump, who was born in Czechoslovakia, became a U.S. citizen in 1988 after the birth of the three older children, and Melania Trump, who was born in Slovenia, obtained her U.S. citizenship in 2006, after Barron’s birth.

    However, Robert Scott, an immigration attorney based in New York, told us in an email, “There’s really no sound argument that any of Donald’s children are not U.S. citizens.”

    The 14th Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.” The amendment, enacted during Reconstruction, was designed to guarantee civil and legal rights to formerly enslaved individuals. The Supreme Court has since clarified that birthright citizenship applies to anyone born on U.S. soil, with limited exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats.

    We’ve previously addressed claims about Barron Trump’s citizenship. “Since Barron Trump was born in the U.S., and neither of his parents is/was a diplomat with diplomatic immunity when he was born, he is unquestionably a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment,” Scott said.

    The same principle applies to Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric, Scott said.

    On his campaign website in 2023, Trump said his executive order would direct federal agencies to “require that at least one parent be a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident for their future children to become automatic U.S. citizens.”

    In the case of each child, their father, Donald Trump, was a U.S. citizen at the time of their birth.

    Scott noted that different rules apply to children born outside the United States, because being a father who is a U.S. citizen does not always automatically confer citizenship on a child born overseas. “Had Ivana and Donald had a child overseas (after 1971), while NOT married to each other, then that child would not necessarily be a U.S. citizen despite Donald’s U.S. citizenship,” he said.

    This is irrelevant for Trump’s children, as all were born in New York while their parents were married.

    Scott explained that even if Barron had been born outside the U.S., he would still qualify as a U.S. citizen at birth under section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. That law sets the citizenship requirements for those born abroad: at least one parent must be a U.S. citizen and must have lived in the United States for at least five years prior to the child’s birth abroad, including two years after the parent turned 14 years old. This condition would have been satisfied by Donald Trump.

    Ivana Trump became a U.S. citizen in 1988, after the births of her three children with Donald Trump, who was a U.S. citizen born in New York. Melania Trump, who became a U.S. citizen in 2006 after Barron’s birth, also had no bearing on Barron’s automatic citizenship, as Trump’s status as a citizen sufficed under the law.

    During the “Meet the Press” interview, Trump falsely claimed that the U.S. is “the only country” that has birthright citizenship. In fact, at least three dozen countries provide automatic citizenship to people born on their soil, including Canada and Mexico.

    Trump has said he might try to change the law through an executive order. Constitutional law experts have said such an approach would face significant legal hurdles, as we’ve written.

    “Revoking birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment,” Berta Hernández-Truyol, a law professor at the University of Florida, told us in an email. “The 14th Amendment provides an express textual guarantee, and neither the president nor Congress can unilaterally change that.”

    As we said, in the NBC News interview Trump acknowledged, “We’ll maybe have to go back to the people.”

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Meta to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Meta has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Farley, Robert. “Trump’s Dubious Promise to End Birthright Citizenship.” FactCheck.org. 2 Jun 2023.

    National Archives. “14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868).“

    Donald Trump. “Agenda47: Day One Executive Order Ending Citizenship for Children of Illegals and Outlawing Birth Tourism.” donaldjtrump.com. 30 May 2023.

    FBI Records: The Vault. Ivana Trump. Accessed 9 Dec 2024.

    IMDb. “Barron Trump: Biography.” Accessed 10 Dec 2024.

    IMDb. “Donald Trump Jr.: Biography.” Accessed 10 Dec 2024.

    IMDb. “Eric Trump: Biography.” Accessed 10 Dec 2024.

    IMDb. “Ivanka Trump: Biography.” Accessed 10 Dec 2024.

    Kiely, Eugene, Robert Farley, D’Angelo Gore, Lori Robertson and Jessica McDonald. “FactChecking Trump’s ‘Meet the Press’ Interview.” 9 Dec 2024.

    Scott, Robert. Immigration attorney, New York. Emails to FactCheck.org. 20 Nov 2024 and 9 Dec 2024.

    Berta Esperanza Hernández-Truyol. Law professor, University of Florida. Email to FactCheck.org. 20 Nov 2024.

    U.S. Department of State. Bureau of Consular Affairs. “Obtaining U.S. Citizenship for a Child Born Abroad.” Accessed 10 Dec 2024.

    Drabold, Will. “Watch Melania Trump’s Speech at the Republican Convention.” Time. 18 Jul 2016.

    Johnson, Jenna. “Here are 76 of Donald Trump’s many campaign promises.” Washington Post. 22 Jan 2016.

    Central Intelligence Agency. The World Factbook: Citizenship. Accessed 10 Dec 2024.

    Library of Congress. “United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)” Accessed 11 Dec 2024.

    The post Posts Falsely Question Citizenship of Trump’s Children Under His Birthright Plan appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Bush, Carter Didn’t Pardon Relatives, Contrary to Posts

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    President Joe Biden is one of only a few presidents who have granted pardons to a relative. But social media posts falsely claim that former Presidents Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush also pardoned family members. While Billy Carter and Neil Bush faced controversies, neither was criminally charged nor received a pardon.

    Full Story

    On Dec. 1, President Joe Biden granted his son, Hunter, “a full and unconditional pardon” for any crimes “he has committed or may have committed” between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 1, 2024.

    In June, Hunter Biden was convicted of three felonies related to his purchase and possession of a Cobra Colt revolver in 2018. According to the prosecution, the president’s son violated federal law by owning the gun as an active drug user and by lying about his drug use on a federal form necessary to purchase the gun. The sentencing trial for the case was scheduled for Dec. 12.

    In September, Hunter Biden pleaded guilty to nine charges of failing to pay $1.4 million in taxes for tax years 2016 through 2019. The sentencing trial for that case was scheduled for Dec. 16.

    Joe Biden is one of a few presidents who have pardoned a relative. In 2001, on his last day in office, then-President Bill Clinton pardoned his half-brother, Roger Clinton, who was sentenced to two years in prison in 1985 for conspiracy to distribute cocaine. In December 2020, then-President Donald Trump pardoned his daughter Ivanka’s father-in-law, Charles Kushner, who was sentenced to two years in prison in 2005 for filing false tax returns, making false statements to the FEC and retaliating against a witness.

    But social media users have falsely claimed that former Presidents Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush also pardoned relatives.

    The claim originated on X on Dec. 2, where it was posted by Grant Stern, an editor for the advocacy group Occupy Democrats. Stern wrote: “Jimmy Carter pardoned his brother Billy Carter who took over $200,000 from Libya as its foreign agent. George H.W. Bush pardoned his son Neil Bush for his role in the S&L scandals of the 1980s. Nobody thinks those pardons defined either presidency. Joe Biden’s pardon of Hunter Biden won’t either.”

    The claim was also shared on Threads.

    Billy Carter and Neil Bush were both embroiled in controversies, but they were not criminally charged or convicted and they did not receive pardons.

    Between 1978 and 1979, Billy Carter received $220,000 from the Libyan government and later registered as a foreign agent for that country. A Senate inquiry launched in 1980 found that Billy Carter’s relationship with Libya was “contrary to the interests of the President and the United States,” but found “no evidence” that any Carter administration policy decisions were influenced by the relationship.

    In 1991, Neil Bush settled a civil suit with federal regulators over the failure of Silverado Banking, Savings, & Loans, where he was a board member from 1985 to 1988. Silverado collapsed in 1988, costing taxpayers $1 billion. While Neil Bush and other former directors and officials were accused of gross negligence and ordered to pay $26.5 million to regulators, they did not face criminal charges.

    Article II, Section 2 gives presidents the power to grant pardons only for “offences against the United States,” meaning criminal offenses. Therefore, a president cannot grant a pardon for a federal civil claim or state criminal charges or civil claims.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Meta to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Meta has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Bates, James. “Neil Bush and U.S. Settle Suit Over Failure of S&L; : Thrifts: $49.5-million accord involving 10 others from firm is one of largest negotiated by banking regulators.” Los Angeles Times. 30 May 1991.

    Bruggeman, Lucien. “Hunter Biden’s sentencing on gun charges pushed back 1 more week.” ABC. 26 Sep 2024.

    Chase, Randall, et al. “President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, is convicted of all three felonies in federal gun trial.” Associated Press. 11 Jun 2024.

    Cohen, Marshall, and Holmes Lybrand. “Hunter Biden convicted on all 3 charges at federal gun trial.” CNN. 11 Jun 2024.

    Cohen, Marshall, et al. “Hunter Biden pleads guilty to federal tax charges, in surprise move on brink of trial.” CNN. 5 Sep 2024.

    Lardner, George. “Intelligence Confirmed Billy Got Libyan Money.” New York Times. 22 Jul 1980.

    Liptak, Kevin. “Biden says he won’t pardon son if he’s convicted at trial.” CNN. 5 Jun 2024.

    Masih, Niha. “With Hunter pardon, Biden joins short list of presidents who absolved family.” Washington Post. 2 Dec 2024.

    Nicholas, Peter, and Jonathan Allen. “The White House says no, but questions about Joe Biden pardoning his son persist.” NBC. 16 Dec 2023.

    Office of Special Counsel David C. Weiss. “Robert Hunter Biden Convicted on Three Felony Tax Offenses and Six Misdemeanor Tax Offenses.” Press release. 5 Sep 2024.

    Office of U.S. Attorney Scott Resnik. “Political Contributor and Developer Charles Kushner Sentenced to Maximum 24 Months for Witness Retaliation and Other Crimes.” Press release. 4 Mar 2024.

    White House. “Statement from President Joe Biden.” Press release. 1 Dec 2024.

    White House. “Statement from the Press Secretary Regarding Executive Grants of Clemency.” 23 Dec 2020.

    Yilek, Caitlin. “Biden still does not plan to pardon his son Hunter, White House says.” CBS. 7 Nov 2024.

    The post Bush, Carter Didn’t Pardon Relatives, Contrary to Posts appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • No Evidence Musk Threatened to Ban X Users Celebrating Hunter Biden’s Pardon

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    Elon Musk trolled President Joe Biden on X after Hunter Biden’s pardon, sharing a community note mocking the president’s previous post that said, “No one is above the law.” Soon after, a Threads post falsely claimed Musk threatened “anyone glorifying” the pardon “will be suspended from X permanently.” There’s no evidence Musk made such a statement.

    Full Story

    Billionaire Elon Musk took to his social media platform X on Dec. 2 to mock President Joe Biden following the president’s pardon of his son, Hunter Biden, the day before. Musk resurfaced a six-month-old post by the president proclaiming, “No one is above the law,” highlighting a note that criticized the pardon.

    Later that day, a Threads post falsely claimed that Musk had threatened to suspend users celebrating the pardon. The post alleged Musk said, “Anyone glorifying the lawlessness behind Biden pardoning his son will be suspended from X permanently.”

    But a review of Musk’s public posts and statements reveals no such quote or policy announcement. Musk’s response to the pardon has been limited to amplifying the “Community Notes” on Biden’s previous post. In addition, we could not find that X has issued any policy updates or enforcement changes related to the pardon. We reached out to X for comment about the claim, but we didn’t receive a response.

    Community Notes is X’s crowdsourcing feature that allows users to collaboratively add context to “potentially misleading posts.” Over time, Community Notes can be edited as contributors review and refine them.

    A Community Note on the screenshot shared by Musk read: “By pardoning his son Hunter, not merely for a single crime, but for all actual or potential crimes he may or may not have created over an eleven years period, Joe Biden has made clear that some people are, in fact, above the law.” Sharing a screenshot of the post, Musk said, “Community Notes slays.”

    Hunter Biden was convicted in June for lying on a federal form about his drug use when purchasing a firearm in 2018, marking the first criminal conviction of a sitting president’s child. On Sept. 5, the president’s son pleaded guilty in federal court to nine tax-related charges, including three felonies and six misdemeanors. Prosecutors said he had engaged in a scheme to evade $1.4 million in taxes from 2016 to 2019 by subverting payroll systems, filing false returns and claiming fraudulent deductions.

    Hunter Biden faced a maximum of 25 years in prison for the gun charges and 17 years for the tax offenses, although the New York Times reported that he was likely to receive significantly shorter sentences. Sentencing on the gun-related conviction was scheduled for Dec. 12, while sentencing in the tax case was set for Dec. 16.

    The presidential pardon has sparked a heated political debate, with many Democrats criticizing the decision.

    While Musk has been vocal about his political views and criticism of public figures, there is no record of him threatening to suspend users over their reactions to the pardon. This is not the first time Musk has been the target of misinformation. His polarizing comments and his support for President-elect Donald Trump have made him a target of false claims online, as we’ve written. In November, Trump announced that Musk and businessman Vivek Ramaswamy would head a project to reduce government waste and fraud.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Meta to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Meta has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Brooks, Emily and Mychael Schnell. “Multiple Democrats slam Biden pardon of Hunter.” The Hill. 2 Dec 2024.

    Chase, Randall, et al. “President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, is convicted of all 3 felonies in federal gun trial.” Associated Press. 11 Jun 2024.

    Keefe, Eliza. “Musk’s Starlink Was Not Connected to Vote Tabulation, Contrary to Online Claims.” FactCheck.org. 19 Nov 2024.

    “Hunter Biden is first sitting US president’s son to be convicted of crime.” Sky News. 12 Jun 2024.

    Thrush, Glenn. “What Happens Next in Hunter Biden’s Criminal Cases.” New York Times. 2 Oct 2024.

    Trotta, Daniel and Eric Beech. “Trump names Elon Musk to role leading government efficiency drive.” Reuters. 13 Nov 2024.

    U.S. Department of Justice. “Robert Hunter Biden Convicted on Three Felony Tax Offenses and Six Misdemeanor Tax Offenses.” 6 Sep 2024.

    White House. “Statement from President Joe Biden.” 1 Dec 2024.

    X Help Center. “About Community Notes on X.” Accessed 4 Dec 2024.

    X Help Center. “The X Rules.” Accessed 4 Dec 2024.

    Zinsner, Hadleigh. “Elon Musk Has Not Blocked Pride-Related Content from X, Contrary to Posts.” FactCheck.org. 22 Nov 2024.

    The post No Evidence Musk Threatened to Ban X Users Celebrating Hunter Biden’s Pardon appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Trump Won the Popular Vote, Contrary to Claims Online

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    President-elect Donald Trump is the first Republican presidential candidate to win the popular vote in 20 years. Social media users have wrongly claimed that Trump lost the popular vote, but they are confusing the popular vote with a majority of votes. The unofficial results show Trump received slightly less than a majority, but more votes than any candidate.

    Full Story

    On Nov. 6, the Associated Press called the 2024 election for President-elect Donald Trump. Trump won 312 electoral votes to Vice President Kamala Harris’ 226 votes.

    While ballots are still being counted in some states, Trump very likely also won the popular vote, with 76.9 million votes compared with 74.4 million for Harris. Trump is the first Republican presidential candidate to win the popular vote since President George W. Bush in 2004.

    But some social media users have claimed Trump didn’t actually win the popular vote.

    A Nov. 24 post on Threads shared the claim, writing, “Donald Trump losing the popular vote by 2% and only won because of the electoral college means that he is a DEI president.” (DEI stands for diversity, equity and inclusion.)

    Another user shared the claim in a now-deleted Instagram post from Nov. 24, which read, “DONALD J. TRUMP OFFICIALLY LOST THE 2024 POPULAR VOTE FOR POTUS.”

    In comments, the user explained that since Trump did not receive at least 50% of all votes cast, he had lost the popular vote.

    But this is a misunderstanding of how the popular vote is measured.

    In order to win the popular vote, a candidate must only receive more votes than any other single candidate — that is, a plurality of votes. They need not win the majority of all votes cast.

    Barry C. Burden, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, explained to us in a Nov. 25 email, “Trump has not won an outright majority of the popular vote; that would require surpassing the 50% threshold. He has won a large plurality, which means that he attracted more votes than each of his opponents, but he is just short of a true majority.”

    On election night, it seemed that Trump had won a majority of votes. But as more votes were counted, Trump’s vote total fell to 49.9% of all votes cast and Harris received 48.3%, as of Nov. 26.

    Two third-party candidates — Jill Stein and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — received more than 750,000 votes each. As a result, neither Trump nor Harris achieved a majority of votes.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Meta to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Meta has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Associated Press. “2024 Presidential Election Results.” 26 Nov 2024.

    Burden, Barry C. Professor of political science, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Email to FactCheck.org. 25 Nov 2024.

    Decision 2024. “2024 President Results: Trump wins.” Accessed 26 Nov 2024.

    Ellis, Niquel Terry. “What is DEI and why is it dividing America?” CNN. 11 Mar 2024.

    Google. 2024 Election Results. Presidential results. Accessed 26 Nov 2024.

    Jachim, Nick. “When was the last time the Republican Party won the popular vote?” The Hill. 6 Nov 2024.

    Yoon, Robert. “Why AP called Wisconsin and the White House for Donald Trump.” Associated Press. 6 Nov 2024.

    Google. 2024 Election Results.

    The post Trump Won the Popular Vote, Contrary to Claims Online appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Viral Claim Falsely Suggests Trump Ended Violence in Gaza

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    Attacks by Israeli forces and Hamas continue to kill or displace people in the Gaza Strip. But social media posts misleadingly claim Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential election led Hamas to call for an end to the war in Gaza. Hamas has called for a ceasefire several times before the election. And the violence has continued since Election Day.

    Full Story

    Israeli airstrikes killed at least 46 people in the Gaza Strip on Nov. 12. An Israeli attack on a refugee camp school left at least 10 people dead on Nov. 16. And on Nov. 23 the Israeli military issued evacuation orders for a northern Gaza suburb due to rocket fire from Hamas.

    A Palestinian boy walks on the rubble of a house destroyed in an Israeli strike at the Nuseirat refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip on Nov. 12, amid the ongoing war between Israel and the Palestinian group Hamas. Photo by Majdi Fathi/NurPhoto via Getty Images.

    All of this happened after it became clear on Nov. 6 that former President Donald Trump had won a second term in the White House.

    But a claim that arose shortly after the election has continued to spread online, suggesting that Trump’s win resulted in an end to the violence in Gaza.

    Starting the day after the election, some widely followed accounts posted a screenshot of a headline that said, “Hamas Calls for ‘Immediate’ End to War After Trump Election Win.”

    Donald Trump Jr., for example, posted the screenshot on Truth Social and Instagram with the message, “It took about 12 hours after my father’s election win for Hamas to call for peace! @realDonaldTrump isn’t even president yet and he’s already getting it done. Spectacular.” Many replies to his post indicated that readers understood it to mean that Trump had ended the war.

    “Trump brings world peace and saves millions of lives and liberals will somehow call him racist,” one commenter said.

    Others spread similarly suggestive claims without the screenshot, including YouTube influencer and professional boxer Jake Paul, who endorsed Trump’s 2024 bid for the White House. On Nov. 7, he posted on X a list titled, “Trump 48 hours not even in office,” and included as the third item, “Hamas calls for ‘immediate end to war.’”

    That claim has continued to spread. Conservative commentator Liz Wheeler posted about it on Nov. 8 and Kayleigh McEnany, who served as press secretary during Trump’s first term, repeated the claim on the Nov. 11 episode of her Fox News show, “Outnumbered.”

    And it continues to spread across social media. Another list of Trump’s supposed pre-inauguration accomplishments posted to Facebook on Nov. 16 says Hamas has called for an immediate end to the war and claims, “It has been ONLY 11 days since Donald J. Trump elected, there’s already PEACE around the WORLD.”

    But, of course, Trump’s election has not yet ushered in peace in Gaza, and any posts suggesting that it has are wrong.

    “It’s impossible for that to be true because the battle is still going on on multiple fronts,” Ibrahim Abusharif, a professor of journalism and strategic communication at Northwestern University in Qatar, told us in an interview. The fact that the claim is proliferating so widely on social media “just reminds us again that this is an unreliable space for information, for facts, and for truth telling,” he said.

    The headline at the root of this claim is real. It appeared on Newsweek’s website on Nov. 6. But presenting it on its own, detached from the accompanying story, is misleading since it could be used to suggest that Trump is responsible for ending the violence in Gaza.

    The full story explains that a senior Hamas official told Newsweek: “The election of Trump as the 47th president of the USA is a private matter for the Americans, but Palestinians look forward to an immediate cessation of the aggression against our people, especially in Gaza, and look for assistance in achieving their legitimate rights of freedom, independence, and the establishment of their independent self-sovereign state with Jerusalem as its capital.” (As president, Trump proposed a “realistic two-state solution” in 2020 with Jerusalem as Israel’s “undivided capital.”)

    Hamas’ calls for an end to the violence aren’t new. The group has sought a ceasefire at several points since Israeli forces struck Gaza following the Hamas-led terror attacks on Oct. 7, 2023. Hamas militants killed about 1,200 people in Israel and abducted 254. The Gaza Health Ministry, which is run by the Hamas-controlled government, has reported more than 44,000 people killed in Gaza since the war began.

    Forecasting what effect the incoming Trump administration may have on the war between Israel and Hamas is difficult, experts agree.

    “Donald Trump’s election introduces new uncertainty into Middle East affairs,” Natan Sachs, director of the Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, wrote on Nov. 14.

    Sachs suggested that the Arab Gulf states and Israel “may now be eager to give Trump early ‘wins,’ to capitalize on the relationship for their own interests and in the hope that Trump shows more flexibility as he enters office.”

    “Trump historically, and those around him, have been very sympathetic to Israel,” Warren Strobel, the Wall Street Journal’s intelligence and security reporter, answered when asked at a panel discussion what the Trump administration would likely mean for the conflict there. “I think you will see, by and large, support for Israel in the region.”

    Strobel predicted the Trump administration would likely increase its previous maximum pressure campaign aimed at reigning in Iran’s nuclear program, largely by imposing economic sanctions, which could affect funding for Hamas and Hezbollah.

    Hezbollah, a Shiite militant group based in Lebanon and funded largely by Iran, clashed with Israel immediately after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, terror attack, leading to a more than yearlong fight on the Israel-Lebanon border. On Nov. 26, 2024, Israel and Hezbollah agreed to a U.S.-brokered ceasefire agreement. The deal does not end the conflict between Israel and Hamas.

    It’s unclear exactly what impact Trump’s second presidency will have on the war in Gaza.

    “He’s fickle,” Abusharif said of Trump’s likely approach. “He has a history of making muscular promises and not following up.”

    So we don’t know what will happen in Gaza during Trump’s next term. But we do know that the fighting continues, regardless of the results of the U.S. election.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Meta to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Meta has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Associated Press. “Israeli strikes kill dozens in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, medics say.” 13 Nov 2024.

    Reuters. “Israeli strike kills 10 at Gaza school sheltering displaced families, medics say.” 16 Nov 2024.

    Al-Mughrabi, Nidal. “Israeli army orders Gaza City suburb evacuated.” Reuters. 24 Nov 2024.

    Abusharif, Ibrahim. Professor of journalism and strategic communication, Northwestern University in Qatar. Zoom interview with FactCheck.org. 19 Nov 2024.

    O’Connor, Tom. “Hamas Calls for ‘Immediate’ End to War After Trump Election Win.” Newsweek. Updated 9 Nov 2024.

    Nakhoul, Samia, et al. “Netanyahu calls Hamas ceasefire proposal ‘delusional’ but Blinken sees scope for progress.” Reuters. 7 Feb 2024.

    Magdy, Samy and Drew Callister. “Here’s what’s on the table for Israel and Hamas in the latest cease-fire plan.” Associated Press. 7 May 2024.

    Al-Mughrabi, Nidal and Maytaal Angel. “Gaza ceasefire: Hamas says again it wants implementation, not more talks.” Reuters. 13 Aug 2024.

    Al-Mughrabi, Nidal. “Hamas says Israel still blocking ceasefire agreement.” Reuters. 6 Oct 2024.

    Reuters. “Hamas open to discussing new deal securing end to Gaza war, Israeli pull-out, group official says.” 29 Oct 2024.

    U.S. Department of State. Press release. “Anniversary of October 7th Attack.” 7 Oct 2024.

    Shurafa, Wafaa and Fatma Khaled. “Death toll in Gaza from Israel-Hamas war passes 44,000, Palestinian officials say.” Associated Press. 21 Nov 2024.

    Brookings Institution. “How is Trump’s reelection likely to affect US foreign policy?” 14 Nov 2024.

    The Hayden Center (@HaydenCenter). “New Term, New Challenges: National Security in the Trump Administration.” YouTube. 20 Nov 2024.

    U.S. Department of State. “Maximum Pressure Campaign on the Regime in Iran.” 4 Apr 2019.

    The post Viral Claim Falsely Suggests Trump Ended Violence in Gaza appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Post Misleadingly Questions Unfinished Ballot Counting in Some States

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    Some states were still counting ballots weeks after Election Day in accordance with their regulations, state officials and an election law expert said. But an Instagram post misleadingly implied that the ongoing vote counts were evidence of some unspecified election malfeasance.

    Full Story

    The 2024 presidential election was called by the Associated Press for President-elect Donald Trump the day after the Nov. 5 general election. Trump won 312 electoral college votes, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris, who received 226. 

    Results announced by the media on Election Day or shortly after are projections, and always have been, factoring in a combination of the votes that had been reported, exit polling and other statistics, Justin Levitt, an elections law expert at Loyola Marymount University’s law school, told us in an email. But they are not official election results, which cannot occur until all eligible votes are counted. Most state laws give local election officials two to three weeks to officially certify election returns, Levitt said.  

    “In the nation’s history, there has literally never been an official presidential election result on Election Night,” Levitt said. “Local election officials aren’t legally permitted to decide elections based on projections, which is why we don’t just award the election to the person who’s leading in the polls.”

    But Trump and other Republicans and conservative commentators, such as Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, for years have made false and unfounded accusations of cheating by the Democrats in presidential elections. 

    Trump, for instance, repeatedly made baseless, false and misleading claims that the 2020 presidential election was “rigged,” citing conspiracies involving the Department of Justice, Dominion Voting Systems and local election officials, as we’ve previously written.

    After the 2024 election, a Nov. 18 Instagram post shared a screenshot of a post on X that said: “Arizona is still counting votes… Georgia is still counting votes… California is still counting votes… Pennsylvania is still counting votes… North Carolina is still counting votes… CAN YOU SEE WHAT THEY ARE DOING?” 

    The Instagram post received nearly 13,000 likes, and some comments on the post claimed it was evidence of cheating and election fraud.

    The original post on X also came from an account, @CharlieKNews, that named itself Charlie Kirk News, using a photo of Kirk as its avatar. The post has since been taken down. Andrew Kolvet, a spokesperson for Turning Point Action, the political advocacy arm of Turning Point USA, told us in an email that the post from @CharlieKNews “is not run by Charlie Kirk or his team. It’s a fan account and we have no idea what they mean.”

    Impact Possible on Downballot Races

    Election officials are required to count each valid ballot, Levitt said. That process is relatively quick for most ballots but can be slower for mail, overseas and provisional ballots that require some additional work in determining whether they are actually valid, he said. 

    There were still hundreds of thousands of ballots that needed to be counted as of Nov. 22, the majority of which were overseas ballots or checks on provisional ballots. “We’re very much on track for that to happen on time, exactly as it’s supposed to,” Levitt said. 

    There was a momentary delay in the counting of votes in Pennsylvania due to a legal dispute, in which the state Supreme Court on Nov. 18 directed county election officials not to count some mail-in ballots that arrived on time but were in envelopes that included handwritten dates that were incorrect. 

    “Outside of that, there’s no ‘delay’ at all,” said Levitt, referring to the counting of votes nationwide throughout the general election. 

    There is also “no prospect” that the number of outstanding ballots that still need to be counted will change the overall presidential election winner in any state, Levitt said.

    However, the uncounted ballots could decide other downballot races with smaller vote margins. That includes the race for California’s 45th Congressional District where, as of Nov. 22, Democratic candidate Derek Tran was leading Republican candidate Michelle Steel by just a few hundred votes. 

    “These margins are exactly why we take the time to count every valid ballot, rather than just declaring a result that we’re not sure about,” Levitt said. “Local election officials in all of the states are working methodically through a very careful process to get the final count right, exactly as they should be.”

    Election Offices Follow State Laws

    Election offices in each of the five states listed in the social media post have all said either to us or in publicly available posts, press releases or videos that their ballot-counting processes are moving forward as anticipated and in accordance with their respective state laws. 

    “Georgia has been done [counting its ballots] for over a week now,” Robert Sinners, spokesperson for Georgia’s secretary of state, told us in an email. He said Georgia’s deadline for counties to complete their counting and certify their votes was Nov. 12 — six days before the Nov. 18 Instagram post. 

    The state launched an audit of the presidential election on Nov. 14 that hand-counted randomly selected ballots in each of Georgia’s 159 counties. The state announced the results of the audit on Nov. 20. 

    “Election denialism needs to end, now,” Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger told us in a statement. “We are a country of laws and principles, not of men and personalities. Do your job! Follow the law. Accept election results or lose your country.”

    It typically takes about 10 to 13 days for Arizona to tabulate all its ballots, Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said in a Nov. 16 video posted on X. 

    As of the morning of Nov. 19, about 6,000 ballots needed to be counted in Arizona’s Yuma County, JP Martin, a spokesperson for the Arizona secretary of state, told us in an email. The office was anticipating a recount for one legislative district, and there may be other local races that could require recounts that would be conducted at the county level, Martin added. 

    As of Nov. 14, California needed to process and verify eligibility of about 1.8 million ballots, said Secretary of State Shirley Weber during a press conference that day. By Nov. 22, the estimated number of uncounted ballots was down to more than 315,000, according to the secretary of state’s website.

    The lengthy timeline for processing votes in California was anticipated due to the state’s rules and regulations, Weber said. 

    California will receive its first actual count from all of the state’s 58 counties on Dec. 6, Weber said. The secretary of state will then have a week to certify the state’s results on Dec. 13. 

    “California’s election process is designed with a core commitment to recognizing and basically accurately counting each and every eligible vote that comes into our office,” Weber said. “This approach involves a series of rigorous checks and safeguards, including signature verification, machine audits and manual counts.”

    There was no delay in counting the votes in Pennsylvania, Matt Heckel, press secretary at the Pennsylvania Department of State, told us in an email. Final election results have never been finalized on election night since “processing and counting millions of ballots takes time,” Heckel said. 

    Official results in Pennsylvania will be certified after all ballots have been adjudicated, including provisional, absentee and mail ballots that need identifications verified, as well as absentee ballots from military and overseas civilian voters, Heckel said. 

    By Nov. 12, when Pennsylvania counties reported their unofficial returns, 60,366 provisional ballots and 20,155 mail-in and absentee ballots remained uncounted. County boards also needed to make final resolutions about which of those ballots are valid and eligible, Heckel added. 

    Heckel said the Department of State wouldn’t have any updated uncounted ballot numbers until Nov. 25, when county elections boards are required to certify their returns with the secretary of the commonwealth. 

    By Nov. 15, final votes had been counted in nearly all of North Carolina’s counties, Patrick Gannon, spokesperson for the state’s board of elections, told us in an email. 

    However, as of Nov. 19, some counties were still going through their research on provisional ballots to determine which should be counted, he said. And a couple of counties still needed to “reopen their canvasses” to remove ballots in cases where early voters were deemed ineligible to vote because they did not confirm their address when they registered, Gannon said. 

    North Carolina state law requires provisional ballots and some absentee ballots to be counted after Election Day and before the county canvass – the day county elections boards meet to certify their results – which occurred 10 days after the election on Nov. 15, Gannon said. 

    “It’s impossible to count eligible ballots that election officials do not have yet,” he said. 

    A few contests throughout the state are eligible for recounts. That includes local races and the race for North Carolina’s State Supreme Court seat, in which incumbent Democrat Allison Riggs held a roughly 600-vote lead over Republican challenger Jefferson Griffin. 

    But, according to Gannon, the number of uncounted ballots is not enough to flip any contest. 

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Meta to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Meta has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Yoon, Robert. “Why AP called Wisconsin and the White House for Donald Trump.” Associated Press. 6 Nov 2024.

    Associated Press. “Election 2024.” Accessed 21 Nov 2024. 

    Levitt, Justin. Law professor, Loyola Marymount University, Loyola Law School. Email to FactCheck.org. 19 Nov 2024. 

    McLean, Danielle. “Post Misrepresents Impact of Voter Registrations Delivered to Maricopa County.” FactCheck.org. 16 Oct 2024. 

    Robertson, Lori, et al. “Trump Repeats Baseless, False Claims About the Election.” FactCheck.org. 1 Dec 2020. 

    Hale Spencer, Saranac. “Dominion’s Defamation Lawsuits Are Still Active.” FactCheck.org. 3 Jun 2021

    Kiely, Eugene. “Rubio Spreads Debunked 2020 Election Fraud Claims.” FactCheck.org. 23 May 2024.

    Kiely, Eugene, et al. “Trump’s Falsehood-Filled ‘Save America’ Rally.” Updated 1 Aug 2023.

    Farley, Robert. “Trump’s Bogus Voter Fraud Claims.” FactCheck.org. 19 Oct 2024.

    Farley, Robert. “Trump Sticks With Bogus Voter Fraud Claims.” FactCheck.org. 28 Nov 2024.

    Kolvet, Andrew. Turning Point Action spokesperson. Email to FactCheck.org. 18 Nov 2024. 

    Lo Wang, Hansi. “Pennsylvania’s high court sides with Republicans on misdated mail ballots.” NPR. 18 Nov 2024. 

    Levy, Marc. “Pennsylvania Senate contest headed toward a recount, and possibly litigation.” Associated Press. 14 Nov 2024. 

    Associated Press. “California 45th Congressional District.” Accessed 21 Nov 2024. 

    Sinners, Robert. Georgia Secretary of State spokesperson. Email to FactCheck.org. 19 Nov 2024.  

    Georgia Secretary of State. “Georgia’s 2024 Statewide Risk Limiting Audit Confirms Voting System Accuracy.” 20 Nov 2024. 

    @AZSecretary. “Accurate election results take time. Arizona law requires counties to finalize results by Nov 21, 2024. The SOS’s Office will canvass results no later than Nov 25, 2024. This provides time to ensure that all eligible ballots are counted. #TrustedInfo2024 #TimeforAccuracy.” X. 16 Nov 2024. 

    MacDonald-Evoy, Jerod. “A handful of 2024 Az races are headed to recounts, including one legislative seat.” TucsonSentinel.com. 20 Nov 2024.  

    California Secretary of State. Press Conference. 14 Nov 2024. 

    Heckel, Matt. Spokesperson, Pennsylvania Department of State. Email to FactCheck.org. 19 Nov 2024. 

    Pennsylvania Department of State. “2024 Election Calendar.” Accessed 20 Nov 2024. 

    Gannon, Patrick. Spokesperson, North Carolina State Board of Elections. 19 Nov 2024. 

    North Carolina State Board of Elections. “County Canvass | 2024 General Election.” Accessed 20 Nov 2024. 

    Robertson, Gary D. “A recount will happen in the extremely close race for a North Carolina court seat.” Associated Press. 19 Nov 2024. 

    The post Post Misleadingly Questions Unfinished Ballot Counting in Some States appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Elon Musk Has Not Blocked Pride-Related Content from X, Contrary to Posts

    Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.

    Quick Take

    X owner Elon Musk has rolled back policies intended to protect transgender people from harassment on his platform. But social media posts falsely claimed Pride-related content has now been “blocked on X permanently,” citing a purported “late-night announcement” by Musk. The claim originated on a satirical website.

    Full Story

    In October 2022, Space X and Tesla CEO Elon Musk acquired Twitter and renamed it X. In a message to advertisers, Musk, who is a self-described “free speech absolutist,” wrote that he planned to make the social media platform “a digital town square, where a wide range of beliefs can be debated in a healthy manner.”

    But as CEO, Musk rolled back policies aimed at protecting transgender people from harassment online. In 2023, X removed a sentence from its hateful conduct policy prohibiting the “targeted misgendering or deadnaming of trans individuals.”

    In July, Musk announced on X that he would be moving SpaceX and X headquarters from California to Texas after California passed a law barring schools from requiring that teachers notify parents of changes to their child’s gender identity. “This is the final straw,” Musk said of the new law.

    Musk has shown support for marriage equality, however. “People should find mutual love and happiness where their heart leads them,” he wrote on X in March. “I only ask of my gay friends that they have children for the continuance of civilization.”

    Now, social media posts falsely claim that Musk has said he would block Pride-related content from X.

    A Nov. 19 post on Threads shared a headline from “Luxury Blog” saying, “Pride Content Blocked On X Permanently, ‘Protecting Kids Comes First.’” The article purports to quote Musk as saying social media platforms need “to ensure that kids are exposed to ideas appropriate for their age.” Reactions from commenters were supportive, and most believed the claim was true. “Spectacular,” one user wrote. “Thank u elon musk.”

    But the headline and the article were originally published on Esspots, a self-described “fake news” site, on Nov. 18, where it was labeled as satire. Some social media posts shared the headline and identified it as satire. But the Nov. 19 Threads post and others shared the article without labeling it as satire.

    Pride and transgender-related content can still be viewed on X.

    We reached out to X for comment about the social media post, but we didn’t receive a response.

    Musk, a vocal supporter of President-elect Donald Trump, has been the target of social media misinformation since Trump’s victory.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Meta to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Meta has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Afreen, Uzma. “Musk Did Not Ban Stephen King from X, Contrary to Online Claims.” FactCheck.org. Updated 15 Nov 2024.

    Conger, Katie, and Lauren Hirsch. “Elon Musk Completes $44 Billion Deal to Own Twitter.” New York Times. 27 Oct 2022.

    Ivanova, Irina. “Twitter is now X. Here’s what that means.” CBS. 31 Jul 2023.

    Keefe, Eliza. “Musk’s Starlink Was Not Connected to Vote Tabulation, Contrary to Online Claims.” FactCheck.org. 19 Nov 2024.

    Sherman, Natalie. “Musk to move SpaceX and X HQ over gender identity law.” BBC. 17 Jul 2024.

    Yang, Angela. “Twitter quietly changes its hateful conduct policy to remove standing protections for its transgender users.” NBC. 18 Apr 2023.

    The post Elon Musk Has Not Blocked Pride-Related Content from X, Contrary to Posts appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.