Quick Take

The U.S. Constitution established Congress’ right to impose federal income taxes, and the Internal Revenue Service administers the laws that require payment of taxes. Yet social media posts falsely claim there is no law that requires U.S. residents to pay taxes.

Full Story 

When it was ratified in 1788, the U.S. Constitution gave Congress the power to establish and collect taxes in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1.

It says, “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

In response to a Supreme Court ruling in 1895, Congress proposed the 16^th Amendment to the Constitution in 1909 to clarify its right to impose a federal income tax. The states ratified the amendment in 1913.

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration,” the amendment reads. 

The federal tax laws were compiled in 1939 into the Internal Revenue Code, which was revised in 1954 and 1986. The Internal Revenue Service administers the tax laws in the code.

But as the annual income tax deadline draws closer, posts on social media spread the false claim that there is no law that binds citizens to pay income taxes. 

A viral TikTok video shared on Feb. 15 features clips from “America: Freedom to Fascism,” a 2006 film by Aaron Russo that claims there is no law that requires citizens to pay federal income taxes.

In the roughly seven-minute TikTok video, several individuals who are identified as IRS agents or attorneys say they searched for a law that made a person liable to pay taxes and did not find one. The TikTok received more than 40,000 likes and 11,000 shares.  

The first individual in the clip — identified as a tax attorney named Peter Gibbons — misleadingly says that in 1894 and 1913 the Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional for Congress to enact an income tax. “There is no constitutional basis for a tax on the wages of Americans,” Gibbons claims.

A Feb. 26 post on Facebook shared the TikTok video with the caption, “If there’s no law that binds us to paying taxes. The question I have is, why are we?” The post was shared more than 2,000 times. 

But the claim that there’s no law requiring citizens to pay taxes is false.

Allen Madison, a professor of federal tax law at the University of South Dakota, told us in an email that the information in the social media posts is false, not helpful to American citizens and wastes the government’s resources.

“Mr. Gibbons is speaking of real cases but knowingly and blatantly misrepresenting them,” Madison said. “He suggests that the Supreme Court held that the federal government has no right to impose tax on individuals. He is wrong.”

Amendment Nullified Court Ruling

The 16th Amendment was passed after the 1895 Supreme Court decision in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. 

In order to comply with the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894, which created a 2% tax on incomes of at least $4,000, the Farmers’ Loan & Trust Company informed stockholders that it planned to pay federal taxes on its profits, including income derived from its real estate holdings. Charles Pollock, a company shareholder, sued the company in a lawsuit that went all the way to the Supreme Court.

The high court acknowledged Congress had a right to impose a “direct” income tax, but held that the tax on property was unconstitutional because it wasn’t “levied by the rule of apportionment” — meaning states should be equally taxed based on population, as required by the Constitution.

“Pollock invalidated the tax on property as the Supreme Court was persuaded that the tax on property violated the apportionment requirement. Contrary to what Mr. Gibbons implies, the Supreme Court in Pollock did not invalidate the income tax on individuals on moral, apportionment, or any other grounds,” Madison said.

The 16th Amendment was ratified to address the court’s decision and allowed Congress to impose direct federal income taxes without apportionment.

“In 1913, the 16th Amendment removed the apportionment requirement as it applied to a tax on income. This barrier removal paved the way for Congress to impose an income tax that included individuals and property. That same year, 1913, Congress enacted an income tax that is the direct ancestor of our current income tax. In 1916, the Supreme Court decided Brushaber v. Union Pacific… Brushaber upheld the constitutionality of the 1913 income tax,” Madison explained.

“Contrary to Mr. Gibbons’ assertions, there is no reasonable legal dispute that this [is] the current state of the law,” Madison added.

Christine Speidel, a law professor at Villanova University and the director of the Federal Tax Clinic, also told us in an email that the social media claims are false. 

“Unfortunately as a tax lawyer, I regularly meet people who don’t believe in taxes. The legal basis for federal taxes is the Constitution, and also the Internal Revenue Code, which is made up of laws passed by Congress,” Speidel said. 

“Essentially, tax protesters take lines from the opinion out of context, and claim that the Supreme Court said the opposite of what it actually held,” Speidel said.

The IRS says in a publication titled “The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments” that “numerous courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens and that the federal tax laws are valid as applied.”

Referring to the social media posts, Garrett Watson, a senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, told us in an email, “These types of arguments are common among tax protestors and have been circulating for decades.”

Watson said the claims have no basis in law. He also directed us to several tax laws in the U.S. Code that show individuals are required to pay income taxes.

“Tax liability is imposed under 26 U.S. Code Chapter 1, which spells out normal taxes and tax liability for individuals and corporations. Other places within the U.S. Code that show a requirement to file and pay income tax are in 26 U.S.C. Section 6012 (filing income tax returns), 26 U.S.C Section 6151 (requirement to pay tax), and defining gross income in 26 U.S.C. Section 61,” Watson said.

“On voluntary tax compliance, tax protestors often misapply the term as used in tax law to mean that one is not legally required to remit taxes,” Watson said.

But that is not what the term voluntary means, Watson said. “Instead, the term means that taxpayers are expected to comply with tax law, but that they do so without the IRS directly compelling them to do so. The alternative misapplication was described by the Tax Court as ‘arrogant sophistry’ in 1984 when this topic was litigated.”

The IRS publication explains the benefit of taxes and what the Constitution and law say about paying taxes. 

“The tax law is found in Title 26 of the United States Code. Section 6012 of the Code makes clear that only individuals whose income falls below a specified level do not have to file returns. While our tax system is based on self-assessment and reporting, compliance with tax laws is mandatory. State citizenship does not negate the applicability of the Code on individuals working and residing in the United States,” the IRS explains. 

“There have always been individuals who argue taxes are illegal,” the IRS publication also says. “They use false, misleading, or unorthodox tax advice to gain followers. The courts have repeatedly rejected their arguments as frivolous and routinely impose penalties for raising such frivolous arguments.”

Penalties for Not Paying Taxes

Steven Fromm, a tax attorney for more than 40 years, told us in an email that tax protesters continue to challenge the federal tax code, even though there is “no basis to claim that taxes are not legal or unconstitutional.” 

“There have been many cases where this has been tried and taxpayers never win such arguments,” Fromm said. “The penalties both monetary and criminal can be quite harsh.”

The IRS says civil and criminal sanctions can apply to those who violate tax laws in a publication titled “Why Do I Have to Pay Taxes?” 

Punishment for not paying taxes can include a 5% penalty charge on the unpaid taxes for each month they are late or a sentence of five years in prison.

“To add insult to injury, some tax protesters often succeed in convincing others to join them in protest,” Madison, the federal tax law professor, wrote in a 2014 paper published in the Thomas Jefferson Law Review.

He noted actor Wesley Snipes was sentenced in 2008 to three years in prison and fined $5 million for failure to file taxes, after being convinced by tax protesters Eddie Ray Kahn and Doug Rosile that he didn’t owe federal taxes because he didn’t earn money from sources in the U.S.

Several people featured in the film “America: Freedom to Fascism” — including Sherry Peel Jackson, Joseph R. Banister and Larken Rose — faced civil or criminal penalties for breaking tax laws.

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

Sources

National Constitution Center. “Blame Abraham Lincoln for the nation’s first national Income Tax.” 5 Aug. 2022.  

Britannica. “Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company.” Accessed 1 Mar 2023. 

United States Census Bureau. “Title 26, U.S. Code.” Accessed 1 Mar 2023. 

Internal Revenue Service. “Why Do I Have to Pay Taxes?” Accessed 1 Mar 2023. 

Congress.gov. “Amdt16.2 Historical Background on Sixteenth Amendment.” Accessed 1 Mar 2023. 

National Archives. “16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Federal Income Tax (1913).” Accessed 1 Mar 2023. 

“America: Freedom to Fascism.” IMDb. Accessed 1 Mar 2023. 

Steven J. Fromm. Steven J. Fromm & Associates. Email interview with FactCheck.org. 28 Feb 2023.

Garrett Watson. Senior policy analyst, Tax Foundation. Email interview with FactCheck.org. 3 Mar 2023.

Allen Madison. Professor of federal tax law, University of South Dakota. Email interview with FactCheck.org. 4 Mar 2023.

Christine Speidel. Law professor and director of the Federal Tax Clinic. Email interview with FactCheck.org. 3 Mar 2023.

The post Posts Mislead on Legal Basis for Paying Federal Income Taxes appeared first on FactCheck.org.

This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

Quick Take  

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy predicted that if Russia’s invasion of his country is successful, it will invade nearby NATO countries, triggering a war involving the U.S. military. Some conservative commentators misleadingly claimed that he’d called upon the U.S. to “send their sons and daughters to war for Ukraine and potentially die.”

Full Story

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy took questions from journalists at a press conference on Feb. 24, exactly one year after Russia launched its invasion.

ABC News reporter Ian Pannell asked Zelenskyy to respond to recent public opinion polls in the U.S. showing a decline in support for sending aid to Ukraine.

The president’s answer has since been taken out of context. An edited version of his comments has circulated widely on social media among conservative influencers, who falsely claim that Zelenskyy called upon the U.S. to “send their sons and daughters to war for Ukraine and potentially die.”

One post claimed he said, “The U.S. will have to send their sons & daughters to Ukraine to fight.”

But Zelenskyy did not call on American soldiers to fight in Ukraine.

Zelenskyy began his comments by thanking “the American people” for the aid that the country had sent so far. He then predicted that Russia would likely invade one or more Baltic states — Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania — if it is victorious in Ukraine.

Unlike Ukraine, all three of those countries are members of NATO, an alliance formed after World War II that now consists of 30 countries, including the United States. Article 5 of NATO’s founding document, the North Atlantic Treaty, holds that “an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies.” President Joe Biden has called Article 5 “sacrosanct.”

So, an invasion of any one of the Baltic states could trigger a response that would engage the American military.

But not necessarily. In a 2022 report, Katherine Yon Ebright, of the Brennan Center for Justice, wrote that the language of Article 5 is “relatively flexible.” It allows members to determine for themselves how to respond to an attack on an ally — which could mean sending equipment, imposing sanctions on the aggressor, or engaging in direct military action.

She also wrote that another section of the NATO treaty — Article 11 — specifies that member countries will carry out the agreement “in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.”

“In the United States, that means securing express authorization from Congress, which has the sole constitutional power to declare war and is responsible for military appropriations and oversight,” she wrote.

Maj. Gen. Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., who is now a professor at Duke University School of Law, has similarly said, “Article 5 should not be read in isolation from Article 11.”

Here are Zelenskyy’s comments in full, based on a real-time translation at the press conference, with the relevant portion highlighted in bold:

Zelenskyy, Feb. 24: I would like to thank the American people.

I would like to thank all of the American people that are supporting Ukraine — the Congress, the president, the TV channels, the journalists, and everyone that has been supporting us.

And that percentage of Americans, as you’ve mentioned, is increasing. I can tell them only one thing — if they do not change their opinion, if they do not understand us, if they do not support Ukraine, they will lose NATO, they will lose the clout of the United States, they will lose the leadership position that they are enjoying in the world that they are enjoying for a very fair reason, and they will lose the support of the country with 40 million population, with millions of children. Are American children any different than ours? Don’t Americans enjoy the same things as we do? I don’t think we’re that different.

I’m actually very happy that we have bipartisan support, but we keep hearing those messages from time to time and they’re dangerous. There are political leaders that are elected by people, and if this issue is raised, those political leaders need to be responsible and cautious because people are looking at them.

Who wants a third world war? Would anyone be willing to accept that risk? The U.S. is never going to give up on the NATO member states. If it happens so that Ukraine, due to various opinions and weakening and depleting of assistance, loses, Russia is going to enter Baltic states — NATO-member states — and then the U.S. will have to send their sons and daughters exactly the same way as we are sending [our] sons and daughters to war and they will have to fight because it’s NATO that we’re talking about and they will be dying — God forbid, because it’s a horrible thing. I wish peace and Ukrainian support to the United States.

Some conservative commentators and outlets have posted an edited clip of the press conference that shows only part of Zelenskyy’s comment, stripped of the context about his anticipation of further aggression by Russia against NATO members.

The misleadingly edited clip says: “The U.S. will have to send their sons and daughters exactly the same way as we are sending [our] sons and daughters to war and they will have to fight because it’s NATO that we’re talking about and they will be dying — God forbid, because it’s a horrible thing.”

Many commentators added their own summaries, which were even more misleading.

One wrote, “Zelinsky: Ukraine needs fresh young Americans to help fight on the ground war. ‘The US will have to send their Son’s & Daughter’s… to WAR…’ ‘….and they will be DYING.’”

Another wrote, “Did Zelensky Just Call For America’s Sons & Daughters To Be Sacrificed?”

But, as we’ve explained, Zelenskyy was answering a question about public opinion on Ukrainian aid, and he speculated that, without continued support, Russia could prevail in Ukraine and continue on to invade NATO countries that may trigger military action from the U.S.

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

Sources

Office of the President of Ukraine (@PresidentGovUa). “Прес-конференція Президента України, присвячена року з моменту повномасштабного вторгнення Росії.” YouTube. 24 Feb 2023.

The Telegraph (@telegraph). “Watch in full: Volodymyr Zelensky press conference on first anniversary of Ukraine’s war with Russia.” YouTube. 24 Feb 2023.

Madhani, Aamer and Emily Swanson. “Support for Ukraine aid softens in U.S. public, poll says.” PBS NewsHour. 15 Feb 2023.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Member countries. Updated 4 Oct 2022.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The North Atlantic Treaty. Updated 10 Apr 2019.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization. “Collective defence and Article 5.” 20 Sep 2022.

“Remarks by President Biden and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg | Madrid, Spain.” Whitehouse.gov. 29 Jun 2022.

Yon Ebright, Katherine. Brennan Center for Justice. “NATO’s Article 5 Collective Defense Obligations, Explained.” Updated 15 Nov 2022.

Dunlap, Charles J. Jr. “Legally speaking, the NATO treaty does not require the U.S. to ‘automatically’ use force to defend allies.” Lawfire, Duke University. 21 Jul 2016.

The post Social Media Posts Misrepresent Zelenskyy’s Remarks on U.S. Military Involvement appeared first on FactCheck.org.

This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

Quick Take

The National Transportation Safety Board’s chair said an Obama-era rule the Trump administration nixed would not have prevented the derailment of a train in Ohio, as some partisan commentators inaccurately claim. The rule requiring a new electronic braking system for certain trains carrying hazardous cargo did not apply to that train.

Full Story

Since a Norfolk Southern train carrying toxic materials derailed and caught fire in East Palestine, Ohio, on Feb. 3, some social media commentators have wrongly blamed the accident on Donald Trump, whose administration eliminated several rail industry regulations.

“Former President Donald Trump has turned a disaster that he helped to create into a political win for him,” said David Doel, a Canadian news and politics commentator, in a Facebook video that has received roughly 16,000 views since it was posted Feb. 23. Doel proceeded to show clips of Trump being greeted warmly by residents of the town when he visited on Feb. 22.

“To be clear about how Trump is to blame, or at least partially to blame, for what happened: The U.S. Department of Transportation under Donald Trump … back in December 2017 … announced intent to repeal electronically controlled pneumatic brake mandate,” Doel said. “These are the ECP brakes that would have been on this train in East Palestine that derailed if it weren’t for this deregulation.”

Another popular Facebook post, from progressive politics commentator Brian Tyler Cohen, included a graphic that says, “Legislation was passed under President Obama that made it a legal requirement for trains carrying hazardous flammable materials to have ECP brakes, but this was rescinded in 2017 by the Trump administration.”

Both social media posts were referring to a 2015 Obama administration rule — not legislation — that would have required certain long trains transporting a particular class of flammable liquids to have electronically controlled pneumatic brakes. An ECP brake system uses electronic signals to activate the brakes on all train cars simultaneously, potentially allowing the train to stop faster than trains that use conventional air brakes, which operate sequentially from the front of the train to the rear.

The rail and oil industries lobbied against the rule. In 2018, during the Trump administration, after a congressionally mandated review of the braking requirement, the Department of Transportation repealed the rule. Agencies within the department “determined that the expected benefits, including safety benefits, of implementing ECP brake system requirements do not exceed the associated costs of equipping tank cars with ECP brake systems, and therefore are not economically justified.”

But that does not mean fault for the derailment in East Palestine lies with Trump.

Brake Rule Would Not Have Applied

In a Feb. 16 Twitter thread, the chair of the federally independent National Transportation Safety Board, Jennifer Homendy, explained that the Obama rule the Trump administration rolled back would not have applied to that particular Norfolk Southern train.

“Some are saying the ECP (electronically controlled pneumatic) brake rule, if implemented, would’ve prevented this derailment. FALSE,” she wrote. “The ECP braking rule would’ve applied ONLY to HIGH HAZARD FLAMMABLE TRAINS. The train that derailed in East Palestine was a MIXED FREIGHT TRAIN containing only 3 placarded Class 3 flammable liquids cars.”

“This means even if the rule had gone into effect, this train wouldn’t have had ECP brakes,” Homendy said. 

In his Facebook video arguing that Trump was at least “partially” responsible, Doel also cited a Newsweek article that included reporting from the Lever, a news site that quoted Steven Ditmeyer, a former Federal Railroad Administration official, saying: “Would ECP brakes have reduced the severity of this accident? Yes.”

Perhaps, but in a Feb. 23 CNN interview, Homendy said that while ECP brakes on trains would likely improve safety, they would not have prevented this particular derailment. It was most likely caused by an overheated wheel bearing on one of the freight cars, according to a preliminary NTSB report issued the same day.

“The wheel bearing failed on car No. 23, so even with ECP breaks, the derailment would have occurred, the fire would have ensued, and the five vinyl chloride tank cars would still have to be vented and burned,” she said. (Days after the derailment, officials decided to intentionally release the highly flammable vinyl chloride and burn it because of the risk of an explosion.)

And when CNN’s Jake Tapper asked if any other rule change could have prevented the accident, Homendy said that is still being determined.

“It’s too early to tell,” she said. “In our analysis phase of the investigation, we’ll look at just that. We’ll look at what could have prevented this terrible tragedy. And it could be regulation changes. It could be recommendations to Norfolk Southern, to the Department of Transportation, or to rail car manufacturers, or to emergency responders.”

Homendy said at the end of its investigation, the NTSB, which does not have regulatory authority, will make safety recommendations that either Congress or the Biden administration would have to implement.

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

Sources

Spencer, Saranac Hale and Jessica McDonald. “Commentators Push Unfounded Claims About Ohio Train Derailment.” FactCheck.org. 21 Feb 2023, updated 22 Feb 2023.

Doel, David. Email to FactCheck.org. 27 Feb 2023.

Ditmeyer, Steven. Email to FactCheck.org. 27 Feb 2023.

Federal Register. “Hazardous Materials: Enhanced Tank Car Standards and Operational Controls for High-Hazard Flammable Trains.” 8 May 2015

Federal Register. “Hazardous Materials: Removal of Electronically Controlled Pneumatic Brake System Requirements for High Hazard Flammable Unit Trains.” 25 Sep 2018.

@JenniferHomendy. “THREAD on East Palestine derailment: First, a message to the community…then a plea to those spreading misinformation.” Twitter. 16 Feb 2023.

Sirota, David, et al. “Rail Companies Blocked Safety Rules Before Ohio Derailment.” The Lever. 8 Feb 2023.

Bickerton, James. “Is Donald Trump to Blame for Ohio Train Derailment?” Newsweek. 14 Feb 2023.

CNN. “The Lead with Jake Tapper.” Transcript. 23 Feb 2023.

National Transportation Safety Board. Norfolk Southern Railway Train Derailment with Subsequent Hazardous Material Release and Fires. 23 Feb 2023.

Kessler, Glenn. “So far, Trump’s rollback of regulations can’t be blamed for Ohio train wreck.” Washington Post Fact Checker. 27 Feb 2023.

Goldman, Ben. “East Palestine, OH, Train Derailment and Hazardous Materials Shipment by Rail: Frequently Asked Questions.” Congressional Research Service. 24 Feb 2023.

The post NTSB Chair Contradicts Posts That Wrongly Claim Trump to Blame for Ohio Train Wreck appeared first on FactCheck.org.

This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

Quick Take

Responding to a question on what NATO could do to deter Russia’s nuclear threat, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said NATO and its allies should use “preventive actions” against Russia. But the Kremlin and social media posts have misquoted Zelensky, claiming he referred to nuclear strikes when he was referring to economic sanctions against Russia. 

Full Story

One of Russia’s tactics in attempts to cause fear in Ukraine and among its NATO allies has been the use of nuclear blackmail. 

In a national address in September, Russian President Vladimir Putin threatened Western countries and Ukraine by stating, “I want to remind those who allow themselves such statements about Russia that our country also has a variety of weapons of destruction, and in some areas even more modern than those in NATO countries. We will without question use all the means at our disposal to protect Russia and our people. This is not a bluff.” 

In response, U.S. officials said that the consequences would be “catastrophic” and “horrific” if Russia were to use nuclear weapons. In November, Chinese President Xi Jinping, largely friendly to Russia since its invasion of Ukraine, offered a rebuke to Russia’s nuclear threats, saying the international community should “jointly oppose the use of or threats to use nuclear weapons.” 

In an address and discussion at the Lowy Institute, a think tank in Sydney, Australia, in October, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was asked what else NATO could do to deter Russia from using nuclear weapons.

Zelensky responded by saying, through an interpreter, that his expectations for the international community were to take “preventive strikes, preventive actions so that Russia would know what would happen to them and not in return, I mean, waiting for the nuclear strikes first…” 

These statements, said in Ukrainian and translated into English, caused a swift response from the Kremlin. Russian government spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated, “Zelensky’s words to NATO are nothing more than a call to start a world war with unpredictable and monstrous consequences.” 

Zelensky’s spokesman, Sergii Nykyforov, clarified the president’s comments in an Oct. 6 Facebook post saying, “The President spoke about the period until February 24 [2022]. Then it was necessary to apply preventive measures to prevent Russia from starting the war. Let me remind you that the only measures that were about then were preventive sanctions.”

Zelensky’s advisor Mykhailo Podolyak also clarified the statements on Twitter on Oct. 6, saying that Zelensky “said nothing about a preventative nuclear strike on [Russian Federation]. Zelensky reminded about Russian nuclear blackmail and suggested to preemptively outline the consequences for Russia and intensify strikes against it – sanctions [against Russia] and armed assistance to [Ukraine].” 

On Oct. 8, Zelensky himself clarified his comments at the Lowy Institute in an interview with the BBC stating, “You must use preventative kicks, not attacks.” He also said that the response to his comments was an attempt by Russia to “retranslate” his words. 

Despite the clarifications, numerous social media accounts in February resurfaced Zelensky’s speech from four months ago, highlighting his “preventive actions” comment. A Feb. 12 Facebook post captioned in Spanish, read, “Zelensky pide atque nuclear preventivo contra Rusia,” and amassed 140,000 views. An English-language version of the caption — “Zelensky calls for preventative nuclear attack against Russia”– has since been taken down.

A French far-right political commentator shared a clip on Twitter on Feb. 2 with edited English subtitles that claim Zelensky stated, “They can use nuclear weapons on Russia” and “we need to launch preemptive strikes so that they know what will happen to them if they use it…” The tweet received more than 350,000 views and has been shared widely on Twitter. 

The news station France 24 debunked the clip and verified that the English subtitles in the clip were not what Zelensky said in Ukrainian. 

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

Sources

Folmar, Chloe. “Zelensky: Russian officials starting to ‘prepare their society’ for use of nuclear weapons.” The Hill. 8 Oct 2022

France24. “Debunking claims the Zelensky asked NATO for ‘pre-emptive’ nuclear strikes against Russia.” Truth or Fake. 8 Feb 2023. 

Guardian News. “‘I’m not bluffing’: Putin warns the west over nuclear weapons.” YouTube. 21 Sep 2022. 

The Kyiv Independent. “Ukraine imposes sanctions against Russia’s nuclear industry.” News Desk. 5 Feb 2023. 

Lau, Stuart. “China’s Xi warns Putin not to use nuclear arms in Ukraine.” Politico. 4 Nov 2022. 

The Lowy Institute. “A special address by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, President of Ukraine.” Lecture. 6 Oct 2022. 

Nykyforov, Sergii. “Colleagues, you have gone a little too far wit your nuclear hysteria…” Facebook. 6 Oct 2022. 

Ozon, Laurent. “Zélensky demande à l’OTAN une ‘frappe préventive’ (on comprend bien ‘nucléaire) contre la Russia.” Twitter. 2 Feb 2023. 

Podolyak, Mykhailo. @Podolyak_M. “Another ru-fake.” Twitter. 6 Oct 2022. 

RIA Novosti. “The Kremlin called Zelensky’s statements a call for the outbreak of a world war.” 6 Oct 2022. 

Smith, Alexander. “U.S. warns Russia of ‘catastrophic’ consequences if it uses nuclear weapons.” NBC News. 26 Sep 2022. 

The post Posts Misinterpret Zelensky Quote on ‘Preventive Actions’ Against Russia appeared first on FactCheck.org.

This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

Quick Take 

Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland wears head coverings on the House floor to cover his hair loss while undergoing treatment for cancer. Social media posts falsely claim that House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, a Republican, refused to allow Raskin to wear his head covering. The posts misinterpret a joke Raskin made in response to a question. 

Full Story

Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland announced on Dec. 28 that he had been diagnosed with cancer. “After several days of tests, I have been diagnosed with diffuse large B cell lymphoma, which is a serious but curable form of cancer,” Raskin said. 

Diffuse large B cell lymphoma is usually marked by growing tumors in the liver, spleen, lymph nodes, bone marrow or other organs, according to the National Cancer Institute. Three out of four people are disease free after treatment. 

“I am about to embark on a course of chemo-immunotherapy on an outpatient basis at Med Star Georgetown University Hospital and Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center. Prognosis for most people in my situation is excellent after four months of treatment,” Raskin said. 

On Jan. 31, Raskin said he had gone through two of six rounds of chemotherapy. While undergoing treatment, Raskin has continued working with the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability as the lead Democrat in the group.

He has worn hats and bandanas to cover his head during recent committee meetings. 

Raskin said the bandana look was inspired by guitarist and actor Steven Van Zandt. 

“I give all honor to Little Steven for creating this look for American men going through something,” Raskin told HuffPost.

But posts on social media falsely claimed that Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy refused to allow Raskin to wear his head covering while he is undergoing chemotherapy. 

“Representative Jamie Raskin has been diagnosed with cancer and is undergoing chemotherapy, which has caused his hair to fall out. Kevin McCarthy has refused to allow him to wear a covering on his head, and ordered him to remove the head covering,” one post said. “Tell me again how the Republican Party is the party of Christian Values!!!”

But the claim is not true. The social media posts have misinterpreted a joke Raskin reportedly made during a meeting with the Democratic Caucus, according to a reporter. 

Punchbowl News managing editor Heather Caygle tweeted that Raskin, in response to a question on hypothetical efforts by Republicans to get him to remove his head covering, jokingly said: “And I will make them take off their toupees.”

“Rep. Jamie Raskin gets a standing ovation in Dem Caucus after saying he will push back on Republican efforts to make him take off the cap he’s been wearing as he undergoes chemotherapy. ‘And I will make them take off their toupees,’ Raskin said to Dem cheers,” Caygle tweeted on Jan. 31. 

Caygle also tweeted that McCarthy said he hadn’t heard of any concerns about Raskin’s head covering when she asked him on Jan. 31. 

Mark Bednar, a spokesperson for McCarthy, told us in an email that the claim on social media wasn’t true. “This is false,” Bednar said. 

Jacob Wilson, a spokesperson for Raskin, also told us in an email that the claim is false and McCarthy has been supportive of Raskin. 

“Along with Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Minority Whip Katherine Clark and all of Jamie’s Democratic colleagues, Jamie’s GOP colleagues, including Speaker Kevin McCarthy … have been extremely supportive and encouraging during his medical journey,” Wilson said.

Raskin also said that his colleagues have been supportive. 

“[T]he doctors are optimistic, and I’m feeling strong. And my colleagues have been uniformly supportive, Democrats and Republicans – and you know, that means a lot to me,” Raskin said.

Other Republicans, including Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, the chairman of the oversight committee, and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, have also wished Raskin well with his treatment.

On Jan. 31, Raskin proposed an amendment to allow committee members to participate in meetings remotely for medical and other circumstances. The amendment was rejected by Republicans, who said it was unnecessary. 

“I will do everything in my ability to work with you to make sure that we can accommodate anything with respect to committee work while you’re undergoing treatment. I’m very sympathetic to what you’re going through,” Comer said to Raskin in response to the amendment proposal. 

In 2019, Democrats amended a 181-year-old House rule that previously prohibited wearing hats on the floor to accommodate Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, who wears a Muslim headscarf.

This isn’t Raskin’s first bout with cancer. In 2010, he was diagnosed with stage 3 colon cancer. He underwent cancer treatment including radiation, chemotherapy and surgery to successfully remove signs of colon cancer, Raskin has said.

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

Sources

Full Committee on Oversight and Accountability. House Committee on Oversight and Reform. Accessed 15 Feb 2023.

“Statement of Congressman Jamie Rasking to the People of Maryland’s 8th District.” Raskin.house.gov. 28 Dec 2022. 

Grayer, Annie. “Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin announces he has ‘serious but curable form of cancer’.” CNN. 28 Dec 2022. 

Raskin, Jamie (@RepRaskin). “Thank you, Marjorie, for this touching message, which my youngest daughter showed me. I’m grateful for your concern and very sorry to learn that you lost your father to cancer. Wishing you happy holidays with loved ones.” Twitter. 29 Dec 2022. 

Delaney,  Arthur. “Jamie Raskin Credits Steven Van Zandt For Bandana Look As He Endures Chemotherapy.” HuffPost. 31 Jan 2023. 

Folley, Aris. “Dems change House rules to allow lawmakers to wear religious headwear.” The Hill. 5 Jan 2019. 

“Raskin Recalls Battle With Cancer in Plea for Medicare for All.” Raskin.house.gov. 29 Apr 2019. 

Capital Digestive Care. “Congressman Jamie Raskin Talks To Us About Surviving Colon Cancer.” Accessed 15 Feb 2023. 

The Recount (@therecount). “House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-KY) recognizes Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) for attending the hearing after being diagnosed with cancer: ‘We’re all rooting for you. We know that you’re gonna win this battle.’ Raskin then gets a round of applause at the hearing.” Twitter. 31 Jan 2023. 

Hutzler, Alexandra. “Raskin dons headwear as he undergoes chemo, receives encouragement from GOP colleague.” ABC News. 1 Feb 2023. 

C-Span. “House Oversight Committee Meets to Consider Its Rules.” 31 Jan 2023. 

National Cancer Institute. “Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.” Accessed 15 Feb 2023. 

Bednar, Mark. Spokesperson for Kevin McCarthy. Email to FactCheck.org. 15 Feb 2023. 

Campbell, Jason (@JasonSCampbell). “Newsmax’s Greg Kelly: ‘Jamie Raskin is suffering. He’s being treated for cancer. We want him to get better, absolutely. I also think he should get a hat – that looks like a durag or a bandana. It’s totally inappropriate and weird.” Twitter. 9 Feb 2023. 

Caygle, Heather (@heatherscope). “Rep. Jamie Raskin gets a standing ovation in Dem Caucus after saying he will push back on Republican efforts to make him take off the cap he’s been wearing as he undergoes chemotherapy. ‘And I will make them take off their toupees,’ Raskin said to Dem cheers.” Twitter. 31 Jan 2023. 

American Association for Cancer Rsearch. “Representative Jamie Raskin: Surviving Colorectal Cancer and Working to Improve the Health of the Nation.” AACR Cancer Progress Report. 2017.

The post McCarthy Is Supportive of Raskin’s Head Covering, Contrary to Online Posts appeared first on FactCheck.org.

This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

Quick Take  

Police identified the suspect in the Feb. 13 mass shooting at Michigan State University as Anthony Dwayne McRae, who shot and killed himself. But a viral internet hoax used the photo of another man and falsely claimed that the suspect was named “Lynn Dee Walker.”

Full Story

Anthony Dwayne McRae, 43, shot at least eight students at Michigan State University on Feb. 13, according to campus police.

Three of those students died and five were in critical condition as of the morning of Feb. 14.

Police found McRae after he shot and killed himself off campus, Interim Deputy Chief Chris Rozman, of the Michigan State University Police and Pubic Safety, announced at a press conference shortly before 12:30 a.m. on Feb. 14. That was about four hours after the initial shots-fired alert went out.

Police identified McRae by name at a press conference later that morning at 8 a.m.

In the meantime, however, an internet hoax spread widely, misidentifying the suspect as “Lynn Dee Walker” with photos of a person not related to the shooting.

One of the most viral versions of the claim came from a Twitter account that started in April and has a history of sharing misinformation about vaccines and COVID-19, as well as content critical of the Biden administration. That tweet was viewed more than a million times, according to Twitter’s view count, before it was deleted and the account posted an apology. The original tweet was also copied and shared as a screenshot meme on Facebook.

The photos included in the tweet appear to show the person who runs a Twitter account that posts frequently about religious topics. Although the account is run anonymously, the person behind it tweeted a picture of himself in 2020 and wrote, “The main reason I anonymize myself is to protect my very innocent & boring family from the intrigues of internet sociopaths.”

The photo in his tweet is one of the pictures used in the viral post.

We sent a message to the account seeking comment, but didn’t get a response.

But, as we said, police have identified the shooting suspect as Anthony Dwayne McRae, who is now dead.

“We have absolutely no idea what the motive was at this point,” Rozman, the interim deputy police chief, said at the 8 a.m. press conference on Feb. 14. “We can confirm that the 43-year-old suspect had no affiliation with the university. He was not a student, faculty, staff — current or previous.”

The investigation is ongoing.

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

Sources

MSU Police and Public Safety (@msupolice). “UPDATE: The person who committed these homicides is 43-year-old Anthony Dwayne McRae. He died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.” Twitter. 14 Feb 2023.

MSU Police and Public Safety (@msupolice). “UPDATE: We are able to confirm that the 3 deceased, and 5 victims in critical condition are all MSU students.” Twitter. 14 Feb 2023.

Michigan State University Police. Alert issued at 02/13/2023 08:31:52 PM EST. 13 Feb 2023.

MSU Police and Public Safety. “8AM NEWS CONFERENCE: Shooting at Michigan State University.” Facebook. 14 Feb 2023.

R.Cam (@Logo_Daedalus). “I didnt have a choice after the German Idealism video so lol— I don’t really care is what I realized. Here’s a pic of me rn. I got doxxed in 2018 & it was entirely without consequence.” Twitter. 3 Oct 2020.

The post Internet Hoax Spreads False ID on Michigan State University Shooter appeared first on FactCheck.org.

This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

Quick Take

President Joe Biden announced on Jan. 25 that the U.S. would provide Ukraine with 31 tanks. After the announcement, a meme on social media misquoted Biden’s remarks from March 2022, suggesting he said that sending tanks to Ukraine would cause World War III. Biden said sending weapons “with American pilots and American crews” would cause a world war. 

Full Story

Since the outset of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the Ukrainian government has received assistance from numerous countries in the form of economic and military support. In preparation for the next phase of the war, Ukrainian officials have repeatedly lobbied their Western allies for more modernized equipment, including longer-range missile systems and tanks.

Requests for the missiles have been denied, so far, for fears of escalating the war further. The U.S. continually rebuffed Ukraine’s request for tanks because of the training it takes to operate and maintain Abrams tanks. 

In January, after a series of talks among Ukraine, the U.S. and other allies, multiple countries agreed to supply tanks to Ukraine. Those countries who have committed to or expressed willingness to send tanks so far have been the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Poland and the U.S.

Biden announced on Jan. 25 that the U.S. would supply Ukraine with 31 M1 Abrams tanks along with eight M88 recovery vehicles, which are vehicles designed to aid in the operation and recovery of Abrams tanks. The U.S. announcement prompted Germany to give its Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine after previously refusing to do so unless the U.S. acted first.

In his Jan. 25 remarks, Biden explained the decision to supply tanks, stating, “They need to be able to counter Russia’s evolving tactics and strategy on the battlefield in the very near term. They need to improve their ability to maneuver in open terrain. And they need an enduring capability to deter and defend against Russian aggression over the long term.” 

He also said, “It is not an offensive threat to Russia,” describing the tanks as needed to “defend and protect Ukrainian land.”

The Abrams tanks, procured through the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, are expected to take weeks to arrive in Ukraine, in part due to the training of Ukrainian operators.

After Biden made the announcement, a meme was shared on Instagram and Twitter that misleadingly edited a statement by Biden from March 2022, claiming he said: “The idea that we’re going to send tanks to Ukraine, that’s called World War III.”

The bottom half of the meme contained a line from his Jan. 25 comments that the U.S. would now supply tanks to Ukraine.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk responded to the meme on Twitter, writing, “The war is escalating quickly.”

The original tweet received more than 20 million views, and Musk’s response had over 16 million views. 

But the posts misquote Biden’s 2022 statement to the House Democratic Caucus in Philadelphia nearly a year ago (emphasis ours).

Biden, March 11, 2022: But look, the idea — the idea that we’re going to send in offensive equipment and have planes and tanks and trains going in with American pilots and American crews, just understand – and don’t kid yourself, no matter what you all say – that’s called “World War Three.” Okay?

The clarifying point in the original quote — but omitted in the meme — is that the addition of American personnel along with offensive equipment to Ukraine could lead to World War III. 

In an email to FactCheck.org on Feb. 9 responding to the social media posts, a spokesperson for the U.S. State Department stated, “As President Biden has said, America’s goal is straightforward: We want to see a democratic, independent, sovereign and prosperous Ukraine with the means to deter and defend itself against further aggression.” 

The spokesperson also noted that Biden wrote in an essay in the New York Times on May 31, 2022: “We do not seek war between NATO and Russia. As much as I disagree with Mr. Putin, and find his actions an outrage, the United States will not try to bring about his ouster in Moscow. So long as the United States or our allies are not attacked, we will not be directly engaged in this conflict, either by sending American troops to fight in Ukraine or by attacking Russian forces. We are not encouraging or enabling Ukraine to strike beyond its borders. We do not want to prolong the war just to inflict pain on Russia.” 

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

Sources

Statista. “Total bilateral aid commitments to Ukraine between January 24 and November 20, 2022, by type and country or organization.” Accessed 13 Feb 2023.

Vergun, David. “Biden Announces Abrams Tanks to be Delivered to Ukraine.” U.S. Department of Defense News. 25 Jan 2023. 

Liebermann, Oren, Haley Britzky and Alex Marquardt. “US set to finalize massive security aid package for Ukraine, including Stryker combat vehicles for the first time.” CNN. 18 Jan 2023. 

Ali, Idrees and Sabine Siebold. “Ramstein summit fails to agree to Leopard tanks deal for Ukraine.” Reuters. 20 Jan 2023.

Cooper, Helene and Eric Schmitt. “U.S. Plans to Send Abrams Tanks to Ukraine, Officials Say.” New York Times. 24 Jan 2023. 

Woody, Christopher and Jake Epstein. “Ukraine is getting a new heavy-duty armored vehicle to haul its damaged tanks off the battlefield, US officials say.” Business Insider. 25 Jan 2023. 

Schmitz, Rob, Charles Maynes and Joanna Kakiss. “Germany agrees to send its Leopard battle tanks to Ukraine after weeks of pressure.” NPR. 25 Jan 2023. 

White House. “Background Press Call by Senior Administration Officials on U.S. Support to Ukraine.” 25 Jan 2023. 

Musk, Elon. @elonmusk. “The war is escalating quickly.” Twitter. 31 Jan 2023.  

White House. “Remarks by President Biden at the House Democratic Caucus Issues Conference.” 11 Mar 2022. 

White House. “Remarks by President Biden on Continued Support for Ukraine.” 25 Jan 2023.

U.S. Department of State spokesperson. Email to Factcheck.org. 9 Feb 2023. 

President Joe Biden. “President Biden: What America Will and Will Not Do in Ukraine.” Guest essay. New York Times. 31 May 2022.

The post Posts Misquote Biden’s Year-Old Remarks on Tanks for Ukraine appeared first on FactCheck.org.

This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

Quick Take

Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is the nation’s highest-ranking military officer. But posts on social media falsely claimed Milley “never served in combat.” Milley has an “extensive background of combat experience,” according to the U.S. Army, including deployment to Iraq and three tours in Afghanistan. 

Full Story

As the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff since October 2019, Gen. Mark A. Milley is the nation’s highest-ranking military officer. 

Milley, who is also the principal military advisor to President Joe Biden, has served in the military for more than 42 years and has a long combat history. 

Yet, posts on social media falsely claimed Milley “never served in combat and never won a war.”

“Can someone explain to me how a man who never served in combat and never won a war has THIS many medals on his uniform,” journalist Jordan Schachtel questioned in a tweet that shows Milley with numerous military decorations. 

The tweet since has been deleted, but the claim continued to circulate. 

Benny Johnson, a contributor to the conservative organization Turning Point USA and a frequent spreader of misinformation, shared a screenshot of Schachtel’s tweet in an Instagram post on Feb. 8, which received more than 64,600 likes.

But, as we said, the post’s claim regarding Milley’s combat experience is wrong. 

An article about Milley on the U.S. Army website says he has an “extensive background of combat experience having deployed in support of numerous operational assignments including: Multinational Force and Observers Sinai in Egypt, Operation Just Cause in Panama, Operation Uphold Democracy in Haiti, Operation Joint Endeavor in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.” He also deployed to Somalia and Colombia.

Milley’s biography on the Department of Defense website notes that he served three tours in Afghanistan. He has also held command positions in eight divisions and Special Forces, including as deputy commanding general and commanding general. 

In a Department of Defense photo, Milley can be seen with a wide range of medals on his military uniform, including several medals and badges related to combat efforts.

The top badge on his left side is the Combat Infantryman Badge with a star. To be eligible to wear this medal, one has to meet certain requirements, which include being “assigned to an infantry unit during such time as the unit is engaged in active ground combat” and “[a]ctively participate in such ground combat.”

To receive the Korean Defense Service Medal — also shown on the left side of Milley’s uniform — one must have been “engaged in actual combat” during service in Korea; “be killed, wounded or injured in the line of duty”; or participated as an aircrew member flying an aircraft over certain areas in support of the operation.

On his right, Milley’s uniform includes an Army Meritorious Unit Commendation award, given for outstanding service for six consecutive months during a military operation against an armed enemy. “Although service in a combat zone is not required, the unit’s accomplishments must be directly related to the larger combat effort,” according to the American War Library.

According to the Association of the United States Army, Milley’s awards, badges and decorations include the “Defense Distinguished Service Medal; Army Distinguished Service Medal with two bronze oak leaf clusters; Defense Superior Service Medal with two bronze oak leaf clusters; Legion of Merit with two bronze oak leaf clusters; Bronze Star Medal with three bronze oak leaf clusters; Meritorious Service Medal with silver oak leaf cluster; Army Commendation Medal with four bronze oak leaf clusters; Army Achievement Medal with one bronze oak leaf cluster; National Defense Service Medal with one bronze service star; Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal with two bronze service stars; Afghanistan Campaign Medal with two bronze service stars; Iraq Campaign Medal with two bronze service stars; Global War on Terrorism Service Medal; Korea Defense Service Medal; Humanitarian Service Medal; Army Service Ribbon; Overseas Service Ribbon with numeral 5; NATO Medal with bronze service star; and the Multi-national Force and Observers Medal… Combat Infantryman Badge with star; Expert Infantryman Badge; Master Parachutist Badge; Scuba Diver Badge; Ranger Tab; Special Forces Tab; Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge; Joint Meritorious Unit Award; and Meritorious Unit Commendation and the French Military Parachutist Badge.”

Milley served in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq after the attacks on 9/11. Neither mission was considered a success for the U.S. The U.S. military hasn’t had a clear victory since the first Gulf War in the early 1990s, when the U.S. successfully led a coalition that defended Kuwait from an Iraqi invasion.  

U.S. Army officials said in a 2019 report — after Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was deposed — that “Iran appears to be the only victor” of the Iraqi war.

The U.S. removed its remaining troops from Afghanistan in 2021, ending the U.S. military’s 20-year presence there and relinquishing control of the country to the Taliban. 

But it’s worth noting that Milley was part of several military missions that were declared a success by the U.S. Army and reports from the Department of Defense. They include Operation Just Cause, a mission in Panama to restore power to elected official Guillermo Endara and arrest dictator Manual Noriega in 1989, and Operation Uphold Democracy, a U.S.-led military intervention authorized by the United Nations to restore elected government officials in Haiti in 1996. 

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

Sources

Fernholz, Tim. “Army says Iran is the only victory of the Iraq War.” Yahoo. 22 Jan 2019.

Department of Defense. “MARK A. MILLEY.” Accessed 9 Feb 2023. 

Oberle, Tim. “Get to Know the New Chief of Staff of the Army – General Mark A. Milley.” U.S. Army. 18 Aug 2015. 

Jones, Brea. “Spending Bill Includes Pay Raise for Staffers, Not Members of Congress.” FactCheck.org. 6 May 2023.

History.com. “Saddam Hussein captured.” 13 Dec 2003.

Schwaller, Shannon. “Operation Just Cause: the Invasion of Panama.” U.S. Army. 17 Nov 2008.

Defense Technical Information Center. “Operation Uphold Democracy: Military Support for Democracy in Haiti.” 1 Jun 1996.

“GEN. MARK A. MILLEY, CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMY.” Association of the United States Army. Accessed 10 Feb 2023.

“Meritorious Unit Commendation Display Recognition.” The American War Library. Accessed 10 Feb 2023.

“Korean Defense Service Medal.” Air Force’s Personnel Center. Accessed 10 Feb 2023.

The post Gen. Milley Has Long Combat History, Contrary to Social Media Posts appeared first on FactCheck.org.

This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

Quick Take

Starbucks has a long history of supporting LGBTQ rights and same-sex marriage. But a post on social media twists a 2013 statement from its CEO at the time to falsely claim he said don’t buy Starbucks coffee “if you support traditional marriage.”

Full Story 

Starbucks has long supported marriage equality and “advancing inclusion and equity for all,” according to the company website.

Starbucks has offered full health benefits to all employees, “including coverage for same-sex domestic partnerships,” since 1988. 

But during an annual shareholders meeting in 2013, a shareholder said that Starbucks was losing customers because of the company’s support for gay marriage.

In response, Howard Schultz, the CEO of Starbucks at that time, said the company will continue to embrace all forms of diversity. Schultz told the shareholder, “If you feel, respectfully, that you can get a higher return than the 38% you got last year, it’s a free country. You can sell your shares in Starbucks and buy shares in another company.” 

A few articles over the years either misquoted Schultz’s exchange with the shareholder or took his comments out of context.

In 2013, the Examiner carried a headline that said “Starbucks CEO: No tolerance for traditional marriage supporters.” In 2015 and 2017, respectively, two articles paraphrased Schultz to have said, “If You Support Traditional Marriage We Don’t Want Your Business.”

Over the years, too, social media posts that shared those articles distorted Schultz’s words.

“’STARBUCKS BREAKING NEWS: At the annual shareholders meeting on Wednesday, CEO Howard Schultz sent a clear message to anyone who supports ‘Traditional Marriage’. He states, ‘WE DON’T WANT YOUR BUSINESS,’” one Facebook user wrote in 2015 after the meeting.

Now, nearly 10 years later, a post on social media continues to misstate Schultz’s words by reviving the old claim that supporters of “traditional marriage,” or marriage between a man and a woman, aren’t welcome to buy coffee from Starbucks. 

“The CEO of Starbucks just said, ‘If you support traditional marriage, don’t buy our coffee.’ I accept those terms,” read a post on Facebook shared on Feb. 1 that received over 1,000 likes. 

But there is no record of Schultz saying this, and a spokesperson told us in an email there’s no truth to the claim. 

“This is false,” said the spokesperson, who also shared a link to the company’s statement of support for the U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in 2015.

It’s also worth noting that last year when the Respect for Marriage Act — which affirmed same-sex and interracial marriage rights — was signed into law in December, Starbucks announced support for the legislation and pledged its “commitment to advance inclusion and equity for all.”

But that doesn’t mean that the company doesn’t support “traditional marriage.” The company published an article on two couples who got engaged at their local Starbucks in 2016. Both couples — who are identified in the article as being in what some may consider a “traditional” relationship — received support from Starbucks employees to help with the proposal. 

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

Sources

Allen, Frederick E. “Howard Schultz to Anti-Gay-Marriage Starbucks Shareholder: ‘You Can Sell Your Shares’.” Forbes. 22 Mar 2013. 

Peiper, Heidi, “Timeline: Starbucks history of LGBTQIA2+ inclusion.” Starbucks Stories. 16 May 2022. 

Starbucks Stories. “Starbucks Applauds Supreme Court’s Ruling on Marriage Equality.” 26 Jun 2015. 

Starbucks Stories. “Message from Zulima: Advancing Protections for Marriage Equality.” 13 Dec 2022. 

Starbucks spokesperson. Email to FactCheck.org. 2 Feb 2023.

The post Post Misstates Quote from Starbucks CEO on Marriage appeared first on FactCheck.org.

This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

Quick Take  

The U.S. spent more than $849 billion in the 20-year war in Afghanistan and has spent about $113 billion to support Ukraine since Russia invaded in 2022. But a video on social media falsely claims that the aid for Ukraine is “double the U.S. expenditure for its own war in Afghanistan.”

Full Story

The U.S. has spent more than $849 billion since it invaded Afghanistan in 2001, and it continues to spend money on reconstruction, according to recent government reports.

The U.S. has spent about $113 billion so far on aid to Ukraine since Russia invaded that country in early 2022.

But a video that’s been circulating on social media since mid-December claims that the amount spent in Ukraine is “double the U.S. expenditure for its own war in Afghanistan.”

That’s clearly false.

The U.S. was engaged in Afghanistan for 20 years and, according to the most recent report from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, spent a cumulative total of $849.7 billion.

The spending packages approved by Congress for Ukraine over the last year have, as we said, totaled roughly $113 billion — $13.6 billion in March, $40 billion in May, $12.35 billion in September and $47 billion in December — including funding for NATO allies.

The totals for both Afghanistan and Ukraine include military spending and humanitarian aid.

Carlos Reyes, who posted the video on Dec. 13 to his Instagram account titled “the splendid savage podcast,” also called the aid to Ukraine “money laundering,” an apparent reference to another false claim that was spreading widely at the time. We’ve written about that, too.

There doesn’t appear to be any actual podcast by that name and no such show is in the Apple Podcast catalog, an Apple spokesman told us.

But Reyes’ video has been shared by other Instagram users who have featured it on their accounts recently, furthering the falsehood about U.S. aid and military spending.

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

Sources

Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. Quarterly Report to the United States Congress. 30 Jan 2023.

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “Congress Approved $113 Billion of Aid to Ukraine in 2022.” 5 Jan 2023.

Robertson, Lori. “U.S. Aid to Ukraine, Explained.” FactCheck.org. 2 Dec 2022.

House Committee on Appropriations. UKRAINE SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2022. Accessed 2 Feb 2023.

U.S. House. “H.R.7691, Additional Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2022.” (as passed 21 May 2022).

U.S. House. “H.R.6833 – Continuing Appropriations and Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2023.” (as passed 30 Sep 2022).

House Committee on Appropriations. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023. Accessed 2 Feb 2023.

Hale Spencer, Saranac. “Bogus Theory Misinterprets FTX Support for Ukraine.” FactCheck.org. Updated 13 Dec 2022.

Kahn, Zach. Spokesman, Apple. Email to FactCheck.org. 1 Feb 2023.

The post U.S. Spent Much More in Afghan War Than in Support for Ukraine So Far, Contrary to Online Claim appeared first on FactCheck.org.

This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

Quick Take

Buffalo Bills player Damar Hamlin suffered a cardiac arrest Jan. 2 on the football field after being hit in the chest during a tackle. Hamlin was discharged from the hospital on Jan. 11 and has made several public appearances since then. But posts on social media falsely claim Hamlin died.

Full Story

Damar Hamlin, a 24-year-old safety for the Buffalo Bills, suffered a cardiac arrest after taking a hit to the chest during a tackle on Jan. 2 in a football game against the Cincinnati Bengals.

Hamlin got up after the tackle, but then collapsed and received medical attention on the field, as we previously reported. In a statement on Jan. 3, the Bills said Hamlin had suffered a cardiac arrest, which means his heart stopped beating after the hit, although his “heartbeat was restored on the field.” 

Hamlin was initially taken to the University of Cincinnati Medical Center, where he was sedated and listed in critical condition. Hamlin was transferred on Jan. 9 to the Buffalo General Medical Center/Gates Vascular Institute, where he was tested and evaluated to determine the cause of the cardiac arrest and received a plan for recovery. He was released from the hospital on Jan. 11.  

Since his release, Hamlin has visited the Bills’ practice facility several times. 

Jordon Rooney, Hamlin’s family spokesman, told ESPN on Jan. 19, “Despite being out of the hospital, Damar still has a lengthy recovery. Damar still requires oxygen and is having his heart monitored regularly. He has visited with the team a few times but he still gets winded very easily.”

But posts on social media falsely claim that Hamlin is dead and that the NFL is covering it up. 

“I don’t believe Damar Hamlin is alive. NFL paid off his family to keep quiet. After all these weeks have passed, don’t you think it’s extremely odd we still haven’t seen his face, or any video of him or his family TALKING on camera about how thankful he is to be alive and well,” read a tweet shared on Jan. 23. 

A post on Facebook shared screenshots of several tweets of bogus claims about Hamlin — including the Jan. 23 tweet. 

The caption of the Facebook post read, “DH died that day. What they tried to pull of as him on Sunday was ridiculous if you have any kind of discernment. No interviews with him. Feds surround the hospital. Gag order on all players and coaches, just to name a few of the ‘strange’ occurrences surrounding this event. They are covering this up as best they can as to not have to answer any questions about why he had a heart attack on live TV. If I’m wrong I’ll admit it but I don’t think I am.”

But the Facebook post and the tweet are indeed wrong. Hamlin has been seen in public several times. He is usually shown wearing a mask, and it’s difficult to see his face in the images and videos shared.

On Jan. 22, Hamlin appeared at Highmark Stadium in Orchard Park, New York, for the playoff game between the Bills and the Bengals. Before the game started, Hamlin was shown riding in a golf cart on his way to the locker room to visit his teammates. 

Hamlin watched the game in a stadium luxury box with his parents and brother. He was also shown on camera to the crowd, forming his hands in a heart shape — his signature move — before halftime was over.

It’s also inaccurate that a “gag order” — which is when a judge prohibits a case from being discussed in public — has been issued to players or coaches. Many players have spoken publicly about Hamlin’s recovery and visits to the team. Josh Allen, the Bills’ quarterback, debunked the claims that Hamlin wasn’t actually at the game and there was a body double portraying Hamlin.

“One, that’s Damar’s swag. He likes wearing that,” Allen said in a Jan. 24 podcast interview. “Two, he was in the locker room with us pregame, so yes, that was Damar. There is absolutely zero chance. Absolutely zero chance. That was the Damar Hamlin. That’s our guy. That’s our brother.”

Hamlin also appears to have addressed the rumors on Jan. 23 in a tweet that showed a photo of him standing next to a mural of himself with the caption, “Clone.”

Another tweet from Hamlin shared the next day read, “Thankful for all the GENUINE love, thoughts & prayers from all across the world.. y’all will hear from me soon!” 

While the cause of Hamlin’s cardiac arrest is not known, experts suspect Hamlin suffered from a rare condition called commotio cordis — an irregular heartbeat caused by a sudden hit to the chest.  

Symptoms of cardiac arrest include sudden collapse, loss of consciousness, cessation of breathing and no pulse. Without immediate intervention to get the individual’s heart beating again, cardiac arrest can cause death.

Chuck Hughes, a former wide receiver for the Detroit Lions, is the only NFL player to die after collapsing on the field. Hughes had an undiagnosed heart condition and suffered a heart attack on Oct. 24, 1971, when a blood clot became detached after he was tackled.

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

Sources

Buffalo Bills. “Bills issued this update on Damar Hamlin.” 3 Jan 2023.

Buffalo Bills (@BuffaloBills). “Welcome home, @HamlinIsland. #CINvsBUF | #BillsMafia.” Twitter. 22 Jan 2023.

Damar Hamlin (@HamlinIsland). “Not home quite just yet [home]. Still doing & passing a bunch of test. Special thank-you to Buffalo General it’s been nothing but love since arrival! Keep me in y’all prayers please! #3strong.” Twitter. 10 Jan 2023.

Damar Hamlin (@HamlinIsland). “‘Clone‘.” Twitter. 23 Jan 2023.

Damar Hamlin (@HamlinIsland). “Thankful for all the GENUINE love, thoughts & prayers from all across the world.. y’all will hear from me soon!” Twitter. 24 Jan 2023.

Davis, Jack. “Buffalo Bills Head Coach in First Public Comments Since Hamlin Collapse: ‘Glory to God’.” Western Journal. 6 Jan 2023.

Cornell Law School. “Gag order.” Updated Dec 2020.

Getzenberg, Alaina. “Damar Hamlin visits Bills’ locker room, salutes fans at Bengals game.” ESPN. 22 Jan 2023.

Getzenberg, Alaina. “‘My heart is with you’: Damar Hamlin cheers on Bills from home.” ESPN. 15 Jan 2023.

Harvey, Coley. “Bills’ Damar Hamlin faces ‘lengthy recovery,’ spokesman says.” ESPN. 19 Jan 2023.

Hille, Bob. “The day Chuck Hughes died: Remembering the only NFL player to die in a game.” The Sporting News. 24 Oct 2021.

Kaleida Health. “Kaleida Health Update on Buffalo Bills Safety Damar Hamlin.” Updated 10 Jan 2023

Link, Mark S. “Commotio Cordis: Ventricular Fibrillation Triggered by Chest Impact–Induced Abnormalities in Repolarization.” Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology. 1 Apr 2012.

McDonald, Jessica. “NFL Player Damar Hamlin’s Cardiac Arrest Triggers Unfounded Social Media Claims.” FactCheck.org. Updated 6 Jan 2023.

Mayo Clinic. “Sudden cardiac arrest.” 19 Jan 2023.

Sullivan, Marisa. “Widow of NFL Player Who Died on Field ‘Very Emotional’ Over Damar Hamlin’s Collapse.” People Magazine. 4 Jan 2023.

Thompson, Carolyn. “Going Home: Bills’ Hamlin Released From Buffalo Hospital.” Associated Press. 11 Jan 2023.

The post Damar Hamlin Is Recovering and Has Appeared Publicly, Contrary to Online Claims appeared first on FactCheck.org.

This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

Quick Take  

Illinois’ new criminal justice law, known as the SAFE-T Act, would eliminate cash bail but allow a judge to detain anyone who is deemed a danger to others or a flight risk. Social media posts misleadingly claim that anyone arrested for serious crimes, including second-degree murder, “will be let out free.”

Full Story

The Illinois Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equality-Today Act — better known as the SAFE-T Act — was signed into law by Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker in 2021. 

On Jan. 1, parts of the law, which addresses a range of criminal justice issues, went into effect. Several new requirements are being implemented, including that police officers provide aid after using force, all police wear body cameras by 2025, and confidential mental health screening and counseling be provided for officers. 

But one part of the law, known as the Pretrial Fairness Act, is under scrutiny, and critics say it will make Illinois unsafe. 

The Pretrial Fairness Act eliminates cash bail for all offenses and allows individuals stopped under the suspicion of committing traffic, quasi-criminal or misdemeanor offenses to go free before a trial, with the stipulation that they will return to the court for their hearing.

The act would still allow a judge to detain a person who is considered a flight risk or who poses a threat to “any other person or the community.” A judge could also detain someone because of the nature of the crime.

On Dec. 28, Kankakee County Judge Thomas Cunnington ruled that the Pretrial Fairness Act was unconstitutional. Cunnington said the state Legislature should have allowed people to vote on the elimination of cash bail and the Legislature should have followed the requirements in the state constitution to pass the measure.

This provision of the law is on hold until an appeal hearing before the Illinois Supreme Court in March. The Supreme Court issued an emergency motion order on Dec. 31 to keep the existing cash bail system in place to “maintain consistent pretrial procedures throughout Illinois.”

Prior to Cunnington’s ruling, several amendments had been made to the pretrial release provisions of the SAFE-T Act on Dec. 6 that added felonies for which a judge can deny a release, such as arson, robbery or sexual assault.

But posts on social media have spread misleading claims about the changes to the cash bail system under the act, saying they put dangerous criminals back on the street and limit what a person can be arrested for — suggesting that all violent criminals will be released before the trial.

A Facebook video posted on Jan. 1 misleadingly claimed that anyone detained under the charges of kidnapping, armed robbery, burglary or second-degree murder would be immediately released. “Anyone locked up under these charges will be let out free,” the speaker says in the video, which received more than 218,000 views and 1,500 likes.

A Facebook post shared on Jan. 16 said: “The Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity-Today Act (SAFE-T Act) would restrict which crimes a person can be arrested for, and would free those in custody for 12 offenses, including second-degree murder, aggravated battery, and arson without bail, as well as drug-induced homicide, kidnapping, burglary, robbery, intimidation, aggravated DUI, aggravated fleeing and eluding, drug offenses and threatening a public official.”

The Facebook posts include claims that show a misunderstanding of the SAFE-T Act. All of the crimes listed in the Jan. 1 video — kidnapping, armed robbery, burglary and second-degree murder — are still offenses for which a person can be held in jail before a trial if a judge finds the individual to be a danger to the community or a flight risk.

Harold Krent, a professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law, told us in an email that under the SAFE-T Act, “individuals charged with such crimes can be detained based on a finding of potential dangerousness.”   

“To detain, there must be particular facts demonstrating serious risk,” Krent said. “Or the individual can be detained because of a risk of flight.”

David Stovall, a criminology and law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, offered a similar explanation to us in an email.

“In terms of the Illinois SAFE-T Act, a judge has the right to detain anyone that is deemed a ‘public safety risk,’” Stovall said. “Anyone can be detained if the bench determines there is a risk to the well being of particular individuals or the public at-large.”

State officials said the law is intended to avoid having dangerous criminals easily released based on their ability to pay for bail.

“I’m pleased that the General Assembly has passed clarifications that uphold the principle we fought to protect: to bring an end to a system where wealthy violent offenders can buy their way out of jail, while less fortunate nonviolent offenders wait in jail for trial,” Pritzker said on Dec. 6, after signing amendments to the SAFE-T Act.

Pretrial Release Conditions in the SAFE-T Act

Under the current cash bail system in place in Illinois, judges usually require people accused of most crimes to pay cash bail as part of their release conditions. A judge has the power to deny bail, however, for certain offenses, such as a capital offense, a crime punishable by life imprisonment, and other offenses when the person is deemed a danger to others, if there’s proof or great presumption that the person is guilty.

“True, judges could always deny bail, but given the realities of court, the vast majority of those accused of even serious [offenses] were released if they could post bail,” said Krent.

The SAFE-T Act would allow for the pretrial release of nonviolent individuals stopped and accused of traffic, Class B and C criminal misdemeanors, or petty and business offenses — under the conditions that the individuals are not a danger to the community.

Some offenses that qualify as a Class B misdemeanor include failure to report hazing or obstructing gas, water or electric current meters. Class C offenses include participating in a mob, failure to secure a firearm around a minor under age 14 that leads to an injury, or disorderly conduct at a funeral.

It is up to the arresting officer to decide whether to give a citation to a person who meets the conditions for a pretrial release or to detain the individual to be brought before a judge. Those eligible for a pretrial release include people who have no obvious mental or medical health issues that would cause them to hurt themselves.

Individuals who are given a citation must have a scheduled court hearing for their offense within 21 days.

Individuals who have an obvious mental health issue that would cause them to hurt themselves will be placed in the custody of the Department of Human Services or another mental health facility for treatment. Officers are required to receive training on effective recognition and responses to people with addiction issues, in need of mental treatment, with neglect or abuse issues, and with trauma.

A person detained for an offense in which pretrial release may be denied, such as armed robbery or second-degree murder, would be taken before a judge and charges would be filed without delay. A judge would follow the same guidelines set in the current cash bail system to determine if a pretrial release should be denied.

A person charged with a capital offense or an offense with the potential consequence of life imprisonment would not be eligible for a pretrial release until after a hearing.

“In terms of ‘rules’ that the judge would need to follow to make a determination on public safety, they didn’t change with the SAFE-T Act,” said Stovall. “They are exactly the same measures before the legislation was developed and passed.”

No one who is already detained before these provisions of the SAFE-T Act go into effect can be immediately released. 

Those individuals would have to ask for consideration for the new pretrial system to be applied to their cases and must wait seven to 90 days for a hearing, depending on their offenses. 

The conditions of pretrial release are the same for individuals stopped under the suspicion of committing a crime and those who were in jail prior to the date when the pretrial release conditions take effect. So a person in jail who asks for the pretrial release conditions to be applied to their case can still be denied and detained if they are found to be a safety or flight risk by a judge. 

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

Sources

Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. “The 2021 SAFE-T Act: ICJIA Roles and Responsibilities.” 7 Jul 2021.

Illinois General Assembly. HB 3653 – The SAFE-T Act. As signed into law on 22 Feb 2021.

Legal Information Institute. “Quasi-criminal (proceeding).” Accessed 17 Jan 2023.

Davis Law Group. “What is a Class A Misdemeanor?” Accessed 17 Jan 2023.

Mr. “By the Book” Bidem (@@Jayden_Victor22). “Good! Last thing we need is for them to restrict legally owned guns with his SAFE-T act rolling out & putting dangerous criminals back out on the street.” Twitter. 16 Jan 2023.

Sen. Don Harmon. Illinois General Assembly. Accessed 17 Jan 2023.

O’Connor, John. “SAFE-T Act among 200 Illinois laws to debut in sv.” Associated Press. 31 Dec 2022.

Kozlov, Dana. “Illinois SAFE-T Act still in limbo; Cook County Public Defender argues in its favor.” CBS News. 2 Jan 2023.

Supreme Court of Illinois. “People ex rel. Berlin v. Raoul.” 31 Dec 2022.

Supreme Court of Illinois. “Illinois Supreme Court Case 129248 – Certification Order – 01/05/23.” 5 Jan 2023.

“Summary of Amendments to Public Act 101-0652, the SAFE-T Act.” The Civic Federation. 16 Dec 2022.

Krent, Harold J., professor, Chicago-Kent College of Law. Email to FactCheck.org. 17 Jan 2023.

Stovall, David, criminology and law professor, University of Illinois Chicago. Email to FactCheck.org. 19 Jan 2023.

Wall, Craig. “Illinois cash bail questions raised by SAFE-T Act ruling will be settled by IL Supreme Court.” ABC7 Chicago. 2 Jan 2023.

Illinois General Assembly. “Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963.” Accessed 17 Jan 2023.

The post Posts Mislead on Illinois SAFE-T Act and Elimination of Cash Bail appeared first on FactCheck.org.

This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

Quick Take

The bankruptcy of FTX, one of the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges, has sparked an unfounded claim that its former CEO had conspired with Ukraine and Democratic politicians to launder U.S. aid money. FTX helped make crypto donations available to Ukraine; it wasn’t taking any assets from Ukraine.

Full Story

FTX, which had been one of the largest cryptocurrency exchanges in the world, filed for bankruptcy on Nov. 11 after a deal fell through for it to be acquired by a larger rival and its customers scrambled to withdraw their money.

The exchange had been lending customer deposits to the hedge fund owned by its then-CEO, Sam Bankman-Fried, which is at least part of the reason why there wasn’t enough money available to repay all of FTX’s customers, Bankman-Fried said in an interview following the bankruptcy.

Russian state media and some high-profile U.S. conservatives have made the company’s downfall political, though, pushing a conspiracy theory that involves money laundering through Ukraine.

The Gateway Pundit, a conservative website that has a history of spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories, posted a story on Nov. 12 claiming that “Tens of Billions of US Dollars Were Transferred to Ukraine and then Using FTX Crypto Currency the Funds Were Laundered Back to Democrats in US.”

The following day, the state-owned Russian news outlet RT picked up on that claim and posted a story repeating it.

And, the day after that, Fox News commentator Jesse Watters made the claim, telling his roughly 2.7 million viewers that Ukraine had used U.S. aid money and “invested” in FTX, speculating that it may be part of a “money laundering” scheme to benefit the Democratic Party. Watters included a graphic that depicted a circular flow of money that started and ended with President Joe Biden.

The same evening that Watters’ show aired, former President Donald Trump amplified essentially the same graphic on his social media platform, Truth Social, where he has 4.6 million followers. Other conservative commentators, such as Terrence K. Williams, have also shared it.

Since that graphic represents the most widespread version of the claim, that’s what we’ll address.

The image Trump promoted is shown at right — it claims that President Joe Biden had given “U.S. tax $” to Ukraine; Ukraine had used that money in a deal with FTX; FTX’s then-CEO had donated it to the Democratic Party and political action committees; and the Democratic Party had backed Biden.

We’ll start at the beginning — with U.S. aid to Ukraine.

Since Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014, the U.S. has sent more than $20 billion in security assistance aid to Ukraine, according to a Congressional Research Service report published in October. Most of that total amount has been sent since Russia’s more recent invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24. That aid has been in the form of equipment and training, according to an overview from the Department of Defense.

The U.S. has also authorized billions more in humanitarian and financial aid and is the largest contributor of total aid, globally.

While the graphic acknowledges that the assistance was “in the form of military & humanitarian aid,” it doesn’t explain how Ukraine would funnel the monetary value of the aid to FTX.

Mark Cancian, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told PolitiFact that “most of the (U.S.) aid goes through third parties and not directly to the Ukrainian government.”

He said, “Much of the humanitarian assistance goes to relief organizations. Purchases of military supplies for Ukraine go to the contractor.”

And a State Department spokesperson said in a statement to PolitiFact that direct budget assistance to the Ukrainian government couldn’t be funneled out of the country the way the theory claims.

“The direct budget support that the United States is providing to the Government of Ukraine is transmitted via a World Bank mechanism to Ukraine’s Ministry of Finance,” the statement said. “There are agreements and monitoring mechanisms in place to ensure that U.S. funds are used for verified GOU expenses; the types of expenses for which U.S. funds can be used are specifically enumerated in those agreements.”

That’s the biggest problem with this theory — there’s nothing to suggest that large sums of money moved from Ukraine to FTX. Ukraine hadn’t “invested” with FTX, as Watters claimed, and the country didn’t give U.S. aid money to the company or its former CEO, as the image claims.

Rather, Ukraine had created a website to accept donations in cryptocurrency that would benefit its war effort, and it used three companies to route the donations and turn them into usable assets — Everstake, Kuna and FTX.

So, FTX was helping make crypto donations available to Ukraine; it wasn’t taking any assets from Ukraine. This was actually explained in the article from March that Watters flashed on screen to show viewers that there was a connection between FTX and Ukraine, but he wrongly claimed that the country had “invested” in the company rather than explaining what the article actually said.

Similarly, the article that the Gateway Pundit cited as evidence to support the claim that “The Democrats sent tens of billions to Ukraine and then laundered this money back to Democrat pockets and funds in the US” said nothing of the sort. It, too, explained that FTX had agreed to help route charitable contributions for Ukraine.

Alex Bornyakov, deputy minister of digital transformation of Ukraine on IT industry development, responded to the claim on Twitter, saying, “A fundraising crypto foundation @_AidForUkraine used @FTX_Official to convert crypto donations into fiat in March. Ukraine’s gov never invested any funds into FTX. The whole narrative that Ukraine allegedly invested in FTX, who donated money to Democrats is nonsense, frankly.”

So, there’s no evidence to support the claim that Ukraine invested in or gave money to FTX.

Conspiracy theories often exploit a grain of truth — in this case, that comes in the third part of the graphic. Bankman-Fried donated nearly $40 million to political candidates and committees in the midterm election cycle. The vast majority of those donations benefited Democrats.

It’s unclear where, exactly, Bankman-Fried’s money came from, but the bankruptcy process and potential criminal investigations are likely to untangle the finances.

But, importantly, there’s no evidence to suggest that any of that money came from U.S. aid that had been laundered through Ukraine.

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

Sources

FTX US. Voluntary Petition for Non-Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy. U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. 11 Nov 2022.

Piper, Kelsey. “Sam Bankman-Fried tries to explain himself.” Vox 16 Nov 2022.

Council on Foreign Relations. Global Conflict Tracker. Conflict in Ukraine. Updated 8 Nov 2022.

Congressional Research Service. U.S. Security Assistance to Ukraine. Updated 21 Oct 2022.

U.S. Department of Defense. Fact Sheet on U.S. Security Assistance to Ukraine. 4 Nov 2022.

Kiel Institute for the World Economy. Ukraine Support Tracker — A Database of Military, Financial and Humanitarian Aid to Ukraine. Updated 11 Oct 2022.

Cercone, Jeff. “U.S. tax dollars sent to help Ukraine were laundered back by cryptocurrency firm FTX to help Democrats in midterms.” PolitiFact. 15 Nov 2022.

Nelson, Danny. “Ukraine Partners With FTX, Everstake to Launch New Crypto Donation Website.” CoinDesk.com. 14 Mar 2022.

Kumar, Ashish. “FTX CEO Joins Forces In Supporting Ukraine To Raise Crypto Donations.” CoinGape.come. Updated 9 Mar 2022.

Bornyakov, Alex (@abornyakov). “A fundraising crypto foundation @_AidForUkraine used @FTX_Official to convert crypto donations into fiat in March. Ukraine’s gov never invested any funds into FTX. The whole narrative that Ukraine allegedly invested in FTX, who donated money to Democrats is nonsense, frankly.” Twitter. 14 Nov 2022.

Primack, Dan and Alexi McCammond. “Bankman-Fried spent millions on Dem campaigns.” Axios. 15 Nov 2022.

Palma, Stefania, Courtney Weaver, and Caitlin Gilbert. “Sam Bankman-Fried’s fall cuts off big source of funds for US Democrats.” Financial Times. 13 Nov 2022.

Prentice, Chris. “U.S. authorities probe FTX collapse, executives’ involvement -sources.” Reuters. 14 Nov 2022.

The post Bogus Theory Misinterprets FTX Support for Ukraine appeared first on FactCheck.org.

This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.